 Good morning and welcome to the 11th meeting of 2017 of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, can I remind everyone present to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent for the duration of the meeting? Can I also remind people that they shouldn't be taking photographs inside this committee room? The first item on the agenda is for the committee to consider whether items 5 and 6 in private are agreed to. The second item on our agenda this morning is to take evidence under review of the protection of wild mammals Scotland Act 2002. We are joined this morning by the right hon. Lord Bonomy. Thank you for attending, Lord Bonomy. We will move to direct questions, if that is okay. Kate Forbes. Thank you for being here. The review received a significantly high number of submissions and I understand that a lot of people were met in the course of the review. Can you comment on the strength of feeling amongst the public in terms of responding to this review and also perhaps provide a brief summary of the views of those who responded? There is a big question. There were a fairly large number of people who were plainly opposed to hunting in principle who voiced that opinion. There were a number of submissions which were one-liners, obviously individuals taking advantage of the opportunity just to voice a personal view and no doubt a strongly held view. On the other side, there were many submissions which made assertions which clearly went beyond the personal knowledge of the individual. Someone who is a supporter of hunting might express the view that no one would do X or Y. This is just out of keeping with the traditions and so on. In the end, it was difficult to make much of many of these submissions but you could sense strong feelings on both sides of the argument. If anything, I suppose the pro-hunting lobby expressed their views more logically with more factual best support. That does not mean to say that their views were any—as far as I was concerned—that their views carried any more weight than those opposed to it. I found it fairly easy to exclude from my mind the pro and anti-hunt lobby view and to try to concentrate on what I could make of the submissions in the sense of actual factual findings. Now, I have made it clear that there is a bit of speculation in what I have said but, so far as I could, I have based what I have said on submissions made—largily, submissions made—but there was also, of course, some evidence-gathering in other contexts as well which provided factual material. I have to say that it was not really within my brief to be gauging support or opposition. I have got no way of supporting what I am saying. I am giving you merely an impression of how material came to me. It was divided into bundles of foreign against and those dealing with welfare and and those dealing with other aspects when it was given to me and probably the against if you were just counting up the numbers was higher than those four, but it did not really have any bearing on what ultimately emerged. Did you consider the remit of the review appropriate? Were there some aspects or views that you had to exclude because of the narrowness of the remit? No, I think that the remit was an appropriate one. That is not to say that MSP's remit should be confined to that. That is an entirely different question but I did not find myself inhibited in any way from making a proper assessment of the issues given to me because of a narrow remit. The things that were excluded were, I think, quite properly excluded. Good morning. In the constituency that I represent, there was a fox killed by 10 hounds in the back garden. In the process of a mounted hunt, foxes are still being killed. I wonder what measures would be put in place to eliminate that and what would be the best way to separate the actual sport from pest control? I came to broadly two conclusions at the end of the exercise. One was that the legislation needed a good looking at. Not that there may be a great deal wrong with it but because it was a member's bill, it never really had the sort of scrutiny that most bills get from parliamentary draftsmen. I have no doubt that this legislation would benefit from that. The other broad conclusion was that we need to find a way of being a bit more certain about what is going on because it is an activity largely conducted away from the public eye. Those who engage in it have an interest in it and support it. That is where the notion of monitoring came from. I had a number of sessions with individuals representing organisations concerned with animal welfare and hunting. The exchanges were remarkably frank. We also had frank concessions from the Scottish countryside alliance on issues that the police might require to be disclosed around any hunting. At one stage, when we were discussing the idea of monitors, it was said by someone—I cannot remember who now—that we might as well agree to this. It is going on anyway. It is being done covertly. Why not just do it overtly? There is not strong resistance, I do not think, to monitoring. That, I suggest, is the only idea that I came up with as to how we might identify what is actually going wrong if anything is going wrong. I have stated the view that there is ground for suspicion that there may be illegal hunting, but I could not make a finding on the basis of what was presented to me. I did see a lot of film evidence, so it is getting someone behind the scenes that might produce a bit more material. In my view, although that might be a formal role and might result in someone's some monitors report becoming evidence in a court, I did not really envisage that at the beginning. I think that what they would need to do at the outset is to watch what was going on. If, in fact, there was some anxiety in the mind of the monitor about the activity, perhaps breaching the legislation, then discussion of that would be appropriate to try to resolve the issue and make sure that it is done satisfactorily. I was thinking that way because there are so many genuine people on both sides of the argument. If it is possible, I would have thought most unless they are so against the very act of hunting in principle that most would want to find a way of accommodating the interests of both sides. I offered to attend a hunt myself, and even in my limited ability to ride a horse, to even join in, but I did not get that invite. I understand that you had similar challenges. No, I did go to watch a hunt organised by the Duke of Buclwys hunt, but I was not on any vehicle other than a car to get along the road. I was able to observe it freely. I was with others who were observing. It is common practice for those who are perhaps beyond the age of participating actively or who have simply always just had an interest to go as observers, and we were able to go to the places that they identified as the places to watch what was going on. I am slightly surprised that you would not have had your offer accepted. I think that there is an anxiety on the part of those engaged in hunting, particularly when you are talking about mounted hunting. There is an anxiety on their part to appear to be as open as they can be. I would think that another request would probably be met with agreement. A few riding lessons as well? No, if you can drive a quad bike, you will be able to keep on. The proposal of observers would require people who are impartial but also knowledgeable. Are you confident that, from within the two camps, you could secure a sufficient pool to carry out that role effectively? My immediate thoughts—this shows how institutionalised I am—would be along the lines of a former policeman or someone of that kind. The police have quite a number of officers, as you will see. The shortage of police involvement is not an issue here, so there are loads of police with experience. I would not have thought that it was difficult to find somebody. They also do not need to be riders involved, but if the decision was to go down this road at all and even to think about it a bit further, it can be done in a quad bike in most places now. I do not think that it lacks feasibility in the sense of being close to and involved in the activity. I think that the difficulty is working out exactly what the role of that person is once the activity starts and how ultimately that person is going to convey the information that is gathered to those who have to take their decisions. Your report suggests that there are around 800 foxes killed every single year in Scotland and that around one in five of those deaths are attributable to hunting with dogs. Has that changed? Do those figures changed since the act was introduced? I do not think that those are the actual figures. I mean, there are thousands of foxes killed in Scotland by various means. There are roughly, I think, about—I thought that it was still—800 roughly killed by mounted hunts and possibly a few less by the footpacks. The figure was 20 per cent. Is there a part in the report that you can do that? Referencing 619 and also 3.8. It would be useful if you could clarify that. Do the figures from one pack? So it is implied that 20 per cent are actually killed by dogs? Yes. That is true. That will be 20 per cent, probably, of roughly 800. So the rest—and, in fact, another 10 per cent of those may well be killed by the terriers. Well, not killed by the terriers but brought out by the terrier and then shot. So there is a significant percentage, yes, who are— So do you have a sense of how that proportion has changed? Because obviously the purpose of this bill was to prevent hunting with dogs. Has that changed? Has the bill actually been effective in reducing the number of foxes that are killed by dogs rather than guns? I do not think that I have that information. No, I do not think that it is possible to say. There is no information—at least, I am not aware of any information—about the numbers killed by dogs before the legislation. So, if you have not been able to come to an opinion on that, what is your opinion about the level of foxes that are killed by dogs and hunts at the moment? Is 20 per cent acceptable? Is 160 foxes killed by dogs acceptable every year? Or is 50 acceptable or 10 or zero? Given the intention of the act, where do you draw the line? What is missing in this, I think, is a comparison with the effectiveness of the foot packs and the extent to which dogs with those on foot actually kill the foxes. Now, I do not think that I have any of that information. That is with guns, is it not? That is flushing to guns rather than to dogs. They inevitably have occasions when the fox is caught by the dog as well. You cannot say that there will be 100 per cent shot. The likelihood is that more are shot there because more guns are deployed. That was the one thing that disturbed me about the difference in the argument. Can I just focus you on the issue, which is the intention of the act, which is to ostensibly to outlaw the hunting of foxes using dogs as the method of killing the fox? That was the purpose of the bill originally. A 20 per cent breach of that, if you have got 20 per cent of the number of foxes that have been killed each year or actually been killed by dogs rather than guns, do you think that that is acceptable or what is the level at which you think that is acceptable given the original purpose of that act? I do not think that that is a matter for me, that is a matter for those who have got to make political judgments. Sorry. It is not something that I have got any views on at all. Sorry. I am moving on to Claudia Beamish. Thank you, convener, and good morning to you, Lord Bonomy. Could I ask you a little more detail on the issues that we have begun to explore? How much does the practice of fox hunting carried out prior to the 2002 act differ from the practice of pest control, and how does this differ from the practice of trail hunting used in England? Trail hunting, if done properly, would be called drag hunting, I think. If it was done properly, it would result in no foxes at all being killed or chased or killed by dogs. Flushing to guns is clearly different from what went on in Scotland before because guns did not normally accompany mounted hunts. So it is different. Where there is cause for concern is in the number of guns deployed and whether they are likely in general to achieve the objective of, well, I have views about the language as you know about when the fox is shot, but the objective of shooting a fox effectively as soon as possible. That is where I think I see Mr Russell's point, from a legal perspective, that the question for me is how effective is flushing to guns. It did strike me that deploying two as is the protocol that the mounted hunts have would, generally speaking, run the risk of the fox once flushed, running and being chased. On the other hand, the foot packs with their 20 guns deployed or whatever are much more likely to reduce the chances of that, but the hunt I observed, I think there were either five or six guns, so two is not the norm. I understand the norm with mounted hunts is higher, but I think there is scope for the fox to run in these circumstances. I didn't see enough of it to say just how regularly that might happen. In your view, is the flushing of foxes with hunts needed generally or in specific areas to actually control the foxes? I think that that one is beyond my remit. I am sorry. I am going to ask anyway, but I think—no, I am not going to put what was— No, no, please do. I am going to ask anyway. It may well be beyond your remit as well. In terms of the Scottish Government, as I understand it, have put forward that they will look at the recommendations. There has been some concerns expressed that it would be helpful if the whole report was looked at. I have got a comment, for instance, from its—sorry, I am trying not to use too much paper, so you will bear with me—that in paragraph 711 that Police Scotland's submission to your review was quoted as saying, exceptions to the offence to quote, deliberately hunt a wild mammal with a dog are multiple and provide opportunities for exploitation by those who continually and deliberately offend. With that evidence from Police Scotland, I do understand your saying it was difficult in view of even all the film that you looked at and everything to see evidence, but I am just wondering where those observations would sit and the concerns expressed by Police Scotland and others if observations within the report are excluded? I gave a lot of weight to the observations by Police Scotland. I was actually very surprised to get them in the form in which they came, bearing in mind the evidence that had previously been given to the committee. I pursued that by interviewing the assistant chief constable and also Mr Scott. The problem, perhaps, is knowing whether all of these are references to mounted hunts. There are lots of urban crime around wildlife which is just vandalism and that falls within the language used here. However, at the very end of the police submission, there is a statement about the legislation having become almost unworkable. I do not subscribe to that view but you can understand why getting that from the police made me concerned. The seven eleven states that, as a consequence of the lack of clarity, the police are on occasion unable to establish the high threshold of evidence required to prove and ultimately report cases. From the discussions that you had with Police Scotland, did you get a feel for the scale of the problem that this has created? Will the police able to quantify for you or illustrate the type of issues that they encountered? As far as I was able to get a feel for it, I did not think that it was a large-scale problem, but I do think that they are frustrated by the language of the legislation and feel that it is difficult to be sure that something is going to be proved in a court because of the various requirements that exist. They do not record the details of the decisions made about whether to proceed with a complaint or not to proceed with it, and therefore I could not get anywhere on the volume of that. However, it is the very fact that it is said by an assistant chief constable—for whom I think most people have a high regard—that makes you think twice about it, but then you hear the other side of the story and you have to try to strike a balance. At the end of the day, I thought that there was a clear basis for legislative revisal. Whether it will achieve the objective of making proof simpler, I am not sure. I went further on that question when I suggested reversing the onus of proof, but that is not a legal decision at the end. It is a political one. In the report in paragraph 612, the work of the footpacks has the appearance of diligent pest and predator control operation, whereas among mounted hunts pest control can appear incidental to the primary objective of exercising horse and hounds. I wonder if you have any comment on that in relation to the report. Again, those observations are coupled with the Police Scotland observations. Of course, some concern about whether the whole report, rather than only the recommendation, should possibly be considered. I never observed the footpacks in operation, but I was impressed by the descriptions given of the way in which they operated and the very fact that they took an hour to set up the guns and so on in adequate positions. That was quite different from the fairly casual appearance of the start of the hunt, which is very much a social gathering. However, in the course of the hunt itself that I was observing, it was clear that there was a will to do the right thing, that what was happening was genuine flushing. There was a fox shot very early on in the exercise, but they move. It is the moving that creates the problem. As you move through the countryside, there is a question mark over whether cover is now being driven to flush out a fox or whether the fox is being chased. The bigger the area that you cover, the more chance there is that the fox is being chased. I got the impression that the footpacks very much concentrated on a particular identified problem and confined the area more naturally because they cannot travel so far. However, I also see, as I have made clear, many benefits from the sporting activity. It is how you maintain that, I think, without protecting the fox as a balance that has to be struck. I think that I have said at one point that it did not appear from the papers prior to the legislation that everyone knew how the sport would develop, that it would become a pest control service, but I gather from those involved that they always had that possibility in mind. It looked to me a bit like reaction to circumstances. Let's see how we can maintain our support and be consistent within the law at the same time, but apparently it was always envisaged. I don't know whether MSPs envisaged this happening or not. There is genuine pest control. I have seen it actually work, but whether it is properly described overall as a pest control service rather than a pest control ancillary to sporting activity is a broader question. Thank you, convener. Lord Bonomy, the next question is about prevalence of hunts in Scotland. In your report, you state that the 2002 act has had little impact on the numbers engaged in the activities of either mounted hunts or foot packs. Do you think that this is because fox hunting is a relatively inelastic activity in relation to tighter regulation? Well, if I understand that question correctly, I think there may be substance in the notion that there is a hunting community that wants to remain alive because it is a very important element in parts of the country, as a social element in parts of the country. Therefore, there will be a degree of inelasticity in this so that change is going to be resisted, but that's quite different, I think, from saying that the law is going to be broken. So it's a problem that has to be tackled one way or another if you want to maintain the activity by finding an outlet for it. What I know of the English system of trail hunting is not a great deal, but enough to think that there are proven examples where genuine activity was not taking place and that the aim was to put the huntsmen in and those engaged in following the hunt in the position of engaging in the hunt of a fox by accident, as it were. It's not as simple as saying, let's change to that and that will keep the social element and the elements that we value. There is a provision in our own legislation which preserves the use of a dog for hunting with a falconry, and it specifically says, that's for sporting purposes, that it wasn't beyond the wit of the drafters at the time to recognise that hunting with a bird of prey and assisted by dogs was a sporting activity that we were prepared to be prepared to recognise, but I haven't given any thought to, I don't think there is a ready way of adapting hunting foxes with dogs to that at all. My line of questions regarding the policing of the 2002 act. In some quarters, the fact that no mounted packs have been successfully prosecuted to date leads to the conclusion that the act is not working or is difficult to enforce for the police or the courts. Are you content that the organisations and resources in place with the police are suitable to enforce the act as it stands? On the back of that, if the act was amended in line with the recommendations and review, would the current structures and resources be appropriate to police it? I think that the simple answer is yes, and there was no evidence that there was a need for additional resources to me. They would be welcome, but you have to be proportionate about that. You have to bear in mind what this is all about at the end of the day and what the other challenges for our public services and police are, so I think that yes. If you had the pathway from the observers that you envisage to report to the police if there was anything untoward, and be aware of the kind of evidence space that would be required, that would make the process more successful? I think so, but as long as there is someone in there to provide the evidence, if you do not have someone observing, the problem will remain that you have several hurdles to overcome, essentially to prove a negative, to succeed in one of those prosecutions. Of course, my own particular concern may be a bee in my bonnet, but I am concerned about the word deliberately. That stems from the impression that I had that it is seen as an extra hurdle because it is a word that very seldom appears in legislation. Angus MacDonald Thank you. We have already touched on the issue of a general lack of clarity. However, you have highlighted two other main weaknesses in the legislation in the report. You highlighted words used frequently in the act such as to hunt and deliberately, as you have just mentioned. As we have heard, you also highlighted the issue of a police perception of a lack of clarity in the language of the act. You go on to state that the small number of prosecutions under the act may be explained, at least in part, by the difficulties of interpretation presented to both the police and the prosecutors. Are you confident that addressing the clarity of expression in the act would increase confidence amongst wildlife crime investigators and lead to more prosecutions? Is any other action needed to increase confidence? I think that it would increase confidence, but I also think that either observing, as we have discussed, so that there is the basic evidence or, alternatively, the shifting of the owners of proofs on to the accused to show that he fell within one of the exceptions, that would raise the prospect of conviction. The very fact that there are a few cases as a difficult one to work out, there are obviously not only six cases that were reported for prosecution, so it is a very small number to draw any conclusions on. Can I ask on the same theme in 2.11 on your report that says that the time limit for bringing prosecutions under the act should be extended? Could you expand on that, your thinking behind it? Yes, this really comes from the procurator fiscal service. DNA now forms a part of investigation, and even in the most serious cases in the High Court resources are such that it is very difficult to get DNA reports in adequate time for these proceedings, and this type of thing would fall way down the list, so that is going to take time. Also, there appear to be cases that come to light later, because the activity is taking place out of sight. It may take a while for information to emerge about something, and with a six-month time limit it may be too late to do anything about it. The third point that was made to me was that expert evidence about what is actually going on observing the individual's actions, whether that amounted to hunting, is a common aspect of the investigation of those offences, and getting expert reports takes time. There already are provisions in other wildlife legislation for this. It seems sensible to me that that should apply in Foxhunting, and I cannot see the argument against it. I continue Angus MacDonald's theme on clarity of expression. On the monitoring section, proposals for change, you make reference to, for years now, animal welfare activists have endeavoured to monitor the activities of mounted hunts. For various reasons, there have often been tensions between those who are engaging in hunting and the monitors, or saboteurs as some are known. Of course, there is a difference between being a monitor and being a saboteur, even under the current situation. Where for you is the line crossed? It is one thing to monitor to ensure compliance with the law. It is another thing to seek to sabotage a legally conducted practice, however much you might disapprove of it. I wonder what you are thinking would be around that. Well, if you take, for example, the League Against Cruel Sports, who are probably one of, if not the most active in this field, they would never, as far as I can tell, be trying to disrupt an activity, but they would want to get as close as possible to recording what was going on. Other groups, which aren't all that different in the sense that they have animal welfare as their objective, call themselves hunt-sabs or saboteurs. That's a badge of honour for them and it is an achievement to cause some form of disruption. It's generally peaceful protest, but just getting in the way, for example, that would be an act of sabotage in the end. It's a dangerous thing to do apart from anything else. There are those who go a bit further and actually are happy to be known by that badge, but there are responsible organisations monitoring at the moment, but they are monitoring without the approval of those that they are monitoring. That's the big difference. Mark Ruskell. Can you expand in a bit more detail on why you didn't recommend the restriction on the numbers of hounds that are used? The very fact that in England and Wales they don't flush to guns suggested to me that it was impractical. The evidence that existed, although it's controversial, there was some research evidence indicating that it clearly takes longer to flush foxes with two dogs than with a pack, which means that already there's an added element of tension within the chase at a very early stage. I also didn't think that it was the number of dogs that was the problem. I can't think of anything to suggest that somehow or other reducing it to two dogs would change the situation other than to bring the whole practice of flushing to guns to an end. That change would mean the end of hunting as we see it at the moment. What are the views of stakeholders to that point of view in your report? Who do you mean by stakeholders? Those who have been involved in the process? There's a very large number of the submissions supported reducing the number of dogs to two, but these were largely assertions about how that would be a much more acceptable way of conducting the activity. I can't remember any detailed argument other than the argument between the scientists about the research that they had done and the criticism of the research. There are two points of view about the research that's been done on the use of two dogs. It was done fairly recently, it was done in about 2013, I think. We heard earlier on about the section in the report, I think it's 612, where you described pest control function of mounted hunts as being incidental to the need to get horses and hounds out for exercise and a social. Given that, would the reduction in the number of hounds actually have any impacts on the pest control function of a mounted hunt? Was that a concern that you had? It just wouldn't happen. I think going by the English experience it would be seen as not viable to flush a fox to a gun with just two dogs. In the sort of cover we're talking about, we're talking about actually very large areas of cover. You're talking about woodland and then when it gets out of the woodland there's often very thick scrub as well covering very large areas of the countryside. How does that impact on the intention to control foxes as a pest? If mounted hunts are pretty incidental to controlling foxes anyway, would there be any impact in terms of responsible fox control on the countryside if we did reduce the number of dogs that were associated with mounted hunts? Probably marginal? Probably marginal, okay, right. Emma, do you want to come in there? Kind of a wee follow-up. Mounted hunts are obviously really important for social activity, social heritage community in the countryside and I'm aware of employment that's supported saddlers, farriers and other rural employment. Wouldn't it just be less contentious to separate, promote drag hunting and then separate the pest control from the sport? It's essentially promote drag hunting, ban fox hunting and promote pest control at night because that seems to be lamping, shooting a fox at night using a lamp, bag six foxes whereas a fox hunt ends maybe with a fox, maybe with a fox torn apart. So wouldn't it just be better to promote drag hunting and ban fox hunting? Judging by the experience in England and Wales, I think the answer has to be no because the number of prosecutions proportionately is more or less the same there. They're not well organised for prosecution in England. The Crown Prosecution Service don't do it all. It's divided up among different animal welfare organisations as well as them so there's a lack of clear statistical information but such as I could obtain from them indicates there's not much difference and there's lots of apparent breaches of the legislation by inappropriate drag hunting which is called in fact trail hunting. A different material is used so that it mimics the scent of a fox and inevitably in many instances where foxes are prevalent a fox appears on the scene. So I wasn't convinced that just moving to that without other changes or instead of other changes like monitoring, I wasn't convinced that that would make any difference. My understanding was that drag hunting is fake scent, it's unscent. It is but that's not what is done. Drag hunting is an ancient activity not done in Scotland but has been done for a long time in England Wales before the legislation was passed and therefore that's where the idea comes from but if you change what you're doing so that you're carrying it out in an area where there might be foxes and you use the scent of fox urine which you import from the United States to create the trail then there's scope for the accidental arrival of a fox on the scene and that's what's given rise to a large number of, well when you say large number of the prosecutions in England Wales. I guess when we're talking about pest control we also have to see this in the context of many of the same people who would want to ban fox hunting, would want to ban snaring in which case how do you carry out pest control of this nature? Yeah I think that's right, I mean snaring we've recently seen publicity about that as well. It's how it's done that's the issue, it's not the very fact that it's an essential element. In fact most foxes are shot in Scotland of those that are killed and that's thousands as I said earlier but there's still a significant number snared as well. Yeah okay, Finlay Castle wants to come in. Fiona, can you just clarify, were you suggesting that there's more chance of the aims of the act being achieved through not banning fox hunting and that there's actually more problems associated when only drag hunting is allowed? Going by the English and Welsh experience yes but it's I've always got in my mind here the notion that this is an activity which has been conducted in this country for three or four hundred years and one that was seen as legitimate has most of the elements of which don't give rise to any problem and I've always had in my mind the notion that perhaps there must be a way of preserving that and at the same time securing the welfare of the animal and therefore my views couched not by the idea of or couched in the form of abolishing it but trying to find a way of maintaining it. Let's move on and look at the licensing and penalties David Stewart made a good morning. Many in the animal welfare lobby have called for a licensing scheme clearly you didn't recommend that in your report could you talk through the committee the pros and cons of analysis that you made before reaching that conclusion? Well I was influenced I think as I said first of all by the fact that the licensing provisions that were in the original bill were removed and that seemed to be the feeling but I wasn't entirely clear and I didn't receive much in the way of submission to indicate what the the benefits would be and I can see the one but the one obvious benefit I can see is that you can take away someone's licence if he does something contrary to the conditions so there's a benefit there but you've still got to prove that he's done something contrary to the licence and the big issue for me here is how do you prove that people are infringing the law and that difficulty I thought took priority. I also saw a cost implication as well which I didn't have any information on but I could have considered the point in principle in a bit more detail I concede and left a cost benefit analysis to someone else later but I didn't I wasn't convinced that there was an obvious benefit for any significant expenditure in having licence. So in the end of the day it's down to the fundamental problem of proving what happened when. That's what I see as the big issue and I mean certainly you'd probably picked up from other evidence that we've taken generally about animal welfare it's a real difficult area this that what goes on what's the level of prosecutions tend to be quite low and I think you were suggesting earlier having what would be used in other terms a professional witness on us to witness what goes on and to verify that to the police and to the courts. Well I think that that decision may also depend to some extent on the value that those who have to make the decision place upon the activity. I mean if it's an activity that's not worth saving then monitors aren't worth spending money on. If it is worth trying to save the activity then they are. Thank you. Alex Anderson, bonnet. Thank you convener can I just note my register interest around countryside management and agriculture. Lord Bonnet at the risk of challenging a judge on his legal recommendations I wonder if I've posed a couple of questions around reversing the burden of proof and extending the time limit in your discussion of reverse burden of proof he seems to suggest the burden should only be reversed in cases where the burden can easily be discharged. I'm just wondering whether you know how you would see a defendant being able to provide evidence to show that a fox was flushed as soon as possible and would you contend its very subjective arguments and would every what would it result in people being open to malicious or vexatious prosecutions many of whom would not have the resources to defend their innocence against the presumption of guilt? I don't see a basis for thinking that there would be a malicious prosecutions that that's my my I don't have the impression that that is a feature of of what what goes on here I accept that that you might feel persecuted because somebody's filming your every activity but filming in itself is a fairly open thing to be clear about the reversing of the onus of proof my own opinion is that the laws it stands at the moment reverses the onus of proof but I'm probably in the minority in the legal profession and thinking so and it hasn't been tested in the one case that we did have in Fraser against Adams it could have been tested and indeed at the appeal stage the crown considered doing so but didn't and I know that your own law officer probably disagree with me as well in which case I see little chance of of a prosecution being conducted on that basis and therefore the recommendation was was made now I'm fairly sure that someone engaged in a hunt giving an account of what happened to support the idea or the claim that the fox was shot when it was safe to do so which is the law at the moment would have a good chance of of being accepted I don't think this is a situation that's peculiar I've given many examples in here of how in very technical areas where the the reverse onus applies the strongest argument against the reverse onus is that it tinkers with the notion of proof beyond reasonable doubt someone has to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defences made out they can in these circumstances end up convicted on evidence that is not proof beyond reasonable doubt it's effectively a balance of probabilities that the defense isn't made out and that is a very powerful argument and principle against reversing the onus but bearing in mind we're talking about here and the activity it's not life and death and it's a thing about which people have very strong views I thought that that suggestion was worth making and I don't make it lightly but I think it's a way of redressing the balance I think the balance is tilted against successful prosecution the way things are just by the very nature of the activity and would you see with extending the time limit though that this could compound the possibilities of miscarriages of justice when you could be looking at having to the defendant having to produce proof very subjective proof three years after an event and if there was no video evidence you're talking about people's witness statements from on the ground and that could result under wildlife crime in someone losing their freedom you're correct about that it would it would work against the interests of accused people to extend the time limit in that situation there so you would as a as a sitting judge you wouldn't be happy with that I would be happy with it in the overall context but I see the argument against it I know I as I say I think I am in the minority on this but the the I do see your point that if you require the accused to prove something and you extend the length of time if I had to choose between the two I would go for the reverse the reverse on us of proof thank you okay thank you one of the other recommendations was around vicarious liability which for many would have its merits especially sat alongside the land reform act provisions around a register of land ownership but of course there has been legal challenge mounted to vicarious liability in another sphere already so how effective do you think it would be how advantageous would it be to introduce this well what sphere are you referring to chairman no there was there has been a challenge to vicarious liability around I think a gamekeeping case where a gamekeeper was convicted vicarious liability is the word the language I've used because it's commonly used but it's not actually vicarious liability vicarious liability is more the situation you've just described where the employer is is liable for the activities of the gamekeeper here we're talking about a third party being held liable for an individual's criminal activity and that third party has simply allowed his or her land to be used for the activity without the current requirement that you must knowingly allow it to be used in breach of the act that's going a long way I entirely accept that I would not be a tall surprise if there's strong political antipathy to placing blame on a landlord who simply permits his is ground to be used however I do think overall we are looking for a way of and rightly looking for a way of strengthening the law and it's another cross check it's another hurdle that has to be overcome to make sure or to be to be satisfied to make sure that the activity is being done legally and it would I think result in consideration being given by landowners to the reliability of those who are going to hunt over their ground I suspect there's another technical issue here and that is that many leases in the hunting areas require the tenant to allow his land to be the subject of access by the hunt and that may make it impractical I can see that but it is a potential hurdle and it did have support as an idea talking of issues that have support and 6.16 in your report where you talk about the suspicion that exists from either side of this argument you said yet the experience of the review and the interaction observed on the limited occasions opponents have met during the review give cost for optimism that it should be possible to agree on a way of trying to verify whether the sufficient suspicion of illegal hunting is well founded now we've touched upon common ground around monitors but are there any other areas of common ground that you identify where you think progress could genuinely be made here well it's unlike opponents in in some areas they are they are regularly actively in communication with each other and they there's probably at least two separate interests represented behind me at the moment and they were certainly talking when I came in this morning I just thought there was although although when dealt with individually their views are perhaps expressed more strongly than when they're in the company of their opponents I found a very high degree of cut to say and consideration in in all their communications with me and with each other and I also was impressed by the Scottish countryside alliance attitude to police requirements where I and that made me think that that a monitoring system might work without legislation and as long as the police were willing to participate in it because it's their requirements that matter and we need everyone to put their heads together on this so that's the only practical one I can think of at the moment I can't think of any other particular area that but you never know where talking might lead that you have always you're always going to have the difficulty though of those who are so opposed in principle to to hunting but that there will still no matter what agreements reached be looking for ways of justifying the call to ban it as an activity yeah which maybe moves us on nicely to the issue of the Scottish Government's response to your report and I think that it's a slightly difficult question asking what you make of that response but I'm going to ask it anyway from the perspective of given what the Scottish Government's indicated it will take on board where do you think that will take us to if these measures are introduced I mean can you envisage a situation where we could get into a much better place around hunting I can't answer that because I don't have the response what can do you have the response handy I mean it was sent to me in it but it's something I didn't look at in preparation for this okay I mean essentially the government's going to invite key stakeholders to to work together to develop the code of practice for hunts and explore the suggestion of a monitoring scheme and ministers are going to consult around vicarious liability the reverse burden of proof the extension of the time limit and the removal inconsistencies and improvement of definitions so they have largely taken on board they're indicated they're going to explore your recommendations I remember now the first part is the most encouraging in my view that they work on a code of conduct and they seem fairly committed to that I wasn't so sure about the commitment to legislative changes but considering them I think will will inevitably lead to these being being addressed and addressed hopefully by the right people I mean I don't claim to have the answer to these legislative problems because I've found from past experience in doing work of a similar nature to this that your parliamentary draftsmen have minds that don't work the same way as any of the minds around here and do have come up with solutions to problems which appear intractable at the outset so that sounds to be a plan that's likely to be productive okay I'm looking at the other members of any other questions is there anything you wish to add Lord Barnaby I don't think so no I'm grateful for the opportunity of explaining myself I hope it's clarified some things at least I'll be grateful for the opportunity to question you I think it's been a very useful session so can I thank you for attending and we'll move on to agenda item three in a moment that's all thank you on the agenda is for the committee to consider a negative instrument as listed in your papers the protection of seals designation of hollow site scotland amendment order 2017 ssi 2017 slash 63 I refer members to the papers and I invent invite any comments no comments in that case is the committee agreed that it's not wish to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument agreed okay we are agreed the fourth agenda item is for the committee to consider petition PE 1615 by Logan steel on behalf of the Scottish Raptor group on a state regulated licensing system from game bird hunting in Scotland I refer members to paper four and I seek the views of members on the action they wish to take around the petition if I can add to that the options would include inviting the petitioner to give evidence to the committee to invite oral evidence from a range of interested stakeholders or to combine the above options into a single meeting so that the committee firstly takes evidence from the petitioner before hearing from a panel of interested stakeholders for example would be the RSPV Scotland Scottish Gamekeepers Association and Scottish land in the States and the committee could then agree to any subsequent action thoughts coriobamish thank you convener I mean I'm keen on the the third option that you highlighted and with the possible with the possibility of the petitioner being able to come to the second to the panel if the petitioner was given that choice and opportunity but under for that for the person to choose to do that or not in that it may help the committee's deliberations okay we have a proposal there anyone else mark roscoe yeah I'm happy to back that convener but I would also request that we invite SNH in to speak to their report on international comparisons of game bird licensing systems I think that would be very useful and I hope that you know our consideration of this petition also relates not just to issues around wildlife crime but also looks at the totality of how game bird management systems are in place in Scotland particularly the issue around Muirburn which we've seen in the skies around the east coast of Scotland in the last few weeks but indeed other environmental considerations as well okay and would you see SNH being part of the second panel I would leave that to your discretion convener about where they would fit in best either as part of the second panel or indeed as a as a panel on their own any other views thank you Smith Donald I would just concur with mark roscoe I would certainly also be keen to hear SNH speak to the evidence that they've taken or that they've found with regard to operations in other countries can I suggest that given the pressure on our time with so much to deal with that it might be sensible to include SNH in that second panel as we propose it and thereafter we can take whatever decisions we we wish to are we content with that approach okay thank you for that that's useful the committee's first meeting after the Easter recess is expected to be on 18 April as agreed earlier we'll now move into private session I asked at the public gallery we queered as the public part of the meeting is closed and we'll suspend for five minutes