Chamber and committees

I now understand the intention behind amendment 117. It could be made more understandable by adding the words “on being flushed” before the proposed wording about the mammal being immediately killed by shooting. That might be a better way of achieving what Colin Smyth seeks to do. It would be clear that the person was not flushing the mammal to course it or to cause any pain and that their immediate intention was to shoot it.

If the bill were to say that, if the mammal came out, a person could in all circumstances shoot it, that might not be possible, in the sense that the mammal could go in the direction of a house or farm steading, which would make shooting dangerous; there could be tension with a group of people walking in the countryside or whatever. There are dangers in that regard, and I would feel more comfortable with adding wording to the effect of “with the intention of immediately shooting it”. I wonder whether the member would consider adding that wording, as it would make the amendment better.

Will you take a supplementary on that? I accept your point, but the fact is that those mink rafts are deployed with traps on them, which are given to landowners to trap the mink on river banks and not just on the rafts. Certainly in the Cairngorms national park, of which I have a lot of knowledge, they are encouraging us to kill mink in any way that is legally possible. I think it important that we do so if we are to protect the species in the Cairngorms that we need to, the populations of some of which are waning due to bad management.

Although I am slightly mollified by what the minister has said, my concern is the definition of “game” and how it might be used in the bill. If we look back at the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, we see that the definition has not changed from that in the Game Act 1831.

I therefore wonder whether, in the hope of finding a solution, the minister might find time for her officials to work with me to further explore the matter and see whether these amendments are needed.

I will not move amendment 67, on the basis that it is not clear whether the amendment relates to a native polecat or a feral polecat. Therefore, I will change the amendment and lodge it at stage 3.

Amendment 67 not moved.

Amendment 68 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Of course, and I take the amendment in the manner in which it was meant. Those who work together succeed better—but it does not always work that way, and it worries me that the process will become formulaic.

Subject to the amendment being redrafted, I imagine that it could be worked out that a minimum number of dogs and guns could be specified, subject to restrictions. I have been in lamb management for 15 years, and it worries me that the views of the people on the ground will not be taken into account by licensing authorities or authorities that are responsible for management. That is already a problem.

There may be ways to make the amendment better. I understand the sprit in which it is meant, but I will not support it as it is at the moment.

I am not entirely sure about Colin Smyth’s amendment 116, and I want to hear more about the code that he wants to be published.

The Scottish Government’s proposal to extend the licence for a set period would actually be of benefit. I say that because I disagree with the point that Ariane Burgess made about solving a problem within 14 days; problems in the countryside are not solved in 14 days. What happens is that a problem comes to light and proactive action is taken, but we may have to continually go back to resolve it if it is not resolved in the first place. For example, a licence could be introduced to allow for fox control, but the fox might be pushed into a deep area of wood from which it would be impossible to get it out. The fox might then move to another area before coming back to the area where it knows there is an easy meal. That licence should therefore be observed as a licence for a problem area over a longer timeframe rather than a problem area for a specific 14-day timescale, because that just will not work.

I also have a slight problem with Christine Grahame’s amendment 161. I am interested in hearing what she is suggesting, because, in some ways, this is controversial legislation. If people have access to a register I want to be sure that those who apply for a licence are not victimised for doing so and that their addresses and details would not become known. That has happened before in the countryside, and it still does. I would be interested in seeing what safeguards there would be, because some people take things to the extreme and I am not sure that I see any safeguards in what the amendment proposes.

I might make further points in response to other points made by members.

On the basis that agreement is always good, can you clarify whether you believe that the licence holder should be present when the activity takes place? For example, if the licence holder was the landowner or the farmer, would he have to be present when the activity took place? Some clarity on that would useful, because that is the position in other cases.

I am slightly concerned by Colin Smyth’s amendments. I am sure that he will remember the old phrase “breeding like rabbits”. Rabbits breed all year round, so there would be no way to control them at all by flushing, because they could have dependent young all year round. That is a fact of life. Nature is clever—breeding takes place for foxes at a time of year when there are other vulnerable animals, such as lambs, around. Mr Fairlie, I think, gave the example of a vixen with no teeth that was preying on lambs during the lambing season, which was a particular problem. To my mind, you cannot stop controlling problem animals just because they might be in their breeding season.

Of course, that then gives rise to the problem of having to humanely dispatch any dependent young that there might be. In that respect, Colin Smyth’s amendments are fatally flawed, because their dependence on the breeding season—that is, as a time when you cannot kill animals—does not take into account the fact that that might be when those animals are causing the biggest problems. I am also scratching my head and trying to understand how Mr Smyth, having agreed to rabbits being in the bill, precludes them from being killed during the breeding season, given that, as I have explained to him, the season is all year round.

My concerns in group 3 turn around the heading of “game shooting” and the definition of “game”. That is defined in various acts, and its use in the bill is unclear.

One definition of wild game is ungulates, lagomorphs and other land mammals that are hunted for human consumption. That definition is used in UK legislation. I am a little concerned about the use and definition of the term “game shooting” in the bill. That has prompted my amendments 100 to 102.

I do not believe that all deer stalking is done for sport. Much of it is done as a method of control. For example, in a large block of forestry where the fence had fallen down and deer had got in, dogs were used to move the deer around the plantation, to allow them to be eradicated so that the Caledonian pines in that block could flourish.

Deer stalking is also carried out on open ground and on Forestry and Land Scotland land. Somebody who is given a target for the year, as many rangers are, of shooting and killing 300 deer, which are classified as game, would say that that was not sport but purely deer control.

In addition, falconry, which may be used to control game, is not always carried out for sport. One has to look no further than outside the Parliament, where falcons are used to keep pigeons off the roofs, so that they do not block the gutters, and to move them away from the Parliament. That it is not to do with mammals. It is not sport, and neither is the falconry that is used in some circumstances to keep mammals away.

I also suggest that, in the term “game shooting”, the definition of “game” is so wide that wild sheep and wild goats would be classified as game. I am not sure that I see them in that way. In most cases, the control of those is not for sport but for environmental reasons.

My amendments 100 to 102 would remove the words “for sport” from those definitions so that there would be no confusion—because “game” animals are not killed just for sport.

I understand the position of Ariane Burgess and Colin Smyth on the other amendments in the group. Suffice it to say that I do not believe that they are correct, and I would find their amendments difficult to support because they seek to ban activities in the countryside that provide jobs and the management of the environment of which we are so proud in Scotland, which is carried out by people such as gamekeepers and rough shooters.

Will the member give way on that point?

I am pleased to see the new section. One of my concerns has always been road traffic accidents involving deer, which often result in the deer getting a broken leg at the front or the back. A deer that has been hit might have only one broken leg. When that happens, following the deer can take hours and is really difficult to do. Does the minister accept that, in those circumstances, where it is justifiable, using more than two dogs might be appropriate to prevent suffering, which has often been caused by people going too fast on roads and not paying any attention to the wildlife on them?