���˿���

Will you take a supplementary on that? I accept your point, but the fact is that those mink rafts are deployed with traps on them, which are given to landowners to trap the mink on river banks and not just on the rafts. Certainly in the Cairngorms national park, of which I have a lot of knowledge, they are encouraging us to kill mink in any way that is legally possible. I think it important that we do so if we are to protect the species in the Cairngorms that we need to, the populations of some of which are waning due to bad management.

Although I am slightly mollified by what the minister has said, my concern is the definition of “game” and how it might be used in the bill. If we look back at the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, we see that the definition has not changed from that in the Game Act 1831.

I therefore wonder whether, in the hope of finding a solution, the minister might find time for her officials to work with me to further explore the matter and see whether these amendments are needed.

I will not move amendment 67, on the basis that it is not clear whether the amendment relates to a native polecat or a feral polecat. Therefore, I will change the amendment and lodge it at stage 3.

Amendment 67 not moved.

Amendment 68 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Of course, and I take the amendment in the manner in which it was meant. Those who work together succeed better—but it does not always work that way, and it worries me that the process will become formulaic.

Subject to the amendment being redrafted, I imagine that it could be worked out that a minimum number of dogs and guns could be specified, subject to restrictions. I have been in lamb management for 15 years, and it worries me that the views of the people on the ground will not be taken into account by licensing authorities or authorities that are responsible for management. That is already a problem.

There may be ways to make the amendment better. I understand the sprit in which it is meant, but I will not support it as it is at the moment.

I am not entirely sure about Colin Smyth’s amendment 116, and I want to hear more about the code that he wants to be published.

The Scottish Government’s proposal to extend the licence for a set period would actually be of benefit. I say that because I disagree with the point that Ariane Burgess made about solving a problem within 14 days; problems in the countryside are not solved in 14 days. What happens is that a problem comes to light and proactive action is taken, but we may have to continually go back to resolve it if it is not resolved in the first place. For example, a licence could be introduced to allow for fox control, but the fox might be pushed into a deep area of wood from which it would be impossible to get it out. The fox might then move to another area before coming back to the area where it knows there is an easy meal. That licence should therefore be observed as a licence for a problem area over a longer timeframe rather than a problem area for a specific 14-day timescale, because that just will not work.

I also have a slight problem with Christine Grahame’s amendment 161. I am interested in hearing what she is suggesting, because, in some ways, this is controversial legislation. If people have access to a register I want to be sure that those who apply for a licence are not victimised for doing so and that their addresses and details would not become known. That has happened before in the countryside, and it still does. I would be interested in seeing what safeguards there would be, because some people take things to the extreme and I am not sure that I see any safeguards in what the amendment proposes.

I might make further points in response to other points made by members.

On the basis that agreement is always good, can you clarify whether you believe that the licence holder should be present when the activity takes place? For example, if the licence holder was the landowner or the farmer, would he have to be present when the activity took place? Some clarity on that would useful, because that is the position in other cases.

I am slightly concerned by Colin Smyth’s amendments. I am sure that he will remember the old phrase “breeding like rabbits”. Rabbits breed all year round, so there would be no way to control them at all by flushing, because they could have dependent young all year round. That is a fact of life. Nature is clever—breeding takes place for foxes at a time of year when there are other vulnerable animals, such as lambs, around. Mr Fairlie, I think, gave the example of a vixen with no teeth that was preying on lambs during the lambing season, which was a particular problem. To my mind, you cannot stop controlling problem animals just because they might be in their breeding season.

Of course, that then gives rise to the problem of having to humanely dispatch any dependent young that there might be. In that respect, Colin Smyth’s amendments are fatally flawed, because their dependence on the breeding season—that is, as a time when you cannot kill animals—does not take into account the fact that that might be when those animals are causing the biggest problems. I am also scratching my head and trying to understand how Mr Smyth, having agreed to rabbits being in the bill, precludes them from being killed during the breeding season, given that, as I have explained to him, the season is all year round.

There is an opportunity to protect what I believe is a public asset from being lost, which is happening in many communities, especially across the Highlands. I have saved that thought for you.

I make the observation that I make about every proposed group, before I say whether I think it is right or wrong. A large number of cross-party groups exist and ���˿��� are giving a great deal of commitment to them. I always raise the concern that another cross-party group—however worthwhile—will further strain the system. I think that we should be careful. That is my only comment.

I am content. I am never going to vote against a cross-party group application, because I do not think it is for me to choose, but I raised the concern because there are more cross-party groups than there are ���˿���. They suck in a huge amount of time. That is just a caution.

A lot of what Liam Kerr said was about built facilities and indoor arenas. When it got colder in winter, there used to be a lot of curling ponds dotted around Scotland, where a lot of young children first learned and got experience on ice. Will the cross-party group look at the extent of curling ponds across Scotland, their availability and whether there is a way of preserving them? At the moment, there seems to be an idea that building over them is the way forward. I wonder whether you have a view on that.