Chamber and committees

Last week, I had a conversation with a shepherd who works in the Borders. He said that he loses lambs, so I asked him what he did when he starts to lose them. He said that he monitors the fields where it is happening, and he noted that the fox tends to take one lamb from a pair of twins. He described the method that he uses if predation is frequent. He said that mounted hunts are not an effective form of fox control. I asked what he did instead, and he said that they bring in a marksman who does lamping and sits out on the land overnight. That tackles the situation.

It was illuminating to hear what you said at the beginning of the evidence session about the shift from mounted hunts being a sport to their being a form of pest control. The shepherd told me that he knows people who participate in mounted hunts on quad bikes and, from talking to them as well as people who do mounted hunts on horseback, he said that it is a day out for the lads; it is not really about pest control.

Why are we going down the road of saying that people can use dogs when those who work in the sector say that that is not an effective form of control? They say that using a marksman and sitting out is an effective and humane form of control. What are your thoughts on that?

I have a question that follows on from Jim Fairlie’s question. I find myself quite confused every time that he brings up the issue of flushing to guns and says that the issue is not the number of dogs but the number of guns. However, I do not think that there is a legal limit on the number of guns—at this point, you can have as many guns as you want. That is not—

At the moment, is it legal to have more than two guns? Could you have 10 guns?

That is a really important point—if we have got good land, let us grow food on it.

We will move on to another theme. I do not know whether Mark Griffin still has questions on waiting lists and trigger points.

I have another couple of questions to ask. The first is about the relationship with planning. It might not be relevant to all witnesses, but some of you might have experience in this area. I am curious to hear about how communities can use local place plans to ensure that local authorities include community growing in local authority development plans, and to hear your general views on how the planning system could be better used to ensure that adequate provision is made for new and existing community growers. There are quite a few elements to that question, but it is generally about local place plans.

There is certainly an interesting invitation and challenge to planners around how we provide housing with gardens and growing spaces.

That is great. We have come to the end of our questions, but I think that Ian Welsh also wants to comment.

You are absolutely right, Ian. Good soil is a very good beginning, as I know from having started a project on sand in the not-too-distant past.

You said that you set a self-sustaining rent, but you have on-going costs from one year to the next. One issue that has been raised with us relates to Scottish Water. I would love to hear a little bit about how you pay for your water.

Your comment about the open day and allotments not being islands and needing to connect with the local and surrounding community is a nice place at which to end this evidence session. It takes us back to Maria de la Torre’s point about having sites that are accessible to schools and which people can walk to easily in order to act on their impulse to get growing.

I thank our witnesses for joining us for what has been a really useful discussion, which has added another layer to the conversation that we have been having over the past few weeks. As that was the last public item on our agenda, I close this part of the meeting.

We will move on to a new theme, which Miles Briggs will introduce.