Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.