We are up against the time, so we need to move on.

Thank you very much for that. As the convener, I get the first question. I am not sure who will want to answer this; if you would like to answer it, just raise your hand and I will bring you in. The danger is that, if no one raises their hand, I will arbitrarily pick somebody, which we do not want.

Lord Deben, I do not know whether you are saying something to me, but your microphone is off. When you indicate that you want to speak, I can bring you in. Did you want to say something?

Of course, as an ex-soldier, I like the idea of ordering somebody to answer, but it does not always work.

Could we please have a couple of examples of good-news projects in which the UK has worked together with Scotland to achieve a target, and a couple of brief examples of areas in which they have failed to work together but could have worked together and achieved more than has been achieved? I do not know who would like to start off with that question.

Emily, you are starting off.

I am looking for a good example. Those both seem to be negative ones. Marili Boufounou, do you have a good example? Perhaps Lord Deben does.

I am conscious of the time and, although I do not want to limit anyone’s contributions, I know that if I do not allow other committee members to ask their questions, I will not have a good Christmas. I will bring in Emily Nurse and then I will go to Liam Kerr with the next questions.

No. I am keen to bring in Mark Ruskell, who has a question on agriculture.

Not moved for the same reason.

Amendment 106 not moved.

Amendment 19 moved—[Ariane Burgess].

I am somewhat disappointed that Ariane Burgess will not be moving her amendment, because I would perhaps agree with it. I will explain why. That is because, when a dog or a horse is taken out to undertake an illegal activity, that is not the choice of the dog or horse—it is the individual’s choice. The horse has no choice when someone puts a saddle and a bridle on it and takes it out to ride. In exceptional circumstances, the person may have no control of the horse, but, in most circumstances, they will. The horse cannot say that it does not want to go and nor, for that matter, can a dog. As a result, I would disagree with the argument that dogs that have been used for badger baiting are automatically bad; I would say that it is the owner who is bad and that it is the sentient animal that does not have a choice.

I am surprised that the minister has stated that she is unable to support my amendments, because they seem to me to bring some reasonableness into the argument over what to do with a horse or a dog in the event of a deprivation order being made. I believe that a high bar needs to be put in place to ensure that the animal is not removed, for the very same reason that Ariane Burgess has said that she does not want those animals—those horses or dogs—to be destroyed.

I lodged amendment 109 for the simple reason that I am a firm believer in rehabilitation rather than pure retribution. As a result, I would like timescales to be put in place with regard to an owner’s ability to get their horse or dog back, just as we do when people commit what is in my opinion the heinous crime of dangerous driving. Those people are given the chance to get their licence back at a later stage. I think that, in the case of dogs, we should allow a person to get their licence back, too. However, what the minister is saying in the bill is that they might never have the chance to get that animal back or to have a dog in the future. I think that that is cruel, given that people look to and love their dogs and might well have learned their lesson. Therefore, I think that the approach that is being taken is wrong.

I was interested to hear the minister’s comparison with the ability to remove a quad bike or a car from someone who has committed an offence. The fact is that a car is seldom removed from someone who has been convicted of drink driving; it is up to the driver to dispose of it. In fact, the driver can hold on to their car and even keep it in the garage until they get their licence back.

In this instance, however, the minister is suggesting that a dog or a horse be removed. I think that that is retribution rather than rehabilitation, and that is why I lodged these particular amendments. I ask the committee to consider very carefully the effects of removing somebody’s pets, which might have been used improperly or misused in the past but which could be used properly and loved in future. I make a strong plea on that, because I think that we are taking it the wrong way round.

Did you say that you are introducing such powers or that you have introduced them? Are you bringing in something new here, or is this being done to reflect something that is already in place? If you are bringing in something new to reflect what you might be doing in the future, I would be a little concerned about whether that was the right way to make legislation.