Chamber and committees

I have no further questions, and I think that the minister has already been here for six minutes longer than scheduled.

When Hugh Dignon most recently gave evidence, we asked about a person using two dogs alongside another person using two dogs, and how those dogs might criss-cross. Will you confirm for the record again how you see the bill ensuring that the activity is connected with the right person? If the four dogs belonging to the two people are working together, how do you see the bill supporting or otherwise that activity?

You talked about migrating birds coming from eastern Europe and from further north—from Greenland and Iceland. What connections do you have with our critical friends in Europe?

Thank you for your evidence, Sheila Voas. My question was on the housing criteria that you decide upon, and you have covered that in many of your responses so far. I am also interested in the combined meetings that you have with the chief veterinary officers from across Great Britain and in whether you use the same targets, balances or numbers in each of the criteria. Is that consistent across the nations?

Thank you, minister. The evidence that we received during the round-table meeting last week showed that there needs to be direct control of the dogs and, if a dog started to chase, the control that the dog handler had would result in that dog stopping. Is that right?

It is a bit crystal ball.

I would like to explore what Julie Hesketh-Laird has just talked about. Donna Fordyce touched on it as well, in her evidence about how businesses had to change and about what did not happen as a result, because they were having to look at the new ways of doing things. For Food Standards Scotland, it was what you would not be able to do if you were having to spend the time on this.

Would there be a concern that if a definition was too narrow, it could have unexpected consequences?

I am sorry, convener, but I was hoping to hear from Robbie Marsland.

Thank you all for your evidence so far.

I want to return to the bill’s title—the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill—and its references to

“hunting a wild mammal using a dog”.

All the definitions that we have heard on rough shooting today have used the word “flushing”, not “hunting”. You might have inadvertently used the word “hunting” yourself, convener, when you were giving the example of your four Labs, but you then corrected yourself.

As I understand it—and please correct me if I am wrong—the exception in section 3 allows someone to

“search for, stalk or flush from cover”.

That is basically what we are talking about as rough shooting. I would like clarification that my understanding of that is correct.

The other area that I want to ask about relates to something that Jake Swindells has just said about the definition of “a pack”. Again, section 3 requires that

“reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog used in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs”.

To me, that implies that “a pack” is more than two dogs—in other words, three dogs.

DS Telford, it would be interesting to get your thoughts on the reference to “reasonable steps”, and I would also like to hear views on that from Robbie Marsland and from one of the witnesses who are shooters, whether it be Ross Ewing or Jake Swindells.