Seòmar agus comataidhean

Liam Kerr has a supplementary question.

Lord Deben, it might be helpful if we pose questions and you use your good military standing, as it were, to order the right person to answer. Maybe that is a twist in my way of looking at the issue—perhaps you should suggest who answers, rather than ordering it.

Monica Lennon has a question.

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].

Before I make any comments, I remind the committee of my declaration in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am part of a family farming business and that I manage land.

All my amendments in this group relate to the same part of the bill and seek to change the wording to say that the aim must be to shoot the wild mammal dead. You cannot, as the bill suggests, always shoot the wild mammal dead, but the aim must be to do so. I think that that meets the minister’s requirement that the animal should not be wounded and subsequently chased, which I believe is the minister’s fear. My aim is to make it clear that the provision is about the intention to shoot the animal dead. It is always the intention of a person with a gun to shoot the quarry dead, but it is not always possible to achieve that.

I turn to the rest of the amendments in the group. I support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments. I have already made sufficient comment during previous meetings on Colin Smyth’s amendments relating to falconry, and I do not propose to rerun my comments—I shall comment at the end, if that is appropriate. Beatrice Wishart’s amendments seem sensible, but I would like to listen to what she says before I comment.

I move amendment 69.