Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 34th meeting in 2022 of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee. I remind members who are using electronic devices to switch them to silent. Under our first agenda item, we will take evidence on the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Regulations 2022. The instrument is subject to the affirmative procedure. I welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands, Mairi Gougeon, and her supporting Scottish Government officials: Ramona Branza, who is the head of food and drink industry growth, and Judith Brown, who is a solicitor. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.
I thank the committee for inviting me to speak about the regulations, which allow the marketing of certain poultry meat in defrosted condition for a temporary period between 28 November to 31 December. Regulation 1308/2013—the single common market organisation, or CMO, regulation—makes provision about poultry meat marketing standards. In particular, it stipulates that Due to the current threat from avian influenza, some retailers, as well as the larger turkey processors—which, together, account for about 90 per cent of poultry meat production—contacted the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to request temporary approval for poultry meat to be frozen and then sold as a defrosted product.
The United Kingdom and Welsh Governments have indicated that that will be permitted during the period from 28 November to 31 December. The Scottish Government sought the views of the Scottish industry, and we wish to address the threat of market disturbance to the poultry meat sector by permitting that in Scotland, too. The instrument therefore temporarily amends the single CMO regulation and the Poultrymeat Regulations 2011 to allow certain poultry meat to be marketed as defrosted. In Scotland, that will not only safeguard domestic supply; it will be of assistance to the industry in mitigating potential loss of income due to any large AI outbreak. It is important to note that the change does not represent a food safety risk. Under the food information to consumers regulation, any defrosted poultry meat must comply with the labelling regulations, which require that Of course, the marketing of poultry meat as defrosted is not mandatory, as poultry meat can still be marketed as fresh, frozen or quick-frozen during the period.
However, those in the industry will be given the option to sell defrosted poultry meat if they so wish. A full public consultation has not taken place due to the urgent need to temporarily amend the legislation. However, we contacted those in the industry to inform them of the proposal, and we invited comments about it. We received one positive comment and no negative comments. We have also liaised with Food Standards Scotland, which has informed enforcement authorities on behalf of the Scottish Government. I hope that the information that I have provided to the committee is helpful in setting out the rationale for the instrument.
I am happy to take any questions that committee members might have. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will kick off. Can you give an indication of what the take-up has been like? Given that the change has been in place since 28 November, do you have any idea of how many birds have been frozen in that way to later be defrosted for supermarket shelves? I will ask my officials whether we have up-to-date information on that. We do not have up-to-date information, but we can come back to the committee on that. That would be helpful. Cabinet secretary, you have indicated the market scenario that you are seeking to regulate. Are you likely to amend legislation on a more permanent basis in the future? We are not looking to do that at the moment. We intend the approach to be for only the stated period of time, given the nature of the outbreaks that we have seen. To put things in context, at this time last year, we had not seen any cases. The circumstances are therefore very particular. We will, of course, potentially consider the matter again in the future, but, given the urgency of the situation and to prevent market disturbance, we have set out the approach for that period of time.
What will happen to the defrosted turkeys that are still on supermarket shelves on 31 December? They would not be able to be sold past that point. That is what we set out in the regulations. They can be sold only until 31 December. I understand that that is a bit of a deviation from European Union legislation. What is the thinking in the EU that means that it does not allow meat to be sold as defrosted? I want to get assurance that you have thought through all of that. Absolutely. Obviously, the regulations will be in place for only a short period of time. Ultimately, we have to make decisions that are in the best interests of the industry and producers in Scotland. That is why we have introduced the regulations. The approach is in line with what is happening across Great Britain at the moment. As far as I am aware, you are right: the EU is not introducing similar regulations. However, we know that AI impacts not only Scotland and the United Kingdom; it impacts other countries, too.
I believe that there were trade reasons why defrosted meat was not permitted to be sold in that way. I do not know whether the officials have any other information on why we have set that out in regulations. Anecdotally, we know that there was an influx of imported frozen poultry meat that was sold as defrosted. A trade decision that that should not be allowed any more was taken. That is the information that we have. Okay. Thank you. Something sprung to mind when you said that the poultry would not be able to be sold beyond 31 December. Who will monitor what will happen to the birds that have been defrosted and cannot be sold? I presume that there will be various options. They could be minced down and put into burgers and sold in that way, or they could be sold as cooked products. What will happen if there is a surplus that has to be dumped? Who will monitor that? On enforcement, we can see what has happened across the rest of GB. Local authorities have been asked not to enforce the regulations as they are, whereas, in Scotland, we have changed the legislation. We would simply be enforcing in the normal way.
I have a practical question about food safety. What if the consumer does not understand that poultry has been frozen and defrosted? Is Food Standards Scotland taking any extra care to ensure that they do not refreeze it? We have had discussions with Food Standards Scotland to ensure that no public health risk would be associated with the approach. Generally, the advice would be to follow what is on the label.
The labelling element is critically important in making things clear. The advice would be to prepare poultry in line with what is set out on the label. The commercial freezing and defrosting process is different from what people would do at home, and it is important that people follow the label instructions. Generally, if a product has been defrosted, it would be recommended that it is stored and chilled before it is prepared rather than refrozen. The advice is to follow the instructions on the label. That is why it is really important to show clearly that the poultry has been defrosted. I have a couple of final questions. I presume that, if the birds are frozen, supermarkets or retailers can decide when to defrost them, so that they will be able to manage what goes on to the shelves. What is the time limit for the birds to remain frozen before they can be sold as defrosted? Does the legislation stop at some point around Christmas, or can those birds be put on the shelves in February, March or April to be sold as defrosted? They are being sold only as defrosted. More birds could potentially be frozen—that could be an option—but we have taken the decision and gone ahead with it because retailers cannot stock more frozen products.
They are already selling birds as defrosted, if that makes sense. Do you think that there will be an increase in the number of birds that are frozen and then sold as frozen? That option is still open. However, we are adding the additional option that they can be sold as defrosted so that there is not an impact on retailers and their ability to store and then sell those products.
Thank you. That is very useful. Is this the first time that such a policy has been brought in, or are there examples of that having happened in the past? As far as I am aware, this is the first time that we have introduced the regulations. My officials are nodding. I believe that this is the first time that we have done that. Given the nature of AI and what we have seen this year, the situation is unprecedented; we have never seen an outbreak like it. That is why we have had to introduce the regulations. There are unique circumstances. 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? The producers would not defrost them. Once the turkeys have been processed, it is over to the retailers. It will be at the discretion of the retailers when they see fit for them to be defrosted and commercialised as such. Would they need to be defrosted for sale prior to the deadline of 31 December? Absolutely—and that decision will sit with retailers. If retailers saw that the birds were not selling and that they therefore still had a lot in stock, would there be any option, as the convener suggested, to hold them back in order to put them on to the shelves in the new year, or will they literally have to be signed off as waste? They could not be commercialised as defrosted. Frozen turkeys will not be able to be commercialised as defrosted after 31 December—that is, from 1 January next year—but they can be kept frozen and sold as frozen.
That is still an option. Will you keep their commercialisation as defrosted under review, or is that a hard cut-off date after which it will not be looked at again? What do you mean? Do you mean potentially extending that or bringing it forward? Obviously, we would want to see what impact there has been. We will monitor that after 31 December to see how the approach has worked and whether it has had that impact. Agenda item 2 is formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument. I invite Ms Gougeon to move motion S6M-06961. That the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee recommends that the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Regulations 2022 be approved.— No member wishes to debate the motion.
Is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off a report on our deliberations on the affirmative Scottish statutory instrument? That completes consideration of the affirmative instrument. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for attending the meeting. Our next item of business is consideration of the Seed Regulations 2022. The instrument is subject to the negative procedure. Members do not have any comments on the regulations. We will suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes to allow the next witnesses to take their seats. Our next item of business is continuation of our consideration of the Hunting with Dogs Bill at stage 2. I welcome back Màiri McAllan, the Minister for Environment and Land Reform, and her supporting officials. I also welcome back Colin Smyth and Edward Mountain.
Beatrice Wishart will join us remotely. Amendment 69, in the name of Edward Mountain, is grouped with amendments 70, 114, 140, 115, 203, 71, 36, 120, 29, 121, 223, 37, 97, 98, 125, 141, 126, 226, 38, 99, 128, 32, 129, 230 and 39. I remind members of the pre-emptions in the group. Before I make any comments, I remind the committee of my declaration in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am part of a family farming business and that I manage land. All my amendments in this group relate to the same part of the bill and seek to change the wording to say that the aim must be to shoot the wild mammal dead. You cannot, as the bill suggests, always shoot the wild mammal dead, but the aim must be to do so. I think that that meets the minister’s requirement that the animal should not be wounded and subsequently chased, which I believe is the minister’s fear. My aim is to make it clear that the provision is about the intention to shoot the animal dead. It is always the intention of a person with a gun to shoot the quarry dead, but it is not always possible to achieve that. I turn to the rest of the amendments in the group.
I support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments. I have already made sufficient comment during previous meetings on Colin Smyth’s amendments relating to falconry, and I do not propose to rerun my comments—I shall comment at the end, if that is appropriate. Beatrice Wishart’s amendments seem sensible, but I would like to listen to what she says before I comment. I move amendment 69. 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 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.
My amendments in this group aim to address potential problems with the existing wording, which leaves it unclear what amounts to taking “reasonable steps” to use the method that causes an animal “the minimum possible suffering”. As the bill is drafted, it could be argued that only the method that causes “the minimum possible suffering” can be deployed, regardless of circumstances. It needs to be made clear that causing “the minimum possible suffering” in the context in which the person is operating constitutes taking “reasonable steps”. The expression “as humanely as possible” is widely used in wildlife and welfare legislation and understood by the courts. Alternatively, the addition of “in the circumstances” would make it clear that the method of minimum suffering will vary depending on the circumstances, even if there was a method that could objectively be said to cause less suffering but was not possible in the circumstances.
It also avoids the argument as to which method is the one that causes the minimum suffering possible. Clearly, the sooner an injured animal is dispatched, the better, but would the person who dispatches it immediately using a knife be using the method causing “the minimum possible suffering”, or would they have had to take “reasonable steps” to obtain a firearm if that could be argued to be a method that caused less suffering? It might be argued that the existing wording could be construed as recognising that the way of killing an injured animal that causes minimum suffering is relative to circumstances and what is possible but, for the avoidance of doubt, the bill would benefit from an amendment to give a greater degree of certainty to people operating under the legislation and to avoid any vexatious allegations.
Amendments 36 to 39 would allow the person using the dogs to exercise their judgment over how many dogs would be appropriate to cause “the minimum possible suffering”, as they would be best positioned to make that judgment. Those amendments aim to alleviate suffering for animals, as many others have aimed to do. I urge members to vote for them with that in mind. I support Colin Smyth’s amendments 114, 120, 125 and 128, which would remove the use of a bird of prey as an accepted method of killing a wild mammal under sections 3 and 5 to 7. The committee heard evidence from, for example, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and OneKind that killing a wild mammal with a bird of prey is neither humane nor efficient. There is no justification for its being a permitted method of killing under sections 3 and 5 to 7 when other more humane and effective methods are available.
I understand that the Government does not wish to ban falconry by the back door, but amendments 114, 120, 125 and 128 would not do that. They would simply remove the option to use a bird of prey to kill a wild mammal for wildlife control, environmental benefit or other purposes. I urge members to vote for Colin Smyth’s amendments. 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. Good morning, everyone. I will begin with the amendments that Edward Mountain led with and then move on to the others.
The effect of amendments 70 and 98, in Mr Mountain’s name, would be that a person would only have to intend to kill a wild mammal after flushing it from cover. That could create another loophole that could allow a person to prolong the hunting of a wild mammal as long as they intend to kill it, which could clearly be detrimental to the animal’s welfare. The individual’s intention is also incredibly difficult to prove. That could, therefore, create enforcement problems because, if someone is searching for or flushing a wild mammal using a dog for one of the purposes in sections 3 or 6, they cannot achieve that by simply intending to kill it at some point.
It is entirely right that, in those circumstances, the law requires that a person take action to kill the wild mammal Amendments 29, 32, 140 and 141, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would remove the condition to kill a wild mammal “designed or calculated to inflict minimal pain”. The word “pain” is important there, because we have deliberately referred to “suffering”. The difference is important, because using “humane” would mean that we consider only the physical humaneness of the kill, whereas “suffering” also includes the circumstances that the wild mammal experiences. If we use the term “minimum possible suffering”, a person would not be allowed to put the animal through fear, stress or anguish that causes it to suffer unnecessarily prior to actually killing it. I believe that that is a higher standard and one that we should seek to use. For that reason, I cannot support those amendments. Amendments 36 to 39, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would add the conditions to section 3 that dogs may be used to kill a wild mammal in circumstances where the animal has been injured but not killed, the animal is inaccessible and cannot be killed by shooting, or just that killing it in that way is considered humane in the circumstances.
Those amendments would, in effect, allow a pack of dogs to kill a wild mammal in certain circumstances, which I think ought to be clear is entirely contrary to the principle of the bill. In fact, we have been clear from the very beginning that preventing and banning the chasing and killing of a wild mammal by dogs is the fundamental premise of the bill, and I think that those provisions could create a very obvious loophole. In addition to the fact that I cannot condone a pack of dogs killing an injured wild mammal, I am not confident that it would always be possible to establish that a mammal had genuinely been injured prior to being killed by dogs, which would, again, create the uncertainty in enforcement that we have sought to avoid. For those reasons, I cannot support those amendments.
Similarly, amendments 69, 71, 97 and 99, in Edward Mountain’s name, seek to allow a pack of dogs to kill a wild mammal, but do so without any caveats at all. Under those amendments, in our interpretation, a person would only have to attempt to kill a wild mammal before they could set a pack of dogs on it. The amendments would create the glaring loophole of allowing a person to make a token gesture of searching and flushing with two dogs, shooting, missing and then carrying out a hunt with a full pack of dogs. That, again, is contrary to what we are pursuing in the bill, so I cannot support those amendments. Amendments 114, 120, 125 and 128, in the name of Colin Smyth, pertain to falconry. We rehearsed some of the discussion on this point in last week’s meeting but, to reiterate, falconry is permitted in Scotland as long as it is done in accordance with all relevant legislation.
The bill is not about the ethics of wildlife management, or hunting, or falconry for that matter; it is about the regulation of the use of dogs while undertaking those activities. Some falconers will use one or two dogs to flush wild mammals to waiting birds of prey, which is why the bill contains provision to allow wild mammals that have been flushed to be shot or to be killed by a bird of prey. That aligns with the position under the 2002 act. I understand that, on welfare grounds, some people think that falconry should not be permitted.
However, as we discussed last week, it would not be correct for us to use this legislative vehicle to potentially ban lawful activities by the back door. I wholly support the principle of Colin Smyth’s amendments 115, 121, 126 and 129. I have been very clear that the chasing and killing of wild mammals using dogs has no place in modern Scotland, and therefore I agree that killing a wild mammal in a way that causes it the “minimum possible suffering” can never mean allowing it to be killed by dogs. Having said that, I have one or two concerns that agreeing to those amendments in their current form could create a degree of inconsistency in the bill. Therefore, if Colin Smyth agrees not to move the amendments today, I would be happy to work with him to draft new amendments at stage 3 that would maintain the consistency of the language that is used in the bill and fulfil what I think he seeks to do with his amendments. Finally, amendments 203, 223, 226 and 230, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, caveat the condition that, Those amendments are not necessary.
The bill as currently worded implicitly provides that the minimum possible suffering may depend on the circumstances, because a person can act only in the circumstances in which they are in. The existing condition refers to reasonable steps being taken; therefore, the condition has already been caveated. I will try to put that simply: the bill already recognises that the reasonable steps that will be taken to kill a wild mammal in a way that causes it the minimum possible suffering will depend on particular circumstances. I worry that, by adding the wording that Rachael Hamilton has suggested, it could be perceived that those provisions allow for the use of dogs to kill a wild mammal in certain circumstances, which is something that I want to avoid. For those reasons, I cannot support those amendments. I call Edward Mountain to wind up the debate and say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 69. I am disappointed that the minister has not considered amendment 69, on the basis that she perceives that it would create a loophole.
The amendment aims to achieve a more reasonable approach, based on lived experience of more than 45 years of wildlife and countryside management. Therefore, I am disappointed that she believes that people would use it as an excuse. The legislation is new, and my amendment seeks to make it clear that people would have to aim to shoot an animal dead rather than shoot it dead. It is not always possible to achieve that, which I can say from long experience. I will make another point about Rachael Hamilton’s amendments that address the most humane way of dispatching a mammal. I am sure that the minister is aware of the practice of mist netting, which is used to remove rabbits in the wild. Do you understand mist netting, minister, or do I need to explain it? If Edward Mountain wishes to continue with his explanation of that activity, he should do that. Mist netting is when you put out a soft net, which is propped up, before nightfall. After darkness, once the rabbits have moved to the middle of a field to forage, you would drop the net and move the rabbits back to it.
Once they have become entangled in the net, you would then dispatch them. Shooting rabbits in those situations would not be appropriate; dispatching them with a sharp blow to the back of the head is the most effective method. In some circumstances, shooting is not appropriate, and I have rehearsed other circumstances when that might be the case. I understand the point about mist netting, but what does that have to do with hunting with dogs? Mr Fairlie will know that, under the bill, two dogs would be used to drive the rabbits back to the nets, which is the way it is done. You would not just expect the rabbits to run into the net; you would drive them away from their burrows and from where they are foraging into it, which is where you would then dispatch them. I am not convinced by your argument, Mr Mountain.
Speak through the chair, please. I am not convinced by Mr Mountain’s arguments. Please continue, Mr Mountain. I am sorry that I cannot convince Mr Fairlie of a practice that has been going on for many years across Scotland. That is one reason why I think that shooting rabbits and other wild mammals is not always appropriate, which may be something that the committee needs to consider. I will also mention the issue of injured animals and the use of more than two dogs. I gave an example last week of a deer that had had its jaw shattered—tracking down the animal took, I think, four days. Using two dogs would have made that problem significantly more difficult. It is not that the dogs would have killed the deer; it would have been a question of cornering the animal and dispatching it. As members will know, if deer still have their forelegs, they can survive for a considerable time. I do not propose to make any comments on Colin Smyth’s amendments, because I do not think that they are right, and I have said that before.
For clarity, I press amendment 69. The question is, that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 6, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. Amendment 113, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 124, 144 and 242. 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 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 Amendment 242 seeks to amend section 22 by adding a phrase that was included in the 2002 act in recognition of the fact that there will be, and will need to be, occasions when trained dogs—that is, working dogs—will be in situations in which it will not be possible to direct their activity by physical contact or by verbal or audible command. I am thinking of, for example, large areas of forestry, certain weather conditions or activities below ground. As they are trained working dogs, that does not mean that they are not “under control”.
In addition, the committee also received evidence that, in some situations, it might be important that the person using the dog is not directing them by making a noise or engaging physically, as in the case of a dog below ground. As being “under control” is a key condition throughout the bill for all excepted activity to be lawful, it is essential that it is not defined in a way that could make exceptions unworkable, at least in situations in which the use of dogs is necessary. I want to explain why I have lodged amendment 244, which seeks to define the term “pack” for the purposes of the bill. Last week, I asked the minister to put on record comments on the types of dogs that work on a rough shoot and on the specific point of a dog forming a pack. She responded by saying: “for the purposes of the bill, a pack is defined: it is more than two dogs.” I hope that the amendment is helpful to the minister. If the minister would like to work with me on the definition, because she feels that it is an important clarification, I would be very happy to do so.
I support amendments 113 and 124, in the name of Colin Smyth, which seek to exclude relays as well as packs. In England, such practices have been observed being used as a loophole to continue mounted hunts, and it is important that we prevent such a loophole here. I cannot support amendment 242, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, because its proposed definition of “under control” seems to defy any reasonable understanding of the phrase. I am also not minded to support amendment 244, given that it has been made clear throughout the passage of the bill that the definition of “pack” that we are working with relates to more than two dogs. I would be interested to hear the minister’s response, though. I support Colin Smyth’s amendments in this group, because it is prudent to require that reasonable steps be taken to ensure that dogs do not form a relay.
As he has said, mounted hunts in England have been seen using several pairs of dogs one after the other to chase stags, and these amendments would help avoid similar practices being adopted here by making them an offence. I do not support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments in the group. Amendment 244 defines the term “pack” in a way that excludes working gun dogs. Gun dogs are, simply, dogs that are trained to retrieve game. Apart from the problem of unambiguously defining what a working gun dog is—whether a dog is a “gun dog” and whether it was “working” at the time that it was hunting a wild mammal—that definition of “pack” would create yet another loophole, as those who are bent on hunting with packs of dogs would simply argue that they were using working gun dogs. To be frank, amendment 244 seems like an 11th-hour attempt to allow hunting with packs of dogs to continue, not in order to protect livestock or the environment but for sport and— Will you take an intervention? —for human entertainment.
That is unacceptable, and I cannot support amendment 244. Will you take the intervention? I have concluded my comments. You can take an intervention if you want to. I just want to get your thoughts on the points that were raised last week about rough shooting. You have said that working dogs could be used as a cover for other activities. How, in your belief, could a working gun dog be confused for a lurcher or a hound? As we discussed last week, and previously during the taking of evidence, loopholes in the 2002 act were uncovered after the fact.
I am concerned about allowing any space for any interpretation in any situation. People were very creative in interpreting the 2002 act, and I want to ensure that there are no loopholes in the bill. I believe that amendment 244 would potentially create a loophole. I have listened carefully to the arguments. I am disappointed that Colin Smyth used the example of stag hunting south of the border. I am sure that he will be well aware that the last deerhound pack was disbanded in about 1920. It was based at Culachy, by Fort Augustus. Deer hunting with dogs is not done in Scotland. What we are talking about is forming a pack or a relay. We can discount stags for the reason that I have given. I understand why the minister has put this provision in the bill, and I have made it clear that I do not support her on the issue of two dogs. However, as it appears that that will go through, I caution on the use of the word “relay”. If two dogs are following an animal, they cannot run all day, Mr Smyth, in the same way that I cannot run all day—in fact, my endurance and stamina are such that I can run for only short periods of time.
Taking those dogs off a scent, and replacing them with dogs that are fresh on the scent, in order to flush the animal out of what may be a large woodland—as we have heard—is the appropriate thing to do. I cannot, therefore, support the amendments. I do not like the original wording in the bill but, if it is to remain, I ask the minister not to support the use of the words “or relay”. I will begin with Colin Smyth’s amendments 113 and 124, which were just being discussed. I understand why he has lodged those amendments. However, they are not necessary, and they could present practical problems. The bill states that, unless a licence has been granted, only two dogs can be used to search for, stalk or flush a wild mammal. It is very clear about that. It also clearly sets out that, when a person uses two dogs for that activity, reasonable steps must be taken to shoot the wild mammal or have it killed by a bird of prey as soon as reasonably possible.
That is a watertight set of circumstances. Are you saying that you are confident that the use of a relay—two dogs, followed by two dogs, followed by two dogs—would be caught by the legislation and would not be permissible? When we use a term such as “relay”, we probably all have different views of what constitutes a relay. In the context of rough shooting, for example, it is permitted and lawful to use two dogs for the activity, but there could be another two dogs on a lead, or somewhere else, that could be swapped in. Therefore, Edward Mountain’s point about the dogs becoming exhausted in the course of a lawful activity is taken account of. My point is that nobody should use a relay—albeit it that we do not have a definition of that—in order to deliberately prolong the flushing.
The only instances that I have heard of are those that Colin Smyth and Ariane Burgess referred to, which involve a relay—if we can call it that—being used to chase stags or course hares, but— Will the minister take an intervention on that point? I will, once I have finished the point. Those activities are already clearly prohibited by the bill. 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. I do not think that the circumstances that Colin Smyth describes would ever arise. I described circumstances that involved dogs being on a lead, dogs being elsewhere and dogs being held back, which could be used as part of the activity if they were swapped in at a later date. There is no way that that could be done to pursue the same quarry—the same animal.
Therefore, flushing could not be prolonged in that way. As we discussed in the context of rough shooting, a person must only ever control of two dogs at one time. There could be two dogs in the back of a Land Rover that could be got for the second half of the day, but it would not be possible for them to be swapped in with such speed that the same quarry could continue to be chased. For those reasons, I cannot support Colin Smyth’s amendments. Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 244 seeks to add to the bill a definition of a pack, which it defines as I do not agree that there is a contradiction.
The term “pack” means more than two dogs and can apply to any dogs. The issue of consistency of approach throughout the bill is one that we discussed in a lot of detail at the committee’s previous meeting. Therefore, I do not support any attempts to create different rules for different types of dogs. The bill is about regulating the use of all hunting dogs, regardless of the type of hunting that takes place. I have seen no evidence to justify an exception for gun dogs. I have concerns not only about the substance of amendment 244 but about the way in which it is drafted. I think that Rachael Hamilton probably intended to refer to “more than two dogs” as constituting a pack, but the amendment says “two or more dogs”. In my view, two dogs do not constitute a pack; a pack consists of more than two dogs.
On the exclusion of gun dogs from the definition, it would be very difficult to establish whether a dog was a “working gun dog”. That phrase might be used in ordinary language, but it is not sufficiently clear in legislative terms. The definition risks creating a loophole that would allow people to circumvent the two-dog limit, which is a cornerstone of the bill. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 244. Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 242 seeks to amend the definition of “under control” by reinstating wording from the 2002 act, whereby a dog is under control if it One of the key principles in the bill is that, when dogs are used to search for, flush or stalk wild mammals, they must be under control.
That is a cornerstone of the bill. The bill sets out that I am disappointed that there is no support for amendment 113. The purpose of the bill is to close loopholes that were left open by the Protection of Wild Mammals Act 2002 while avoiding any new loopholes. I believe that there is a potential loophole. My amendments were designed to ensure that people who are hunting cannot, in effect, use multiple pairs of dogs, one after the other, to chase wild mammals. A relay would be needed only if those dogs were relentlessly pursuing a wild mammal over a long period of time. Excluding the word “relay” leaves that possibility open as a potential loophole that could be exploited. I am not convinced that a second or a third pair of dogs substituting for the first are not likely to chase the same quarry, and I am unsure how that would be enforced. I am not convinced that a second or a third pair of dogs would not continue in the same area, effectively chasing the same quarry.
I am sure that this is not intentional, but we need to be careful not to use the word “chasing”, as the bill makes it clear that it is unlawful for any dogs to chase or kill a wild mammal. The lawful activity is to flush, so we ought not to refer to chasing. The minister may not like to refer to chasing, but that is the reality of what we are talking about in relation to the bill.
That will happen—there is no question about that. The debate is about a pack of hounds or two dogs, but that is, in effect, what will happen. Whether the dogs are flushing out or chasing, the point has been made several times that two dogs could become exhausted over a period of time. The wild mammal that is being flushed out, chased or whatever could become exhausted, too. There is no animal welfare argument for substituting two dogs. I do not mean to interrupt, but we need to be absolutely clear. My point in response to Colin Smyth’s amendment was that I agree with him that we cannot have perpetual flushing, but the bill’s provisions—not least the two-dog limit—already account for that. Equally, as one of my colleagues has just pointed out to me, the bill already provides that, once flushed, the wild mammal must be shot or killed as soon as reasonably practical.
The circumstances that Colin Smyth is narrating would therefore be unlawful under the bill. Everything that we have done has been about trying to make those instances clearer to law enforcement officers where they arise and avoiding the difficulties that we had under the 2002 act. A lot of what Colin Smyth is describing is unlawful under the bill. That is why his amendment is not necessary. 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.
Because two dogs are seeking to flush out a wild mammal, that does not always mean that the mammal will be successfully shot immediately. Further dogs could be used to continue to flush out that animal. I think that you are getting confused between hunting and flushing. We are talking about using dogs to flush; we are not talking about hunting. You are giving the illusion that that would take place over miles of countryside. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about putting dogs into cover to flush out a mammal so that it can be controlled. As Mr Fairlie has made positively clear, in thick cover in perhaps a 200-acre wood, people will probably need to consider replacing a dog as they are trying to flush out a mammal. I think that Mr Smyth is presenting an illusion that misrepresents the bill and what the minister is trying to achieve. However, I am sure that the minister does not need my support to clarify her position. 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. Will the member take an intervention? I have just finished my comments, but I am happy to take an intervention. I am honestly not trying to be disrespectful, but the practicalities of what the member is talking about simply do not bear out in reality.
The minister has put in place adequate proposals to stop the kind of hunting that we all want to be banned—we do want it to be banned. I am not trying to be rude, but the idea that someone can stop a hunt halfway through, take out two dogs and put in another two is ludicrous. That would just never happen, because the practicalities would not allow it. That probably backs up my case. If it will not happen, why are you concerned about the bill making it an offence? Mr Fairlie says that we will never get a situation where two dogs will be used and then substituted effectively by another two dogs. I do not agree with him, but, if that is the case, there is no reason at all why we should not close the potential loophole in the bill and make it an offence for that to happen in the first place.
Why would you be concerned about that? Because—no, it does not matter. Okay. Do you want to press or withdraw the amendment, Mr Smyth? I will press it. The question is, that amendment 113 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. Amendment 194, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, is grouped with amendments 195 to 202. I will speak to amendments 194 to 202, all of which are in my name and which relate to landowner permission.
In the bill as drafted, the requirement to get landowner permission for hunting with dogs is unclear to me in situations in which there are joint landowners for one piece of land or where a piece of land is split between multiple landowners. Where the bill currently states My amendments 195, 197, 199 and 200 would add “avoidance of doubt” clauses that state that, if an activity takes place across land that is under more than one person’s ownership, permission Taken together, the amendments capture both situations—joint land ownership and multiple landowners—and make it clear that each landowner must give permission for the activities to take place. 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. I, too, thank Beatrice Wishart for her explanation of her amendments. I understand why she has lodged them and I support the intention behind them, but my view is that they are unnecessary and they should not be supported in order to avoid any inconsistencies.
I will explain why I do not support the amendments. Section 22 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Act 2010, which applies to the bill, sets out that, when interpreting legislation, we should take it that use of the singular includes the plural, and vice versa. That means that, in relation to the bill and Beatrice Wishart’s point, reference to the “owner” in each of the exceptions can be read as “owner or owners”, depending on the circumstances. There is no need to restate that, and doing so could cast doubt on other uses of the singular throughout the bill, such as references to “wild mammal”, for example. We want consistency in any singular including the plural, and vice versa. I hope that that reassures Beatrice Wishart and Mercedes Villalba. The effects of the amendments are already built in, and any exception that was made in these circumstances could cast doubt on other references throughout the bill.
I understand what you have said about the singular including the plural as a default, minister. That relates to half of the intention of the amendments in the group, but the other half relates to the “avoidance of doubt” clauses to ensure that permission is sought for each owner of each section of land. I am not sure that that point has been addressed by your comments about the singular including the plural. I apologise. I did not refer to that specifically because my point is that, given that the singular includes the plural, we do not need the “avoidance of doubt” clauses.
I thank the minister for her explanation. When I raised the issue, she took time to meet me to discuss it, and I am grateful for her explanation. Given what she has said, I am happy to seek to withdraw amendment 194. Amendment 194, by agreement, withdrawn. The question is, that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. I remind members that, if amendment 140 is agreed to, I will be unable to call amendments 115 and 203 because of pre-emption. The question is, that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. Does Colin Smyth wish to move amendment 115? 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. The question is, that amendment 203 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 71 be agreed to.
Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 191 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 2. The question is, that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division.
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. I remind members that, if amendment 156 is agreed to, I will be unable to call amendment 204 because of pre-emption. The question is, that amendment 204 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 205 be agreed to.
Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 6, Abstentions 1. Amendment 205 disagreed to. The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 6, Abstentions 1. I remind members that, if amendment 206 is agreed to, I will be unable to call amendment 23 because of pre-emption. The question is, that amendment 206 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 157 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 5, Against 1, Abstentions 3. The question is, that amendment 116 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 207 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 243, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, is in a group on its own. I remind members that, if amendment 243 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 208 and 158, which have already been debated in the licensing group, due to pre-emption. I call Rachael Hamilton to speak to and move amendment 243. Amendment 243 would extend the period of time in which a 14-day licence could be used from 14 days to six months from the date on which the licence was granted. I listened to the minister’s comments on my previous amendments in relation to the extension of the duration of time in which a 14-day licence could be used, and the amendment reflects some of the comments that were made and revises the period down from 12 months to six months.
To reiterate what I said previously about extending the period of time in which a licence can be used, it is important to acknowledge that the control of wild mammals is preventative and not simply a reactive method or a response to damage having been suffered. We must recognise that fox control is a year-round activity and that it is conducted using a variety of methods depending on factors such as the terrain and the time of year. Farming is not simply a hobby; it is a business that manages land and produces food. Much has been made of allowing businesses to carry out their role without overly bureaucratic diktat from pen pushers, ensuring that they can operate in as practical a way as possible. I move amendment 243. As no members wish to speak, I call the minister. I am not sure that “bureaucratic diktat from pen pushers” is a reasonable way to describe the work of NatureScot and others, but I will leave that up to the member.
Rachael Hamilton will probably not be surprised by my view on this, given that we debated the amendment that I lodged in the previous session. I said then that I had listened very carefully to the discussions on the licensing period during the committee’s scrutiny. When I spoke to amendment 158 last week, I said that I had come to the conclusion that allowing some flexibility around the period of time in which the licence’s 14 days may be used was justified. That is why I lodged amendment 158—which, to remind the committee, would see the period of time for which a licence can be granted under section 4 be the original maximum 14 days, but within a period of six consecutive months. Of course, I have considered Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 243, which would allow the licence to be granted for up to 28 days over six months, but I remain very much of the view that 14 days is the right number for the licence to cover. It allows sufficient flexibility to deal with changes to plans due to bad weather or other unforeseen events while not facilitating any more days of hunting over the period.
Having spoken widely with stakeholders, I believe that 14 days is sufficient for the licensed predator control needs of most farms and that 28 days allows too many days of activity under a particular licence, given the very real need to maintain a tight control. Thank you, minister. I ask Rachael Hamilton to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 243. As it stands, I believe that the bill limits the environmental benefit exception to situations in which the use of dogs—whether two dogs or more than two dogs under licence—is “part of a scheme”. It seems unnecessarily burdensome, given that land managers often undertake pest control to protect and enhance wildlife. I have no idea why they should have to come up with a scheme. The bill does not define what amounts to a scheme; it is not clear from the evidence sessions or from the documents accompanying the bill, but a scheme is currently conceived of in terms of the work of NatureScot, RSPB Scotland and other large bodies. I am still concerned about the idea of a scheme. Most managers have a land management plan—is that a scheme? If they wish to use more than two dogs, what amounts to such a scheme? In terms of a licence for environmental benefit, surely it is sufficient that NatureScot should be happy that the use of more than two dogs is necessary and will make a significant contribution to environmental benefit.
With regard to the loss of biodiversity, it is strange that we would want anyone to discourage wildlife management that assists in nature recovery or to limit it to statutory bodies and charities when the vast majority of land is held and managed privately. If ministers are serious about reversing biodiversity loss and saving species such as the curlew and capercaillie, we must work with land managers, not against them, to ensure that, in such situations, livelihoods are protected and wildlife is managed in order to protect livestock. I press amendment 243. The question is, that amendment 243 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division.
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. Amendment 208, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, has been debated with amendment 9. I remind members that, if amendment 208 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 158 due to pre-emption. The question is, that amendment 208 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. We missed the vote there. I will call the vote again. We are on amendment 24. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those voting against, please raise your hands now. Those members abstaining, please indicate now. Members, I would really appreciate it if you could make your votes as clear as possible. I am sorry, convener—I got in a muddle. I thought that we were still on amendment 158. I realise that it is probably too late to change my vote, but can I just note that I would have opposed amendment 24? Your comments will appear in the Official Report. The result of the result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 209 be agreed to.
Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. Amendment 209 disagreed to. Convener, I wish to put on the record that, on amendment 158, I would have voted no. The question is, that amendment 210 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 160 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 3. The question is, that amendment 211 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. Amendment 12 disagreed to. Section 4, as amended, agreed to. Amendment 73 moved—. The question is, that amendment 73 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 74 be agreed to.
Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. I have not moved amendment 75 on the basis that I am not sure that my definition of a polecat meets the requirements. So, I am not going to move any of my amendments that relate to polecats. The question is, that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 162 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 6, Against 3, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 212 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 213 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division.
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 163 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 6, Against 3, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 214 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 215 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
I call amendment 117, in the name of Colin Smyth, which has already been debated with amendment 1. 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. The question is, that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. Amendment 83, the name of Edward Mountain, has already been debated with amendment 1.
As amendment 83 refers to a polecat, I will not move it. The question is, that amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 164 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 6, Against 3, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 216 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division.
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 217 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 119 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 144 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
The question is, that amendment 218 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 219 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 220 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 86 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. I call Edward Mountain to move or not move amendment 87.
It is that polecat issue again, convener, so I will not move amendment 87. The question is, that amendment 88 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 165 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 6, Against 3, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 221 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 120 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 89 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 90 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 92 be agreed to.
Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 166 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 6, Against 3, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 222 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. I remind members that, if amendment 29 is agreed to, amendments 121 and 223 will be pre-empted. The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
The question is, that amendment 223 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 224 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 122 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. Does Edward Mountain wish to move amendments 93 to 96? To help the committee, I will not move those amendments. The question is, that amendment 167 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the vote is six for, two against and one abstention, so the amendment has been agreed to. Can we check that vote? I think that there might have been a delay on Microsoft Teams. I will run that vote again. The result of the division is: For 6, Against 3, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 225 be agreed to.
Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. Section 5, as amended, agreed to. The question is, that amendment 123 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 145 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 124 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 125 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division.
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. I remind members that, if amendment 141 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 126 and 226. The question is, that amendment 141 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 226 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division.
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 227 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division.
.