Chamber and committees

Yes, thank you.

I just want to ask why the amendment needs to be made. That was not quite clear in the detail of our papers. Can anyone present answer that?

Thank you, Maggie. That confirms what I was reading in the policy note; I just needed some reassurance that my interpretation was correct.

I meant loss of livelihood because of income being affected by loss of livestock.

I think that we might need to work that through. It is a good thing to air as part of the practicalities of improving animal welfare in general.

I will pick up another point. In response to Jim Fairlie, you mentioned that the Scottish Government has assessed the use of two dogs. Can you write to the committee with that detail? Has a document been published?

I have asked this question in consecutive evidence sessions. What would happen if NatureScot was satisfied that there was no alternative method of controlling predators, but it was demonstrated that there had been loss? Can you cite any other scheme or example that would offer compensation for loss of livelihood or livestock?

There are new requirements to protect the environment and ground-nesting birds, and to increase the biodiversity of species within Scotland. Making an exception, in sections 7 and 8, to the offences when a scheme has “environmental benefit”—rather than considering predation control as part of that—does not consider the fact that, depending on how they decide to do it, land managers might inadvertently protect the environment as a positive consequence of predation control. Do you not think that that should be reflected in how the licence would be applied for and granted, on a general level?

We are already at stage 1 and there has been no consultation on the licensing scheme as yet. It is therefore difficult to determine whether NatureScot will, with its current reduced budget, be able to fulfil those requirements. Do you think that it might be worth looking at the financial implications in the consultation on the scheme?

How does the animal welfare improve when you roll in the environmental benefit and the livestock predation at the same time?

We need to make the bill workable and practical, minister. I know that that is one of your intentions.

You used the term “loopholes”. A loophole can be defined as one person’s perspective of a reasonable defence. That brings in the argument about proving a defence of hare coursing.

Hundreds of people go out on rough shoots, not intending to shoot rabbits, and take more than two dogs. It is slightly strange that we would want to limit the number of dogs for people who are not intending to shoot rabbits.

In addition, there could be a spurious allegation. In such a situation, would that rough shoot be stopped?

Could it be workable to include an exception that covered permission to be on the land? By doing that, if someone has three well-controlled spaniels but something happens and a dog runs off after a rabbit—unintended, of course—we would not have to look at that individual; they would be able to prove their defence. Could we consider an exception in the bill to cover that?