Seòmar agus comataidhean

In the light of the comments regarding the consistency of language and the use of the word “immediately” as opposed to, for example,

“as soon as reasonably possible”,

I will not move amendment 117 but might bring back an amendment at stage 3, because that point in the bill would benefit from clarity.

Amendment 117 not moved.

Amendment 118 not moved.

Amendment 81 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Mr Mountain’s comments about large areas of land probably support the point that I am making. He says that people would need more than two dogs over a period of time only in a large area of land, so he is making my argument.

Mr Mountain said in a previous comment that the issue in England is about stags and that we will not have that issue in Scotland. However, it does not matter what the mammal is—the same principle exists. It is crucial that the bill is as effective as possible in ensuring that we do not create new loopholes. I remain unconvinced about the need to use multiple groups of dogs, which is in effect what the bill will allow to continue. I do not understand why, if that is unlikely to be required in a particular area, we would allow it to continue under legislation.

In light of the minister’s comments on discussing the wording of amendments 115, 121, 126 and 129, I am happy not to move amendment 115.

Amendment 115 not moved.

Amendment 203 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

Amendments 113 and 124, in my name, would require that “reasonable steps are taken” to ensure that dogs do not form a relay. Mounted hunts in England have been observed using multiple pairs of dogs, one after the other, to chase stags. Amendments 113 and 124 would help avoid a similar practice emerging here in Scotland by making it an offence.

It is crucial that we take the opportunity to ensure that the bill is as robust as it can be, including by pre-empting any possible consequences, which we have done in relation to trail hunting. It is 20 years since the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 was passed by Parliament, and it is clear that there were far too many loopholes, which people have been allowed to exploit for far too long. This bill cannot be a continuation of business as usual; it must close the loopholes that still exist and it must not create new ones.

Amendment 242, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, seeks to alter the definition of the phrase “under control” to include any

“dog ... carrying out an activity for which it has been trained”,

which is quite different from the common understanding of the term. I am concerned that the amendment would change the definition of “control” throughout the entire bill, which would have worrying consequences. For a start, it would allow the dog to be out of sight and hearing, which I think would completely undermine the bill.

I move amendment 113.

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.

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.

It is interesting that Jim Fairlie raises that point when there is no definition in the licensing scheme of the example that he gives. That is one of the weaknesses of the licensing scheme: it is not clear about exactly when packs of dogs will or will not be allowed to be used.