That concludes the public part of our meeting. We now go into private session.

That is really concerning, because in simple terms, single-crewed ambulances cannot transport patients to hospitals. In the Highlands, where journey times can be over two hours, it means that there is a significant danger to life.

In 2008, when the First Minister was the cabinet secretary for health, she said:

“The Scottish Government’s policy is clear: traditional accident and emergency ambulances should be double crewed, with at least one member being a paramedic, unless there are exceptional circumstances. In too many instances, particularly in the Highlands, practice is not living up to that policy.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2008; c 9260.]

It is clear that after 14 years of inactivity the First Minister has failed. Will she explain to my constituents why she has failed and when single-crewed ambulances will be consigned to history?

To ask the First Minister how many single-crewed ambulances, responding to an emergency, have been deployed in the last six months. (S6F-01608)

Sorry—it is just that mink are not just an important problem on islands, where they are definitely an invasive species; they also cause problems on the mainland, where they are also invasive. Consequently, many of the riverine courses on the mainland have trees and roots underneath which the mink hide. If you are trying to track down a mink and remove it, it often helps to have a terrier working through the roots, which, technically, according to the definition, could be taken to be under ground. However, I believe that in doing so you would be legitimately trying to carry out a policy that the Government is trying to support. Although the use of dogs might not be important on the islands, it is important on the mainland.

The deputy convener might be able to help on this point, but I think that when stoats—or perhaps it was weasels; I always get the two confused—were on Orkney, people originally used terriers to track them down and sent down tracking dogs to find out exactly which holes they were hiding in, so that they got the right ones in subsequent trapping. I think that I am right in saying that that was the practice for stoats, but I am sure that the deputy convener will correct me if I have got that wrong.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I am concerned about this. I will give you a real life example. A deer was hit by a lorry and it broke its jaw. It took four days of following that animal before it was possible to put it out of its misery. It could not eat and it was struggling to breathe, but it was still capable of running. The problem is that that animal might well have been tracked down quicker if more than two dogs had been used, but it went into a 200-acre wood and the best that we could have done to get at it and put it out of its misery was precluded because there were only two dogs. Therefore, I would have thought that a carefully worded exception for cases where there is evidence to prove that more than two dogs are required should be perfectly justifiable on the ground of being humane.

My concern is that SNH then becomes judge, jury and ultimate appeal judge, which is contrary to common law and would be against the procedure where somebody else could review the licence. If the minister cannot give an assurance that she or a future minister will do that, will she set out an appeal procedure that people can go through?

[Inaudible.]

I find that interesting. If the person wrote an email saying that they thought that fox control was necessary, that would justify the position. A paper copy of the email could become part of the process. Rather than it being argued at the time that there was a reasonable justification, it would just become a prerequisite that someone had sent an email. Is that what you are suggesting?

I thank the committee for letting us participate in this debate, which is an important one. Many of my amendments in the group deal with rabbits, and I will speak to those first. I will deal with amendment 63 separately.

During the committee’s evidence sessions, which I heard, I found it really difficult to follow the reasoning behind the inclusion of rabbits in the bill. I think that people who carry out legitimate activities in the countryside fully understand the difference between hares and rabbits, which are significantly different animals. People who live and work in the countryside understand that hares and rabbits live in different sorts of habitats. Hares like to flee and will flee above ground, which is why they live in open fields and are so often seen in the spring in fields of growing crops, whereas rabbits tend to live on the edges of woodlands and fields. If someone is carrying out activities to control rabbits, they can identify them quite easily from the habitats in which they are working and the different size of the animals.

In my mind, it is rather lazy to include rabbits because, as I think the minister said, they might be used as an excuse to course hares. That is not the case. For someone who lives in the countryside, as I do, it is like people confusing hay and straw, or barley and wheat. They are substantially different, so there is no reason to conflate them. The only people who might do that are people who are trying to break the law, who will hide behind the fact that they are hunting for rabbits when they are clearly not.

Another reason that I have heard for including rabbits is that coursing is carried out at night. I am not sure how that happens, because coursing is carried out by sight. People might go out coursing at night-time and use lights, but they would be breaking the law and they should be prosecuted.

I do not believe that there is any reason to include rabbits. I have heard that they suffer more pain than other animals do, such as rats or mice, but I do not believe that that is the case. In this case, there is no evidence that rabbits suffer more than other animals. For that reason alone, I do not believe that it is necessary to include them. I therefore wish rabbits to be removed from the scope of the bill.

With regard to other animals, my amendments would exclude weasels, stoats, mink, polecats and ferrets. Polecats and ferrets will be domesticated animals that have gone wild, and stoats and weasels are accepted as a problem. I believe that members of the committee will understand the problems that mustelids cause on islands and the devastation that they can cause to breeding bird populations. They are animals that we are encouraged to control.

The Government encourages people to control mink. In the Cairngorms, there has been a mink eradication policy, and there was a mink officer who was responsible for encouraging landowners to kill and remove mink. Mink is a non-native species—they were introduced to this country and escaped from fur farms. It seems perfectly sensible to allow mink, polecats, ferrets, stoats and weasels to be controlled, yet that would not be allowed under the bill.

Most of my other amendments in the group are technical, supporting amendments. However, amendment 63 seeks to ensure that, if somebody is hunting an animal and they flush it, they will commit an offence only if they “subsequently” course it. I do not believe that it should be an offence to flush animals from thick growth such as a bramble bush. You might have more than two dogs working to flush an animal. If you subsequently caught it, it could be argued that you have broken the law. You should not be breaking the law if you flush the animal; you should be breaking the law only if you subsequently course it.

I will be interested to hear what Colin Smyth says about amendment 110 and the evidence that would be required. It is not clear from his amendment what evidence would be required, who would adjudicate on it, or who would decide whether it was satisfactory. On that basis, I struggle to understand the amendment, but I look forward to hearing more detail when my colleague speaks to it.

Those are the amendments that I wish to speak to at this stage. I look forward to the opportunity to debate them.