 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 22nd meeting of the Rural Affairs Islands and Natural Environment Committee in 2022. Before I begin, I remind everyone using electronic devices to switch them to silent. I'd also like to welcome Edward Mountain to the committee this morning. Our first item of business this morning is our concluding evidence session on the hunting with dogs Scotland bill at stage 1. I'm pleased to welcome the meeting of the minister for environment and land reform and our officials, Hugh Dignan, head of wildlife and flood management unit, Leah Fitzgerald, team leader from the wildlife legislation team and Hazel Riley, the lawyer from the Scottish Government. I invite the minister to make some opening remarks. Thanks very much, convener, and thank you to the committee for having us today. Although it has been unlawful for 20 years, we know that mammals continue to be chased and to be killed by packs of dogs in Scotland, whether that's inadvertently by those undertaking management or deliberately by those participating in illegal activities, such for example as hair coursing. My intention is to ensure that what has been unlawful for 20 years cannot persist and to deliver legislation that very clearly sets out the purposes for which dogs can be used and the conditions that must be adhered to when using dogs. In his review, Lord Bonomy noted that the existing legislation lacks clarity and is unduly complicated. That has resulted in difficulties in bringing prosecutions under the act. I was very pleased to hear Lord Bonomy's comments in front of your committee, convener, that he considers the bill to be a very well-crafted piece of legislation and that it should be a great incentive to better enforcement of the law. As well as clarifying the legal position, the bill also introduces a two-dog limit for searching for stalking and flushing wild mammals. That, we believe, is an important additional safeguard to reduce the risk of foxes and other wild mammals being chased and being killed by packs of dogs. It will significantly reduce the risk of dogs not being under control, whether inadvertently or deliberately. That is leading, as it has done in those circumstances to the chasing and killing of mammals by dogs. The vast majority of foxes in Scotland are controlled without using dogs at all. However, the bill allows for the use of two dogs to protect livestock without licences. In those circumstances, I recognise, as Lord Bonomy did, that there are circumstances where two dogs are not going to be sufficient to undertake that lawful activity of flushing a mammal to waiting guns. That can be because of, for example, terrain in thick forest or on hillground. Because of that, the bill includes provision for more than two dogs to be used by a licensing scheme, where it can be demonstrated that there was no other solution. I want to be clear on two points, however. Applying for a licence should be the exception, and NatureScot as a licensing authority would need to scrutinise applications. However, the second point that I want to be clear about is that where a licence is merited for use, we are determined that it will be workable, reasonable and available. I know that we will get into more detail on that in the discussion, but the other main policy provision in the bill is the banning of trail hunting. The reasons for that are twofold. First, trail hunting poses a significant risk to wild mammals who can be diverted from a laid trail onto a natural trail and start chasing and killing wild mammals. Secondly, we know from evidence down south that trail hunting is used as a cover for unlawful hunting, and we therefore want to take that opportunity, not just to close historic loopholes but to rise to the opportunity of preventing others from opening. I have been following your committee sessions. I am aware of some of the discussions that have arisen with regard to the bill. It is very helpful for me to hear those, and I am glad to have the opportunity to hear more of them for today. For now, I will say that I understand that the control of wild mammals is a controversial issue. I know that you have heard strong views on either side of the debates. The bill is principally about pursuing the highest possible animal welfare standards in Scotland, but doing so on the understanding that we are a rural nation and that access to legitimate control must be possible. I will leave it there. My first question was about what the bill's overall purpose is, but I think that you have covered most of that in your opening statement. Is the bill a sledgehammer to crack a nut? What level of deliberate or unintentional law-breaking is there under the existing bill, given that you have said that the vast majority of fox control is not with dogs? Is the new bill not based on the principle of evidence and whatever, but more to do with prejudice and stopping mounted packs? I will take them in reverse order. There is absolutely no prejudice in the pursuit of this whatsoever. As I set out, the Government pursues the highest possible animal welfare standards, but it is necessarily seeking to find a balance. We also recognise that we need to be able that farmers, land managers and conservationists will, in certain circumstances, have to be able to control wild mammals. There is a very simple basis underlying what can be a complicated bill or a controversial issue, which is that this has already been unlawful for 20 years and it is on the back of Lord Bonomy and concerns from the public. Our intention now is to make what ought to have happened 20 years ago work. You asked me a question about to what extent is this a sledgehammer to crack a nut? My officials will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that Lord Bonomy in his report identified that about 20 per cent of all foxes that are killed using dogs in Scotland are killed unlawfully, he was nodding, but so there was a substantial proportion there. I accept that other methods of fox control, mammal control, are used that do not necessarily involve dogs, but I think that we would all agree that, where dogs are used, we ought to pursue the highest possible standards of welfare. Perhaps you just clarified that 20 per cent seems to be a huge number, given the evidence that we have heard about our foot packs and whatever. 20 per cent unlawfully killed seems to be very high, given that the vast number is not controlled using dogs. I'm sure that 20 per cent is the figure that I recall, convener, but I'll certainly check it. In the early stages of the bill, the purpose was to address any inconsistencies in the language of the 2002 act and to make the law easier to understand and to enforce. During the course of our scrutiny, has there been any gaps that you now feel require further clarification or any aims or objectives that you feel have changed and, if so, in what way? Well, I've been listening carefully, and my officials have been listening carefully to the discussion as it's played out. I think that there's been a range of issues brought up. I think that some of them have pertained to, for example, terms that are defined and those that are not. I know that there has also been points raised about should we have an additional offence of reckless conduct. I'm listening to all of those, and I'm happy to discuss any in particular. On the point about reckless conduct, that was one that I thought about particularly closely, because it went right to the core of what is the offence. Right now we have the offence, or we're proposing the offence of hunting. We're proposing a second offence of knowingly permitting, and I understand that there were some calls for there to be an additional reckless conduct. For me, one of the principal aims is to have clarity of expression and understanding, not just for those who would seek to use dogs in pursuit of legitimate activities, but also for law enforcement. When we add a degree of subjectivity with something like reckless conduct, we're getting back into the ambiguities that were the problem in the 2002 act. I place a lot of attention on under control as it's part of this bill, because I think that that's going to be an absolutely key provision. It's central to this bill. When it's passed, it should be very clear to any observer or anyone who would want to undertake control of wild mammals. When they have the dogs under control and when they don't, that's what we were lacking before. That's what I want to maintain. Those are just some examples, but if there are other specific issues that have been raised with the committee that you would like to speak with me about, I'm more than happy to talk about them. I also mentioned the issue of defining terms and not defining terms. We've tried to wear the natural meaning of a term. We think has been quite straightforward. We've tried not to unnecessarily enclose it within a definition, because we know that when we try and do exhaustive definitions, you naturally will miss things, and that will allow, frankly, those who would seek to circumvent this to say, well, I was undertaking activity that was out with your definition, and it just makes it more complicated. We've tried to avoid that where we can, but those were some of the examples that had occurred to me. That's great. Thank you. Thank you. I'll get a supplement from your Mercedes Velalba and then Alasdair Allan. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the witnesses. Thank you for coming. Yeah, just a related question. In terms of the definition of hunting, are you satisfied with that? We've heard calls that it should be clarified with an expanded list of related terms such as stalking, flushing or pursuing. What's your view on that? I'm just trying to remain myself, so we refer to it as searching for stalking and flushing. That's exactly one of the examples that I was referring to Karen Adam about, whereby if we tried to provide an exhaustive definition of hunting, we would eventually find ourselves in a circumstance where people would say, I wasn't undertaking any of those activities, I was something else, and you find yourself outside the scope of it. In terms of expanding a non-exhaustive list of what that could constitute, I don't disagree with that. That might be something that could be helpful. What are your views on—there's been a suggestion that there should be a strict liability under section 2 of the bill, where a landowner or an occupier or a dog owner would be liable. That will come up in future questions. We were touching on the definition. In the face of the bill, it suggests that hunting includes in particular searching for and coursing, and then in brackets and related expressions are to be construed accordingly. Does that not allow a huge amount of uncertainty about what that might be? How would that be interpreted in law? It's a good question, and I think that there's always a balance to be struck, because I've been talking to Mercedes Villalba and Karen Adam about the risks of having a defined definition and finding yourself out with it. Of course, there's a risk of having so many terms that it could become broader than we had anticipated. I don't think that that's the case with what we have set out, and I think that searching for, stocking and flushing are terms that people readily understand and will understand as being part of the intentional act of hunting. However, in addition to the end of that, does that not then leave the opening that it's not just that, it's what can be construed by individuals? Does that not make it far more wooly? I don't think that it's wooly. I think that it's deliberately not closing off what could constitute hunting, and that all comes back to the fact that we found ourselves under the 2002 act with interpretations being taken outside of the bill and prosecution and behaviour not following what was expected under the bill. It's deliberately non-exhaustive. One of the points that was raised last week about hunting, flushing, etc. One of the issues that was raised was the potential for shooting pheasants, shooting game birds, and dogs to flush a rabbit out, and that is then perceived to be a criminal offence. However, if a dog doesn't chase that rabbit and kill it, is that an offence or is it not? If they flush it but they don't chase and kill it? We need to get clarity on what the offence actually is. So they wouldn't apply to game birds? No, but in the process of them flushing game birds, if a rabbit or a fox comes out and the dog doesn't chase that rabbit or fox to kill it, therefore no offence is being made. Is that correct? Yeah, Q is telling me that's correct, so I'm just going to let him come in and maybe expand on that. I think that the key point is around intent here. There is clearly no intent in that situation, and there is no breach of the law if the dog doesn't chase the rabbit anyway, if the rabbit is just flushed. Clearly no offence, I would say. That links in with a discussion that I understand you've had about, okay, what if you're walking your dog in the countryside, and that's exactly what Hugh described there, hunting is an intentional act. Walking your dog if it chases after a rabbit or a hare or a fox and kills it, you haven't committed a crime under this act because you weren't undertaking the very intentional hunting. That's not to say that if you repeatedly, actively allowed your dog to do that, that it couldn't eventually constitute something more, but walking your dog in it, breaking free and chasing and killing a mammal, is not a crime under this act. My specific concern is for game birds and dogs flushing out, other than game birds, that the concern that we heard from one of the witnesses last week or the week before said that that would then constitute an offence, but we're now saying that that wouldn't constitute an offence. Yeah, because of the intent behind the activity. Yeah, I just, I have real problems with this. So across the country there's rough shoots. At the moment they're perfectly legal, so you may have half a dozen people with a couple of labradors or three labradors that will go in and flush pheasants, but there's also rabbits in there. So the intention is to flush, which is defined as hunting in the bill. So if a fox or a rabbit is flushed and that fox or a rabbit is shot, or the dogs continue to flush, there's a problem, there's a potential impact on rough shooting. It was Police Scotland last week and I quote, it's a difficult one that is where intent would come into it and it might be difficult to differentiate. That opportunity is also going to be there. If dogs are flushing game legally but encounter a mammal and chase it, that risk is there. I do not know whether that is necessarily addressed by the bill. So that is my concern. That is probably a very very common occurrence at the weekends where a rough shoot into mixed gorse or whatever, where there will be pheasants, but there will also be rabbits. If there's three dogs and those gorse bushes, you could say you don't intend your dog to chase rabbits, but it will flush them. That is hunting. So can you tell us where in the bill that point would be clarified? Because Police Scotland, and if I remember, the fiscal also had issues about how that would be determined. Okay. I'll try and give my explanations, I understand, and then I can bring in my team if need be. First of all, going back to this point of intent, if you set out with the purpose of a combination of game shooting and the control of wild mammals, and that's the activity that you're pursuing, then this bill will apply, the two dog limit will apply, and you will have to comply with the terms of this bill. If you go out only for game shooting, i.e. not in pursuit of a wild mammal, with no intention of pursuing a wild mammal, then the bill will not apply. In those circumstances, I would expect that, if the dogs that you were using went after a wild mammal, that wasn't intentional and you wouldn't be caught by the bill. I appreciate perhaps this needs clarity. I'll see if my colleagues have got anything to add to what I've said, and Hazel from our legal department is coming in. Yeah, I'm happy to come in there, thank you minister. Just to clarify the definition of hunting in the bill, it's not an exhaustive definition, as the minister has explained. It includes searching for and coursing. Flushing is an exception to that practice, but the reason we haven't included flushing in the definition of hunting is that there could be scenarios where flushing takes place where that is not part of hunting, for example, that you've given. So in that scenario, should you use two dogs to flush game birds, if a rabbit was to dart out and the person intending to shoot game birds left that rabbit alone, then that would not be an offence under the bill. So that effectively means that a mixed shoot will now become legal, despite the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that there's any animal welfare issues relating to that. Well, I think our intention with this bill is that anyone who sets out to control wildlife in the Scottish countryside should abide by it. Now, if that means that you're doing a joint shoot with game not caught by the bill and with wild mammals caught by the bill, then you're caught by the bill. But it's not necessarily controlling. You know, people don't go out to shoot pheasants to control pheasants, but as a consequence— Pheasants are caught by the bill, though. I understand that, but if you go out for a rough or a mixed shoot, which is not necessarily about controlling wild mammals that includes pheasants and game, but there may be rabbits flushed, that would be illegal under this bill. If you're pursuing an activity and the dogs that you're using flush a rabbit, that's a wild mammal. This is about the protection of wild mammals in Scotland and the bill will apply. I think that's huge. Do you want to come in? Yeah, but I think it's only if it's more than two dogs. So I think the answer is if you're involved in a rough shoot and you think you might be shooting rabbits as well as game birds, then you need to limit yourself to two dogs. If it's more than two dogs, then certainly the provisions of the bill will apply. Okay, thanks. Rachel Hamilton. I think obviously we need to make this workable and practical minister, and that's one of your intentions. I know that. I think this—and also you use the term loopholes, and the definition of a loophole is one person's perspective of a reasonable defence, and so this therefore brings in the argument around the defence, proving a defence around hair coursing. We know that hundreds of people go out on a rough shoot and they don't intend to go and shoot rabbits, however, and they take more than two dogs, and I think it's just slightly strange that we would be wanting to limit the number of dogs for people who are not intending. So there could be a spurious allegation on this as well, which would, you know, would that rough shoot then be stopped? Or the other thing is, could, on a workable sense, we look at something on an exemption which would cover permission to be on the land, and then we wouldn't have to look at an individual who has three spaniels that are very well controlled but something might happen and it runs off to a rabbit, unintended of course, and they will be able to prove their defence, but could we look at something that was an exception within the bill to cover that? I think there's two points there. One is about us clarifying the application of the bill as to the different types of shooting activity that people might undertake and it not applying to game but applying to wild mammals. The second, and perhaps really clarity on that, and you know, that's what the process is all about. The second point that you raised about rabbits, well I have to be clear that one of the policy decisions that we have made here is that rabbits should be afforded the same protection as hares. Now it's twofold the reason why we have included rabbits within the bill. Firstly, we accept that there is significant welfare issues when dogs chase and kill hares. We see no reason why that ought not to also apply to rabbits, so we want to bring them within the definition of wild mammal. The second reason that we've brought it in is because we know that the here coursing when it's undertaken and when it's caught is often, people will often say we were undertaking, we were shooting rabbits and we don't want to create that opportunity now. The point that you made there, Rachel, about permission to be on land, now that might address the issue of eliminating the opportunity to see that you were shooting rabbits when in fact you're undertaking here coursing but it doesn't touch the welfare concerns that we have about rabbits being chased and ripped apart. So that's why they've been included in the bill and that's why I don't think that permission is enough to negate the need to bring rabbits within the scope of the bill. I am just very concerned. My own gut instinct here is that we should have had a separate piece on hair coursing because, as somebody who's been witness to that with people getting away, I felt very passionately about the fact that they're not being caught and the Police Scotland had talked about that last week. I think that using other things within the countryside that are rural pursuits that are very acceptable and then bringing hair coursing in that and trying to work a system which can make sure that we prosecute more people who are doing that awful thing and not getting caught, I think it's a very difficult line to tread to wrap it all in together. I take your point and as I say I've been watching quite closely what others have had to say and I have seen a lot of support for the inclusion of rabbits within the definition of wild mammal. For the purposes of the record, I know that Detective Sergeant Telford said that Police Scotland welcomes the inclusion of rabbits. Chief and Superintendent Mike Flynn, the SSPCA, we welcome the inclusion of rabbits. Lord Bonomy on the definition of a wild mammal. My only comment is that it makes sense to protect rabbits for the reason that is given to me. Minister, just for the record, I also support that, but I think that we need to find a workable and practical solution to ensuring that this bill isn't just a catch-all, if you know what I mean. We're going to move on. This will probably come up later on in question. Alasdair Allan. Thank you, convener. Just to check it, I've got questions on the next couple of themes. Do you want me to run into them or? No, if you just cover your first question just now, Alasdair. Thank you. On just looking, just returning to the processes that were by which the Government came to its bill, we've heard from Lord Bonomy who said fairly positive things about the bill, although it doesn't include everything that was in his report. He seemed to think that it was a well-drafted piece of legislation, but can I ask what the little bit about what the thinking was about how to get from Bonomy to the bill and what alternatives were considered on the way? Yes, absolutely. Bonomy was a really important part of our development of the terms of this legislation, so were two public consultations and, of course, extensive and deliberately wide-ranging stakeholder consultation that we've undertaken. We have implemented a lot of what Bonomy recommended. We have decided not to pursue his recommendation on vicarious liability or, indeed, on the reverse burden of proof. I'm happy to go into more detail on that if the committee would like, but I think that you've already discussed quite a bit about that. I suppose that the two-dog limit itself wasn't recommended explicitly that two dogs were not recommended by Bonomy. What he did say was that there was evidence that foxes were being unlawfully chased and killed. I think that he subsequently said that the combination of the two-dog limit together with the licensing scheme is a workable and proper approach to that. In terms of alternative approaches, I think that probably one of the main alternative approaches that we considered was do we seek to amend the 2002 act or do we redo the 2002 act? I think that some of the feedback that we've gotten about the clarity that we've achieved via this bill and the way that it's drafted, albeit that we're at the beginning of the parliamentary process, has justified us having taken the approach to pursue the bill, as we did. We're now going to move on to section 1 and 2 on offences. Ariann Burgess. Thank you, convener, and I'd like to thank the minister and her team for being here to provide evidence today. Minister, 2019 poll found that 77 per cent of Scottish public felt that legislation to protect wild animals from hunting with dogs needs to be strengthened, and much of the evidence received by this committee backs us up. Police Scotland, Lord Bonomy and Chief Superintendent Mike Flynn of the SSPCA have all talked about the challenges of convicting and proving offences under the existing protection of wild mammals act. Do you believe that this bill will fully resolve those difficulties, or is there scope for amendments to further clarify and define the offences to ensure that, as you previously stated, chasing and killing a mammal with a dog for sport or otherwise has no place in modern Scotland? First of all, I have confidence that the bill, as it's presented, rises to the challenge of what we were pursuing, i.e., highest possible animal welfare standards, acknowledging the need for control in rural Scotland, and doing that to try and rectify what was supposed to have been done 20 years ago. Yes, I think that it does do that. However, we are at the beginning of the parliamentary scrutiny process. I absolutely value the input of this process, and I am open minded to ways in which your committee, or indeed those who you bring in front of you, I think that it could be improved. I look forward to having those discussions as we progress this particular stage 1 report. You have touched on the issue of definition of words, particularly the leathing to section 1 and 2 offences, and others have discussed with you words like reckless and stalking and flushing, so I'm not going to go over that old ground. However, we did have evidence from others who raised other questions, including what it means that a person is reasonably believed that they were acting under an exception, which is section 2, 4 of the bill. That is something that was raised with us. When it comes to the exceptions and exemptions that are in the bill or that part of the bill, do you feel that that is well enough to find term reasonably believed to be acting under an exception? Thank you for the question. I think that it is an interesting point, and as with some of the other definition points that we have already discussed, the team and I thought quite carefully about the words that were used, the drafters thought quite carefully about the words that were used. I think that reasonable is probably one of the ones that I'm more comfortable with, because I think that the judicial system, if I can call it the whole process from right through, is quite well acquainted with the idea of reasonableness and making an assessment on that. It allows you to take the circumstances into account, which, of course, those interpreting the law must be able to do, so we've used it, as you said, reasonably believed. I understand, again, if I'm recalling from memory here, but we talk about you having to take reasonable measures to stop two dogs forming with another pack and creating a larger group. It's pretty standard wording, and I think that the judicial system is quite well acquainted with reasonableness. The other question that I had was about rabbits, and again, you've touched on some of the issues around hair coursing and others have asked you about that issue. I wonder if I could ask in more general terms perhaps about the issue of pest control out. Some of our previous witnesses don't like the word pest control and feel it may cause offence among some species, but I'm going to use it. Are you satisfied that the measures that there are around rabbits and their inclusion in the bill leave adequate room for legitimate pest control? Yeah, I think that it's again a good question, so I explained in discussion with Rachel Hamilton about the reasons we've included rabbits. It's welfare to bring them into line with what we all understand as being welfare concerns about hair, but also the second reason being because it's often used as a cover for hair coursing, and we want to avoid that. Of course, the bill does not prevent the use of the control of rabbits. It doesn't prevent that full stop, and it doesn't stop the use of two dogs to help flush rabbits from cover to waiting guns. I'm comfortable that there will still be scope for control under the bill, but it will be done in a more humane manner, and it will protect other wild animals in the countryside, and it will allow us to have clarity about when hair coursing is being undertaken. Thank you, convener. Just sticking with rabbits, there is concern, and it was raised by Basque, that including rabbits would affect a significant number of people and how they would go about their work. Under section 3, there's a restriction to killing by means of shooting or by killing by a bird of prey. For example, those who are employed or volunteer use dogs to flush rabbits to nets, which are then caught by hand and dispatched by hand. That would rule that out. There's also using more than two dogs in a spaniel field trial where rabbits were part of the quarry for the day, even though rabbits are shot. Are you considering further exemptions to ensure that those activities are not covered by the bill? Sorry, convener. Can you just describe the first scenario again to me, please? Will you talk to us about the use of a net? The bill restricts only to use two dogs to flush rabbits into a net. The section 3 suggests that they need to be killed by a gun or by using a bird of prey, but it wouldn't allow someone to dispatch them by hand. I probably should go away and think about that, but my instinctive response just now is that I wouldn't want to do anything that stopped that sort of transplanting of animals, rather than I wouldn't want to say that they must be killed at the point of flushing if, on occasions, they can be netted and moved. It's all about animal welfare, making sure that they're dispatched in an appropriate way. Limiting the way that they're dispatched could potentially remove some methods of pest control. We're now going to look at the exceptions in sections 3, 5, 6 and 7. I thought that we were somewhere else earlier on, so apologies if my previous supplementaries were off-topic. I would like to ask if the minister could outline the different circumstances in which the Scottish Government considers it appropriate to hunt a wild animal using a dog under the exceptions and when it would be inappropriate? Okay, that's understood. Just to recap, the bill has two offences to hunt a mammal with a dog and to knowingly permit. There are exceptions to that, as Mercedes Villalbaugh has pointed to. The first one is management of wild mammals above ground. This will require two dogs. They'll have to be under control. They'll have to take reasonable steps to make sure that they don't join with others. What's envisaged there is farmers, land managers and others having to undertake control in order to protect lambs, poultry, ground nesting birds and others—basically the use above ground. The second exception is wild mammals below ground, which I know there has been quite extensive discussion about in various opposing views. From those that you've heard, provision there would be for one dog again under control, again with permission, but again that's about controlling species such as foxes and mink but underground. Then there is an exception for falconry, game shooting and deer stalking, for example using a dog to flush a wild animal to then be killed by the falcon or to be shot to be fed to the falcon, as I understand it. The fourth exception is for environmental benefits. That is for projects, for example, to tackle invasive non-native species. We've seen a couple of those. Stoats on Orkney, I understand that hedgehogs on Uist was one of the ways that that was used. There are a few circumstances in which we can envisage that dogs could be used in the pursuit of different activities, and those are laid out in exceptions in the bill. I think that it's fair to say that there's some concern amongst wildlife campaigners that the exceptions are very broad and they cover quite a lot of circumstances. I wonder if the minister would like to take the opportunity to confirm that the intention of the bill is to prohibit all use of dogs to hunt wild animals and that any exceptions will be applied narrowly and will be subject to rigorous scrutiny? Yes. Every law that the Government passes, we consider very carefully and we scrutinise closely. However, those are reflective of what's required, as we understand it and as stakeholders tell us in rural Scotland. It's quite mixed the reasons why they're used. For example, I think that RSPB were welcoming of the fact that there's been an exception for environmental use, because we have to understand that, although we will want to pursue the highest possible animal welfare standards for our wildlife, there are circumstances in which humans have to control wildlife. We did hear from one witness that they would be applying for repeated licences throughout a given season back to back. I think that there's just a concern that there still remains quite a few loopholes. I accept the Government's intention, but I'm just not sure that that's what the bill is going to achieve. I understand your point. I don't consider them to be loopholes because the basis of that is that the chasing and the killing is unlawful, not the control, not the flushing of an animal to a waiting gun. I think that, with those provisions, we will be able to make sure that the unlawful activity, the chasing, the killing and the suffering, will not be able to take place under those provisions. Does that, while being cognisant of life in rural Scotland? I've got a supplement from Rachel Hamilton. In terms of the bill distinguishing between environmental and livestock protection, how does one differ from another in terms of animal welfare? But they're so vast. The protection of a lamb can even be required to take place in different circumstances. Some farmers will lamb indoors, some will lamb on the hill. They have different circumstances. It's virtually impossible for me to say how that compares to invasive non-native species on an island. How can you prove that the same animal welfare can be improved for using dogs to flush one animal for another for an environmental reason or a predation reason? They're pursued for different reasons. How does the animal welfare improve when you roll in the environmental benefit and the livestock predation at the same time? I'm not really sure what you mean. I come from this and I'm pursuing all the reasons for which a dog may be used. I come from it on the basis that we can't allow an animal in any of those circumstances to be chased and killed because that's where the animal welfare concern is. So long as we seek to avoid that, whether those dogs are being used to kill a fox, to protect lambs or to help eradicate a non-native species, the welfare element is not allowing the chasing and the killing. I'm trying to get into your question. Are you suggesting that there are different policies and whether that hunting is going to come up? I didn't want to take from somebody else's questions, so I think that that could be developed in that question. If we don't get a response to the question, you're trying to ask. We'll bring it in at the end. Sorry, Jim Fairlie. Oh, the timings and things, okay. You're Karen Adam, is it? No, is it me? All right, my apologies. Thanks for asking me here. The reasons for the two dog limit above ground in the Scottish Government's assessment of the different impacts to that limit may have on the ability to control wildlife, on animal welfare, on wild animal disturbances and the groups that carry a hunting with dogs, et cetera. What considerations did you give for the two dog limit above ground, and what were the assessments of the impacts of the two dogs as opposed to a pack? So the most important point of consideration there was about that control element. So one of the problems under the 2002 act was determining whether what you were seeing was a flagrant breach of what was intended, i.e. you shouldn't chase or kill a mammal, or whether they had lost control, whether it was deliberate. I want people to be able to look at a scenario and tell whether the law is being complied with or not. That is much more readily clear when there will be two dogs rather than three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Equally, as I have said, the basis of that is protecting wild mammals, and it is far less likely that a wild mammal is going to be chased and killed by a dog when there are two dogs and they ought to be well kept under control by the person purporting to take them out than if there are five, six, seven, eight dogs that you can lose control of or which it is much less easy to tell when they are chasing and killing. So it is about reducing the opportunity for packs of dogs to chase and kill wild mammals. Equally, England and Wales has a two dog limit, which they have found to work successfully. So, because of those things, the two dog limit was a reasonable basis with which to start a baseline, but, of course, as you know, we have supplemented it into circumstances with a licensing scheme to be available when no other methods are available. Okay, so if you were looking at the assessment from the point of view of an environmental group or a farming body, the use of more than two dogs for walked up hounds we have heard throughout sessions is going to be essential. A, for the welfare of the dogs, and also for the welfare of a fox that is going to be flushed so that there are no-one around in circles all day and all day. Did you consider the welfare of the dogs and the fox while you were putting that number on it? Was it an arbitrary figure? How did you come to the conclusion that two dogs were okay but 12 dogs weren't? There are going to be circumstances where there is no other way of getting foxes out of particular cover and that it is going to be inessential to get them out of there because there is no other way of controlling them. They just give consideration to to where did the number come from? The number is based on, first of all, the fact that it will substantially reduce the ability to kill and chase but also an assessment of what is possible with two dogs versus what people are seeking to use them for. As I said in my opening remarks, Lord Bonomy recognised that there would be circumstances in which two dogs were not going to be sufficient. He pointed directly to terrain, he pointed to thick forest, he pointed to hillground, and that's why, while the two dogs were a reasonable baseline, bearing in mind how it helps us keep dogs under control, bearing in mind that England and Wales have introduced it successfully, that was a reasonable baseline to be supplemented with a licensing scheme where that was necessary. Lord Bonomy has commented that the two together form a workable and something that he could be supportive of. Good morning, panel. What's the Government's understanding of the most common methods of fox control in Scotland and do you have data on the prevalence of different methods and on whether they change throughout the year? If so, based on this evidence, will restricting the use of dogs affect a smaller or larger portion of fox control in Scotland? First of all, I would say that this bill is not just about foxes. We have to remember that the things that we've pursued are not just about foxes, it's about all wild mammals. However, there are a number of ways to control foxes that are used in Scotland. We know that lamping is used, we know that the use of dogs to flush to guns or, indeed, unlawfully to chase and kill dogs to foxes is being used and equally we know that some farmers and land managers adopt traps and snares and things like that. This bill is not about making an assessment on the different ways that Scotland manages foxes. This bill is about saying that the attempt that was made 20 years ago to not allow the chasing and killing as a form of control hasn't worked and that we really ought to revise the legislation so that that one specific part works as it was intended to. I think that there will be debates about all the other different types of control, but that's not what the bill is looking at. This is very much about how is one aspect of that working and is it working as the public thought it was under the 20-year-old legislation? I thank you for coming along on this, and I thank you for the questions that I had in this area. Following on from the comments that both Karen Adam and Alas Rallan have made, we have had some evidence about the definition of non-native species and how that has been established in the act, both from the RSPB and the Law Society. I don't know if you want to comment on that. My understanding of the definition that is being used is one that is used across the piece in legislation. I understand that it is derived from EU retained law, and something that I was pleased about is the fact that we have the ability to amend and add to it. However, if there were specific issues with regard to the definition, I am happy to address them, but I think that that was mainly the points that came up, and I think that the fact that we are able to add and remove from it having flexibility is important. I apologise, but Huw was trying to come in there. I would just add that it's not only the species on that list that are eligible for control as non-native species. There is also part B, which is species that are not native to the area, in which the activity is taking place, and species likely to have a significant adverse impact on biodiversity, etc., so it is under those categories that control of species like hedgehogs on US that the minister referred to earlier, or stoats on Orkney, they would fall under that leg of the criteria rather than the list. In a previous evidence session, Robbie Kernahan from NatureScot made the point that, when you have too many exceptions, they become unexceptional. Some stakeholders, including Leith against cruel sports and Scottish Badgers, are concerned that the bill may be in danger of having too many exceptions for it to fulfil the Scottish Government's original intentions. Can I ask you for your thoughts on that? Yes, of course. We are working with two co-refenses. We are working with a suite of exceptions, and then we are working with two exceptions to the exceptions. I think that of the four original exceptions, I think that they are right. I think that they reflect the realities of when people are required to undertake control of wild mammals. I mentioned earlier the RSPB's welcoming of one of the environmental benefit exceptions, because that was not part of the 2002 act. I do not have their quote in front of me, so I do not want to misquote them, but I think that what they were saying was that that was a welcome addition to their tools in the landscape scale management of our land that they undertake. Of the licensing schemes, I very much come from the place that those licensing schemes are correct. I think that it would be wrong for the Government to see what Boromy had said that there will be circumstances where two dogs are not sufficient to undertake a legal activity of flushing because of terrain and then to not act on that. I think that it is correct that they do it. I want it to be a workable licensing scheme. I do not want people who ought to be entitled to use it to feel that they cannot to feel frustrated by the process, but equally it has to be construed as being the option when there are no other options. That is how we will seek to design it with stakeholders. We are going to be coming a bit more on to licensing in a bit more detail next. The Scottish Government's reasons for a one-dog limit below ground, and there are some arguments that say that any dog below ground is a welfare risk, and other where circumstances where you need to have two dogs, however, from my own experience, anyone who puts two dogs down the same hole should not have terrers in the first place. However, there are circumstances where we are told in evidence that there are circumstances where two dogs below ground is actually far better from a welfare point of view. Did you consider the code of conduct, the terror group's code of conduct, in coming to the conclusion that one dog below ground is the maximum? I think that this is probably one of the most vexed issues in the bill, because we are presented with something that is a rock in a hard place. You have probably defined that pretty well from drawing on your own experience there. From what I can gauge from your sessions, from my discussions with stakeholders, is that, just as you have characterised it, some view it as a necessary part of control and of management, of which I do not think that there are very obvious alternatives that would be any more palatable. On the other hand, we have very real concerns, as you have expressed, about the animal welfare implications of putting dogs underground, not just for the wild mammal that it is pursuing but for the terriers themselves. It was Mike Flynn from the SSPC who said, I have grave concerns about dogs underground. I see no reason why you should have to put more than one dog down there. If you get two terriers in a heightened state, they will bite each other. It is not just the fox that they will go for. I have grave concerns about using animals underground, because there is no way to control them. I think that that is really concerning. What we have proposed as the one dog is trying to walk a balance between that, but I am open minded about where we take this and what the views are of how this should be dealt with. I think that it is very clear that there is going to have to be a balance walk right across this entire bill. I get that that is exactly what you are trying to do, but I will leave it there for a short time. I wonder if you can say a little about how you feel hunts should or could be monitored going forward. We heard a little from witnesses in the past talking about how police and others have probably relied on video evidence as to how hunts have behaved. I wonder if you can give any thoughts about how you see that going forward. What kind of evidence do you believe that police would be able to use and whether that would be based on any form of monitoring? We had, in the wake of Lord Wannabe's report, a hunt monitoring was set up in 2018 before my time, and I understand that the individual who was undertaking that couldn't continue, and then with Covid and other complications, someone else was not found. By that point, we were pursuing the primary legislation. My position right now is that we are best to get the bill through and then to consider what monitoring is required on the other side. I hope that we will have gotten to a point where the law is clear enough and the application of it is clear enough and the enforcement of it is clear enough that we may have negated the need for monitoring, but I think that that remains to be seen once we get to the other side of the bill. I know on a slightly different, but not completely different point. One thing that the police said to us in giving evidence was that there were aspects of the bill that I think they found it difficult to give an opinion of until they had seen the licence, so I just wonder, are you able to give an indication of when we'll hear more about what the licence scheme will look like in detail? Yes, so I've tried to be as clear as I possibly can that I'm very keen not to have the licence scheme rushed and to have it be developed in consultation with stakeholders, including those who will have to use it. In terms of timescale, when it will come into force, it will update Parliament on the coming into force of all aspects of the bill in due course, but I don't know if you want to say anything about when we might be able to start developing the terms of the... We're already talking to stakeholders about it, but is there any formal point at which we could... No, I mean, we can... I mean, NatureScot are already well aware that this is coming down the road for them as a requirement, and so they're already thinking about how that might work. The legislation sets out the bones of what a licence must have in it and the framework, but there's clearly a lot of detail around that. There is no reason why we can't start to develop that as we move through the bill to provide more detail at various stages. I think that that would be quite possible to do. Okay, I think that would be good. Thank you. Thank you. Rachel Hamilton. Okay minister, I've managed to get some words down that will make you and I understand what I'm trying to say here about section 7 and 8 on the exceptions before we leave this particular area. So the section 7 exemption and the consequent section 8 licence for environmental benefit is limited to where the activity is part of a scheme, okay? And what I'd like to know is what is a scheme for those purposes and why has this limitation been included? Because land managers manage foxes for a variety of purposes, including to protect vulnerable species. So would that activity count as a scheme? So thanks Rachel Hamilton. I think what's on the face of the bill reflects our understanding of how people are operating right now. So I mentioned what we might call environmental schemes whereby, for example, invasive non-native species are being controlled on the islands, and the way that we have expressed it in the bill is just trying to reflect how people are using it right now. I think that there is a difference between those who would potentially set out for a year-long activity of eradicating an invasive non-native species on an island to, for example, a farmer finding evidence that there is a fox in his fields or her fields and having to call on support to control that. Those are different activities. I wouldn't refer to that as a scheme, I would just refer to that as the on-going workings of the farm. I don't think that I'm trying to draw a great distinction here. I don't disagree with you that there will be times when you could refer to what someone might be undertaking to protect lambs as a scheme as well, but the bill is just trying to reflect how people are using dogs in real life. Do you not think, though, that land managers, as a positive consequence of predation control in terms of however they decide to do it, are then inadvertently, perhaps to them, protecting the environment, but with the new requirements to protect the environment and ground nesting birds and increase the biodiversity species within Scotland, do you not think that that is slightly not considering that by making an exception of a scheme within seven and eight, rather than considering that predation control is part of that? Therefore, that then reflects on how the licence would be applied for, granted in terms of that generality. I think that your last point touched on that. If there are differences in how long you can apply for the licence and the difference is theoretical, if it wasn't for those terms, where the terms exist, I can see that there would be arguments where people might say, well, should I apply under the protection of livestock clause or should I apply under the environmental protection clause? The terms of the licensing scheme are still to be developed, so it is difficult for me to give concrete responses to that, but certainly our purpose in this has been to try to reflect the ways in which people need to call on the use of dogs in land management throughout Scotland. Finding that there is a fox present in fields having to call on support for that is a different matter to a large-scale environmental project, which is about invasive non-native species. There is no deliberate pursuit on our part of not calling protection of livestock an environmental issue, because it is. I think that we need to work that through. It is a good thing as part of the practicalities of improving animal welfare in general. I also want to pick up a point. You mentioned that the Scottish Government has assessed the use of two dogs—I do not know whether it is to Jim or somebody else—but can you write to the committee with that detail? Is it a document that is being published? I can certainly write to the committee with some of what we considered when we developed the two dogs. Why does the bill distinguish between environmental purposes and the control of livestock? Why do environmental benefits have to be part of a scheme? Surely foxes are other wild mammals. If the bill is all about animal welfare, foxes are other wild mammals that will not have a different welfare experience depending on why they are being culled. Why is there a difference between environmental purposes or livestock when this is all about animal welfare? The fox does not know whether it is being culled for killing lambs or whether it is being controlled for disturbing ground nests and birds. Why bother distinguishing between the two? We have to bother to distinguish because what we are trying to do is to make something work that has not worked to now. It is incumbent on us to be specific about the circumstances in which it is going to be okay or permissible to use an exception under a rule. Clarity and specificity are what we are trying to achieve in the bill. I set out in response to Rachel Hamilton on how I think I am not saying that control of livestock is not an environmental issue, but there is a distinction in practical terms about someone requiring assistance with protection of livestock and a long-term project for invasive non-native species eradication on an island. They just are different. I do not think that the welfare issues are different, but they are different activities. However, if I have not done that clearly enough, I will hand over to my colleague Q to see whether there is anything that he can add. Just a couple of things. Clearly, control of foxes to protect livestock is likely to have environmental benefits as well. We appreciate the dual benefit of other species other than the livestock that is being protected. There are certainly a range of farmer-led schemes such as the Working for Waders scheme, for example, where we would easily see that fitting into the environmental criteria. The other point that I would make on this is that there is a difference between section 7 and section 3. That is that the activities that are permitted under section 7 are capturing and observing as well, whereas under section 3, it is just killing to protect livestock. That recognises that you may be using dogs not just for the purposes of killing the species that you are flushing, but also for photographing, researching and so on. In that way, that is possibly an easier bar to get through. Thank you for that clarity. That is helpful. Please forgive me if this is outlined elsewhere and I may have missed it, but could the minister explain in what circumstances you envisage a licence being issued? Is it intended that there will be regular reviews of the licensing scheme to make sure that it is meeting its purpose? Two parts to the question. The first part is that I cannot give detail today on the content of the licence beyond that, which is set out in the bill. The bill sets out the mandatory requirements of what will need to be in it, but the development of it and the terms of it will be informed by the process, by the stakeholder engagement that we are already undertaking. In terms of reviewing, however, NatureScot will review the operation of this, as it does, the operation of all of the licensing schemes and other matters that they are in charge of. In the Butehouse agreement, there is a commitment to review the operation of licensing schemes generally to make sure that they are up to compatible with the law and in line with our expectations, and that will form part of that as well. Can I just confirm that that detail will be in the bill at stage 2, or is it something for once the bill becomes an act that the licensing—I am just not sure on the process? No, you are quite right. I think that it was in response to Alistair Allan earlier that he said that we were undertaking engagement with stakeholders throughout the development of the bill. We are also listening closely to the evidence that you take, and all of that will feed into NatureScot's development of the terms of the licensing scheme. I think that he was saying earlier that we would be happy to keep Parliament up to date as that develops, but that will be something that will come post—it will be finalised after the passage of the bill, as has been the case with other pieces of legislation. Most recently, I think, the Animals and Wildlife Bill, when we brought hairs within protected status and we designed and finalised the licensing scheme for them after the passage of the bill. I am just going to move on to licensing. I would wonder if you could just, for the record, explain why the Scottish Government has decided to introduce a licence, and perhaps some of the discussions have already been around the 14 days versus the two years for control versus environmental reasons. I think that you have also quoted or said that you want it to be correct, workable and practical. From my constituency's perspective and other large areas of Scotland, it is thinking about how small farmers, as opposed to the food packs, operate in that area. I would just like to hear your thoughts on that. I think that I have mentioned it a couple of times, but just for clarity and in response to that question, the principal reason for the licensing scheme being tagged on to two of the exceptions is that we recognise, as Lord Bonham, that there are certain circumstances in which two dogs will not allow that lawful activity of flushing to waiting guns to take place. He was specific about terrain being one of the reasons why that might not be workable on hillground or in thick forests. In recognition of that, we have introduced the licensing scheme. It is an exception to an exception. We talk about balance a lot. I want all of us to try and get to a point where we have a licensing scheme that is workable, available to those where there is no other option, where a farmer, for example, if they need it, if it is during a busy lambing period, is not unduly burdened by it. However, at the same time, we cannot allow it to become so weak that we are right back to where we were in 2002, where it can just be readily applied for and nobody knows any more why and what is actually happening in the countryside. That is what we need to avoid. Just on the timings, this was just about the Scottish Government trying to reflect our understanding of how they were used in practice. Given the example of a farmer seeing evidence that there are foxes around and applying for—maybe they will be able to undertake the control with two dogs, if not, and if there are no other options—being able to apply for a licence for 14 days to have that dealt with. We understand that those are the timescales in which it should be possible to do. The longer-term projects that we have observed, including the stoats on Orkney, which are being name-checked a lot today, but the longer schemes have required more time, but I think that the two years is a maximum. It is not a general rule. If I may minister, could you expand on your line possible to do? Is that to do when you were talking about the 14 days? Some farmers have come to me and have said that they feel that that is a difficult time frame to work in, so it might be helpful to understand the evidence and the backup that you have had to the 14 days. Yes, that is fine. Perhaps I can include some more of that when we write to you about what we consider in the development of the two-doll limit, but I have to say that it is largely a reflection of what we have been told about what is necessary. On the same token, if I am being told that that is not going to work, I am not closed-minded to that, because I do not want that to not work. I do not want it to be available and undermine what we are trying to do here, but where it is needed, I do not want it to be a fudge. I am very conscious that we have got about 15 minutes left. Have you the flexibility to go over the 90 minutes that we have allocated? I might need to cancel something that is next. If you are able to do that, you can appreciate that there are a lot of questions to come. It is one of those situations where we have some detail in the middle of our session towards the end. There might not be quite the question and the responses, or maybe not quite so long, but I do not want to stifle this section of our questioning. If you do have some flexibility, that would be very much appreciated. No, I want to accommodate what I can. What time do you think we might finish? Maybe an additional 15 minutes. Okay, no, that is fine. That is fine. Thank you, I really appreciate that. Just in the back of Jenny Minthaw's question, are you open to suggestions of a different method or a different length of days? For so 14 days, it is very prescriptive and we know whether conditions or whatever could play a part and whether the pest control taken part within those 40 days is effective or not effective. There has been suggestion in some places that you could have an annual licence which allowed x number of days to use dogs for pest control purposes. Are you open to suggestions on a flexible licence that would allow not a specific 14-day period but maybe x number of days over an annual calendar period? I suppose that there is a multitude of ways in which we could do this. I am open minded to the ways that we can do it, which allow us to strike that balance, which I expressed before to Jenny Minthaw, which is about achieving what we want to achieve here, highest possible animal welfare standards, no chasing and killing of wild mammals in the countryside, but equally facilitating those who, for whom two dogs is not enough and for whom there are no other methods. I am recalling that what we have discussed so far is that you would not necessarily require to submit or resubmit evidence every time for an application for a licence, but that is all to be worked out, but something like the weather, convener, is a practical reality that I would want to see reflected. Just to add a couple of quick thoughts on this business about an annual licence to be used at different days, I can see the appeal of it, but there will inevitably be considerations as to when is an appropriate time to use more than two dogs. There will be considerations around nesting birds, maybe considerations around the presence of other species which may need to be taken into account, so I think that will probably seem to be quite a large degree of flexibility and loss of control over the possible impact of those dogs. In terms of things like weather holding up the use of a licence, I would certainly expect NatureScot to be flexible in being told it's been snowing, it's been too wet, we can't do it, can we do it following two weeks and without having to resubmit the whole application, that would clearly make sense. We're going to move on, question from Jim Fairlie. I'm actually going to just chew if you don't mind, I'm going to come back to you on this particular point and it does tie into my next question if that's okay. The type of licence, if you're going to have a seasonal licence, I'm going back to, I'm sorry, but you're not following my, what's going on in my head. I'm thinking back to what the minister was talking about earlier on with dogs going to ground, nobody wants dogs going to ground, that would be the last thing that we want to be doing, but if you leave the licence to the point where you're in lambing time, for instance, Fox is already going to be in the ground, so you're going to have more dogs going underground rather than flushing, so I've made this point in several of the sessions before about having the licence to pre-empt coming time in order to stop more terriers going underground. Is that something that you'll be prepared to look at? Sorry, maybe it should have been addressed to yourself, minister, I don't know, but I'm just concerned that we get the timing wrong and have it too prescriptive in terms of having to get a licence. Yeah, I mean, I don't think there's any prescription as to when that two weeks should be, the person who thinks anticipates the need to licence should apply for it for the time when they think it will be most used to them. But it's that two-week period that I am concerned with. For me, being a practical land manager, it should be over a period of time out with nesting season and when we know that they're not going to ground to cub. And there's plenty of scope to have a season to allow hounds on the ground to be able to flush particular areas where you know you're just not going to be able to get out with a lump. So would the bill be able to consider that specification? I think I understand what you're saying and we've come to this on the basis that we will consider how to make things workable. Now that's a whole series of issues including timing. I fully understand the difficulty that you have trying to walk that fine line. Okay, the other question was the other conditions that you may put on. Again, I've raised this in a number of committees before. Is the number of guns who are on the other side as important as the number of dogs that are flushing? Because if you've got two dogs and I've made this, I may have made it to you the last time we were here to you, if you've got two guns covering 150 yards of forestry, foxes are going to go straight through the middle and they're going to get chased. If you've got 15 guns, the fox isn't going anywhere other than being shot. So is the number of guns as important in the licensing as the number of dogs? So I have been thinking about this since I heard it being discussed before and I understand the reasoning behind it is to make sure that that shot happens as soon as possible, to avoid that chasing happening, the killing happening, which is cruel and unlawful and it's what we want to avoid. I think that it would be difficult to include something like that on the face of the bill because there will be different circumstances in which dogs are being used. I think that it could be considered as part of the development of terms of a licensing scheme. Is it something that NatureScot could have the local understanding therefore building up that relationship, because one of the other things that I've spoken about in this committee is that there's going to have to be a working relationship between NatureScot and land managers and could that be part of building up that relationship? I think that NatureScot already have a relationship with land managers and they'll seek to foster that to make this work in whatever way we need to. As I've said, I don't think that it's appropriate for the face of the bill, I don't see why it shouldn't be considered as part of the development of licensing. The committee has heard and read evidence from several witnesses who do not agree with the need for a licensing scheme and are concerned that it will leave open loop halls for traditional fox hunting to continue, but if there will be a licensing scheme, do you believe that it would benefit from incorporating some of the principles set out in Alison Johnson's proposed member's bill from last session on protecting Scotland's wild mammals? Some of those included that there should be no negative impact on the local or national conservation status of the species in question, that licences should be issued where there is a risk that dependent young will suffer and that licences must be conditional on reporting on how many animals have been killed or hunted for publication by the licensing authority. Could I ask the minister whether the Scottish Government has considered those and other licensing principles suggested by my former colleagues' proposed member's bill? Thanks, Annie-Anne Burgess, for the question. I think that for the purposes of today and stage one is a similar comment to that, which I made in response to Jim Fairlie, that all of those issues are already being and will continue to be considered as the terms of the licence are developed. For my part at this stage, I'm content that what's on the face of the bill allows us to develop a licensing scheme that will be rigorous and which will cover the basis that it needs to, but it's a framework almost at this point and we will build into it through consultation and through stakeholder engagement. One of the most important things for me, and I know from speaking to some stakeholders it's important for them as well, is that this is built on the idea that the licensing scheme is available where no other option exists. That's pretty robust, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for that response. I'm hearing from that response that there's scope in the process of the bill process. Thanks very much. As I've already noted, several stakeholders, including the League Against Cruel Sports and One Kind, are concerned that the exceptions and licences in the bill will leave open loopholes for practices that are cruel to animals to continue just like what happened with the Protection of Badgers Act. Minister McCallan, to reassure stakeholders and the 87 per cent of the public who are in favour of a watertight ban on traditional fox hunting, are you confident that no licences will be granted to any of the 10 mounted hunts in Scotland that currently hunt with dogs two to four times a week for five or six months of the year? Because this is a criminal issue, I'm not going to cast aspersions on the reasons for which any hunt has gone out in the past. What I will say is that I'm absolutely confident that, in the past, the bill can stop the illegal activity of chasing and killing an animal in Scotland's countryside and will facilitate legitimate control under strict circumstances. I know that this is the second time that I've been to this committee, but I'd like to remind the committee that I do have an interest in a family farm that doesn't have lambs on it, so I may be thankful. Minister, just a couple of comments on the licensing, which I think are interesting to pick up on is, and I think Jim Fairle's right in what he says, hunting or flushing a fox out of a wood can be actually preventative if it's moving it on, i.e. before the lambing period starts, because foxes will obviously use the same ground on an annual basis. So, if you move them on before lambing, what concerns me though is it's talking about evidence of damage. Now, if all lambing goes on in Scotland in a very short period of time and there's evidence of damage, it has to be submitted, and then everyone will be wanting to use the same dogs for the same 14-day period to flush their foxes out of the woods to waiting guns. How are you going to address that, minister? I understand the point that I don't want people to have to get to the stage of being able to demonstrate that the damage is being done. We don't want dead lambs to be evidence that the licence was needed, but there's an understanding amongst the Scottish Government, among NatureScot, and drawing on the expertise of farmers and land managers that you don't need to wait until the lambs have come into contact with the fox in order to justify the control of the fox. I'll be interested to see how that licence pans out, and Mr Dinglen will know that, in previous licensing schemes, gamekeepers were required to keep poults in a freezer till they'd been inspected by SNH to prove that they'd been damaged by species. Minister, Lord Bonomy made a very interesting point that to do with the ground and the area of ground covered, how many dogs would be required? To cover a 200-acre block of forestry, you're going to need more than half a dozen guns and you're going to need more than two dogs. What do you think would be an acceptable level of dogs in your mind? You said that you'd been thinking about licensing. If somebody applied for 10 dogs, would that be sufficient or would that be too many in your mind? Would 15? Where's the limit? Thanks for the question. Just to pick up on the previous point, I've just had a quick glance at the legislation and it does account for preventing damage, so I don't need to wait to the point where the damage has been done. As regards the minimum number of dogs, that is all dependent on the activity, the land, the issue at hand, and I'm not going to theorise at this stage about what would be a suitable number because there are so many variables that I couldn't possibly be accurate. Okay, convener, if I could just come back on that one point. So you have no preconceptions on the amount of dogs that may be required in any circumstances because the aim, as you rightly say, is to get the fox out as quickly as possible and shot as quickly as possible without it being chased, so that's going to need more than two dogs. So you've even no preconception on the number of dogs? My preconception is the minimum number to fulfil what is needed across the space of land, depending on what size that is or the issue at hand, and I'm really not able to sit here and see what that would be in all those multitude of scenarios, but my preconception is the minimum number required to fulfil the job at hand. So no preconceptions on numbers. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you for the committee to have me to ask that. Just on the back, that NatureScot will be expected to determine the number of dogs in each licence. How are they going to go about that? Will they have a licence for up to 10 dogs, a licence for up to 40 dogs, a licence up to—how do you—what's your understanding of what the process of NatureScot will have to go through to determine the number of dogs in a licence? So again it goes back to the bones of the licensing scheme as it's set out in the bill, I think explicitly refers to the minimum number required, and thereafter it will be for NatureScot experts on this, which of course I'm a politician, I'm not an expert in this, to determine, according to the circumstances in front of them, the farmers' size of farm, size of the fields, number of sheep, the size of the environmental project, the rate of spread of the invasive non-native species, all that has to be taken into account, and I couldn't possibly sit here and determine what that was. Okay, thank you. I'm going to move on to questions from Rachel Hamilton, then Jenny Minto. Just before that I just want to respond to Edward Mountain's point there because, and get it on record that within the review that Bonomy actually concluded, importantly, that restricting the number of dogs could seriously compromise effective pest control in the country, and Bonomy's being quoted a lot today, so I just wanted to get that on the record, convener, but moving on to the point exactly that you make there, and the way that the minister responded in terms of the resource that may be needed to determine the number of licences. We talked a lot about licences today, but it is important because we need obviously to get this right. So, there has been a cut in the budget, £700,000 to NatureScot, wondered how they, with all the requirements that you've just listed in terms of that evidential requirement, be able to do their job right across Scotland from north to south, east to west? Yeah, no, it's a reasonable question, and it's a discussion that we have already been having for some time with NatureScot, making sure that there's a clear understanding about the additional work that comes with an additional licensing scheme and their capacity to fulfil that, and they have assured us thus far that that's manageable within their current budget. Okay, so we haven't obviously even got to stage one yet, but there hasn't been that consultation on the licence scheme, and therefore it's very difficult to determine how, if they can, with a reduced budget, current budget be able to fulfil those requirements. So, do you think that it might be worth looking at the financial implications within that consultation? So, we do have a financial memorandum, which was published with the bill, and it's on the basis of that, and also our NatureScot's experience of administering similar schemes that they have assured us that they have sufficient resources to develop and to administer the scheme. Yes, I think that within the financial memorandum, I don't have it in front of me, but I'm sure it said that it doesn't create any additional resource to bodies or stakeholders. In front of me, we'll check on that. Just on the point there about the consultation, because that's obviously something that's quite important, getting that feedback from stakeholders and practitioners. In the rural sector evidence that we heard, a number of the witnesses said that they have a group that is based on rural working group stakeholders. I wondered if you'd had the opportunity to meet them and hear how those people that represent land managers and farmers can be part of this process. I'm sorry, Huw was just reminding me what realm stands for. I have undertaken meetings across the piece and I've tried very actively to engage with everyone who has an interest in this. I've always said from the beginning that I'm particularly interested in developing policy that people who are going to be affected by it understand. On the specific point about realm, my colleague Leah was just telling me that she's been invited to that and will be attending. Okay, that's fantastic. Do you want me to conclude my questions in one go while you're coming back? What I'll do, I'll move to Jenny. Jenny's got a bigger pardon, do you? I've got you down as having a supplementary here, is that right? I did, but Rachel's covered quite a bit of it, but I think that we could probably move on to as well. If the bill is passed and the licensing is brought in, how will the Scottish Government monitor the information that NatureScot is providing to ensure that the licences are as appropriate as they should be? It's a really good point. Similar to that to what Mercedes Villalba raised earlier about reviewing, I think that from the Scottish Government's perspective, we have an interest and a duty to understand that the laws that we pass and the licensing schemes that are developed are working properly and we have a bute house agreement to review across the piece that that's the case. NatureScot will be responsible for monitoring, evaluating and reviewing the scheme for their purposes. When Robbie Cernahan was in front of the committee, I think that he was quite clear that they embraced that role and would be undertaking that role. Oh, and sorry, he was just reminding me that it'll be published in the data, which of course is a helpful form of scrutiny. Okay, Rich, were your questions on licensing? I'd asked this consecutively during the evidence sessions and it was really about if there was no alternative method of controlling predators and so NatureScot was satisfied, but there was a demonstration that there had been loss. Is there any other scheme or example that you could cite that would offer compensation for loss of livelihood, loss of livestock? Oh, loss of livestock, okay, sorry. Well, I meant livelihood in terms of income because of loss of livestock. So, I briefly heard this being discussed before and our position just now is that we are not considering provision of compensation. Okay, and continuing on that theme, are you considering the possibility of allowing an appeal process? There is, so I believe very firmly in appeal processes and there is an internal review and appeal process within NatureScot. It was explained to me when I asked the same question as being the structure within NatureScot that deals with that. So, there is one there, but I am very supportive and keen to see that review and appeal processes are there and available. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Just before we move on from licensing, we touched on the financial capacity within NatureScot and I understand that it's about 118,000 as the estimate of what the cost to NatureScot will be. Does that involve any cost recovery from those applying for licences and is there any consideration of charging for licences and is the total cost estimated to be 118,000? So, that doesn't presently involve cost recovery but it could do if that was something that was sought. Okay, and would that be in secondary legislation? Well, it would depend. There is a provision within the bill as it stands, I think, to allow us to make supplementary changes. If that section were passed with the act, I think that we would be able to do it through that, although I hope my legal colleagues aren't cringing at me assuming that. I think that that would be the provision through which to do it. Perhaps a hazel. Can you make it clear exactly what powers this bill would give Scottish Government to charge for licences? What's the scope? I would just come in there and add that across all wildlife legislation, so the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the Conservation and Natural Habitat regulations at the moment, they are not running on a cost recoverable basis but there is provision for NatureScot should they decide to bring that in to do so. I think that administratively, but I'm happy to clarify that in writing if that would be helpful to the community. Thank you. We're now going to move on to prohibition on trail hunting, which is covered in sections 11 and 12. We had last week from Police Scotland that making trail hunting illegal to limit the opportunities for people who want to disguise illegal hunting as a legal act is alone, not necessarily reason enough to make trail hunting illegal. What is your view and what impact do you believe that prohibition will have in Scotland? Thank you for the question. I think that it goes back to something that I tried to convey in my opening remarks, which is about closing the loopholes of the previous act but equally taking this opportunity to ensure that more don't open. The issue of trail hunting falls into that category very squarely. The reasons that we've decided to ban it are twofold. Firstly, because we think that there is an animal welfare risk whereby if an animal is being trained to follow an animal-based scent, it can very easily pick up the scent of an animal elsewhere, begin chasing that, begin the chasing kill, which is exactly what we're trying to stop. That's just one part of why we're doing it. The second reason we are banning it is because we've seen evidence from down south that trail hunting is being used as a cover for the continuance of illegal hunting, so we want to not allow that to begin in Scotland. It's not a well-established practice, so I think that this ought not to be something that's controversial or difficult, but it's about making sure that we don't allow more loopholes to open. About prevention then? Prevention, exactly. I did have a question about police dogs, but I think that's Karen's down for that question, so I'll leave it there. I'll bring in Karen, and if it's not covered, I'll bring you back in. Karen Adam. In regards to trail hunting, it has been made controversial by opposing groups and calls for impact assessments and such. Have you considered doing that, or do you feel that there has been enough evidence? On the banning of trail hunting? Yes. I'm content just now that, for the two policy reasons that we've pursued it, sitting against the fact that it's not a well-established practice in Scotland, that it's a proportionate measure to take. Police Scotland has commented and given an opinion that there should be some exemptions, particularly for training police dogs. Have you had any comment on that? That's a really important point that Police Scotland made. It wasn't one that had been raised with me previously, but now that it has, I'm going to consider how we can accommodate the training of police dogs. Okay, that's great. Thank you. Now on to enforcement, which is part three of the bill, question from Alasdair Allan. Just to refill on the issue of enforcement, I just wondered if you had a view about the powers of search that exist in the bill. Have a lost society had questions about whether those powers were sufficient in every instance? I think that that is another interesting point that is quite similar to that with the training of police dogs. We wouldn't want to do anything that got in the way of the operation of Police Scotland's duties. The absence of stop-and-search powers in this bill reflects the 2006 act. Animal Health and Wealth for Protection Scotland act 2006, which did not contain stop-and-search. However, like with the training of police dogs, we will speak to Police Scotland again and see whether something needs to be accommodated perhaps at a later stage. Sorry, convener. I tried to indicate that I didn't. Okay, that's fine. Back to Karen. Have you got an additional question? Yes, thanks, convener. It was just to ask for any comments in regards to the lost society who said that the ancillary powers for Scottish ministers to modify any enactment, they felt that that was maybe quite broad, and I wonder if you had a comment on that. Yes, and I take on board with the Lost Society Scotland to say, however, that it is a pretty standard provision throughout not just wildlife legislation, but throughout legislation generally, and it will allow us should amendments need to be made, and the convener and I had an example of where that might be, but cost recovery was an example of where we might want to make changes, that would allow us to do it via not having to go through primary legislation again, or indeed to any deficiencies that arose as compared with the 2002 act, that provision would allow us to make the changes and not have to bring another bill. So I don't think that it's an overstretch, I think that it's quite a standard part of drafting. That's great. Thank you. Just on that, the Lost Society did raise concerns, so it must be more than just a general clause, if you like. They considered the need for subsequent guidance and prosecution policy. Will that be forthcoming? So again, I can bring in Hazel on that. All I would say is that, and I should have made this clear in my answer to Karen Adam, that it's clauses in to give effect to and in pursuit of the bill itself, not anything outwith the scope of it, but Hazel, I don't know if there's anything you want to add to that. I'm happy to come in, minister. Certainly, I think that the Lost Society is focusing on one very narrow part of that provision, which states that it can be used to modify any enactment. However, that is very much caveated by subsection 1 of that provision, that it is for the purposes of or in connection with or for giving fuel effect to any provision of the bill, so that does limit the extent of the power. Certainly, I would just reiterate that it is a clause that you will see in many acts of the Scottish Parliament, and I also note that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee made no comment in relation to the power. Okay, thank you. Ariane Burgess. Thanks, convener. I think that anything context really matters, so whether it's enforcement or the bill as a whole. I'm aware that the UK Committee on Climate Change called for a 20 to 50 per cent cut in the number of sheep in cattle to help combat climate change. So, you know, this is something that's been growing on me in the course of this evidence sessions that we've been having, that I see that we are talking about a context that is as if things are going to stay the same. And yet, if we're really going to respond to the nature and climate emergencies, then the way in which we farm is going to change and then the way in which we need to manage our land is going to change. And I just wonder if you've had any considerations around that as you've been drafting the bill? I'm not sure that it's applicable to the bill that's in front of us, which is about animal welfare aspects, but if the minister wishes to make comment, I don't think that you should feel obliged because it's not really covered in this bill. Yeah, no, I would agree, convener. I was going to say that I didn't think that it pertain to the purpose. All I would say is that the Government has to consider climate change as is already baked in and where we're going in all of the legislation that we develop, but I think food policy and animal wildlife management and welfare are two separate issues. And yet they are connected. Absolutely. And I think this is one of the problems that we've had on this committee is that we need to recognise that they are connected. Okay, I think that's Rachel Hamilton. Just for consistency, convener, thank you. I did ask Police Scotland about, you know, in the deprivation orders in terms of the seizing of vehicles and horses and quad bikes and things like that. It's really speaking to my point about financial resource for Police Scotland as well and the consideration that they don't have some of those facilities, certainly for keeping hounds or dogs or they do have dog kennels, obviously, but not horses, as you might say. I don't think that we'll be talking many here or many quad bikes, but I think it's important to recognise, minister, that it could have a financial implication. Absolutely. No, I think that's a fair point. As we work with NatureScot about the financial implications for them, we will work with Police Scotland. I should say that the SSPCA plays a really important role in helping Police Scotland to manage some of the resource issues here, including the rehoming of animals and things, and we are due to undertake a bit of work reviewing the powers of the SSPCA as they pertain to wildlife crime, and perhaps that will play into some of that. Thank you minister and your team, and I really appreciate the additional time you gave us. My 15-minute estimate wasn't too far over, so thank you very much for attending today and your fullest avancers were very much appreciated, and we look forward to working with you as the bill progresses. I'm now going to briefly suspend the meeting until I witness his leave, and for a short comfort break, we'll resume at 11.55. Our second item of business today is consideration of three instruments that are subject to the negative parliamentary procedure. The Seed Fees Scotland Amendment Regulation 2022, SSI 2022-186. The Meat Preparations Import Conditions Scotland Amendment Regulation 2022, SSI 2022-193. Lastly, the Vegetable Plant Material and Fruit Plant and Propagating Material EU Exits Scotland Amendment Regulations 2022. I refer members to paper 3, page 24. Do any members have any comments on the instruments? No. The next item of consideration is consent notification relating to two UK SIs, namely the Aquatic Animal Health Amendment Regulation 2022, and the Animal Foods Feed Plant Health Plant Propagating Material and Seeds Miscellaneous Amendments, etc. Regulations 2022. I refer members to paper 4, page 38. Do any members have any comments on either of those notifications? No. In relation to the Aquatic Animal Health Regulations, are members content with the proposal to write to the Scottish Government to ask how any disputes between the three UK Administrations over amendments to relevant lists would be resolved and also to highlight the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, the changing role for the Scottish Parliament as a result of the SSI. Do we agree with the Scottish Government's decision to consent to the provision set out in the notifications being included in UK rather than Scottish subordinate legislation? Agreed. That concludes our business in public, and we will now move into private session. Thank you.