Chamber and committees

That is important, because it represents a slight change.

Minister, I am not convinced by your answer to the convener’s question that we are taking a like-for-like approach that reflects how it was. I would like some reassurance on that. Do you have examples of what plants are getting into this country? People might bring something into the country in their hand luggage. Are these checks happening on lorries? Are they random checks, or are they checks on planned entries into the country? How does it work?

You probably followed the debate that we had a couple of weeks ago in the chamber on the seven principles of ethical wildlife management. It was an interesting debate. The minister, Màiri McAllan, said specifically that we are signed up to the shared wildlife management approach, which includes other stakeholders. The committee has heard during evidence that farmers and other stakeholders are also part of the conservation principle. I presume that you agree that the shared approach is a good one. It incorporates some of the principles—including, for example, community values, which would take into account ensuring that farmers could protect their livestock.

Would you agree, Dr Goddard, that a farmer’s ability to control predators to protect livestock and, therefore, animal welfare, is part of an ethical principle?

So, there is a gap, and we probably need to get witnesses from Police Scotland in to ensure that they are doing their job. After all, you are insinuating that the police are not doing it, because of resources.

I have raised this issue in all the other evidence sessions. I will put my question to Kirsty Jenkins, because she mentioned the mental health of farmers. Do you think that provision for compensation should be part of the bill, in case there is animal loss due to a deficiency in the licensing scheme or for another reason?

I am worried. The bill is about animal welfare overall, not about one specific type of predator control. It is about a lot of things, but we seem to be focusing on one area. We have heard from Ian Duncan Millar, as Jim Fairlie said, and from the National Working Terrier Federation. There are various ways of controlling predators to protect livestock, but at the end of the day it is about animal welfare. Lord Bonomy’s review and previous evidence to this committee made it clear that the two-dog limit would not work, and the use of two dogs to flush to guns has been described as useless by the League Against Cruel Sports. Can Robbie Marsland comment on that specific point?

We need to see some evidence on that, please, Mr Marsland, because we heard differently from practitioners last week.

Last week, mention was made of the need to reapply for a licence time after time, particularly during a vulnerable season, such as lambing, but licences for preservation, protection or restoration could be valid for up to two years, because they have the positive consequence of benefiting the land by increasing the biodiversity of species.

Earlier, you mentioned the issue of topography and the difficulty of controlling predators in dense woodland or whatever. From your experience of working with farmers, do you think that the process will be bureaucratic and not very time efficient for them, as they will have to continually apply for licences? Do you think that there should be an option to have a general licence rather than a 14-day licence?

We heard evidence that licensing will vary by situation. The Scottish Government cited a stoat eradication project in Orkney, and there are also measures to increase numbers of capercaillie through control of foxes and pine martens. NatureScot is well aware of the facts and is able to be the body that issues the licences. Do you have an opinion on the evidence that we have heard so far on ensuring that the licensing scheme is as practical and workable as possible?

On Mr Marsland’s point about the police not having enough resources, should that issue be addressed by the Government? Moreover, what is a field investigator?