Rural Development Committee, 11 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 11, 2001

Official Report 154KB pdf

---

Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill

Item 5 concerns the debate on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. We now know that a debate will take place a week tomorrow, on Wednesday 19 September, on motion S1M-2078, in the name of Mike Watson,

"That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill."

I specifically asked for this item to be put on the agenda because, as convener of the Rural Development Committee, I felt that it was perhaps incumbent on us, given the fact that our report came to a different conclusion, to lodge a reasoned amendment suggesting an alternative outcome. I do not need to remind anyone, except perhaps the new members, of just how much work the committee has put into its report on the bill over the past 18 months or so.

It is important for the committee to debate my proposed amendment to Mike Watson's motion, because committee members may not agree with me. If that is the case, so be it. However, we should at least discuss the issue before next week's debate. The clerks have circulated my proposed amendment to the motion, and I shall give members a minute to study it before we open the debate.

As the text of the amendment has been circulated only in private, I shall read it out so that it enters the Official Report. It is an amendment to the motion for the stage 1 debate on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill on 19 September 2001. It reads:

"As an amendment to motion (S1M-2078) in the name of Mike Watson, leave out from ‘agrees' to end and insert

‘does not agree to the general principles of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill because, as stated by the Rural Development Committee in its Stage 1 Report, the focus of the Bill is on the use of dogs which does not necessarily involve cruelty;

and notes that the Rural Development Committee on 11 September agreed to …'".

The text finishes at that point, and I hope that the committee will agree on wording to complete it. Now that members have had time to look at the proposed amendment, I throw the subject open to debate.

I was under the impression that, when a motion on the stage 1 report on a bill is debated, that motion cannot be amended and that members must either vote for it or against it. I would like to know whether we can amend the motion.

Are you suggesting that the motion in a stage 1 debate cannot be amended?

That is certainly the point that was put to me, so I would like clarification about it.

I will have to seek advice on that point.

The Presiding Officer issued guidance on the form of what are known as reasoned amendments to stage 1 and stage 3 motions, which was published in the business bulletin on Friday 9 February 2001. In that guidance, he set out the scope by which those motions may be amended. There are limits to ensure that, if the amended motion happened to be agreed to by the Parliament, the Parliament would be left clear about whether the bill is agreed to or not agreed to at stage 1.

Does that answer your question, Rhoda?

It does.

Like Rhoda Grant, I seek clarification. The motion that has been lodged by Mike Watson is obviously diametrically opposed to the findings of the committee, but we have the straightforward option of voting against that motion. What is the purpose of your proposed amendment?

The purpose of the amendment is to focus attention on the report, which members of the committee have invested an enormous amount of time in drawing up. I feel that, if I, as convener, lodge an amendment to Mike Watson's motion, that will give us all a stronger focus on the committee's report than would otherwise be the case. That is simply my gut feeling. I wanted the matter to be discussed in the committee and this is the only opportunity for that.

From brief discussions that I have had with a clerk in the chamber office, I understand that the format of the stage 1 debate will allow the committee representation in both the opening and the closing speeches. Is that correct?

I would not have thought so, as we will be debating Mike Watson's motion rather than the committee report.

I understand that no formal decision has yet been made on the speaking order for the debate.

However, I assume that the fact that we are debating Mike Watson's motion will mean that the committee will not be represented in both opening and closing speeches.

As the committee has done a huge amount of work and produced a massive, complex report, members of the committee should speak in the debate to explain the work that we undertook and the conclusions that we reached. I understood from my informal inquiries to the chamber office this morning that committee speakers are a customary part of a member's bill debate.

If I am wrong and if committee members are not to be called to speak, there is a strong case for lodging an amendment that will allow a member representing the committee to speak. I would like to have the matter clear in my mind before focusing on the wording of the amendment, which is a separate issue that can be addressed only after we find out what the procedure will be for the debate.

It is probably necessary to clarify the procedures. I was advised that the committee could not lodge an amendment and that any amendment would have to come from an individual member. The convener could lodge an amendment, but only as an individual member and that would not necessarily mean that committee members could speak, even if the wording of the amendment were agreed by the majority of committee members. We must also bear it in mind that four members of the committee did not agree with the conclusions of the report and that it would be difficult to suggest that there was some sort of uniform view in the committee.

We need to clarify the committee's status in the debate. Supporting the current wording of the amendment would not be any different from voting against Mike Watson's bill. I do not think that the amendment would add anything to the debate. Members will have the opportunity to vote against the bill in the debate and members will be called to speak—as individual members if not as committee members—and will be able to make any necessary points about our report.

It would be appropriate for the convener and deputy convener to speak in the opening and closing speeches during the debate. The only way to secure that is by lodging a committee amendment.

Elaine Murray is correct in saying that we cannot lodge a committee amendment. I wanted to discuss the matter with the committee so that I, as the convener of the committee, could lodge an amendment that would focus the debate on the committee's report in a way that would not happen if we did not lodge such an amendment—I use the word "we" loosely.

I take it that you are seeking the endorsement of the committee to lodge the amendment. What would be your plan of action if you did not receive that endorsement? Do you intend to lodge the amendment anyway, as an individual member?

I would have to think about that. I simply felt that it was right for the committee to discuss the matter at this point—it is the only chance that we have to do so before the debate—with a view to securing proper recognition of the significant work that the committee has undertaken. I feel that it is important for the debate to focus on that work.

So, you are first seeking an agreement in principle from the committee that such an amendment be lodged.

Yes, that is correct.

The second thing that you are seeking is the completion of this open-ended amendment.

Absolutely. The first decision must be whether the committee is minded to follow the course of action I propose.

Do we not first need clarification of the committee's status in the debate, as the necessity for an amendment is predicated on that?

It would be useful for us to adjourn the meeting for 10 minutes, during which time the clerk and I could try to get a ruling on that from the chamber office. Is the committee content for us to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting adjourned at 14:35.

On resuming—

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your forbearance. I am sorry that we are a couple of minutes late, but we have made some progress on the procedural matters that we were discussing. As I am totally out of breath, I ask the clerk, who is much fitter than I am, to explain.

The position is as we understood it to be. First, it is permissible for the convener to lodge an amendment in the name of the committee to the motion if the committee agrees. Secondly, no decision has yet been made on the running order or speaking lists for next Wednesday's debate. The matter is still being considered and will be discussed with business managers. Thirdly, there will be no automatic placing of committee members on the speaking lists, because the debate will be not on the committee's report but on the motion,

"That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill."

However, if an amendment in the name of the committee were selected for debate, there would be a right for representatives of the committee—one presumes that it would be the convener and deputy convener—to speak to that amendment.

Is that clear to all members? Obviously, there are still some permutations to be developed in the course of time.

I suggest that we get on with business and agree to submit an amendment in the name of the convener and deputy convener.

Does any member wish to say otherwise?

My agreement would be qualified and dependent on what the final paragraph of the proposed amendment was. I will not agree to the submission of an amendment unless it proposes an alternative. If the amendment simply states

"as stated by the Rural Development Committee in its Stage 1 Report",

I will not support it.

I accept your qualification and suggest that we move forward on the basis that we agree in principle to my lodging an amendment, subject to our being able to agree the wording of such an amendment. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Therefore we agree in principle to my lodging an amendment, subject to the discussion that will start now. I understand that, in my absence, Fergus Ewing has had a think around the subject.

Your absence enabled me to exercise the grey matter to some extent. I suggest the wording of an amendment for our consideration. Perhaps Richard Davies can help us out by writing this down:

"As an amendment to motion (S1M-2078) in the name of Mike Watson, leave out from ‘agrees' to end and insert ‘does not agree to the general principles of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill for the reasons set out in the stage 1 report of the Rural Development Committee; and further urges the Executive if this Bill does not proceed beyond stage 1 to examine the issues identified in the report, in particular paragraph 72 thereof, in order to address whether the existing law against fox baiting provides adequate protection against cruelty.'"

I have been absent for a while, so before you speak to that, I want to ask whether you discussed the wording among yourselves.

Purely informally.

I quite understand—I just wanted to get the picture.

The microphones were off at the time, although that was not a matter of choice.

The first point of the amendment is that the committee

"does not agree to the general principles of the Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill for the reasons set out in the stage 1 report".

That wording is preferable to the wording that was initially proposed, which suggested only one aspect of that report. It would make sense to refer to the generality of the report because the report contains a large number of conclusions and a great deal of work.

Secondly, to refer only to the report would not be enough and would, it is arguable, neither add anything nor provide a substantive amendment. In the stage 1 debate, it may be useful to draw the Parliament's attention to the fact that the committee agreed unanimously—so far as I recall—to paragraph 72, which states:

"The Committee makes clear that it abhors any such form of "fox-baiting", whether carried out using dogs or otherwise and we are concerned that the animal welfare agencies have been unable so far to secure any prosecution under existing legislation. The law as it stands provides little protection and the Committee recommends that this issue be examined by the Scottish Executive if this Bill does not proceed beyond stage 1."

In other words, the committee concluded that the existing Scots law on fox baiting could perhaps—especially in the light of the lack of prosecutions—be tightened up. The witnesses from the Scottish Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals drew our attention to that area and to the need for a careful examination of the issue.

In conclusion, to include a reference to paragraph 72 in the text of the amendment would point to some of the positive work that was done by the committee and would therefore be a good thing.

As someone who obviously will not be supporting the amendment, I feel that it would be better to keep it as short as possible. Fergus Ewing is trying to give the committee some protection against a backlash against the committee's recommendation. That is a wee bit dishonest. If we refer to the report, it should be taken in total. The Executive could then respond to any of the findings of our report. That would only be fair.

Convener, as you pointed out, the stage 1 debate will not be about our report; it will be about the acceptability or otherwise of the bill. Our report should be used in that debate. The amendment proposed by Fergus Ewing is a sensible one, which I support in its entirety. The amendment does not just say no and nothing else; it is very positive.

It is important that people realise that following the great deal of work that we did—some of us worked on this issue in the committee for 18 months—there are outcomes that have to be addressed. Fergus Ewing has hit the nail on the head by highlighting the loose law against fox baiting, which the SSPCA identified. The Executive would benefit from doing something about that. The proposed amendment is a good reasoned amendment and we should support it.

I should bring to the committee's attention the advice that I have received, which is that a reasoned amendment should only explain the reasons for rejecting the motion and should not necessarily suggest further forms of action. That is not to say that the wording of Fergus Ewing's proposed amendment would be turned down, but it might have to be tinkered with to make it acceptable.

You may have put a spanner in my works. I was going to propose an alternative to just identifying what we have termed fox baiting, which is terminology that has recently come into our vocabulary. We may know what it means, but I am not sure that everybody else does. I was going to suggest that we lodge an amendment along the lines of examining whether the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 can be amended to afford wild mammals greater protection against the imposition of unnecessary suffering in sport and pest control, which would be stronger than just reflecting on fox baiting. However, if we are unable to lodge an amendment of that type because it is directive and does not just refer to the stage 1 motion, it may not be possible to examine that option. I wonder in that case whether it is worth lodging an amendment at all.

I ask the clerk to what degree one is not allowed to consider alternatives in a reasoned amendment.

The announcement in the business bulletin of 9 February did not specifically say that that could not be done, but my advice from colleagues in the chamber office is that such an amendment should be fairly short and simple and could simply put the point of view that the general principles should not be agreed to. The amendment should say "because" and then give a reason why the general principles should not be agreed to.

I have considerable sympathy with Elaine Murray's proposal, because such an amendment would be constructive. Does anyone else wish to participate? If not, we have to take a decision on whether to lodge an amendment using Fergus Ewing's words or to consider them again in the light of Elaine Murray's or Rhoda Grant's comments. We have three slightly different positions. Fergus Ewing's amendment urges the Executive to pay particular attention to a part of the report that was highlighted—paragraph 72—for all the reasons that we know about. Elaine Murray would like to be more robust than that, and suggests that the committee looks at—

Either the Executive or the committee could do it. It may be a matter of protocol. We need to consider whether it is appropriate for us to instruct the Executive to take a particular course of action or whether we should volunteer to take it ourselves.

Rhoda Grant's position is that we should not recommend anything at all.

I said that if we lodge an amendment, it should state that we are recommending that the Parliament should not agree to the general principles of the bill, for the reasons stated in our report, and leave it at that.

If Fergus Ewing's suggestion is not allowable, I see no reason for not taking up Rhoda Grant's proposal. However, I prefer Fergus's suggestion, as it calls on the Executive to address an anomaly in the existing law.

I support the proposal that has been made by Fergus Ewing, as it takes us a little further forward. In our stage 1 report, we make very clear our reasons for not supporting Mike Watson's motion. However, we need to take the matter a bit further.

I glean from members' silence that we should attempt to progress the wording proposed by Fergus Ewing.

I do not think that it would add anything to our amendment.

Is there another form of words that you would prefer?

I offered the committee a form of words, but I do not know whether it is appropriate in an amendment for the committee to instruct others to do something. I do not think that fox baiting is the only issue that needs to be addressed. We must address the much wider issue of cruelty to wild animals and the protection afforded to them. That means considering the use of dogs and other practices in sport or pest control that affect foxes or other wild animals. If we return to this issue, I am reluctant for us to restrict ourselves to the issue of fox baiting.

The wording that I read out referred both to issues generally and to paragraph 72 in particular. I was not being prescriptive or suggesting that the committee urge the Executive to consider only the issue of fox baiting. I highlighted that issue because it was one that the committee identified. I did not propose that we instruct the Executive to examine the issue, but merely that we urge it to do so. That answers the point that Elaine Murray made.

Can we move to a decision on this matter?

I am minded to do that as soon as possible. Perhaps we could deal with the problem by adding three words to the end of the amendment proposed by Fergus Ewing. It calls on the Executive

"to address whether the existing law on fox baiting provides adequate protection against cruelty".

We could add to that the words "to wild mammals", so as to widen the debate.

There is no existing law on fox baiting.

The point was made to us that existing law does not allow successful prosecutions of practices such as fox baiting.

But the existing law covers a much wider area than just fox baiting.

We could urge the Executive

"to address whether the existing law on animal welfare provides adequate protection against cruelty".

Would that better address your concerns?

Yes.

I think that the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 makes it illegal to bait a badger, while the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 makes it illegal to bait a cat. According to the evidence that we received, it is not illegal to bait a fox. I have suggested this amendment because I believe that that matter should be given careful consideration. I hope that we can bring Elaine Murray on board and secure her support, along with that of all other members.

If the amendment finished with

"whether the existing law on animal welfare provides adequate protection against cruelty to wild mammals",

would that encompass the feeling of the committee?

I would rather go with Fergus Ewing's suggestion.

We need to make a decision on the matter.

Many of us feel strongly about hare coursing. The current wording does not address that issue as it refers only to the baiting of foxes and not to the baiting of other wild animals such as hares.

Can we move to a decision, convener?

Yes. Does the committee agree to proceed with Fergus Ewing's proposed wording?

With the addition of the words, "of wild mammals" at the end, which you suggested, convener.

I suggested that the amendment should finish off with: "cruelty to wild mammals".

Will you read the whole amendment, convener?

Yes. The amendment would read:

"As an amendment to motion (S1M-2078) in the name of Mike Watson, leave out from ‘agrees' to end and insert ‘does not agree to the general principles of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill for the reasons set out in the stage 1 report of the Rural Development Committee; and further urges the Executive to examine the issues identified in the report, in particular paragraph 72 thereof, in order to address whether the existing law against fox baiting provides adequate protection against cruelty to wild mammals.'"

I move that as the wording of the amendment.

I second that.

Does anybody disagree?

I do.

Do you wish to put a counter-proposal?

No.

There is probably little point in putting a counter-proposal, given the support for the proposal. I want to put a counter-proposal, but I do not think that there would be much support for it.

In the interests of balance, I would like to hear the counter-proposal, if you are willing to put it forward.

The counter-proposal would be for the amendment to state:

"and further urges the Executive"—

I agree with Fergus Ewing that the word should be urges and not instructs—

"if the bill does not proceed beyond stage 1, to examine whether the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 might be amended to afford wild mammals greater protection against the imposition of unnecessary suffering in sport and pest control."

There is a clear difference between the proposals and we need to vote.

There is a clear difference. For the sake of the clerk, will you read your proposal out again, Dr Murray?

I will pass my piece of rather scruffy writing to the clerk.

We have a proposal for the wording of the amendment. Are you making a counter-proposal, Dr Murray?

Yes.

In that case, we have to move to a vote, which, I must admit, is a position that I had hoped to avoid. The question is, that Fergus Ewing's proposed wording of the amendment, which is supported by Mike Rumbles, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)

Against

Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 0. Fergus Ewing's wording of the amendment is agreed to.

Dr Murray, do you wish to propose your wording?

I think that it falls, given that the other proposal has been agreed to.

In that case, with the majority agreement of the committee, I propose to lodge the amendment in my name. It will be up to the Presiding Officer to decide whether to accept it.