Chamber and committees

I will press it.

Amendments 114, 120, 125 and 128, in my name, would remove the use of a bird of prey as a method of killing. That is neither a humane nor an efficient method of killing, and there is therefore no justification for its being a permitted method.

In written evidence to the committee, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission stated that it is

“not aware of any evidence that killing by a bird of prey is more humane than killing by a dog and would certainly doubt that it could be more humane than competent shooting”.

It is clear that the exception is not in line with the intentions of the bill, so I urge members to support my amendments to remove the inhumane practice of using a bird of prey as a method of killing wild animals. The only argument that I have heard against that is the fact that it is currently legal, which is a pretty lame argument.

Amendments 115, 121, 126 and 129 would specify that dogs are not to be used to kill an injured wild mammal. That is in keeping with a key purpose of the bill and would ensure that more humane methods are used to kill a wounded animal, avoiding the use of that scenario as a cover story. I urge members to support my amendments to ensure that emerging mammals are killed as humanely as possible and that there are no loopholes in the bill that might allow people to continue using dogs to kill wild mammals.

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.

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.