Fy dang, wrth gwrs, fel y 32 eich siwr yn Ysgrifenebu Cywlaeth i Llyfrgell, Iylen, ac Ilywedd Cymru yn 2022. Felly mae'n bwysig — oes yn gwneud i ffwrdd mewn mightnegadau o ei ffwrdd o gwelliannau eich ddadgen yn unggwysig i'w bywyd. Fy oedd y cyfnod ar ôl y gweithio ar gyfer y mae'r fynd yn cydnog. Mae'r prifysgol yng Nghymryd i'r cyfynod wedi'i cyfnod ar gyfer y gweithio bron i'r Mary McCallan, Minister for Environment and Land Reform, Hugh Dignan, Head of Wildlife and Flood Management Unit, and Leah Fitzgerald, the Bill Team Leader and Amy Hogarth, the Solicitor. I invite the minister to make an opening statement. I am very pleased to be able to come today to discuss the interplay between the bill and the activities that are often collectively described as rough shooting. I would like to begin with a comment on the inclusion of rough shooting within the bill. By connecting any suggestion that rough shooting was overlooked or not considered by the Scottish Government, the bill is ultimately about regulating the use of dogs to hunt wild mammals in the countryside, and it applies across the piece to those who would use dogs in the course of hunting. In fact, it is the strength of the bill that it does not differentiate between the types of hunting, which are permitted under exception, and instead puts out the conditions under which dogs would need to be used in the course of hunting. Rough shooting and related types of hunting have always been part of the bill, and that is why, since publication, the bill has had an exception for game shooting. Having mentioned that, I would like to address the issue of clarity. Of course, in his evidence session Lord Bonomy remarked that the bill was a very well-crafted piece of legislation, making everything clearer and simpler. However, I absolutely recognise that some seek further clarity on exactly how the bill interacts with rough shooting, and I will try to add to the already considerable and helpful evidence that you have taken in that regard today. I would like to say that, of course, I am as ever open to suggestions as to how matters could be strengthened where any member feels that that is required. However, in the time that I had left, allow me to set out my position on the interplay starting with what constitutes an activity under the bill. I know that this is something that has been discussed. A person is undertaking an activity under the bill if they are using a dog to search for, stalk or flush a wild mammal from cover, as part of an exception to the general rule against hunting with dogs. In the case of rough shooting, the bill would be under section 6, entitled Falkenry game shooting in deer stalking. The effect of section 6 is that an individual can undertake an activity with up to two dogs. The provisions do not prevent multiple people undertaking separate activities in the same location, but it sets out clearly how they must conduct themselves when undertaking that activity. Those conditions, as well as the two dog limit, are taking reasonable steps to ensure that the dog does not join with another to form a pack of more than two, that any dog used is under control, that you have landowners permission, etc. All of that applies, as with other types of hunting, to ensure that dogs do not form packs, do not chase and kill wild mammals. You have heard much evidence that breeds generally used in rough shooting. They do not form packs, they will not chase animals, they are well trained, they are under control. Interestingly, they would not return to a rough shoot if they breached any of that. I have heard that clearly at your evidence sessions, and that gives me confidence that rough shoots should have no difficulty in complying with the law. Indeed, although some adjustment may be required, many already practice what will be required under the bill. I know that a lot of that was discussed at your round table event, and there was understanding among many about what the regulation of the bill meant for rough shooting in practice. However, I know that some of those at the round table last week, when you got through what I thought was a really helpful session, you got to the nub of the issue being the vexatious complaints and the risk of that. That is something that I would not want to see happen. I am happy to work with shooting organisations, to produce guidance, to make sure that that was available to anyone with an interest. Alongside that, you equally had some very helpful evidence from Police Scotland about their role in evidence gathering. I believe that Detective Sergeant Telford mentioned that they would, for claims, vexatious or otherwise, consider the breed of dog, the distance between the dogs, what reasonable steps had been taken to separate any who had joined up. He said that they would discuss with witnesses, consult experts and they may seize phones. Ultimately, I believe that the risk of ill-intentioned or vexatious claims about the conduct of rough shoots can be managed, including via the good relationship that was discussed at your round table between the shooting industry and the police. The risk of vexatious claims does not, in my view, justify acting in a way that could undermine the bill by opening up a loophole to those who would seek to exploit it. Actually, I am sure that the rough shooting community should not want to be embroiled in that either. In conclusion, I have set out that consistent intent of the bill, how it practically applies to most of what I have found to be termed rough shooting and how I believe that any vexatious claims could be managed and do not justify creating a loophole in the legislation. Having said that, we are not yet at stage 2 and I remain happy to consider whether there is anything that I can do within the bill to clarify my position and, indeed, I will consider all the amendments ahead of stage 2. What I want to kick off with is looking at the balance of impact on people who currently undertake legal shooting activities and to make sure that there is clarity around enforcement of when there are legal activities and that the animal welfare objectives of the bill, as we all know, are a primary reason or objective of the bill to make sure that those are met. However, the committee is not aware, and I am certainly not aware of any evidence that rabbits, however, the welfare of rabbits has ever been a consideration. However, we understand that rabbits are included as part of the way to ensure that hair-corsing stocked makes it easier for hair-corsing to stop. However, since rabbit welfare has never been raised within the bill or prior to the bill or evidence of animal welfare, why couldn't we include a reckless element in the legislation, along with landowner's permission, to ensure that that would satisfy the level of evidence for a conviction against hair-corsing? We also heard from DC Telford that those elements would greatly assist when it came to poaching. Is the refusal of your light not to have an exclusion for rough shooting, which you have said can be clearly identified? Why is there not an exclusion for that and to get rid of some of those unintended consequences? I thank you for the question. There are a number of aspects there, but you will have to forgive me. I will have to unpack in turn, but I will try and be as quick as possible. You mentioned, first of all, the inclusion of rabbits, the issue of the welfare of rabbits and evidence in that regard. First of all, I have been clear since the introduction of the bill that the inclusion of rabbits within it was—the purpose of that was twofold. One was about the welfare of rabbits and the other was about getting, avoiding the taking of rabbits being used as a cover for hair-corsing. On welfare, in terms of evidence, I know that Mike Flynn said to us, and I quote, "...a lot of people think that in all these sorts of activities, the dogs kill the animals instantly. You might get away with that with mice or rats, but it's definitely not the case with foxes or rabbits. Not all of them are killed instantly and in any case, they also experience the fear of being chased." That goes to the heart of the fact that a rabbit is a sentient being. If we protect hairs, we ought to treat it similarly. I know that Kirsty Jenkins of one kind made that point at your round table last week. Of course, the second reason that we included rabbits was to make sure that it couldn't no longer be used as a cover for hair-corsing. On that note, I know that Rachel Hamilton at your round table asked the police DS Telford about that. He said, and I quote, "...I certainly think that in relation to the enforcement of hair-corsing offences, the addition of rabbits would aid police investigation." Rachel Hamilton then asked, "...is that evidence-based?" DS Telford said, "...yes." That's my position. Equally, I would say that removing rabbits from the scope of the bill would not take rough shooting out with the remit of it, because it would remain that animals such as foxes and hares would be shot in this way and they would still be under the bill. The second part that you mentioned about the suggestion of a reckless element and land owner permission—I know that that was something that the Scottish Countryside Alliance has mentioned. It's something that I've considered and, as I've said, I keep considering this. I'm not going to stand in the way of making this bill better. I want to see it succeed. However, two points to that. First, words like recklessness, words like deliberately, were the exact terms that Lord Bonomy advised us should be removed or not contained in the new act in order to avoid a subjectivity, which is not helpful. The other point that I would make is that land owner permission is already required under the bill and, of course, it doesn't address the welfare element. Given that we're looking at rough shooting specifically, and if your understanding of rough shooting is correct, do you know of any circumstances where a dog would chase a rabbit and kill a rabbit? Do I know of any circumstances where that's happened, or could I envisage that that's happened? You quoted Mike Flynn about dogs chasing rabbits or catching and killing them. It's not unfair that it wasn't instant, but we're rough shooting. Are you aware of that ever happening? Is the evidence that we've heard not suggest that absolutely doesn't happen, that rabbits aren't chased and they absolutely aren't caught and killed by dogs? I've certainly heard a great deal of evidence about the behaviour of gun dogs, their control, how well trained they are, which gives me confidence that they'll be able to comply with the need not to do that. Whether I can envisage a scenario of where it could happen, of course it could happen. Mike Flynn, with decades of experience in the SSPCA, has given evidence to this committee that it can happen. Mike Flynn said that he thinks that he didn't say that there was any evidence that dogs regarding rough shooting were chasing or catching and killing dogs. Again, we're looking specifically at rough shooting. If it's so clearly defined, why is there not an exemption? That's the point that I'm driving at. I think that it's fair to say that Mike Flynn is specifically talking about the coursing of hairs and rabbits. However, as the minister has pointed out, if we take rabbits out of the bill, it creates a much wider loophole that has the potential to be exploited by anybody who would like to use more than two dogs and claim that they were in pursuit of rabbits, which would be a clear loophole for those who had another agenda to pursue. There are two separate elements to that. There is clearly an on-going welfare concern about rabbits and coursing, but there is also a need for consistency through the bill to ensure that rabbits are not excluded from the bill and thereby creating a loophole for those who would want to explain that. Do you believe that rough shooting could ever be confused with hair coursing or traditional fox hunting? You might want to come back on that as well, but what I believe is that I am bringing forward a bill that seeks to regulate across the peace the way that dogs are used in the course of hunting in the countryside and consistency in that regard is important. I would like to pick up on a point that Chief Superintendent Mike Flynn made last week. He questioned why rough shooting should be given special treatment by being allowed to use more dogs than what he termed for essential pest control. I heard your opening statement, but I want to ask the question. I understand your need to balance the right of people to conduct legal shooting activities against animal welfare, but how would widening the exception for rough shooting a form of hunting for sport be compatible with the Government's stated purpose of achieving the highest possible standards of animal welfare? Thank you, Ariane Burgess, for the question. I heard Mike Flynn make that point the other day. I think that it is a reasonable point among many points as to why we should not create an exemption here. As Hugh MacDonald said, we risk creating a glaring loophole in the bill. Mike Flynn's point about the consistency and the fact that it would be imbalanced and disproportionate to have a situation where there were greater restrictions on those seeking to protect their livestock from predation than those who pursued sports. That is not me making a comment about people pursuing sports and the reason for doing that. That is about me saying that I want a bill that applies consistently across the piece, and that is the only way to do that properly. The other point, of course, is that if we are talking about the risk of creating a loophole, I believe that the shooting industry and the folks that you had round your round table do not want to find themselves at the other side of the bill if they were taken out with the scope of it, being part of the cover for illegal hunting moving forward. They are law abiding people who are undertaking an activity in the countryside. I am asking them to make minimal adaptations in order to comply with that, and it will mean that, in the aftermath of the bill, they do not find themselves besmarched by any attempts to circumvent the law. I just wanted to know what evidence the Scottish Government has that rough shooting is connected to welfare issues for rabbits. I can come back to you on that. I point again to what DS Telford said in your exchange. You asked him if it was based on evidence's view. He said yes. I am pointing to comments, including that from Mike Flynn and, indeed, from Kirsty Jenkins of one kind, when she said that rabbits are sentient beings who are capable of suffering the same panic when they are chased and the same pain when they are killed. I believe that we should treat them on similar terms to here, but I can come back to Rachael Hamilton with written response on that, if she wishes. Thanks, convener, and good morning, minister. You mentioned earlier that the fear of being chased is part of the animal welfare concern. I understand that the aim of the bill is to balance animal welfare with wildlife control. Why is there this exception for hunting with dogs in section 6 where the primary purpose is sporting rather than wildlife control? How does that meet that balance? What I would say in response to that is that these are legal activities in Scotland, rough shooting is a legal activity, falconry is a legal activity. In the course of pursuing what the Government is trying to do with the bill, I am not in the business of trying to, by the back door, close down activities that are otherwise legal. That is not the purpose of the bill, and it would be an arbitrary stretch of the bill if we were to do that, and I need to try to make sure that we avoid doing that. Last week, Robbie Marsland made the point that the purpose of this not being an exemption is not about what is happening just now and the very legal way that shoots will conduct themselves. It is about who may then try to tag on to that or call it a rough shoot. During the evidence session, I became more and more comfortable with the way that the bill was running on that basis. It is not about what is happening now. As you have just said, the people who are conducting shoots at the moment do it in a very effective legal manner. It is what happens when people start to use it after the bill is implemented. Would that be your concern as well? Yes, it is part of the concern. First and foremost, my job is to regulate the way that dogs are used in the course of hunting in the countryside, but it is certainly a consideration that consistency with that is important to avoid the loopholes of the future. I have tried to say that from the beginning. That work is about closing the loopholes of the 2002 act and making sure that more do not open up. We want to make sure that that is the case so that unlawful hunting in Scotland finally ends, but equally there is clearly an interest of the shooting industry not to get into a situation where there is perfectly legal activity at the other side of that. It is found to be the guys under which unlawful hunting is tried to be pursued. I want to ask in regards to the round table last week. I thought that it was extremely helpful as well. I was satisfied by their comments on how well the hunts were run, how seriously they really took the safety of everyone involved and how, in particular, they had trained the dogs exceptionally well. It came down to what you mentioned in your opening statements that the real concern was the vexatious complaints that may happen and disrupt hunts if there are investigations at that time. I asked DC Telford if he thought forewarning would be helpful for the police to know that those rough shoots were going to be happening and he said that it would. I wonder what your thoughts are on that. Thank you, Ms Adam, for the question. I observed that part of the discussion. I thought that it was an interesting one. I think that it might have been Mercedes Velalba that raised that point. Of course, that might be an option for getting around the risk of vexatious complaints if that was something that the shooting industry felt was problematic for them. I bear in mind however what the Scottish countryside alliance said that that could be bureaucratic for them. I genuinely want to see that to be a proportionate approach. However, I do not believe that the bill creates or exacerbates the risk of vexatious complaints. For example, we have those provisions already in place in England and Wales and I am not aware of any rise in the number of vexatious complaints there. However, of course, if that were a risk, if it were something that the shooting industry in particular were very concerned about, I would be pleased to work with them to discuss how we might avoid that. You have touched on the issue of loopholes and where you think that the dangers might lie. I wonder how you weighed up the concern that was expressed in animal welfare grounds about the dangers of such loopholes. You have already mentioned the concern that you had about how some groups might adapt their behaviour to get around the aims of the bill. I wonder if you could say a little bit more about that, but also if you could say if you are still satisfied that the arrangement is set out in the bill that allows for multiple dogs, although not in the form of a pack, whether that interpretation in that part of the bill is adequate to meet the animal welfare grounds of the bill as well. Yes, I think that it does. I think that it is balanced. I have always had confidence in the two-dog limit that that was a reasonable way to ensure that that element of control and that element of control therefore ensures that the risk of animals being chased and killed in the countryside is reduced. That is the core purpose of the two-dog limit. The challenge then is not about the concept of the two-dog limit, but it is about folks' understanding of exactly how it applies in each situation. That is what we have worked very hard to make clear. That is what the committee has worked hard to make clear as well through all the evidence sessions that you have taken. I know that my colleagues have spoken with you setting out how it applies under the bill. I tend to try to put it into my non-official layperson's language to make sure that it is absolutely clear. For me, it is about that you can go out on a rough shoot. The activity that you are undertaking is the flushing searching for stalking. The two-dog limit applies to that activity. That means that, for example, in the course of a rough shoot, if the bill team went on a rough shoot, Leah and I could go out. If I had two dogs, she could come with me, she could shoot the quarry that I flushed so long as she did not have her own dogs. If three of us went out and provided that there were still only two dogs between the three of us and the others did not have any, they could shoot the quarry that was flushed. There are different permutations, but I think that we are getting to the point where it is clearer. The evidence that we heard from the shooting community about the level of control and training of the dogs and what happens on rough shoots also provides us with the reassurance that the welfare risks are sufficiently managed in the way that we are talking about rough shoots and the interaction with the bill. I want to know what you define a rough shoot as. It is a good question. Thanks, Rachel, for it. My experience in bringing the bill forward tells me that there is no one definition that it would be a very vexed activity to try to have a definitive definition. There are many permutations of what people think constitutes a rough shoot, and my team and I have worked hard to speak to as many people as possible to have the widest possible view on what constitutes a rough shoot. However, it does coalesce around the activity in which a line of people move across ground with dogs who would flush the quarry to be shot if possible and retrieved, often for sport and sometimes for the food element attached to that. I know that you discussed this at your roundtable, but there is a wildlife management element to it sometimes as well. However, there is no one definition, and I would guard against seeking to find one. The types of dogs that are used, what would your team suggest that the types of dogs that people who go rough shooting use? Gun dogs, labradors, spaniels, etc. You said that those dogs tend to be trained and under control by the person who is going out with them. I have heard a huge amount of evidence about how well-trained they are, how controlled they are, how they do not form packs, how they do not chase, how Alex Hogg talked about how softmouth they are, and I have my own labrador who I know is very softmouthed. In the terms of a facetious complaint, do you think that it is proportionate and fair that those who go out rough shooting—you have just described that if you and Leah go out rough shooting and you maybe invite Hugh as well and you only take two dogs—do you think that it is fair and proportionate to curtail rural activities when you say in your opening remarks that you are confident that individuals who do this conduct themselves in a way that they have landowner permission and that they have their dogs under control? Do you think that it is fair and proportionate? Yes, I do. I think that it is because, first of all, it is important that we have consistency across the bill and across the various types of hunting. Secondly, I think that it is proportionate because the changes that may be required to some activities currently regarded as rough shooting are minimal and proportionate. Many people already comply with what we would be asking them to comply with. I think that the changes are minimal and proportionate. From everything that I have heard, I have confidence that it will not be difficult to ensure that those well-trained dogs are required under the new regulations. We heard from Hugh that a couple of sessions ago that the team looked at YouTube videos and googled what rough shooting was. However, have you been on a rough shoot and said that it was part of the bill and that it had not been overlooked? However, we heard in evidence that, subsequently, we have had to have three committee sessions with regard to that because it seemed to have been overlooked. Do you know in terms of how it works, how Jim Fairlie was talking about the quartering and the dogs forming a pack? Have you had experience of that? Have you watched it on a YouTube video? Do you think that there is a high likelihood that a dog would stalk, flush and somebody else would shoot the quarry that another person's dog had flushed? In terms of my own experience, I do not think that that is particularly relevant to my role as a minister in taking the bill through, but I represent a rural constituency. I live in the heart of the countryside. I observe those things as a matter of course, just living where I do. The only YouTube video that I have watched on this is the one that Bask helpedfully produced and invited me to watch at the Parliament. I suspect that that was the same video that my colleagues were referring to. However, we have, as we would with any aspect of the bill, undertaken substantial stakeholder engagement. I was reflecting last night that, since Lord Bonomy published his report on the act in 2016, the bill as a whole—I appreciate that we are talking about rough shooting—has been intensely scrutinised. We had Lord Bonomy in front of the Ecclare committee in 2017, a public consultation in 2018, a second consultation in 2021, the committee's own call for evidence on the bill earlier this year, your five public and three private sessions at stage one. We have had a stage one report, we have had further correspondence between me and the committee, then we had the debate, the bill was unanimously passed, and today is the third session that you have held specifically on rough shooting. There has been a huge amount of stakeholder consultation and a great deal of scrutiny. Thank you for reminding me of that. I do not know how many times rough shooting has been mentioned within all the sessions that you have described other than the last three. I just also want to ask you about the vexatious claims around using rough shooting as a cover for hair-coursing. What type of dogs do hair-courses use? I think that that was discussed at your last session to be lurchers, whippets and others of that kind. Do you believe that Police Scotland will increase the number of prosecutions of hair-coursing? Currently, there are a lot of reports of hair-coursing but a lack of prosecutions. Desi Telfers said that he could not provide us with the evidence of the number of reports because there is no such thing as a rural marker for hair-coursing. How will the Scottish Government, in its aim to ensure that animal welfare is at the highest standards, follow the progress of the bill in the aim to prosecute more people who are hair-coursing? I think that the first part was that there will be an improvement. Yes, I do. I certainly hope so. The objective behind the inclusion of rabbits, as we have discussed, was because Police Scotland and others have told us that, as they are perhaps trying to prosecute, they would not prosecute, but gather evidence on hair-coursing. They know that shooting rabbits is often used as a guise, so it should follow that if we bring rabbits within the scope of that, that guise will no longer exist and that will ease the detection of crime on the part of Police Scotland. On the impact of the bill, I think that, as with other bits of legislation that the Scottish Government will always track the success or the impact that it has. I do not know that there is anything specific in the face of the bill, but the Government will always track the impact of what we do. We publish annually a report on wildlife crime. It is difficult to sometimes isolate wildlife crime from other offences that may have been committed alongside it, but the police are getting better at that. There is a clear focus on wildlife crime, so we do get better data on it, but it is still not as good as we would like it to be. We will certainly be monitoring that in relation to hair-coursing, which we know is quite a significant number of offences and complaints about it. A lot of farmers object to it very strongly taking place on their land. On that point, would you be willing to look at possibly an amendment that would look at improved data gathering in relation to isolating specific wildlife crimes and rural crimes, and committing to reporting here in the Scottish Parliament on those rural crimes? I will consider all amendments ahead of stage 2. One of the issues that has been raised in the past has been about the definition of a pack and how it might be identified. Are you still content with the definition that you have as a working definition of what a pack constitutes? Yes, I am. I am just leafing through my notes here because I had pulled out exactly the part of the bill. The bill has, as we know, the two-dog limit, and it speaks to, in each of the exceptions, reasonable steps being taken to ensure that any dog used in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs, and therefore, for the purposes of the bill, a pack will mean more than two dogs. In that case, in your view, there does not need to be anything added to the face of the bill to make the matter clearer? Not in my view, but as I have said, I consider amendments ahead of stage 2. Thank you, convener. I am interested in hearing about more Hugh Dignan when he last gave evidence. We asked about a person using two dogs, alongside another person using two dogs, and how those dogs may criss-cross. I would just like you to confirm for the record again how you see the bill ensuring that the hunting or the activity, I should say, is connected with the right person. The four dogs, perhaps from the two people, if they are working together, how you see the act supporting or otherwise that activity. You might want to come on afterwards, but from my perspective, we have section 1.4 in the bill, which is the issue of using a dog, and it defines who will be regarded as having used it in the case that an offence is committed. It is essentially an anti-avoidance provision. If you are involved in unlawful hunting, you cannot claim to have not committed an offence simply because you were not controlling the dogs. It means that you are treated as having used the dog even if it is not under your controller direction. In terms of practical examples of what that would mean, well, in a traditional fox hunting, it is obvious that that would include those following the hunt, as well as those one or two individuals that were controlling the pack. In rough shooting, it means that if you shoot someone else's quarry flushed with their dogs, you are regarded as having been part of that activity. Again, just to draw out the examples, if Leah and I go rough shooting each with our one or two dogs, as long as we use the dog separately to flush separate quarries and comply with the conditions in section 6, that will be fine. If Leah is using two dogs, she could not shoot a rabbit flushed by me if I had one or two dogs, and that is because we would be treating as using all four for the purposes of section 1.4 of the bill. However, if Leah, Hugh and I could go out with two dogs, Leah controlling the dogs and Hugh and I without dogs and shooting the quarries, it has different permutations, but that is how that provision works. It is there to make sure that, as I say, there is no avoidance of having been involved in the offence because you were not directing the dogs. The evidence that we received in the round table last week showed the need for the shooters to be in direct control of the dogs and the understanding that, if a dog did start chasing, the control that the dog handler had would result in that dog stopping. That is absolutely right. Control is a fundamental part of the bill. I know that we are here to talk about rough shooting, but the bill as a whole is supposed to be about control being important and it being readily obvious when control has been lost. The two dog limit allows that to be much more easily picked up. That adds more confusion and, again, makes me think that what you define as rough shooting is not exactly what it is. You suggested that somebody with a gun and somebody with dogs would have to be associated with each other, whereas, in practice, in a rough shoot, you might have five people with guns and eight or nine or ten people, each with two dogs, who are not associated with the shooters but, ultimately, those shooters require those dogs to work to flush the rabbits or the game. Can you just explain again the scenario where there might be one person with a gun who does not own any dogs but two people who are beaters, if you like, with two dogs each? Is that illegal? Two dogs per activity is the rule. The activity is stalking, flushing and searching for. However many people were working with that individual who had two dogs, the whole group is regarded as having the two dog limit. Would that be a legal, my scenario, two beaters with two dogs each with one person individual with a gun? No, that would be four dogs, one activity. If they worked separately, if they pursued individual quarry, if the dogs did not work together, that would be fine. The thing is that, when you have a rough shoot, you have four dogs, for example, working through a piece of rough ground, flushing every piece of prey that comes in front of them. If there is one person outside that undercover shooting, ultimately, those dogs are working towards the gun but they do not belong to the guy with the gun, they belong to the beaters who are flushing. So you could have one beater with two dogs? So the scenario that I am looking at, two beaters, two dogs each? That would be unlawful. Okay, but that is a scenario that often plays out in a rough shoot. Well, in those circumstances, that would be part of the minimal adaptation that would be required. Okay, so where I am struggling is we have heard how intrinsically different fox hunting and hair coursing is and how we can identify those behaviours because the different dogs are used or the different behaviours that the dogs have. If it is so clear, surely it would be easy to construct an exemption to identify what rough shooting is and then we would not have Police Scotland having to work out how many beaters, how many people with guns, which dogs were doing, which, whether they were working together or whatever, and ultimately taking the police away from ensuring that those easily identified areas of legal activity are being identified and prosecuted? So I think the crux of your point is again going back to an exemption that would take rough shooting out with the scope of the bill. First of all, you said with a definition it would be extremely difficult to define rough shooting, but that is a minor point as compared with the much bigger points that we have already rehearsed, namely that you would create a glaring loophole in the bill, that the two dog limit would then apply to everybody else, including farmers, trying to protect their lambs from predation but not to... Can you give us some examples of where a clearly defined rough shoot, as you say that you understand, could be identified as hair coursing or a legal fox hunting? Where could that happen? Those are utterly hypothetical questions, and ultimately it's for the police who I have confidence in, in their ability to observe what is happening in the countryside and to determine what it is. Of course I want that to be as clear as possible, but I'm not going to entertain increasingly hypothetical situations. But one of the reasons you said it was important was to stop activity, but that might happen in the future, surely? That's hypothetical. I don't... Of course in some ways it is, but equally we have proof that after the 2002 act, and I know that was discussed at your round table, that nobody talked about flushing to guns prior to 2002, and thereafter we know, we have evidence that it became a cover for illegal hunting. So there's form in that regard. So my question was where do you think cover for illegal activities could be used or rough shooting could be used for that cover? I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. So you were suggesting that the two dog limit or whatever, we're not going to have an exemption for rough shooting, because in the future that might be used as a cover for illegal hunting activity. What I'm asking is, in which circumstances might rough shooting, as we know it exists at the moment, be used as a cover for something illegal in the future? Not really sure. I think it's... If there was no limit on the number of dogs that could be associated with rough shooting, you could envisage a scenario where a couple of people could take 10 dogs out with guns and say they were out rough shooting. Now that, on the face of it, could be exactly the same as a foot pack where that operates. Now the only difference would be, as we know, most likely the breed of dogs, but we also know that to try and define something purely on the basis of the breed of dogs is going to be problematic. But you'd expect the police to do that? We're not asking the police to do that. The police have said that they will look at that as part of forming their overall picture, but we're not seeking to define an activity by virtue of the breed of dog that's employed because we know it will be sort of pushed at that people will use cross breeds, hybrids and new breeds of dogs and so on. So that is not a satisfactory way of proceeding. So we can see that even though at present rough shooting doesn't look like someone taking a pack of dogs out in pursuit of a fox, but you could also see how an exemption for rough shooting could be pushed at its very limit so that that is in fact what happens.  I have no idea what might be about to make the same point for all of you, but you've run through a series of scenarios there and gone through them one by one. Some of them, as he said, are hypothetical, but of course we have had evidence from some stakeholder that the police who pointed to some of the difficulties they might face in distinguishing between some of those scenarios. So I wondered, in weighing up how the bill was put together, did you consider the option of going in the other direction? This is not a position I'm advocating, I hasten to add, where the limit was simply set at two dogs per shoot. For me that would create an inconsistency in policy terms, but I can understand and I could see why that would be an easier situation evidence-wise for the police. Although I will not put words in Police Scotland's mouth, I suspect that their concerns about the position as it stands, and some of that was expressed last week, is about believing that a two dog limit per event would be easier for the police. Would that be proportionate for the rough shooters? I don't think it would. Would it create inconsistencies in the bill? Yes, but it would certainly be easier evidentially. Thank you, convener. I'm going to try and rewind back to where we were, but the point that I've just made there about the purpose of this bill was not to stop hunting altogether, and the ability for rough shooters to be able to continue to carry out their activities, which they do perfectly legitimately, with minor adaptations. We had Ross Ewing last week given what I think was a genuine position on the point that the general public might not understand what the position is, and this bill will be announced in the public domain as hunting with dogs has now been banned. Is there something that the Government can do in terms of the right and responsible access, so that people understand that rough shooting is a legitimate thing to do in the countryside and that it doesn't fall within this unless somebody is going to use it as a loophole? Is there something that the Government can do at a later stage to make sure that the public understands what the position of this bill is as well? Yes, absolutely. I have tried to do that from the start. From the very inception of the bill, I have been very clear that this is about closing loopholes of the past, preventing others from opening. This is about making sure that what's been unlawful for 20 years no longer continues, but that, for example, farmers, environmentalists and conservationists will still have to access and use dogs in the countryside. That has been part of the messaging from the Government from the beginning. I am committed to that on-going dialogue and explanation of what is expected and what people can expect, not least in the case of fixatious complaints, where I said that I would be happy to work with the industry to provide guidance and to provide messaging about what people should expect and when to expect it. However, I think that it was huge in response to that point from Bask, who said that, ultimately, as regards the criminal law, it is not what the public perceive and their view of it is ultimately for law enforcement, who are very well adapted to making judgments and observing actions in the countryside. That is absolutely correct. I will quote you, director Sergeant Telford, here on the specific point that we are talking about. We have talked about evidence and so forth, but we will still be able to use common sense and the degree of judgment to ask whether, in the balance of probability, an activity is a legitimate shoot or something else. The common sense approach will take into account types of dogs that are used to. The police are already on board with how this is going to work, but I do understand Ross Ewing's and others concern that the public might not understand it as well as we do. The convener's point on taking down so many rabbit holes of all the different permutations that could or could not happen. That is the stuff that the shooting fraternity are coming back with and saying, if this happens, I understand that there is no way that you can legislate for all of the possible scenarios, but the way shoots are conducted at the moment will be able to manage themselves. Their concern is that the police are going to be called out every other day on the basis of that. I think that there has to be an understanding that there is going to be common sense here and that the relationship between the police and the shooting community has to be a strong one. Would you accept that? Yes, and I would accept that it already is. A lot of that is underpinned by the really strict regulation of firearms, etc. The relationship that exists between police and those whom they know have firearms and who undertake shooting activity in their areas. I know and I am not going to pretend that Police Scotland has said that it is cut and dry, everything is straightforward. I know specifically that Mr Telford raised some issues about the two-dog limit that Alistair Allyn raised. However, there is always, by its very nature, going to be challenges with evidence in a rural setting. It is the same with gathering evidence in a domestic setting. It is not easily corroborated and it happens out of view, but what I was very pleased to see come forward was that explanation from DS Telford about what they would consider to build the picture. That was the breed of dog, the distance between the dogs, what reasonable steps had been taken to separate any that joined up, consulting witnesses, discussing with experts, seizing phones and, as you said, common sense. I want to ask, in regards to animal welfare, what this bill is mainly about. There are different types of hunts that use dogs in different ways, different breeds of dogs. We have heard how people manage and train those animals and how differently they behave. In regards to animal welfare concerns, what would be the differing concerns for animal welfare in different hunting scenarios? Does that make sense? Yes, it does make sense. There are obviously different degrees of concern between the different activities. That exists for a whole range of different reasons, including the way that dogs are trained, what they are trained to do, how well-controlled they are and what the oversight is like for each of the types of hunting. However, my point is that I am not differentiating between the different types of hunting. I think that that creates uncertainty. Rather than do that, rather than differentiate, rather than try to treat differently, I want a consistent approach, which ultimately is about regulating the use of dogs in the Scottish countryside, not regardless of how they are used, but that consistent thread through the bill, so that it applies to all dogs that are used in the course of hunting, rather than in different types of hunting, which would be fraught with opportunities for loopholes if we broke that down. That is really helpful, thank you. In the past legislation, what we are hoping to close here is that there are loopholes that have been created because it was not as broad before. Yes, absolutely. I come back to Lord Bonamy's point, who is an expert in the problems of the former bill, that his view was that it was well crafted and made it simpler and clearer. Jim Fairlie, where are we now? My apologies. We have probably already covered this. The Scottish Government is currently thinking on how to interpret sections, sex provisions and the game of rough shooting. I think that we are more or less covered that, haven't we? My question has probably already been covered earlier on by Karen Adam on enforcement. I know that in certain circumstances, if a group is organising an event, they are required to notify the police. What we spoke briefly about last week's round table was the possibility of a kind of voluntary notification for those who are concerned about potential vexatious allegations that they could self-report ahead of time just to make the local police aware of their activities and that way to facilitate any sort of drop-in or whatever. Is that something that the Scottish Government would look at facilitating? I don't know around, I guess, not on the face of the bill but in terms of guidance later on or if maybe you could outline any other kind of measures that you are considering or looking at just to aid enforcement? Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question. I was interested when it was you and Mercedes Valaba who raised this at the round table last week. I thought it was an interesting point because for me at the very conducive session that you had, I think that we managed to get clarity on what was expected during a rough shoot. I think that we managed to understand the conditions that would be expected. I think that we went through how for some part that would not require much change, for others it would require a bit of adaptation. All of that then appeared to boil down, especially from Basque's view, to their concern about accepting that but their concern about vexatious complaints. If that is something that is a concern from the shooting industry, again of course I'm happy to work with them about how to mitigate the risk of that. I've already said that I haven't seen any evidence of it increasing as a risk with the changes in England and Wales. I don't know that the shooting industry would be receptive to more bureaucracy but if it's them who's coming to me and saying to me that we're very concerned about vexatious complaints that would be something that we could consider in order to mitigate that. How receptive to that they would be, I'm not sure. We've talked a lot about potential enforcement issues and the clarification. I wonder if you could explain to us what discussions you've had with Police Scotland about enforcement and about the different scenarios that we heard from last week. Yes, I haven't spoken with Police Scotland since your round table. I'm not sure if officials have but we've certainly been in on going contact with them right from the beginning of the bill. We've been able to clarify certain points about, for example, the training of police dogs. I think that it was yourself who raised that at the stage 1 debate and we'll continue to discuss with them how to make the best situation for enforcement that we can. I suppose that this is a sort of odd situation where we're having this, I think, helpful but nonetheless extraordinary evidence session but I'll certainly be engaging prior to stage 2 again. I mean, I think obviously as you had picked up from last week's discussion there's the concern about the the vexatious report and for example could the police just, if they had a complaint, could they close down an activity that was taking place? So that would be a question for the police. I'm not proposing any additional enforcement powers within this bill than that which exists already in legislation managing these activities in the countryside, but ultimately how the police respond to complaints, vexatious or otherwise is always a matter for them. Thank you. Just on that, what would your expectations be if there was a suggestion of illegal activity with a rough shoot and the police were called? Would you expect them to stop the shoot to allow them to undertake an investigation? Would you allow them to for that shoot to proceed or what would your view on that be? Scottish ministers will not direct Police Scotland on how to conduct their investigations. Should that not be clearer within the legislation? Well, in response to Beatrice Wishart I set out that the investigative powers of the police are not changed by this bill. They are as they currently stand within other pieces of legislation including, for example, the regulation of firearms. I'm not going to deliberate on how Police Scotland does their job. Okay, so just on the firearms, would you expect if there was a legal activity identified at a rough shoot that the police would seize temporarily firearms from those involved? Again, that would be done in accordance with legislation already existing that regulates the use and removal in certain circumstances of firearms. That bill makes no difference to that. Okay, so you don't know whether that would be the case or not? It's not a case of not knowing. It's a case of I'm part of the executive and I'm not going to direct Police Scotland on how to conduct their activities. Okay, Rachel Hamilton. It was actually just a supplementary going back to using rough shooting as a cover for hair coursing. I just wondered if the minister could tell the committee at what time of the day does hair coursing happen and at what time of the year does hair coursing happen? I don't have an answer to that, I'm afraid. I'm not an expert in the... Would it happen, do you think, at the same time as rough shooting? Is that why you think it could be a cover for rough shooting? It seems to me here a good point is that I don't think we've ever said it would be a cover for rough shooting. I don't think we know hair coursing primarily at night and we're not saying that rough shooting would be a cover for hair coursing. So what is it a cover for then? What is it that you're saying because it's been referenced many times? What is rough shooting a cover for? Rough shooting a present is not a cover for anything. What could it be a cover for? If there was no limit on the number of dogs and the only way that a person could take more than two dogs out countryside in pursuit of some animal and there was an exemption saying that you could do that as a rough shooter, people could claim they were doing any number of activities and say it was rough shooting. So which activities? Hunting foxes for one. You were saying that people who rough shoot would go out with hounds? I'm saying that if there was an exemption for rough shooting, unless it said it was only applied to certain breeds of dog, then yes, they could take hounds with them and we know that trying to limit any exemption to certain breeds of dogs would be problematic. So how will the prosecutions of hair causing increase then if it's not specifically being looked at because that's been used as the inclusion of rabbits within the bill? Well it's because at present people who are going hair coursing sometimes claim that they're doing after rabbits which is currently lawful. So by bringing rabbits within the scope of this bill it would then make that unlawful and they wouldn't be able to, so haircoursers wouldn't be able to claim that they were out after rabbits. Okay so it's definitely not covered for rough shooting okay because you said that hair coursing happens at night? Yes. Right okay. As far as I know, I mean yes, primarily I think that's right. Okay and rough shooting doesn't? Again, as far as I know. Right. So can I just ask the minister that with regards to the conversation that Beatrice Wishart was having there about the investigative powers of Police Scotland. Have you had a conversation with Police Scotland about the potential numbers of increased vexatious complaints or otherwise in terms of their role and their ability to ensure that they are carrying out what the Government want them to do which is to to carry out the intention of stopping whatever you're trying to stop within this bill. So have they got the ability to do that with the cuts in Police Scotland budget? Convener, again, there's a number of questions there and I'm increasingly finding it difficult to follow exactly what it is that Rachel Hamilton is trying to ask. As I said, we've had on-going engagement with Police Scotland. We will continue to do that and we will do it as issues arise. Last week at your round table there's no doubt that once the operation of this, as it pertains to rough shooting, was explained, the risk of vexatious complaints was something that was raised by BASC among others and my officials will engage again with Police Scotland on that, likely before the formal move to stage 2. We'll keep doing that and when it comes to enforcement, investigative powers and police funding, I have confidence in Police Scotland in their ability to fulfil those requirements. I know that DS Telford has said that he has views on what would be better within the bill but ultimately what's passed, they will take it and work with it. The guidance that you said that you would produce at what stage will that come so that there's more clarity and apologies for not being clear in the intention of my questions and I found it very difficult to understand the legislation and the drafting of the bill and so therefore it has been difficult to articulate questions. Will you produce the guidance that you talked about in your introduction before stage 3? It's not a problem at all. I hope that this session has provided clarity, I hope that the additional sessions on rough shooting have provided clarity. There are inherent complications in producing a piece of law like this. That's probably why a very well-intentioned bit of work in 2002 ended up creating loopholes for the next 20 years, so I don't think that any of us should pretend that this is not a complicated area of law, but I go back again to what Lord Bonomy said about this, that we have produced, being a great deal simpler and clearer. I haven't said that I will produce guidance, I've said that I would be happy to discuss the production of guidance with the shooting industry if that's something that would help in that bedding in period that I think was discussed at the roundtable. Jenny, do you have any further questions on the flushing aspect? I have no further questions and I think that the minister has already been here for five minutes longer, six minutes longer. Thank you very much and thank you minister for your time today. It's just a very quick follow-up on a question from Alasdair Allan earlier on about the definition of PAC. I believe you said that, for the purposes of the bill, a PAC will mean more than two dogs and I just wanted to clarify, is the number of dogs the only factor in a PAC or will activity also be a consideration? The number of dogs is the principal factor, but, of course, they couldn't be the opposite sides of the field from one another to be a PAC, so the activity they would have to be together. Thank you very much. That brings us to the session. I appreciate you coming in with your team. I hope that by stage 3 we won't have a bill that requires, unlike the minister, students of the future to look at the loopholes, so I'm sure we can get to the stage where the bill is clear and the Parliament can accept it. Thank you very much for your time this morning. It's very much appreciated. We will suspend the minutes for 10 minutes to allow witnesses to change over. Welcome back. Our second item of business today is an evidence session on avian flu in Scotland. We have scheduled an hour for this session and I welcome to the meeting Sheila Voss, the chief veterinary officer and Alasdair Douglas, the head of animal disease control branch. Sheila, would you like to make an opening statement? Yes. This year has been unprecedented in terms of avian flu. That's a word I don't use lightly. We said it last year, this year has been much worse. The context is that in Scotland we have confirmed eight premises with avian flu this year. Six of these have been commercial premises. One was a very small commercial premises. To put that into context, there have been 125 premises confirmed within England. While the situation in Scotland is bad, it is nowhere near as bad as other parts of GB. Avian flu is a disease of birds. It's a viral disease. It is a similar virus, but not the same virus that causes flu in other species, including humans. It's predominantly spread by wild birds. It gets into poultry flocks and then has a devastating effect in poultry flocks. If avian flu gets into a poultry flock, what we do is require the compulsory slaughter of all the birds in that flock to prevent the disease from spreading further, either within poultry flocks or, indeed, back into wild bird populations. That's probably enough of an introduction to begin with, but I'm very happy to answer any questions. It's important to understand the seriousness of the outbreak in Scotland and the rest of Scottish producers. In previous weeks, we heard some information and evidence of the wild bird population and the devastating impact it had on goose numbers, for example, along the Solway Firth. What is the tie-up with the density or the intensity of the disease in the wild bird population in Scotland and the potential knock-on effect to the commercial flocks? Wild birds spread the disease. They, particularly water birds, spend their summer in their arctic breeding grounds, where they mix with populations from other parts of the world. When they are in the arctic, the viruses mix and can change so that each year it's a different strain, and the birds then come back to their overwintering grounds, such as the Solway, the Angus Basin or other parts of the country. The waterfile can survive with the virus for a period of time, so they excrete the virus, particularly in their faces, and it can be picked up by poultry. That's the main route of incursion into poultry. It's generally contact with wild bird feces, but it's often indirect contact. We heard of a mounting toll of geysers and gulls in Finhorn Bay. Is that something that we should be concerned about? Yes. We monitor wild bird die-offs so that we encourage members of the public and we have agreements with wardens, people in the wetlands and wildlife trust, and Nature Scotland are working with us to make sure that we are notified of die-offs. In that case, animals will be tested. So far, administratively, the season runs from 1 October. We've had 19 confirmed positive wild birds, but that's about half the number that has been submitted, so it's not the only cause of death out there. The small number, again in England and Wales, is in 300+. It's a small percentage, but yes, it is of concern. You've talked about the migration of birds, but we know that Covid was worse in the winter and the virus is supposed to decline in the summer with temperatures and things. Does the same sort of profile work for avian flu? Are we likely to see an increase of the transmission of bird flu just because of the nature of the virus during winter or in the spring? Yes, exactly. Flu virus is generally like cold, damp conditions, and so they survive much better in the winter and will spread and remain infected for longer than in the summer where ultraviolets, sunshine and high temperatures dry—if we get a dry summer—will kill it. Last year was unusual in that normally we would say the flu season was October through to about March time. Last year we continued to get cases through the summer in GB and indeed we in Scotland had a case in Orkney in July. Okay, that's helpful. Arianne Burgess. I'd be interested to know what work you've been doing to gather evidence of farm-to-farm transfer of highly pathogenic avian influenza in Scotland. Yep, we do full epidemiological investigations on every premises that's confirmed. These can take a bit of time, so at the moment the findings are preliminary, but there is no evidence of farm-to-farm transfer. Some of the cases that we've had have been within a group of farms and so we were interested in seeing if it was human movements from farm-to-farm that were the problem, but it looks like there were lapses in biosecurity that may be the explanation, things like buildings that were not totally secure from rodents or wild birds. Sorry, can you just say a little bit more about that? So there might have been lapses in biosecurity in the farms that are part of the same organisation? Within the farm cluster, yes. What I didn't say in my introduction was that of the cases that we've had, five out of the six commercial premises are in the one ownership group and these are all birds that have been housed since early October, so only one of the six commercial premises has been truly free range at the point of housing. So the virus in the other five has found its way in from the environment into the house with the birds, and there is some evidence that when birds are housed it needs less virus to start and to sustain an infection than when they're outside. Again, with parallels to Covid, being outside in a football stadium was safer than being inside in a dance hall. Could you say a little bit more about what lapses in biosecurity might have taken place in those five farms? Yes. The preliminary epidemiology would suggest that there was a rodent problem in some of them. There were potential problems with vehicles going between and the foot dips, the cleansing and disinfection points were not as effective as they could have been. Are personnel moving between from one farm to another? The farm staff that are doing the day-to-day care are dedicated, but there is some management movement. I just had a question about the effect of the disease on different types of birds. Is it equally lethal among wild birds and poultry? If it's more lethal to one than the other, is that to do with breeding or immune systems, the use of antibiotics? Could you say a little bit about why it has a different impact on different... It's a viral disease, so there is no use of antibiotics, but different types of birds have different susceptibility to the virus. Waterfowl are generally the natural host for flu viruses, so they tend to be somewhat resistant to it. They will get the virus and multiply it up a bit but are still able to move and fly, whereas turkeys on the other extreme, as soon as they get the virus, they're pretty sick and die. Indeed, one of the signs of avian flu in captive populations is a rapidly increasing mortality. In one of our cases, we went from five dead overnight to 19 to 100 to about 3,000 in the space of four or five days. That was chickens, not turkeys. Turkeys are even worse. I wonder if you could say a wee bit more just about the extent of the outbreak and without minimising the extent of the outbreak, given its impact not least on wild birds, as we've seen. Can you say more about firstly the comparison in terms of the outbreak in Scotland and England, but also the geographic concentrations of the outbreak both in Scotland and in England? Okay, so England started off very much with an outbreak in East Anglia, which is probably not surprising because they have the highest poultry concentration within England, but since then it has spread over much of England, although interestingly not in Cumbria or Northumberland particularly. In Scotland this year, we've had two backyard flocks in Orkney, a very small producer in Lewis who had about 300 birds, and then we've had one free-range flock in Ayrshire, and the rest, the other five commercial flocks, are in Aberdeenshire and they're the ones that are all linked. I do have a map here that I'm happy to pass round, which will show the density. Can you pass that over? It may be interesting just to have a look and see. The figures are slightly out of date, they're from the end of last week, but it does demonstrate that Scotland in comparison has very little. If I may convene, can I ask you, does the pattern of distribution within Scotland lend itself to making it difficult, more difficult or more easy to control? We do have some clusters of poultry, particularly in the north-east and in the borders, but we don't have the level of density of poultry populations elsewhere. However, the single most important thing, given that it's not spread from one premises to another, is that people maintain as good biosecurity as they can. I wanted to know, there's been reports of numbers of culls through FOIs. I wondered how many culls there have actually been in Scotland. We've killed birds and all the infected premises and the total number is 224,000 across the whole of Scotland, to round numbers. To put that into comparison, England has killed 1.673 million turkis and 2.003 million chickens, plus ducks and geese. What is the percentage of the total flock in Scotland? Oh gosh, it's 1 per cent, 1.5 per cent, they're about... An incomparison to England, do you know? They're about two and a half, three per cent. So they're not far in front of us, it's just that the density is greater? Well, the difference between one and a half and three is significant. Well, the difference between the density of the number of stock, as you said. How many species have been infected to date, Fabian Flu? In Scotland, only poultry amongst commercial species in wild birds 20, I think? It's there or thereabouts, 20-25 species. It changes almost on a daily basis because we're continually taking samples and getting them analysed from wild birds. And you said that the Thumbland and Cumbria so far hadn't been affected. However, it's a question about how the disease spreads between wild birds and domestic birds. Why do you think that in those areas that have coastal areas to them, that it hasn't spread? Because Robert Thompson, his NFUS, has said that Avian Flu doesn't stop at the borders or Carlisle, he said. And I'm sure you're familiar with what he said. And the concerns that he has with regards to being put on an equal footing in terms of restrictions, which is a question that's coming up. So I won't ask you about that. But why do you think that there has not been clusters in both of those areas considering the wild bird population of North Thumbland and Cumbria? So there are two different facets to that. The one is to do with migratory patterns. Although we tend to think of the Arctic summer grounds for geese as being a soup for virus, actually the birds that we get coming back to Scotland tend to come from Iceland, Greenland, Svalbard, so the north-western part of the Arctic. Whereas a lot of the birds coming into Eastern England come from Eastern Europe, so they're coming from Siberia, Estonia, Latvia, Baltic countries. So there may be a difference in the virus that they're carrying. There's also quite good evidence in England that some of the problem that they're seeing is virus that has survived over the summer and is now causing a problem again. Last year, again, we didn't have anything like the same number of problems that they had down south. And so the assumption is that the other part of the jigsaw is that there is just less virus around in Scotland even though we do have substantial numbers of wild birds. And can I just clarify? Is it the same virus and which virus is it? It's H5N1. Flu viruses are classified according to their hemagglutin in the H number and the N number. And that gives a broad categorisation. But like human flu viruses, they're constantly adapting and evolving. So H5N1 is the broad type, but there can be lots of different changes. And what we do is genetic analysis and gene sequencing to understand pathways, how it transmits, how it's adapting. That's why we're relatively comfortable saying some of what's happening in England is a spillover from last year rather than all being new introductions this year. I was wondering if you could say in your view why it is that we're seeing such different numbers in different parts of the UK and to what extent it's down to maybe more effective biosecurity measures or to what extent it's simply about the density of population of birds or whether it's that we're maybe, I don't know if that applies like it did with Covid, maybe we're behind the curve and it's coming up here. Yeah, we certainly could be behind the curve and so we're continually monitoring what's happening so that if we need to take further measures we can. As I said in the previous answer, we have slightly different populations of overwintering waterfowl. We have a less high density of poultry within different areas of Scotland. The problems that we saw last summer were largely in seabirds but seabirds don't tend to interact and come inland. Gannots, gillimots, cormorants would normally be coastal birds and then in the winter they take themselves back out to sea again. Poultry would not tend to access shores, beaches, the Bass Rock or whatever. There are a whole number of factors there. I don't think that it's any one in particular and it is possible that in the next few weeks the picture here will deteriorate in which case we will need to take further action. Thank you very much, convener. I think that we all accept that avian flu doesn't stop at political borders but you are making some persuasive arguments about why the situation at the moment appears to be a bit different in Scotland and in the rest of the UK or in England anyway. Are you in touch with colleagues in England so that you have a kind of advanced picture of what might be coming to Scotland in the future? We have twice weekly CVO meetings, stock takes on a Monday and a Thursday morning as a matter of routine to discuss new outbreaks to understand what's happening. It's not so much that disease is likely to spread from England to Scotland once the wildfowl reach their overwintering grounds. What will make them move is a cold snap and it's very unlikely that England would be colder than we are so they tend not to come north again, but one of the things that we're monitoring is whether further north, so if it becomes very cold in Norway or Iceland that may drive even more birds south to us and that would increase the risk, but the chances of it spreading northwards from England are slim, not impossible, but that's something that we keep talking about and that's why I know what's happening in England with the gene sequencing and where they think they've got recredescence of disease rather than new introductions from wild birds. It's because we communicate well together on a regular basis. Just before we move on to the next topic, you talked about the disease being worse in turkeys and yesterday the Westminster appeared and we heard that I think there's about 8 million turkeys in the UK, but about 50 per cent of the free range turkeys have either died or been slaughtered, about a million birds. What's the picture like in Scotland? Do we have a large, well I suppose it's a mark, whether it's a large scale industry, it would certainly be devastating for those involved in it, but do we have many outdoor flocks of turkeys or chickens that might be destined for the Christmas market? Turkeys we don't have very many at all, we've got a few tens of thousands, they tend to be seasonal producers, people who keep a few hundred turkeys for the local market within Scotland, unlike the commercial turkey production in England. England have slaughtered 1.67 million turkeys, but in context they normally would slaughter about, that 1.67 is for disease control, the normal Christmas market is about 10 million, a proportion of which are slaughtered early in the year and frozen, so I'm not, turkey may be scarcer, but I'm not concerned that there isn't going to be any turkey around this Christmas. Thank you convener and thank you for your evidence this morning, it's been really helpful.  I went to visit Troophead during the summer and it's just devastating particularly in regards to their breeding patterns and how this can affect for many years to come, the numbers of birds there and I noted that you did say, you know, it's very unlikely that the coastal birds would be carrying this to poultry farms, but I think because people have been on quite a bit of high alert within the area, we now have a breakout in the area, there is a perception and a fear there with my constituents and just asking on their behalf as well, you know, what is the likelihood that this is going to really break out into the poultry farms in the area and cause devastation that they are really concerned about. They are wondering why there is no mandatory housing order here as well, so I wonder if you can just explain a bit about that and trying to alleviate some fears. I totally understand that your constituents and most poultry farmers are really really worried about this, but biosecurity by itself is the single most important thing that people can do. Housing is one of the tools that we have in the box. We have not yet gone down the route of mandatory housing, but that's not to say that we wouldn't, but we need to offset that against the pattern that we're seeing and the evidence that housing itself may be a risk factor because it allows lower doses to take a hold and to spread compared to birds that are outside. Absolutely, it's something that I wouldn't rule out. It will depend on a whole number of factors, like migrating patterns, what birds we're seeing, wild birds we're seeing, what the outbreaks are, what the epidemiology is. For example, the outbreaks in the company and your part of the wood have all been in birds that have been housed. They were voluntarily housed. They would normally have been free range, but they were brought inside and then got disease a number of weeks later. The single most important thing that we can do is communicate good biosecurity to those involved. Sometimes it's the little things, things like storing bales of bedding outside where wild birds have access and then taking them inside and taking the wrappers off, spreading whatever's on the top of them around. There are things that we can do before we go to housing, but that's not to say housing wouldn't come in. The question that I've been asked to ask you is the basis of the Government's decision not to require mandatory housing at this time. It's wrapped up in a whole load of other issues around my curiosity about what is currently in place that you're talking about in biosecurity. Is that a formalised order in that zoning? Can you talk us through that and why, perhaps back to the original question, you believe that that is sufficient in terms of what farmers are doing, considering what Karen Adams just said, and my colleague David Dugard, who's been very concerned about what's happening up in Aberdeenshire, and indeed the well-prevelation of bird flu on the Murray-Forth as well? All the administrations across the UK brought in an avian flu prevention zone early in October, which mandated that people must improve biosecurity. There's some quite good guidance about things that people can and should be doing in order to improve that biosecurity, and, importantly, how they can do it. Colleagues within the Animal and Plant Health Agency have been offering advice to different groups who've contacted them. I myself, with Alistair and with APHA, had a meeting with the company that's been badly infected to go through what we had found to explain where we think the deficits are and what could be improved. Biosecurity is key. There is a risk assessment that was carried out by the European Food Safety Authority a number of years ago, which demonstrates that biosecurity will improve things to a factor of 44, housing will improve things by a factor of 2. Coupled with the fact that you may need less virus in housed birds to cause a problem, housing is the last thing to do. It will give added protection when everything else is right, but it won't in itself solve the problem. There are difficulties with housing. We can require mandatory housing if we believe that it will improve the health of the birds, but housing itself causes welfare problems, particularly in smaller and backyard flocks that are not set up to be kept inside. There is always a balance between sheds that are used to having 30,000 to 40,000 birds in them and people who have 20 and have no way of keeping them inside. Just to be clear, on the biosecurity measures, are they exactly the same as what they are in England? Do they have steps to them? No. Biosecurity is an interesting one. Everybody should be practicing as good biosecurity as they can all the time, regardless. The prevention zone is a way of mandating and encouraging people to think more carefully about what they are doing, but every case that we have seen, there have been significant lapses in biosecurity. I have one small point. How does the biosecurity work if you have interaction between wild birds and domestic birds when you cannot stop wild birds? Normally, you would not have that direct interaction. Most poultry farms do not have geese and ducks on their ranges as a matter of course. If they do, there is always the option to house voluntarily, because they cannot keep them off. Part of the biosecurity is having bird scanners, people, dogs or other measures that will keep the wild birds away from their ranges. The ranges are not huge. Even a shed of 32,000 poultry does not have a particularly large range, so a dog going round it a couple of times a day should be enough in most areas to keep the wild birds off. Obviously, the risk is patchy if you have a pond in the middle of your range and we would strongly advise nobody to have a pond in the middle of the range or to fence it off. That may be attractive to wild birds and that will increase the risk, but that is an individual risk for an individual farm and the individual farmer can take actions to mitigate. The housing order would be for the whole of Scotland, so there is a balance between a number of cases, the epidemiology and what else can be done. Do you have any indication of how many poultry farmers have voluntarily housed and those who are making the voluntary decision not to take the moment? Any idea on the balance? I cannot tell you exactly, but we believe that somewhere about 10 per cent are voluntarily housing. That is an estimate based on talking to the egg marketing inspectors. I had a question about, you said that in some premises where the disease has been identified, there have been lapses in biosecurity, so I was wondering what steps are available to the Scottish Government to bring those up to standard and what support is being offered and how those premises will be supported into improving their biosecurity? When we discover a lapse, we will discuss it with the owner, but during avian flu it is often discovered when it is too late to save that crop of birds, however information is given for future years and how it can be improved. We have also done communications with the industry generally and colleagues in APHA and the poultry marketing inspectors who work in my team will also offer advice on biosecurity during routine inspections to try to get people to start thinking more critically rather than just accepting what they have always done. My question was about the criteria that you decide on with regard to housing. I think that you have covered that in a lot of your responses just now. I was interested as well about the combined meetings that you have with the chief veterinary officers from across Great Britain. If you use the same targets or balances or numbers on each of the criteria, is that consistent across the nations? It is relatively consistent, but it is not an absolute because it is not that if you get 12 outbreaks you will house or if there is suddenly a cold snap you will require something different, but we do talk about it. There is a policy group that we are all members of, including Alastair, animal disease policy group, which is where policy decisions are discussed across the UK. That does not mean that we always come to the same policy decision, but it is a place for critical challenge so that if England disagrees with what we are doing, they can challenge and put forward an argument. Likewise, if I think that Wales is housed too early, I can challenge them and ask for input. It is partly about co-operation, but it is also about being a critical friend to each other. It can be quite lonely being a vet with not too many people that you can talk to. It is also a support group where we can bounce ideas off each other. You talked about migrating birds and coming from Eastern Europe and from further north, Greenland and Iceland. Again, what connections do you have with our critical friends in Europe? We continue to monitor the pattern across Europe. There is a group called the international disease monitoring group, which does monthly reports, but it also does preliminary outbreak assessments for new things. That includes avian influenza, but it also scans the horizon for foot and mouth or African swine fever and other diseases. It gives us an early warning of what is happening across Europe. From that, we can look at trade patterns, particularly for other diseases, to see if that puts us at an increased risk. We work with the Met Office to look at weather, long-term, wind direction. We work with an ornithological expert panel to assess wild bird species, what the interactions are likely to be, where they are coming from and to layer that into the information about what species we have seen with disease. It is a bit of a spider's web, which is why I cannot say that this is the trigger. There is an element of what we will know. The other factor is that our wild birds tend to hang around longer in Scotland than elsewhere in GB or UK. Potentially, at the other end of the season, we could want to keep measures in longer. It is important that we do not penalise our producers unnecessarily, because there is only a finite period during which housing and housed birds can still be marketed as free-range. It is just a supplementary on what Jenny has just brought up to you. As someone who clearly remembers the 2000 foot and mouth outbreak and the differentials between the different countries, I am asking your opinion on that. That independence has been able to make those decisions on a country-wide basis, i.e. Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales, making their own decisions. I get that there is this cross-border and collaboration and talking all the time, but how important is it to have that independence to be able to make those decisions independently in your own area? I think that it is important because it allows us to fine-tune things to our local situation. Although housing is across the whole of England, potentially Northumbria and Cumbria could have been excluded from that, because the position there is not that different from Scotland. However, we are stuck within the jurisdictions that we have, so being able to look at things with a lens that says what is right for this area means that we can do the best for our producers and our markets and our consumers, to be honest. The point that I was making is exactly what you put the nail on the head. In 2000, we had a national shutdown. Scotland was completely shut down for Footh and Mouth, and it devastated the industry. I clearly remember that it was a living hell. However, in 2007, there was a much smaller outbreak and it could be contained in pockets. That is crucial in making those decisions, so you need to have that independence to be able to make those decisions. Is that correct? Yes. Footh and Mouth is very different from Avian Flu, however. Footh and Mouth spreads largely by animal movements, and in 2001, when we had the big outbreak, it was animal movements that spread the disease around, and we had pockets of disease in Scotland. In 2007, it was contained to the south-east of England, but that meant that we were able to put forward a case that Scotland should be treated differently. We were able to remove restrictions more quickly, starting with the islands, moving to the mainland, and we also got back our ability to trade internationally more quickly. Just on that, the discussion shall be with the CVOs from elsewhere. There is a call from some quarters for the Scottish Government to practice the precautionary principle, and we have heard some of the reasons why that is a balance. What are the views of the CVOs from the other areas? Do you deal with an isolation? You share information, but you make the decisions individually. Is there an ability to just put in housing orders in certain areas within England or Scotland? Could you impose a housing order for the north-east of Scotland and not for Dumfries and Galloway, for example? To take the second point first, yes, we can, but in the north-east of Scotland, it has all been housed flocks, which is why we have not triggered. Had they all been free-range flocks that were out on their ranges, the decision may well have been different there. Yes, we can do it differentially, but we still need the evidence to do it. The decision making comes down to the CVO in the individual country. However, my colleagues are supportive of the decision that we have made. The justification in Northern Ireland was to make the island of Ireland one group. Christine in England was content that they went before everybody else, and she was supportive of the fact that we did not have the evidence here to justify it. Ultimately, I will advise the cabinet secretary that the decision will be made for Scotland on Scottish evidence, having factored in what others are saying. I guess that there are pros and cons to an individual or a UK-wide basis. Yes, absolutely. In some ways, UK-wide is easier. UK-wide is definitely easier. It avoids criticism. It makes it simple for people to understand what they are doing, but it is not necessarily the right thing to do. At the other end of the season, we could be in a position where we do not want to lift it, and then only Scottish eggs would have to be marketed as barn, rather than across the whole of the UK. It has been really helpful. I think that a few of us on this committee now in your cells are a bit more familiar with viruses and precautionary measures, such as washing our hands and wearing masks and things like that. I understand a bit more than I would have had two or three years ago on precautionary measures, but what are the effectiveness of those things? How precautionary are they? How much of that is dependent on communication with the poultry farmers and their ability to be able to carry out those measures? The biosecurity gives a factor of 44 in improvements. Rather than having 45 flocks infected, if there was absolutely no biosecurity, pristine biosecurity will take it down to one flock. That alone is really important. Of course, levels of biosecurity will put the number somewhere in between. Housing, by comparison, will stop one out of two if it is done. There is a real differential there. I am sorry, I have forgotten the second part of the question. It was asking how effective those measures are, but how dependent that effectiveness is on the communication and the carrying out of it. It is only effective if we can communicate effectively with the industry, because ultimately it is the people on the farms who need to practice the biosecurity, who need to do all the different things. APHA, who deliver for Scotland on the ground, have had some webinars and things for the industry to attend. We have targeted particular companies. The egg marketing inspectors have been talking about biosecurity when they go out, so we are trying very hard to reach producers, but ultimately it depends on the producer actually wanting to do it and see the advantage of it, because all the measures will mean that things take a little bit longer than they would if you just walked into a shed from outside in your ordinary wellies without a boiler suit and don't dip your boots. That is really helpful, because I know that MSP for the area, I want to make sure that that is communicated across as directly as possible and also be able to sign posts to where they can get help and support to be able to carry out those measures. I wouldn't want anybody to go away thinking I am blaming the company in your area. There have been biosecurity failings, but actually they were trying to do the right thing as they saw it, so I do think it's important that we don't start slinging blame around it. Failings should be a way to help people to do it better in the future, not to penalise them. To be honest, some of the questions that I was going to ask have really been covered, but I wonder if you can briefly say something about the effectiveness of different prevention measures that there are. I am not asking to put them in a scale of effectiveness, but you mentioned culls. What are the other options, apart from housing, obviously? Culling is the measure that we currently have. There are vaccines being developed up until now. We haven't been able to use vaccines because that would have badly impacted on our ability to trade in either poultry or poultry products. Vaccines themselves are not easy, like human flu vaccinations. The virus changes very quickly and so repeated vaccination for different strains or different permutations of the same strain would be needed. In birds, it also needs to be two injections at several weeks apart, which makes it expensive. For a broiler chicken, your average chicken that is slaughtered and is on the table at five weeks old is just not practical. There is on-going work looking at how vaccines can be developed, how they can be administered more easily. The other difficulty with current vaccinations is that they are suppressive, not curative. Again, like Covid, they will reduce the signs that the birds show and they will reduce the amount of virus that the birds excrete, but they will not stop them, which is why trade becomes impacted because it is very difficult to differentiate one that has been infected naturally and one that has been vaccinated. It is on the horizon, but it is not ready to use yet, sadly. We are aware that if we start using vaccines, the disease status of the whole of the UK and Northern Ireland would be affected and have an impact on exports. At risk of going off in a tangent, there is a suggestion that, given the short lifespan or cycle of a chicken, the longest is about four months for food production, what is the opportunity to have gene editing to quickly bring in a strain of chicken that is more resistant to avian flu? Is that something that you have looked at? There is also an institute that is looking at susceptibility to flu viruses with the intent of trying to breed a chicken that is more resistant. I would need to check where that research is at. I do not think that it is in any way close to commercial as yet, but it is something that in the future may be a possibility. I am just picking up on Alistair Allan who is asking about different prevention measures. I would be interested to understand from you if anyone has actively looked for HPA-1 virus in outflow water from infected poultry premises and in nearby aquatic environments. Not that I am aware of. I would need to check. There is a lot of science being done. You are not aware of anybody? No, but I know that flu map could potentially look at some of those environmental factors. It is part of the wider impact on wild birds. Flu map is a consortium of scientists who are looking particularly at avian influenza, so we can come back to you with that information. That would be very helpful. I am also interested to understand if it is possible that wild birds might contract HPA-1 from infected poultry operations or indeed infected-released game birds. I understand that the virus is present in pheasants that are raised in France, and then we bring pheasants here to Scotland and then release them every year. Is it possible that that can be adding to the pressure of the virus in Scotland? Theoretically, yes. We did not import pheasants from France this year because of the avian flu situation in France. Pheasants are one of the species that are very susceptible to the virus, so generally, by the time they get sick, they are dying very quickly, and so it would be very surprising not to know that there was virus within them. You are not allowed to release pheasants if they are not well, and in the zones surrounding infected premises, equally, you cannot release pheasants. No pheasants should be released that have the virus, but that is not to say that once they are out in the environment, they could not succumb to the virus that is already in the environment, and then, potentially, they would multiply it up and could spread it back, but it would be an unusual situation to do that. You also asked about spread from poultry premises to wild birds. The reason that, as soon as disease is suspected, birds must be shot inside and then culled and disposed of by incineration or rendering is to prevent virus from getting back out into the environment in substantial quantities. I cannot say for certain that no virus could escape, but it should be a very small amount, and the general scientific consensus is that it would be not significantly adding to what is there in the background anyway. You said that, with the pheasant releases that you are not allowed to, if pheasants are carrying the virus, that they are sick. How is that monitored? It is only monitored by the birds becoming sick and dying, because they are so susceptible. There is no routine testing of birds before they are released, because if they were carrying the virus, they would be sick and it would be very obvious. It is the piece about you are not allowed, so the person who has the pheasant, how do we track that behaviour and their decision to release the birds or not? In the same way as a lot of the things that we do potentially could be enforced by local authorities, the actual enforcement relies on people doing the right thing in the same way that we rely on people within zones not moving or applying for licence or doing the other things. There is some enforcement, but I would be lying if I said that we go out and check all of them on a daily basis to make sure that they are still in pens. We could be confident in saying that nobody is releasing sick pheasants. Nobody is releasing pheasants at this time of year either. They are released in August, early September. I shall thank you very much for this. It has been hugely helpful, however, the evidence that you have given today has been fantastic. However, you have given me about 10 different questions and I will probably not get through them all. I will start off with this. I have a constituent whose free-range birds are about six miles away from Loch Leven.  What can he do in terms of his own biosecurity in order to protect his flock? If, because of that circumstance, could he house his birds but would that cause him to lose his status of free range? A couple of questions there. The first one is to stop the geese landing on his range. Geese mostly defecate from the ground, so it is birds' landing that are the biggest risk not simply flying over. That is not to say that there is no risk from flying over, but it is much less.  However, there are individual flocks for whom housing may be the right answer. Yes, he is at liberty to house them, but yes, after a few days he would lose his free range status. That said, the differential in price on the market between barn eggs and free range eggs at the moment is not great, so it would depend very much on a supermarket contract and what he's tied in to whether there's a cost implication from choosing to house. Okay, sorry, thank you. I was reading my notes as you were. No, I was trying to think if there was anything else that I should have answered. No, no, no, that's ideal. One of the things that they did slightly consuming, as an ex-pigeon fancier, we used to send birds to France all the time, and they were vaccinated even when I was a boy to do that flying. Does the vaccine stop racing pigeons carrying virus? Racing pigeons are generally vaccinated against paramixovirus, which is a different virus, to avian flu. They're not usually vaccinated against avian flu, so they can still go to France and race. There was a problem with Brexit about that in that all lofts had to be registered, but we now have a computer system called the pigeon loft of all things, where people can go on and register, and that allows the appropriate certification to be produced to let them go. If the pigeons were in a zone about 10km round and infected premises, then they couldn't go, but the rest can. Right, okay. One other thing, slightly concerned me earlier on, and I was aware of this, but it hadn't really dawned on me. The vast majority of Turkey producers here in Scotland are small-scale producers, and they'll buy poults for finishing. Where are those poults coming from? They will come from hatcheries, particularly in England, but they've been here for long enough that we're comfortable. When a turkey flock goes down, if it's a breeding flock laying eggs, it will then go on to be hatched. Tracings are done from any infective premises, tracings of people, tracings of products, be that meat or eggs or poultry litter or feed lorries. Eggs for hatching would be traced back to the hatchery if they were laid at a time when we think the birds might have been infected or destroyed. If the biosecurity within the hatchery is good enough, then they're allowed to move under licence. We're comfortable that we haven't brought infection up here, and our production is seasonal, so I wouldn't expect turkey eggs or poults to be coming to Scotland probably until about summer of next year. That's helpful. I'm going to go back about the implications of imposing housing order. A lot of the stuff that we're hearing just now is a demand to get these birds housed, but what I thought was really telling was your 44 against 2. The housing order was the thing that was going to protect the birds. As a livestock keeper myself, biosecurity was always the thing that you had to worry about. I think it was really important that we get that message across, that your personal biosecurity is far more important than the actual housing, given the fact that you've got this factor of 44 as against the factor of 2. Are we getting that message across adequately? We can always do better. We're trying to get the message across, but some people are just so worried about it that they're not hearing. It's slightly counterintuitive that if you have birds out in a range where there might be wild birds, housing them is not as protective as getting rid of your rodent problem or stopping wild birds flying into your sheds. We can always do better. We're trying hard to get the message out and I would welcome any help from anybody who can help to get that message out because there's always more we can do. We are in regular discussion with Robert Thomson and Penny Middleton and others from NFUS. I speak to the British Poultry Council, the British Egg Industry Council, Scottish Free Range Egg Producers Association and I try to get messages to backyard keepers as well, but they're by far the hardest group to get to because there is no body that disseminates things to them. If the Government imposed a housing order, would that in itself protect the status or if you don't mandate the order to house them and choose to house them themselves, they will lose their free range status after a few days. If you mandate them to house them, would they maintain their free range status? Yes, that's the key difference. If the Government requires housing, the free range status can be protected for 16 weeks, which means that for a laying hen that has a lifespan of usually 60-70 weeks, that's only a small part. For broiler crops that finish within four to five weeks, potentially you could have two or three crops of birds that have never been outside and still marketed as free range. Again, there's a balance. Housing is not the only answer, but there's a time and a place. The problem from the Government's point of view is that housing is not necessarily the thing that's going to stop the spread of the outbreak. Yes, that's it exactly. It's not a silver bullet to stop the spread of an outbreak. It's not without concerns about welfare because birds that have been used to going outside that are suddenly cooped up will do a lot of feather pecking and damage themselves and don't have the same free access. I've forgotten what the third point was, but that's probably enough. That's probably it. If there's a mandatory housing order, you're saying that the free range status wouldn't change or would it? It would not change for 16 weeks, four months. So there's an extension to what would be if they voluntarily housed? If they voluntarily housed, they can do that for a few days on the advice of their own vet, but they can't house for that prolonged period and keep their status. Okay, thank you. That's a good clarification. Beatrice Wishart. Thanks, convener. It's just a very short question. When you're balancing up whether or not a housing order is appropriate or not, what weight do you put on the implications that it will have on the producers and ultimately on the supply chain? Ultimately, I make the decision on disease prevention because that's what the legislation says. If government requires housing to prevent disease, then the status may be maintained. I can't make a decision on anything else, but of course it's at the back of my mind. My heart goes out to producers at the moment. They're having a really horrible time, not just with avian flu, but with cost-pride increases and contracts and things. You can answer this. I understand that there's been an easement of marketing rules in England, and I think that there's going to be a derogation that we're going to be dealing with on 14 December, which would allow the early slaughter and freezing or the slaughter and freezing of turkeys or geese or whatever, and they would be allowed to be defrosted before put on the shelves again. We're going to look at that. That's one intervention. When it comes to compensation, at the moment, the compensation rules around birds being slaughtered, there's questions over whether it's satisfactory and whether those payments should be made, whether prior to a cull being carried out or after to ease cash flows and whatever. We've also placed a lot of emphasis on biosecurity. Should there be emergency support for those businesses that need to put in additional biosecurity to help protect the national flock rather than just individual businesses? Is that something that the Government should be considering? That's a really difficult one. Because the disease doesn't spread from one flock to another, just because your neighbour has gone down doesn't put you at significantly increased risk. And ultimately biosecurity is something that people should be doing for themselves to protect their own birds. Whether those are five birds in the back garden that you think of as pets or whether that's half a million birds, it's in the producer's own gift to do it, but it's to his advantage. The point about freezing, yes, that was an easement that was put in first in England to allow particularly turkey producers to slaughter early and market. The same is happening here for a prescribed period from, I think, it's from the 28th of November to the 14th of December just to make sure that turkeys are available. It's unlikely to have a major effect here because of the small production that we have. Scotland has always had a different compensation policy to England. In Scotland, we pay compensation from the point at which I confirm disease at market value. The market value is assessed by looking at the price paid for birds over the last couple of months and averaging it, so we're actually in a better position there. By paying from the point of confirmation, that's the point at which the owner has no further control over their flock, but it also incentivise early reporting because we don't pay for birds that have died before confirmation. Okay, that's it. We've got three very short supplementaries. We've run out of time. I'm going to go to my series, Rachel, then, Jim Fairlie. So they are on a new topic. Final, very short supplementaries. Okay, so they're on climate change. It's been said that climate change is bringing wildlife in closer proximity to human settlements, so that increases the likelihood of illnesses such as Covid-19 among human populations. I will be interested to hear if there is a similar increased risk with diseases that affect animals, for instance, with avian flu. So the short answer is yes. Climate change is changing the patterns of particularly migration and means that we as humans are now coming into either species or of animals that we wouldn't previously or we have longer contact with others. The particular concern is not avian flu because it's particularly a disease of the cold and the wet and climate change is likely to result in the temperature going up. So avian flu is not a good example, but things like West Nile disease, which is spread by midges and mosquitoes, that could find a further north range as the climate warms up and habitats become suitable for other species. What are the sort of measures, long-term measures or mitigations that the Government is looking at to make us populations of animals more resilient to climate change? I should give us a brief. That is open in a whole new kind of climate warms that is not specifically related to avian flu. If you could just give us a very brief... We're monitoring what's going on elsewhere in the world so that we've got early warning. Some of the diseases we can vaccinate against but don't routinely because they're not a problem here. Vaccination could be available and new vaccines are being developed all the time. Thank you. If you thought there was more you could add, I'm sure the committee would welcome your writing to us to highlight some of the main concerns you have. There's probably not a lot else. Okay, thank you. Rachel Hamilton. It's just two questions. One is on the current biosecurity measures that you mentioned, whether you've got five hens or five hundred, five thousand, whatever it might be. There are fines that lie within that if you don't adhere to them, is that correct, such as Birmingham control and others? In terms of the number of people that adhere to this, as you said, it only works and it's only successful if everybody does that. Is there any way of monitoring that and how is it, even if there is an avian flu that's prevalent in a particular region of Scotland? How is that monitored? Secondly, to whom does one report an incident of avian flu? Is that through DEFRA or is that a specific Scottish line? No, it's a GB helpline that DEFRA administers for the whole of Great Britain. And you monitor that? Yes. They record the data and they arrange people to sample, but we get weekly reports from them on how many, where, what's come back positive and also what's come back negative. So just quickly, are there numbers of reports higher than the numbers of those that you have found? Is there a large number of reports that people are worried about avian flu? There's a larger number than have come back positive because the reporting system is set up to advise us about the risk to poultry. So once we know that Grey Lag Geese on the Solway are positive, then we won't sample more Grey Lag Geese on the Solway for a period of usually a couple of weeks because we know what the problem is there. So there will always be more reports than are actually sampled. The helpline is very much about sampling and understanding where the disease exists and in what species. It's not about collecting carcasses. Okay. I'm not going to ask the next question, which you can imagine what I'm going to ask, which is the time lag between the reporting and the thing, but I won't ask that. There's only a couple of days. Right. Okay. So there we are. Jim Fairlie. Sheila, you've been taking through the military.  I didn't want to come back on one thing. Has egg production in the country been affected by bird flu? Yes, but not as much as it's been affected by price increases and people choosing not to restock when their egg laying flock is depopulated. I don't have the Scottish figures, but as GB, the number of hens on the ground is about 1.7 million down from where it was last year, purely because people have chosen not to because they lose money on egg production. Avian flu, by comparison, has killed maybe a million birds, but a lot of these people are going back into production. Yes, so the reports that Avian flu is causing the egg shortage are not entirely correct. They're not wholly accurate. There is an effect from Avian flu, but it's not the primary problem, it's a contributing factor. The primary problem is price to producer. Yes. Thank you. It's a yes or a no question, really. What role do local authorities have as public health bodies? Do they have a role in inspecting or where does that role fall? Yes, they do. The response to Avian flu is very much a partnership between lots of different bodies and the local authorities are the enforcement agency, but when there's an outbreak, they also help with food patrols. One of the things that I didn't say is that around uninfected premises, we will do food patrols to find out what other poultry are there and to make sure that it's healthy. That's one of the roles that local authorities take on, but enforcement is their main role. Do you have any concerns about the capacity within local authorities to carry out those requirements? Our experience is that local authorities are prioritising it, but they're always telling us that resources are stretched and they're having to do that at the extent of something else. Okay, thank you. You mentioned that you might have issues, or there could be potential issues, getting the message out there. I would suggest that, given the considerable interest that there is in Avian flu, your contributions today will have assisted in getting the message out there. Thank you very much for your detailed and fascinating contribution today. We all appreciate it. I'm sure that the wider community will also appreciate your contribution today, so thank you very much. Okay, thank you all. We will now suspend for a short comfort break and we'll come back to bigger pardon. We know that we're going to deal with the UK subordinate legislation now, so my apologies. We have consideration of consent notification relating to UKSI, the plant health amendment EU exit regulations 2022. Do any members have any comments on the notification? No. Are members content with the Scottish Government's decision to consent to the provision set out and the notifications being included in UK rather than the Scottish subordinate legislation? Content. Okay, that concludes our business in public and we'll now move into private session. We will reconvene in 10 minutes.