���˿���

Can we check that vote? I think that there might have been a delay on Microsoft Teams.

I am grateful. Minister, on amendment 174, in the name of Christine Grahame, did you say that you would look again at the issue ahead of stage 3, with a view to Christine Grahame bringing an amendment back at that stage, or are you ruling out any amendment that seeks to exclude the specific situation in which a person

“in the course of any activity involving the laying of”

a

“scent ... allows a dog to hunt a wild mammal”?

I support amendments 113 and 124, in the name of Colin Smyth, which seek to exclude relays as well as packs. In England, such practices have been observed being used as a loophole to continue mounted hunts, and it is important that we prevent such a loophole here.

I cannot support amendment 242, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, because its proposed definition of “under control” seems to defy any reasonable understanding of the phrase. I am also not minded to support amendment 244, given that it has been made clear throughout the passage of the bill that the definition of “pack” that we are working with relates to more than two dogs. I would be interested to hear the minister’s response, though.

Are you saying that you are confident that the use of a relay—two dogs, followed by two dogs, followed by two dogs—would be caught by the legislation and would not be permissible?

I support all of Colin Smyth’s amendments in this group and urge all members to do the same.

Amendments 111, 119 and 127 require a person to demonstrate that a method is appropriate and is the most humane, while amendments 112, 144, 145 and 147 require the activity in the exception not to take place during the breeding season, which I support as a basic animal welfare and conservation measure. I cannot support amendment 35, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, as I feel that it weakens the language in the bill.

It is important that we are clear that there is a difference between wildlife control and the issue in the bill, which is hunting with dogs. I object to animals being chased and killed by dogs. There are other ways to control animals. I draw the member’s attention to that point and have no further remarks to make about the group of amendments.

I thank the members who have lodged the amendments in this group. I will be supporting amendments 1, 3, 5, 7 and 13, in the name of Ariane Burgess, as they would remove the exception for management of foxes and mink below ground—an activity which I am not assured can meet high animal welfare standards for either dogs or wild mammals. As has already been stated, the committee’s stage 1 report said that it is not clear that the use of dogs below ground at all is compatible with the bill’s pursuit of the highest possible animal welfare standards.

I will also support amendments 162 to 167, in the name of Jenni Minto, which remove mink from the exception on the use of dogs below ground, so that, if the exception does remain, at least that species will be protected from that activity.

I will also support amendment 117, in the name of Colin Smyth, because it would tighten the legislation by specifying that the intention should be to kill the animal by shooting, thereby ensuring that less humane methods are not used.

I cannot support amendments 73 to 96, in the name of Edward Mountain, as they would add weasels, stoats, polecats and ferrets to the exception, thereby widening its scope, whereas I would wish to see it removed altogether. Similarly, I cannot support amendments 212 to 219, 221, 222, 225 and 26 to 28, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, as they would widen the scope of the exception in one form or another.

I listened with interest to Ms Hamilton’s explanation of her amendments 220 and 224. I am not currently minded to support those amendments because, like Ariane Burgess, I have concerns that they could be used as an excuse to justify the use of more than two dogs. However, I would be interested in hearing the minister’s comments on those amendments in due course.

As I understand it, the intention of the bill is to uphold the highest standards of animal welfare while balancing that with the need to control and manage wildlife. My understanding is that the primary reason for the sporting activities is neither animal welfare nor wildlife management. In regard to rough shooting, we heard that the primary reason was enjoyment and pleasure. That is what I mean by my explanation for supporting amendments 2, 4, 6, 8 and 14.

Failing the removal of the exception altogether, the next most reasonable course would be to remove the exception for falconry, as it is not clear to me why it has been included in the bill. Therefore, I will support amendments 123 and 146, in the name of Colin Smyth.

I cannot support amendments 132 to 139, 142 and 143, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, as they would create additional exceptions for hunting with dogs and allow more than two dogs, which is inconsistent with the rest of the bill. I was interested to hear Rachael Hamilton’s explanation of amendment 228 as regards avoiding emotive language, and I would be interested in hearing the minister’s response to that point.

I was also interested to hear Edward Mountain’s explanation for amendments 100 to 102. I am not currently minded to support them but would be interested in hearing the minister’s response to them as well.

Will the member take an intervention?

I thank all members who have lodged amendments in the group.

I will support amendment 110, in the name of Colin Smyth, and I urge other committee members to do the same, because I think that it would clarify the legislation.

I will not support amendment 131, which is in the name of Liam Kerr, because it would undermine the clarity of the offence.

I also cannot support amendments 58 to 62, which are in the name of Edward Mountain and seek to create an exception for rabbits.

I am concerned that amendment 63 would create a loophole for people who claim that they were not intentionally searching for animals.

Amendments 64 to 68 seek to exclude weasels, stoats, mink, polecats and ferrets from the definition of wild mammals and thus from the scope of the bill. I fear that that would leave those animals without any protection against being chased and killed by dogs.