Chamber and committees

I would like you to expand on that. In the constituency that I represent, such work is done not by foot packs but by groups of farmers getting together. There are concerns that having a window of only 14 days might not work. Also, as Rachael Hamilton said, there is a difference between a larger organisation such as the RSPB, which would, in the stoat example, be able to apply for a two-year licence, and farmers who have to do such work much more regularly to manage the welfare of their livestock without—as they might argue—the resources of a larger organisation.

That goes back to my earlier point about remembering that we are not one Scotland. There are lots of different needs across Scotland.

Are you saying that it supports the welfare of the injured deer to put them out of their suffering as humanely as possible?

I will briefly continue with the same line of questioning, because concerns have been raised with me, too, about the licensing system.

People accept that there has to be a balance. The application process for a licence needs to be difficult enough to prevent people from abusing the licensing system but easy enough for farmers to use at an incredibly busy time, as Jim Fairlie said.

We also need to listen to the different needs across Scotland. Not everybody walks their dog in a park, for example; they could be walking their dog in a woodland and raise a hare or a rabbit. It is about recognising that, across Scotland, there are different terrains and people have different ways of working.

I am continuing on from Jim Fairlie’s plea about the need to listen to the welfare needs of farmers and to balance those with the needs of animals.

My question is specifically on section 3(3)(e), on bringing in birds of prey to kill wild mammals. I am interested to know what you had in mind when you were writing that part of the legislation.

I suppose that “as soon as possible” is a clear statement, but if “reasonably” has been used to align the bill with other acts, that is reasonable.

Further to my questions about using birds, I note that Leia Fitzgerald highlighted the exceptions with regard to falconry. I am interested to hear the reasons behind the exceptions for game shooting and deer stalking and how the way that dogs are used in those contexts makes them exceptions.

Thank you for that clarification.

Section 3(3)(e) finishes with the phrase,

“as soon as reasonably possible,”

whereas I believe that, in the 2002 act, there was a mixture of “as soon as possible” and “once it is safe to do so”. I am interested in why “reasonably” has been inserted.

I was going to ask about information flow, but you have already talked about accountability, transparency and scrutiny in quite a bit of detail, especially in response to my colleague Sarah Boyack’s question about retrofitting.

What have we learned about the TCA? Will its governance structures be considered in other agreements, such as trade agreements? How can the Scottish Parliament get involved? What can we learn from our experience of the TCA? What could be improved on?

Thank you.

That ties in with Dr Zuleeg’s comment about the soft power in the relationships that we can continue. Professor Eckes, do you have anything to add?

Perhaps that ties in with the need for better co-ordination between the committees and Parliaments across the UK, and the committee’s meeting our equivalents in Northern Ireland and Wales. Earlier this week, some of us met Westminster’s Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.