Chamber and committees

Jake Swindells has also indicated that he would like to come in.

Rachael Hamilton has a brief supplementary question before we move on to the next section.

We will now move on to the sections that deal with licensing. I know that we have touched on a lot of licensing issues, but we are specifically going to look at sections 4, 8 and 9.

Jim Fairlie has a short supplementary, and then I will bring in Rachael Hamilton.

We will move to sections 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the bill, which cover exceptions. Beatrice Wishart will start.

Thank you. I am keen to get opinions on this topic from the other witnesses. We have heard the message from Ian Duncan Millar quite clearly, but I would like Penny Middleton, Jake Swindells and then Barrie Wade to give their thoughts.

Good morning, and welcome to the 19th meeting in 2022 of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee. I remind members who are using electronic devices to switch them to silent.

Our business this morning is two evidence sessions on the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill. I welcome our first panel, which will focus on rural sector and wildlife management interests. Penny Middleton is policy manager from the National Farmers Union Scotland, Ian Duncan Millar is a farmer and chair of Atholl and Breadalbane Fox Control Society and the Scottish Gamekeeper’s Association, Barrie Wade is president of the National Working Terrier Federation, and Jake Swindells is the director of the Scottish Countryside Alliance.

We have approximately 90 minutes. I will kick off, turning to Jake Swindells first. Can you give your overall view of the bill?

I have a question before we move on to the next section. The figure of 95 per cent is commendable. On a day when you are out controlling foxes, how many are you likely to shoot?

We are where we are. Do you think that you can propose a licensing system that would work on an annual basis? Would you license a pack or an operator, or a piece of land? How would you see that working?

In our session last week, it was suggested that NatureScot would not argue about what solutions were workable, and that it would work with the dog handler, other organisations or individuals. Is it not unlikely that NatureScot would come back and say, “Well, we think you’re wrong. You don’t need 15 dogs; you only need 10”? Will it not recognise, for example, that Ian Duncan Millar has been doing his job for a long time and is the expert? That is, unless it has grounds to suggest that it is an unreasonable number of dogs—and I do not know why it would do that.

What is really important, I suppose, is the relationship that has been built up between NatureScot and those who control the predators. I would like to think that there would not be a situation in which it would say, “You are wrong. We want to halve the number of dogs.” It would assume that the experts know best. The process has been focused on animal welfare, and we have to take that as given.

Rachael, do you have any further questions, or can I move to Jim Fairlie?