Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the minister take an intervention on that point?

As I read the bill, it would allow two dogs to be used, and those two dogs to be substituted by another two dogs, and then by another two dogs, potentially while chasing or flushing out the same wild mammal. Is that the case? Are you saying that two dogs cannot be substituted in the same area? That is not my interpretation of the bill.

That does not change the fundamental point that wild mammals escape. They are not always flushed out immediately, and they often run for cover elsewhere. In effect, what would be allowed to continue would be the perpetual flushing out and chasing of animals over a period of time by allowing two dogs to be substituted.

The only circumstance that I can think of in which two dogs would be substituted would be over a long period of time. There is nothing in my reading of the bill that would not potentially mean that the same wild mammal could, in effect, be pursued by two dogs, a further two dogs and then a further two dogs. There is nothing in the bill that stops that happening, as far as I can tell. The fact that two dogs are seeking to flush out a wild mammal does not mean that the mammal will be successfully shot immediately. Further dogs could be used to continue to flush out that animal.

Amendments 111, 119 and 127, in my name, seek to ensure that the use of dogs in hunting is a last resort. They would require a person using dogs, if asked, to be able to show evidence that the use of dogs meets the purpose of preventing damage, not simply reducing the number of a certain species—the two are not necessarily linked—and that they had considered more humane methods and had reasonable grounds to believe that those would not be as effective. The amendments would not prevent the use of dogs; they would merely require a justification for their use, which introduces accountability that is currently lacking in the bill.

Amendments 112, 118, 144, 145 and 147 would introduce a close season for the use of dogs, which is a basic animal welfare and conservation measure that would reduce the perceived need to send dogs underground to relieve the suffering of a dependent fox or mink, which is currently permitted under section 5(2)(d). Amendment 118 is consequential to amendment 112. If amendment 112 is agreed to, amendment 118 would be required to provide a close season for wild mammals during their breeding seasons and obviate the supposed need to use dogs below ground to dispatch orphaned fox cubs that would otherwise die of dehydration or starvation. Not killing animals with young is a basic animal welfare and conservation measure. Section 5 allows for the use of dogs underground, so the two are linked.

Amendment 122 seeks to remove subsection (4), which states:

“In this section, ‘dependent’ means that the mother of a fox or mink is dead and it is too young to survive on its own.”

Amendment 122 is consequential, and if amendment 118 is agreed to, amendment 122 is no longer needed, as there is no other reference to dependent animals in section 5.

I urge members to support my amendments to ensure that using dogs to kill wild mammals is a last resort and that we do not create loopholes in a bill that is designed to close loopholes.

It would be necessary to prove that the exception existed. If there was an email from those who carried out the hunt that contained information about their belief that there was a high level of predation of lambs—that is the example that I gave—that would certainly be an argument to be considered with regard to whether the exception applied. An email that simply said, “We were hunting on your land,” would obviously not prove that an exception applied. The evidence would have to relate to the specific exception that the person argued was applicable. I presume that the individual would have to argue that under the bill as drafted. The only difference in what I am suggesting is that there would be some evidence to back up the claim.

As the bill stands, we would have to interpret whether the individual “reasonably believed” that any of the exceptions applied. In effect, we would have to rely on that individual saying that they “reasonably believed” that the exception applied. Under my amendment, instead of simply relying on the individual, we would rely on evidence, which would make it clearer and easier to prove one way or the other.

The current policy does not recognise the priority of animal welfare or the sentience of all animals. The Government itself has recognised that that is the case in some areas. For example, in its approach to the upcoming deer management policy, it is going further than the current policy statements that are in place. There is a recognition that those statements are outdated and need to be updated. We are not specifying exactly what the detailed policies should be. The detailed application process should be part of a discussion and consultation.

I will finish my point first.

The approach should be to discuss it with all stakeholders, including those involved in wildlife management and those involved in animal welfare. As part of that—they are very small amendments—the direction of travel should be to follow ethical principles in developing a licensing scheme.

I would turn the question round and ask any member to look at the seven ethical principles—I have given an example—and say which of them should not guide the process when it comes to an application.

My standpoint on this group is that I do not support the use of dogs below ground to control wild animals. The bill seeks to limit the number of dogs to one, with the unrealistic idea that the dog would be controlled. However, if it is cruel to use two dogs underground, it is clearly cruel to use any dog at all. I am not surprised, therefore, that the committee, in its stage 1 report, stated:

“It is not clear ... that the use of dogs at all below ground is compatible with the Bill’s pursuit of the highest possible animal welfare”.

In my view, it is not compatible, and I hope that amendment 13, in the name of Ariane Burgess, which seeks to remove that exception, and which I support, is successful, along with consequential amendments 1, 3, 5 and 7.

Amendment 117, in my name, which would be relevant only if that exception were not removed, seeks to deal with the fact that the exception in the bill for the use of dogs underground applies to a person using a dog below ground to “search for” or “flush” a wild animal

“with the intention of killing it”.

However, it does not specify how they should intend to kill the mammal.

Amendment 117 specifies that the intention should be to dispatch the animal “by shooting”. It seeks to require explicitly that there is no intention for the dog to kill the wild mammal, although by specifying that the intention is to dispatch the wild mammal by shooting, it ensures that a more humane method of killing than being killed by a dog is used should the wild mammal emerge from under the ground. It also avoids a possible cover story should a wild mammal be flushed from underground and then a dog be used to kill the wild mammal. Edward Mountain says that he believes that the wild mammal would be shot. The amendment seeks to state in the bill that it should be shot.

Amendment 117 therefore seeks to avoid not only the deliberate killing of wild animals by dogs but the creation of another unnecessary loophole. I therefore urge members to support amendment 117.

I believe that the amendment is already clear, and I would find it quite disturbing if we were arguing that somebody would carry out shooting in any circumstances in a way that was in any way dangerous to anyone. I am happy to listen to the debate, if members believe that my wording is not clear, but I personally believe that it is.

It is important to note that the amendment would be an addition to section 5(1), which refers to using a dog

“to flush a fox or a mink from below ground”.

That is the context for the proposed reference to killing the animal “immediately by shooting” should it emerge. The key point of the amendment is that the current wording of the bill simply states:

“with the intention of killing it for one or more of the purposes set out in subsection (2)”.

It does not specify how that animal should be killed, and my concern is that dogs could be used in those circumstances, which goes against the whole purpose of the bill.