 30 ydw'r gweithio i ddweud i ysgol y Llywodraeth, Llywodraethon i llunio i'r Cyngor οιch, a dwi'n righ proseg i fi, iddyn nhw'n rhywbeth allan nhw'n Cenôl o unigodd eu leiswyr gyda'u cyflog o gyllideb gyda'u llunio i lrydiau. Maen nhw'n meddwl i'r unigodd ysgol yn gyfroesiat ar gy хотите o units Llywodraeth pan oedd ddwyno cymryd i Llywodraeth o dda, a byddw i'r Dîm des� erfwag ei ddefnydd, Government officials to the meeting. We have Hugh Dignan, head of wildlife and flood management unit, we've got Leif Fitzgerald, the bill team leader, Rebecca Greenhan, the deputy bill team leader and Amy Hogarth solicitor. We've got about 60 minutes this morning to ask various questions and I'll kick off. Can you tell me what you understand the meaning Of rock shooting? Yes, Camila. I guess the first thing to say is that I think it's a fairly broad term, that it encompasses quite a lot of different sorts of shooting, but I suppose you could characterise it as being informal in its nature compared to the sort of more formal types of shooting like driven shooting with driven grass or driven pheasant shooting. I think it's, as far as I'm aware, and I have to say I'm not a shooter, but I know people who are and I've looked at it on YouTube videos and I've talked to people about it and so on, but it seems to me that it's typically characterised by there being one person or a group of people who are going to go shooting on land that they own or land that they have permission to shoot over. Quite often, a farmer might give people permission to shoot over that. And the sort of species that might be, after all, be sort of one for the pot type species, it could be a range of birds from pheasants, partridge, snipe, woodcock, whatever, through to mammals, hares in season, rabbits, and the occasional fox, I suppose, if they see a fox, although I don't think that's usually the purpose of going rough shooting. So it seems that a fairly typical arrangement might be that if there were more than one person involved in the shooting that they would arrange themselves in a line across the ground that they were going to cover, and they would advance across that ground with one or two dogs, typically, with each person having a dog or dogs in front of them, and they would be controlling, directing those dogs, directing them to find and to flush quarry species. And those species, when they are flush, would typically either fly off or bolt off, providing an opportunity for the shooter to shoot the quarry species, and then the dog would be directed to retrieve the species back to the shooter. So I think that's, I guess, fairly common, but it's not always like that. There are other arrangements we're aware of as well, but I guess that would be a fairly typical sort of rough shoot So, with that, there would be no intention, really, for a dog to chase a rabbit or a hare or a pheasant. It's all about flushing with the purpose of a rough shoot to actually shoot, rather than have the dogs have any play in another part than flushing. Yes. So on that basis, is this, was there any intention within this bill to ultimately or effectively ban or prevent rough shooting, as you've described? No, there was no intention to do that at all. I mean, the bill seeks to regulate the use of dogs to flush mammals. So I guess where that is happening as a part of rough shooting, then that would fall within the provisions of the bill. But it's not a, it's not the primary purpose of the bill to regulate rough shooting now. So would you describe as an unintended consequence of the legislation that it would have an impact on rough shooting? I'm not sure unintended consequence is exactly the right phrase because if someone's version of rough shooting involved using a number of dogs more than two to flush a mammal, then the intention of the bill is that that would be within the scope of the bill. But was your understanding of rough shooting complete enough to allow you to make, to understand exactly what the implications of the two dog limits would be on rough shooting? Or is that something that's developed since the stage one evidence? Is your understanding of rough shooting now better than what it was initially? I think it's fair to say that we've looked more closely at it and we have considered how the provisions of the bill would apply to what actually happens on the ground in most rough shoots as we understand them. OK, thank you. Rachel Hamilton. Oh, thank you very much. It's just to be clear, Mr Dignan, on what basis did you form your idea of what a rough shoot is? Did you go on one? Did you seek witnesses? Did you watch it on YouTube? Google it? Yes, all of those things. I have been on rough shoots before. I have friends who rough shoot. I looked on YouTube. I talked with stakeholders. Can I just confirm that it wasn't your intention to restrict rough shooting through the scope of the bill? No, as I explained to the convener, the intention is to regulate the use of dogs being used to hunt mammals to ensure that they're not allowed to chase and kill mammals and that the sort of ancillary activities around searching and flushing are within the terms of the bill. So to the extent that rough shooting uses those activities, then it falls within the scope of the bill. But the intention is primarily, as you know, is to prevent packs of dogs being used to chase and kill wild mammals. When you looked into what rough shooting was or formed your understanding and shared it with your bill team, did you get information to say that dogs that go out on a rough shoot day are not domestic dogs and that they are working dogs that are under control by the person that takes them out? I understand that there's primarily gun dogs that are used but I don't suppose it's exclusively gun dogs. There may be a variety of dog species that are used and, as I understand it, it's primarily Spanish labradors that are used and, yes, they're under control of their owners usually. Thank you. Can I just finalise on that topic? It's reassuring to know that you did your research into the rough shoot but did you do that research prior to the bill being introduced or did you do it on the back of the concerns that were raised by the responses that you and the cabinet secretary and evidence during stage 1 proceedings? I think that I was reasonably familiar before but we certainly went back and looked more closely at the issue following the concerns that were raised. Okay, thank you. Ariane Burgess. Thanks, convener. I'd like to ask about the rationale for taking a different approach to the number of dogs when it comes to rough shooting compared to other types of hunting with dogs. If the rationale is to improve workability this seems unnecessary according to the Wild Animal Welfare Commission I'd like to hear your response to the Welfare Commission statement that section 6.2C of the bill as drafted takes a proportionate approach in requiring the person to take reasonable steps to ensure that a dog does not join with others to form a pack. It should be possible for anyone in this situation to demonstrate that such steps have been taken. A genuinely accidental or unintended situation is unlikely to be viewed as an offence. That sounds to me like that section of the bill is workable but I would welcome your opinion on that. The first thing I'd like to say on that is that we're not making an exception or changing the provisions of the bill in any way to accommodate rough shooting in particular the position that we have outlined applies to any activity under the bill. So what we're saying is that if the activity involves no more than two dogs and it's for one of the purposes in the bill and that those dogs aren't allowed to join up with any other dogs to form a pack then the activity is lawful under the bill so that could be for the section 6 exception or it could be for any of the others and indeed, when we look at some of the environmental activities a similar sort of thinking would clearly apply that if people were using a number of dogs in a project as long as they were the activity of each dog was separate from others and they weren't joining up to form a pack then it would be lawful under the bill so there's no particular exception being made here for rough shooting it is just the application of the bill provisions. Thank you. Alasdair Allan. I wonder if you could take us through the issues that were considered in reaching an approach where there was a different number of dogs considered for rough shooting from other types of shooting if that's a correct reading of things so was the issue of the safety of the wild mammal the issue that you were considering primarily when you considered this area of the bill? I think that as I was not really successful in getting this across but we're not changing the number of dogs for rough shooting it's the same provisions apply for rough shooting as apply for any of the other exceptions. Thank you. Beatrice Wishart. Beg a part. Thank you. Just a follow-up question I suppose because I'm concerned that the section 6 exemption in the bill which includes rough shooting is going to undermine the wider purpose of the bill because essentially it's allowing for more than two dogs to be present during an activity which involves flushing wild mammals whereas that's not permissible for flushing foxes and the rationale seems to hang on this idea that on a rough shoot groups of more than two dogs can be prevented from forming a pack and I just would be interested to hear a bit more about the evidence base for why that's possible in a rough shooting circumstance but not when supposedly flushing foxes why in one instance is it believed that the level of control over dogs will prevent them from forming a pack and losing control and potentially killing the animal whereas on a rough shoot when foxes are involved the claim is that it's not possible to control them and prevent a pack from forming to an outsider I haven't been on a shoot it seems that foxes and rabbits other wild mammals I'm not clear on the distinction and the rationale behind this exemption there isn't a specific exemption for rough shooting so if someone was to be flushing a fox with two dogs and someone separated from them was also flushing a fox with two dogs that would be in the same situation I'm not talking about rough shooting however if there is one person in charge of a number of dogs and the purpose of that number of dogs is for those dogs to work together as a unit to flush a fox then that is clearly a different situation so it's really it's about the activity and the activity is a person using dogs to flush a wild mammal so if a person is using one or two dogs to flush a wild mammal provided it's for one of the exceptions in the bill that's okay I expect we'll come on to this in more detail later on when we discuss enforcement but it sounds as if you're saying as long as there are enough humans present to have plausible deniability we could continue to see packs of dogs flushing foxes if people can say well each of us we're all here separately with our one or two dogs can you see how that might I suppose I would take issue with plausible deniability I mean if someone is operating a pack of dogs it's clearly that's what's happening I think there is in practice a difference between what happens where people have one or two dogs which are working under the control of one person seeking to provide quarry for that one person to shoot rather than where a group of dogs are being used for a specific purpose of drawing some woodland for example with the intention of flushing a fox from it can I just clarify on that point did the Government give any consideration to the point that Mercedes has brought up the difference between people working with two dogs in a rough shoot situation is the fact that those two dogs will always be under control of the individual person who's either walking up or flushing and they will not form a pack on the basis that they're under control by one individual and the types of dogs are not pack hunting dogs in the first place did that have any consideration in your thinking well I mean I think that is the reality of it but the law isn't setting out to differentiate between different types of dogs it's talking about the number of dogs that can be used by a person or by a group of people who are all responsible for that group of dogs and one of the conditions of all of these exceptions is that the dogs do not form a pack so I mean I think it's fairly easy to be reassured that the dogs used in rough shooting will not form a pack but that's not set out in the statute that it's a particular type of dog that must be involved but we understand that and that's part of the reassurance I guess so does that come back to intent i.e. the intent is to flush therefore you're using a particular type of dog and I know that the type of dog is not included in the bill but it comes down to intent so if you were flushing with lurchers with foxhounds then intent would be to flush a particular type of animal but if you're flushing in a game shooting situation then there is better control on the basis of the fact that it's a rough shoot rather than what we would recognise as a normal hunt yes I mean I think that that is the reality of it and it's not my job to do this but I'm guessing it's the sort of thing that's taken into account in evidence as to intent okay thank you could I just add though if the onus is still in the person whether they're rough shooting whether they're deer stalking whether they're controlling stotes for environmental purposes if they are operating in proximity to someone else who has also undertaken that activity the onus is still on them to keep the dogs under control and to make sure that they don't form a pack because put in that way to hopefully prevent people trying to claim that they accidentally on purpose turned up together and just so happened to all have two dogs and go off and do illegal hunting so generally yes the types of dogs who are rough shoots won't form a pack but if they do form a pack then the individual needs to take action to separate them otherwise they could end up being in contravention of the bill then we will come back to this in enforcement at a later point just in the back Mr Dygren, you suggest that rough shooting you understand exactly what rough shooting is we understand exactly what hunting with packs is and you've said there was no intention to ban effectively ban rough shooting so why not have an exception for rough shooting if it's so clearly defined and it's all going to be okay once the bill's in place and people make assumptions why not just exempt rough shooting from the bill well I mean primarily because the bill is about regulating the use of dogs and we want to make sure that there are no loopholes in that the reason we're here is because what is in the bill at the moment and the subsequent additional information or guidance that the cabinet secretary gave us does create loopholes and creating an exemption for rough shooting if you see it so clearly defined in your head and everybody knows where it is and we know what a pack of dogs work and would look like why not just exempt it why would that create a loophole well I think exempting it would create a loophole so it would mean that anyone who said they were rough shooting would be able to say well they were not within the scope of the bill but people to use that claim that they are rough shooting to be carrying out some other sort of activity what other activity well to be for example to be aiming to use more than two dogs to flush mammals for the purpose of shooting but you just said it was quite clear if dogs were hunting individually or as a pack and that was the basis for people not to be prosecuted so that is on the understanding that people by and large do not use more than two dogs if people are using more than two dogs and say they are rough shooting well they are caught with the scope of the bill but did you come across in your evidence report where people were rough shooting and they had less than two dogs had less than two dogs when they were rough shooting well to be clear I'm talking about where a person is using those dogs there may well be in a group of shooters who may well have met up together and then set off to say perhaps in a lionhoods field they may well have one or two dogs each so that may if there were 10 people it could be 10, 20 dogs I guess but what we're saying is that as long as those activities are separated as long as that one person has charge of more than two dogs and those dogs are clearly separated and not allowed to form a pack with the other dogs which may be in the vicinity then that activity would be lawful now if a person was using three dogs for that purpose it would be caught by the scope of the bill and that wouldn't be lawful unless they had a licence to do that so if we were to exempt rough shooting altogether it would mean that people could continue or not continue they may decide to get around the sort of two dog limit they will claim to be rough shooting and they will take half dozen dogs with them and be seeking basically to carry on the activity of catching mammals Do you have any evidence to suggest that that's ever happened in the past or we've had someone with three or four dogs breaking the current regulation and shooting as a reason? We don't at present have a limit of two dogs so there will be no need for them to do that This is quite complex with the number of if you've got multiple people involved in a shoot and they've got a maximum of two dogs each Does it matter if the dog is the shooter's own dog and does it matter if the gun shoots quarry flushed by their dog? I think ownership of the dog isn't important it's who's in control of the dogs for that activity now if you had a situation however where a person A has two dogs working for them ahead of them and their two dogs flush a rabbit say a mammal and it's shot by person B because the rabbit runs across the line and that other person B also has a dog or dogs Now potentially yes that false foul of the regulation of the proposed provisions of the bill because that person who shot the rabbit rather would have had more than two dogs working for them that had their own two plus which had flushed the So even if they were spread out in the line and it was person B's dog that person B who shot the mammal that's being flushed by person A's dog that would be a problem Yes I could maybe come in and explain why that's a problem just because of the legislation so section 1.4 of the bill defines what it means for a person to be using a dog for the purposes of the provisions and for the bill a person is using a dog when the hunting of a wild mammal by that person involves a dog even if that dog isn't under that person's control so as you said person A's dogs might not be under person B's control but for the purposes of the hunting activity he's still deemed as using those two dogs so before dogs in total Okay and if there was five people saying two of them on three dogs each can the total of six dogs be split amongst the five people Yes My understanding speaking to rough shooters is sometimes if somebody doesn't have a dog of their own then somebody who has several dogs would loan them a dog so as long as it's no more than two dogs per activity but that would only be done to get round the law because I don't know of anybody who goes shooting who doesn't have a dog who says to a beater or a dog handler I'll have your dog today so that's a loophole that's a way of getting around the law that one person can't have any more than two dogs generally rough shoot you have beaters and you have people who have dogs and the people with dogs don't tend to have the guns they're not in charge of the dogs it's the beaters or the people there to flush the animals that are in charge of the dogs and in a lot of cases you'll get people going to a shoot who don't have dogs but you're suggesting that if someone turned up if a beater turned up with four dogs as long as he spoke to somebody with a gun who didn't have any dogs he could say you can see your responsible for these two dogs and I'll say I'm responsible for these two and that would get around the law no, because it's down to the activity so it's the person using the dog I was just saying that it doesn't have to be your personal dog you don't have to own that dog but if you're using the dog and it's the person using the dog in the activity so if you are directing two dogs to flush a wild mammal then that's the activity that you're doing but that dog that you are directing and using in that activity doesn't have to belong to you but somebody couldn't have four dogs under their direction and be within the parameters of the bill can I just clarify this because I think that you've contradicted what you said to Beatrice Wishart because if my understanding before it was said that if two people had two dogs each and the four dogs were flushing then person B shot something that other person's dogs had flushed and stalked then that would be an offence and then Miss Fitzgerald, you said something opposite to that no, what we're saying is that a rough shoot you may have several people there with several dogs activity is Amy said is if you are using the dogs to flush a wild mammal so it could be if you're using two dogs to flush a wild mammal and then the person next to you is using two dogs to flush a wild mammal and those mammals are then flushed in your direction then potentially it could be deemed that all of those four dogs were then involved in that one activity because they were flushing the same game towards the same person so that's why it's done by the activity and why it's incumbent upon anybody undertaking any of the things under the bill to make sure that is that separation that person, that activity that two dogs paired activity and that activity is flushing the particular wild mammal so it was your intention to restrict through the scope of the bill No, the intention of this bill is to regulate the use of dogs be that in rough shooting deer stalking predator control so you've got the bill sets out the purposes for which dogs can be used which is section 3 protection of agriculture or section 6 game shooting it then sets out the activity which is the use of dogs flush a wild mammal and then it sets out the parameters and the conditions under which that activity has to be done and that for example the dogs have to be under control and they can't form a pack so it sets it out and all of the activities where dogs are used then fall within the scope of the bill but you're not worried because you've looked into rough shooting you understand what it is you've googled it, you've watched YouTube videos and you understand that working dogs are under control in those types of shoots so therefore you're not really worried about it We understand that it should be under control any dogs in the countryside should be under control Thank you, we've talked a little today and we've asked a little today about the question of whether exemptions around rough shooting might have been workable We've had in our additional call for evidence a comment from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission in the commission's view extending the bill's provisions further to accommodate other forms of rough shooting is undesirable and unnecessary to do so would seriously risk undermining both the legislation's purpose and enforcement I just wonder were these questions that the Government considered that taking exemptions around rough shooting any further parts of the bill or principles of the bill We're not changing the bill When the bill was drafted did the Government consider that attempting to make further allowances around rough shooting would undermine parts of the bill was that an issue that you considered? I don't think that we considered that specifically at that point but our intention was as Leah has said to treat all use of dogs to flush wild mammals equally so that the provisions would apply to them equally There were a number of concerns raised about rough shooting and the more we thought about and analysed what seemed to us to happen on most rough shoots we thought that a lot of the activities that happen on rough shoots would probably be okay under the bill I mean clearly in anything to do with shooting of wild birds not within the scope of the bill at all but the shooting of wild mammals provided they were done in the terms that we've set out where there are no more than two dogs providing quarry for a shooter and that those two dogs were not allowed to join up and form a pact with other dogs to think about any further exemptions To follow up questions in relation to number of people number of dogs on a shoot firstly something that the convener said about on a rough shoot dogs typically or maybe managed by beaters or people who aren't shooting so is that a practice that you accept as part of a rough shoot Well I was slightly surprised to hear that convener described that as rough shooting I mean to me that sounds like driven pheasant shooting or partridge shooting perhaps and the situation there is going to be more complicated if there are a number of beaters with a number of dogs and they are driving or flushing mammals and then they're being shot by other people and I think that that would not likely be within the scope and it would not likely be lawful under the bill Okay so in the circumstance where you have dogs managed by the shooters as I understand from Ms Fitzgerald's response to Beatrice Wishart shooting dogs flushed by sorry shooting wild mammals which have been flushed by someone else's dogs dog or dogs would be in a fence but there the shooters dog doesn't have to be their personal dog so at what point during the shoot does that need to be decided? I guess this is maybe going to come up in enforcement but it strikes me that someone could very easily say um actually that's that's my dog for the purposes of this shoot and it could just be changed to suit I'm just going to say it I think it comes back to the activity so if you are shooting quarry then no more than two dogs can be used to in that particular activity so you will have different permeations and different groups of people but ultimately it's the number of dogs that were involved in that activity so if you're shooting game and it's only been flushed by two dogs then that is permitted but if four dogs have flushed that game then that wouldn't be permitted because that would be using more than four dogs for that activity but could you have a sort of relay flushing one dog flushing to another dog to another dog finally to the shooter how would you keep track of that mammal and know that it had only been flushed it had only come into contact by two dogs and that those two dogs were I don't know that's when it's in on the onus of the people who are undertaking that activity if they're undertaking activity in proximity to other people and that doesn't just apply to rough shooting applies to for example forest rangers who are controlling deer or other uses of dogs then they need to organise themselves and conduct themselves in a way that those issues or areas of confusion shouldn't arise if I can again come back to that section of the work point I think no one would be able to say that oh they weren't my dogs it's if they've been flushed if the wild mammals have been flushed by dogs and you are also using dogs then you'll fall within the scope however if the shooter isn't using any other dogs then there is not going to be an offence there will only be an offence if more than two dogs have been used that sounds slightly different to what Leah was saying I understood that it was related to the activity so if you shoot a wild mammal and it's only been flushed to you by no more than two dogs that wouldn't be an offence I understand from what you're saying Amy that if you yourself had brought dogs and then it was other dogs that flushed them mammal to you then that would be an offence no sorry I think the question was initially to do with if a shooter didn't have dogs would that still be an offence so the key thing is section 1 4 the definition of a person using a dog an offence will only be committed by the shooter if that shooter is also using dogs so if the shooter is alongside someone who is using two dogs to flush then there's nothing stopping that shooter taking the shot because they are not using any other dogs they would be part of that one I said that activity the activity of searching for or flushing a wild mammal from cover and they would be separate separate quarry, separate activity but this is just not how rough shooting works in practice not at all you know I certainly what I described was far from a driven shoot in terms of and I think you were suggesting it was like grouse shooting or fox shooting that's not the case I should declare an interest I've taken partner off shoots I don't have a dog that flushed animals I would stand and shoot so it's not always the case that the shooter is in control of the dogs what often happens is that you have four or five people who maybe beat so they're there with the dogs to flush and that's their day out that's what they do is worship or responsibility for those dogs that will take part so in that instance who is illegally hunting is it the guy with the gun or the beaters with the dogs this is where there's a grey area but certainly I wasn't suggesting it was a driven shoot it's rough shoot in a way it could be described as a driven shoot when you have beaters working a wood with dogs and those dogs may have no ownership or responsibility on behalf of those who are shooting just to get clarity have you made a distinction between a driven shoot and a rough shoot for the purposes of the bill or the two of them are tied into the same thing so a driven shoot isn't exactly the same as a rough shoot for the purposes of the bill okay what you suggested just is that a driven shoot would come under the bill in a different way from a rough shoot or maybe was understood it's not the type of shooting that's relevant it's the actual activity so if a shooter if someone shoots a mammal that's been flushed by more than two dogs then there's no problem that if they shoot a mammal which has been flushed by more than two dogs then that is unlawful unless they have a licence well that goes in the face of what the minister has said if there's four people there with eight dogs does that mean you have to have four guns each shooting only the animals that those two dogs had flushed because again you could have eight dogs with four handlers and two shooters does that make it illegal because what you've suggested it would do and if that's the case that would make rough shooting illegal because that's what happens in most cases well I mean I yes the issue is is no more than two dogs to flush a mammal for someone to shoot now if you have a group of shooters and they have more than two dogs flushing mammals for them then yes that is unlawful under the bill I as I said at the outset we are aware that rough shooting is a broad term and encompasses quite a range of activities the sort of activity that we are describing convener is one of those which would not be lawful under the bill as regards shooting of mammals clearly shooting of wild birds would be a different matter it seems to be in direct contrast to what the minister said in response to the stage one because she said that as long as people were only in charge of two dogs it didn't have any relation to the number of shooters we will maybe come back to that with enforcement more clarification so do you need a licence to rough shoot so you don't get caught up in what you are talking about there and my other question was if you are in cover how do you know which one has flushed so I don't have the minister's words in front of me but what she was saying was what we said here that it is related to the activity so you can have several people present at a rough shoot but they are regarded as doing separate activities so it's that activity, the two dogs and that was what the minister was saying which was the same as what we've been saying today so it depends how the rough shoot is conducted so it's not to say that rough shooting can't happen under the bill we're just setting out the parameters for which the use of dogs as a bill is currently structured there isn't a licence for section 6.0 rough shooting is limited to two dogs you couldn't apply for a licence to do any of the activities under that section but from what you're saying it looks as though the Government haven't considered that rough shooters need a licence to go out with two dogs because they go out with a friend because it's very rare that somebody would go out on their own unless of course they were a farmer just going out to shoot a fox they can go out in a group but then they just need to make sure that they're only shooting and flushing the quarry so they're acting separately they're not working together so flush together so how do you know if you're in cover which dog has flushed that's something that you just need to determine no I'm sorry if anyone's watching this right now this is complete mess this is completely confusing I don't understand what's going on I've watched a rough shoot and many people around this table have as well and I cannot understand this section 6 so it's not clear and I'm sorry to say that thank you the minister quoted the two dog limit does not necessarily mean that not more than two dogs can be present at a rough shoot and we understand that but she then goes on to state that the bill would apply to each individual person using dogs to hunt quarry as part of a rough shoot where wild mammals or rabbits were shot does that apply to shooters or those who are in control and own the dogs that are flushing who are the hunters does the term hunter only apply to the person that shoots the wild animal mammal or does it apply to those who are in control of the dogs that's what makes it completely unclear and the difficulty is this is all just this is not within the legislation this is not in the face of the bill the guidance which from what we've heard this morning if the guidance is based on what we've heard it's going to be incredibly confusing it applies to the person using the dogs that's how the bill is structured so the person who is deemed to be the person using the dogs and undertaking the activity that is who the bill applies to yes when you talk about the person who's using the dog there's actually two people using the dog if you've got a shooter and a picker-upper so the person who's walking with the dogs that flushes the game whatever it happens to be if it's somebody else that shoots it that means it's two people who are using the dog so they're both responsible for the dogs actions so they would both be deemed to be taking part in that activity okay okay, Jenny Minto thank you convener I have additional evidence prior to this evidence session the league against cruel sport stated that the proposed legislation is very clear rough shooting remains legal under the bill provided each person in attendance controls more than two dogs and the dogs don't form a pack I'm wondering just for the record if you can give us the definition of a pack and also as opposed to when several dogs are working independently so when we don't have a specific definition for a term under the bill then it's just we just rely on the ordinary dictionary definition can you give me the dictionary definition for the record of a pack please and perhaps while we're waiting if we could get an indication as to what's the difference between the dogs working independently I'm just looking up now I think we normally use the Oxford English dictionary is the one that we normally use come back on that point but just to add as well that again looking at subsection C of section 2 that's our condition where it says reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog used in the activity does not join with others to form a pack more than two dogs so for the purpose of the bill a pack will be more than two dogs okay thank you we're now going to move on to enforcement and loopholes okay sorry if Labour at this point if you're talking about the definition of working in a pack if there are four people with eight dogs and each of those four people with eight dogs each and each of them can call back individually any dog that is within that area would that be regarded as a pack or would that be regarded as four people working independently does that make sense let me put this in context so if there are guys walking whether they've got guns in their hands or not whether they're walking with the purpose of flushing prey while they're walking they'll be quatering a particular bit of ground they will cross over each other and then they'll cross back again so if at any time a dog flushes anything that runs if that owner of that dog or the person who is working that dog whistles that dog stops to allow the prey to run is that deemed to be that dog back when there are eight dogs on the ground at the same time this is really important I think it's if in effect then whoever shoots the prey has got more than two dogs working for them and that is not lawful under the bill so the situation you describe it seems to me that that person would in effect have eight dogs working for them well it would seem that all of the people but if they don't if they don't have eight dogs working for them if they just have two dogs working for them two dogs flushing prey for them to shoot that's lawful okay you've got the eight dogs that are working all on the same bit of ground but one person takes a shot and whoever it is that's controlling these dogs you'll have seen it if the dog flushes something if you're handling the dog whistles to that dog and that dog stops and pushes the prey forward one person shoots it is that deemed to be that these dogs are working in a pack despite the fact that each individual who's got these dogs in front of them can stop them at any given time because if so allow me to clarify what I'm meaning if you're working a pack of dogs and you're flushing foxes you have to stop the whole pack in order to stop the hunt whereas when you're quartering you only need the one dog who's pushed that prey forward to stop in order to get the clean shot so there's a clear difference in how these dogs are actually worked on the ground can the law or can the bill as it's drafted currently allow for that differentiation no I mean the the legislation is structured around the number of dogs no more than two dogs to be used to flush that's going to come on to enforcement if a person in scenario you described it seems to me you could not say they were just using two dogs because they could be shooting game flush by any of the eight dogs that will come on to enforcement that the convener's going to come on to so I'll leave it there so quite somewhere under the terms of the bill does the bill set out to differentiate between legal rough shooting with more than two dogs and illegal hunting with more than two dogs where in the bill does it make that clarification as we've described it's under where it describes what the activity is the person using more than two dogs to flush a mammal that is unlawful using one or two dogs and what is lawful that's really what it all boils down to so again it's probably in the back at the gyms if there's two beaters if we call them dog handlers with two dogs each and one gun would that be illegal the person who was doing the shooting would be having more than two dogs flushing the game for them yes sorry things keep popping into my head are we not getting concerned here about is the purpose of the bill not to stop dogs chasing and killing the animal so is there any way to make differentiation between the dogs chasing and killing the animal between the number of dogs that are flushing the animal to be shot is that there's not a way of clarifying that well the bill as it's structured says that hunting involves a number of different types of activities and amongst those activities are flushing and searching as well as chasing and killing okay yes mr CDs thanks just to follow up on Jim's question so I understand that a motivator of this bill was to address animal welfare concerns so how is it that multiple sets of one or two dogs flushing to guns animal welfare outcomes then a single pack of more than two dogs flushing to guns it's about the number of dogs we think that there is a higher risk of more than two dogs chasing, catching and killing a mammal than where there are just two dogs that is why the two dog limit has been introduced but you might have on a rough shoot five sets of one or two dogs flushing in close proximity to each other and if a fox or a wild mammal is in that area how is that going to be how is that going to lead to higher animal welfare then if you had the same number of dogs working as a pack well I guess this is where we talk about there needs to be clear separation so I mean if in effect we are talking about those dogs forming a pack that's not lawful so we're saying what is lawful is to have up to two dogs providing a quarry for someone to shoot and those dogs having clear separation with other dogs who may be working in the vicinity if what you're saying is in effect there are five dogs flushing a mammal then that's not lawful I've got to pick up on something you said and it was something the minister also said which again would evidence the lack of understanding of a rough shoot and that is chasing, catching and killing a wild mammal I had no occasion that that would be the case during a rough shoot in fact the dogs that are involved in a rough shoot are too highly trained and if I was to go to a rough shoot and my dog was found to be chasing, catching and killing I would be asked to leave and I wouldn't be asked back the dogs just don't do that the idea that any time during a rough shoot a dog would chase, catch and kill an animal I would like to see some evidence of that happening and if that's the basis why rough shoot is including that it's on a default basis Alasdair Allan Thank you, convener Thank you, convener My question was really about the comments that have been made by Police Scotland about enforceability and you'll be familiar with what those are around the issue we've just discussed around what constitutes a pack but also other enforcement issues they did say that they felt that the most people I think was their word would obey the law but I just wonder if the comments that they've made are ones that will be considered for instance when guidance or licence and schemes are being formulated We had spoken to Police Scotland throughout the development of the bill that was the first time we'd seen those particular concerns so as we did when they raised concerns about the training of police dogs we will take that away and we will speak to Police Scotland and understand where their concerns are and consider whether there's anything we need to do to address those Thank you, convener Had you had discussions with Police Scotland around rough shooting prior to the evidence that the minister gave when the concerns were raised? Not specifically in relation to rough shooting but we had had discussions with Police Scotland about the bill in general and then followed up discussions about the impact of the bill on the training of police dogs Given the concerns Police Scotland has the minister considered any amendments to address Police Scotland's concerns? The minister is in Egypt at the moment so I don't think she's seen the concerns raised by Police Scotland but as I said we will take that forward as a bill team Karen Adam Thank you, convener We've spoken a bit about loot poles and we know that that is the purpose for this bill coming forward as well as to close some of those loot poles that have been quite apparent A few stakeholders have been vocal from all sides of the debate and the argument on how any exemptions for rough shooting would create potential loot poles I'm just wondering in that regard what considerations have been made for that I know that we've had a discussion on that already this morning but is there anything specific that you could let us know what you have considered and put that into the bill? That's why the bill is structured the way it is so we did consider that people would try and use any of the activities under the bill as a potential avenue for the legal hunting so that's why we have the two dog limit that's why we have setting out that activity and that activity cannot involve the use of more than two dogs that the dogs have to be under control that they can't form a pack and it's basically to stop people turning up and claiming that they're all just there separately when in reality they are hunting with our pack of dogs Thank you for that What we're discussing here today and really drilling down into the detail and narrative of particular situations that may or may not happen I know that the convener is talking about his experience on rough shoots and if he had a dog that went out of control he wouldn't be asked that because mostly those rough shoots are co-ordinated and organised in the most legal ways possible so in that regard I don't think we would have that many issues there that has come down to the enforcement of it Would you say? I think most people are law-abiding and most people are seeking to do things in the correct way whether they're rough shooting or whether they're going out carrying out predator control but we know that that's not all the case that wild mammals are whether accidentally or deliberately being chased and killed and that is what that bill is seeking to address and I think it's very clear to us that there are a vast variety of uses to which dogs are put into the countryside and they all fall within of this bill as they're used to control wild mammals so we've just thought to have that clear setting out of if you are using dogs for these purposes this is how you have to conduct yourself just one last question somebody who is sitting here scrutinising this bill I have to be aware that the priority of this bill is animal welfare above and beyond everything else above human activities is about animal welfare Rachel Hamilton What activities can you list that people use rough shooting as a cover for as you've just suggested I'm we're not saying that people will are using rough shooting or anything we're saying that the potential is that people will seek to use activities as a cover we know for example from the evidence in England and Wales that when they introduced a two dog limit then people used activities like trail hunting as a cover trail hunting doesn't happen in Scotland not in the moment because we don't have a two dog limit so what's the similarities between trail hunting and rough shooting there are different activities so how could you get away with pretending that you're rough shooting if you're trail hunting people are not pretending no no you've just said you could use rough shooting words weren't as a cover for but that's what you're suggesting so therefore are you saying that people will pretend that they're rough shooting but they're trail hunting no we're trying to prevent people using any of the purposes of the cover for illegal hunting and how would they do that by saying I'm going out rough shooting so what is the similarities between trail hunting and rough shooting that you could say to a policeman who arrives I am rough shooting I could go out and say I'm rough shooting I could have a pack of dogs with me and I could let that pack of dogs chase and kill a wild mammal and claim that I was rough shooting so you're saying that rough shooters would look like trail hunters no I'm not saying that rough shooters would look like trail hunters anybody else I'm saying somebody could claim to be a rough shooter because they are out there shooting a person who is going out rough shooting with intention of rough shooting well as we have all talked about conduct themselves in such a way that they will ensure that the prey is shot but somebody turning up in the countryside of a pack of dogs seeking to be illegal hunting could claim that they were rough shooting and the difference would be that they would not be conducting themselves in a way that was not allowing the mammal to be killed they would be there and they could potentially just let the dogs kill the wild mammal and do you use the same types of dogs for trail hunting as rough shooting you can use whatever type of dogs so could you use hounds for example for that rough shooting scent dogs or would you use spaniels to go trail hunting you can use whatever dogs that you think are going to be third your purpose is best for that activity okay that's interesting okay that's interesting just you know we've heard the bill and you know stage 1 the bill was voted unanimously going through on the basis that it was to improve animal welfare still continuing to allow dogs to control predators throughout the weeks and months that we've taken evidence not once did we have any issues around animal welfare and rough shooting not one piece of evidence I believe came before this committee I think this is a run into the consequences of including rabbits in the definition of wild mammals which has had a knock on effect on rough shooting and given the response we had to our additional call for evidence there is concerns out there that sex in sex in particular doesn't fit the bill for either those who wish to continue rough shooting or those who would wish to see any sort of country sports stopped it does neither and could potentially open a loophole on that basis has the bill team looked at any possible amendments which would address these concerns and that may include a better definition of rough shooting and excluding it or any other measures that would clear up what looks like a bit of a burrach at the moment we have seen the amendments which have been laid and we give those careful consideration but it's not really our job to talk here about amendments that the minister may seek to bring forward but yes we are very well aware of the issues around this and we are seeing the amendments which are being laid thank you, Mercedes finally thank you I guess I'm seeking some clarification the Scottish Government's stated aim is to pursue the highest possible animal welfare standards so can we get some kind of explanation as to why this bill has ended up having an exemption for sport and how the Scottish Government squares the hunting and killing of four sport with pursuing the highest possible animal welfare standards I was just going to say as the convener has reminded us there is clearly an animal welfare priority that needs to be balanced for the need for effective predator control so that is is sporting predator control? we are not seeking in the course of this bill to ban an activity which is not really related except as far as in potentially the use of more than two dogs which we've already talked about and the potential for that perhaps being used as a loophole so really we're not here seeking to ban sport shooting seeking to control the use of mammals to prevent them chasing and killing wild mammals that's the intention of the bill that concludes this session I very much appreciate your time this morning in this additional witness session it certainly will help going forward to stage 2 and stage 3 we'll now briefly suspend the meeting until 11.15 to allow for a changeover of witnesses thank you welcome back to our morning session following the session with the bill team and we've now had time to consider the written submissions and members wish to take further evidence with stakeholders to explore some of the issues that have been raised on our additional call for views Rachel Hamilton I'm none the wiser after the session with the bill team I was grateful for their time but I think there's a lot of questions to be answered and from a practical point of view there were 232 submissions to the consultation I really really think that we should have some sort of round table or stakeholder engagement just to get some clarification on the unanswered points that we didn't seem to get a grip on okay Mercedes now that we've had an opportunity to review the written evidence that we received last week and there was a significant amount and I also have some outstanding confusion after today's session with the legislation team I think it would be beneficial to bring as long as we have a balance of groups coming in that it would be beneficial to have that round table okay are members agreement to have a further stakeholder engagement session? Alistair I'm not against that but just to check you mentioned the same thing yeah this is stakeholder session just to confirm that yes agreed now I'm out and I'll leave you can't see me I think I'm agreed in principle but I think that we're none the wiser because I feel that we almost need like back to basics understanding of legal language because early at some point I feel like I need to go back and look at the official record because at some point early on question 3 they started talking about it's per activity it's two dogs per activity and when we're talking about shooters and all sorts of things just at the moment we're just considering whether we want to take further evidence of the session I know but the thing is is if we don't get that it is per activity and we are not clear and then we're going to invite a whole load of other people in to I don't know if it's going to actually make it clearer for us if we are not clear after hearing from them so you know I know that the majority is going to be so yeah let's do it so that's fine I'll go with the majority but I don't know if it's actually going to give us what we need and we've spent a lot of time on this already thank you noted are we in is the majority committee in favour of having a further stakeholder meeting in the 23rd yes okay thank you I'm on next side to my business this morning's consideration of consent notification the organic production amendment number 2 regulation 2022 do any members have any comments on the notification are members content to agree with the Scottish Government's decision to consent to the provision set out in the notification being included in UK rather than Scottish subordinate legislation agreed thank you our next item of business this morning is consideration of petition PE1758 in Greyhound racing in Scotland members will note the animal welfare commission has written to us to say that it wishes to take more time to consider the issue of a ban on greyhound racing and expects to come to decision next February on that basis are members content to delay further consideration until the SAWC has come to a view on that matter Mercedes I think given some of the correspondence the committee has received I would suggest that we defer a decision on what we do next until next week when we have a chance to discuss the work program rather than taking that decision today okay Rachel letter from the Scottish Animal Welfare commission doesn't state when the committee will have access to the decision that they've taken to take on more research and consider that evidence so I think it's almost as if the can is being kicked the line on this one and unfortunately doesn't give us any clarity over the timetable that we could possibly consider it within our work program well it's my understanding that they will come to decision by next February initially I was disappointed at the lack of progress from the commission given that we'd ridden on two occasions to get a response however that might well give us reassurance that they are taking this seriously and they're going to consider all the options and consequences of a ban an outright ban or a licensing scheme so I think waiting to February would certainly give us the information we need to take it further. Ariane I'd be interested in a letter to the Scottish Government requesting further information including consultation timeline and the specifics of the proposed consultation on extending the framework for licensing of activities involving animals including greyhound racing I would also be interested in writing to the Dogs Trust Blue Cross and RSPCA to request an estimated publication date of their upcoming evidence-based report We can certainly do that but again I think if we deal with it on our work planning meeting next week we'll have a better indication of the time constraints we've got and how we want to take it forward Okay, thank you That concludes our business in public and we'll now move into private session