Not moved for the same reason.

Amendment 106 not moved.

Amendment 19 moved—[Ariane Burgess].

As amendment 83 refers to a polecat, I will not move it.

Amendment 83 not moved.

Amendment 84 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Before I make any comments, I remind the committee of my declaration in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am part of a family farming business and that I manage land.

All my amendments in this group relate to the same part of the bill and seek to change the wording to say that the aim must be to shoot the wild mammal dead. You cannot, as the bill suggests, always shoot the wild mammal dead, but the aim must be to do so. I think that that meets the minister’s requirement that the animal should not be wounded and subsequently chased, which I believe is the minister’s fear. My aim is to make it clear that the provision is about the intention to shoot the animal dead. It is always the intention of a person with a gun to shoot the quarry dead, but it is not always possible to achieve that.

I turn to the rest of the amendments in the group. I support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments. I have already made sufficient comment during previous meetings on Colin Smyth’s amendments relating to falconry, and I do not propose to rerun my comments—I shall comment at the end, if that is appropriate. Beatrice Wishart’s amendments seem sensible, but I would like to listen to what she says before I comment.

I move amendment 69.

I am sorry that I cannot convince Mr Fairlie of a practice that has been going on for many years across Scotland. That is one reason why I think that shooting rabbits and other wild mammals is not always appropriate, which may be something that the committee needs to consider.

I will also mention the issue of injured animals and the use of more than two dogs. I gave an example last week of a deer that had had its jaw shattered—tracking down the animal took, I think, four days. Using two dogs would have made that problem significantly more difficult. It is not that the dogs would have killed the deer; it would have been a question of cornering the animal and dispatching it. As members will know, if deer still have their forelegs, they can survive for a considerable time.

I do not propose to make any comments on Colin Smyth’s amendments, because I do not think that they are right, and I have said that before.

For clarity, I press amendment 69.

To help the committee, I will not move those amendments.

Amendments 93 to 96 not moved.

Amendment 167 moved—[Jenni Minto].

It is that polecat issue again, convener, so I will not move amendment 87.

Amendment 87 not moved.

Amendment 88 moved—[Edward Mountain].

I will not move the amendment because I did not understand the minister’s answer.

Amendment 105 not moved.

I think that you are getting confused between hunting and flushing. We are talking about using dogs to flush; we are not talking about hunting. You are giving the illusion that that would take place over miles of countryside. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about putting dogs into cover to flush out a mammal so that it can be controlled. As Mr Fairlie has made positively clear, in thick cover in perhaps a 200-acre wood, people will probably need to consider replacing a dog as they are trying to flush out a mammal. I think that Mr Smyth is presenting an illusion that misrepresents the bill and what the minister is trying to achieve. However, I am sure that the minister does not need my support to clarify her position.

I am disappointed that the minister has not considered amendment 69, on the basis that she perceives that it would create a loophole. The amendment aims to achieve a more reasonable approach, based on lived experience of more than 45 years of wildlife and countryside management. Therefore, I am disappointed that she believes that people would use it as an excuse. The legislation is new, and my amendment seeks to make it clear that people would have to aim to shoot an animal dead rather than shoot it dead. It is not always possible to achieve that, which I can say from long experience.

I will make another point about Rachael Hamilton’s amendments that address the most humane way of dispatching a mammal. I am sure that the minister is aware of the practice of mist netting, which is used to remove rabbits in the wild. Do you understand mist netting, minister, or do I need to explain it?

Good morning and welcome to the 33rd meeting in 2022 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

Our first agenda item is a decision on taking items 2, 3 and 4 in private. Item 2 is consideration of correspondence regarding the joint budget review as it relates to climate change; item 3 is consideration of a draft report on the legislative consent memorandum on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill; and item 4 is consideration of a draft report on the committee’s inquiry into the role of local government and its cross-sectoral partners in financing and delivering a net zero Scotland.

Does the committee agree to take those agenda items in private?

Members indicated agreement.