Seòmar agus comataidhean

I support amendments 113 and 124, in the name of Colin Smyth, which seek to exclude relays as well as packs. In England, such practices have been observed being used as a loophole to continue mounted hunts, and it is important that we prevent such a loophole here.

I cannot support amendment 242, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, because its proposed definition of “under control” seems to defy any reasonable understanding of the phrase. I am also not minded to support amendment 244, given that it has been made clear throughout the passage of the bill that the definition of “pack” that we are working with relates to more than two dogs. I would be interested to hear the minister’s response, though.

Are you saying that you are confident that the use of a relay—two dogs, followed by two dogs, followed by two dogs—would be caught by the legislation and would not be permissible?

Will you keep their commercialisation as defrosted under review, or is that a hard cut-off date after which it will not be looked at again?

I am grateful to Christine Grahame for lodging amendment 174, because it strengthens section 11 of the bill by placing a greater responsibility on those following scents. Therefore, I will not support amendment 174A, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, which would narrow the scope of amendment 174. Nor will I support amendments 237 or 238, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, because I am concerned that they could create a loophole for trail hunting.

Is the minister able to take an intervention?

I thank Beatrice Wishart for lodging her amendments, which I am minded to support. From what we have just heard, it sounds as though they will help to clarify the bill. I am interested in hearing whether there is any reason why the minister does not agree with them.

Following on from the convener’s questions, I am interested to know the point at which birds are defrosted. Does the producer defrost them and then pass them on to the retailer, or do they remain frozen with the retailer until they defrost them for the shelves?

I am afraid that I cannot support amendments 69 to 71 and 97 to 99, in the name of Edward Mountain, or amendments 36 to 39, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, as they would allow the use of any number of dogs.

I will support amendments 114, 120, 125 and 128, in the name of Colin Smyth, which would remove the exemption for killing by a bird of prey, as I am not aware of any evidence that that method of killing is humane or efficient. I will also support amendments 115, 121, 126 and 129, also in the name of Colin Smyth, as they would ensure that more humane methods will be used to kill a wounded animal and would avoid creating a loophole.

I cannot support Rachael Hamilton’s remaining amendments in the group, as they seem to prioritise human convenience over animal welfare.

On amendments 175 to 179, in the name of the minister, I am not persuaded by her remarks, but I appreciate her commitment to sharing further information ahead of stage 3—although I am not sure whether it is being shared with me or with the whole committee. On that basis, I ask the minister not to press amendment 175 or to move the other amendments, so that we can vote on them when we have a full explanation in front of us. However, if she seeks to do so, I ask members not to support the amendments.

I, too, have a couple of questions relating to those amendments.

Amendment 175 would empower a constable to stop and search without a warrant. Will you outline whether such a power is typically provided for in Scottish Government legislation? Is it quite a standard power or is it exceptional? What has led you to make that decision? At first glance, it seems as though it could be a little heavy handed and open to being exploited.