Chamber
Plenary, 13 Feb 2002
13 Feb 2002 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
No.
As far as hare coursing is concerned, section 1G would defeat one of the principles that the Parliament supported at stage 1. I have often been described as a wrecker. I detect the work of other wreckers—wreckers of a different kind—behind section 1G.
Our second objection to section 1G relates to the activities of hunts. Mike Watson and others have explained that the bill already enables those with a legitimate reason, hill packs, gamekeepers and landowners to fire at—and sometimes wound—a fox and to kill it humanely if it has been wounded. I refer to section 3(1)(c), which provides that dogs can be used to locate wounded foxes, provided only that
"the mammal, once located, is captured, treated or killed as humanely as possible in order to relieve its suffering".
Scott Barrie dealt with that.
Our objection is that section 1G is not only unnecessary but positively harmful. Consider a future scenario, which could become reality if section 1G is allowed to remain. Try to imagine an old, established hunt that is resentful and bitter about the end of fox hunting but, determined to carry on indulging the love of horses and of the countryside, votes to continue with drag hunting. The huntsmen are out chasing the drag around the hunt master's estate, when they spy a fox. The hounds, which are well trained, would no more change course than any huntsman would allow them to do so if a fresh fox happened to cross the path of a tired fox. In this future scenario, a drag is being chased instead of a tired fox.
In this case, however, the hunt master decides to change course. The hounds go tearing after the fox and eventually wear it down and kill it. It so happens that the whole event is filmed by animal welfare monitors, who hand the film over to the police. The police arrest and charge the hunt master and the professional huntsmen. In the court, the hunt master's plea is that, having been a hunt master for 30 years of his life, he knows foxes as well as anyone can and has a respect for them both as friend and foe. With his hand on his heart, he tells the court, "The fox we hunted I believed to be injured or diseased."
Even if there were a post mortem that showed that the fox was not injured or diseased—which would depend on the estate's giving up the fox for such a post mortem—how could it be proved that the hunt master of 30 years was not telling the truth? It would not be possible to tell whether he was telling the truth. Those who argue that laws have to be clear, unambiguous and workable cannot support the continued inclusion of section 1G, because it is none of those things. The section deserves to be deleted.
I move amendment 66.
As far as hare coursing is concerned, section 1G would defeat one of the principles that the Parliament supported at stage 1. I have often been described as a wrecker. I detect the work of other wreckers—wreckers of a different kind—behind section 1G.
Our second objection to section 1G relates to the activities of hunts. Mike Watson and others have explained that the bill already enables those with a legitimate reason, hill packs, gamekeepers and landowners to fire at—and sometimes wound—a fox and to kill it humanely if it has been wounded. I refer to section 3(1)(c), which provides that dogs can be used to locate wounded foxes, provided only that
"the mammal, once located, is captured, treated or killed as humanely as possible in order to relieve its suffering".
Scott Barrie dealt with that.
Our objection is that section 1G is not only unnecessary but positively harmful. Consider a future scenario, which could become reality if section 1G is allowed to remain. Try to imagine an old, established hunt that is resentful and bitter about the end of fox hunting but, determined to carry on indulging the love of horses and of the countryside, votes to continue with drag hunting. The huntsmen are out chasing the drag around the hunt master's estate, when they spy a fox. The hounds, which are well trained, would no more change course than any huntsman would allow them to do so if a fresh fox happened to cross the path of a tired fox. In this future scenario, a drag is being chased instead of a tired fox.
In this case, however, the hunt master decides to change course. The hounds go tearing after the fox and eventually wear it down and kill it. It so happens that the whole event is filmed by animal welfare monitors, who hand the film over to the police. The police arrest and charge the hunt master and the professional huntsmen. In the court, the hunt master's plea is that, having been a hunt master for 30 years of his life, he knows foxes as well as anyone can and has a respect for them both as friend and foe. With his hand on his heart, he tells the court, "The fox we hunted I believed to be injured or diseased."
Even if there were a post mortem that showed that the fox was not injured or diseased—which would depend on the estate's giving up the fox for such a post mortem—how could it be proved that the hunt master of 30 years was not telling the truth? It would not be possible to tell whether he was telling the truth. Those who argue that laws have to be clear, unambiguous and workable cannot support the continued inclusion of section 1G, because it is none of those things. The section deserves to be deleted.
I move amendment 66.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
SNP
Before we begin the stage 3 proceedings on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, I want to make the usual announcements about the procedures to be ...
David Mundell (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Although I accept the right of the Presiding Officer to select amendments for the stage 3 debate, I want to draw your...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I am being very lenient in allowing you to put that on the record, Mr Mundell.The Presiding Officers give serious consideration to all amendments, according ...
Section 1—Prohibition and offences
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Amendment 2, in the name of David Mundell, is grouped with amendments 34, 3, 35, 38, 44, 45, 54, 57, 60, 61, 62, 65, 67, 69 and 18. Amendment 2 does not pre-...
David Mundell:
Con
There is some misapprehension that amendments that are lodged to find out the intention of those who are promoting the bill are deliberate wrecking amendment...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I call the minister to speak to amendments 34, 35, 38, 44, 45, 54, 57, 60, 61, 62, 65, 67 and 69, and the other amendments in the group.
The Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Ross Finnie):
LD
Thank you, Presiding Officer. Despite that long list, I assure members that I shall be mercifully brief.I start by making it clear that my position as minist...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I call Alex Fergusson to speak to amendment 18 and the other amendments in the group.
Alex Fergusson (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I have no comment to make on the other amendments in the group. I will keep my remarks on amendment 18 brief. The amendment seeks to make an insertion at sec...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I will not be able to call all speakers at all stages of this debate, but I will try to keep a balanced coverage.
Tricia Marwick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
Before I start, I record that I have received legal advice from the Scottish Campaign Against Hunting With Dogs and Advocates for Animals.This Parliament, an...
Alex Fergusson:
Con
Will the member give way?
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
Everyone in this Parliament has a duty to ensure that that does not happen. Bristow Muldoon, I and others will do our best to guide members through this stag...
David Mundell rose—
Con
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
I had hoped that Alex Fergusson, following his admission in The Daily Telegraph last week that his Rural Development Committee had let in wrecking amendments...
Alex Fergusson:
Con
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am quite aware that as convener of the Rural Development Committee, and as an MSP, I am open to criticism for my ac...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I make no comment on that.
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
After the first of perhaps many bogus points of order, I will continue.Hare coursing is one of the key activities that the Parliament thought it was banning....
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
The member has one minute.
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
Mounted fox hunts also involve two groups of people.Alex Fergusson's amendment 18 was roundly slammed, even in the Rural Development Committee. Rhoda Grant m...
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP):
SNP
I cannot support the Conservative members' stage 3 amendments 2, 3 and 18. That will come as no surprise, as I opposed them at stage 2 and my arguments remai...
Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
I support the Executive amendments in the group, because they will tidy up the bill. Like Fergus Ewing, I oppose amendments 2, 3 and 18. In particular, I opp...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I want to make progress and regret that some members will not be called. I move straight to the member-in-charge, Bristow Muldoon.
Bristow Muldoon (Livingston) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to comment on this group of amendments and to speak as one of the co-members in charge of the bill. I thank Mike Watson and Tricia ...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
Will the member give way?
Bristow Muldoon:
Lab
No. I want to respond to amendments 2, 3 and 18. Plenty of members have spoken in support of them.
Phil Gallie:
Con
I am aware of that, but—
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Order. The member is not giving way, Mr Gallie.
Bristow Muldoon:
Lab
Fergus Ewing made a telling point against David Mundell's suggestion. He said:"Having decided, as a committee, that it is an offence to deliberately hunt a w...