Thank you very much everyone and welcome to the 18th meeting of the brutal affairs and national environment committee's meeting in 2022, before we started by becoming in mind to use electronic devices to please switch them to chilled. Our first item of business today is an evidence session on the Yep the hunting with dogs's Scotland bill with the Scottish Government bill team. I welcome Hugh Dignan, the head of the wildlife and the flood management unit. Leah Fitzgerald, the team leader from the legislation team and solicitors Hazel Riley and Amy Hogarth, good morning. We're just going to kick off with questions, we've got around about 75 minutes. I'd like to ask, we've had a huge response to the survey and the questionnaire that was put out, but it would appear that it's very mixed with 50 per cent of those responding for the bill and 50 per cent not, so it looks like there's almost a perfect split between those who wish to continue with the legislation at the moment and those who wish to see changes. Does that mean that you've got this bill wrong? Well, I sincerely hope not. This has been an issue that has been sort of in the Government's mind for a long time. It goes back to when we asked Lord Bonomy to review the existing legislation back in 2015 and I think that was against the background of fairly widespread concern that although people in Scotland largely thought that fox hunting was banned, there were still activities on-going that looked very much like fox hunting and alongside it there were very few prosecutions, so there were some big question marks around that. At the time when we asked Lord Bonomy to do a review and he carried out his review and then reported in 2016 and we consulted on those proposals at the time. There was a large majority then in favour of the sort of changes that were being proposed by Lord Bonomy. I think in terms of how people are responding to this bill, we know it's a very polarising issue. We know there are people who feel very strongly against it. There are people who feel very strongly in favour of further restrictions and I guess the response to any consultation is likely to pick up those sort of strong views on either side. Our suspicion is that the large majority of people in Scotland are concerned about the use of dogs to hunt mammals and want to see that tightly controlled and the activity of chasing and killing mammals to be banned and I think most people would think that that's what the law already does but maybe it doesn't do it as effectively as it should so I think that we've got the bill right and I think that that's what our ministers think too. Thank you. You mentioned the Lord Bonomy review. Why haven't you followed its outcomes given it? It was an independent and fairly wide and robust review. Why have you strayed away from Lord Bonomy's recommendations? Well I think for the most part we've followed his recommendations especially around the sort of key issues that we asked him to look at which was around how effective is the bill and its use of language and its drawing up of the offences and its usableness by prosecutors and police officers and so on so that I mean to that extent we have largely followed it. There are of course those you'll be well aware a number of areas where we didn't pursue it around the introduction of vicarious liability and the reverse burden of proof and we've also added some other elements in which have been things which we've developed independently of Lord Bonomy's thinking. Thank you. I'll move to questions from Alasdair Allan. Thank you, convener. I appreciate that you're not here to speak for the political or wider ethical issues here so I mean if I can concentrate on some of the stuff that's gone into the bill I just wondered if you could explain a bit about the aims in the sense of what bits of 2002 specifically the government is seeking what loopholes it is seeking to plug. I don't look for a comprehensive list but we're at the point now obviously where this has to be explained and debated with the public so can you set out what those aims are and what loopholes you're seeking to plug? Well as I mentioned a number of issues around the language that was used in the 2002 act and I'll ask my colleague Leah to talk about those in a minute but there are also to say some other issues where we thought that I think with the benefit of reflecting on that legislation it was the first legislation of its type in the UK and looking at how things developed in other parts of the UK and our own experience with operating it here and so on we thought there were further things which we could build into that so those are as you know the things like the two dog limits and so on and the licensing schemes associated with that but if I may I'll ask Leah to talk about the specific way that we changed the wording to deal with some of the offensive is that okay Leah? Yeah so as you know we took the approach instead of seeking to amend the original legislation to bring forward a new act and that just allowed us to you know tackle the language issues and just overall modernise it but you know for example Lord Bonomy raised issues with the word deliberately and that was potentially stopping successful prostitutions being brought because of the threshold and you know the sort of uncertainty as to what constituted you know deliberate so and that was one of the things that we looked at and we sort of introduced the phrase using a dog to make it sort of clear that it's the person who is doing the hunting and not the dog and so that will also make sure that it's clear that if somebody's just out walking their dog and the dog runs off that they're not guilty of over the fence that wouldn't constitute hunting and we also just updated some of the the language to make those sorts of things clear I think as Lord Bonomy acknowledged in his report in spite of the fact that under the 2002 act hunting with dogs was bad that you know evidently suggested I think up to 30% of foxes were still being chased and killed by dogs so that clearly shows that there were issues with the act and it was very clear from the responses to regional consultation that even among stakeholders there was a lot of uncertainty as to what certain provisions and actually meant and what it allowed them to do so we've kind of seeked to you know address it from the top down by hopefully having very clear provisions which say what is and isn't permitted. Can I ask also on that point or related to those points in seeking to address welfare concerns in in this piece of legislation is a distinction being drawn between mounted and other types of hunts at any point given that given these are different activities or are they both being treated the same? No it's quite clear from all of the work we've done in developing it that you know the act is about the use of dogs for hunting any wild mammals I think a lot of people kind of look at the original act just through the lens of fox hunting but it's only one kind of type of wildlife management that's undertaken with dogs so we needed to make sure that in developing the act it addressed all of the welfare concerns for example with deer stocking with using dogs to search and locate for wild mammals so it's very much about ensuring that a permitted activity is where dogs are used it's addressing how the person that is using the dogs so some people will conduct that activity on quad bikes on suit on horses there'll be various different ways but what this bill is addressing is if they're doing those activities and dogs are involved how can dogs be used and what are you permitted and not permitted to do with the dogs? Thank you and finally and again thinking of welfare concerns and the aims that lie behind the piece of legislation you mentioned how the existing legislation relates or doesn't relate effectively to the police officers and the judicial process how do you feel that the new legislation would make this more justiciable if that's the right word or more appropriate when it comes to how it's dealt with by the police? So when they spoke to the police some of the issues they sort of identified that we've addressed in the bill would be you know in terms of the definition of cover so you know the intention is that as soon as an animal is flushed from cover then you know it is you mainly dispatched and that was one of the areas that was open to a lot of debate in the existing act as to what constituted cover and if that was kind of being disputed then it could be hard to establish whether you know somebody was illegally hunting because they would say well the animal is still in cover so I'm still flushing other people would have a different view and say you know you should have taken steps to have shot the animal at that point because it emerged from cover we also sort of addressed some of the welfare issues and issues in Police Scotland by redefining the definition of wild mammal to include rabbits so that was an issue that that was being raised both on welfare grounds excluding rabbits from the act but also it was providing a route whereby haircoursers were sort of explaining that as a loophole and saying you know police had very strong suspicions that they were out here coursing they were like no no I was hunting rabbits my dog got confused and it you know accidentally killed a killed a hare instead of a rabbit so now we're kind of making it clear that you know whether your dog you know hunts and kills a hare or a rabbit both of those are offensive thank you and Burgess thanks leader um so you broadly responded to most of my questions but Minister Mary McCallan stated that chasing killing a mammal with a dog for sport or otherwise has no place in modern Scotland and this view is shared by 77 of Scottish public who said in response to a 2019 poll that the existing legislation to protect animals from hunting needs to be strengthened is important to remember that protecting animal welfare is a key concern for many people and it's a key driver for this bill can I ask why the name of the bill is hunting with dogs when the name of the previous act the protection of wild mammals better reflects the animal welfare motivation a lot of debate about that my slb colleagues might want to say a little bit more if I kind of miss any of the the key points I think it kind of came down to how we define hunting so hunting does include elements of chasing and killing but also you know stocking and flushing so what we have set out to do is take the approach that hunting is permitted but these are the parameters under which it's done and that you know hunting wild mammals if you're using dogs then you know chasing and killing is not part of that but other elements such as the stocking and flushing are so yeah I understand that some people have concerns about that but I think we're very clear that this is being brought forward to ensure that when dogs are used to search for a flush wild mammals it's done in a a humane way and that you know hunting as in the elements involved chasing and killing are not permitted they weren't permitted under the existing legislation and then they are certainly not permitted under this legislation thanks I mean it just it seems odd to me I mean uh so we have we have an act that's about protecting wild mammals and we're and this bill will replace it entirely yep no yes no I think it's also important to to realise that there are a number of acts of parliament that are about protecting wild animals that's what I was wondering so I mean you know the the well left and countryside act and the conservation regulations the protection of badges act and so on so this is specifically about the use of dogs and I think it's quite important that that's clear to people that if they want to know about how they can use dogs in this context this is whether the appropriate legislation sits okay thank you thanks community thank you Jim Fairlie yeah thanks for not just coming out I just want to go back slightly if you don't mind to what you're saying about um flushing in the policy memorandum in session 21 of the policy memorandum it says Lord Bonimace quotes in general 20 more of foxes disturbed by hunts are killed in this way by hounds and he noted that there were legitimate grounds for suspicion the present arrangements were covering were providing cover for unlawful use of dogs contrary to the intention of the act and illegality erasing the concerns of welfare of foxes and other wildlife and one of the things that was mentioned in there was the fact that sometimes a fox would be killed before it was flushed so while it was still in cover so can I just get an understanding of what you mean or when if a fox was killed and the purpose of this is to stop them being chased through open countryside doesn't that kind of defeat the argument in that if people are finding a loophole if a fox is killed while it's still in cover there's very little you can do about that does that make sense yeah I think so we've sort of tried to look at how hunting is done so you know the reason for using dogs is to to flush you know an animal from cover because otherwise you would just be able to shoot the animal if you can see the animal clearly you don't need to use dogs because you can take a clear shot so the flushing from cover is to address the issues where the fox is concealed in such a way that you can't take take a shot but you know when you look at how somebody who's carrying out wildlife management you know is doing it they will take the first opportunity where they can safely and you mainly dispatch that animal when people are carrying out illegal hunting you know they don't want to you know the animal to be there they want the chase element of it here coursing for example so they will seek to flush so that's my point they're not really breaking the law by deliberately allowing a fox to escape and I'm going to continue with foxes because that's where a lot of the concern with us is so they're not breaking the law if a fox is killed before it escapes because the purpose as you've just said is to actually have the hunt I fully understand the problem that we have if a fox escapes and they go hey Tyler who were off and they would start chasing a fox in the countryside would that not be alleviated by having more guns and making sure there was at least a minimum number of guns to make sure that that fox never gets past a line of guns would that would that not cover that problem so yeah as I said this would just sort of yeah make it clear what we're trying to eliminate is is a chase element so if you can dispatch a fox you know that's quickly without that so let me give you the scenario if you've got a pack of dogs hunting a cop and a fox is flushed but you've got two guns standing 75 yards either side and the fox goes through the middle you've got to get after it so I can understand that that's a loophole I can understand that that would cause genuine concern but if you've got a cops and you've got dogs hunting it through by and large most foxes will never ever see the hounds because they're on their way out of the other end if you've got 10 guns along the top that fox isn't going to get past the guns therefore it's dead before the hounds or anyone near it would that not have satisfied the problem of chasing across open countryside that has something that has been brought up I'm not sure how you would practically mandate a set number of guns I'm not saying it couldn't be done if you're licensing a hunt to control a predator surely part of the license should be and when you're hunting you must have a minimum number for a specific area now that could be worked by practical land managers and if the loss of hounds or horses or anything else is the penalty for them failing to do that I would have thought if the measures were so strict for them they're going to make sure that they comply with the law we're still developing the licensing scheme so we can certainly take a note of that and you know consider whether having one of the conditions of the licensing scheme and something as you suggested would be possible and not so we can have a look into that okay thank you I'll move on from there under what circumstances the Scottish government would consider it to be appropriate to make use of this exception so we're talking about the exception for the two-dog rule for example what circumstances constitute serious damage to livestock woodlands or crops and then what circumstances would be appropriate for the use of exception for protecting human health and preventing the spread of disease so basically we're saying why would there be exceptions what would be the grounds under which there would be exceptions can you give us a kind of broad outline of what you're trying to achieve there so for where we don't have a specific definition within the act and we would sort of rely on the ordinary meaning of the word so serious damage would be damage that you know was considered not to be sort of minor or negligible so if you think probably the issue that we're all aware of in Scotland is the serious damage that deer can do to woodland so deer are obviously controlled and dogs can sometimes be used so when we're talking kind of serious damage to um you know woodland then I think deer would be a good example okay Hugh Euclid I want to commend that well I was just going to say that lot the licensing provisions here clearly are designed to mirror the licensing provision which are already in existence in section 16 of the wildlife and countryside act by that term the prevention of serious damage is is used so it's a concept that the licensing authority are already familiar with and so it I mean ultimately it is a matter of judgment for them but there have been sort of I've been involved in discussions in the past for example over the potential licensing of control of buzzards around pheasant pence and that was something which didn't really get anywhere in the end but a sort of benchmark figure that was accepted by the land managers and by the licensing authority authority at the time was something like 10% of sort of losses so that sort of thing might be okay something which I mean so I'm not saying that that would inevitably have to be the figure but it there'll be work by the licensing authority looking at specific cases and bearing in mind that this is a concept which is used across the whole range of licensing to assess what constituted serious damage okay I want to look at it from a sheep farmer's point of view giving my backness a sheep farmer serious damage to a sheep farmer is when a fox is coming in lifting lambs either killing lambs and taking tails and ears as trinkets for cubs or killing lambs to feed young cubs or just killing for their own food 10% is a colossal figure for a sheep farmer to have lost to a fox kill haven't been on the receiving end of that kind of killing I'm well aware of the distress that that causes not only to your lamb and percentage but also to you as the shepherd sheep farmer going out every morning and getting these kills so one of the things that slightly concerns me about this area is the licensing being granted to me serious damage is anything where where a fox is predating pens environmental issues well that'll come on later on who decides what is serious damage because the person who's actually in the position of looking after the livestock whatever it is it's in their charge if nature scot comes back as well we don't consider that a serious damage how do you come to a balance of that well as I say I mean ultimately it will be decision for the licensing authority and of course you know those decisions can be challenged through court process but I'm not saying that's a way a route that people are naturally going to want to be going down but it will be a matter for discussion between the license applicant and the licensing authority so I mean if for example there are losses which mean that your business is unsustainable clearly that is serious damage on the other hand there may be some losses which are considered part of usual business risk so again I think these are things which will need to be worked out in the process of setting up the licensing scheme as to what in particular circumstances amounts to serious damage for a particular type of business in particular circumstances I don't think it would be appropriate for us to give a hard and fast rule or to try and pre-empt the decisions of the licensing authority at this stage but I think what we are trying to get at is that this is a serious step we believe that the use of more than two dogs presents a real danger to not only to the mammal which might be being hunted or pursued or controlled but also to other wildlife and that we want to make sure that that serious step is only taken where it can be justified so we are looking at a number of conditions for example that other potential avenues are explored before that license is granted and that license is granted in circumstances which do amount to a serious situation but I fully accept that what constitutes a serious situation may vary from business to business and in from one circumstance to another that's why I don't think it's possible for us to say at this stage what it might be but it would need to say it would need to be a reflection of the fact that we think that this is not a default step that licensing of the use of more than two dogs is a serious step and something which requires proper consideration by the licensing authority okay thanks for watching me and I will let you come back in on timing of license at a later point it's just a pick up on something that Eugenine said to Jim there you mentioned there an appeal process but within this bill there is no provision for an appeal process and if you're going to argue that it's part of consultation to do with licensing then the financial memorandum says there are no costs on other bodies, individuals and businesses arising from the provisions of the bill so therefore why have you separated that and made that comment within the bill but then also have omitted or is it an oversight and drafting of the bill that you've omitted omitted the appeal process for farmers for example who from what Jim has questioned are going to experience severe loss I'm sorry if I've sort of misled you there there isn't an appeal process in the bill I was talking about there are processes by which a decision can be challenged through judicial review and also of course by the internal complaints process of nature scott there isn't an appeal process in this bill in the same way that there aren't appeal processes for any other licensing procedures that we're at present in things like the wildlife and countryside act or in the nature conservation regulations and you know we are following that precedent at this stage but I suppose it is fair to say that the whole range of licensing operations the way licensing is carried out by nature scott is the subject of quite a major review which is part of the bute house agreement and programme for government so yeah thank you and we're just going to bring in Alasdair Allan to go back to the section 1 and 2 of the bill on offences Alasdair thank you can be enough and we're just really to ask about rabbits since they got to mention earlier on in your contribution and how the bill has been drafted to avoid any unintended consequences around that I mean the obvious one is the example of a dog that slips its lead and chases after a rabbit is that captured by the bill or does the bill deal with that scenario so I think as I said sort of earlier because of the way we've framed the bill that hunting is defined as you know it's a person who hunts so they hunt using a dog not the dog so no we're not structuring such a way that accidental we accept accidental chasing will go on with you know dogs pet dogs in the park we've all kind of seen them sort of you know taken off occasionally and that's not an offence under this act if somebody is you know deliberately hunting or for example if somebody was out walking their dog their dog started chasing a wild mammal and they just let it happen you know sat down and just you know took no steps to you know try and recall their dog or you know stop it you know carrying that out then potentially and it would be obviously up to the courts and the prosecution that you know could be deemed as deliberate hunting because although they didn't set out with that intention a hunt has you know developed and they've taken no actions to stop it but you know not where it is a genuine accident as you said the dog slips away and catches a rabbit before anybody can do anything to stop it and can ask it finally can be there just related to that again on rabbits at just some indication as to why why the bill is framed with reference to rabbits the way it is and how you're making sure of avoiding unintended consequences i'm thinking of pest control here and avoiding leaving people thinking that they have other options probably less palatable in terms of welfare than this so just curious to know why the bill was framed the way it is around rabbits with regard to pest control in mind so rabbits were originally were excluded from the 2002 act so that meant that while you were not permitted to allow a dog to chase and kill a hare you could allow a dog to chase and kill a rabbit so that has obviously welfare implications rabbits and hares are very similar and if we're saying there are serious welfare reasons that you would not allow a dog to kill a hare then i think it seems illogical to exclude rabbits as i said also we kind of have evidence that people were carrying out hair coursing under the guise of rabbit control and obviously hair coursing that's a serious crime and we're seeking to you know close any loopholes to stop that activity happening so those were were the reasons for bringing rabbits within the definition of wild mammal when they were previously excluded just on that so it's so really the only reason you brought in rabbits is to stop hair coursing because right across the country every single day of the year that by a young farmer he'll go out hunting rabbits maybe with his dogs not only his pest control because rabbits in many places can be defined as a pest where hares certainly can't be and then those rabbits are a source income as well so as that type of hunting going to be feel the impact of this just to close a loophole over hair coursing no not at all as i said you know it's welfare as well but there is nothing in this act that stops people going out and you know controlling rabbits and using dogs to do so the only thing that this act is stopping them doing which they could do previously is allowing the dog to kill the rabbit so they will have to shoot the rabbit or use another permitted method of of dispatch but the reasons that you talked about for example going out and taking a rabbit home for the the dinner pot you can still do that you can still go out and take your dogs out if you just need to you know shoot the rabbit okay very small supplement sorry i'm just going to press you on that point are we specifically talking about guys who will ferret rabbits and then allow lurchers to kill them is that what you're trying to stop no as i said we're you know trying to close down a loophole whereby people will go out and you know hair coursing claim that they were they were hunting rabbits or to acknowledge the welfare implications but where people are you know carrying out legitimate rabbit control that is still permitted we're just sort of caveating that and saying when you're doing that control you have to make sure that if there are dogs involved and not everybody who hunts rabbits uses dogs that the dogs are not permitted to chase and kill kill the rabbit so is that one element of it okay i'm slightly confused now because there is a genuine method of controlling a a warren if a warren is sitting right beside an arable plantation and they want to clear that warren out so that you don't get crop damage quite often what a keeper will do is he'll have a couple of lurchers or two or three lurchers or a terrier whatever dogs it is ferrets will go down they'll flush the rabbit out now when the best one in the world the rabbits can come out three and four at a time and the dogs will get them you're not going to just stand there we are going to go by by by because it's just not feasible to do it because you've got a gun in your hand would that then become illegal under this act but there was a question which occurred to me at the time and we i had some discussions with Bask as you know bridge association of shooting conservation and their view was that that sort of activity you were talking about was very rare nowadays that most people would use guns that they would put ferrets down into into a warren or into rabbit holes and and shoot or rather than do be dogs but yes i mean killing rabbits with dogs would not be lawful okay thank you just so we're clear on that point i am very confused about this as well i mean hair coursing um could you know those people who carry out that without permission on um land but they haven't got permission for would it not have been simpler to have just kept the existing exclusion for rabbits um and that but that required landowner permission so do you not think that a hair courser if they were caught is going to use the the would they be able to use that defence still within this bill of um hunting for something else anybody can go out and say that they're hunting for for something else but um if you know that hunt is deemed not to be you know conducted so um if their dog is found to have you know chased and killed a rabbit or a hare then they will you know potentially um be guilty of of an offence and as i said it's not just about the hair course and there is the welfare element as well this is a bill where we sought to address welfare issues and it seemed quite anomalous that you're not permitted to use dogs to kill hares but you could use them to kill rabbits are you worried that this is being rolled in this intention to try to sort out hair coursing within this which is called hunting with dogs rather than looking at the wildlife and countryside act 1981 so prosecutions are brought in terms of hair coursing under this act so um as i said we have you know had discussions with with the crown and we have had discussions with the police and you know it was police Scotland who did raise the issue of mammals being you know rabbits being excluded from definition of mammal and that you know can sometimes you know frustrate them in their efforts to deal with hair courters so we listened to the views of stakeholders and as i said we sought to address welfare issues as well okay i know i'm going on but i just want to make this point so to deal with the issue of hair coursing which there are not many prosecutions in scotland whatsoever we're rolling it into this and we're bringing in rabbits which are killed as an effective measure to protect livestock and used for the pot i just think it's just really strange and i just i think we need some more clarification on that but not now because i know we haven't got time thank you thank you arianne bodges okay thanks convener just in the um in part one it's still around the definition of wild mammal and i'm just you know interested to understand why a rat and a mouse are not included in that definition in the interest of all animals being sentient so um yeah again that was something that we we considered and that we had discussions with with stakeholders i think um in the responses that um your committee received at animal welfare commission made the point as other stakeholders have made that although you know it might kind of seem to be quite unpalatable because of the way that the physiology of of rats and mice that um a well-trained terrier is probably capable of dispatching them in a more humane manner when you compare it with some of the other legal and permitted methods such as redenticides and there's been a lot of research published recently it was kind of ranks the different ways of killing rodents in terms of what is you know deemed to be humane and i think redenticides kind of are sort of there at the bottom so accepting that it is necessary something for people to you know control rats and mice you know particularly for reasons of public health or to protect agriculture then um i think we came down unreflectional on the view that continue to exclude them um would not bring the same welfare concerns that um compared to other animals which are included within the definition thanks very much that's very helpful and clarity we can now move on to sex questions on section three of the bill um Beatrice Wishart thanks convener and good morning colleagues and good morning panel um i just would like a bit of explanation as to the reasons for introducing the two dog limit i think it would be useful to have an explanation on that point and also an indication of how that limit has worked in england and wales um as you'll be aware this was something which we talked about and and thought about in a sort of post-bonomy the review and i think it was one of these things as i said earlier where we reflected on how the legislation had worked in scotland and how there was a perception that hunting was still going on despite the fact it was apparently banned by the 2002 acts and we were concerned that not only were the issues around the language and the consistency of the way that that was framed in the legislation but also about really the potential exploitation of loopholes by people who were determined to frustrate the legislation and we also were aware that there were genuine issues around the ability of anyone to really significantly control a pack of dogs so a number of these issues came together and and we you know freely admit that we looked at how it worked in other in other countries and we thought that this would be a way of dealing with some of those issues it would mean that it would greatly reduce the risk of a pack of dogs not being in sufficient control and being allowed to or not being allowed to but in effect chasing and killing mammals we also thought that it would reduce the potential impact on other wildlife where dogs were used so you know whether it's other mammals in a piece of woodland or birds or nesting birds or so on so there were issues around that and I guess it was really to to address primarily that the welfare issues which were identified by Lord Bonomy where he said a significant number of foxes were still being killed by dogs despite the fact that the legislation had attempted to put an end to that so this was really an additional measure that we thought was necessary to address that issue. In terms of how it's I don't know if you want me to go on and say how it's addressed how it's worked in other countries we're aware that it hasn't been hugely popular at all with particularly with upland sheep farmers in other parts of Great Britain farmers in the north of England and in Wales have complained about that and it was with that in mind that we developed the licensing scheme so that where there were no other realistic options for farmers to protect livestock that we would have this ability to license the use of more than two dogs where that met the conditions which are set out in legislation in terms of preventing serious damage and being no other potential options for dealing with that issue. So in deciding the limit then and thinking of predatory control and the issues that Jim Fairlie has already raised what consideration was given to the welfare of farm animals and for example if a situation arose that needed immediate attention and getting the license isn't always might not always be possible what consideration was given to that. Well I mean it's clearly a high consideration I mean the purpose of preventing damage to livestock is really one of the sort of key issues around allowing the use of of dogs to control predators and so we absolutely recognise that it's very important it's very important from a business point of view but we also know how distressing it is to farmers to lose stock that's a point that's been made to us not just in this context but in the context of other sorts of predators avian predators and as well as mammalian predators we're very well aware of that in terms of how quickly one can get a license well I think nature scot have greatly improved their their systems and are now pretty decent at turning around license applications quite quickly. I was thinking the other day about the the raven licensing scheme which some farmers will be familiar with where they've lost stock lambs and calves to ravens and there was a lot of criticism at the time about the speed with which nature scot were able to produce licenses for that but they have really brought that down by encouraging people who are expecting to have a problem to get an application in early by ensuring that they are familiar with the circumstances on particular farms and the particular environment and the particular situation and whether what sort of forms of predator control are likely to be available so I think there is a good reason to think that nature scot will be able to produce licenses where they are justified in in good order in time to prevent serious damage rather than reacting to serious damage and that after all is really the main objective to prevent serious damage. It's also worth making the point that it will only be a license that will be required if you wish to use more than two dogs so if people need to take immediate action then they have the option of other permitted methods on fox control for example lamping or they can also use two dogs so yes they might want to apply for a license but they will still be able to undertake other methods of predator control while they're waiting for that license application to be considered. Just some supplementary, it's been suggested that the only reason for bringing in a two dog limit is actually to to absolutely stop the traditional hunting with packs that is the only reason it's not actually dining animal welfare but my question is are you confident there's enough expertise within nature scot to decide under the licensing whether three dogs, five dogs, six dogs, eleven dogs are the most animal welfare friendly number of dogs to use in respect of individual applications and also where will these licenses apply so in some land ownership you might find that in some places three dogs is appropriate and in other places it might be eleven dogs. Will individual land owners have to apply for multiple licenses to cover different types of land to ensure that the best method of humanely controlling pests is undertaken? So the bill sets out the overarching principles of how the licensing scheme will operate but we very much expect it will be built upon so there'll be detailed accompanying guidance and further operational administrative elements of the scheme will be developed and you know that will very much done in conjunction with stakeholders we want a licensing scheme you know that is simple it's straightforward that people understand what the licensing scheme allows them to do how they apply so you know that the next step of this process will be that nature scot sitting down with the people who will actually be the ones who will be seeking to apply for the licensing scheme and working with them to work through these questions identify if there are you know evidence gaps that need to be addressed consider these kind of issues what sort of evidence should be brought to bear and we kind of see that as very much being that collaborative approach with stakeholders to make a licensing scheme that not only meets the objectives of the bill but also works for the people who will be applying for an operating under it. Okay am a short supplementary from Jim Fairlie it might not be that short convener it'll need to be we're fast running out of time I'm afraid Hugh I very much take up your point about licensing for raven control I had a severe problem with ravens and when we started off the licensing process it was clunky it took too much time and the damage that was done in the interim was too much but they very quickly got their act together and the licensing worked a treat different were ravens from foxes because a raven you can do control and it's a different method of control I would suggest that licensing for fox control prior to lambing is the important period not during lambing because we don't need proof that foxes kill lambs they do and we don't need proof that the damage that they'll do is is anything other than a reality so the licensing period first of all shouldn't be for a short 14 day period it should be over a season to allow landowners farmers tenants to make sure that they've got numbers under control as much as they can because lay with the best will in the world I don't mean this to be the derogatory lamp of a fox is not an easy thing to do it takes a lot of skill takes a lot of time you've got to know where the movements of the fox are but if you have a licensing scheme where you can control what you know is going to be a predator to your stock prior to lambing starting then you're already halfway there if you wait till after lambing has started the whole disruption then is about your lambing fields and your lambing parks so it urge you to consider how you're going to create this license it shouldn't be 14 days and it shouldn't be during the lambing period would you like to briefly comment on that or what would just take it as a statement no I mean certainly that's obviously we'll listen to all of you know the evidence sessions and different people have different views on the appropriateness of the 14 days but we we picked 14 days because we saw as we said we kind of see this this licensing scheme it can't just be a way of allowing to what is happening to continue to to happen there needs to be clear parameters around it I think you're right that farms will have already very good evidence of the damage that you know foxes can cause cause to sheep so you know I would hope that in those situations they should be able to you know produce that that evidence already which would allow nature's court to make those decisions quite quickly we felt that 14 days was a reasonable amount to struck that the balance between having a licensing system that was practical but also stopping people and being able to exploit that that licensing system and just using it as a way of sort of carrying on the activities that are happening at the moment that we know that are resulting in wild mammals whether accidentally or otherwise being killed with dogs so we want you to have some good strong controls on it but obviously as I said we know there are different views on what the date should be and we'll listen to what you know is said in other evidence sessions. I genuinely accept the wildlife management and the welfare of our I absolutely take that on board but there's got to be a practical solution to this. Thank you move on to Jenny Minto. Thank you convener and thank you panel if I may can I just briefly continue on this line because I too have had concerns raised with me with around about the licensing system but I think people accept that there's got to be the balance to make the application license difficult enough to stop people I suppose abusing the license system but also easy enough for as Jim Fairlie has been talking about farmers at an incredibly busy time so and I also think we need to listen to the different needs across Scotland not everybody walks their dog in a park for example they could be walking it in woodland and raise a hare or raise rabbits so I think it's recognising that across Scotland you've got different terrains and different ways of people working and so really continuing on from Jim Fairlie's plea that there is a listening to the welfare needs of farmers and the animals as well and the balance is made there. My question is specifically around about section 3e and the bringing in of the birds of prey to kill wild mammals. I'm just interested to know what you had in mind there when you were writing this piece of legislation. Obviously we speak a lot about the use of dogs and talked a lot about the use of dogs in terms of fox control but dogs are using a variety of wildlife management situations all of the provisions in the bill and all the licensing provisions have to address when people are using dogs for example in deer stalking or falconry so this is something that I didn't have a lot of knowledge about before I embarked on on this bill but what happens in falconry which is a permitted method of hunting in Scotland so long as you know you do it and adhere to the wildlife and countryside actor or the various other bits of legislation but what a falconry will do so they will go out with their bird of prey and they will take a couple of dogs along with them and the purpose is if you think about bird of prey and you've probably all seen a bird patiently waiting in a field for hours and hours and hours for a rabbit or a hare to emerge from cover if you were to go out there if you're falconry you could be stuck there for a very long time and nothing happening so they will bring one or two dogs along and what the dog will do is just flush that prey from cover and then it means that that bird has got that immediate sight and it will swoop down and it will kill the target prey so it's in Scotland it's kind of rabbits and hares are the sort of the main prey mammals that for falconers so as I said this bill is not seeking to address any issues in relation to hunting people have different views on hunting we are purely looking at where people are carrying out you know legitimate activities be that deer stalking or falconry and they are using dogs how dogs are permitted to be used so all of the the kind of the references for and falcons are what we're thinking in the context of when people are going out doing falconry we're you know not as far as we aware is there anybody out there kind of using falconry birds of prey to catch foxes or you know as part of you know fox control they're kind of using them in the art of falconry and that's what we're addressing okay thank you because I was that thank you for that clarification if I may can I ask as well section e finishes as soon as reasonably possible whereas I believe in the 2002 act there was a mixture of as soon as possible or when it was safe to do so so I'm interested to ask why the reasonably has been inserted so yeah there were a lot of inconsistencies with you know exactly as you kind of made which you know made it made it difficult and you know made people question whether you know different provisions were setting slightly different bars so we sought to have a clarification and use the same words when we were talking about the same thing and kind of reasonably possible and we kind of just sought to have language that was as modern as we do to understand as possible and aligned with you know other wildlife legislation and that was the formulation that we felt kind of best met the objectives okay because I suppose as soon as possible is a clear statement but if the reasonably has been brought into a line with other acts then I suppose that's reasonable okay thank you we're going to move on to questions on section five of the bill thank you convener and good morning to the to the panel today I'd like to ask a couple of questions in regards to the management of wild animals below ground and I would just like to know what is the Scottish government's understanding of the circumstances where it may be appropriate or necessary to to use a dog below ground okay so yeah this is probably one of the I think the most polarizing issues of this bill about the use of dogs below ground I think as we tried to do throughout the act we we tried to look at where the activity is carrying on is it still sort of reasonable or there's still reasons why we would want to permit that activity and if so how do we ensure it's done in a way that is as you know humane and effective as possible so kind of listening to to stakeholders there are instances where a fox rather will will go to ground and in those cases terriers might be used to flush that animal from below ground in order that can then be you know you mainly dispatched so we you know and it was an issue that was also kind of addressed by by Lord Bonomy and we kind of followed his recommendations in that we have sought to you know allow that to continue because we recognise that in some circumstances it helps to facilitate you know legitimate predator control and deal with some of the sort of you know issues in terms of you know fox predation that we've discussed but we sought to as Bonomy recommended bring in a one dog limit to also address the welfare concerns that have been raised about sending a dog underground so again we've kind of set out in the bill the circumstances under which a dog could be used underground and how that has done but it was trying to find that balance between stakeholders who are very much opposed to on welfare ground and other stakeholders who very much are making a case that is a unnecessary you know point of predator control which is why we've kind of tightened up the provisions to say this is how it could be done in a way that hopefully meets both of those objectives. Can I ask you touched upon there introducing the limit of one dog what were some of the welfare concerns? I think just that the concerns were that the more dogs that you send underground then the greater the risk that one or more dogs would you know break from its training and rather than just simply alert the dog handlers to the location of the fox that a fight might break out so it was to again it was welfare to kind of limit the risk of a dog killing a fox was to kind of limit it to one dog and I said that was kind of the recommendation that Lord Bonnamay made. There is no provision for a license to allow more than one dog but if nature scot were to look at a situation where it would be more humane or more safe or it was safer with animal welfare considerations to use more than one dog why wouldn't that be possible it seems very prescriptive just to say one dog that's it if there were situations why wouldn't a license ensure that the highest of welfare standards were upheld so one dog is the limit in England the Wales that that's been a limiting since 2004 the code of practice for carriers says that you know pretty much in almost all circumstances only one dog should be used and Lord Bonnamay recommended it and as I said you know the stakeholders a lot of them are very much say that there are welfare considerations if you send you know even one dog underground so taking all of that into account then we went for that hard one dog limit okay thank you Rachel Hamilton do you have a supplementary well I just wanted to question um you on the the fact that there's a contradictory element within the bill that says that you're prohibiting the involvement of two dogs in an accepted activity but envisaging that more than two dogs could be involved and involved is the important word here because would it be possible for you to explain what is understood by a dog being involved in an activity and why those provisions are contradictory sorry what provision so um within the bill it and I haven't got the the reference but it's to the section but it the bill prohibits the involvement of more than two dogs and an accepted activity but it envisages that more than two dogs could be involved and and then taking reasonable steps um to ensure that um more than two dogs could not come together to form a pack so it's that that bit with the dogs come together in an unintended consequence so yeah so if you for example have somebody who is going out um you know using their dogs to to flush foxes and they're going out there with with two dogs um and they go out in the field and then they happen upon somebody else who's there with with their two dogs um then they have to take reasonable steps to make sure those dogs don't form a pack and it's to stop that we have that and to basically stop people who are seeking to you know should they seek to kind of circumvent the the two dog limit by kind of claiming that oh you know i was out with my two dogs my friend was out with two dogs we were all just out with two dogs but suddenly you've got you know 10 people and 20 dogs together and that's a pack um so to just make it clear that if you're not acting under a licence you're only permitted to use two dogs and then you have to make reasonable steps to make sure that your dogs do not you know join up with other dogs and you know form that inadvertent pack well it's through land reform obviously there is that you know countryside act which allows people to walk so what if a person was walking two people were walking across the hill and they each had one dog and that those dogs would they then be taken to court no because they joined the other dogs no because they wouldn't be hunting so it's only in the context of hunting is natural state which dogs were obviously bred in that sense and that's been evil the evolution has taken us to the domestication of pets however they have a natural instinct so what in a court of law what happens that would be up to ultimately the police and the prosecution to determine whether somebody had acted in contravention of the act but the intention of the act is not to stop two people out walking their dogs and we've already said that if a dog you know accidentally was to slip the leash and chase a wild mammal then you know we wouldn't consider that to be an offense but where people are going out with the intention of hunting and taking two dogs with them if they do not have a licence they have to make sure that they come across other hunters who are also out with their dogs that they do not you know accidentally or deliberately you know end up working together and you then have a situation where you've got six people and six hunting dogs okay do you want me to ask my actual questions jim has got a short question it's a very short one i think i understand what it is that you're trying to do here that there will be people who will try to circumvent the law and if they say oh yeah we're going to this bit over here and we'll have two dogs and we're going to this bit over here and we'll have two dogs and they just have to get together that's them deliberately trying to circumvent the law is that the bit that you try to stop that's what we're trying to stop we're trying to stop the that loophole from happening thank you we're now moving on to section six jenny mint has got a question thank you i'm kind of further on to my previous questions about using birds you gave the exceptions with regards to falconry i'm interested to hear the reasons for game shooting in deer stocking and how dogs are used in the context of that to make them exceptions yeah so in in deer stocking so what and this is very much kind of set out in the code of practice produced by nature scot and also when you kind of look at the best practice by the likes of bask you will go out there and your intention is to shoot the deer now that should happen but i am you know occasionally with you know despite you know the best efforts in a dog a deer may be injured rather than killed outright and in those circumstances the deer stalkers will then use that dog to track that injured deer so that they can find it and you mainly dispatch it so it's very much dogs are being used in those contexts to ensure that deer stocking is done in a way where deer welfare is up most and as i said that's kind of considered best best practice and i think you know pretty much all our you know most deer stalkers will will take dogs for them but it's for that purpose it's you know primarily if a deer is injured in terms of other kind of game shooting so yeah again you know you are allowed if you wish to you know hunt certain mammals within scotland so rabbits and hares are kind of traditional the sort of the traditional game mammals in scotland and you know people will will hunt them for food purposes for example and they sometimes not always but sometimes again they'll take a dog or two dogs out with them to help them locate and flush those mammals so that they can shoot them so those are permitted activities so as i said we're not kind of seeking through this bill to address any of the issues we're just saying that we're hunting is permitted and the people carrying out hunting activity they're using dogs this is how they have to conduct themselves okay thank you for that so with regards to the deer then it's supported the welfare of the injured animal to ensure that they are put out of their suffering as as humanely as possible yes and dog are obviously much more effective at finding and following you know both kind of trails and then people are so allows it to happen much quicker than if the person didn't have the dogs with them okay thank you thank you we're going to move on to section seven in rachel hamilton's question then and if you could also cover your questions in section four eight and nine please i'll try my best convener just to pick up on jenny minto's point and what you said there leah 11 000 out of 30 000 deer shot in scotland through scosh government schemes are done at night with lamps and how do police look at that activity if in the terms of injury in the you know all these forests that we have what we need to control deer how do they monitor that particularly if only one season out of a whole year there is ample sight to make sure that there is no injury i think that would be a question that would be better put to police scotland in terms of how they would monitor those activities we have very clear guidance and regulations about night shooting of deer and what the requirements of of that are but i think that's kind of more you know and i've done through the deer scotland act but it is part of the bill because jenny minto's just asked about that yeah the activity if you're taking dogs with you to you know locate injured deer is covered by this but the more general hunting of deer is covered by other legislation i don't think we've got any evidence that people are using dogs to pursue and and and attack deer dogs in deer stalking are used primarily or exclusively for the sort of welfare purposes that leah is outlining i mean i'm sure there are some poachers that use lurchers and things to attack deer and that's an offence and always has been and will continue to be but i don't think we've got any concerns about forest rangers and people carrying out deer management activities using dogs unlawfully we're just being clear in this bill that the current use the way that they use dogs is lawful and it will continue to be lawful okay moving on to section seven why is the license to protect livestock limited to a maximum of 14 days in a consecutive 14 day period but a license in respect of a scheme for environmental benefit can be granted up for two years in a consecutive two-year period so when we were kind of talking about the environment purpose we were kind of very much thinking of the the types of schemes that we gave examples of in the policy memorandum so there is a currently a stote eradication programme going on in orcney and dogs are being used and that's a long running scheme it's expected to run for the next you know i think it's five years initially so it's those kind of established long running schemes where you've got like a you know a purpose which is in this case to eradicate all of the stotes on on orcney for environmental reasons so for that we kind of saw it wouldn't be practical or effective to have the people who are carrying out that programme where you've got a stated aim and people are out you know potentially every other day looking for stotes to have to apply for a license every 14 days so that was why we kind of felt two years were reasonable and again that kind of ties in with some other license and provisions you know that allow licenses to be granted up to two years under the wildlife and countryside act but for fox control or other reasons that you know controlling you know hairs or other sort of mammals for the other purposes set out under the act then as i said earlier we kind of think a 14 day licensing scheme is reasonable because those are more more bespoke you're not necessarily going to be doing those same things every you know at the same time of year every single year year and out they're very much depend upon the circumstances and whether you need a license at that point depending on what's happening so they're not part of long-term programmes and that's where we made that distinction so are you saying that controlling fox to protect ground nesting birds such as curly and lapwing are not part of a long-term project such as stout control? Not in terms of the way the stoter education project works in that this is a kind of a long-term established project which has been undertaken by NatureScot in conjunction with partners it's not to say that in the future if some other scheme to protect a different species was set up that it could not be considered under those licensing purposes but at the moment you know I think you know this stots ones are the ones you know that we're kind of thinking of in those kind of schemes but I mean I would say that it's entirely possible that if someone was to come and say as part of the working for waders project for example that they wanted to carry out systematic predator control to protect wading birds that would be seen as a scheme by so this could I suppose NatureScot could end up it could end up growing arms and legs because this could be a really positive conduit to ensuring that we increase biodiversity levels you know the curluent numbers are as you know declining hugely and so therefore the government would consider then that this could be part of a long-term environmental project particularly with the change in agricultural support where farmers you know will be paid to be conservationists as such not that they are just now but I feel that you know listening to what I've heard from Leah that it's almost a discriminatory approach to animal welfare and biodiversity protection well I mean we certainly recognise that predator control is an important part of wader conservation and so if there is a project which is put to NatureScot saying that this element is an important part of a project on a certain piece of land I don't think there'll be any objection to that on principle but it'll be about looking at the circumstances of that particular case I mean if I come back to the the 14-day thing I think that one of the the key points around that is we envisage this being around sort of visits by a pack of dogs by a foot pack or something like that and so it's about that pack saying well you know after discussion with the farmer we intend to come and clear this piece of land and we think we need a license for that and it's about arranging that and it's about giving a 14-day window for that saying you know it may not be possible to do it on a given day because of weather conditions or something else but you know so that that is a different sort of proposition from someone saying look we're going to be out controlling stoats on this land or we're going to be out removing hedgehogs from this land or whatever for the life of a project okay I think just another consideration yes go on before you move on Jenny Minters got a supplementary on that specific point yes thank you convener and it was just to expand that a bit more because certainly the constituency that I represent is not done by foot packs it's done by groups of farmers getting together and there have been concerns raised about only having a 14-day window might not work and also again as Rachel Hamilton said the difference between a larger organisation so the RSPB being able for example is in the stote example being able to apply for a license for two years whereas farmers that are having to do that much more regularly to manage their livestock and the welfare of their livestock are having to do more regularly without they might argue the resource that a larger organisation has so it kind of goes back to my earlier point about remembering that we're not at one Scotland so lots of different parts to it and recognising that there are different needs but I guess that the sort of issue here is on that piece of land I'm guessing that that would be sort of a I don't know enough about the sort of circumstance you're talking about but I would envisage that farmers would be able to plan while we'll do farm A this in these couple of weeks and we'll do farm B and whatever and so on and so that the license would apply to well this is the license period for doing farm A yeah so that's one side of it yeah the other side of it is having the resource to be able to continually to apply for the license as well and how how that would be again I mean I would hope and expect that nature scott once they understood understand the circumstances which apply to a particular farm and the particular terrain and the particular problem it has with predation and the sort of livestock that they're managing but a lot of that license application could be done more quickly than having to start from fresh every time so you know the sort of farm records about the losses that suffered and about the previous activities that have been undertaken all that would contribute to making a licensing process which is fairly hopefully fairly smooth and reasonably quick Rachel Hamilton just to wind up in sections 489 please was there any consideration given to a general license as opposed to you know what we're talking about requiring individual licenses so why can't like pissed bird species be managed under a general licensing regime but not for foxes and mink etc so yeah we gave a lot of consideration to to licensing and as I said I think need to to sort of bear in mind that this license is only about if you want to use more than than two dogs so you can still apply for a general license or you know other kind of forms of licensing or other forms of wildlife control that are permitted so this license is about I suppose an exception to an exception you know it's an exception under the act to use dogs to hunt and if you want to use two then more than two that's a further exception to it so we felt that individual licenses were fair because it's kind of set out in the act that in order to get a license you have to demonstrate that there are no other reasonable methods that you could use and you know that is dependent upon the circumstances and so it doesn't necessarily you know it will not necessarily follow that in one particular year somebody would need a license and next year they might not now they might you know and if they have you know foxes that are sort of permanently kind of living in their territory then they're probably gonna you know apply regularly there will be you know other cases where somebody might need to apply for a license on a one-off basis so it's kind of to recognise the fact that there will be a lot of different reasons a lot of different circumstances that people are applying for for a license but this is very much about making sure that the situation we've got at the moment whereas as Bonomy said you know you know up to 20% of foxes are still being carried you know killed by packs of dogs does not not continue that needs to be in our view regulated via a kind of a strict but fair licensing system so farmers will be able to apply for licenses year-round whether they're lambing or not as to Jim Felly's point earlier so it's he's got nothing to do with Scotland for every 14 days do you think that nature scot have the capacity to administrate this so we spoke to nature scott and yes they are content that they have have the resources to administer the scheme okay thank you i'd like to supplement from arianne Burgess thanks community continuing on the licensing scheme so i'm i'm keen to explore the transparency and the accountability of the licensing schemes i appreciate your views on the proposal and alson johnson's members bill from last session protecting scotland's wild mammals which stated that any use of a license must be conditional on reporting how many animals have been killed or hunted and that they've been killed in accordance with the license and this information should be published by the licensing authority so the as it's set out in the bill then it does allow nature scott to put you know conditions on the license and that includes reporting conditions and that's something that i said we would seek to work with stakeholders on all sides to you know look at what are reasonable reporting requirements so that could be something i would expect that something like the number of foxes you know killed and and the locations and something would be something that would be in the licensing scheme and as committee will be aware we also have the wider review of of licensing so the approach that we bearing that in mind approach that we have taken in this bill is to you know set out the broad parameters but we also don't want to be in a situation where we inadvertently you know put something within this bill that is then superseded by the outcome of the licensing review so we're very much mindful of the fact that that review might you know impose further conditions so we we have the flexibility for that to be done but we didn't want to set them out that stage because that is kind of work that will be undertaken them in the future when you had your discussions with nature scott about the 14 days granting and the capacity for that did you discuss the accountability and transparency part um yeah and i think what i mean what we've tried to sort of very much do is you know mindful of the fact that a lot of people who will be applying for these licenses will also be applying for licenses for various other things we've had you know talk of ravens already today for for example so again to make it user friendly as much as possible to kind of mirror what is kind of seen as um the sort of the practices for those kind of licenses so that you know people are broadly know what what they're going to expect but where it's kind of considered necessary and appropriate there can be sort of bespoke elements added added to that so all of these kind of things have sort of been being discussed initially but you know they will continue to be discussed and we know that stakeholders will give us lots of suggestions as well as to what they think should be included within a licensing scheme could i just add um Ms Burgess that um i think nature's got a very open to this they are very keen on transparency in this area subject to the sort of GDPR um requirements and other sorts of data protection stuff privacy but i mean in terms of giving information on how the licensing scheme operates i mean they already i mean they've done it for a long time with reporting to the european union and they're still now looking at alternative processes to make that information into the public domain and you'll see with things like the beaver licensing where there's a lot of public interest that they're very open about the number of animals that are taken under that scheme and so i've absolutely no doubt that they would continue with with this new licensing arrangement thank you and just a bit of clarity on the licensing for environmental benefit which you you may have touched on a bit but so section eight states that a license in connection with section seven must not be granted unless the relevant authority is satisfied that killing capturing or observing the wild mammal will contribute towards a significant or long-term environmental benefit in order to help balance the need to protect certain species and enhance biodiversity against the need to protect the welfare of all sentient animals and manage well wildlife ethically will guidance be published on how to determine what meets the criteria for significant or long-term environmental benefit so we intend to publish guidance for for the licensing regime and to also you know do lots of publicity when it when it goes live so all of that will be will be set out and if you look at you know the other lid you know guidance at the nature scott produce i think the kind of most recent new sort of licensing regime was for mountain hairs and that has a lot of guidance which kind of sets out what what the parameters are and under what circumstances nature scott you know feel that there is evidence that a license would be granted and where they don't feel that there is evidence that the parameters of the scheme should be met and same with the habitat regulations there's lots of lots of guidance out there as to you know what constitutes these tests that are being put into the licensing regime for licenses to be granted nature scott needs to be satisfied that there's an a quote no other solution that would be effective in achieving the purpose so there might be alternatives that are effective but wholly impractical or undesirable does that mean that if an alternative practice is impractical then it is by definition ineffective or is effectiveness to be understood regardless of whether it's practical so it would i think in order for it to be effective you have to be able to to do it so if it was so impractical you couldn't actually do it you know then i think it would as you said not you know be deemed to be effective so i'm kind of thinking you know the same we're thinking about for example if you had stotes predating on your chickens then you know a reasonable practical alternative might be to sort of you know build a sort of a decent enclosure but you know it's not practical to you know necessarily put offence around you know acres and acres of lads for example so it's those kind of things that would be taken into account again that that will vary depending on the person applying for the licence thank you that's that's useful jim fairly yeah thanks very much i'm just going to go back to something that arianne's just raised there because it's something that hadn't occurred to me at all you're talking about recording numbers now when i had a license to control ravens we knew that the purpose of the bag number that we were allowed every year that was increased was on the basis of we knew that numbers were limited beavers we absolutely know more or less what the national numbers are if you're going to record numbers of foxes that are killed are we concerned that foxes are becoming a rare species in scotland so what would be the purpose of recording numbers well i think it's just to understand how many licenses are being issued and what on what they are being used for not the number of foxes that would be controlled well i mean i think that we i mean i'm not prejudging what conditions people are going to ask about i mean i think there will be some public interest in how this licensing scheme is is operating in the number of licenses that are being granted and in the number of foxes that are being killed under it and i don't i doesn't necessarily reflect that we think that foxes are an endangered species because we don't but it's just to have transparency around the way the licensing scheme is operating and i think if people were to say to us well that's harming people operating the license in some way we'd listen to those arguments but on the basis that i don't see any particular reason why we would want to withhold that information and i'm pretty sure there'll be public interest in it we will probably look to provide it okay the other thing that was mentioned was the the issue of a license for environmental issues and it would have to be done under a scheme again i'm giving my own personal experience here i watched weeding bird numbers absolutely plummet with the increased number of ravens but nobody was listening to that now the byproduct of me being able to control ravens to protect sheep was that it kind of helped the weeding bird numbers so who's the best person to tell nature scott that there is an environmental issue or an ecological issue on land that they are managing who makes that decision so ultimately that'll be for if somebody's applying for a license ultimately be for nature scott to make that decision i think we're we're all you know well aware of the sort of issues so i'm sure you you know nature scott has recently launched an action plan to address the decline in capper calie so it's it's those kind of things and i know that there are a lot of land managers who are you know actively on board and you know working with nature scott to kind of you know put those action points into place and to protect capper calie and one of the sort of strands of that action plan is effective predator control in areas where capper calie are so it's those kind of things again we're sort of you know envidaging would you know constitute a scheme as opposed to me just going out and saying i've decided i want to you know clear all the the wild mammals off my you know backyard because i want to protect my marigolds you know that wouldn't be a scheme but things like you know that the capper calie project or or similar projects i think would meet it you know the criteria for a scheme so there's going to have to be this cooperation and this trust between nature scott and land managers isn't it i think you're just going to have to sort of you know demonstrate that you meet the criteria that's set out within the bill so it'll be up to you if you're saying i need to you know control predators on my land and i need a license and i'm doing it for protection of agriculture you'll need to kind of show how that what that link is on what that evidence is if you say i'm doing it for a different purpose again you will need to provide evidence that's going to satisfy nature scott and what evidence you need to do will very much you know depend there are some very clear established you know nature conservation issues that we're aware of such of with curlews and lapwings if you said i'm doing it to protect behind you know something else nature scott might go well actually we don't necessarily have evidence that this species has been declined and you know they might ask to to see more information as to what why you think it's necessary okay thank you very briefly rachel hamilton yeah i'm just trying to work this out because with a general license you still have to prove that you have looked at all other solutions of dispatch or predator control whatever you want to call it what are the solutions to control fox and obviously there's a high number across scotland that farmers could use other than you know a gun i think again that that would depend like i said if you are keeping enclosed birds then about sheep i mean how would you include sheep well i think that goes back to the point that mr carne said that the enclosing sheep might not be a practical solution so you would have to look at other things so you might kind of say well we've had people outlamping that's that's not worked the terrain is such that you know we need to use a pack to flush foxes because two foxes would just not be effective and you might say we've deployed a shepherd that hasn't worked so very much dependency farms range massively in sizes of of terrain and so that's why we're not doing a list of here's all the things you have to have tried first it's up to you to kind of go okay these are things that are potentially reasonable that i could have tried in the area that i am you know applying for a license for and they haven't been effective so a farmer would have to come to nature scott and say i'm sorry but my farm income is only £12 000 a year and things are really tough i don't want to employ a shepherd i'm using easy care sheep on an upland farm i'd like to control my foxes i've got a declining population of wading birds how easy is this going to be because the eight scheme is very complicated to apply for well as i said i think that is those kind of things that we will work to as we our nature scott will do work with stakeholders as they develop the licensing scheme but you know if you're applying for a license for example to legally control beavers you have to you know show that you have tried all other sort of methods that don't require a license and that are open to you so again that test already exists another wildlife legislation so we're not to be clear here though it isn't the statue requirement will be for the licensing thorough to be to to be satisfied so that implies that they may have knowledge of their own about what is practical nature scott and their website don't even suggest how to control fox no well i mean the point here though as i'm saying is it's not a requirement on the farmer or the land manager or land owner to say i've tried abc and d i mean they can say as part of their application they might be invited to say but it's ultimately it's for nature scott to say well okay we accept that you know you don't need to demonstrate that it's not possible to put a cage fence around your land i mean i think they just got to understand that already so i mean i think we it's about what is practical and widely understood to be practical in particular circumstances and i think that nature scott understand full well that in managing and protecting livestock such as lambs on an upland situation you're going to have a number of options you might have snaring you might have lamping you might have using night sights you might have using dogs that these are likely to be your main options live trapping maybe another option so they they will understand those what are the things which are on on the table and they may well understand that for a small crofter the idea of employing a full-time shepherd on the hill is just out of the question so i don't think it's it's having to go through each and every single potential scenario it's it and it this is something which already operates across the whole gamet of licensing that no satisfactory alternative but in all of that it never says that it's for the license applicant to prove it's always for the licensing authority to be satisfied and the same applies to a fox traveling across upland that was 3000 acres where one farmer had applied for a license and it travelled to the next farm and therefore how does that work if that farmer then dispatched that fox over the march yeah i mean the licensing is only where there's the use of more than two dogs so i mean i think we're all pretty much aware that the vast majority of foxes are dispatched through shooting or one form another and i think that will continue to be the case but i'm not unless of course i follow the issue and you are at the government are advocating lamping which is only really um in terms of welfare relevant in three seasons where there is a proper site and um it out with vegetation and cover and there's a lot of vegetation and cover up in upland so i mean i i'd like to be clear and we're not advocating lamping what we're doing is we're trying to prevent the use of dogs to chase and kill wild mammals that's what this bill is about and we are recognising in the course of that that there are alternatives to that in terms of protecting livestock and those alternatives include the sort of range of things i've just said and most common which as we know is probably shooting thank you we'll need to move on we're now going to cover section 11 and 12 question from Alasdair Allan and then Peter Swishart i was actually thinking of trail hunting as a issue i was interested in you want me to yes please yeah question 14 at in section 11 and 12 yep yeah i was interested just to know why trail hunting what the reason i was for including trail hunting within the scope of the bill so trail trail hunting which is where a person or a group of people will lay an animal based scent for dogs to to follow so that activity really only sort of came into existence after the hunting act was introduced in in england and wales and there were suspicions at the time that that activity was introduced as a cover for people who were not happy that traditional forms of fox hunting had had been banned and we're using that as a way to to circumvent the law i think that has kind of shown to be to be the case in some circumstances there was a case last year where somebody was was prosecuted and there was clear evidence that that's exactly what they were were doing and subsequently it has been banned in land owned by the Welsh Government national trust land because of that but even where people are not setting out in any way to you know carry out illegal hunting when they're kind of doing it as an alternative because they recognise that they're not permitted to chase and kill wild mammals with dogs that it carries a very sort of high risk that an animal will be inadvertently killed so you know dogs are very clever animals but if they are following a trail and it's been artificially laid that smells of a fox they're in an area where foxes are present then there is a high risk that they will end up chasing a real life fox instead and as we know when that happens there is a real risk so what we are seeking to do is to prevent that happening in Scotland so it is only where people are laying a trail that is designed to replicate a wild mammal so drag hunting for example uses an artificial sent aniseed and so that will still be permitted and people can still carry out out that activity they can kind of still go out with their their you know dogs and their horses and follow on but what we are seeking to do is take away the the element of risk that is laying that mammal based scent which is you know providing a loophole for people doing illegal hunting and also causing serious welfare concerns and that's the reason for the provisions within this bill thank you just finally on that I suppose is there an analogy there between a kind of analogy between that and what you were saying earlier on about hairs and rabbits where one thing can either be done under the cover of another or can turn into something else is that was there public concerns about that type of situation expressed through the consultation yes there was a lot of concern raised by stakeholder I said I think people had paid very close attention to what happened in England the whales to to the court cases and also kind of you know looked at you know the concerns that were raised by national trust members which you know led them to to banning it on their land so it's now you know banning national trust land in Scotland for example so yes very much listening to to what people were saying about that thank you so a shot okay well thanks convener I was just waiting for the for the video and audio to come on again section 12 there's an exception for training dogs to follow a scent the section applies of a person lays an animal based scent for a dog to find and follow in order to train a dog for a lawful purpose I just wonder if you could explain or clarify what lawful purpose actually means yeah so that provision is in there because we were very much yeah mindful of the fact if we didn't allow dogs to be trained you would inadvertently you know end up banning external activity such as deer talking stalking or predator control that use scent based hounds by the back door because if you can't train dogs to do those activities then those activities can't take place so where we've set out in the bill where it's lawful to use a dog to you know search for a stalk of flush a wild mammal then you would be allowed to you know lay a trail to train a dog to do those activities if you think probably the most obvious example of where it's very much not lawful to to use a dog to you know undertake you know actions is you know badger baiting so somebody was you know deliberately deemed to be training a dog to find to find and kill badgers that's not a lawful activity so you know that is the distinction that we're trying to make so what is permitted under the bill where you're allowed to use dogs you're allowed to train those dogs to do those activities thank you thank you Jim Fairlie sorry guys i'm going back about i forgot to ask you something earlier on there's something i picked up in the bill as i was reading through it it's on page 19 and it's crown application criminal offenses so it's 24.1 nothing in this act makes the crown criminally liable what does that mean i'll maybe start off on that but i might ask sgld colleagues to to come in if i umangle that so there is a distinction between the crown as in you know the likes of me and you know an official and msp's and the crown as in the queen herself so it's that distinction so you know people who are operating in the service of the crown can be criminally liable but you know the queen is kind of treated you know differently for legal purposes so that's basically what's been out to that kind of you know standard pretty much i think in in most you know bills that to do with criminal justice that kind of sets out how it applies to to the crown and to members of crown but also how it applies to the queen herself so what that means is if an illegal act took place on the queen's land it would be the person who was perpetrating the act as opposed to the queen who was liable is that what that means so yeah it means that somebody who is you know committing a crime on the queen's land you know can still be considered um like anybody else so it means they're not exempted and they're treated in in the same way as anybody would be who committed a crime on you know non-crown land okay thank you um and finally finally an enforcement um the fence in the bill is hunting using a dog so dogs are absolutely the essential ingredient right through the bill so surely what mode of transport is used to accompany the dogs should be irrelevant yet um the bill suggests that there could be disqualification orders for dogs and cons of cons of cons you can seize horses um why are are those on horseback being singled out in the bill as drafted and not for example cod bike owners so the bill um in the um in the schedule attached to the bill it talks about the seizure of of vehicles and gives police the power to to seize vehicles and if they seize vehicles then there is other legislation um it's the process of crime act that would allow a quad bike that had been used in the commission of a hunting offence to to be seized so um horses um we're not singling out you know people who use horses we're just kind of looking at the the range of things that somebody might use in the commission of offence whether that's dogs horses or quad bikes and making sure that all of those things are covered and it just allows the court as wide a range of powers um as possible to consider what um the most appropriate offence is very briefly yeah sorry um Leah on that that specific point where does it say for example that a deprivation order could be given against say a haircorsa who had used a car to get to drive from somewhere else like Newcastle and a motorbike and whatever else they used does that is that covered in this just to be clear yeah i'm looking right at it it's page 16 so the schedule attached talks about um the seizure of of vehicles yeah and what that um and if our vehicle is is seized then and it is kind of heel deemed to have been used in the commission of offence then separately under the um proceeds of crime act then the courts have the power to forfeit those um those vehicles or other equipment i've set out in the act that i've been seized as evidence and deemed to have been used in a crime okay thank you that you'll be pleased to hear brings us to our end of our question well it probably doesn't but i think you've put in a hard shift this morning particularly you Leah thank you very much it's very much appreciated information you've given us will certainly help us in our further deliberations we'll now suspend this meeting until 12 o'clock to allow a change of witnesses thank you we now move on to agenda item 2 which is consideration of the official controls extension of transitional periods amendment regulations 2022 and i refer members to papers 3 and 4. Do any members have any questions or comments to make on the instruments? No? Do members agree with the Scottish Government's dissent consent to the provision set out in the notification being included in UK rather than Scottish subordinate legislation? Agreed. It also proposes the committee rights to the Scottish Government to ask why it is now considered appropriate to make regulations mending the rules around checks on SPS goods during the transition period and what the impact of these changes may be on stakeholders and the wider public including further information about the outcomes of the consultations between Governments and stakeholders and the outcomes of discussions with stakeholders who have invested in preparation for the end of the transitional staging period. Are members happy with those suggestions? Thank you. That concludes our business in public. We now close our business on blue jeans and meet in private session.


It's been said that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The known genetic contribution to obesity may be small, but in a certain sense you could argue it's all in our genes. The excess consumption of available calories may be hardwired into our DNA. We were born to eat. Throughout most of human history and beyond, we existed in survival mode in a context of unpredictable scarcity. So we've been programmed with a powerful drive to eat as much as we can while we can and just store the rest for later. Food availability could never be taken for granted, so those who ate more in the moment and were able to best store more fat for the future might better survive subsequent shortages to pass along their genes. So generation after generation, millennia after millennia, those with lesser appetites may have died out, and those who gorge may have selectively lived long enough to pass along their genetic predisposition to eat and store more calories. This may be how we evolved into such voracious calorie conserving machines. Now that we're no longer living in such lean times, though, we're no longer so lean. What it just described is the thrifty gene concept proposed in 1962. The proposal that obesity is the result of a mismatch between the modern environment and the environment in which we evolved. It's like we're now polar bears in a jungle. All that fur and fat may have given them an edge up in the Arctic, but would be decidedly disadvantageous in the Congo. Similarly, a propensity to pack on the pounds may have been a plus in prehistoric times, but can turn into a liability when our scarcity-sculpted biology is plopped down into the land of plenty. So it's not gluttony or sloth. Obesity may simply be a normal response to an abnormal environment. Much of our physiology is finely tuned to stay within a narrow range of upper and lower limits. If we get too hot, we sweat, if we get too cold, we shiver. Our body has mechanisms to keep us in balance. In contrast, our bodies have little reason to develop an upper limit to the accumulation of body fat. In the beginning, there may have been evolutionary pressures to keep us alive and nimble in the face of predation, but thanks to things like weapons and fire, we haven't had to outrun as many saber-toothed tigers for about 2 million years or so. This may have just left our genes with a one-sided selection pressures to binge on every morsel in sight and stockpile as many calories onto our bodies as possible. What was once adaptive is now a problem, or at least so says the thrifty gene hypothesis that originated more than half a century ago. It provides a simple and elegant explanation for the modern obesity epidemic and was quickly embraced by scientists and late people alike, although Neil later distanced himself from the original proposal. Despite remaining mostly theoretical, the basic premise remains largely accepted by the scientific community and the implications are profound. In 2013, the American Medical Association voted to classify obesity as a disease against the advice of their own counsel on science and public health. Not that it necessarily matters what we call it. Rose by any other name would cause just as much diabetes. But disease implies dysfunction. You know, bariatric drugs and surgery are not correcting some anomaly of human physiology.  Rather than some sort of disorder, weight gain is largely a normal response by normal people to an abnormal situation. More than 70% of Americans are now overweight, so it's literally normal. Body gaining weight when excess calories are available for consumption is behaving normally. Efforts to curtail such weight gain with drugs or surgery are not efforts to correct an anomaly in human physiology, but rather to deconstruct and reconstruct its normal operations at the core.