the supposed need to use dogs below ground to dispatch orphaned fox clubs who would otherwise die of dehydration or starvation. This is a basic animal welfare and conservation measure, not killing animals with young. Section 5 allows for the use of dogs underground, so the two are linked. Amendment 1.2.2 seeks to remove subsection 4, which states, in this section, dependent means that the mother of a fox or mink is dead and is too young to survive on its own. This is consequential and, if amendment 1.1.8 passes, my amendment 1.2.2 is no longer needed as there is no other reference to dependent animals in section 5. I would therefore urge members to support amendments to ensure that using dogs to kill wild mammals is a last resort and we do not create loopholes in a bill that is designed to close those loopholes. I am slightly concerned with Colin's amendments. I am sure that he will have remembered the old adage that rabbits breed all year round, so there would be no way that you could control them at all by flushing them, because they could have dependent young on them all year round. That is a fact of life. Nature is also clever that breeding takes place for foxes at the time of the year when there are other vulnerable animals around, such as lambs. Where there are lambs around, I think that Mr Felly gave the example during one of the examples of a vixen with no teeth. He was preying on lambs during the lambing season was a particular problem. He cannot stop, in my mind, controlling problem animals, because they may be in their breeding season. That then gives rise to the problem that, where there are dependent young, you have to humanely dispatch them. Colin Smyth's amendments are fatally flawed for the fact that they do not take into account the problems that are being dependent on the breeding season, i.e., when you cannot kill them, is the time that is perhaps causing the biggest problem. I also do scratch my head to understand how Colin believes that having agreed to rabbits in this bill that he is then precluding them because he cannot kill them during the breeding season, which I have explained to Colin is only around. I will support all the amendments in the name of Colin Smyth in this grouping and urge all members to do the same. Amendments 111, 119 and 127 require a person to demonstrate the appropriacy of method, ensuring that it is the most humane method. Amendments 112, 144, 145 and 147 require the activity in the exception to not take place during breeding season, which I support as a basic animal welfare and conservation measure. I cannot support amendment 35 in the name of Rachael Hamilton, as I feel it weakens the language of the bill. No other members? The minister, please. Taking amendment 35 in the name of Rachael Hamilton, which seeks to remove the word serious from the section 3 purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock woodland or crops, the preventing serious damage test included in the bill is the same test that is used for section 16 licences under the wildlife and countryside act of 1981 and regulation 44 licences under the conservation natural habitats regulations of 94. Removing serious from the permitted purpose under section 3 would lower the test for the use of more dogs plainly. That would make it possible to use two dogs to search for stalker flushwell mammals even where the potential damage to livestock woodland or crops was trivial. It could flow from that that licences, because we have a licensing scheme connected with section 3, could then be granted under section 4, which would enable packs of dogs to be used to prevent minimal damage to livestock. It lowers the test for the exception under section 3, and, for that reason, I cannot support it. Amendments 111, 119 and 127 in the name of Colin Smyth, inserting the additional conditions that must be met before using a dog to hunt. Consider that very closely. To me, it is unclear what kind of evidence would be sufficient to meet those tests and who the person would be demonstrating it to. Perhaps more over the amendment makes use of concepts that are not found elsewhere in the bill, including the most humane method. The bill obviously refers to the minimum possible suffering, and the amendment refers to the person responsible for the activity. The effect would be to introduce an inconsistency into the bill, something that my team and I have been trying very hard to avoid. However, I understand the intention behind Colin Smyth's amendments. I have considered it closely. I am satisfied that the bill is currently drafted and contains a number of tests that must be fulfilled that are sufficient to achieve the aim of our bill, namely reducing the risk of wild mammals being chased and killed by packs of dogs. The committee will be familiar with those, but they are the searching for, stalking or flushing must be for a purpose that is allowed under the bill. Any dog-used activity must be under control, landowner permission must have been given and reasonable steps have to be taken to ensure that the dogs do not join to form a pack. I believe that those tests are sufficient in achieving the aim of the bill. The amendments are unnecessary and could cause confusion. However, I am moving to Colin Smyth's other amendments, 1.1.2, 1.1.8, 1.4.4, 1.2.2, 1.4.5 and 1.4.7, inserting a new condition to each exception as regards the breeding season. Those amendments would also remove reference to a Defendant Fox or Minx from section 5 on the basis that it would not be possible to hunt those animals at a time that they would have dependence. Again, I have considered those closely. They would have an impact on the ability of a land manager to undertake effective predator control at what is undoubtedly a crucial point. As we have noted, the breeding season for foxes coincides with lambing season when farmers are more likely to be undertaking necessary fox management. They would be unable to do that at this time of year, which is arguably the most essential time for the protection of their livestock. As Edward Mountain noted, it is true to say that rabbits can breed all year round, and that would effectively contain the ability to control them using dogs at any point. In my view, those types of issues are important, but they are more appropriately examined for the species as a whole rather than in respect of a single type of control and close seasons for certain mammals. Of course, they are set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act or DIR Act, as the case may be. I think that those amendments would cause significant issues for predator control, and therefore I am unable to support them. Having listened to Colin Smyth's description of the reason behind his amendments, I believe that it shows a lack of understanding of management in the countryside. I think that it pulls the rug from underneath the feet of farmers who want to protect their livelihoods, and it is completely unnecessary. With regard to the minister's comments on the damage to crops of the livestock and woodland, I do not believe that removing the word serious is overreaching. She did not describe it as that, but I do not believe that that is trivial because it ensures that farmers can protect their livelihoods within the parameters of the legislation that the Scottish Government wishes to set out. The minister always said that she wanted this legislation to be practical and workable, and I think that we need to ensure that when we are considering legislation that we do understand the ramifications for, particularly in this circumstance, farmers and their ability to use the methods that they have within their reaches to protect their livelihoods. I am slightly disappointed that the minister has not accepted my point on that. I want to put on the record that I was not suggesting that the issue of farmers protecting livestock itself was trivial. My point was that removing the seriousness test could allow trivial activities to come within the terms of it, but not that the need to protect the livestock in the first place was trivial. I was a bit alarmed when I heard that word. On that point, I will press my amendment. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result is 2 for 7 against 0 abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 111, in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 35. Colin Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 111 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed. There will now be a division. Those members supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result is 2 for 7 against 0 abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 112, in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 35. Colin Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result is 2 for 7 against 0 abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 9, in the name of Ariane Burgess, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I remind members of the pre-emptions in this group. Ariane Burgess to move amendment 9 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. My amendment 9 to 12 and 14 to 18 in this grouping move the provision for licences permitting the use of more than two dogs. In any circumstances remove all references to the licensing scheme. My amendments 19 and 20 are consequential and remove further sections about the licensing schemes. Licencing the use of two dogs does not align with the aim to pursue the highest possible animal welfare standards. Foxes hunted by packs of dogs are not killed quickly but endure enormous physical and psychological suffering before death, which can involve being torn limb from limb by dogs. The committee heard that around 40 per cent of foxes hunted with packs of dogs are actually killed by the dogs. The licensing scheme would be the biggest loophole for those who enjoy hunting wild mammals with packs. 87 per cent of the Scottish public want a watertight ban on fox hunting with packs. Let's deliver that, not perpetuate the current situation where conviction is in the words of Police Scotland impossible. Bringing in a strict limit of two dogs without a licensing scheme to allow use of more would make enforcement of the law much more straightforward. I urge members to support the amendments in my name and I move the amendment. I ask you about your point about the public wanting to ban fox hunting. Is fox hunting not already banned? No, fox hunting is not banned and this is partly why that this bill is being brought forward. The 2002 animal welfare act had loopholes in it and that's something that we've been discussing as a committee and the issues that you bring up about rough shooting and therefore we're bringing in this legislation around hunting with dogs to be very very clear about what can and cannot be done and in this case I believe that actually licensing will allow people to find ways around actually stopping that hunting. Turning now to amendments in this grouping. I support Christine Grahame's amendment 156 and 1559 to remove the options to grant a licence to a whole category of persons to avoid the issuing of a blanket licence which isn't strictly necessary by everyone who receives it. I also support Christine Grahame's amendment 161 which would require NatureScot to keep a publicly available register of licences as this would increase transparency and accountability. However, I believe that it would be better to achieve the purposes of this bill by removing the licensing scheme altogether. I support Colin Smyth's amendments 116 and 130 which specify that a licence holder must adhere to a set of standards based on ethical principles of human wildlife management. I would like to work with Colin Smyth, Government and other parties before stage 3 to refine this idea and ensure that it is workable in practice. I also support Jim Fairlie's amendments 157 and 160, 172 and 173 which add that any licence must require the use of the minimum number of guns that NatureScot believes would be effective for killing the wild mammal as soon as possible after it is located or flushed. However, I do have some concerns around encouraging greater use of guns in any circumstances so I would be interested in working with Jim Fairlie at stage 3 to add appropriate safeguards to those conditions. Edward Mountain's amendment 105 simply seeks to change the reference to Scottish natural heritage to NatureScot. I will leave it to the minister to advise on whether that is appropriate. As for amendments that I do not support in this section, I cannot support those other amendments in this section. I cannot list them all. The minister's amendment 158 would allow the 14 days for a licence under section 4 to be spread over six consecutive months. I do not support this amendment. If the purpose of the licence is to enable effective wildlife control then spreading out the days when more than two dogs can be used will undermine this purpose, RSPB, know that you need a period of consecutive days or, more importantly, nights when you are trying to protect other animals from foxes, for example. Having one day here and there to hunt foxes with several dogs would not be effective for achieving their purpose. You need to deal with the problem when it arises, not on separate days, spaced out over six months or a year. I move amendments 9 to 12 and 14 to 18, and I urge the committee to support them. I encourage the committee to support Christine Graham, Colin Smyth and Jim Fairlie's amendments in this group. I will wait to decide how to vote on Rachel Hamilton and Edward Mountain's amendments after I have heard from them. I would ask the committee to vote against all other amendments in this group. Rachel Hamilton, to speak to amendment 21 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendments 209, 231, 234 seek to clarify that a licence may be granted to individuals, categories of individuals, which suggest some shared characteristic and groups of people, even where they do not necessarily amount to a category. There may be situations in which disparate individuals may need to apply for a licence jointly. As the rain committee heard in evidence, there may be different types of land holding that require fox control across the various holdings if control is to be effective. It is no use granting a licence to a livestock holding that does not cover adjacent land in different ownership without livestock, but with large areas of forestry or cover that act as a reservoir for foxes, which then predate on neighbouring livestock. The bill must allow sufficient scope for Nature Scott to issue licences based on need, whether to individuals, groups or categories of persons. Amendment 205 is a relatively minor amendment that would allow Nature Scott to issue a licence that would cover more than one species. As drafted, the bill states that a licence is for a particular species rather than simply a particular species. The amendment would ensure that the bill does not unnecessarily restrict Nature Scott's ability to issue licences as needed and as practical. Amendment 22 relates to the consideration of alternative methods of predator control. In our evidence to our committee, it was stated that effectiveness is to be understood as relating to whether the alternatives were practical and possible. There needs to be clarity on the face of the bill. That is the case and that there may be alternatives that could be effective but not necessarily practical and affordable. It is important to avoid Nature Scott facing legal challenges to licences issued on the basis that they have failed to meet what amounts to a test where they must be satisfied that there is no alternative that would be effective. What really matters is whether the use of more than two dogs is necessary and whether it will make a significant contribution to the purpose for which a licence is granted. The proposed wording of the amendment would recognise, as the current wording does not, that the use of dogs to flush the guns under licence does not mean that other methods of fox control would not carry alongside licence control using dogs. Indeed, control is normally a combination of methods that complement one another and may be used concurrently. There is a danger of thinking that it is an either or scenario, whereas the reality is that successful fox control involves a variety of methods. Which methods are used and when, where and how and any combination of methods, at any given time, will depend on terrain and other considerations that are best decided by those conducting the control and wildlife management on the ground. Amendment 20623210, 34, 233 and 235, convener, relates to legal duty on NatureScot, which simply cannot discharge. NatureScot could not rashly reach a decision on the minimum number of dogs required for a given task on what evidential basis would a decision to allow, for example, eight dogs but not ten and why eight and not seven or six. Moreover, a person with a licence may be using dogs over a variety of terrain and cover, even on a single land holding. In relatively open country with limited cover, six dogs may be sufficient but a far greater number may be required for a thousand-acre block of forestry, for example. Those amendments would remove the burden and the obvious risk of legal challenge to licence and replace it with a more workable solution. It is proposed that a condition of the licence is that those licenced only use the number of dogs that is appropriate in the circumstances. I think that that is part of the nature of this bill. That could be reinforced by a reporting requirement so that, if required, a person would have to explain and justify their decision as to how many dogs to deploy at a given time and place. Amendments 207, 208 and 24 would extend the period of time in which a 14-day licence could be used from 14 days to 12 months from the date at which the licence was granted. That would allow the licence to be used on the given number of days as part of the continuous process of predator control. It reflects what was accepted by all sides in oral evidence that control is preventative, not simply in response to damage having been suffered. The existing wording fails to recognise the reality that fox control is a year-round activity and that it is conducted using a variety of methods depending on factors such as train and the time of year. Creating a fair and workable licencing regime, as has been described by the minister, is vital if effective fox control is to remain possible across large parts of rural Scotland, and the amendment would help to achieve that. During evidence to our committee, it was noted by several witnesses, including the minister, that it was not possible to specify in the licence the number of guns to be deployed. It is hard to understand how nature Scotland must specify a number of dogs and how it is rational to determine a specific number, but cannot do so with guns. For both the number of dogs and guns, what is appropriate will depend on the circumstances. As with dogs, it should be a requirement that a licensed person should be responsible for ensuring an appropriate number of guns are deployed. That could be reinforced by a reporting requirement so that, if required, a person would have to explain and justify their decision as to how many guns were deployed at a given time and place. Lord Bonomy also was of the opinion that the number of dogs was not a problem or that reducing it to two would change the situation other than to bring the practice of flushing to guns to an end. Instead, he said, that having a sufficient number of guns that was the thing that mattered most and that the number of guns is vital. As I have said, the different way that footpacks went about it did not seem to me to involve a chase. Those are Lord Bonomy's words. Amendment 211 and 236, convener, reflects that there are statutory conditions that apply to all licences, but there may be other additional conditions as well, which are not explicitly required by the legislation, including ones that relate to the statutory conditions themselves. Amendment 25 provides a definition of an approved professional body in the bill for clarification on this point. It also requires ministers to create a code of practice for the purpose of a licensing scheme. A reason behind that is that a definition of an approved professional body alongside a code of practice is required in order for the licensing scheme to function effectively. Licence holders would be expected to adhere to the code and set out what is expected of them. Amendment 232 means that, as would be the case of rough shooting, a licence holder may be able to specify more than one species of wild mammal when making an application. As heard in evidence to the committee from BASC, it would be the case that a licence applicant could be dealing with more than one pest species at a time, but the bill as drafted would not make allowances for that, and that amendment circumvents that issue. Amendment 33 relates to the condition that the relevant authority may not issue a licence unless it is satisfied that the killing, capturing or observing the wild mammal will contribute towards a significant or long-term environmental benefit and that there is no other solution that would be effective in achieving the purpose set out in section 7. In relation to which the application for a licence is being made, this part of the bill is unnecessarily prohibitive. I have already discussed the matter of whether hunting with dogs should be a last resort as this section would require. However, I am proposing an amendment that is less prohibitive while still showing the aims as set out in section 7.2 to be met. As I have already said, using dogs to help control predators and pest species is often the most practical solution and can be used in tandem with other control methods for maximum efficiency. It is less practical to propose, as the bill does, that there should be an all-or-nothing choice between maximum control and inadequate control, depending on the arbitrary conditions. The amendment would allow the right balance to be struck by the licensing scheme. That brings me to the end. Thank you. I am Jim Fairlie to speak to amendment 191 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. As you know, this is an issue that I have been thinking about for some time. I have voiced my concern about the number of guns used during a hunt. From everything that we have heard in the committee, when it comes to actually killing a wild animal in a swift and humane way, the number of guns seems to be a vital part of the process. When I asked Lord Bonomy about this during stage 1 evidence sessions, he responded to Rachael Hamilton and just cited it as well. I think that the number of guns is vital. One of the examples that I gave during the evidence sessions was a person who only has two guns covering 150 yards of forestry. With the best will in the world, the fox will run straight to the middle and not be shot. However, if the number of guns was increased to example 15, it is more likely that the fox will be shot and therefore that loophole of allowing dogs to hunt and kill a fox will be closed. My amendments 171 and 191 amend section 4 and 8 of the licence provisions to give specific examples of the kind of information that NatureScot can ask people to provide on their applications. The number of dogs that they are seeking permission for and the number of guns that they intend to deploy. My amendments 15, 7, 160, 172 and 173 carry on from this by amending both licence and sections so that NatureScot have to require a minimum number of guns to be deployed when issuing a licence and they have to put that number on the licence. That means that NatureScot get to look at the information provided by the applicant and then they are the ones that make the decision on exactly what the minimum number of guns should be. The principle of those amendments has been widely supported by a variety of stakeholders and committee members at stage 1 and by stating on the face of the bill that this information may be required. We will give applicants early notice of the type of information that will be required. I think that those amendments could also assist in filling out some of the detail of the licence and framework, particularly the type of information an applicant may require to include in their applications. I know that Rachel Hamilton agrees with the principle as she has lodged amendment 21 that is very similar to mine. I also amend section 4 to see of the bill to include information that the relevant authority may require. My issue with Rachel Hamilton's amendment and the reason that I have lodged this alternative version is that amendment 21 talks about the number of dogs or guns that would be licenced. I do not think that the wording is right in the fact that the applicant will not know how many dogs or guns would be licenced because that is a matter for the licencing authority to decide. My amendment makes clear that the applicant provides the information and then the licencing authority considers that information and reaches its decision. That might be to grant a licence for the number of dogs and guns that the applicant has stated on the form, or it might be to grant a licence for a different number. My amendment keeps the flexibility for the licence and authority to do just that. I have also included the same requirement for section 8 licences for environmental benefit as for section 4 licences on wildlife management so that the requirements are consistent. It is absolutely right that the licence authority has the final decision-making power for these licences as they do for all other wildlife management licences. However, it is important that we are clear on what we will expect under the licence and regime, which is why I have lodged these amendments and I hope that my members agree and support my amendments. Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 72 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I am going to talk to my amendments first, if I may, and that is the issue of fees. One of the reasons why I have suggested these amendments are to help the minister. I believe that this could be a contentious area and therefore there will be discussion about fees in the future. Therefore, I believe that rather than the fees be decided for licences by the regulating authority that comes before, on the affirmative procedure so that it can be cleared and it can be seen to be discussed and agreed in advance. I also believe that the minister should be the logical person for an appeal to be made, should the licensing authority choose to deny a licence. That way it is open and transparent and seems to be truly democratic. Amendments 105 and 106, I will listen to the minister's reason why we still need to hear Scottish natural heritage as Scottish natural heritage and not NatureScot. Constant name changes and different uses of names tends to confuse people. It certainly confuses me. As far as the other amendments in the group are, I respect her amendments, our wrecking amendments, and I take them as that. I was very interested to hear Jim Fairlie's reasoned argument regarding the number of dogs and guns that should be specified in the licence. I do have some concerns with that. If you are, in the example that Mr Fairlie used, putting dogs into a wood to flush a fox out, the placement of the guns and number of the guns will be known by the person who is doing that, because foxes will always run on a certain line. That does not always happen when somebody coughs or is upwind of where the animal would be, therefore they might deviate. However, if you have sensible guns, the keeper, the land manager, will know where that fox goes. Of course, Mr Fairlie. The point about having the minimum number of guns is to close the loophole where the hunts, the people who are going out to shoot, foxes to control foxes, say that they had plenty of guns and it just so happened that the fox happened to slip through. That is what created the loophole in the 2002 act in the first place. If there is a requirement by the licensing authority to make sure that there is a equivalent number of guns, the number of hounds that are driving the area, then the likelihood of a fox being shot is far greater than if it is left to the discretion of the people who are trying to circumvent the law in the first place. I very much take the point, but I come at this not to defend those people who are trying to circumvent the law. I am trying to come at this from the angle of the person who will abide by the law. Therefore, I look at this as quite a difficult one to implement, because what will end up is nature scot licensing division sitting on a licence, looking at a licence and saying, oh, they are doing this area, therefore this needs 12 guns and it becomes formulaic. It does not become an actual description. Now, I can see some… Of course I can. Thank you very much. Surely the whole point of this is that we trust and respect the people who are actually doing this job legitimately and therefore the working relationship between nature scot and the people who are carrying out these acts is such that they understand each other, they know the areas that they are working in and therefore they will come to a proper compromise on how the job should be done properly. Of course. I take the intervention in the manner that it was meant. Those who work together obviously succeed better, but it does not always work. It worries me that this will be formulaic. I could, subject to amendment 2, see of working this out that the minimum number of guns and dogs could be specified but subject to restrictions, because what it does worry me, it really does worry me having been in land management for 15 years, that the views of the people on the ground are not necessarily taken into account by licensing authorities or authorities that are responsible for management and it is a problem. So there may be ways of amending this amendment to make it better. I understand the spirit in which it's meant, but I don't actually think that it's one that I would support as it stood at the moment. I'm not entirely sure on Colin Smith's amendment and I looked here more about the code that he once published and I take the Scottish Government's proposal for extending the licence for a set period actually as a benefit. I say that because I disagree with the point that was made by Ariane Burgess about solving a problem within 14 days. You don't solve problems in the countryside in 14 days. What happens is a problem comes to light, you take proactive action and then you may have to continually go back to resolve the problem because you haven't resolved it in the first place. So for example, if a licence was introduced for fox control to allow that to be done, the fox may be pushed into a deep area of wood which it was impossible to get it out of. It may then go and move to an area and then come back to the area where it knew there was an easy meal, which means that that licence should be observed as a licence for a problem area over a time frame rather than a problem area on a specific 14-day timescale. It just doesn't work. I have a slight problem also with Christine Graham's amendment which is amendment 161 and I'd be interested to hear what her amendment suggests because this is in some ways controversial legislation and if people have access to the register, I want to be sure in my mind that that person who has applied for the licence is then not victimised for doing that and their address and their details became known because that has happened in the countryside and it does happen in the countryside and I'd be interested to see what safeguards there would be because some people can take that to the extreme and I'm not sure that I see any safeguards in it. I may have other points convener when those points have been raised by the members. Thank you. Christine Graham to speak to amendment 156 and other amendments in the group. Yes, thank you very much convener. My goodness, what a long day you've had. I'll speak at first to 156 and 159 because they're pretty well done with the same thing and then I'll move on to 161. I have to say at the beginning to Edward and to others that these are probing amendments at this stage. I'm interested to hear what the minister has to say. My amendment here 156 and 159 seeking to delete to a category of persons. I don't quite understand that and I'm sure the minister's going to clarify it for me because everybody around here has been talking about the licence holder. Rachel Hamilton referred to the licence holder, Jim Fairlie, but a category of persons isn't to me a licence holder, it's a category. I don't know what that category means. Does it mean the farmers? Does it mean the gamekeepers? Does it mean the landowners? Don't know. The other thing that I would have to say here is who at the end of the day, if I follow my line that it's gamekeepers or landowners or whatever, is liable for any breach. Who would be brought before court for breaching the terms of the licence? There's no name there.  I don't see why it couldn't be maybe granted to a particular person or persons, which might be, let's say, the gamekeepers on three different estates, but at least you'd have a name in the frame. I'm not looking to persecute everybody, I'm just making it easier for enforcement and responsibility. I think I'm getting multiple interventions, as is my won't. Yes, it's up to the convener. It's not a comment, really, to address what Christian Graham was saying, because I completely agree with you and I think that those were the points that I was trying to make in terms of the category of persons in the amendments 204, 209, 231 and 234, and so I too am interested in what the minister has to say in this particular regard, because we agree, Christine. I know this is a wonderful woman for us. I think we should celebrate. I'll get a badge. Sorry, I forgot that you don't have to push the button, I apologise. On the basis that agreement's always good, I wondered if you could clarify whether you believe therefore the licence holder should be present when the activity takes place. So, for example, if the licence holder was the landowner, would he have to be present or the farmer, would he have to be present when the activity took place? I think that some clarity around that would be useful, because in other cases that is the case. Well, I haven't actually thought of that point, but thinking of it now, the answer that I do off the cuff is no. They couldn't possibly be present when the activity took place, but they would delegate to a responsible person to hold the licence as we do, as MSPs to our staff, you know, but the buck would stop eventually with the landowner if it had been the wrong way round. The aim really here is just who, at the end of the day, has the name and the frame for it. It could be one or two people, but I don't know where category comes in. So, I'll move on to my next one before the minister may want to respond. I'll begin to chair this, and I didn't mean to do that. That's important. So, when I come on to 161, this kind of follows on from it, and I heard what you said about victimisation, but there's an element here of how do you know, this is exceptions to exceptions, so how do you know if you're a member of the public or whatever just wondering about, you see something that should be allowed, how do you know it should be allowed, because you don't know that this area has been licenced to do certain pursuits that are not under the general legislation. On the other hand, you might see something that shouldn't be taking place, so I do think there's got to be some responsibility here. You know, yet licences, I'm trying to remember, but are licences not published for, for instance, I'm not sure on publicans that there's a list of licenced publicans or a list of licenced taxi drivers somewhere so that we know if that's in the public domain. I'm pleased that there may be data protection issues here, but there may be ways of dealing with the address, say. Again, I'm probing this to see— Is there a good moment on that phone? Yes. Are we going to agree again? As you know, Christine Grahame, that I have an interest in hospitality business, and comparing licences in that aspect are slightly different to this scenario because it involves individuals being able to take exams, quite stringent exams, to get to the point where they are issued a licence, and so I think to compare those apples and pears is not necessarily fair in this circumstances, whilst people, of course, have to have gun licences and other and be competent to have a gun and et cetera. I think that in this situation it's slightly confusing the situation, whereas in this licensing we need more clarity and a succinctness rather than trying to muddy the waters with other industries that are perhaps slightly different. I dispute that because you've obviously got somebody to get a licence as expertise. They'll have expertise with the gun, expertise with the land, expertise with what is required for the management of that land. In that circumstance, it's not a direct similarity. There's enough in common to say, yes, there should be a register, and this register would allow people to know that this and to feel secure. You turned it on its head and said, victimise, I put it the other way and said, the person who's been granted this exceptional licence is published knows, therefore, that when they're out and about exercising that licence, they're doing so. If any of the public challenges them, they're able to say, well, if you check this, I'm licensed to do this, so I turned it on its head. I'll have to, won't I? No, you don't. The convener could say that you don't have to. But on the basis that the convener hasn't said that, I think my concern would be on the licence that if you had the licence and you stipulated the guns. I'll give you an example, if I may, when seal management was allowed and licensed in Scotland, for example, those people who were able to control seals had to go on a course, had to have it on their firearm certificate, and it had to be listed on the licence when the licence was made. That then resulted in some bailiffs who were authorised, competent and complying with the licence to be victimised afterwards. So I take the member's point about allowing it to be seen and open, that the activity is allowed, but it would be a way of making sure if the minister was tempted to go to that level, to make sure that there was no way that the people taking part of it could be victimised as a result of a legal activity. I am asking for us to keep quite plain stuff. It doesn't get down into the granular level of it. Keep a register of licences granted, including the start and end dates of the licence and the name of the licence holder. That's it. The rest can be done by regulation, but it doesn't get down to the detail of the guns or not, the detail that you have exemplified there. It is my understanding that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission suggested that we should have that registered. I see security in that for people who have been granted exceptions, because the public will think that this is the law now, but they won't necessarily appreciate those exceptions to exceptions where you can actually have an increase in the activity. Rather than seeing as victimisation, I am repeating myself, is that you see it as something that gives security to the licence holder. I return again and really nothing further to add, convener, because I would like to, if you feel it's appropriate, the minister to perhaps answer some of those. I just want explanations. The minister will be contributing to this when she speaks to her amendment, but it's more of a welcome to intervene if the minister wishes to comment. I'll respond once we've been through them, convener. Thank you. I call Colin Smith to speak to amendment 116 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I support amendments 9 to 12 and 15 to 20 in Arianna Burgess' names, which would remove section 4 from the bill. The bill, as it stands, would allow a continuation of the use of packs of dogs in hunting, albeit under licence. It therefore fails to fully close the loopholes that exist in the current legislation and merely licences them. I'm very clear that you cannot licence cruelty. You can't believe in the one hand that we need to limit the number of dogs to two because that reduces the risk of dogs instinctively chasing and killing, but on the other hand, continue to allow the use of packs of dogs simply because someone has a licence. You don't close one loophole by creating another. I don't agree that those are reckon amendments. In fact, what is reckon is to include a licence in a bill that seeks to end the use of packs of dogs. Are alternative more humane methods available to manage wild mammals? I'll take an intervention on that. Would Colin Smyth like to explain to the committee what other methods he would use in an area of a thousand acres of woodland? It's interesting that Jim Fairlie raises that point when there's no definition within the licence scheme of the example he gives. I think that's one of the weaknesses of the licence scheme. We're not exactly clear when packs of dogs will or will not be allowed to be used. I'll maybe try and finish the first intervention first and let Mr Fairlie come in the second intervention. There are alternative more humane methods available to manage wild mammals and protect environment. Of course, the use of two dogs would continue to be allowed under the bill. If members don't support the amendments to remove licence amendments 116 and 130 in my name would allow NatureScot to require licence applicants to meet standards in the application process, which could be drawn up in line with an ethical framework such as the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control, which is an existing international example of such standards. The principles would bring significant animal welfare benefits if embedded in Scottish Government and societal practices. They would provide a framework to guide decisions around if, when and how wildlife intervention should take place and would ensure that ethical reasoning is applied, evidence is consulted and animal welfare is prioritised. Perhaps, most importantly, the principles invite a shift in mindset recognising that each animal is sentient and deserves equal consideration, regardless of the category that humans have put them in. That, convener, is a key point. I've heard it argued that we don't need this ethical approach because of the existence of NatureScot's position statement on wildlife welfare and the shared approach to wildlife management. NatureScot will take an invention on that point. If all animals are sentient, how do you justify a fox killing a lamb or several lambs to take a tail or an ear to give the trinkets for cubs?  I don't think that the bill or anybody's proposal that you should not control predatory behaviour from animals doesn't mean that the animal is not sentient. I would have thought that every member in this room would recognise that all animals are living, breathing creatures that feel pain and suffer. I thought that that was a basic thing that any human being would recognise. I've heard it argued, as I said, that this ethical approach is not necessary. We've argued that the NatureScot's position statement on wildlife welfare and the shared approach to wildlife management, which NatureScot currently uses to guide its decision making in this area, would be sufficient. I think that's a bit of a red heron. It seems to me more than an excuse not to support the amendment in my name rather than a credible justification. If you compare, for example, the seven international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control with those two current policies, you'll see that the latter is outdated and simply does not go far enough. I think that the Government itself actually recognises when it comes to, for example, its thinking on up-and-coming changes to deer management. The current policies are very commendable statements of intent, but they are not a proper framework that lends itself to a guide on decision making in any application process. In contrast, the seven principles can easily be converted into seven questions in any licence application process, literally providing a step-by-step protocol to follow when a potential problem is identified and a decision on how to approach it must be made. Crucially, NatureScot's definition of wildlife welfare is outdated. It contains no recognition of sentence, although I think that it would be perfectly logical. In my preference, my amendment doesn't specifically say that the ethical principle should be the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. It simply says that ethical principles should be used. I believe that they could be drawn up by NatureScot working with those involved in wildlife management, animal welfare charities and others when developing that licensing scheme. One of the criticisms of the bill as it stands is that there is a lack of real detail over what would guide that licence application process, and this amendment helps to overcome that by setting a clear direction of travel. There is nothing for anyone considering an application under a licensing scheme that follows ethical principles to be concerned, because, quite frankly, if they cannot justify that licence on ethical grounds, they should not have a licence in the first place. Are we encouraged? This morning, we received a letter, albeit a very late letter, regretting to say, minister. I haven't had the opportunity to fully absorb it, but it is with regard to the licensing through NatureScot and what will happen and what NatureScot will do to engage with stakeholders. Within it, it says that NatureScot is committed to a shared wildlife management principle approach to stakeholder engagement. It doesn't sound as though Colin Smyth accepts that NatureScot is committed to the shared wildlife management principles and seems to want to go further. When we all know that this bill is, the intention is to put animal welfare to the highest standards. What is it that Labour members don't appreciate about the shared wildlife management principles? I have outlined the principles specifically. I don't think that the current policy recognises the priority of animal welfare. I don't think that it recognises the sentence of all animals. I think that the Government recognises that that is the case in some areas. For example, if you look at the approach that is taken to deer management or up-and-coming deer management, it is going further than the current policy statements that exist in place. I think that there is a recognition that the current policy statements are outdated and need to be updated. What we are saying is that we are not specifying exactly what those detailed policies should be. We think that the detailed application process should be part of a discussion consultation. We should take an approach of discussing it with all stakeholders, those involved in wildlife management and those involved in animal welfare. However, what we are saying is that, as part of that and as a very small amendment, the direction of travel should be to follow ethical principles in developing that. I would turn the question around and ask any member to look at the seven ethical principles that, as an example, I have given and say which one of them should not guide a process when it comes to an application. I will take an intervention from Edward Mountain. I get confused when we talk about this and we mix up species. At the stage that we are at the moment that we have deer control being carried out by Forestry Land Scotland, SNH is issuing licences to every single region of Forestry Land Scotland, the seven in Scotland, for out-of-season control of deer, which means that you are shooting females with dependent young without necessarily ensuring that the dependent young are being controlled. It seems that you are mixing the two up and that gives me clear concerns that you are looking for a stronger licencing procedure on this, whereas you are then going to promote shooting deer with fawns at foot without killing the fawns. I have a problem with that and I wonder if you could justify that to me. I am not going to confuse the two because we are dealing specifically with the bill. My reference was to the fact that the Government recognises and it is up and coming changes, proposed changes in deer management that they need to go beyond existing policy. I have probably covered all the points. One of the criticisms of the bill is that there is a lack of detail. I think that that sets a direction of travel for those discussions on that lack of detail. It has been very clear that the amendment is quite tight. It does not specify all seven of those principles. That is one example that could be incorporated, but it does set a direction of travel. The ethical principle should direct any licencing application process. I would be happy to work with any member on the practicalities of that if the amendment is not carried. I urge members at this stage, first of all, to support amendments to remove the licensing scheme from the bill. Failing that, I urge them to support amendments to include the ethical principles of wildlife management to ensure that the licensing scheme is as robust as possible. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 58 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I hope that you will bear with me. This is a large group, but I want to give the Government's due attention to each of the member's amendments. If I can, I would like to follow some of the chronology that we have had already today, and I start with amendments 9 to 12 and 15 to 20 in the name of Ariane Burgess. Those amendments, as we know, would remove the licensing scheme altogether. I would say from the Government's perspective that we have always sought to balance our aim of promoting the highest standards of animal welfare. With the reality, as I have said, that in this rural country, access to legitimate control of wild mammals is required in certain circumstances. We know that if farmers are not able to protect their stock, they will lose lambs, poultry and others. That, of course, is not just an economic loss to hard-pressed farms, but it is also very distressing emotionally to see livestock under their care being killed. We know that control can be difficult to carry out in rocky terrain, on hillground or densely vegetated areas. We know that lamping, for example, may not be possible and that two dogs on their own may not be able to flush to waiting guns. Of course, that was expressly recognised by Lord Bonomy with very specific comments on terrain, which I am not prepared to ignore. With all that being the case, I am clear that the licensing scheme is an exception to an exception. It must be available where it is essential, but it must also be tightly regulated and controlled. The use of two dogs will be for specified purposes only, where there is no other effective solution, where a maximum number of dogs are specified and for a time-limited period, and it will always be illegal to allow any number of dogs to chase and kill a fox. For those reasons, I do not support Ariane Burgess' amendment. Amendment 21, in Rachel Hamilton's name, I think that Jim Fairlie clearly set out the reasons why he is not supporting this amendment. I think that that is principally because the decision should lie with the licensing authority and not with the applicant. I agree with his reasoning and do not support the amendments for that reason. I think that Jim Fairlie's formulation addresses the issues that he identified and does that within amendments 191 and 171. I support those amendments to add specific examples of the information that the licensing authority may require. I think that there are useful additions in the name of high welfare standards. It was really just to get some clarification on your comments there about who is best to decide what is best for the situation on the ground in terms of the terrain and the understanding of the topography, etc. Are you confident—I know that you have explained this in the past—that you are confident that NatureScot has the ability to do that? I am looking at the letter that you sent to the committee this morning. I note that there is the intention to have workshops with stakeholders so that they can raise questions. Are you confident that, if my amendment is not accepted, NatureScot will get a better understanding of what is required in terms of the nature of the topography and terrain that I describe? Is that the intention of that? Yes. I already have great confidence in not just NatureScot and its expertise, but, as Jim Fairlie pointed out, the good relationship that already exists at a very local level between NatureScot representatives and the people who they work with in various ways. I think that that will only be improved. As I say, I am committed to continued consultation with those who would seek to use this section and NatureScot art as well. The point, though, is more of a technical one as regards the difference between the amendments. That is ultimately that we cannot say that it is for the applicant to decide on the number of guns. It always must technically be for the licensing authority to make that judgment in all the circumstances. That is them fulfilling their duty. However, I have every confidence that there is a good relationship and that there will be a good understanding of what is required. Of course, the indication that the applicants can give on what they think would be the correct number of guns will be useful in that regard, but ultimately the decision must lie with the licensing authority. We can move on to amendment 72, 103 and 107, in Edward Mountain's name, adding the new section and amending section so that NatureScot could not implement a fee. The provisions that are already in this bill around the potential for NatureScot to charge a fee are similar to those that we have in other legislation where NatureScot operates a licensing scheme, for example, in the 1981 act, the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the 1994 conservation regulations. I do not see a reason why we would differ in our approach under this bill. The Scottish Government has committed to reviewing the approach to charging for licensing generally in the near future. I do not think that it would be corrected to pursue differences in this particular scheme, particularly when that review in the generality is coming down the track shortly. For those reasons, I do not support the amendments. Will you give way for a moment? I shall, of course. Thank you. Are you going to talk to the other parts of the amendments regarding the appeal procedure on licensing and whether the minister will be the ultimate arbiter on it? I apologise for emitting that convener that slipped my mind, but I do not support that part of it either. There are already well-established review processes inherent in NatureScot's operations. I think that they are the ones best placed to take the view, not the Scottish ministers, who are coming from my conversation with Rachel Hamilton about expertise in this. That lies with NatureScot, not with me. I will give way on that point. My concern is that SNH then becomes judge, jury and ultimate appeal judge on it, which is contrary to common law and would be against the procedure where somebody else could review the licence. If the minister is not able to give an assurance that her or the future minister will do it, will she appoint a appeal procedure to allow people to go through? I am more than happy to keep talking to you about this, but my view today, and the reason why I do not support this as it is formulated, is that there are review procedures already very much built into the processes. Yes, within NatureScot, but ultimately I would expect judicial review, although I am looking to my legal colleagues on that. There are review processes right up to judicial review that are available, and I do not think that bringing those issues in-house within the Scottish Government is helpful. I hope that that clarifies the point. Amendment 156 and 159, from my colleague Christine Grahame, removing the ability of NatureScot to licence the category of persons. I very much understand the intention of being to tighten up the way that those licences can be granted. However, and it is something that we have discussed a lot this morning, I do not want to create inconsistencies with the wording of the bill, which that could do, because the approach that we have set out is as set out in the 1981 Wild Life and Countryside Act. I am going to try to cover each of the points in town, but on the point about person and what that means and what it can be taken to mean, the law already states that the word person would include bodies such as a company or a club. Those types of bodies could be granted a licence even if the bill were amended to only include person. I understand that. Where are the legal entities? Company, club, partnership, legal entities, but category is not a legal entity. I was just going to come on to the point about categories, because the other reason why that is important is because excluding a category would prevent the situation where a series of neighbouring farmers, perhaps with hill ground stretching between them, which is exactly what Lord Bonomy said with the terrain that this would be required in, would not be able to do, as we have discussed with them, being able to do, i.e. apply for a licence that does not run with the individual, it runs with the terrain over that area of land. Yes, absolutely. How would that category be described in the licence? Would it be the farmers of XYZ farms? Would that be what it would be? In those circumstances, well, first of all, is that the case? It runs with the land, it does not run with the individuals, so that Nature Scott will receive an application. For an area of land, it will consider the terrain being one of the main considerations and will determine whether it is suitable to grant a licence over that land. On the point about who is liable in the case of a breach of conditions, because I think that that is an important point, that will always be the people, person, people who are undertaking the activity. Under section 1.4 of the bill, those who are undertaking the activity because of section 1.4 will be everyone who is involved, not just those who are controlling the dog. For applications or categories of persons, those liable would still be the people undertaking the activity. Likewise, for a farmer, if they had applied for an agency to undertake the work, it would be in the first instance that the agency, the folks on the ground who were undertaking the activity, who would be liable for any breach of licence conditions. However, I would add to that that there are, of course, ancillary provisions in the bill that might catch the farmer in those circumstances if they had knowingly permitted illegal activity to take place on their land. I am going to have to ponder this for stage 3, because I am not quite satisfied about the explanation, but it may be perfectly right. I just need to tease it out and read the detail. I think so, because my understanding is that the licence goes to a person or category as it stands. Therefore, if the licence is breached, surely it is the licence holder that is liable, notwithstanding another party is undertaking the actual physical control. It is the licence holder at the end of the day that says, right, I am getting the licence for this, I am responsible for what happens under this licence of mine. What I just explained is that that is not the case, that it is the individuals who are responsible for the breach of conditions on the ground who would be responsible. Who knows where, it could be anybody then, it could be somebody who has not even anything to do with the landowner. That might be the case in certain circumstances, but it would be for... I will leave it at that. I am going to have a big think about this again, because I am not sure. Are you continuing or have you completed? I have completed that section, but I am more than happy to keep talking to Christine Grahame about it to try and clarify her points. If I can, I will move on, because I am conscious of time. Amendments 204, 209, 231 and 234, Rachel Hamilton's amendment in setting the word group into section 4. I do not think that those are necessary. I do not think that they add perhaps what Rachel Hamilton was hoping that they would. As I have said, person is not limited to individuals and under interpretation legislation it includes bodies such as clubs, companies or partnerships. Of course, as we have discussed already today, the singular includes the plural unless the context requires otherwise. It is already possible to grant a licence to more than one person if they meet the requirements. I would ask therefore that amendment is not pressed. 205 and 232 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Again, I am not entirely clear what those amendments are seeking to achieve, but I do think that they could create inaccuracies in the bill. Subsection 4b and 45b work together where the former sets out what a licence can or must do and the latter sets out what must be specified on the face of the licence. The amendments proposed would break that relationship and I think that that would cause confusion. However, I am admitting that I am not entirely clear what the intention is here and if Rachel Hamilton wants to work with me to clarify that, I am more than happy to do so. I want to come back to the minister to have a look at that particular amendment. Can I just clarify that last minute? I was following what you were saying on the groupings on 205. The last one that you were mentioning there was 205 and 232. I will move on to Rachel Hamilton's amendment 22, which seeks to change one of the tests to grant a licence from no other solution would be effective to no other solutions would be practical. I have considered that very closely. To simply substitute practical for effective could significantly weaken a key licensing test, so I cannot support that today. However, I do accept that there are situations in which a solution would be effective in preventing predation taking place, but might not be practical to achieve. For example, building and maintaining a high foxproof fence around a large field might be effective in keeping foxes out, but there is a question mark over whether that would be practical for achieving by the farmers who would be involved. It could be argued on the other hand that, for a solution to be considered effective, it is implied that it would be practical. However, I would like to give some further thought to that and, if necessary, to come back with a proposed amendment at stage 3 to cover those points. Amendments 206 to 10, 233 and 235 in Rachel Hamilton's name, allowing a licence authority any number of dogs rather than the minimum number that would be effective. I do not support those amendments. The requirement for the licensing authority to specify the maximum number of dogs to be used is an important safeguard to maintain the tightly construed licensing scheme that we want to see. I think that we would risk creating look-poles in any other way in that that must be avoided. So the minimum number being specified by the licensing authority is consistent with our approach of ensuring that we use no more than two dogs only when there is no other effective solution. Amendments 23 and 34, again in Rachel Hamilton's name, I think that those were earlier alternative amendments 206 to 10, 233 and 235, which adjust the wording to the test but do not delete it altogether. However, I repeat that the requirement for licensing authority to specify the maximum number of dogs to be used is, in our view, an important safeguard that we will seek to maintain so that we cannot support them. Amendments 157, 160, 172 and 173 in Jim Fairlie's name, I support those amendments for all of the reasons that have been stipulated and for the sake of time, if Jim Fairlie does not mind, I will move on. Amendments 116 and 130 in Colin Smyth's name. Amendments to sections 4 and 8, proposing applications for a licence to use more than two dogs, be subject to adherence to the set of standards. There was some discussion about that. I am sympathetic to the intention behind those amendments and I listen very closely to what Colin Smyth had to say. I know that NatureScot has looked closely at the international ethical principles of wildlife management and to examine how they compare to their own shared approach, which again there was discussion about. I do have confidence in the shared approach, not least because it was discussed and developed over a long period of time and brought a range of quite diverse stakeholders together around points that they could coalesce on. However, the main point that I want to make to Colin Smyth today is that the Scottish Government is shortly to commission a review of licensed wildlife management, which will look at welfare aspects and may recommend changes across the board. As previously discussed on fees, I am reluctant to make changes on a particular category here when there is a larger piece of work coming down the track, which will look at the issue on the whole. For that reason, I cannot support those amendments today. Amendment 207, 208, 24 and 25 by Rachel Hamilton. I am not persuaded by those amendments. I think that a year is too long for the validity of a particular licence, bearing in mind the need to maintain that tight control. Actually, I think that the deletion of maximum in 207 and 208 would appear to remove the licensing authority's ability to licence fewer than 14 dogs. I think that it would require them to licence 14 dogs—sorry, 14 days, which we could not support. Sorry, I am getting confused now. I cannot support those amendments either. Having said that, I am aware that there is concern about the time period over which the 14 days could be used. I have listened very carefully to the discussions on the licensing period for section 3 and evidence that you heard. I remain of the view that the 14 days is the correct maximum number for the licence to cover. I am persuaded, however, that there could be some more flexibility over the period in which those 14 days could be used. I am proposing 14 days to be used in the period of six months. Again, that does not allow any more days of activity, but it allows for flexibility to deal with things such as change of plans, bad weather or unforeseen events. Amendments 211 and 236, in Rachel Hamilton's name, they insert the word other into provisions in section 4 and 8, licensing respectively, so that where they say licences must specify any conditions to which the licence is subject, that is changed to any other conditions. I understand the intention, but I think that it is incorrect. I think that it confuses what those subsections are. They are not conditions, they are the information that must be specified in the licence, so I think that that this would not work. I would ask Rachel Hamilton not to press it. Coming now to Christine Grahame's amendment 161, and the point about the publication of a register of licences under section 4. I am sympathetic to that. I think that transparency in the way that licences operate is always desirable, and I know that NatureScot already very successfully shared a lot of information on wildlife management licences, not least as has been seen very recently, detailed reporting on the operation of licences to manage beavers, so there is a precedent there. There are also plans to publish data on all of NatureScot's licences, but we need to work very carefully through the GDPR legislation in order to do this in a way that is legally watertight and does not undermine GDPR. With that being the case and having listened to the exchanges, I will continue to consider Christine Grahame's points, and I want to assure her today that I will commit to her to go as far as possible within the remit of GDPR to publicise what it is that she is asking for. I couldn't commit to it today to being a public register. I have to consider what can be published within the remit of GDPR. Is that another little meeting that we could perhaps have? Perhaps the same meeting to save time. The same meeting, right. I'm diary that. That's good. Okay, thank you. Convener, thank you for bearing with me. I'll try and proceed as quickly as I can. Amendment 33 in Rachael Hamilton's name, removing the tests for the relevant authority to grant a licence being that they would have to contribute towards a significant or long-term environmental benefit and that no other solution would be effective. The effect of the amendment would be to remove two key tests to be met before granting licences under section 8, the need for the activity to contribute to long-term environmental benefit and for there to be no other effective solution. The no other effective solution test is the foundation of the licensing scheme that we are proposing. It is designed to ensure that the use of more than two dogs is kept to an absolute minimum and only used where absolutely necessary. Likewise, the long-term environmental benefit test is important in this section, given that licences could be granted for up to a period of two years, so we need to remain strict on how it operates. Without those two tests, it's hard to see what criteria NatureScot would apply before deciding, and I think that it would loosen a great deal of what we're trying to achieve under this section. Yes, of course. Obviously, the workshops will be in the future and possibly after the passage of this bill. I'm not quite sure of the timetable that you might have suggested within the letter. However, what would happen retrospectively if, for example, there was a stakeholder engagement session and there was a discussion about what you've just discussed with a 14-day licence within the six-month period and a two-year licence that currently exists for environmental benefit. What if the stakeholders and NatureScot had decided at this point, because obviously this is new reform of legislation, that there was something that was in the middle of achieving environmental benefit, but neither of those parameters were suitable? How does that happen? How does that then become affected in law if we'd already gone past this point? Thank you for the intervention. If I understand you correctly, my response would be that the consultation has been happening from the very beginning, and it has gotten us to the point where the bill is as it's published and it has taken us through the scrutiny period in the Scottish Parliament, so it's not as though consultation… The licensing scheme hasn't… Well, it has, because the framework of it is there in the bill. We've said that from the beginning that the bill, on the face of the bill, will set out the fundamental parts of the licensing scheme and that will be supplemented by guidance. However, consultation has informed what's there on the face of the bill, just as consultation will inform what is included in the guidance, so it wouldn't be correct to suggest that stakeholders' views and the aftermath of the bill would be problematic because we wouldn't be able to undo what had been done before.  I have two more sections to address. First, amendment 104 from Edward Mountain, inserting additional section requiring NatureScot to either grant or refuse a licence on receipt of a licence application and, of course, allowing Scottish ministers the ability to decide if a licence has been unreasonably refused. I think that we did touch on that earlier, so, if you don't mind, I'll not deal with it again. I move swiftly on to amendments 105 and 106. The point from Edward Mountain about replacing the reference to SNH with NatureScot is not required because Scottish national natural heritage remains the correct legal name and that set out in the 1991 act and should be used in this context. I know that Edward Mountain referred to constant changing of names, but I think that one in 20 odd years is not bad. Still confusing, minister. Thanks, convener. You've spent consistency in the bill and you can't have the tape. Mr Mountain, any other members wish to speak? Mercedes Vallalba. Very briefly, thank you, Carina. Just to say that I do have some reservations regarding amendments 157, 160, 172 and 173 in the name of Jim Fairlie, which require the licensing authority to specify the minimum number of guns required. While that may well increase the likelihood of a clean shot of a wild mammal, I'm concerned that it could also increase the risk to humans and other animals, and I wouldn't want to set a precedent for legislation to mandate a minimum number of guns in any context. Any other members could ask Aran Burgess to wind up and press or withdraw, please. Thank you, convener. I'd like to thank the minister and other members for lodging amendments in this group, and I appreciated hearing their perspectives to clarify that my amendments are not wrecking amendments but rather intended to legislate for the highest possible standard of animal welfare in a modern Scotland. I agree with Christine Graham's comments about a public register of licence holders. The intention would not be to victimise them but to ensure accountability and responsibility. A public register of licence holders was one of the recommendations in Alison Johnson's MSP's member's bill, consultation last session on protecting Scotland's wild mammals, and I fully support that. The minister raised the needs of farmers to protect their livestock. I fully understand and sympathise with farmers' needs to minimise the loss of lambs and other livestock, but the bill will not prevent farmers from taking action to control animals who are predating on their livestock or crops. It even allows lethal control, but it puts humane conditions on how this is done to ensure the least suffering by the smallest number of animals. I agree with Colin Smyth that we need to rethink the default assumption that killing wild animals is the best way to protect livestock, and I welcome his comments about the ethical principles. If the licence scheme are to be retained in the bill, I fully support the idea of aligning the licence conditions as closely as possible with best practice of ethical wildlife management, such as the international consensus principles of ethical wildlife control or RSPB's vertebrate control policy. However, Colin Smyth's amendments 116 and 130, as drafted, are not specific enough. They refer to a set of standards based on ethical principles. The committee heard NatureScot try to reassure us that their shared approach to wildlife management is already fairly well aligned with the ethical principles, so they could simply require licence holders to align with their existing approach. NatureScot's shared approach is supported by pro-hunting organisations, including the British Association of Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Country Outside Alliance, Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust Scotland and Scottish Land and in States. That implies that the shared approach would perpetuate the status quo rather than encouraging behaviour, change and increasing protection for wildlife. I will support Colin Smyth's amendments at this stage, but I would like to work with him, Government and other parties before stage 3 to amend this section further to require closer alignment with the actual best practice in ethical wildlife control, while ensuring that this requirement is workable in practice and can align with the outcome of the species licensing review, as the minister has mentioned, and I move amendment 9. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, there will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise their hand now. Those members abstaining. Can we just check on that? The members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. That is too far, seven against, the amendment has not been agreed. That brings us to the end of consideration of stage 2 today. We will, at the next meeting, consider the remaining stage 2 amendments to the Hunde with Dogs Bill, consider anffirmative SSI on poultry meat, a negative instrument and consider further our work programme paper. I now formally close this meeting.


From Soju's radio and television, this is the Army Now. The stand-up of the Afghan National Army Special Operations Command, or ANASA, marks the beginning of the Army having specialized mobile strike force capabilities, in conjunction with unique aviation assets. To me, it means a lot. I've been fighting this war for 10 years, almost. The best way to eliminate enemy, to defeat the enemies, is to play with them the way he plays. And for that, you have to have small units, teams, well trained, to go after the enemy where he's hiding. The ANASA Division is now activated to organize, train, and equip its own special operations forces. Once we have this division covering the whole country, there will be no time and opportunity given to the enemy to move freely. And this is the whole objective. The ANASA activation ceremony is another critical milestone in the transition process. It's the Army Now.


I'm going to be grouping on the M17 pistol. Tomorrow will be qualification day. I had to take a written exam, which was tables one. I had to pass it with an 80%. The third step after the written exam was PMI, which is getting comfortable with different weapon stances with your pistol, the holster, standing, kneeling, and getting in the prone position, which is on your stomach. Then had to do an EST course, which is a simulator for pistol training. I had to group as well as qualify on that in order to be here today, to group and qualify tomorrow. This is range day. This is not like any other day for me.


Good morning, good evening, good afternoon, good day. My name is Brian here, and I'm here. Yes. Free Salon Education Live. I'm here with Matt Beck. And today we're going to be doing something that I feel like we've been leaving out in the conversation for quite some time. The Money Piece has been a really hot topic for a minute, but what about people with bangs? So I have been practicing this a little bit in the salon without asking permission, because I wanted to make sure that I had something to present for you guys. So I've been playing around with people's fringe, their bangs, and trying to find a way that made me feel comfortable saying that it's related to the Money Piece. It is going to be a series of, just like I was doing with the Money Piece back when it was long, there is going to be foils and balayage together, because I just think they work really well as far as creating that it gives it that look of this isn't the first time the hair has been lightened, because you have immediate dimension between what the foils can give and what balayage is going to give. So I think that they just form a really nice partnership, especially in a look like this. This is also not a cookie cutter technique that this works on everybody. This is very customized to what you are working with. So I came into this haircut. There was a lot of really cool pieciness around the bangs. So I incorporated that because I didn't want it to just be like a block color chunk of white bangs with the rest of the hair being dark. There was not really a ton of dimension in this hair to begin with. So you'll see as I did this heavy Money Piece in the fringe, I did just throw a tiny bit of dimension using balayage through the rest of the hair. I will do the same with our upcoming noodles that we're going to work on. All right, so this is what we're working on. It's not the exact same haircut, because that's reality. How often is what you're going to learn in class going to be every single haircut that comes into the salon? So for starters, we're going to pick out what it is that we want, where we want the focus of all this energy to be. So I'm not going, this isn't going to be a class of doing this entire head. We've got plenty of those and there will be plenty more. But I am going to look and see what could be a really cool fun area to give some of this excitement to. Because we are going to be going in with a much stronger technique, I don't want to have it all be on the side where the direction of the bangs go. I want to bring some in over here. I do the same thing when I cut a side bang. I always say I like to have a little related piece over here, because it just helps to balance everything out a little bit. But when I bring this back and then you look at this, if that's what we're lightening, I think that'll look really cool. I think that'll look nice when the hair gets pulled back. It'll look nice when the hair is down.  So I'm doing, for my blonding choices, I'm going with Sinker Lift for my foils, because I want nice, bright, clean, even lift. And then Skylights for my balayage, because yeah, I'll chase the camera. I don't have a search for attention. Yeah, I like Skylights because it's just a fantastic consistency to work with. And I don't know, there's just something about trying to stay in the same family of products that just makes me feel like I'm going to get a more, I don't know, what's the word I'm looking for? Like the end result is just going to go together nicer by keeping things related. That might just be all in my head. I don't know. I'm not going to challenge it, so don't ask me to. Because I'm working with a mannequin, I am going to do 40 volume for both of these, because I discovered a couple weeks ago. While we use 20 in everybody's foils on real people, forgot that that is not the best idea when you're working on a mannequin, because 20 very rarely breaks through as much as you want it to. So Homegirl's getting 40 on both. Okay, so I'm only going to be using my foils through the actual fringe. The cool, long pieces here, my little tendrils, that's just going to be balayage because they want that to be like a softer transition into the hair. Because like I said, I'm not going to go real hard with any highlighting back here. So this is going to sort of be like that brackish water to take it back to marine biology. I guess that would be earth science more than marine biology, whatever. Where salt water and fresh water come together, brackish water, this is the brackish water of the hair color. Because we're going to go pretty hard in here, not so hard back here. So this, our balayage tendrils are going to be what helps that make sense. Thanks for that fun fact. Hey, you know what? You're welcome. Everyone's a little bit smarter. Because I feel like, I don't know why, but that's just something that stuck with me ever since high school. And I reference it a lot. And I don't know that everyone else remembered it as well as I did. So now, I at least know, these guys know. All right. So in checking this out, this is going to be what we're foiling. I discovered a fun little cool technique to make this pop and have it be not just like typical foils like bricklay through there. Cause that'll look a little funny in the root section because there is going to be that shadow at the root because we are foiling and we're not doing slices. So what I think it was kind of a cool little difference on doing it is they found a point in the shortest point of the bangs where they start. And then I just had that be sort of a pivot point for all of my foils because it just also creates a fun little sweeping sweeping look while still giving me my highest concentration of blonde in a corner like money pieces like to be. So pick your comb based on how bold you want these highlights to be.  I think I'm going to go with the middle highlighty one cause yesterday on my client who's got super fine hair but I've actually referenced in my classes many times cause anytime someone asked me what about someone with fine hair? I always think about her cause she's the finest hair of everyone I have and the blondest. And yesterday I did this on her. She has more of a like what I consider curtain fringe than find out I was wrong the straight across and she wanted like blonde like hard blonde. And I did the baby lights back to back all the way through and it's fantastic but it works really well on the fine hair. I feel like it might just get lost in the thicker, darker hair. So I am going to go in with something a little more aggressive angle okay and everything. Now that it's intimate and it's just us I can tell you guys I'm not blowing smoke. I really do love this table. The amount of crap that I have on this table right now and the fact that it is completely organized and nothing is touching anything makes me very happy. Like I'm one of those people at the holidays with a big plate of food where my food doesn't really touch cause I don't particularly love that. So when I work it's the same thing and I have almost an entire color bar. All right back to focus. So what I'm saying about your little pivoting point there where you're going to do your foils from I'm going to start at the same spot but now it's going to be like a little cheese wedge slice of pizza, trivial pursuit, whatever triangle shape thing is going to make that sit in your brain best. So I've got the point down here. See what I'm saying? Picking up the shape. Cool. And then I'm going to take my slice from that. That I then... We are going to go in and balayage the ends of these just like we do when it's a longer money piece. So don't worry about it being like, ah, brand that's so dark in between. Don't worry, we will address that. Foils in as close as you want them or as close as you're capable.   It's just something that I've always done. So it's something I'm always going to do. But I know that it's not something everybody does. But this is one of those scenarios where you're going to want to lock them in because we're going to be moving them a whole bunch and we up and down and I want to bleach in between and do all this other stuff. So it just helps to have it in there good and tight so that while you're moving it around, it's not going to slide. Because this is an area, like this is one of those things that's a super, super important area to make sure that you execute really nicely and cleanly. Because this is the part of their hair they're going to focus the most on. Because this isn't even like when someone gets a bob and upfront is important. This is someone with bangs. Like they're going to be fixing this part of their hair every single day. So you want to make sure that it looks good and that it looks nice and neat and there's no like, oh God, I have to talk them into liking this kind of moments. And boil slipping is a really fast track to getting a whoops that you've got to hide or fix. I guess you could just fix your mistakes and not just lie about them. Yeah, that's an option. What a novel idea. So again, pivoting out. Does that make sense? Do you guys, the way it makes sense to me? Matt, you can be one of the guys I'm referencing. Pivoting? Yeah. It's smart. Smart guy. My name's not just hair. It's also here. It's brain. Brain here. Game on the first outing. All right. So one thing that I will point out because we're doing this pivoting, you got to notice that we are starting to get up towards where this would be a really standout foil. Cause I mean, we took that triangle section. If I keep going, then you're going to have one foil that just lays over that. And that's fine. If that's the look you're going for, don't think that's the look I'm going for. So I think what I'm going to do, just because I think I am going to switch to the baby light for this one, because a highlight like that is going to sit and you're going to see stripe, stripe, stripe, stripe, stripe, which is again, fine. If that's what you're going for. I get to do what I want. My glass. I'm switching to this one. Because the way this reads is it reads much softer, but also it's a foil. So it's going to, it's going to stand out. It's going to be there. Not how that was supposed to go. Our shoe gloves. Nice. Awesome. You're welcome. Matt just paid that guy so much money to step in here and talk about how great his haircut is in front of you. He didn't even hear it. They heard it. You guys didn't hear? Well, Matt just got. Oh, you could hear? Oh, these mics. Okay. So just real quick so that you know what's going on and then I want to chitchat more. I'm just going in between my foils. Unlike when the hair is super long and you can just kind of grab all of it. I do have to go in between because it is smaller. The hair is smaller. Also known as shorter. Actually going individually each time and grabbing the little sections that I left out to make sure that nothing gets left behind because I do want the ends of all of the fringe to be lighter. So I am holding it the direction that it is cut to go so that the flow that you're creating with the color is actually going with the flow of the cut of the fringe. Okay, that's all I had to throw in there. This is why I needed the paddle because I was like, oh, maybe I can do it without. No, not this one. Sometimes I can, but this time I actually need to use the paddle to hold the bangs for me so that I can create the actual look I want. And yesterday was a big makeover day but I was like trying to hold butt to get out of here because I volunteer at a local high school to do their hair for the theater department. The show opens this week and I forgot that I was supposed to do that this week. So I was like, okay, I'll come after work. So I had to like get out when I finished Marcy's hair yesterday. But it does look really cool. I bet.   So it's like color blocking, but with the consistency that you can get from foils. Best of both worlds. Oh my God. Yeah, you do. Yeah, I just actually made someone's hair green yesterday. Intentionally. Good job. Was it Billie Eilish? Sweet. Oh, should be. Like I, anytime I have to color correct any fantasy color, I'm just like, all right, here we go. Let's take all that knowledge that we have and hope it works. Cause you know, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Wow Jess, that's no joke. Let me see. Good job. Before? Oh, stop. Before? Before. Oh wow. Oh wow. Good job. All right, so now we're gonna be playing with the stuff that's outside. And this is where it's just gonna be your artistic choices. We've got, this is the technical part that I wanted to show you and now out here is gonna be what will make this good. So I think hitting some really good balayage on the angle here will be nice and then hitting it real good off on this side will make it work really nice as well. So, all right, so I'm gonna work again in pie shape sections just because this hair, we're gonna say it's gonna live down most of the time because these are the cute, tenderly things that even when someone pulls their hair back, they do want hanging out. So since it's gonna live down, I'm gonna color it down because that's how balayage works. Depending on how much light you want and where you want the light to be, take all that into account, obviously. But I'm gonna come up top, give it a nice soft fade in with a much thicker, firmer consistency through the end to get a nice light wand. Well, I love that. I gotta say I really do miss teaching and being able to talk to people while I do it. Yeah, it's nice, right? This is nice. So again, one section, two, and then three. So I'm gonna do a similar thing just like any other time. Usually I reference this when you're at the high point in the back of the head but keep in mind, I got a lot of highlights coming from one spot right here. So just think about that visually, like what you want that to look like. Because I've got now two highlights coming from this spot. Do I wanna have all of them like coming hard from there and then that's that cool spotlight? Think about it, think about it. Yeah, I do. Because we talked about it, so that's what it's gonna be. So keep the hair nice and straight. Just makes for a cleaner application and get in there. Let's make this the star of the show. She didn't get bangs and she didn't want attention.  So now when you look at this, we've got, it looks very dramatic because it's the paint, but if you've worked with Balay as you understand how much softer that's gonna come out at the end but it is gonna give me a nice little statement piece on the softer side of the fringe. Cause when you look at this straight on and you think like, okay, that's gonna be really bright, bold bangs. Something over here for a little bit of fun for everyone to enjoy. And then I'm gonna pop back over here to do my brackish water and then you're done. It's all that working out. Your chest is like, I agree and you're not used to it. I'm not used to such large pecs. I have to excuse me, my new muscles.  So that's fun. You're welcome viewers. I'm sure that one's gonna make the final cut of the class. Oh yeah, you know. To be a fly on the wall when Matt has to edit a video that I was filming. I like to think that it's entertaining for him. I do it on silent. I'm still here. I'm just rolling this around to make sure that I get maximum saturation with this piece cause it is just balayage compared to the much stronger foils. So I'm not worried about this overpowering at all. So then from here, let's say you've done this to your guests. Just decide what else you wanna do to the rest of the head, if anything. All right, she's done.