Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the minister for her explanation. When I raised the issue, she took time to meet me to discuss it, and I am grateful for her explanation. Given what she has said, I am happy to seek to withdraw amendment 194.

Amendment 194, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 70 moved—[Edward Mountain].

I will speak to amendments 194 to 202, all of which are in my name and which relate to landowner permission. In the bill as drafted, the requirement to get landowner permission for hunting with dogs is unclear to me in situations in which there are joint landowners for one piece of land or where a piece of land is split between multiple landowners. Where the bill currently states

“permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land”,

my amendments 194, 196, 198, 200 and 201 would add the phrase

“or owners, as the case may be”.

My amendments 195, 197, 199 and 200 would add “avoidance of doubt” clauses that state that, if an activity takes place across land that is under more than one person’s ownership, permission

“must be given by each owner of the land on which the activity will take place.”

Taken together, the amendments capture both situations—joint land ownership and multiple landowners—and make it clear that each landowner must give permission for the activities to take place.

I move amendment 194.

I am not sure that I can correct you. I think that you know more about that than I do.

I have a very short question. When you are balancing the question of whether or not a housing order is appropriate, what weight do you put on the implications that it would have for producers and ultimately on the supply chain?

We have talked a lot about the clarification of potential enforcement issues. Can you explain to us what discussions you have had with Police Scotland about enforcement and the different scenarios that we heard about last week?

Thank you.

Obviously, as you picked up from last week’s discussion, there is concern about vexatious reports. If the police received a complaint, could they close down an activity that was taking place?

We have touched on—

We have already touched on enforcement. My question, which is for Billy Telford, is about the interpretation of section 6 that the Scottish Government has offered. At last week’s meeting, the Government clarified that in some circumstances it might be unlawful for a person to shoot quarry that another person’s dog has flushed. What is your view on that?

Okay. Does anyone else want to comment?