Chamber and committees

I concur with the comments of my colleague Edward Mountain on the fact that using more than two dogs would be appropriate in certain circumstances in which animals have been injured. My daughter hit a deer and there was no idea where it had got to. It was not known whether it was injured or where it had fallen. At that point, we did not need to use dogs, of course, but there are situations in rough terrain in which using more than two dogs would be appropriate.

Relieving the suffering of injured wild mammals is rightly prioritised in my amendment 168A, which adds to amendment 168 the reasonable steps that must be taken to ensure that animals that have been injured are located when the injury occurred as a result of the excepted activity. The amendment would not create a loophole; it was lodged purely for animal welfare reasons.

Unlike in the 2002 act, there is no recognition in the bill that dogs might need to be used to relieve suffering, as I have just described, or to locate or retrieve animals where one of the exceptions would not and could not apply. The amendment would rectify an omission.

I do not accept the minister’s dismissal of amendment 168A and her suggestion that it could be used as a loophole. The amendment is a really important one, and I ask the minister to reconsider it and to work with me in good faith on something that would both tighten up what she is concerned about and ensure that the absolute highest standards of animal welfare are delivered.

Amendment 35 addresses a semantic point in the bill. Hunting with dogs in the context of this amendment is necessary to protect livestock, woodland and crops from being attacked or degraded by foxes and other pest species. The threshold for what constitutes “serious” damage as opposed to any kind of damage is undefined, and it is important that livestock, woodland and crops are protected from any kind of harm. As we have heard in evidence from the NFUS, now more than ever, farmers’ livelihoods are under pressure. We cannot allow loose terms such as “serious” to dictate the gravity of damage. Therefore, my amendment would remove the word “serious” from this section to make it clear that an exception would apply to protect farmers’ stock and their livelihoods.

On Colin Smyth’s amendments 111, 119 and 127, I understand the concerns around animal welfare that underpin the second part of each of those amendments. However, the undertones are that it is not standard practice to implement the most appropriate and practical solution to wild mammal control and that the use of dogs is less humane than other methods. On the contrary, those participating in the control of wild mammals are best placed to discern what is appropriate, proportionate and humane, and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that that method of mammal control is less humane than others. Therefore, I do not feel that the amendments are necessary.

Amendments 112, 144, 145 and 147 would prohibit the use of dogs for searching, stalking and flushing wild mammals during their breeding season, but they do not take into account the need for year-round control. Lambs do not suddenly become less susceptible to predation by wild mammals just because it is their breeding season. The reasonable justification for the use of dogs to search, stalk, and flush centres around the necessity to do so, and breeding seasons do not negate that necessity. Again, I understand the animal welfare concerns that underpin those amendments, but they cannot be supported, for the reasons that I have outlined.

I have some concerns about the welfare element of Colin Smyth’s amendments 118 and 144. Removing the provision to use dogs to relieve the suffering of dependent fox or mink would mean that those animals would be left to suffer, unable to fend for themselves. The purpose of including that in the bill is, as the section states, to relieve suffering. I fail to understand how removing that provision would have any effect other than to promote the suffering of dependent animals. I therefore cannot support those amendments.

I move amendment 35.

Obviously, the workshops will take place in the future—possibly after the passage of this bill. I am not quite sure of the timetable that you might have suggested in your letter.

If a stakeholder engagement session took place after the bill had passed, and if there was a discussion about licensing 14 days in a six-month period and a two-year licence, which currently exists for environmental benefit, and stakeholders and NatureScot decided that there was something in the middle to achieve environmental benefit but neither of those parameters was suitable, how would a change become effected in law?

You were, but I am trying to debate the points that you made earlier by using that idea as a link.

I welcome amendment 131, which is intended to provide clarity. However, I have received some feedback from stakeholders that the definitions that are referenced in the amendment could be clearer. I would like an assurance that what would and would not constitute an offence under the bill will be made clearer. I am happy to work with Liam Kerr if he will consider lodging a stronger amendment with clearer definitions at stage 3. At this stage, I am minded not to vote with Liam Kerr on his amendment.

Will the member take an intervention?

Yes, but specifically.

This morning, we received a letter from the minister. As it was, regrettably, received very late, I have not had the opportunity to fully absorb it. However, it addresses what will happen with regard to the licensing and what NatureScot will do to engage with stakeholders.

It says that

“NatureScot is committed to a ‘shared wildlife management principles’ approach to stakeholder engagement.”

It does not sound as though Colin Smyth accepts that NatureScot is committed to those principles. He seems to want to go further, albeit that we all know that the intention of the bill is to maintain the highest standards of animal welfare. What do Labour members not appreciate about the shared wildlife management principles?

Will Ariane Burgess take an intervention?

I want to get some clarity on that. You want to remove section 6, but you said that you believe that rural people or rural life—I cannot remember your exact words—should or must change. Does that mean that you want to see a full ban on all country activities that include shooting, rough shooting and anything else? Is that the intention?