Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I am grateful to all members who have lodged amendments in the group. I will support amendments 2, 4, 6, 8 and 14—that sounds like a song—in the name of Ariane Burgess, as those remove the exception for falconry, game shooting and deer stalking for sport. We have heard frequently from the Scottish Government about the need to balance animal welfare with wildlife management. It is not clear how any of the activities in that exception meet either of those categories, so I fail to see a place for it in the bill.

The primary reason for the exception seems to be so that the Scottish Government can avoid a row with the field sports lobby—although, clearly, that has not worked. Regardless of that, removing that exception altogether would strengthen the bill. Failing that—

I will support amendments 148 to 155 and 168 and 169, in the name of Màiri McAllan, as they will create an exception for relieving the suffering of injured wild mammals and for searching for dead wild mammals without exceeding the two-dog limit. On that basis, I cannot support amendment 168A, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, which would remove the two-dog limit from the new exceptions. I think that that would create a potential loophole.

I thank the members who have lodged the amendments in this group. I will be supporting amendments 1, 3, 5, 7 and 13, in the name of Ariane Burgess, as they would remove the exception for management of foxes and mink below ground—an activity which I am not assured can meet high animal welfare standards for either dogs or wild mammals. As has already been stated, the committee’s stage 1 report said that it is not clear that the use of dogs below ground at all is compatible with the bill’s pursuit of the highest possible animal welfare standards.

I will also support amendments 162 to 167, in the name of Jenni Minto, which remove mink from the exception on the use of dogs below ground, so that, if the exception does remain, at least that species will be protected from that activity.

I will also support amendment 117, in the name of Colin Smyth, because it would tighten the legislation by specifying that the intention should be to kill the animal by shooting, thereby ensuring that less humane methods are not used.

I cannot support amendments 73 to 96, in the name of Edward Mountain, as they would add weasels, stoats, polecats and ferrets to the exception, thereby widening its scope, whereas I would wish to see it removed altogether. Similarly, I cannot support amendments 212 to 219, 221, 222, 225 and 26 to 28, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, as they would widen the scope of the exception in one form or another.

I listened with interest to Ms Hamilton’s explanation of her amendments 220 and 224. I am not currently minded to support those amendments because, like Ariane Burgess, I have concerns that they could be used as an excuse to justify the use of more than two dogs. However, I would be interested in hearing the minister’s comments on those amendments in due course.

As I understand it, the intention of the bill is to uphold the highest standards of animal welfare while balancing that with the need to control and manage wildlife. My understanding is that the primary reason for the sporting activities is neither animal welfare nor wildlife management. In regard to rough shooting, we heard that the primary reason was enjoyment and pleasure. That is what I mean by my explanation for supporting amendments 2, 4, 6, 8 and 14.

Failing the removal of the exception altogether, the next most reasonable course would be to remove the exception for falconry, as it is not clear to me why it has been included in the bill. Therefore, I will support amendments 123 and 146, in the name of Colin Smyth.

I cannot support amendments 132 to 139, 142 and 143, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, as they would create additional exceptions for hunting with dogs and allow more than two dogs, which is inconsistent with the rest of the bill. I was interested to hear Rachael Hamilton’s explanation of amendment 228 as regards avoiding emotive language, and I would be interested in hearing the minister’s response to that point.

I was also interested to hear Edward Mountain’s explanation for amendments 100 to 102. I am not currently minded to support them but would be interested in hearing the minister’s response to them as well.