Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Are you going to speak to the other parts of the amendments on the licensing appeal procedure and whether the minister will be the ultimate arbiter of that?

Will the member give way on that point?

No, you do not—the convener could say that you do not have to.

On the basis that the convener has not said that, I will raise my concern, which is about the licence. I am thinking about what would happen if we had a licence and we stipulated the guns—I will give you an example, if I may.

When seal management was allowed and licensed in Scotland, those people who were able to control seals had to go on a course and had to have it on their firearms certificate, and it had to be listed on the licence when the licence was made. That resulted in some bailiffs, who were authorised, competent and complying with the licence conditions, to be victimised afterwards. I take the member’s point about being open and allowing it to be seen that the activity is allowed, but if the minister were tempted to go to that level, there would need to be a way to ensure that there was no way that people who were taking part could be victimised as a result of a legal activity.

I get confused when we talk about this issue and mix up species.

Currently, deer control is carried out by Forestry and Land Scotland. NatureScot is issuing licences to all seven regions of Forestry and Land Scotland for the out-of-season control of deer. That means the shooting of females that have dependent young, without necessarily ensuring that the dependent young are controlled. It seems that you are mixing up the two. It concerns me that you are looking for a stronger licensing procedure on this issue, whereas you will then promote the shooting of deer that have fawns at foot without killing the fawns. I have a problem with that. Can you justify it to me?