Chamber and committees

Thank you, Antony. That is really helpful and I am sure, as you have said, that more will come out with other questions that we are going to ask you. I want to ask a bit about the Accounts Commission and its relationship with the new cohort of councillors, so I will come back to Bill Moyes initially.

I am curious to know what engagement the Accounts Commission has had so far with the new cohort. For example, are training or seminars provided for new councillors, particularly those who have specific finance remits?

Thanks, convener. Good morning, Lord Bonomy. It is good to meet you.

In an Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee evidence session in 2017, you stated that, in general, 20 per cent or more of foxes that are disturbed by hunts through flushing are actually killed by hounds, and you expressed your opinion that

“reducing”

the number of hounds

“to two would ... bring the practice of flushing to guns to an end. That change would, I think, mean the end of hunting as we see it at the moment.”—[Official Report, Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, 28 March 2017; c 12.]

Will you explain why you believe that to be true?

Can you clarify what you mean when you say that two hounds would be “a step too far for the body”?

Thank you.

How does the proposed SI relate to the common framework on plant health? For example, are the decision-making fora and processes established by the common framework being used for import checks on plant products, and will they be used for the annual review of the frequency of checks?

My question is directed, first, at Robbie Marsland and then, if there is time, at Kirsty Jenkins.

The submission from the League Against Cruel Sports states your organisation’s belief that

“the proposed licensing scheme will simply create a new loophole which will still allow for traditional”

fox

“hunting to take place.”

Can you please explain that? Why would being allowed to use more than two dogs allow traditional fox hunts to continue whereas a hard limit of two dogs maximum would effectively end the practice?

So, it is not really part of the legislation that we are considering, but it could be handled in some way, regardless of what happens with the bill.

Mike Flynn started to talk about this issue a little. Last week, we spoke to Barrie Wade from the National Working Terrier Federation, and he stated:

“The point of a terrier being below ground is not to fight with the fox, but to bark at him and discourage him from staying below ground.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 8 June 2022; c 16.]

He also explained to my colleague Mercedes Villalba that, in certain circumstances, it would be a welfare issue to send only one dog under ground, because that would not motivate the fox to come up and the dog might stay there too long.

However, that concern for animal welfare does not sit well with other descriptions of terrier work that I have heard. Last week, I was talking to a shepherd, who told me that, when he was returning from work, he encountered a hunt and saw a terrier with half its face torn off after it had been sent down to find the fox. I am also aware of the case in Angus last month in which a gamekeeper was taken to court after his dogs were found to be seriously disfigured from fighting foxes and badgers, although he claimed that the dogs had been injured while carrying out legitimate ratting and foxing duties.

Apart from the impact on the dog, I would like to hear more about the animal welfare implications for foxes and mink. Can the panel give us information on the welfare impacts of terrier work and your views on exception 5? Perhaps Mike Flynn would like to pick that up, because he had started to comment.

I will direct my question to Robbie Marsland, after which others may come in. I ask for clarification. The written evidence that was received by the committee includes many statements that the bill will limit the efficacy of so-called “pest control”, but I thought that the main substance of the bill—the offences in sections 1 and 2—relates to hunting with dogs in circumstances that are already illegal. Will you clarify what you believe is the intention of the bill and why it is necessary?

The framework work informs how the SIs are designed.