���˿���

I will talk about my amendments first, which are on the issue of fees for licences. One of the reasons why I lodged the amendments was to help the minister. I believe that this could be a contentious area and that there will be discussion about fees in the future. Therefore, I believe that, rather than the matter being decided by the regulating authority, it should come before Parliament in regulations made under the affirmative procedure, so that it can be cleared and can be seen to be discussed and agreed in advance. I also believe that the minister is the logical person to whom an appeal should be made, should the licensing authority choose to deny a licence. In that way, the process would be open and transparent and could be seen to be truly democratic.

On amendments 105 and 106, I will listen to the minister’s reasoning as to why we still need to refer to Scottish Natural Heritage rather than NatureScot. Constantly changing names tends to confuse people—it certainly confuses me.

As for the other amendments in the group, I suspect that Ariane Burgess’s amendments are wrecking amendments and I take them as such. I was very interested to hear Jim Fairlie’s reasoned argument regarding the number of dogs and guns that should be specified in the licence, although I have some concerns about that. If you are, as in the example that Mr Fairlie used, putting dogs into a wood to flush a fox, the placement and number of the guns will be known by the person who is doing that, because foxes will always run on a certain line. That does not always happen, of course—if somebody coughs or is upwind of where the animal would be, they might deviate—but, if you have sensible gun placement, the keeper or land manager will know where the fox goes.

Will the member take an intervention?

You will know, minister, as I explained earlier, that rabbits and hares hide in different locations. When someone flushes a rabbit, its first instinct is to go down a burrow, which is usually nearby and often within 20m of where it is feeding, whereas hares hide in open ground. That is not coursing, because the rabbit will probably go straight underground.

The problem is, therefore, that a person might have committed an offence simply by flushing the rabbit using three dogs. That would not be their intent—most people would want to call their dogs off before they chased a rabbit, because letting them do so would be bad practice anyway. Do you accept that, on that basis, rabbits should not be included?

I believe that I have made the case for including weasels, stoats, polecats and ferrets. I understand what the minister has said about polecats, but there are domesticated polecats that have gone feral, which is why I have included them. I believe that we should have the ability to flush them from below ground and to search for them below ground.

As people will know, weasels often use mole burrows to hide, and using a terrier to move along a mole burrow to flush the weasel is an effective way of controlling it. Stoats, too, will hide in small holes, and it might be beneficial to use a dog to flush them.

I turn to the arguments on mink. It is important to keep mink in the section, because they are a predatory species that cause untold damage to the native fauna of Scotland. They damage important species that need to be protected, so they should be included in the bill.

On the other amendments in the group, I understand Ariane Burgess’s position on using dogs to flush animals from underground, but I do not believe that that is the case. There are times when that is important—for example, dogs are the only way of getting foxes out from stone cairns, and the foxes are subsequently shot.

On Jenni Minto’s comments, as I have stated, I believe that it is important to get rid of mink. You would not want mink on islands such as Orkney or Shetland, which Ariane Burgess represents, because they absolutely decimate ground-nesting birds, so controlling them by any means possible should be encouraged. I accept Ariane Burgess’s point that the mink officers were not encouraging the use of dogs underground, but they provided traps and rafts. They encouraged owners to kill mink.

I declare an interest. I have had a mink officer visit the bit of river that I am responsible for, and they encouraged me to kill mink by every legal method possible. I am sorry, convener: I probably should have said at the beginning that I am a farmer. I have declared that to the committee before. If there are any interests that relate to farming and field sports in my entry in the register of members’ interests, I should have declared them at the outset. I hope that the committee will forgive that oversight and accept my declaration at this stage.

I am not entirely sure what Colin Smyth’s amendment 117 is trying to achieve. Any wild mammal that comes to the surface would immediately be killed by shooting, where that is possible and safe to do.

Finally, if I were allowed to vote, I would support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 225.

I would like all my amendments to be agreed to, because they are important for the control and management of the environment. I do not support Jenni Minto’s amendment, I do not understand Colin Smyth’s amendment and, sadly, I think that Ariane Burgess’s amendments are wrecking amendments that would remove an important legal form of control for predators in the countryside.

My concerns in group 3 turn around the heading of “game shooting” and the definition of “game”. That is defined in various acts, and its use in the bill is unclear.

One definition of wild game is ungulates, lagomorphs and other land mammals that are hunted for human consumption. That definition is used in UK legislation. I am a little concerned about the use and definition of the term “game shooting” in the bill. That has prompted my amendments 100 to 102.

I do not believe that all deer stalking is done for sport. Much of it is done as a method of control. For example, in a large block of forestry where the fence had fallen down and deer had got in, dogs were used to move the deer around the plantation, to allow them to be eradicated so that the Caledonian pines in that block could flourish.

Deer stalking is also carried out on open ground and on Forestry and Land Scotland land. Somebody who is given a target for the year, as many rangers are, of shooting and killing 300 deer, which are classified as game, would say that that was not sport but purely deer control.

In addition, falconry, which may be used to control game, is not always carried out for sport. One has to look no further than outside the Parliament, where falcons are used to keep pigeons off the roofs, so that they do not block the gutters, and to move them away from the Parliament. That it is not to do with mammals. It is not sport, and neither is the falconry that is used in some circumstances to keep mammals away.

I also suggest that, in the term “game shooting”, the definition of “game” is so wide that wild sheep and wild goats would be classified as game. I am not sure that I see them in that way. In most cases, the control of those is not for sport but for environmental reasons.

My amendments 100 to 102 would remove the words “for sport” from those definitions so that there would be no confusion—because “game” animals are not killed just for sport.

I understand the position of Ariane Burgess and Colin Smyth on the other amendments in the group. Suffice it to say that I do not believe that they are correct, and I would find their amendments difficult to support because they seek to ban activities in the countryside that provide jobs and the management of the environment of which we are so proud in Scotland, which is carried out by people such as gamekeepers and rough shooters.

Will the member give way on that point?

I am pleased to see the new section. One of my concerns has always been road traffic accidents involving deer, which often result in the deer getting a broken leg at the front or the back. A deer that has been hit might have only one broken leg. When that happens, following the deer can take hours and is really difficult to do. Does the minister accept that, in those circumstances, where it is justifiable, using more than two dogs might be appropriate to prevent suffering, which has often been caused by people going too fast on roads and not paying any attention to the wildlife on them?

It is still confusing, minister. There should be consistency in the bill. It cannot have two names.

Will the member give way on that point?

I understand your concerns, but I do not necessarily agree with them. My concern is that, on one side, we have a Government that for very good reasons is trying to control an invasive species, in the form of mink. The Government is encouraging people to control mink and is funding people to do that. Similarly, it is providing funding to control weasels and stoats when they have got into habitats where they are not welcome and are not used to being. On one hand, you are saying, “We don’t think you should control them,” but, on the other hand, the Government is saying, “We need to control them and we’re financing people to do it.” How do we strike a balance?