Section 1A — Exception: stalking and flushing from cover

Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 2:00 pm on 13th February 2002.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Allan Wilson Allan Wilson Labour

The Executive amendments in the group are technical drafting amendments and I invite Parliament to support them. Amendment 37 is intended to introduce consistency on the issue of permission. We are content with David Mundell's amendment 37A, which would add the term "searching" to amendment 37. We were curious to see Jamie McGrigor's amendment 7, which proposes to insert the word "fish" into section 1A. No doubt Mr McGrigor has good reasons for that—we are all interested in learning them. We believe that Sylvia Jackson's amendment 51 does not add anything of value to the bill, but we leave it to Parliament to decide whether to support it.

I move amendment 37.

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative

Mr McGrigor will reveal all shortly.

I am pleased that the minister is content with amendment 37A, which is amendment 6 in another guise. Amendments 6 and 37A are important because the use of the words "stalk" and "flush" in section 1A implies that there is an existing target quarry. However, part of some pest control activities is to find the animal. The word "searching" should be included to allow for that.

I am not as benign as the minister in relation to amendment 51, which would effectively place a requirement on some people to carry guns in the countryside. It is clear that one result of the bill will be many more guns in the countryside. People will instinctively carry guns, because that will be a defence against a charge of carrying out one of the many activities that the bill criminalises. Amendment 51 would encourage everybody who goes out in the countryside to have a gun with them. That would be a most unhelpful scenario. I can imagine that, if two people went out with two dogs, one person would have the gun and the other would have general management of the dogs. [Interruption.]

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

Order. There are far too many private conversations going on in the chamber. If members wish to engage in conversation, they should do so outside.

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative

My interpretation of amendment 51—as ever, I am willing to be put right—is that it would mean that, unless the person carrying out the activities in section 1A(2) had a gun with them in every scenario, they would be guilty of a crime. I cannot think that that is what Sylvia Jackson intends or what Parliament would want. Accordingly, I vigorously oppose amendment 51. Unsurprisingly, I shall support Mr McGrigor's amendment 7.

I move amendment 37A.

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative

The reason for including the word "fish", which amendment 7 proposes, relates to mink. Mink predate on fish and are not indigenous to Scotland. Attempts have been made to eradicate them from Scotland. They predate on fish in the redds in the autumn, when salmon and sea trout are spawning. They are damaging to fish farms and they are pernicious killers that need to be controlled. That is the reason for including fish in the list of species that need to be protected.

Photo of Sylvia Jackson Sylvia Jackson Labour

Amendment 51 proposes to insert a phrase whereby the possession of firearms as well as a firearms certificate is required. An exemption to the bill is the permission of lawful pest control when the pest species is shot. As the bill is worded, a person could have the landowner's permission to carry out the activity and be the holder of a firearms licence or shotgun certificate but not have the weapon with them at the material time, thereby not showing that they have an intention to shoot. Amendment 51 closes that loophole.

The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has urged the inclusion of amendment 51 in the belief that it would be helpful to police officers or other persons charged with implementing the provisions of the bill. The basis for exemptions for pest control in the bill is that the target wild mammal must be shot, if possible. In operational terms, it is not enough to require that the person undertaking the activity should have a firearms or shotgun certificate; he must also be in possession of the firearms at the material time. Anyone purporting to undertake pest control using dogs but not carrying a gun may be assumed to be engaged in baiting. Requiring possession of the gun at the material time clarifies the position and will assist officers of the law and persons seeking to carry out lawful pest control. I urge members to support amendment 51.

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party

I support the Executive's amendment 48. Section 1A(2) defines when it is acceptable to use dogs underground and in

"an enclosed space within rocks or other secure cover above ground".

That is one of the aspects of pest control with which many people have problems. The National Working Terrier Federation has accepted that the practice has suffered from many problems, hence its code of conduct. Its representative, Thomas Parker, told the Rural Development Committee:

"We have been trying to clean up what some people perceive as the not very nice end of the fox control business."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 6 November 2001; c 2331.]

I understand that the Rural Development Committee did not feel able to support a code of conduct under the bill. However, I applaud the committee's efforts to define the boundary between legitimate terrier work, as conducted by the National Working Terrier Federation and gamekeepers, and illegitimate terrier work, as conducted by fox baiters.

The National Working Terrier Federation's code of conduct says:

"The prime objectives of properly conducted terrier work is to provide a pest control service."

Section 1A should make that clear. I stress that amendment 48 would not prevent the work of legitimate pest control. The tests of need in section 1A(1) are extremely broad. It will still be possible to send terriers down a hole or into a rock cairn to flush a fox from cover for pest control purposes. No one should send a dog underground, where it might fight a fox, unless they have a reason to do so.

Amendment 48 would protect gamekeepers and hill packs that have valid reasons for their activities and it would ensure that others could not abuse the provision as a loophole for entertainment purposes. I hope that members will support the amendment.

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

I suggest that members should oppose amendments 7 and 51. We should oppose amendment 7, not just because Jamie McGrigor lodged it, but because it would have section 1A say that

"A person does not contravene section 1(1) by using a dog under control to stalk a wild mammal, or flush it from cover" if that is done for the protection of fish. I say to Jamie McGrigor that that does not make sense.

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

No. Mr McGrigor has had his say.

On amendment 51, I would go further than the Executive's neutrality. I understand the reasons for lodging amendment 51, but I agree with David Mundell that the amendment should be opposed, as it would encourage people to take more guns into the countryside—and that is not to be encouraged.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

Neither Mr Finnie nor Mr Wilson seems to want to make a ministerial comment. I cannot ask Mr Muldoon whether he wants to speak, as he is not in the chamber. I call David Mundell to wind up. Are you pressing amendment 37A, Mr Mundell?

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative

Yes. I thought that the ministers would press the amendment.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

It is not for them. It is your call.

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative

Right. I press amendment 37A, which the Executive has indicated that it supports.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

With apologies, Presiding Officer, I have a point of order. I was not entirely clear whether you were inviting me to make a comment or to press an amendment.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

I was inviting you to comment, minister.

The question is, that amendment 37A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Division number 7

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Paterson, Mr Gil, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Russell, Michael, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinney, Mr John, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Ben, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
Against: Canavan, Dennis, Cunningham, Roseanna, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Grant, Rhoda, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McAllion, Mr John, McGugan, Irene, McLeish, Henry, Robison, Shona, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine, Sturgeon, Nicola, Ullrich, Kay, Welsh, Mr Andrew
Abstentions: Fabiani, Linda, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Tosh, Mr Murray

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

The result of the division is: For 97, Against 22, Abstentions 3.

Amendment 37A agreed to.

Amendment 37, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 38 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party 2:15 pm, 13th February 2002

Amendment 39, in the name of Ross Finnie, is grouped with amendments 93, 5, 41, 94, 95, 46, 96, 47 and 97. I point out to members that if amendment 41 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 94, which is pre-empted.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

I must apologise for inadvertently confusing the process at this stage. In lodging amendments that were genuinely designed to clarify the situation, amendments that were drafted earlier were, regrettably, also lodged. Those amendments are 39, 46 and 47 and they were subsequently selected, but the Executive does not propose to move them. Furthermore, we are in a difficult position because, if the amendments were moved, we would oppose them.

There are many amendments in this grouping. We believe that the balance of advantage in interpreting this part of the section lies in leaving the bill as drafted on the issue of a single dog. We believe that Alex Fergusson's series of amendments in this grouping and elsewhere that propose to insert the phrase "or a pair of dogs" after the word "dog" are unfortunate. Those amendments could make difficult the interpretation of the sections and would serve only to muddle interpretation of the bill. I am bound to say that we suggest that Parliament take account of that and reject those amendments.

We have a strong view on David Mundell's amendment 5. Having applied an interpretation and workability test, we are concerned that the deletion that is suggested by the amendment of the term "under control" would change the balance of interpretation in the section. We strongly recommend that the amendment be rejected. If the amendment were agreed to, it would cast doubt on the workability of the section and, therefore, of the bill. It is quite clear to us that the inclusion of the amendment—which relates to a dog, which can, in law, mean one dog or a number of dogs—coupled with section 1A, which allows a dog or a number of dogs to kill a wild mammal, would undeniably undermine one of the central tenets of the bill.

Amendment 41, which seeks to remove an "or a dog" provision, can be supported.

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party

It was difficult to make out from the Mr Finnie's last couple of sentences his attitude towards amendment 41 and the status of section 1A, which is material to some of the views that I hold on that issue. If he could clarify that attitude, it would be appreciated. We simply did not catch what he said.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

My principal concern is about David Mundell's amendment 5. Although we support the deletion of "or a dog" in section 1A, that is not as material as the insertion of "or a pair of dogs" into the section.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

Will you clarify whether you are moving amendment 39, minister?

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

I will not move amendments 39, 46 or 47.

Amendment 39 not moved.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

Do you have a point of order, Mr Home Robertson?

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

Are you still down, Mr Finnie, or will you take the intervention?

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

If it is just a point of clarification, I am in your hands.

Photo of John Home Robertson John Home Robertson Labour

Clarification is precisely what I am after. It is helpful to the Parliament to get such guidance on interpretation from the minister. It would also be helpful if he would confirm whether the guidance that he is giving on the interpretation of amendments and sections is given by the Executive following consultation with the law officers.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

I confirm that point absolutely.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

I clarify to members that, as Mr Finnie is not moving amendment 39, we move to the next series of amendments in the group, which are in the name of Alex Fergusson, and a debate takes place on those amendments.

I ask Alex Fergusson to move amendment 93.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

Is not amendment 93 consequential to the minister's amendment 39, which he has not moved? Given the Executive's position on that, I do not intend to move amendments 93 and 95 to 97.

Amendment 93 not moved.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

In that case, let me try my luck with Mr Mundell. I ask Mr Mundell to move amendment 5.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry to be unhelpful. Immediately I sat down, my brain hit me very hard. [Laughter.] In clarification of my response to John Home Robertson, while it is the case that we consulted the law officers, as I said, my or any minister's advice is tendered in the name of the minister; it is not given in the name of the law officers.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

Right. Mr Mundell, on you go. Move amendment 5. If you move it, a debate will take place on that amendment.

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative

I will move it, Presiding Officer, because it would be helpful on this occasion.

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative

Why am I surprised that Mr Finnie is so attracted to the expression "under control"? In the Rural Development Committee, I suggested that Mr McConnell should provide a definition, but that was not to be. Those who have looked closely at the Official Reports of the Rural Development Committee's stage 2 consideration will know that the committee considered that issue at great length.

Dr Elaine Murray, to her credit, lodged the amendment that inserted the term "under control" into the bill, but it was generally felt to be the best that we could do. The view was that it was not perfect, but the best that we could do. At that point in the Rural Development Committee's consideration, we did not have the minister's forthright and clear enunciation of views. It was not always possible to gauge which way the Executive or its law officers were leaning.

I felt that it was important that we bring the definition of "under control" back to Parliament today. I did so first to see whether anybody would come up with anything better than the definition at which the committee had arrived and that could be inserted into the bill and, secondly, because it raises clear issues about exactly what expressions such as "under control" mean. We must ensure, when passing legislation that will criminalise individuals, that that legislation and the guidance that individuals have as they go about their ordinary lives is clear on what activities are and are not criminal.

The minister has put forward a very robust case for the deletion of the phrase "under control". As the debate progresses, I will consider whether to press the issue to a vote. Moving amendment 5 helps. The minister's statement at this late hour—particularly the comments that he made to Mr Swinney and Mr Home Robertson—was helpful in clarifying the position.

There has been a persistent misconception that amendments that were introduced during the stage 2 process were intended to wreck the bill. That was not the intention. A majority of members agreed to the amendments. Labour members such as Rhoda Grant and Elaine Murray voted for the provisions in question. From what the minister has said, amendment 5 will allow legitimate gamekeeping activities to proceed and will counter any suggestion that the amendments at stage 2 were designed to wreck the bill. I support the position that has been set out by the minister.

I move amendment 5.

Photo of Sylvia Jackson Sylvia Jackson Labour

Amendment 41 is perhaps the most important amendment that we will debate and vote on today. In The Daily Telegraph last week, Alex Fergusson revealed what Mike Watson had said in the Rural Development Committee meeting on November 13—that amendment 53K at stage 2, which inserted the phrase "or a dog", ran counter to the general principles of the bill that had been accepted at stage 1. Mike Watson warned that amendment 53K could be used for deliberately hunting with dogs.

I lodged amendment 41 as a result of considering the issue from an animal welfare perspective. As the SSPCA has pointed out—

Photo of Alasdair Morgan Alasdair Morgan Scottish National Party

Given the explanation that the member has just given, will she clarify her view on Mr Ewing's amendment 94, which would replace "a dog" by "a single dog"? That would seem to exclude hunting with dogs, but would still allow single dogs to be used to target an animal that had got past the guns and was perhaps wounded.

Photo of Sylvia Jackson Sylvia Jackson Labour

It would take quite a long time to explain that. I am conscious of time. Suffice it to say that, as far as I understand it, the bill allows for lurchers and dogs of that nature to retrieve a wounded animal, which can then be shot. Whether one allows a dog or a number of dogs, the issue is still the same—one is allowing a dog to kill a fox or a wild mammal.

I must get on. The SSPCA has pointed out that the insertion of "or a dog" has the effect of allowing a dog or dogs intentionally to kill a fox or other wild mammal. Accidentally killing a fox is not the issue—that is adequately covered in section 1A(1B). The three words "or a dog" allow intentional killing of a fox or other wild mammal with a dog, as is the case with mounted hunts.

The SSPCA has stated in relation to using dogs for killing foxes:

"It may take a considerable time to kill a fox and this would not necessarily be humane."

The SSPCA maintains that the most humane way of disposing of a fox or other wild animal is by shooting. If the words "or a dog" remain in line 22, page 1, section 1A of the bill, from an animal welfare perspective—one that takes on board the views of the SSPCA—there is no point in proceeding with the bill.

In reply to earlier comments by Fergus Ewing, gamekeepers, hill packs and farmers must be able to continue their legitimate pest control activities under the bill, but they must do that in a way that is humane. The bill will allow that to happen—I am confident of that.

Photo of Fergus Ewing Fergus Ewing Scottish National Party

I am extremely grateful to Sylvia Jackson for taking my intervention. Is she aware that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, the Scottish Hill Packs Association, the National Working Terrier Federation, the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Crofting Foundation have said that they regard amendment 94 as absolutely essential?

Photo of Sylvia Jackson Sylvia Jackson Labour 2:30 pm, 13th February 2002

I have spoken to representatives of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association about amendment 41 and about the general drift of the bill as it is developing. They are firmly behind the bill as it stands. I urge members to vote for amendment 41. Having spoken with the gamekeepers this morning, I understand that they are quite content that stopping the mounted hunts will help with the humane aspects that we have pointed out. [MEMBERS: "The gamekeepers are here."] Yes, I can see them. They have also pointed out that they want the assurance that their practices will be allowed to continue. That is also what is wanted by the Scottish Hill Packs Association and by the farmers, who want to be assured that they can continue to use terriers for pest control.

I urge members—

Photo of Margo MacDonald Margo MacDonald Independent

Will the member give way on a point of clarification?

Photo of Sylvia Jackson Sylvia Jackson Labour

I want to finish now. I urge members to vote for amendment 41 and to ban hunting with dogs. Amendment 41 is a key vote for the debate.

Photo of Fergus Ewing Fergus Ewing Scottish National Party

I agree with Sylvia Jackson that amendments 41 and 94 are most important to me and to many other members who have an interest in this topic.

I urge members to vote for amendment 94, which is a compromise that has been freely given and which commands the support of many members outside the chamber. Contrary to what Sylvia Jackson said, I am convinced that amendment 94 is essential if gamekeepers, terrier men and hill pack men are to be able to carry out their work in Scotland.

Not only am I convinced of that, but yesterday I had written confirmation that that is the case from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. That has also been confirmed by the Scottish Hill Packs Association, the National Working Terrier Federation, the Scottish Crofting Foundation and the National Farmers Union of Scotland. Jim Walker gave evidence on the damage that the fox did to 47 of his lambs during one short period at Easter.

I put it to Sylvia Jackson that, for such reasons, those organisations are not happy to see amendment 94 fall. In some circumstances, it is necessary to use a single dog to dispatch a fox. Lord Watson himself, recognising that necessity, has allowed for exceptions, such as the dispatch of orphan cubs below ground, and for situations in which seriously injured animals may need to be dispatched in the interests of their own welfare.

Those exceptions have been recognised, but there are other circumstances in which a lurcher needs to be used to dispatch a fox. Such circumstances even occur in cities. I have two examples. There was a lady in Giffnock whose poodle pup was attacked by a fox. As far as I am aware, it is not appropriate to use a rifle in Giffnock or any nearby parts such as Glasgow—I do not mean to discriminate. On another occasion, a lady was hanging out her washing and was accompanied by her Yorkshire terrier, when a fox appeared and suddenly attacked the dog, which was carried for a distance of about 20 yards before being dropped by the fox. The dog died of its injuries. When Mr Bill O'Donnell visited the garden, he could not locate the fox. However, firearms might have been necessary. From Caithness to Glasgow and all over Scotland, it is necessary for a single dog to be involved in such circumstances.

As I understand it, the only argument against the amendment—

Photo of Fergus Ewing Fergus Ewing Scottish National Party

Not quite yet.

The only argument against amendment 94 is that it is a wrecking amendment. The amendment is a compromise amendment, which is designed to secure the agreement of the chamber. How on earth could amendment 94 be a wrecking amendment? How on earth could a mounted hunt procure that only a single dog affects the kill? That cannot be true.

I want to make another point that undermines the argument that Sylvia Jackson has made. If using more than one dog is so bad, why is it lawful under section 1A(1B) and section 3? No attempt has been made to delete 1A(1B), under which more than one dog can be used. There is a certain inconsistency.

In conclusion, I would say that the bodies that are represented in the public gallery—many of which I have worked closely with—are respectable bodies. They have put absolute clear blue water between themselves and some of the despicable campaigning tactics that we have seen and that we all deplore. They are responsible; they operate to the highest standards; they have a code of conduct that is guaranteed to prevent fox baiting; they have decades of experience; and they have informed me that they need amendment 94. If they do not get this amendment, we will be turning them into potential criminals. We must not allow that to occur. To do so would be to allow a grave injustice, which I fear would cast shame on the role that we have played in this bill.

Photo of Elaine Smith Elaine Smith Labour

The words "or a dog" are not so much a loophole as an outer-space black hole that would send this bill up into orbit and, indeed, into oblivion. When the Rural Development Committee debated these issues, Mike Watson warned the committee about the impact of the proposed amendments. It will be obvious to anyone who reads the transcripts of those debates that the committee was voting to allow loopholes. The insertion of the words "or a dog" in this section is one of several ways in which I believe that the committee's amendments to the bill would permit hunting.

When the issues were debated, the loophole was clear. Mike Watson warned the committee, Rhoda Grant warned the committee and I warned the committee. I said that Fergus Ewing's amendment, to introduce this loophole, should not have been on the marshalled list in the first place. I took the view—and it certainly seems to have been confirmed—that amendment 53K would allow foxes to be flushed out and killed by dogs. At this point, it was obvious to Mike Watson, to Rhoda Grant and to me that it was a loophole. So why did the loophole not reveal itself to Alex Fergusson, the Rural Development Committee's convener, until his recent interview with The Daily Telegraph? Unfortunately, five members of the committee were so determined to allow this activity that our warnings came to nothing.

The committee was tasked with upholding the democratic decision of Parliament at stage 1 and with working with Mike Watson to include helpful amendments to allow the bill to proceed. The stage 2 amendment to include the words "or a dog" was unhelpful to say the least. In my view, it tried to wreck the aims and principles of the bill, despite what Fergus Ewing says. I urge the Parliament to support amendment 41. It is vital to do so. We must remove a glaring loophole that should never have been allowed.

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party

I intend to speak only once this afternoon, on this issue. The reason is the reason given by Sylvia Jackson: this is by far the most important debate that we will have this afternoon on the formulation of this bill.

I agree with Tricia Marwick that it is essential that we produce good legislation. A requirement of good legislation is to provide the clarity that allows people to understand the implementation of the legislation. Another requirement is for the legislation to have some force. In these respects, John Home Robertson's earlier intervention was especially helpful in clarifying the status of the advice from the law officers. It will be the law officers who will have to cast their eyes over this particular point.

I support a ban on mounted fox hunting and I want to vote for the bill at stage 3; however, I want to ensure that the legitimate activities of pest control are absolutely protected by the bill. I am certain that there is wide agreement on that point of policy across this chamber. I know that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and his deputy share that agreement.

Strenuous efforts have been made to ensure that the bill contains adequate protection for pest control activities. However, there is one omission—and it is seen in the issues raised by amendments 94 and 41. I support amendment 94. It clarifies a point on which there is wide agreement. It is legitimate for packs of dogs to be used to flush foxes out of woodland so that they can be shot by marksmen at the periphery of the woodland. However, in the real world, foxes will be injured and may escape. There has to be provision in the bill, in this section, for a single dog to be used to dispatch a fox that may be injured.

I say "a single dog", because that relates to amendment 94, in the name of Fergus Ewing, which I urge members to support. It is important to specify a single dog because every other provision in the bill that creates an exception or relates to the dispatch of a fox allows for more than one dog to be used. That is true of sections 1B and 3(1)(c), both of which permit "a dog" to be used. It might be a curious definition, but in the bill "a dog" potentially means more than one dog. The bill would create a situation where it may well be possible for several dogs to be sent to dispatch an injured fox. That is unacceptable and contradicts the intent of the bill as outlined by the sponsors and the relevant amendments that were helpfully lodged by the Rural Development Committee.

That is why I think, dispassionately, that amendment 94 gives utter clarity: when a fox emerges from woodland, is shot and needs to be dispatched, it should be explicit that it is done by a single dog.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

We have almost no time, Mr Swinney. We must conclude the debate on this group of amendments in 16 minutes.

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party

I appeal to Parliament to consider carefully and sensitively the point behind amendment 94. It gives the absolute clarity that the people sitting in the public gallery have been seeking. They are nodding their heads at what I am saying, but they were shaking their heads at what Sylvia Jackson said earlier. I know that we are not meant to be influenced by the public gallery, but we should bear in mind that they are people who live in Scotland today.

There is policy agreement in the Parliament on the point. I hope that we can find a way to ensure that amendment 41 is rejected and amendment 94 is agreed to.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

I will be very brief. I point out to Elaine Smith that if an amendment was not accepted by the committee, it is because it failed to gain majority support—I have a funny feeling that that is called democracy.

I support strongly the position taken by John Swinney and Fergus Ewing. If the situation in relation to mounted fox hunting is not clear, amendment 94 will help to address it. It has been made obvious by the august and respected bodies that have been mentioned that amendment 94 is essential to their future survival. I urge members to agree to amendment 94.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

I am summing up on behalf of the supporters of the bill. I thank the Executive for making clear the position in relation to amendments 39, 46 and 47, which should never have been lodged. It is unfortunate that the Presiding Officers could not agree to withdraw those amendments.

Those are the amendments that caused concern to the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. I have been working tirelessly with the association to ensure, as Mike Watson and I promised at stage 1, that the legitimate pest control activities could continue. I am satisfied that if the Parliament supports the appropriate amendments, as suggested by the pro-bill group, there will be nothing in the amended bill to stop the gamekeepers or hill packs from continuing.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

I am sorry, but I have no time to take an intervention.

Unless we agree to amendment 41 and remove the words "or a dog"—in this bill and other legislation, "a dog" means a pack of dogs—mounted fox hunts will be allowed to continue. If we substitute amendment 41 for amendment 94—Fergus Ewing spoke in favour of amendment 94 and my party leader supported the amendment—the bill will allow fox baiting to continue. It is unacceptable that the bill, which was intended to ban three things, be amended to allow either mounted fox hunts or bear baiting to continue. If the amendments are accepted, there will be nothing in the amended bill to give concern to the gamekeepers and the hill packs. I think that those people know that that is the situation. I have given them my word that that will be so. The matter is very important. I urge members to vote for amendment 41 and against amendments 5 and 94.

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am sure that Tricia Marwick has read from cover to cover and both ways the Rural Development Committee report that was produced at the start of the process. That clearly indicated that fox baiting is already illegal. The committee did not find any serious evidence of widespread fox baiting as an activity in Scotland.

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative

No. Tricia Marwick did not take interventions and she has had her say.

We heard Elaine Smith's colourful contribution. What Elaine Smith failed to point out was that she and all the members of the Rural Development Committee unanimously passed section 1A as advised because Mike Watson moved it. If Mike Watson had been so concerned that the provision undermined the bill, he should never have moved the amended section. It is a red herring to suggest that the section undermines the bill. It no more undermines the bill than all the other provisions in such a flawed bill. John Swinney, Fergus Ewing and others have eloquently—

Photo of Margo MacDonald Margo MacDonald Independent

Does David Mundell know whether advice was taken or any consultation held on the matter of enforcement in relation to amendments 94 and 41?

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative

The Justice and Home Affairs Committee carried out an inquiry. However, at that stage, the committee reported on a very different bill than that which has emerged from the stage 2 process. It is therefore difficult to comment objectively on enforcement arrangements. Anyone who reads the bill and who has listened to the debate so far will know that the Procurator Fiscal Service, the police and everyone else involved in the legal system are going to have an enormous job to enforce the proposed legislation.

One of the great ironies is that I think that I am one of the few lawyers who is not going to make a load of money out of the proposed legislation by interpreting every last dot and comma.

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative

Gordon Jackson will, of course.

In amendment 94, Fergus Ewing has put forward the argument for inserting the word "single" and Tricia Marwick even opposes that. If the words "or a dog" are not to be deleted, she opposes the word "single". It is inconsistent. We need a bill that protects legitimate pest control activities and the minister's solution will provide that.

Photo of Bruce Crawford Bruce Crawford Scottish National Party

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I want to make sure that I am absolutely clear about what is happening here. Members might want to support amendments 41 and 94. However, I think that you said earlier that if members vote for amendment 41, then it will not possible to vote for amendment 94. Can you confirm that?

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

That is correct.

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative

I was not intending to press amendment 5, but I will if it allows the process to proceed more easily.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

You have to make up your mind one way or the other.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

In that case, does Mr Mundell have the consent of the chamber to withdraw amendment 5?

Amendment 5, by agreement, withdrawn.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

We move to amendment 6, which has already been debated with amendment 37. Are you moving amendment 6, Mr Mundell?

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative

My understanding is that amendment 6 was pre-empted by amendments 37 and 37A. They are inconsistent with each other in any case, so I will not move amendment 6.

Amendment 6 not moved.

Amendment 7 moved—[Mr Jamie McGrigor].

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Division number 8

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Johnstone, Alex, Macdonald, Lewis, MacDonald, Ms Margo, MacKay, Angus, McCabe, Mr Tom, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLetchie, David, McNeil, Mr Duncan, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Radcliffe, Nora, Scanlon, Mary, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinney, Mr John, Wallace, Ben, Wilson, Allan, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Gray, Iain, Harper, Robin, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGugan, Irene, McLeish, Henry, McLeod, Fiona, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robison, Shona, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Sheridan, Tommy, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Sturgeon, Nicola, Thomson, Elaine, Ullrich, Kay, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Welsh, Mr Andrew, Whitefield, Karen
Abstentions: Robson, Euan

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The result of the division is: For 42, Against 77, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 7 disagreed to.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

We move to the sixth group, for which we have but eight minutes. Amendment 8 is grouped with amendments 40, 9, 10, 49 and 50. Amendment 8 does not pre-empt amendment 40, so if amendment 8 is agreed to, amendment 40 will still be called. Similarly, amendment 49 does not pre-empt amendment 50.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

Presiding Officer, you will be pleased to hear that I will be extremely brief. Amendments 8, 9 and 10 are designed solely to tighten up the drafting of section 1A to ensure that legitimate vermin control, which the Parliament has consistently said it does not wish to alter—though I fear for its future after the previous debate—can continue without the risk of malicious prosecutions. That will protect the hill packs and the gamekeepers.

The bill shows a considerable lack of sympathy with, and understanding of, pest control activities as they are carried out on the ground or the practical considerations of those who carry out those perfectly legitimate activities. Amendments 8, 9 and 10 do not seek to alter the substance of section 1A, but will give added protection to those people who are engaged in pest control activities which, I repeat, the Parliament stated at stage 1 it wished to exempt.

Amendments 40, 49 and 50 would similarly tighten up the wording of the bill, and would provide similar protection to those who undertake perfectly legitimate activities.

I move amendment 8.

Photo of Fergus Ewing Fergus Ewing Scottish National Party

The amendments are important technical amendments. I await with interest the Executive's response. Members who read line 21 of page 1 of the bill will see that activities to control pests and other activities will be excepted

"only if that person acts to ensure that, once the target wild mammal is found or emerges from cover, it is shot, or killed by a bird of prey or a dog".

So the duty on the person carrying out the pest control is to ensure that the mammal is killed one way or another.

Pest control is not like that. No matter how good a marksman may be, he or she cannot always guarantee that the quarry will be shot. Therefore, I suggest that the phrase "acts to ensure" should be replaced either by "seeks to ensure" or "takes reasonable steps to ensure". The phrase "takes reasonable steps" is one that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development will recognise is a feature of much legislation—I note that I have the minister's attention. The concept of reasonable care is one with which Scots law is well acquainted. However, the task of ensuring that something happens is plainly a hurdle too high. My amendments 40, 49 and 50 are meant to be helpful.

In conclusion, I will make a serious point. If it is impossible, as I suggest, to guarantee success in pest control activities, those who are engaged in those activities will not be covered by the exception. If they are not covered by the exception, they will be committing a crime if they shoot and miss.

Photo of Allan Wilson Allan Wilson Labour

The Executive has no strong view on this group of amendments. Alex Fergusson's amendment 8 is an alternative to Fergus Ewing's amendment 40.

Amendment 9 would fall if amendment 8 were agreed to. If we were to express a preference as to the approach that is adopted, we would prefer amendment 8. Similarly, between amendments 49 and 50, the Executive's preference would be for the approach that is set out in amendment 50.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

I understand that, in this instance, Mr Muldoon has ceded to Pauline McNeill his right to reply.

Photo of Pauline McNeill Pauline McNeill Labour

The effect of the amendments would be to dilute the requirement that was established by the Rural Development Committee, which was for humaneness in pest control. As the bill stands, a person who is stalking or is flushing a quarry with dogs has to act to ensure that, once a wild mammal has been driven from cover, the mammal is shot or killed by a bird of prey. By changing the wording of the bill the amendments would have the effect of allowing a delay. That cannot be justified if the principle is to be adhered to that the mammal is to be killed humanely. The person doing so has to act speedily and deliberately.

To date, the Parliament has accepted the principle that it wants to move in the direction of more humaneness and not less. Terrier work is one of the most contentious and potentially the most dangerous activity in the world of pest control. The Rural Development Committee decided that those who send dogs underground should act to ensure that flushed foxes are shot as soon as possible.

That decision means that everyone should follow the practice that gamekeepers adopt, which is to put nets over the entrances to a fox earth to ensure that a fox can be shot. Instead of accepting that best practice, amendment 50 would allow people to do whatever they want, subject to what a court might say at a later date.

A court might hold it unreasonable to expect someone using a dog underground to net the entrances to the fox earth, if that person does not own a net. That would mean that, if a person left their net at home, they might not have to ensure that the fox met a rapid death. The person could instead chase the fleeing fox with their hounds.

If we create a loophole, it will be exploited. Amendment 50 is set out deliberately to push the boundaries of what can be allowed. We should keep tight the requirement for humaneness. We should reject all the amendments in the group.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

I call Alex Fergusson to respond and to indicate whether he will press or withdraw amendment 8.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

As Fergus Ewing made clear, and as I tried to explain, the amendments are not intended to dilute anything. They are designed to tighten up the wording of the bill. It is sad that no one listened to what Fergus Ewing or I said. If they had done so, they might have realised what the amendments are about. There is nothing more to be said. Fergus Ewing said it very well and I said it more briefly but—I think—equally well.

The minister has announced his intention to support amendment 8 and—I think—to support amendments 49 and 50. I commend the amendments to the chamber. For the sake of keeping to time, I have nothing further to add other than recommending to members that they listen to the Executive on this issue.

Photo of Allan Wilson Allan Wilson Labour

For the record, I point out that we have expressed a preference for amendment 8 over amendment 40 and for amendment 50 over amendment 49.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

There will be a division. As it is the first division in the grouping, it will be a two-minute division.

Division number 9

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Brown, Robert, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Home Robertson, Mr John, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Lyon, George, MacDonald, Ms Margo, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLetchie, David, McNulty, Des, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Russell, Michael, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinney, Mr John, Wallace, Ben, Wallace, Mr Jim, Wilson, Allan
Against: Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Butler, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Harper, Robin, Henry, Hugh, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGugan, Irene, McLeish, Henry, McLeod, Fiona, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Oldfather, Irene, Paterson, Mr Gil, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Robison, Shona, Sheridan, Tommy, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Sturgeon, Nicola, Thomson, Elaine, Ullrich, Kay, Watson, Mike, Welsh, Mr Andrew, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The result of the division is: For 51, Against 70, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 8 disagreed to.

Amendment 40 not moved.

Amendment 9 moved—[Alex Fergusson].

Division number 10

For: Aitken, Bill, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Harding, Mr Keith, Johnstone, Alex, MacDonald, Ms Margo, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Wallace, Ben
Against: Adam, Brian, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harper, Robin, Henry, Hugh, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGugan, Irene, McLeish, Henry, McLeod, Fiona, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morgan, Alasdair, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Russell, Michael, Scott, Tavish, Sheridan, Tommy, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Thomson, Elaine, Ullrich, Kay, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Welsh, Mr Andrew, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
Abstentions: Home Robertson, Mr John

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The result of the division is: For 19, Against 101, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 9 disagreed to.

Amendment 41 moved—[Dr Sylvia Jackson].

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

There will be a division.

Because in the previous group the first two amendments were not moved and the third amendment was withdrawn and because there were no divisions in that group, amendment 41 becomes the lead amendment in the group. As a result, there will be a two-minute division. We have to observe all these proprieties.

Division number 11

For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Butler, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Harper, Robin, Henry, Hugh, Hughes, Janis, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGugan, Irene, McLeish, Henry, McLeod, Fiona, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Robison, Shona, Sheridan, Tommy, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Sturgeon, Nicola, Thomson, Elaine, Ullrich, Kay, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Young, John
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Brown, Robert, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hyslop, Fiona, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Lyon, George, MacDonald, Ms Margo, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Peattie, Cathy, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Russell, Michael, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinney, Mr John, Wallace, Ben, Wallace, Mr Jim, Welsh, Mr Andrew, Wilson, Andrew
Abstentions: Crawford, Bruce, Gillon, Karen

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The result of the division is: For 72, Against 49, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 41 agreed to.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

Amendment 94 is pre-empted.

Amendment 95 not moved.

Amendment 10 moved—[Alex Fergusson].

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Division number 12

For: Aitken, Bill, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Harding, Mr Keith, Johnstone, Alex, MacDonald, Ms Margo, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Wallace, Ben
Against: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harper, Robin, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McLeod, Fiona, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morgan, Alasdair, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Paterson, Mr Gil, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Russell, Michael, Scott, Tavish, Sheridan, Tommy, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Thomson, Elaine, Ullrich, Kay, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Welsh, Mr Andrew, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The result of the division is: For 19, Against 102, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 10 disagreed to.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

I call amendment 42, in the name of Scott Barrie, which is grouped with amendment 43. If amendment 42 is agreed to, amendment 43 is pre-empted.

Photo of Scott Barrie Scott Barrie Labour

From time to time in the course of the debate on the bill, Mike Watson and those of us who support the bill have been accused of a number of things. The Daily Telegraph editorial accused me of indulging in class warfare. Others were accused of acting like Joseph Stalin or Robert Mugabe. All of us have been accused of arguing our case on the basis of sheer prejudice. The majority of those accusations are untrue.

Like other sections that we will debate today, section 1A(1A), which I wish to remove from the bill, allows fox baiting, hare coursing and mounted hunting, which are in direct contravention of what Parliament voted for at stage 1. That subsection will allow the use of lurchers to kill hares and foxes. Let us examine the science of that.

First, let us consider hare coursing. The hare is forced to run for its life as two greyhounds or lurchers chase it across an open field for the entertainment of spectators. We know what happens when lurchers meet hares because of the openness of the hare coursing community—full credit to it. That community allowed the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare to perform 53 post-mortem examinations of hares that were killed in hare-coursing events. The federation found that not one of the 53 hares had been killed by a bite to the back of the neck. Many had not died until the dog handler had caught up with the dog, taken the hare from it and killed the hare with his bare hands. The science is clear: lurchers cannot kill hares humanely.

Secondly, let us consider the fox. In the context of a contest between wild mammals and lurchers, how does the fox compare to the hare? For a start, it is bigger, it has sharper teeth and claws and its ability to fight the dog is a little greater than that of the hare. In September, Parliament decided that it wanted to abolish hare coursing. Section 1A(1A) of the bill, as amended by the Rural Development Committee, will permit something far worse. Let us call it fox coursing. Many members will have seen the film that was circulated by the Scottish Campaign Against Hunting with Dogs, which demonstrates clearly that lurchers are unable humanely to kill foxes. Therefore, all sections of the bill that would permit lurchers to be set to kill should be removed.

Section 1A(1A) of the bill will allow any dog—from a lurcher to a collie to a Rottweiler—or even a pack of dogs, to be used to kill a mammal that has been shot at. Whether or not the mammal has been shot and wounded, the pack of dogs can be set on it. I argue that it is never necessary to set a single dog or a pack of dogs on a fox in order to kill it. An alternative is allowed for under the bill, which will enable pest control workers such as gamekeepers and hill packs to perform their roles effectively.

Let us examine what hill packs do. Paul Crofts, of the Scottish Hill Packs Association, gave evidence to the Rural Development Committee on 6 November. He said:

"If the fox is wounded, the dog is slipped immediately and, being faster than the fox, quickly catches and kills it."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 6 November 2001; c 2346.]

We can argue about whether the kill is quick. My assessment—made after hearing the opinions of other people and not just that of Mr Crofts—is that that will not be the case often.

Crucially, under the terms of the bill, a lurcher could be used to catch a wounded fox. Section 3(1)(c), to which John Swinney has already referred, says that a dog can be used to locate a seriously injured mammal, provided that the mammal is

"killed as humanely as possible".

If the intention of the person using the lurcher is to locate the fox and catch the fox so that he can shoot it, the bill permits him to do that. If the dog is, perchance, a quicker killer, section 1A(1B) of the bill—which has also been referred to—says that the dog handler commits no offence if the dog kills the mammal. However, it would be wrong for the individual to slip the lurcher and stand back to watch the fight.

I support the need for pest control and I am happy for lurchers to be part of that process, but lurchers should be used for what nature designed them—to catch and stop a fox quickly. They should not be used to kill. Section 1A(1A) provides no extra protection for hill packs.

I move amendment 42.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

Amendment 43 is one of a series of technical amendments, which run throughout the bill. They all make changes to the text of the bill, deleting "contravene" and inserting "commit an offence under", and reflect a change in the wording of the offence provision in section 1(1). I hope that amendment 43 and similar amendments relating to the interpretation of the bill will be supported by Parliament.

Amendment 42, as Scott Barrie said, would remove some of the exemptions. It is obviously for members of Parliament to decide which exemptions they wish to be in the bill, and on whether the exemptions as they stand would render the bill unworkable. That is not our view, but it is for Parliament to debate that and to decide whether to revert to the position that was broadly agreed before stage 2.

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

I am annoyed that I was not able to speak in the debate on the previous group of amendments.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

Please just speak to the amendments in the current group, Mr Rumbles.

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

What I wanted to say about amendments in the previous group is linked with amendment 42. It is a pity that, thanks to amendment 41, in the name of Dr Sylvia Jackson, the words "or a dog" have been removed from section 1A. Now, all we have to rely on to maintain the work of the Scottish Gamekeeper's Association is section 1A(1A), which Scott Barrie and others are trying to remove.

I was appalled, to be frank, by Scott Barrie's speech. Section 1A(1A) has absolutely nothing whatever to do with fox baiting. Fox baiting is illegal. If he had listened to the debates in the Rural Development Committee, Scott Barrie would know that we spent two years going over that. I am appalled to hear such speeches from members.

The vote on amendment 42 is one of the most important votes that we will take this afternoon. If we vote to support amendment 42, we undermine the work of Scottish gamekeepers. All Tricia Marwick's talk about working closely with Scottish gamekeepers seems to be a load of tosh.

There will be arguments that section 1A(1B) is sufficient, but it is not. Section 1A(1B) refers to a dog killing

"wild mammals in the course of those activities" by accidental means, in effect.

It is important that we keep section 1A(1A) in the bill. What is the section about? It says that when

"a person is using a dog in connection with pest control activities and intends to kill wild mammals in the course of those activities only by lawful means, that person does not contravene section 1(1) by using the dog to kill a wild mammal which has been flushed to a gun and has escaped without being shot, or been shot but not killed."

Amendment 42 would add cruelty to the bill—something that the Rural Development Committee has been striving to remove from the bill. I urge members not to support amendment 42.

Photo of Alasdair Morgan Alasdair Morgan Scottish National Party 3:15 pm, 13th February 2002

I think that most members agree with the bill's main intentions and want to maintain legitimate methods of pest control. It is interesting that those who are in favour of the bill and those who are against it exaggerate the effects of the bill or amendments to it to suit their ends. I hope that I will not do that. David Mundell argued that the bill would have all sorts of pernicious consequences and Scott Barrie over-egged the pudding in his description of the effects of section 1A.

The problem is that the hill packs are faced with serious problems because of agreement to amendment 41 and amendment 94's falling. In examining the rest of the bill, I am not convinced that hill packs will be able to continue their activities as effectively as they currently do. Certainly, no member has explained how they will be able to do that.

I agree happily that section 1A(1A) is not the most satisfactory method of allowing hill packs to continue their activities. However, previous amendments that would have been better have been rejected and I suspect that this is almost the final chance to allow legitimate pest control. I would be interested to hear how opponents of the section will allow such methods of pest control to continue. My perception is that, if we accept the amendment, they will not.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

Mr Muldoon, have you waived your right to comment further or do you want to speak?

Photo of Bristow Muldoon Bristow Muldoon Labour

I want to say something about summing up. In response to Mr Monteith's point of order, I say that a number of members are summing up. When I have waived my right, another member who supports the bill has summed up.

Time is limited, so I will be brief. In moving amendment 42, Scott Barrie clearly explained why it is necessary. It is a crucial amendment in a series of amendments that are necessary to deal with the loopholes to which Mr Fergusson referred in The Daily Telegraph.

I would like to respond to comments that Mike Rumbles and Alasdair Morgan made about the legitimate actions of gamekeepers and hill packs. Sections 1A(1) and section 3 will still allow legitimate pest control. If section 1A(1A) is not removed, that will allow not humane kills, but inhumane killing. It would allow the continuation of hare coursing and fox baiting. I do not support that and do not believe that the majority of people in Scotland or the majority of elected members support it.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

Mr Barrie should wind up briefly.

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Why was I not chosen to speak, given that I have been on the committee for two years and that I pressed my button? I had an extremely valuable contribution to make to the debate.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

Mr Lochhead was not selected because I did not select him.

Photo of Scott Barrie Scott Barrie Labour

I will be brief. The argument has been well made that section 1A(1A) will allow the very things that the Parliament wanted to outlaw at stage 1—that is why it must be removed from the bill. As I said, I support the need for pest control and am happy for lurchers to be part of that process. However, lurchers should be used in the way that nature intended—to catch and stop foxes.

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

I thank the member for allowing me to speak. I have been a member of Rural Development Committee for two years and have learned that 70 per cent of foxes are shot when they are flushed from dens. Does the member agree that amendment 42 should be supported? As late as last week, when they visited Parliament, the foot packs posited two scenarios about which they were concerned. The first concern was that, when foxes are shot at and the gunmen miss, there should be protection from the law if a dog gets a fox's scent and naturally chases it and kills it. Indeed, that protection exists elsewhere in the bill and protects the foot packs. The second point is—

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

I think that one point is reasonable, Mr Lochhead. Scott Barrie should respond to it.

Photo of Scott Barrie Scott Barrie Labour

I agree whole-heartedly with Richard Lochhead's first point and would probably have agreed with his second one, had he been allowed to make it.

We are trying to outlaw cruelty. The use of a pack of dogs or a lurcher to try to kill a wild animal, when we know perfectly well from science that that will not happen, is against what the bill is intended to do. That is why section 1A(1A) should be removed from the bill.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The question is, that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

There will be a division.

Before members vote, I point out that the clerks are of the view that I am overindulgent to members and that we are well behind the timetable.

The groupings with which we are dealing are due to be completed at 15.28—in seven and a half minutes. We may debate the amendments up until 15.28; thereafter, the remaining amendments in the section require simply to be voted on. That will still leave us significantly behind the agreed timetable.

Division number 13

For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Butler, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Harper, Robin, Henry, Hugh, Hughes, Janis, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McGugan, Irene, McLeish, Henry, McLeod, Fiona, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Robison, Shona, Scott, Tavish, Sheridan, Tommy, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Stephen, Nicol, Sturgeon, Nicola, Thomson, Elaine, Ullrich, Kay, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Young, John
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Brown, Robert, Crawford, Bruce JP, Davidson, Mr David, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hyslop, Fiona, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Lyon, George, McCabe, Mr Tom, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Russell, Michael, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinney, Mr John, Wallace, Ben, Wallace, Mr Jim, Welsh, Mr Andrew, Wilson, Andrew
Abstentions: Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, McConnell, Mr Jack, Reid, Mr George

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The result of the division is as follows: For 72, Against 49, Abstentions 3.

Amendment 42 agreed to.

Amendments 44 and 45 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 46, 96, 47 and 97 not moved.

Amendment 48 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 49 not moved.

Amendment 50 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Division number 14

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Gray, Iain, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, MacDonald, Ms Margo, MacKay, Angus, Martin, Paul, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNulty, Des, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Paterson, Mr Gil, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Russell, Michael, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinney, Mr John, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Wilson, Andrew
Against: Barrie, Scott, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Curran, Ms Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Grant, Rhoda, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lamont, Johann, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McGugan, Irene, McLeish, Henry, McLeod, Fiona, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Robison, Shona, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine, Sturgeon, Nicola, Ullrich, Kay, Welsh, Mr Andrew, Young, John
Abstentions: Muldoon, Bristow, Reid, Mr George

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The result of the division is: For 84, Against 33, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 50 agreed to.

Amendment 51 moved—[Dr Sylvia Jackson].

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The question is, that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Division number 15

For: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Butler, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Harper, Robin, Henry, Hugh, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGugan, Irene, McLeish, Henry, McLeod, Fiona, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Robison, Shona, Scott, Tavish, Sheridan, Tommy, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Stephen, Nicol, Sturgeon, Nicola, Thomson, Elaine, Ullrich, Kay, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Welsh, Mr Andrew, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Young, John
Against: Brown, Robert, Crawford, Bruce, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Home Robertson, Mr John, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Lyon, George, MacDonald, Ms Margo, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLetchie, David, McNulty, Des, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Russell, Michael, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinney, Mr John, Wallace, Ben, Wilson, Andrew
Abstentions: Cunningham, Roseanna, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Reid, Mr George

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The result of the division is: For 74, Against 44, Abstentions 3.

Amendment 51 agreed to.

Amendments 52 and 53 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.