���˿���

I know that you will not accept another intervention, but I did want to ask whether you think that a rat is a sentient being.

Rough shooting has been very much in the spotlight during the past few committee sessions. From the outset, it has been abundantly clear that we need an exception for rough shooting. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Countryside Alliance, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and others have put forward credible, well-evidenced and legitimate points as to why rough shooting should continue, unhindered, through an exception.

During the round-table session, the issue of enforcement and proportionality was raised. BASC noted that there was a “good working relationship” with Police Scotland. However, Peter Clark from BASC and others noted that they felt that the drafting of the bill meant they could not conduct a rough shoot with confidence or without “vexatious allegations” over the breach of the two-dog limit. That is what amendment 142 and consequential amendments in my name seek to address.

I am mindful, as are BASC and others, that such an exception should never be a loophole, now or in the future. Those in the shooting community want to continue their lawful, legitimate activity without fear of vexatious allegations. They want to see the highest standards of animal welfare, and, by allowing an exception for rough shooting, they can continue that activity.

Amendment 142 recognises that, during a rough shoot, one, two or more dogs may be present; however, not all dogs are working simultaneously, due to the presence of a beating line and standing guns. Dogs do not form a literal pack as hounds do. Spaniels, Labradors and other gun dogs are not pack dogs, as the minister recognised in her response to the evidence at stage 1.

The word “intention” comes into play in the proposed new subsection (3). It has been made clear by the rural organisations that, during a rough shoot, there is no intention for dogs to form a pack, unlike in traditional hunting.

Amendment 142 provides an exception that cannot be used as a loophole, on the following basis. Flushing is the only activity during a rough shoot, involving the quick and humane dispatch of game birds and rabbits. BASC raised the point that

“there is no chasing or killing ... with dogs”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 22 November 2022; c 3.]

Hunting with a licence is an activity that requires more than flushing, and anyone who tried to use the exception as a loophole would therefore fall foul of its provisions at the first hurdle.

In the proposed new subsection (3) in my amendment 142, I make it clear that such an activity is a “mixed quarry” day. An illegal hunt would seek to kill only wild mammals; no birds would be taken during a hunt. That is a key differentiation, and, yet again, anyone who was seeking to hunt with more than two dogs illegally for the purposes of chasing would have to apply for a licence.

Taking all of that into consideration, I would welcome the minister’s thoughts on my concerns and the concerns of the organisations, and on how, if she will not support an exception, she might later amend the bill to ensure that rough shooting is protected. It is vital that we get the bill right for rough shooting.

Excuse me, convener—I just need to check that I am speaking to amendments 133, 135, 137, 139 and 143, too.

What are the animal welfare implications of rough shooting? You seemed to say that the activities compromise animal welfare.

I would like you to put on record your comments with regard to the types of dogs that are working in a rough shoot and my specific points on dogs forming a pack. As has been discussed in previous evidence sessions, the types of dogs that are used in rough shoots, such as spaniels and other working dogs, are not trained to work in a pack as is the case with other dogs that are trained specifically to work as a team. There are quite a lot of anomalies here with regard to the differences in the activities. To my mind, the provision is not proportionate, because there is no definition of a pack, and working dogs do not work in a pack.

I concur with the comments of my colleague Edward Mountain on the fact that using more than two dogs would be appropriate in certain circumstances in which animals have been injured. My daughter hit a deer and there was no idea where it had got to. It was not known whether it was injured or where it had fallen. At that point, we did not need to use dogs, of course, but there are situations in rough terrain in which using more than two dogs would be appropriate.

Relieving the suffering of injured wild mammals is rightly prioritised in my amendment 168A, which adds to amendment 168 the reasonable steps that must be taken to ensure that animals that have been injured are located when the injury occurred as a result of the excepted activity. The amendment would not create a loophole; it was lodged purely for animal welfare reasons.

Unlike in the 2002 act, there is no recognition in the bill that dogs might need to be used to relieve suffering, as I have just described, or to locate or retrieve animals where one of the exceptions would not and could not apply. The amendment would rectify an omission.

I do not accept the minister’s dismissal of amendment 168A and her suggestion that it could be used as a loophole. The amendment is a really important one, and I ask the minister to reconsider it and to work with me in good faith on something that would both tighten up what she is concerned about and ensure that the absolute highest standards of animal welfare are delivered.

Amendment 35 addresses a semantic point in the bill. Hunting with dogs in the context of this amendment is necessary to protect livestock, woodland and crops from being attacked or degraded by foxes and other pest species. The threshold for what constitutes “serious” damage as opposed to any kind of damage is undefined, and it is important that livestock, woodland and crops are protected from any kind of harm. As we have heard in evidence from the NFUS, now more than ever, farmers’ livelihoods are under pressure. We cannot allow loose terms such as “serious” to dictate the gravity of damage. Therefore, my amendment would remove the word “serious” from this section to make it clear that an exception would apply to protect farmers’ stock and their livelihoods.

On Colin Smyth’s amendments 111, 119 and 127, I understand the concerns around animal welfare that underpin the second part of each of those amendments. However, the undertones are that it is not standard practice to implement the most appropriate and practical solution to wild mammal control and that the use of dogs is less humane than other methods. On the contrary, those participating in the control of wild mammals are best placed to discern what is appropriate, proportionate and humane, and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that that method of mammal control is less humane than others. Therefore, I do not feel that the amendments are necessary.

Amendments 112, 144, 145 and 147 would prohibit the use of dogs for searching, stalking and flushing wild mammals during their breeding season, but they do not take into account the need for year-round control. Lambs do not suddenly become less susceptible to predation by wild mammals just because it is their breeding season. The reasonable justification for the use of dogs to search, stalk, and flush centres around the necessity to do so, and breeding seasons do not negate that necessity. Again, I understand the animal welfare concerns that underpin those amendments, but they cannot be supported, for the reasons that I have outlined.

I have some concerns about the welfare element of Colin Smyth’s amendments 118 and 144. Removing the provision to use dogs to relieve the suffering of dependent fox or mink would mean that those animals would be left to suffer, unable to fend for themselves. The purpose of including that in the bill is, as the section states, to relieve suffering. I fail to understand how removing that provision would have any effect other than to promote the suffering of dependent animals. I therefore cannot support those amendments.

I move amendment 35.

Obviously, the workshops will take place in the future—possibly after the passage of this bill. I am not quite sure of the timetable that you might have suggested in your letter.

If a stakeholder engagement session took place after the bill had passed, and if there was a discussion about licensing 14 days in a six-month period and a two-year licence, which currently exists for environmental benefit, and stakeholders and NatureScot decided that there was something in the middle to achieve environmental benefit but neither of those parameters was suitable, how would a change become effected in law?

You were, but I am trying to debate the points that you made earlier by using that idea as a link.

I welcome amendment 131, which is intended to provide clarity. However, I have received some feedback from stakeholders that the definitions that are referenced in the amendment could be clearer. I would like an assurance that what would and would not constitute an offence under the bill will be made clearer. I am happy to work with Liam Kerr if he will consider lodging a stronger amendment with clearer definitions at stage 3. At this stage, I am minded not to vote with Liam Kerr on his amendment.

Will the member take an intervention?