 blending gives an!* Welcome to the 20th meeting of the Rotolif Welfare's Islands and Natural Xiangs y Liestafallen FyRI Sentورm yn 2022. Before we begin, I remind all members using electronic devices to switch them to silent. Apologies have been obtained from Karen Adams this morning so we understand that Emma Harper will be joining us as her substitute after 10 a.m. Our first item of business today is a decision to take, item six, in private. Are we agreed? Rwy'n credu. Efallai ynghyd y dyfodol y bydd y maen nhw yn ddifuig y dyfodol o'r ddrafft ddylch yn ei ddylch yn ddylch yn y ddiddordebent Cymru 2022 i'r ddifuig ac yn ddifuig y dyfodol o'r ddifuig ond yn ddylch yn ddylch yn ddylch yn ddylch yn Ddifuig 2022. Fawr i'r gweithio'r mewn ddechrau, dyfodol o'r grŵr, gyflymau ac yn ddifuig, the Scottish Government officials Rachel Coutts and Caspian Richards, and I invite the minister to make any opening remarks. Thank you for making time today to consider the draft SSI, the plant health fees miscellaneous amendment Scotland regulations 2022. The regulations are being made to amend Scottish legislation in the field of plant health, in particular relating to fees payable by an importer of a consignment originating in a third country in respect of the physical and identity checks of plant and plant products. The import fees are being amended as a consequence of a new GB-focused risk-based frequency of checks regime being introduced across GB from 22 July 2022. The new methodology is set out in the statutory instrument PH-038, which the committee has just considered. The revised fees apply to imported consignments of all high-risk products imported from all third countries, as well as lower-risk regulated products from all third countries except the EU, Lichtenstein and Switzerland. In addition, the regulations also amend the plant health fees forestry, England and Scotland regulations of 2015. The forestry fees regulations contain provision relating to export certification fees for forestry products under the UK Government's movement assistance scheme to provide that such fees are not payable in relation to exports from Scotland to Northern Ireland in certain circumstances. The movement assistance scheme was originally scheduled to end in December 2022, but the UK Government later extended the scheme and it is now due to end in December 2023. The 2022 regulations amend the forestry fees regulations to reflect that later date. Those regulations are therefore necessary and appropriate. My officials and I would be happy to take any questions from the committee. Thank you very much, and we do have a number of questions. According to the notification, the new approach is based on the EU principles for risk-targeted inspections, so why the Scottish Government feels a new approach is required and what the deficiencies were in the existing approach? I will give you my layperson's interpretation and officials can come in with technical details if I have missed anything. Due to Brexit, it is now necessary to do the checks on all high-risk products coming from the EU in addition to the rest of the world. Those checks aim to bring how we treat products from the EU into alignment with how we do the rest of the world. Obviously, the Scottish Government did not wish for Brexit to happen and did not wish for those checks to be necessary, but it is important that we have alignment between how we handle products from the EU and how we handle the products from the rest of the world. England and Wales have already put in place such a risk-based scheme. The EU scheme, which is what would have checked those products as they came into the EU, is also a risk-based scheme. It is the same principle and the same structure of scheme. It is just that we have to now bring this into Scottish legislation. What were the deficiencies in the current scheme that require you to bring in a new approach? It is not a matter of deficiencies in the existing scheme. The EU scheme was based on risks for the EU. Now that we are bringing this legislation at a GB level—of course, the fees are related to Scotland, but the SI is at a GB level—when we do that risk assessment, although the methodology for the risk assessment is very similar, risks that we face in the GB are different from the risks that are faced by the EU. For example, in the EU there are many citrus growers and we do not grow citrus fruits in the UK, so the risk assessment on those things would be different. Is not it a matter of deficiencies? It is a matter of doing appropriate checks for the risks that we have here. The minister explained to us what the EU principles for risk-targeted inspections are and how they are reflected in the new proposed inspection regime. Again, I will give you the sort of lay person's view and officials can come in with the details. It is the same kind of risk profiling. When we have pathogens that exist, we have to check that as plants come in that they are the correct plant, as identified, and that that plant is healthy is not bringing pathogens in. Risk assessments would be based on what we grow here, what pathogens may spread in the UK, and what might put risk to our crops and our commercial interests. I do not know if officials have more detail that they would like to add. No, that is basically the assessment. The EU approach is based on a frequency of checks at 100 per cent for goods that can be reduced where those are considered to be at a lower risk. That is the same principle that applies to the approach that has been developed on a GB-wide basis. As the minister said, we are reflecting the risks within a GB context in terms of the specific goods. You have set out some of the reasoning here, but I just wanted you to give a practical example of the new process that we are talking about and how the GB approach would differ from the EU approach. You have given your reasons for your own approach, but I wonder if you have given a practical example for real life. Officials can give more. If we do not grow citrus fruits in the UK, we do not have a commercial interest there or grow crops. Importing citrus plants, for example, would not risk our commercial agriculture, so those would be considered a lower-risk product, whereas products that we do grow here that are part of our commercial agriculture would be higher-risk products. We do not need the same level of checks on citrus plants that a country would grow those things as a commercial product. The other point that I wanted to raise was—to ask you about briefly—was annexed to the notification that sets out the issue of the frequency of checks. It is proposed that there will be a check at a frequency of 30 per cent for some categories. I wonder if you could just explain why this is the case and what the reason was behind that figure. I do not need to get officials to go in, but the principle of the matter is to understand the risks of where things are coming from. For example, if we are importing from a country that we know has good plant health controls, that we know that it is not particularly infected by a pathogen that affects barley or something of that kind, then we would not do those inspections. However, if a plant is coming or a plant material is coming from a country that we know contains that pathogen that does not have the standards of plant health checks and inspections that we would expect to have, then we need to increase our inspections to ensure our biosecurity. I was wondering why the frequency rates have been set at, for example, 30 per cent for a check rather than the standardised rates, which were 3, 5, 10, 50 and 100 per cent. Can you give us some examples of any woody plants that are prohibited to come into the country that are subject to those checks that may affect agriculture? I will let the officials answer the second question, but on the first one, as I said to the member, it depends on where items are coming from. If items are coming from a country that has good plant health security and is not affected by a known pathogen, then we can safely reduce the levels of checks. If plant material is coming from a country where we know they carry a pathogen and there is a risk there to our crops, then we would increase the level of checks. It allows us to be flexible and dynamic and use our resources to prevent those higher risks. On the second question, maybe officials can give some examples for me. I think that you have to write with a specific example of the woody plants. Basically, the principle in terms of plants for planting is that those are the higher risk goods because they are the soil material that is involved. In terms of a specific example of a woody plant that is found in that category, we would have to follow up with writing on that one. That is a slight change. I am not convinced from your answer to the convener's question that that is a sort of a like-for-like approach that we are taking as it was. I would like reassurance that that was. Do you have examples of what level of plant is getting into this country? I notice that some people might bring something in the country in their hand luggage. Are those just checks that are happening in lorries? Are they random checks? Are they planned entries into the country? How does that work? I will give you a general overview and then officials can come in with more detail. The SI and the fees relate to only high-risk products. That is commercially importing large quantities through commercial and business interests. That one plant in your hand luggage is not a high-risk product. That is low risk. Checks on low risk have been delayed by another 18 months. The legislation is specifically about high risk. It is commercial things. It is imports that we know about that we can then trace through the country, making sure that those are right. We can check up to 100 per cent of those. In fact, the default fee is for 100 per cent check, but we are able to—for example, as Caspian says, if for woody products that may be had a very high risk to them, we could do up to 100 per cent checks because we can trace those materials. Where there is a lower risk, we can lower the number of checks just based on that risk assessment. I do not know if officials want to add anything there. If we come back to what you were saying about how does it work, it is quite complex. There is our model for checking these goods. SPS goods are based on the official control regulation, which is the EU model. We have now the official control regulation for GB, which was deficiency fixed when we left the EU. As a part of the official control regulation, competence authorities and the Scottish ministers are required to undertake risk-based checks on specific goods that are listed for plants. There are lists of those plants that must undergo checks. Importers are required to let—how it works on the ground—importers are required to give advance notice to the Scottish ministers that they intend to import these goods. At that point, they will be randomly selected or, if they are at 100 per cent check, all the goods will be selected. That will be undertaken by Government officials. At that point, it is all done electronically and fees are paid. The frequency of checks and the fees that we are putting in place is based on this overarching EU model. As the minister has said, it is now adapted for GB and has tailored it to a GB context. The legislation reflects a lot of what was in the EU legislation and slightly goes into a little bit more detail. In fact, it does things like it requires the Government to publish frequency rates online, which is something that the EU model does not set out in legislation but happens in practice. That is some of the slight differences. It is important to remember that we are still under the EU model, but it is tailored following requirements under the official control regulation. When you get back to any non-native species that are at risk to agriculture, it is important that, with all the new competences that we may have with regard to controlling any non-native species on the upland, say, for example, bracken that needs to be controlled for tick populations with azulum, it is important that those types of products are not coming into the country to effect. I suppose that the spread of ticks and things like that, but anyway. Thank you. I just want to clarify something. It is quite straightforward in terms of an importer will notify through paperwork and electronically what it is importing, so it might be a lorry full of bean seeds and their low risk, so they may only get checked at 3 per cent. It could be potatoes and they may be checked at 50 per cent because they are at a higher risk. Why is it that some of the plant products in Annex 2 are proposed to be checked at 30 per cent, because that is not one of the standard five frequencies, which are 3, 5, 10, 15 and 100? Why on earth are there some that are checked at 30 per cent? I do not know the answer to that. I think that that may be an error. I think that we may have to clarify why the 30 per cent is there or if it has been missed out of the 30 per cent is a standard inspection frequency, so if it is all right, convener, we will clarify on that. Yes, because it appears strange that if there are five set frequencies, there are some plants that do not fit in with that criteria. Can you just outline to us, are there any other ways in which the approach to determining the frequency of checks differs to that of the EU? For example, the default frequency in the GB, will it continue to be 100 per cent unless a commodity qualifies for the lower frequency of checks? That is my understanding that that is the case. Will the proposed SI continue to prescribe that those commodities where more than 1 per cent of the consignments are found to have harmful organisms are not eligible for reduced frequency of checks? That is my understanding. And whether the GB approach continues to prescribe a minimum number of consignments that must have been imported into the GB in order to qualify for reduced frequency of checks and if so, what are the minimum number of consignments? I do not know the answer to that one. It is that the minimum is 40. That is a change in the EU. The EU is 200, but that is just to reflect the smaller market, as it were. There will be a requirement to have 40 consignments in order to be eligible. So the EU is 200, but the UK SI is reducing it to 40 on the basis of the size of the number of products that are coming in. I think that the ministers answered my questions in response to other members' questions, so it might be appropriate just to move on. Can I ask how the proposed SI relates to the common framework on plant health? For example, is the decision-making fora and processes established by the common framework being used in relation to import checks on plant products, and will they be used in relation to the annual review of frequency of checks? I will refer to officials for that one. Yes, so the common framework sets out how the Administrations across the UK work together on a range of plant health issues. It is very much describing the processes that are in place to work to identify threats to plant health. Part of that is the forums through which the risk-based assessments take place then apply to the fees legislation. It is very much part of that overall UK-wide framework. It is officials from the four Administrations who are making assessments based on the risks within a GP context. The framework work informs how these SI's are designed. It describes the processes where we work together to develop things like the legislation in common, but also the assessment of the risks within a GP context. If you could let us know what the Scottish Government's role in the annual review of frequency rates is and how the Scottish Parliament will be able to scrutinise the decisions that will impact on imports to Scotland. I am sure that the answer to the first question is in the frameworks that Caspian has just described—those frameworks describe how we work together with the four nations of the UK in terms of how Parliament may scrutinise. I am not sure what the instrument there is. As it is based on the EU model, what will happen is that the UK plant health services, such as all the devolved Administrations, will work together to establish those frequencies. It is not expected that there is any parliamentary scrutiny for those frequencies. That is exactly the same as what happened with the EU previously. The EU had legislation and then annually would produce a notification that sets out the frequencies, so it is doing the same, so it is not expected. As a business as usual step, it is not expected that there would be any parliamentary scrutiny at that point for those three levels. I am just going to go back to response to Mr Richard on the question about common frameworks. The notification actually states that the SI is not related to a common framework. I am not sure about that, to be honest. There is a common framework for plant health, and that describes how the Administrations work together across the piece. It is not derived from the common framework, but it describes the processes through which the Administrations work together. It is complementary from that point of view, but it is not that the common framework has produced the legislation. It is important to say that the plant health framework has not yet been approved or scrutinised, so that is why it says that it does not refer to a plant health framework. Obviously, there are structures that are already in place that we are using to make these decisions that we would hope to go forward in the future to be part of the framework. That is helpful. Finally, why is there a reduced fee per consignment proposed for those imports that are eligible for a reduced level of physical checks? The fees structure is intended to cover the costs. Where there are reduced inspections required, that is reduced costs. The fees are not a money making mechanism. If we have to spend less resources doing fewer checks, we do not need to charge as much fees. The fees are based on a consignment fee, not an overall fee. Why would the cost per consignment be less because there are fewer? That is an excellent question. If you were one of the 3 per cent chosen to have your truck full of potatoes checked, it would be unfair for you to have to pay the fee because that is just done randomly. Those costs are spread around the sector. For each individual consignment, that is spread across the whole sector so that those fees are fair so that the person whose individual consignment is chosen is not unfairly penalised. Okay, thank you. Just finally going back to what may be a drafting error, it would be useful to know whether that drafting error relating to the 30 per cent frequency is in the UK draft. Before we can give consent, can you let us know whether how that would be addressed because ultimately, if this went into legislation, the 30 per cent would stand. How would that be rectified if it is a drafting error? Obviously, what is in the notification has been taken from information that we have received from and discussed with our colleagues in the UK Government. I would like to go back and check if 30 per cent should be in the paragraph in the notification. I suspect that that is where the error has arisen or, in fact, the 30 per cent is a typo in the annex and it should read 50 or 100, but I will certainly confirm where the issue is if it is either in the content of the notification or in the annex. Okay, that is fine. Thank you. Is there any further questions? No, okay. We will now move on to consideration of the instruments. Agenda item 3, so we will first move to the consent notification. Do members have any comments on the notification and do we agree with the Scottish Government's decision to consent to the provision set out in the notification being included in the UK rather than Scottish subordinate legislation? Agreed, thank you. Agenda item 4, which is a formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument, and I invite the minister to move motion S6M-04876 that the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee recommends that the plant health fee miscellaneous amendment Scotland regulation 2022 draft be approved. I'm happy to move the motion. Does any member wish to debate the motion? Okay, we now move to the question, is the committee content to recommend approval of the instrument? Thank you, approved. Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report on our deliberations on this affirmative SSI? Thank you, and that completes consideration of the subordinate legislation. I thank the minister and our officials for attending today, and I will briefly suspend to allow change over witnesses and will reconvene at 9.35. Thank you. We now turn to evidence on the Hunting with Dogs Scotland bill, and I welcome to our meeting our first panel, who will focus on the animal welfare perspectives. Attending remotely, we have Pete Goddard from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, who is substituting for Libby Anderson, who is not able to be with us. Also remotely, we have Robbie Marzlin from the League Against Cruel Sports. In the room with us, we have Chief Superintendent Mike Flynn from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Kirsty Jenkins from One Kind. We have a series of questions that will probably take us up to around about 11 o'clock, and I'll kick off. Can you ask witnesses what their overall views are on the bill, and we'll kick off with Mike Flynn? We strongly welcome the bill. It's fair to say that if everybody had acted in accordance with the 2010 to 2002 act, we wouldn't be sitting here today, but the majority of it is to close the loopholes that were there because, from our point of view, every major baiter has been after foxes, every hair coarser has been after rabbits. There's a lot in the bill that we strongly, strongly welcome, but a lot of things have got to be defined better because there's still a lot open to interpretation when it gets to courts. I think that the licensing provisions have got to be really specified and fleshed out if nature Scotland is going to have a reasonable chance of doing a good licensing job. We'll now move remotely to Robbie Marzlin. I agree with Mike. We strongly welcome the intent behind the bill and have some interests and concerns about exceptions, particularly to the licensing scheme, which I'm sure we'll be exploring more in this session today. Thank you for inviting us here today. We also support the bill. The aim of the bill was to address some of the discrepancies and close loopholes in the 2002 act, and I think that it achieves that to a large extent. We do have some concerns about some of the exceptions and the licensing scheme, and I'm sure that we'll get to the details of that as we go along. We would also like to question the assumptions behind those exceptions, which are that foxes need to be killed routinely and that the use of dogs is a suitable way to do that. I know that several of you represent farmers and I know that lamblosses has been a big topic of discussion. I think that farmers definitely need to be better supported both financially and in terms of their mental health. That's a big conversation that's not going to happen today, but I think that it is relevant and I want to acknowledge it. Farmers also need to be supported in terms of any changes to wildlife management, so I want to say that because any suggestions that I make for changes, I'm not implying that the onus for that should be on any individuals, it needs to be Government led and farmers should be supported. However, it seems that if we do not have enough methods to control wild animals, to manage wild animals that are both effective and humane, that is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I don't think that it means that we should just carry on doing what we're doing. We strongly support the bill and we have concerns about the exceptions. We prefer to see no exceptions at all. If they're going to remain, we think that there are ways that they could be strengthened, and I'm sure that we'll get to the details of that. Good morning. Thank you very much for the opportunity to attend today. I'm standing in his head for Olivia Anderson, who apologises for not being able to be here. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission is very welcoming of the bill. We see it introducing a much greater clarity in the legislation. There are some small points where greater clarity and the lack of confusion could be introduced, but in general we're moving towards questioning practices and looking for solutions that follow international ethical principles for wildlife control, and we are very supportive of it. As others have said already, in some of the details we'll pick out later on that there may be some things that we can add, which we've obviously elucidated in our written contribution. We're now going to move on to questions on section 1 and 2 of the bill that covers offences, and I'll first move to Ariane Burgess. Thank you, convener. I'm going to direct this question to Robbie and then if others want to come in. I'd like to ask for some clarification. The written evidence received by the committee includes many statements that the bill will limit the efficacy of so-called pest control, but I thought that the main substance of the bill, the offences in section 1 and 2, relate to hunting with dogs in circumstances which I believe are already illegal. Could you clarify what do you believe the intention of the bill is and why is it necessary? Sure, thank you. The league of ethical sports has been looking at mainly mounted hunts, but activities that include encouraging packs of hounds to chase and kill foxes, both mounted and on foot. That's where our concerns started, because we all thought that fox hunting in that way had been banned in 2022, but when we started to look very carefully at the situation, what we found was that exceptions in the existing legislation and the Perception of Wild Animals Act were being used in a way to enable what you could describe as traditional hunting to continue in Scotland, specifically the flushing to guns exception. It was interesting that the main difference between the flushing to guns exception in Scotland to that in England and Wales was that in Scotland it was possible to use a full pack of hounds to go flushing to guns. When we filmed the majority of the 10 mounted hunts in Scotland in the first season in 2014, we didn't see a single gun. What we thought we were looking at was traditional hunting, which is happening perhaps beneath the radar. That was the issue that caused the league to start talking about this in public, and that's the issue that we've been trying to address since then. That's the issue, which I'm really pleased that this legislation is looking at. As the minister said when she introduced the legislation, it's that situation that we're now trying to finally close and to really ban fox hunting in the way that we thought we'd done getting on for 20 years ago, more than 20 years ago. I very much see this as redressing a failure of the existing law, or the fact that it's just too easy to get around the existing law, and that this bill will bring in and close loopholes, if you like, in the existing legislation. As I mentioned earlier, and again I'm sure we'll be talking about, my worry is that there may be some new loopholes being introduced in this legislation, and that's the area where I'm particularly interested in. I think that we do know that there are groups of people who are quite determined to use Packs of Hounds to hunt, chase and kill wild mammals foxes in Scotland. We need to make sure that this legislation really, really does stop that from happening. It would be awful if we had to all come back in a year's time and look at more film of that kind of activity happening, and that's what I'm hoping won't happen. Thank you. I don't know if anyone else wants to come in on that. Thank you, convener. One of the things that you may have seen that's been discussed at some length in previous meetings we've had has been about the definition of which wild mammals should be included in this piece of legislation. I've been quite a lot of discussion in the committee about rabbits specifically, but I wonder if you could just look in firstly at perhaps Mike Flynn and Robbie Marsle and whether you could offer an opinion about that and whether the inclusion of rabbits in the bill is needed and works. In the Scottish SBC welcomes rabbits being included, as I said in my opening part, that is the usual excuse for people that the police catch when they're hair coursing, as they're after rabbits. I do understand or believe that the British Association of Sport and Conservation has said that the majority of rabbits are shot, and shooting would always be the preferred method by a licensed person who's competent to do so. Just before I move on to other witnesses there, I just wonder if you could indicate that Mr Flynn is hair coursing and your view is still a problem in Scotland? It still goes on, without doubt. That's a better question for Police Scotland to police monitor that, but it's like all kinds of rural crime. It's incredibly hard to catch. We've given farmers warnings with the rural police, Alan John, that they should be reporting anybody on their land that is suspicious in any way, whether it's for foxes or rabbits or hares or whatever, because a lot of these people go on to carry out other crimes on the farm. I don't know if he's been invited as a witness in this session on police matters, but Alan John would be able to expand on that from the rural crime department. To others' wish to come in, I suggest to Robbie Marslyn, but perhaps others do as well. I think I'm unmuted. I agree with Mike. We have policing by consent in Scotland. That's always a problem when you come into a contact with a group of people who don't consent and who look for excuses and cover. When I see the issue of rabbits as an issue in this debate, I do, like Mike, come at it as a way of, oh, is that going to be used as an excuse? Oh, we weren't really chasing foxes. We were chasing rabbits. We weren't really engaged in badger baiting. We were looking for rabbits, and I'm afraid that's the sort of situation that we face ourselves in. I know talking to colleagues in Badgers Scotland that they have lots of concerns about false alibis, if you like, being pulled forward about rabbits that we were looking for. That's why I would agree with Mike, that it's a really good thing that rabbits are included in this, and I'm afraid that's the reason. This is one of the most contentious parts. It would appear that it's using a law to control something in almost a tangental way so that bringing rabbits to stop hares being hunted. Is it a simpler way not to be if someone is approached and detained by the police for suspected hair coursing? If the landowner didn't give consent for that person to be on that property with dogs and they were hunting in some way, would that be the way to stop it rather than using another excuse to catch them for hair coursing? It seems to be a bit contrived, and it's important. We've seen in the past when the law wasn't particularly precise, it wasn't good law. Is there a danger here that we create bad law by bringing in hunting for rabbits in offence when there would be other ways to do it? If landowners are not given consent for people with dogs hunting to be on their property, that would be the most straightforward and easy way to do it rather than what appears to be a sledgehammer to crack in it and bringing rabbits into the legislation. Mike. I wonder where you're coming from, but the legislation does not stop a farmer controlling rabbits on his land. It can shoot them, make them go ferret and all that kind of stuff, so it's not taking that away. If you look at one of the biggest benefit foxes is the amount of rabbits that they take, we do welcome that. Again, you're chasing a mammal if the intention is genuinely to go for rabbits. There are other more humane ways to do it than to send dogs on them. A lot of people think that all these kind of activities, the dog, instantly kills an animal. You might get away with that way mice and rats, but that's not the case with foxes. Even with rabbits, they're not all instantly killed and they go through the fear of being chased. If this bill actually said that a farmer cannot control a pest on his land, we'd be the first to be concerned about it because farmers have got to have the right to protect their livestock. You've got Emma Harper there that brought in legislation to strengthen worry in the livestock. A farmer has got to be able to protect his livelihood, but that, in effect, does not stop that. They can still take legal methods to do it, which in our opinion are far more humane. Ring up there about the bill that we passed in the Parliament with worrying with the livestock. How many people have been charged with that offence? Do you have any detail that you can give the committee regarding anyone who is hair-coursing, who is using rabbits as defence and who has got away with it? How many prosecutions are there in terms of hair-coursing in Scotland per annum? As I said earlier on, it's actually Police Scotland that enforced that at the moment. What is classed as wildlife legislation? Strangely enough, we deal with badger baiting because dogs are involved, but it is a regular excuse from what I understand from Police Scotland that if they're caught suspected of hair-coursing, it was rabbits and we're after, or some other legal pest to go there. The livestock worrying is highly underreported. As the consultation showed that Emma Harper conducted a year or so ago, it's highly underreported. There is a call-out in the pentlands at the moment because there's been a couple of incidents where no person was caught. As opposed to somebody going out to deliberately hunt a wild animal, a lot of the livestock worrying is done by people that did not have that intention. That's why it's back to the access code and encouraging people to be responsible. If they see livestock, they should have their dog under control and a sea under control is in this bill as well. Having a dog under control when it's been trained to go for a scent or attack an animal, in my opinion, unless you've got physical restraint of it, is damn near impossible. Can I just follow that up? Do you believe, then, that domestic offences are different to an offence that is a commercial livestock control? Can you explain how you would define the difference between both of those in the context of what you've just said? It's strange because the suffering that's involved for an animal that is attacked by a dog is the same. They're all sentient beings. They are all going to suffer. The law seems to look at it differently. Back to the livestock protection, that was bringing it into any modern-day penalties that are available, because the penalties before were absolutely woeful. There was no encouragement for farmers to report that kind of activity. If anybody's intentionally doing it, it doesn't matter if it's involving domestic. If someone was to set hounds on a domestic cat or another dog, they would more than likely be jailed or very heavily fined, but it's acceptable that they do it to certain wild animals. The suffering is the same. That level of suffering, whatever a fox that's caught by dogs suffers, would be the exact same as if a cat caught it, but it would have a bigger public outcry. It's just people's different opinions of how wildlife that should be treated, and wildlife should be treated with respect. I'm not the Scottish SPC. It's not got a problem with anybody humanely destroying an animal that is a pest for them. If it's public health, if it's costing farmers money, identify the problem and deal with it in the most humane manner. I just wondered if perhaps the other members of the panel can comment on the point that's just been covered by Mike Flynn there around firstly pest control and secondly perhaps more generally their view on the workability of the bill in this area. We have had a discussion in previous panels about, for instance, are there any unintended consequences in the legislation around dogs that slip their leads and chase after rabbits and so on. I'm just keen to get a general view firstly as I say whether the others in the panel accept this point that's been made about the need for pest control and also about the workability of the bill in this area around rabbits. I think that Robbie indicated that he wished to come in on that. I didn't, but I will. The issue of pest control, again, is going to come up throughout this debate, which, as I've said, for my eyes is a debate about stopping people from encouraging packs of hounds to chase and kill wild animals across the Scottish countryside. What I think I have to acknowledge about the bill that we have in front of us is that it does provide the opportunity for people to get a licence if it's shown that the only way that they can control animals is by using a pack of hounds to search and to flush, to waiting guns. Now, do I agree with that? As I've said before, I'm worried that it provides a loophole, but it's not because I don't think that there are situations where you need to control animals. I think we'll hear from my colleague at one kind that the way you make those decisions is one of the most important things, and that's a separate debate about the way you make those decisions. Pest control has a role in this debate, but it still takes it away from what it is that this law is trying to do to stop people from encouraging packs of hounds to chase and kill wild animals, and in particular, foxes. As I said, I'm sure that colleagues from one kind could expand much better than I on that. We were very glad to see that the word pest was removed from the text of the bill. Unfortunately, it does seem to have remained in the discussions around the bill. As Robbie just alluded to, most of you are aware at this point that we support the introduction of the ethical principles for wildlife control, and the final one of those principles is to avoid labels such as pest. However, we recognise that wild animals need to be managed for the purposes laid out in the bill. The ethical principles do not prevent that in any way. All they do is provide a way to guide the decision making as to when and how that should happen, and I think that they could be used to strengthen the bill. I just wanted to go to your other point. You mentioned the possibility of a dog slipping a lead and whether that would get people breaking along. I do not see that being a problem, because if the wording of the bill is hunting a mammal using a dog, I believe in the scenario that you outlined that they would not be using a dog. To me, there does not seem to be a problem there with unintended consequences. I think that the important thing is that, from the Animal Welfare Commission perspective, we would recognise, as others have said, the importance of managing animals that have this negative term pest applied. Equally, we are pleased not to see the word pest in the bill, but this is not saying that we do not recognise the need for ethical wildlife management methods, but those often begin with modifying human practices and then making a justification for using them, using the most appropriate method. I think that it is clear, as Robbie Marsden has said, to have the purpose of the bill in mind when looking at the detail within it. There are just a couple of points of clarification, Kirsty, Robbie and potentially Pete. Mike, you have already answered. Do all of you accept that predator control—I am going to use the word pest, because if you are an arable farmer and you get 10 acres of arable barley eaten by rabbits, that is a pest to you—do you all accept that there is a need for our ability to be able to farm in this country that requires a degree of ethical control of wild animals, Kirsty? I do not need a huge explanation. Do you agree in the principle that we should be able to control them? I agree that there is a need for wild animal management, yes. I do not necessarily agree that it needs to continue in the way that it has historically and is currently being done. I think that the ethical principles that I have mentioned could help to guide that decision making as to whether it is appropriate to continue using the same methods or whether we should be looking for other methods. I will stick with you just now if that is okay, convener. One of the things that you said earlier on, you talked about how we gauge whether an animal is a nuisance, if that feels more comfortable for you. I do not mean that at all. How do you gauge if a fox is a nuisance to you if you are a sheep farmer? How would you gauge that that fox is causing you a problem? I think that the word pest or nuisance, any animal could be considered that way. It depends on the circumstance that they are in. I understand that. Practically, how do you determine whether or not that fox is going to cause you problems? I think that that is a good question. If we are looking at the ethical principles, evidence would be required and what that evidence is. What would that evidence be? It would depend. If you are having lamb losses, that would be evidence if you documented that. Okay, let me clarify that. If you are saying that the only way that a farmer should get a licence is that they document the losses that they incur every morning at lambing time, they go out and they have to record how many lambs are being killed for an ear or a tail or for feeding a den. Would that be the requirement that you would rather see for a farmer to be able to get a licence to deal with a fox? That is one of the forms of evidence. The other thing that I said at the beginning is that that does not necessarily have to all fall on to individuals. In one of your previous panels, there was a mention of landscape scale wildlife management. Equally, some of the evidence base could be broader. I am sure that neighbouring farms are going to be having the same foxes affecting them potentially. I do not know whether the evidence should be at the level of an individual farmer or not. I think that that is something that would have to be further discussed. If we want to do this in the best way possible, a farmer is going to know that he is getting lambs killed and carried because that fox is feeding a den. Then you are in a whole different ballgame of what we call ethical pest control, or ethical wild animal control, because then you are taking a fox out while it is feeding cubs. Surely, we can accept the fact that foxes will kill lambs. We know that they do it. I have had 30 years in sheep farming. I can assure you that every year, foxes will kill lambs. We cannot decide which fox in the countryside is making the decision to come in and kill lambs. Surely, there has got to be a principle of general understanding that foxes will be a problem for farmers' lambing and that the numbers controlled during the winter will be a far more sensible way of doing that rather than waiting until the lambs are being killed. I work directly with animals for most of my life and I really do understand how devastating it is when any animal under your care dies. Having said that, as far as I understand it, the evidence is that lamb losses due to predation is actually a very small number overall. I would dispute that. Having 30 years in sheep farming, I would dispute that. Okay. Again, we are back to maybe we need a better evidence base because the evidence I have seen does seem to suggest that, but if that is not the case, then we need to have a better evidence base. Let me give you an understanding from a sheep farmer's point of view. If you are lambing, Jim, please. I want to finish up by saying that Duncan R Ewing from the RSPB spoke about the fact that they do different practices and that that does not seem to be detrimental to either wild birds or to their farmers who are practising closer to the ways that we are suggesting the ethical principles. I do not claim to have all the evidence. I am just saying that those principles should be followed. I think that we have those points on record. We are now going to move on to exceptions, which are section 3567 in the bill and questions from Jenny Minto. Thank you, convener, and thank you, panel, for coming along. I represent Argyll and Bute, which does not have any, as far as I am aware, foot packs or hunts. I am interested to hear, following on from Mr Fairlie's questions and comments that both Mike Flynn and Kirsty Jenkins have made about understanding that farmers need to protect their livelihoods and their welfare. I am interested to hear about your thoughts on the proposals in the bill, which reduce hunting with dogs to no more than two dogs but also brings in the licence. If you could, in your answer, perhaps touch on why you are specifically opposing, which I think that you have already touched on, the hunting with dogs but also the thoughts about the limit of two dogs and how that might be interpreted by farmers that I have described. I think that I have already said that we would prefer to not see any exceptions to this bill. We accept that wild animals need to be managed, but we think that there are different ways to do that. If there are going to be exceptions, I think that the two-dog limit means more likelihood that the dogs will stay under control. There will be less disturbance to other wild animals and less chance of a wild mammal being killed by the dogs, so we support the two-dog limit. I have already mentioned the ethical principles. I will come back to that. I think that those principles could be applied to the conditions of any of the exceptions. Equally, they could be applied to any licensing scheme. The difference is obviously just being the level of oversight there. As I said, they do not prevent anything happening, but they guide the decision making to try and make sure that it is based on evidence and that the level of welfare is prioritised. You raised some very, very good points there. The bill does not stop a farmer dealing with an animal that he perceives to be a pest. It might change the way it is done, it is carried out, and it does not matter if it is this legislation or any legislation, nobody likes being told that you cannot do what you have been doing for 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years. You raised the fact that the point about food packs and stuff and, potentially, the mountain hunts, there are vast ways in Scotland that do not have any food packs or mountain hunts. They still control foxes, and I have not heard screams of anybody from that kind of area saying that we must get a food pack in a year, so it can be done. This does not stop you dealing with a genuine problem, just the way that you are going about it. Reducing the number from 20 to Bob any number at the moment, downy 2, it will, guaranteed, reduce the chances of the hounds catching and killing the fox, and that is what this is intended because, even with the old legislation, it was never the intention to let the hounds kill it, it was to chase it into an open area to shoot. I think that Mr Marston said earlier on earlier on early days of that legislation that there were allegations that there was no eating any guns on site. One of the things that I said a way back because I have been here long enough, 21 years ago, you cannot get a fox out of cover or out of den and say, run left 100 yards, because that is where the gun is. Foxes, there are a thousand things that will make foxes go in any direction you go. How can the gun safely fall on them? There is that aspect, but there are huge areas of Scotland that do not have the traditional control in using dogs to do it, and that is to stop the use of dogs. On our point, if that can stop the chances of any dogs killing the animal, as I said, if somebody kills a pet species with a clean shot, you've got no problem from me or the Scottish SPC. Robbie Marston indicated that he wanted to come in. Thank you. I just wanted to remind ourselves of what Lord Bonomy said, and also a witness in the only successful prosecution of Mounted Lent in Scotland. Lord Bonomy estimated that using a pack of hounds or dogs resulted in the hounds killing the fox in about 20 per cent at the time, which is a pretty high number in terms of if you say that you're shooting foxes, but in 20 per cent of the occasions it's the dogs that kill the fox in a fairly horrific way. Also, in the successful prosecution of the Jet Forest Hun, one of the defence witnesses who was set to be the person with the gun, his estimate was that 40 per cent of foxes were killed by the pack because he was unable to shoot for one reason or another. That's one of the reasons why I think it's common sense that if you're using two dogs that they won't be as good as flushing foxes quicker than if you've got 36 or more, but if you have those 36, then you're somewhere between 20 to 40 per cent chance of killing the fox by the hounds or dogs. Also, the ability to control them is really hard and that's what results in the thing that we're all trying here to stop, which we thought we'd stopped, which is encouraging packs of hounds to kill wild animals in the Scottish countryside. Goddard, have you got anything to add? Thank you. No, I think that I just revert to the point that the commission isn't saying that management of foxes shouldn't happen, but it just should happen in the best possible way in terms of the welfare of a fox and achieving the objective. That's the thing that needs to be the priority. I just want to go back to something that Robbie said. You suggested that between 40 per cent of the time when there's a pack of dogs, the fox gets caught and killed by the dogs. Have you any evidence to compare that with when there's two dogs or three dogs or four dogs rather than a pack? No. No, as I say, it was Lord Bonami's estimate of 20 per cent and the defence witness at the Jed Forest hunt who estimated 40 per cent. I've not heard, you know, I'm not aware of anybody, am I? I don't think I'm aware of anybody. You wouldn't flush the guns with just two dogs in Scotland at the moment. I'm aware of. Okay, so there's no evidence to compare the difference between them? Actually, you know, I do. Proving a magazine with a magazine is always difficult, isn't it? But what I can say is that, as you know, the League Against Cool Sports operates in England and Wales as well. The Westminster legislation reduced the number of dogs to two from the very beginning, and it was a couple of years after the Scottish legislation, and it said that the Westminster legislation learned from some of the experiences of the Scottish legislation. And since the reduction of dogs to two in England and Wales, I'm not aware of anybody flushing the guns with two dogs in England and Wales. What happened in England and Wales is something that we'll talk about later, which is that a whole new sport was invented overnight called trial hunting, which enabled people to go out with full packs of hounds, which is what they wanted to do. I'm confused. There is no evidence currently that the number of foxes that would be killed as a result of using dogs to flush to guns is any higher using a pack than it is to just using two dogs, because you're suggesting that two dogs are not, so it doesn't happen. Okay, I've got a very short supplementary from Jim Fairly, and then Rachel Hamilton. Robbie, I'd like to come to yourself directly if that's okay. I'd like to actually put it on record that I'm glad that everybody in the room accepts that there is a need for land managers to be able to have a method of control in wildlife, and I think that that's great that we've got that consensus. I'd also like to put it on record that I would in no way advocate that it is a good idea to allow packs of dogs to go chasing across the countryside and catch a fox and kill it. I'm absolutely opposed to it, so let it be clear about that. My question is, Robbie, you talked about Lord Bono, he's talking about 20 per cent of foxes being killed, and that was his estimate. We had Ian Duncan-Miller here last week who is the Highland Persia foothound pack. Now, these guys aren't going to hunt, what they're doing is they're trying to control a predator that is damaging to all sorts of wildlife and farm animals. Now, his estimate is that up to 95 per cent of the foxes are driven out and shot, so the concern that I've always had about this is that if you're driving to standing guns, there's not enough guns. The most important thing is when a fox gets driven that there's enough guns on the outside. Surely the loophole in the law is that there hasn't been enough care taken about how the fox is dispatched once it has been driven from its cover. Surely that's a far more effective way than trying to put two dogs because, again, from experience, two dogs in a very wide area necessarily won't flush the fox, they'll go round in circles because a fox I have huge respect for is a very, very clever animal. The point is to get it out of cover in order to shoot it, so number of guns would be more important than number of dogs, surely. A point I have made because, as I said, it seems to me that the practice or the interpretation of the present legislation is that if you have a couple of guns available, then that is a defence to say that even if the pack of hounds do kill the wild animal, that you were flushing to guns, but whether or not that was a realistic attempt to flush to guns. As I said in the Jed Forrest case, where the successful prosecution was, there was only one gun and he gave evidence that he sat and watched the hole that the fox had gone into and had to agree that he could have gone over there and shot the fox at any time and waited for the hunt to come back to release the fox from the cover and then have the dogs chase it. We have consistently been frustrated by showing the police film that there are no guns around. I would agree with you that number of guns is important, but I also think that it is easier for enforcement if the police can see whether or not there is a pack of hounds there. If there is a pack of hounds there, then you should be able to go over and say where is your licence, fine, and I would agree with you, you should also say where is the effective use of guns, because as you know, the range of the shotgun is about 30 metres and a fox can run in any direction. My contention is that you should have somebody with a gun about every 60 metres to shoot each other all around and then if a fox leaves cover at the moment you have a duty to kill it as soon as possible, but what we are seeing is a couple of guns or no guns or one gun or a gun on the horizon or look at me I've got a gun and fox is being chased across the countryside and that's what I'm hoping that this bill will stop. Thanks very much, but I'm glad that we agree on that point. Brief supplementary for Rachel Hamilton before moving to Beatrice Wishart. Yeah, I'm just worried because this is all about animal welfare and it's not about one specific type of predator control. It's about lots of things and we seem to be focusing on one area. It's about, you know, we heard from Ian Duncan-Miller, as Jim said, we heard from a terrier working group. There are various ways of controlling predator to protect livestock, but it is at the end of the day about animal welfare and just going back to Robbie Marsland, Lord Bonamy's review and evidence to this previous committee had made it clear that two dogs would not work and the use of two dogs to flush to guns has been described as useless by the League of Cruel Sports, so I just wondered if Robbie could comment on that specific point. Sure, I think I already have. As I say, there has been a scientific paper about the use of two dogs and more than two dogs, and as I said clearly, if you use more dogs then foxes will leave cover earlier than if you can only use two dogs, but there is no comment on the scientific paper about animal welfare. As you rightly say, that's what we're here to talk about. The welfare of the fox is undermined by the use of more than two dogs because between 20 and 40% is the evidence that I've heard that foxes would be killed by those dogs rather than being shot, so that's the reason why I think… I think we need to see some evidence on that, please, Mr Marsland, because we heard differently from those practitioners last week. Okay, I can only refer to what Lord Bonamy said and was quoted in earlier sessions. The evidence from the Jed Forest trial, I don't think he's recorded in that share of school. I guess it's following questions following on from the line of previous questions when last week we heard from witnesses representing the wildlife management interests on the situations where they believed required more than two dogs, so I'd be keen to hear further your views on the two dog limit above ground and about the exceptions for management of wild mammals, including falconry, game shooting, deer stocking and environmental benefit like ground nesting birds. We support the two dog limit, but there are exceptions in the bill that a person, whether it's a farmer or for environmental reasons, can apply for a licence if they've got any evidence that's gone so. It comes back to something that Mr Fairleigh said about dealing with a problem before it arises, and I got the interpretation, listening in the last week's session, Mr Duncan Miller, that he was referring to the fixture list that he had. To me, fixture list sounds like football games and rugby have kind of happened and we know what's going to happen. You can't tell a fox not to cause a problem until the second week in February, so that may be that that area was going to sweep that area to prevent foxes causing any damage in the future. That's a different aspect than dealing with a problem that you've actually got. Now, there are exceptions in this if someone has got a problem and can genuinely say that it is going to take more than two dogs, and I heard the example last week, rocky outcrops and certain bits of islands and stuff. If there is a genuine reason and NatureScot, who are the ideal people to cut out that licence and they're all very countryside minded and capable of doing their job, then there is a potential that that could be granted, so it should have no problem. Again, like Kirsty referred back to the RSPB person last week, that they've got interests in both environmental aspects and farming aspects, maybe not as commercial as some people, but they don't use dogs at all on their swathes of land, and I think that Kenny speaks volume, because a lot of people just protect livestock, but you've got European directives to protect ground nests and birds and all that kind of stuff, and if they're not using it, then it is the most appropriate. I think that to refer to other things, Mr Duncan Miller last week referred to, between 90 and 95 per cent are shot. Now, that's back to your point, Mr Fairlie. I think that they've got to be 20 guns, but they're still sometimes where dogs have aided the guns and it's the dogs that kill it, and the whole idea of this, from my point of view, is to ensure as best as possible that dogs do not get used to killing, because that's not the intention. The intention is that they're using an animal and using hounds. Hounds are there to chase if it's going back to another aspect on the unintentional consequences. An old lady walking a lasso apso and the dog gets off a lead, the police aren't going to look twice her. If you're a young guy in combat with two lurchers in a farmer's field, it's going to be a petition. You're going to raise a few eyeballs. It's like in the old Seft thing, the person went equipped. Badger bears and all that. Your haircoasters, none of them do it on their own doorstep. They're travelling to places, they're parking a motor up, they've already searched the place, they're going in with dogs that are used for that purpose, because all dogs are bred for a purpose. Terriers, I get really annoyed when somebody says, I've got a Jack Russell terrier in an event or something. That's what Jack Russell's do. That's the riteria. Hounds are for chasing, sight dogs are for chasing and grabbing. You're getting all these mutant things now, the bull lurchers across between a lurcher and a bull terrier. I would encourage any farmer that sees one on their ground to get one at the police right away, because these people are up to no good. If we can get to the point and as I said at the beginning, if everybody had acted in the spirit of the 2002 act, we wouldn't be sitting here, but it's been abused time and time again. I know that everybody in the countryside that was here last weekend, there are all, I know most of them, very reputable people, Jake sitting behind me. But they're not all, they're not the people that are getting caught with doing what they do. And I can assure you, dogs also get hurt when it's dealing with foxes. I've seen, and if anybody disagrees with or bit foxes now, I can show you plenty of pictures that have actually been in front of court. It's not just us making it up where people have been found guilty. Some of the injuries are horrendous. Now a good terrier man wouldn't do that, but the ones that we're dealing with, they never see a vet. Now you've got them stapling their cheeks back up at home and all that kind of stuff. So if anything, and back to your point, Mr Carson, that putting rabbits in is just to prevent another thing, anything that can prevent all that kind of stuff has got to be for the good. Sorry. Thank you. Can I just touch on it again? We're back to this limiting dogs. So we heard last week that between 90 and 95 per cent of foxes when you use a pack of dogs on foot are shot. That's a massive difference between 20 and 40 per cent and the only difference is whether people are on motorbikes or on horses. So it's supposed to be exceptions to the rule. I've not heard one example of where two dogs is the most appropriate number for controlling or flushing, not one. So it would suggest that every time somebody wants to use dogs at all for flushing, they're going to have to apply for a licence. So that's not an exception, that's the rule. So it would suggest that two dogs is actually an arbitrary limit and has no scientific basis whatsoever. It's a limit which will prevent packs. So it's more about the league against cruel sports rather than the league against cruel pest control. That's an issue that we've heard again and again. This is not actually more effective, less cruel pest control, it's about just stopping hunting packs, mounted horse packs, whatever. So we need to get back to what this bill is all about and it's about animal welfare. So I can't understand why the rule would be two dogs when there's no evidence to suggest in any way that is the best way to flush foxes to guns. Sorry, convene, in my opinion, the only way you would get that evidence would be looking at what's happening in England and Wales because they're limited to two. Nobody up here uses two guns because two dogs, because they're not forced it. This is changing the mindset. Marlon suggested that there wasn't any evidence that anybody was using two dogs to flush to guns. That's the law down in England, if they're breaking the law down in England. No, but he said that it didn't happen. Unless I misunderstood, Mr Marlon suggested that there's no evidence that anybody was using two dogs to flush foxes to guns. Maybe he could come and clarify that. I misunderstood. Robbie. May I? I actually have thought of one instance where two dogs are routinely used in England and Wales, and that is in stag hunting. Again, this is an instance of the lens that people will go to. Stag hunting used to be done by packs of hounds where the stag was chased for considerable distances and then finally shot when the stag was exhausted. To enable the people who want to continue to do that, they've been using relays of two dogs. They put two dogs onto the stag and watched it chase the stag in some cases several miles. They removed those two dogs and replaced them with another two dogs. That's the way that they've been able to continue what they believe is an entertaining sport. That's the only example I can remember of the use of two dogs in England and Wales. The mountain hunt has found another way of going out with the pack of hounds, which is what they want to do. You also suggest that using two dogs to flush is not an effective way of controlling foxes. If you use a full pack, you're in much more danger between 20 and 40 per cent of the animals being killed by pack of hounds, which I think is what this bill is trying to stop from happening, and that's why we support it. Mike, you started to talk about this a little bit, but last week I spoke to Barry Wade from the National Working Terrier Federation and he stated that the point of a terrier being below ground is not to fight with the fox but to discourage him from staying below ground. He also explained to my colleague Mercedes Villalba that in certain circumstances it would be a welfare issue to only send one dog underground because it wouldn't motivate the fox to come up and might stay there too long. However, the concern for animal welfare doesn't sit well with other descriptions of terrier work that I have heard. Last week I was talking with a shepherd and he told me that when he was returning from work he encountered a hunt where he saw a terrier with half of its face torn off after it had been sent down to find the fox. I'm also aware of the case in Angus last month where a gamekeeper was taken to court after his dogs were found to be seriously disfigured from fighting foxes and badgers but he claimed that the dogs had been injured while carrying out legitimate rattling and foxing duties. Apart from the impact on the dog, I'd like to hear more about the animal welfare implications for foxes and mink and could I please ask the panel for information on the welfare impacts of terrier work and your views on exception 5. Mike, maybe you want to pick up because you did start to bring it in. Obviously I can't do here but I'll quite happily send over a briefing paper that will explain the court case and it's quite common what you've just said there about a terrier with fox and badger injuries because the people we deal with tend to use them for the same kind of thing. Fox can be a training method for going on to badgers at a later stage. Mr Barry Wade, I've met him on several occasions, a lovely man. I don't see it. I don't know how you can control a terrier underground. Mr Wade was saying that you can't shout because that would stop the fox coming out because it hears a person but you physically can't do it. As I said, terriers do what terriers do. If they're down there, if the fox is lucky enough to just bolt and get out, then it's away from the terror. If it stays down there, they will face off and foxes will just bite anywhere they can. They're just defending themselves. So if there's something disturbing outside or for whatever reason it doesn't come out in the terriers there, they will get to that. That's why Mr Wade would put a locator collar on it because if your dog's down there and you hear it and it's engaging with the fox, no idea if you dig down to it. That can take hours. That is not a quick passing. You're not just getting one visual and the fox is there. So they do suffer there and I do have grave concerns about dogs underground and I see no reason why you would have to put more than one dog down because those dogs, if anybody that's worked with terriers, you get two terriers in a heightened state, they'll bite each other, never mind. It's not just if the fox will go for it and I'm really pleased to see Mr Fairlie nodding his head there because that's nothing against terriers, great wee dogs, but that's what they do. So I've got grave concerns about using animals underground because there is no way you can control them. I've got great concerns with a pack of hounds and if 20 to 40% are killing a fox, where's the control? That's far too many times that the whistle didn't they work? Once those animals are on their scent, doing what they've been trained, bred and trained to do, they're going to do it, you can whistle Dixie and they're just going to keep going. I would agree. I think that Mike's quite succinctly outlined the welfare concerns with sending terriers underground. Anytime you have two animals trapped in an enclosed space in a heightened state, I think that that's going to lead to concerns. We would like to see that exception removed. I go to Pete and then Robbie. Thank you, convener. I would agree that, from a welfare perspective, having these two animals in conflict below ground with absolutely no chance to control the dog is something that would represent a serious welfare concern. Thank you and Robbie. Thank you. I agree with everything else I said and I'd perhaps leave you with this thought. It is entirely illegal and reprehensible and you very often would get a prison sentence for encouraging two dogs to fight illegal dog fighting. For my mind, I can't see the difference between encouraging two dogs to fight and putting a dog underground where you know there is a fox underground and putting them together. The chances of it being a fight is, I think, clear. I just don't understand why one of those activities is illegal and one is illegal. One of the issues that Mr Wade suggested was that there was a one dog limit and, if there was only one dog that was going down, that's where the problems arise and that the terriers were very well trained to flush and not to fight. If you had more than one dog underground, it was more likely that the fox would try to find an exit route than stay and fight because there was more than one dog, there was more noise, more hustle and bustle and the fox would be more likely to take fright. In effect, the limiting to one dog would have more animal welfare problems than using two dogs. From what you are saying, the whole panel suggests that there shouldn't be dogs used underground at all, but if that was to continue, surely the one dog limit is actually making the situation worse based on the evidence of an expert when it comes to terriers underground? As I said, I get on well with Mr Wade, but I do disagree with him. If you have two dogs there, you are doubling the chance that the dogs engage in face-on-face with the fox. You could get the point that you have one dog here and another dog there, so it is trapped in between the two of them. Every fox earth is different and that is when you need the expertise of a grain keeper or a shepherd that is on the ground, whether it is a fox den or a rabbit worn, it can tell the extent of it. By increasing the number of terriers underground, you are increasing the chances of a face-on-face contact. A fox will normally do anything that it can to evade a dog. If it has a dog at the back of it and there is a clear exit, the fox will take it. I do not believe for one second that a fox has got the chance to go out or turn and fight the fox when it can go. It will always take its chance to turn and go. It was just a supplementary on something that you were saying, but it is past, it is fine. We will now move on to look at licensing in sections 4, 8 and 9, and Rachel Hamilton will kick off. We heard in evidence that licensing will vary by situation. We heard from the Scottish Government who cited stoter education projects in Orkney. Clearly, there are measures to increase the number of capocali through the control of fox and pine martin in other areas. Nature of Scotland is well aware of and able to be the body that issues the licensing. I just wondered whether each panel member had an opinion on what we have heard in evidence in terms of ensuring that the licensing scheme is as practical and workable as possible. As I have already outlined, we would like to see any licensing scheme be guided by the ethical principles. I agree that deciding how to gather evidence, what that evidence should be and who should gather it are all very difficult questions. NatureScot has already said that the Scottish Government representatives have already said that NatureScot will develop any licensing scheme in conjunction with stakeholders. That question of the evidence should be fed into by farmers, what is realistic for them to be able to gather and so on. That will be an iterative process between NatureScot and stakeholders who are involved to ensure that the licensing scheme is workable. We would also like to incorporate those principles to make sure that it is based on evidence that animal welfare is prioritised and that it is a standardised decision making process throughout. I think that you were probably following the debate a couple of weeks ago in the chamber where we had a debate on the seven principles of ethical wildlife management, and it was an interesting debate. Mary McCallan, the minister, said that we are specifically if she was signed up to the shared wildlife management approach with other stakeholders, because we have heard during evidence as well that farmers and other stakeholders are part of that conservation principle. I presume that you would agree that that shared approach is a good approach, and it does incorporate some of the principles, including, for example, community values that would take into account, ensuring that farmers could protect their livestock. I definitely agree that having collaboration from a wide range of people who are involved is very important. On the shared approach, I have seen the concordat. It does not go into a great level of detail—it is sort of a statement of intent, as far as I can tell. I could not comment in great detail on whether it meets those principles or not. It may be that there is more detail on the working practices that are not publicly available, so I do not know to what extent it currently meets those ethical principles. I was very encouraged to hear the minister say that she is working with the Wild Animal Welfare Committee to look at that, but I think that that is a really positive thing. Great, thank you. Can I go to Dr Goddard, please? Well, certainly, the ethical principles of wildlife control note that, in terms of setting the balance for when a licence might be issued, would be something that I suppose NatureScot would need to reflect on in conjunction with others, but also take on society's expectations overall. We have heard, obviously, of some individual cases where there is a significant burden in terms of a farmer, particularly, who might be suffering significant losses. That is a wider ethical debate, a societal view that NatureScot would need to reflect when it does actually introduce the licensing scheme. We would be very keen from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission perspective to be happy to be involved with that, but equally, as the minister has indicated, we are happy to be involved with the discussions with NatureScot. I suppose that, in a way, modernising a view about wildlife welfare in general, we are happy to play a part in that. Do you agree, Dr Goddard, that the ability for a farmer to control predators to protect livestock and, therefore, animal welfare is part of an ethical principle? Yes, we would say that. We are not saying that wildlife management shouldn't happen against that backdrop. We are just saying that the conditions for that to happen are something that require an overarching ethical scrutiny. Before I bring in Mr Marzlund, expanding the question to Mr Marzlund, if I could, on the fact that the licence is almost broken into two parts, where it is sort of predator control and environmental benefit. Ensuring that we increase biodiversity species numbers in terms of the wading birds, we have heard loads of evidence with regards to how the RSPB, for example, controls predators hundreds of foxes per annum and enables to do that. What are your views on the licensing and how that could be practical and workable? I agree that any licensing scheme needs to be practical and workable. I thought that the officials in the first session did a very good job in explaining how that could proceed. I also, as you know, feel that it is an opportunity for a licensing scheme for us to make sure that, as the RSPB do, and as was explained by Duncan Horne Ewing, that they understand the nature of the problem that is trying to be solved by killing an animal, that you have worked out how it will be improved by killing that animal and how you are going to continue to monitor it. I felt that when the officials outlined that process, I could see that happening and that it did not necessarily have to happen in a way that would stop necessary control of wildlife. I guess that it is that necessary bit that is the most important one. It seems to me that, if you make a decision to kill an animal, we should know why we are doing it and we should know that it will solve the problem that we think it will do. If a licensing scheme could help us to do that, that would be a really good thing. It is one of the things that I said earlier on. If nature Scotland is going to be able to apply those licences properly, it will need proper guidance on whether it is in the bill or in the guidance notes on what is an exception and what can apply. As long as it has the ground rules, I am pretty sure that it will be able to cope with the extra demands. One of the things, if you are looking at the ethical bit, you will see that that is the control that it did last year and we want to do it again next year. It did not work last year. I am just thinking back to last week's section on the footpack that was being described over a five-month period. I think that they mentioned 153 or 154 foxes in a very large area. The latest estimate that I can see for fox population in Scotland is around 23,000 every year. It is pretty stable. It goes massively up in the summer, then natural mortality and all that kind of stuff. In a huge area such as that, I would not have thought that 154 foxes in prime land would make any great difference. I am not saying that they should have gone hell for leather and killed more, but that is something that, in time, like the two-dog limit, has been more successful, which should take account of licences in the future on ethical principles. You are doing that, but it is not making any difference. Last week was that possibly reapplying time after time after again, particularly during a vulnerable season, say just lambing, but it is not that. It is over a longer period, so a licence that could be valid for up to two years, for example, for preservation, protection or restoration, particularly to increase biodiversity species on land, which is effectively happening as a positive consequence and benefit on land. You mentioned, Mike, earlier about topography and the difficulties in controlling predators in dense woodland or whatever it might be. From your experience of working with farmers, do you think that it is going to be quite bureaucratic and not very time efficient for them to be continually applying for licences? Do you think that there should be an option to have a general licence rather than a full-time day? Yes, Mike. No-farn likes extra paperwork or extra bureaucracy, but that would only apply if they were what they used more than two dogs, so they can still do their predators' control at the moment, whether they are using snaring, which I have to admit that I do not agree with. That is another practice that needs to be looked at, but shooting. The majority of farmers that I know personally shoot when they have a problem at the time. That does not take account of Mr Fairleith's problem that, well, let's prevent it before it happens, but that is a different debate. I do not really have a great concern with the licence aspect. What I do have a concern with is the category of person. It could be to an individual or a category of person. What is the category of person? Is it any gamekeeper on that? Is it any of this? The idea of a licence is that the police, doing independent monitoring or whatever, have a problem during the licence holder or during the person's responsibility. If a category of person is in charge of that category of person, you have to have a person that is responsible, so if it is category of people, you have one name that, if something goes wrong and they are not there on the date to ensure that it is complied with the licence, they should be held accountable. Thank you. Sadly, we are now coming to the time that we have to ask people to have very short supplementaries and to direct them to a specific witness. The bill, as proposed, allows for a licence to use more than two dogs to be obtained under specific circumstances. Rachel Hamilton has reminded us that the committee heard evidence last week from Ian Duncan Miller in opposition to 14-day licences due to the administrative burden that would cause as licences would be required to cover the full shooting season, so multiple licences would be applied for sequentially. With that in mind, can I ask if the panel has any concerns that what is intended to be an exceptional licencing arrangement within the bill will actually be sought as the default and will effectively create a loophole for hunting with more than two dogs to continue? I would like to hear from as many panellists as possible, beginning with Kirsty and Robbie. There seems to be a discrepancy in how different people are seeing the licencing. The Scottish Government officials described it as an exception to an exception that would be a serious step, so it is not something that would be given out routinely. The panel last week seemed to be very much saying that it needed to be given out continuously year round. I think that we would agree that it should be an exception to an exception. As Mike already said, it is not stopping people using other methods to control foxes if necessary. It is not stopping people using two dogs. All it is saying is that you need a licence for the use of more than two dogs. I have already outlined our views. The first of all, mitigation measures should be tried. If you need to resort to lethal control, other methods are preferable, so we would not want to see the licencing relaxed or changed in any way. Robbie Marston, please. I am going to quote from what Bruce Scotland said to Lord Barnaby. He said that exceptions to the offence to deliberately hunter wild mannable with a dog are multiple and provide opportunities for exploitation by those who continually and deliberately offend. That is the context that we are operating in. I just wanted to remind people of that. I will direct it to Mike. I am assuming that, when a licence is applied for, it is to ensure responsible predator control. Obviously, there needs to be flexibility, because we have heard about carper cailie management. We need fox management, whether it is a lamb in season. My question is whether a licence should be flexible and should determine what control is being sought, so that we can help to look at responsibly managing the predators that are out there. I totally agree. I was saying earlier that Nature Scotland has to have clear guidance, and that should include turn-around times. If a farmer has severe problems going on, it does not take three weeks to get the licence, because by then they are far too late. You have also got to look at what Nature Scotland will hopefully look at. The intention of using the dogs more than two is that for that is an animal that is eventually going to be killed. That, to me, is the hunting aspect, as opposed to the hedgehogs on the US. The intention is just to locate the dogs so that they can be trapped and moved away. There are two different threads here, but I would like to think that, if they have the proper guidance, they could turn around any potential licence with evidence, whatever that is. Here is why I need more than two dogs in the rocky outcrops that I mentioned earlier on, or a huge forest plantation. I would like to think that a face-to-face discussion is going, that two dogs could get anything out of that massive forest or cover that rocky outcrop. Nature Scotland has a background, and they are doing all the licensing at the moment anyway, and there is used to all the different scenarios that have been thrown at them, but they need clear definitions of what is the exception to the exception and what should and should not apply. I am going to direct the question to Robbie Marsland first, and it is time to be cursed. Robbie, the evidence from the League Against Cruel Sports states that your organisation's belief that the proposed licensing scheme will simply create a new loophole that will still allow for traditional fox hunting to take place. Why would being allowed to use more than two dogs allow traditional fox hunts to continue while a hard limit of two dogs maximum would effectively end the practice? Thank you for that. As I said at the beginning, any opportunity to use a full pack of hounds out in the middle of the countryside where the police rightly do not have the resources to follow hunts in the way that my field investigators are gives the opportunity, as I said before, for exceptions to the offence to kill a fox in this way, to provide opportunities for those people who want to continue to do that. That is the main concern that I have about the exceptions. If the exceptions are rigorously enforced and that the only way you can use a full pack of hounds is because that is the only way to control a recognised problem, then we would have no problem with that. My fear is that those people who are determined to use packs of hounds to chase and kill foxes will find ways to get those licences. If they do not, I would be content. I do not have a huge amount to add except that the experience from the 2002 act shows that if there are potential loopholes, they may be exploited. I think that any of those exceptions could potentially create a loophole. That is why we are encouraging that they are scrutinised quite closely for that reason and also just to see if they are really necessary. On that point, again, it is back to clear definitions. Rabbits and mice are excluded, and we have suggested in our written evidence that if somebody should define the place that is being used, you cannot just say, I have got my dogs out because there is a rat on that bit. Rats are specific to certain places, food stores. I have seen them in livery yards and all that. If there is anything in this bill that could be a loophole, the people that want to abuse it will find a loophole. I can just say that I was not after a fox, I was after a rat because my dog is in it. You are not going to be chasing or try to control rats in an open area. You are controlling them for a purpose in a grain silo or something like that. Again, it is the definitions in making sure that everybody is well aware of them to avoid the loopholes. Nobody wants to be back here in 10 years' time saying that this has failed. As I said at the very beginning, if people take the intention of that once it is tightened up properly, hopefully, like everybody else hopes, we do not have to address that again. It is only genuine pest control that is happening or for genuine environmental reasons. Just to follow up on Mr Marzen's point about Police Scotland not having enough resources, do you think that that is an issue that should be addressed with the Government? What is a field investigator? I think that I recognise that police resources are hard-pressed. I do not think that I would be suggesting that the police should be doing what the league field investigators do, which is to spend time filming the activities of those people who say that they are flushing to guns. It is the video evidence that we gathered over the past five years that I think convinced Lord Bonomy that there was still traditional hunting going on, even though we thought that we had banned it over 20 years ago and therefore the need for this legislation to make sure that we do really ban for something in Scotland. Geofield investigators, what do they do? Do they follow all types of predation control in Scotland, including foot backs? No, I would ask them to look at the activities of mounted hunts in Scotland. So there is a gap, really, where we need to probably get Police Scotland here as a witness to ensure that they are doing their job, because they are insinuating that they are not. I do not think that they are not doing their job. I think that there has been a successful prosecution in two or three cases where the police have taken suspected hunters to court. It does happen, but I have to say that they are, I think, really right words to use, dependent on the film that we have been able to supply them. We are now going to, in the last few minutes, prohibition on trail hunting. Beatrice Wishart. I will address it to Mike first. I would like your view on the prohibition of trail hunting and your view on the exception to the trail hunting ban to allow the training of dogs to follow an animal-based scent? From my knowledge, trail hunting only came in south when the hunt legislation came in, so it was a way of continuing to perform the past time that they wanted. It can easily be used if you are training or getting animals to follow an animal scent, a fox urine, and another fox head goes that way. The dogs are equally as likely to engage an ant. The exceptions are obviously sensible for environmental purposes to train a dog to find hedgehogs in the US that has got to know the smell and be trained to go to the smell of a hedgehog and all that kind of stuff. So far, certain exceptions are correct. Sorry, convener, can I go back about 20 minutes? I forgot your last question, convener, about the exceptions for falconry, game shooting and sport. The Scottish SPC supports the bill, and we totally accept necessary pest control environmental protection. We do not accept, as you say, dogs for any kind of past time or sport. To me, falconry is a past time. Nobody goes out hocking now to put food on the family table. If it is simply to flush to shoot as a sport, we do not think that there should be any exceptions, because it is not essential, like pest control environmental protection is. Dr Goddard, can I bring Dr Goddard in briefly and Robbie Marsden on the trail hunting, please? Sorry, Dr Goddard, we are not hearing you at the moment. I would agree with the contention made worry about trail hunting, and that is that there could be unintended consequences. As a result, we would not be supportive of that continuing. Drag hunting is, of course, a different thing, often confused in people's minds, but there is virtually no chance of unintended consequences in that circumstance. I would agree. I think that the only change that I would suggest is that this over the last seven years has been very, very little drag hunting in Scotland, but in the last two seasons, I think, the five hunts have become the kingdom lasers on Saturdays, and they have been following a human scent, so a runner goes up the front. So I would just say that to make sure that that can continue, probably the best thing to do is to limit the use of a human scent, as opposed to a non-animal scent. That way, there would be no danger of somebody saying that they were following aniseed scent, and they were chasing purposes. That is a detailed suggestion that I would make. I agree with the others that the Scottish Government is wise to preemptively ban trail hunting, considering what has happened down south. We are not opposed to the exception, because it is necessary. I just wanted to pick up on Mike's other point as well. We would agree with him that there is no justification for an exception for sport. I would also question the inclusion of a bird of prey as a method of killing throughout the bill. That does not really make sense to me. It is not a necessary humane method. I know that the Scottish Government said that it had no wish to ban falconry, but I still do not explain its inclusion as a method of killing in the other exceptions. I also just wanted to comment. There seems to be a lot above a discrepancy. The situation in which a wounded deer needs to be tracked by dogs has been brought up a couple of times. That is something that we can see the necessity for, if deer are being shot for necessary management purposes and one is wounded, there is a reason that they would need to be tracked by a dog for their own welfare. That does not seem to be covered in the wording of the bill. The bill talks about flushing to guns or locating an animal that has been killed, but it does not specifically mention an animal that has been wounded, so I just wanted to mention that that should be looked at. Thank you, that is very useful. Finally, we are going to move on to part three of the bill, looking at enforcement. Thank you very much, convener. Just very briefly, Dr Goddard, we have had written evidence from yourselves about the issue of discolf, education and deprivation orders, I think. It was just really to ask your view about how you feel the bill deals with that again, whether you feel it deals with it adequately. For instance, there is something in there about preventing the persons concerned from owning the horse concerned. I just wonder if you feel that that plugs a loophole in the law. I think that we were overall happy with the provisions, and this was just a case of being absolutely clear in terms of what the penalties were. That was the point that we were making there. Panel members would like to come in, Mike? There is one other thing that I would like to say, but not on that point. Okay, we are coming to the end of the session, but Mike, if you would like to make another contribution, please feel free. Yeah, it is just that the previous legislation, or the one that this is going to replace, actually had a bit in about that the persons to ensure that an animal being used is not injured, and that is missing in this one, so we would like to see something in the legislation that an animal being used in the course of this, if it is injured, must one be rescued, if it is a terrier trapped underground, or receive the appropriate veterinary treatment if it is injured in the course of a lawful act of aid. We have a final brief supplementary from Rachel Hamilton. Yeah, I have raised it in all the other sessions, and it was just really to Kirsty, because you mentioned about mental health and farmers. It was whether you thought that a provision for compensation should be part of the bill, in case there was animal loss due to perhaps something that was deficient within the licensing scheme, or whatever it might be. I am not sure that I can comment on the specifics of that. I think that it is something that would be worth considering. I do not know if it is realistic, and I do not know that I am in the best place to determine that. As I said at the beginning, the mental health of farmers is a concern. They are under a lot of pressure just now. I think that, as I have already said as well, that there are changes needed in wildlife management, but the onus of that should not fall in farmers, it should not increase the pressure on them. If compensation was one way to ensure that that then it should be considered, but I do not know that I am in the best place to say whether that is how that would work. If we get that kind of concern raised by a farmer, we work in conjunction with RSABI, who are a fantastic charity that supports farmers and crofters in so many different ways, and they would be able to help out in that aspect as well. I notice that Robbie would like to come in. Could you possibly touch on the compensation question as well, if there is any indication that, as a result of this bill coming in, he might be to the detriment of certain groups, should there be compensation? Can you touch on that as well, Robbie, when you make your contribution? Yes. The compensation issue came up, I think, last week for the first time, and it is not something that I have really given much thought to in the past. I do not really feel able to comment just now. That brings us to the end of this session. I would like to thank you all for attending either in person or remotely. Your evidence has been very useful. We now suspend this meeting until 11.15 to live for a changeover of witnesses. I would like to welcome everybody back. I welcome to the meeting the right honourable Lord Bonomy, who, in 2016, his report made recommendations to improve the operation of the protection of Wild Mammals Scotland Act 2002. With your permission, we are just going to go straight into questions. Can I ask you what your overall assessment of the situation around hunting with dogs in Scotland is following your review in 2002? Good morning, convener and members of the committee. At that time, my assessment was that it was one of great uncertainty. As you know, I found it difficult to make findings about the factual position. My big idea at the time was one that you obviously did not take up, which was the idea of monitoring what was going on and what monitoring on the basis of a protocol that all the interested parties would subscribe to, seeing how that went, because I thought that in itself was a control mechanism, and then looking at what the facts actually showed you. I had in mind that there were so many ex-police officers who used to ride horses that there was a cartel of individuals readily available for the role. However, what I cannot make any comment about is how the situation may have changed since. I have seen rough figures that suggest that perhaps more foxes have been killed. Even when I was doing it, there were a number every year, apparently illegally killed, but it was difficult to find specific information. The code of conduct—there was a sort of unwritten code of conduct. Do you think that that resulted in any improvements in the situation in regards to what was illegal hunting? I thought that the code of conduct was a genuine effort to control what was happening. No doubt there are rogues in hunting, like most aspects of life, but there are so many genuine individuals involved who were determined that they would preserve their sport, and the social aspects that went with it. I thought that there was a prospect that that would work. It was not written in legal language, but it could have been improved, and I made proposals that that should be done. There was an argument at that stage, and there was definitely evidence that the hunting fraternity were keen to maintain their sport and to comply with the law. What are your initial impressions of the draft bill that we have in front of us in relation to your review? Before dealing with that, I regard it as a very well-crafted piece of legislation. It solves the problems that I identified about the use of language, the variable use of language, and it makes everything much clearer and simpler. That in itself should be a great incentive to better enforcement of the law, because the police and fiscal service were struggling with the effective detection and then prosecution of offenders. I wish that it was done far more often. You have repealed the whole of the previous legislation and put something new in place. The Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1998 is still the 1995 act as amended. The difficulties that you have in finding things are extraordinary. It is good from that point of view. Beyond that, I do not think that there is anything that I particularly commented on that you have done. You have not ordered dogs to be muzzled. I seem to have got that one right. However, I was disappointed in the failure to do anything about the idea of getting everybody together and working together. I can see other reasons for not imposing various vicarious liability on landowners. I am a bit disappointed in not going for the reversing and the onus of proof. I know that that is a difficult and controversial area, but that is an activity that is conducted in a way that is very difficult to observe. You know the lens that the League of Against Cruel Sports go to to provide the evidence, but for them we would not have much on film that you could go on. I thought that there was a strong case for that, but in Scotland we are very adverse to the notion of reversing the onus. We are also, of course, adverse to the notion of vicarious liability. Football is a good example of that, where there might be a solution to many of the problems, but nobody is prepared to look in that direction. I understand the reluctance to accept, but I hope that you have also viewed that report as something that tried to think out the box a bit to provide solutions for a very difficult problem. We are now going to look more specifically at the bill in Mercedes Verlalba. Apologies, I can read now. Question. I will bring in Rachel Hamilton at the moment. It is really around the revised language. You have already touched on that slightly in terms of sections 1 and 2 of the bill, which are around the offences and exceptions. For example, by jog your memory, which I probably do not have to, but it is about the word deliberately, and then again the definition of a wild mammal. I wondered what you, to give your views on that, but also do you think that the way that you said it, you feel it has been improved? Do you, based on the evidence of your original review, will the bill in its current form allow effective and humane control of predators? The word deliberately was causing a problem, and removing it was a good idea. There were various ways of describing the point at which the shooting should take place as soon as possible, reasonably possible, when it is safe to do so. It is a vast improvement to just have everywhere as soon as reasonably possible. I would take out reasonably, but I have no quibble with the fact that it is there. It is an easy one for a court to deal with in any event, and you might find that there is good reason for it. I do not know—I think that any degree of clarity is going to improve the enforcement of legislation. The problem here is finding the evidence in the first place, and the evidence, as I have already said, is difficult to do that. On the definition of wild mammal, the only comment that I had thought of was that it makes sense to protect a rabbit for the reason that it is given. That makes, to me, common sense. All along, when I was looking at the changes, they seemed to me to be advancing the cause of both protection of the right mammals and allowing for effective enforcement. On the basis of your original review, it is a really difficult thing to articulate here, but the main issue that we are looking at is to have some sort of workable, practical way of controlling predators to protect livestock, and to ensure that there is the highest possible animal welfare. For the fox, with the way that the changes have been made, do you see any problems that could be in terms of the animal welfare of the fox? I suspect that the fox will now have a better chance of survival, because even the flushing out will be much more difficult with two dogs than with a properly organised pack. When you get into upland areas and scrub, the foot packs will find it very difficult to do their job with only two dogs. I understand that, in England, that is the system. What I do not know about what you probably know is whether it is felt that it works. Are the well-sharpland farmers or hill farmers content that they are only allowed to use two dogs? Do they have a licence system? I do not know that either. However, if it has not been done, there must be evidence available from how things have worked in England to tell you whether it is effective with only two dogs. I think that we will be covering the two-dog question shortly. Were there any other changes within section 1 or 2 that you had noticed that perhaps would improve the bill? If I can go back just to complete, I think that there is an argument for that there are some sort of conditions attached—I do not know how you do this—to the number of guns that there should be. If people are out with two dogs and two guns, there is loads of space for escape, it will be very difficult in that situation to catch the fox. We all know that the fox itself is a pretty active beast not only on the countryside but is becoming an urban teddy boy. I am not in a position to go. I was happy that it was better to use a pack. I better not go on to that just now. You can ask me about that later on. I think that we have been given a site of your original review that had an issue with the animal welfare with less than two dogs. On section 1 and 2, I think that those adequately cover the problem. I cannot see any reason for adding anything off hand, and you certainly should avoid unduly complicating it. Even the way that it is set out throughout the act—although it is a bit twice the length of the other when it is far clearer—things are divided up in a way that is much easier to the mind to read. For someone who does not know the activity particularly well, it is much easier to interpret, read and interpret. I am going to jump out of order that the members think that we are going to ask the questions in, because I think that we are right now somewhat focusing on two dogs. We have a question from Ariane Burgess on that. Do you maybe want to bring your question in now and we can follow that tail of questioning. In the evidence session for the Eclare committee in 2017, you stated that, in general, 20 per cent or more of foxes disturbed by hands are actually killed by hands in the course of flushing. You expressed your opinion that reducing the number of dogs allowed to two would bring the practice of flushing to guns to an end. You went on to state and I quote, the change would, I think, mean the end of hunting as we see it at the moment. Could you please explain why you believe this to be true? Well, the activity had already changed its form. Hunting with a chase and a catch was a sport that was widely practised. The sport tried to adapt and the way it found of adapting, as I saw it, was to become a pest control agency. Now, with the dogs that they had, they advised me that they were pretty effective in that activity and they were invited by landowners widely to carry it out for them at appropriate times. The pack of hounds was the thing that these sportsmen and women loved to be associated with. That is what they wanted to be enjoying, controlling these hounds in open space. I formed the impression that the number of packs had not changed very much, but I got the impression that there was a lack of enthusiasm for the change that had taken place. I felt in the end that two hounds might be a step too far for the body. That is something that they will now have had to face up to and would have to answer, I think. What is going to happen to them in the situation in which the legislation looks likely to succeed? Sorry, can I just clarify that two hands would be a step too far for the body? What do you mean by that? Well, I mean that they enjoyed the sport of riding out with hounds, controlling the hounds, directing them, and they had a way of using them, which was pest control. In their view, it was working well. I imagine that—this is what they expressed, but of course they are bound to at that stage, because they are arguing their cause. What they were expressing to me was that they saw the whole social and sporting aspect of this being gradually, effectively reduced by the legislative change that had already been made. They saw themselves fighting a rearguard action at that point. I was just on the two dog limit, the introduction of it. I just wondered what your views were and your opinions on the proposed licensing scheme as well. The licensing scheme is what makes it viable to have two dogs. There must be circumstances that people can justify where more dogs are appropriate. Licensing allows for that in a way that that maybe that is the saviour for the hunting fraternity. I do not know, but I did not get the impression that this would be something that would be readily granted in an area where those hunts are active. If I am wrong about that, it may be different. I think that the idea of keeping the license restricted is also a good one. I do not know whether that will evolve from experience, but I have observed some comments being made that 14 days is not long enough for the activities that the licence might relate to. In those circumstances, obviously, there must be changes. I do not know anything about the way things work on that front, but I think that the idea of limiting licences is not giving somebody because he has applied a licence like a liquor licence so that he can do what he pleases in that. I do not think that that is an answer. I think that it has to be restricted in some way, time-wise. Thank you. Just to fall on from that, you have a licence that is supposed to be the exception, if you like. Do you think that there is a danger that the decision on the number of dogs is arbitrary? So, as you said, the two dogs, there is an argument that has just been brought in to stop mounted packs. That is it. We want to stop the groups that go out and hunt for pleasure, and the way to do that is to reduce the number by two. That would appear to have what has happened south of the border. We have heard today that there are very few, if any occasions, where two dogs are used to flush foxes to guns. In your review, you noted that Lord Burn's observation regarding the death of foxes and that the crux of it, the precise cause of death, was less important than the speed at which the death occurred. The death by dogs is a matter of seconds. It is more about the pursuit, which is the main source of welfare concerns, not nail our research so that using two dogs rather than a pack can result in an increased period of pursuit. Would it not seem logical that, in most cases—and I am still to find anybody who can tell me where two dogs would be the most appropriate and the most animal welfare minded way to flush foxes—why would it be an arbitrary two dogs when there is no evidence to suggest that anywhere that would be the most appropriate number of dogs? My impression is that what the public would find most distasteful is the dog actually killing the fox. There is an ignorance about how effectively the dog can kill the fox. A lot of the debate previously did focus on the length of the chase that can result, but I suppose that two dogs would reduce the process. I do not know if they have a paced dog and then he drops off, but it depends how it is done. The body that is going back to my experience at the time, there was a distinct difference in approach between the mounted hunts and the footpacks. It was much easier to accept what the footpacks told you was going on, probably because there was not an argument against them, because I do not think that the League of Cruel Sports bothered much with what they were doing. They were very anxious to make the point that the most important factor is the number of guns that you take. Footpacks traditionally always used guns, whereas guns only became commonplace in mounted packs following the legislation in 2002. Another reason is why it was seen as yet another challenge to the way in which they conducted directivity that they had to take guns with them, which they did not particularly want to do, but that is one that is beyond prayer now. That is an obvious necessity. Serious Valal has got a supplementary view, but I will bring in Jim Fairlie first, because he has a particular view on the guns being part of the legislation. Thank you very much for coming along. I really did like your description without denigrating to Teddy Boys. The Urban Fox has been the new Teddy Boys, I think that was brilliant. I am trying to piece together all the stuff that you have been talking about, but I have asked the question from day one. Is the problem with this legislation not the number of dogs but the number of guns? One of the things that you said at the start of your evidence here just now was how can hunters maintain their sport while allowing the fox to be chased and stay within the law? I cannot understand how they can, because the sport from my point of view, from what I can see, is that the fox gets flushed and then it gets chased so that riders can ride after it. That to me is the sport. Pest control is that the fox gets flushed and is shot immediately on site by whatever. Where the loophole in the law is that I can see is that you have a 200m distance of a wood or whatever it is that is being flushed. One gun at one end and one gun at the other, and the fox goes straight through the middle and then everybody else comes in behind it. Surely the law should be looking at the effective and immediate death of the fox on flushing rather than the number of dogs that are chasing it? That is what the act says, but it is not necessarily how it is going to work. I take your point. If you take as soon as reasonably possible, as soon as the flush has been flushed, it is to be killed as soon as reasonably possible. Once you have got to the end of the flushing exercise, it should be killed. How can hunters maintain their sport while staying within the law? They cannot maintain that part unless the law simply recognises that, as long as you are trying to kill it, you are doing your best. If you have two guns and the way you describe them, the argument will be that I did my best. What we have this morning across all the groups is an acceptance that land managers, farmers and conservationists have a necessity to have a certain amount of wildlife control or predators control, and we all accept that. So, if we are going to use dogs, the most effective way, as all the evidence has shown us, is an appropriate number of dogs as a full pack. Walked-up, unmounted packs are a very effective way of getting foxes out of woodland, dense cover and all the rest of it. The number of guns, to me, seems to be the most important, but as opposed to the number of dogs? Well, I think that the number of guns is vital, and I think that, as I've said, the different way that the food packs went about it didn't seem to me to involve a chase. Now it's just a flush to get shot. But flushing in certain areas, I mean, the hunts I've observed found, I mean, the pack of dogs could find it difficult to flush the fox out. The huntsmen might be with them quite some time while they're flushing, and they're enjoying a form of sport in doing that. Now that might be a different form of riding from the gallop that they get on to after that, but you could see the manoeuvring and controlling of the dogs going on in a difficult flush. Right, okay. One very quick thing in terms of the licensing. We had various conversations this morning about the necessity. I don't think that there's any dispute but we've all agreed that foxes in particular can be a pest to lambs and various other things. In terms of the licence, I know that what you're saying is the exception to the exception. But is there not an argument here for that there should be a seasonal ability to be able to know where you're going to go and control fox numbers, rather than saying, I have a particular problem right now and I need a licence to deal with it? Is there not an argument for a seasonal control rather than a one-off issue? I think there must be. Assuming that the evidence shows that for a certain part of the year this is a nuisance that needs to be addressed, but that doesn't change the principle that there should be some limitation on an exception of that nature. So the determination of whether or not there is a nuisance, if we accept the fact that a fox will predate lambs and it will predate chicks during a particular season, would it not be more advantageous to deal with it prior to it becoming a problem rather than in the event of it becoming a problem? I can see that argument. It's not for me to decide in the end. Okay, thank you very much. Just to go back to the review itself, because that's the interesting part here. One point when I'm listening to you. Did you observe foot packs and quad bike packs? I didn't observe foot packs. I did see a hunt with quad bikes being used, yes. Okay. It looks ridiculous, but that's a personal view. We've got to remember how far back my life goes, so I see it as a social thing and it just looked very odd. If it's effective and more effective, that's where the gun is. That's where it is. The man on horseback isn't normally going to be carrying a gun to shoot the fox, so the quad bike is the vehicle that the individual is using to get to the point where he should be as soon as reasonably possible in killing the fox. I saw that happen. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I ask because we're hearing evidence from all sorts of people who are going to be affected by the bill and some of the possible unintended consequences that will arise from the bill that we heard last week. It might be useful to look at that evidence if you have time, because it was quite interesting. The one area that I want to press you on is when in the review that you said that if flushing, you have less than two dogs, it could seriously compromise effective pest control in the countryside. How do you think that that observation that you made within the 2002 review could have bearing or weight to the argument with regard to the two-dog limit on that particular bill? I can't answer that, because I don't know what the evidence is of what's been going on since 2016, so I just don't know. Maybe ask it in a different way. What made you come to that conclusion in 2002? I just thought that the flushing of the fox would be more difficult for a star. I then doubted whether the hunting sport would continue as it was. It, as a pest control agency, might end, but no doubt someone else would appear in the scene with a more distasteful form of execution. It might be a rapid form of extermination in itself, but whether it becomes publicly distasteful depends on what it is. I can see the method of pest control moving away from the use of hunted packs. I don't think that it would move away from the use of foot packs if the exceptions, the licensing provisions, allowed for them to carry out their pest control with a larger number of dogs over a material period of the year. I think that it is quite good for the committee to understand what the difference is between various methods of control with dogs. Are you saying, from a scientific or evidence-based point of stance, that you still agree with what you concluded in terms of the compromising effect of pest control, while taking into account that Ian Duncan Miller from the foot pack was discussing how many dogs he said he used, but it was maybe 30. That is right. However, the point is that they are on foot. They are not jumping on to a quad bike after they get the fox flushed. They cannot shoot it unless it is right in front of them when it is flushed. It is difficult to see that that breaches the previous legislation or will breach this legislation except in respect of the number of dogs. It seems to me that they are going to have a problem with two dogs because it is going to be much more difficult for them to nail the fox in the first place before they shoot it. One last point. No, sorry. Oh, I know. On-go. I was better. I will have to move on. Sorry about that. Mercedes-Val Alba. Very much. Thank you. Hi, good morning. It was a supplementary related to the question from Jim Fairlie about an approach to fox management that would involve preemptively killing foxes based on a belief or understanding that foxes in general have been known to harm livestock. That is one approach. There is another approach that would be based on looking at specific instances where livestock have been harmed, gathering evidence about the cause of that and if it was found to be a fox locating that fox and killing it. Of those two approaches, I wondered if you would share a view on which you think to be the more ethical approach. No, I do not think that it is for me to say. I think that that is a matter for the licensing authority that is eventually entrusted with this particular task. They will be the ones to judge whether a preemptive strike is a legitimate way of going about it. I do not have the knowledge and background in farming or in pest control to say how that is, or whether both of them fit neatly into what is acceptable practice or not. You would not like to give a view on the ethics of it, of either approach? Well, when I hear that, I do not know that it is really an ethical matter. When I hear that substantial numbers of lambs are killed on farms by predators such as the fox and it is known every year that that is going to happen, I can see the argument for a preemptive strike, but equally I can understand the argument that, in a given instance, where someone turns to sheep farming for the first time and there is no evidence that that particular flock has been affected in the past, it might not be an appropriate way to go. I think that it is for the licensing authority on the basis of all the facts that they are presented with to make that decision. I was having a conversation with a shepherd who works in the borders last week. He said that he does lose lambs, and I asked him what he does when he starts to lose lambs. He said that he monitors the fields where that is happening. The method that he uses is, if predation is frequent, and also what he noted is that the fox tends to take the lamb from twins. For him, fox-mounted hunts is not an effective form of fox control. I said, what do you do? He said that they bring in a marksman who does lamping, who sits out on the land, sits out overnight and that tackles the situation. He also told me that he knows people that participate on quad bikes. It was illuminating to me what you talked about at the beginning that there was a shift from mounted hunts being a sport to a form of pest control. The shepherd was saying that in talking to people who do the mounted hunts on horses, it is a day out for the lads. It is not really about pest control. We are going down the road of saying that we can use dogs when people working in the sector say that that is not an effective form of control. Using a marksman and sitting out is an effective and humane form of control. I just wanted to hear your thoughts about why even dogs. The statistics at the time demonstrated the number of successful kills by lamping as one example and mounted hunts. I cannot remember now what those figures were, but some would say that in this society, if something can be justified, then it should be permitted. We should not be stuck necessarily with only one way of doing everything that we do. If the argument is strong enough that the hunt is only using this as a cover for their general hunting activities, then if the public demands that hunting is outlawed as it has been effectively done since 2002, then so be it. However, my concern is that I was never in a position to have reliable evidence. People will tell you about what has happened in hunts, but it is having reliable evidence about it. You can only get that if you monitor. If it is felt not worth doing because you have a handful of hunts that survive and they do not do all that much, and I cannot remember the figures for that, then we are never going to know much more about the number of beasts that are actually killed by dogs. I do not think that there is much reliable evidence about that at all. I also follow up with a supplementary question on Jim Fairleys. I find myself quite confused every time that Jim, you bring up the piece about flushing to guns and that the issue is not the number of dogs but the number of guns. I do not think that it is illegal to have as many guns as you want at this point. That is not— I think that is Mr Fairleys' point that the concentration of the licensing authority ought to be on is the number of guns that are used. Is it legal to have more than two guns or 10 guns? There is no restriction, as far as I am aware, on the number of licensed shotguns that could be in the hands of people, gamekeepers and farmers, in the course of a footpack outing to exterminate as many foxes as they can. It is not really part of this legislation. It could still be handled—it could still be handled—that could still be done anyway, regardless of this legislation. I will clarify, Lord Bonnwy, on the point that you made about alternatives of predator control should be available. Are you meaning that, on Ariane Burgess' point, shooting and other—so shooting but also using dogs—lamping—can have its welfare implications if there is, obviously, not a good line of sight and dense cover at night time? There is a chance that a fox could be wounded. Are you saying that—well, I do not think that I can ask you this, but is one method in your observation better than another in terms of welfare? I cannot answer that, I am afraid. I really do not know enough of—lamping was just a description to me. It is not something that I have seen done, but, of course, those who advocate it will tell you firmly that they eliminate the fox painlessly. I cannot remember if there was other evidence about that. You are very well served in this committee by the staff. I had a look at one of your earlier sessions and was impressed by the competence of the answers. Of course, Mr Dignan did work on my review and there was an important element in it. There are a lot of questions in there that he is probably far better placed to answer than me. We are indeed lucky. We have a wealth of information to make our decisions on. Jim Fairlie has got a brief supplementary question. It is just a clarification, going back to the point that Ariane made, where she spoke to a shepherd and if he loses a lamb, he will monitor it. As a former shepherd farmer, we would call that passing trade. If you get one lamb lifted, you can live with that two. That is becoming a problem three. Okay, now there is an issue. However, it is the alternative methods of control. I keep coming back to the preemptive strike of catching it beforehand. You have got lamping, you have got snaring, you have got den poisoning, you have got terriers, you have got dogs. Would you agree that in terms of the most welfare-efficient management of problem animals, you should have every tool in the box so long as they are managed? That would be my general approach, but it is not a fact-based answer or knowledge-based answer. It is just a view that there is more than one way to skin a cat, unless there is a good reason for not allowing it to be allowed. Good morning, Lord Bornamey. I have a separate line of questioning, if that is okay. It is about the code of practice that should be developed for hunt activities, such as notifying the place, how many guns there are, who has the guns, how much time notification in advance needs to be made, for instance. It says that there are requirements for notification in advance. Does that mean the morning of, for instance? In my experience, when I looked into this, when I was a member of the Environment, Committee in the previous session, a concern of mine was what kind of notification, what should take place and make it factual and trackable. Is that something that you would support? Yes. The PACs told me—I am not saying that this is everyone, but PACs gave me information that they liaised with the police when they were going to have a hunt. The police confirmed that that happened. There was a recognised, but whether it was effectively followed practice in relation to that. The police gave me the clear impression that they were not too concerned about how little notice they got of changes. There can be a change in the person responsible for the hunt, for example, and it is vital that you know who that is. The person who is going to be prosecuted at any of these following a hunting incident is likely to be the person who is controlling that particular hunt, but they were content as long as they were told. Timing was not a big issue. For me, if there is to be a system like that, I would expect very definitely that there should be a period of notification of all the general points that need to be notified, subject to being changed at a later stage, something like 14 days, for example. It would not need to be a lengthy period, it could be less than that, because this is something that can be decided at short notice. However, I have no doubt that a scheme can be worked out to do that, and there was good will certainly at that time to do it, but it also requires the police to be entirely on board on that. I am aware that some mounted packs go out every Saturday, for instance, or every Tuesday Saturday. A code of practice could encompass that set of rides that were taking place. That needs to be something that could be followed and traced, and then we know if a change has been made so that we know exactly who has the guns and who is in charge. Things like the details of the number of guns and so on are inevitably going to be notified at short notice, but they should be noted. Guns are implements that no one should have without having authority and no one should be out in a public place making use of one without notifying the police in advance, significantly in advance for the police to check. You would expect that the police would have a day or so at least to know or to make any checks they want on the personnel who are going to be using guns, but the detail of that I have absolutely no doubt can be worked out. The issue that you touched on earlier on was, or one of the many issues that you touched on earlier on, that of vicarious liability. I think that you described Scots law or Scots law makers perhaps as being reluctant to go down that route. I wonder if you just briefly set out what the concept is and how unusual it is in Scots law. It is mainly a concept that applies in damages claims, industrial accidents and areas of reparation for injuries caused where work is, for example, being done by a workman and his employer will be liable for his negligence, so that is vicarious liability. I suppose that I am talking of something that could be viewed as strict liability, but it is not quite. You are only liable. You are not liable just because it happens. You are liable because you are the person who has given authority to someone else to do something. They do something wrong in the course of that and you are held responsible. That requires work. I am not saying that, but I think that it is something that can be achieved. The rationale for it is that if somebody knows that they could be at risk of prosecution, they are likely to take extra care in deciding whether to authorise the use of their land for a particular purpose. You mentioned that you thought that the bill was clear in its meaning at the moment. Do you feel that vicarious liability is a concept that needs to be in the bill? If it is not there, you are not going to be able to look to the person authorising someone to use his land for a hunt. If you put it in, it would not directly relate or affect anything else. It would be something that would allow you to hold the person authorising another to use his land for this purpose. He could be the most peace-loving and anti-weapon individual in the world, but he would be liable for the activities of others if they were in breach of the law or more importantly if they were in breach of any condition of a licence. We have no further questions, unless you have any closing comments. I think that I have spoken enough, convener. I hope that that has helped in some way. I am sorry that my memory is not as clear as it might have been if this had been a bit closer to the time, but it is good to know that, at the end of the day, action is being taken. Thank you very much. We very much appreciate your insight and the work that you did way way back in 2016. It was very much appreciated. Thank you for joining us this morning. That concludes our business in public, and we will now move into private session.