���˿���

Mr Fairlie will know that, under the bill, two dogs would be used to drive the rabbits back to the nets, which is the way it is done. You would not just expect the rabbits to run into the net; you would drive them away from their burrows and from where they are foraging into it, which is where you would then dispatch them.

Mist netting is when you put out a soft net, which is propped up, before nightfall. After darkness, once the rabbits have moved to the middle of a field to forage, you would drop the net and move the rabbits back to it. Once they have become entangled in the net, you would then dispatch them. Shooting rabbits in those situations would not be appropriate; dispatching them with a sharp blow to the back of the head is the most effective method. In some circumstances, shooting is not appropriate, and I have rehearsed other circumstances when that might be the case.

I have listened carefully to the arguments. I am disappointed that Colin Smyth used the example of stag hunting south of the border. I am sure that he will be well aware that the last deerhound pack was disbanded in about 1920. It was based at Culachy, by Fort Augustus. Deer hunting with dogs is not done in Scotland. What we are talking about is forming a pack or a relay. We can discount stags for the reason that I have given.

I understand why the minister has put this provision in the bill, and I have made it clear that I do not support her on the issue of two dogs. However, as it appears that that will go through, I caution on the use of the word “relay”. If two dogs are following an animal, they cannot run all day, Mr Smyth, in the same way that I cannot run all day—in fact, my endurance and stamina are such that I can run for only short periods of time. Taking those dogs off a scent, and replacing them with dogs that are fresh on the scent, in order to flush the animal out of what may be a large woodland—as we have heard—is the appropriate thing to do. I cannot, therefore, support the amendments. I do not like the original wording in the bill but, if it is to remain, I ask the minister not to support the use of the words “or relay”.

I will not move it, because it is consequential to an amendment that has already been rejected.

Amendment 107 not moved.

Section 11—Offences relating to trail hunting

I am somewhat disappointed that Ariane Burgess will not be moving her amendment, because I would perhaps agree with it. I will explain why. That is because, when a dog or a horse is taken out to undertake an illegal activity, that is not the choice of the dog or horse—it is the individual’s choice. The horse has no choice when someone puts a saddle and a bridle on it and takes it out to ride. In exceptional circumstances, the person may have no control of the horse, but, in most circumstances, they will. The horse cannot say that it does not want to go and nor, for that matter, can a dog. As a result, I would disagree with the argument that dogs that have been used for badger baiting are automatically bad; I would say that it is the owner who is bad and that it is the sentient animal that does not have a choice.

I am surprised that the minister has stated that she is unable to support my amendments, because they seem to me to bring some reasonableness into the argument over what to do with a horse or a dog in the event of a deprivation order being made. I believe that a high bar needs to be put in place to ensure that the animal is not removed, for the very same reason that Ariane Burgess has said that she does not want those animals—those horses or dogs—to be destroyed.

I lodged amendment 109 for the simple reason that I am a firm believer in rehabilitation rather than pure retribution. As a result, I would like timescales to be put in place with regard to an owner’s ability to get their horse or dog back, just as we do when people commit what is in my opinion the heinous crime of dangerous driving. Those people are given the chance to get their licence back at a later stage. I think that, in the case of dogs, we should allow a person to get their licence back, too. However, what the minister is saying in the bill is that they might never have the chance to get that animal back or to have a dog in the future. I think that that is cruel, given that people look to and love their dogs and might well have learned their lesson. Therefore, I think that the approach that is being taken is wrong.

I was interested to hear the minister’s comparison with the ability to remove a quad bike or a car from someone who has committed an offence. The fact is that a car is seldom removed from someone who has been convicted of drink driving; it is up to the driver to dispose of it. In fact, the driver can hold on to their car and even keep it in the garage until they get their licence back.

In this instance, however, the minister is suggesting that a dog or a horse be removed. I think that that is retribution rather than rehabilitation, and that is why I lodged these particular amendments. I ask the committee to consider very carefully the effects of removing somebody’s pets, which might have been used improperly or misused in the past but which could be used properly and loved in future. I make a strong plea on that, because I think that we are taking it the wrong way round.

Did you say that you are introducing such powers or that you have introduced them? Are you bringing in something new here, or is this being done to reflect something that is already in place? If you are bringing in something new to reflect what you might be doing in the future, I would be a little concerned about whether that was the right way to make legislation.

Okay. I am still not clear that I understand the difference between “believing” and “suspecting”, but perhaps I could be informed of that afterwards rather than waste the committee’s time.

You have explained that you want to substitute “suspecting” for “believing”. I want to understand why that is. I appreciate that you want to do so, but I do not understand why.

Not moved for the same reason.

Amendment 106 not moved.

Amendment 19 moved—[Ariane Burgess].

As amendment 83 refers to a polecat, I will not move it.

Amendment 83 not moved.

Amendment 84 moved—[Edward Mountain].