Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for your evidence, Sheila Voas. My question was on the housing criteria that you decide upon, and you have covered that in many of your responses so far. I am also interested in the combined meetings that you have with the chief veterinary officers from across Great Britain and in whether you use the same targets, balances or numbers in each of the criteria. Is that consistent across the nations?

Thank you, minister. The evidence that we received during the round-table meeting last week showed that there needs to be direct control of the dogs and, if a dog started to chase, the control that the dog handler had would result in that dog stopping. Is that right?

It is a bit crystal ball.

I would like to explore what Julie Hesketh-Laird has just talked about. Donna Fordyce touched on it as well, in her evidence about how businesses had to change and about what did not happen as a result, because they were having to look at the new ways of doing things. For Food Standards Scotland, it was what you would not be able to do if you were having to spend the time on this.

Would there be a concern that if a definition was too narrow, it could have unexpected consequences?

I am sorry, convener, but I was hoping to hear from Robbie Marsland.

Thank you all for your evidence so far.

I want to return to the bill’s title—the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill—and its references to

“hunting a wild mammal using a dog”.

All the definitions that we have heard on rough shooting today have used the word “flushing”, not “hunting”. You might have inadvertently used the word “hunting” yourself, convener, when you were giving the example of your four Labs, but you then corrected yourself.

As I understand it—and please correct me if I am wrong—the exception in section 3 allows someone to

“search for, stalk or flush from cover”.

That is basically what we are talking about as rough shooting. I would like clarification that my understanding of that is correct.

The other area that I want to ask about relates to something that Jake Swindells has just said about the definition of “a pack”. Again, section 3 requires that

“reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog used in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs”.

To me, that implies that “a pack” is more than two dogs—in other words, three dogs.

DS Telford, it would be interesting to get your thoughts on the reference to “reasonable steps”, and I would also like to hear views on that from Robbie Marsland and from one of the witnesses who are shooters, whether it be Ross Ewing or Jake Swindells.

I am the MSP for Argyll and Bute.

I will be brief. The responses to our questions highlight how inextricably linked everything around Europe is and how what happens in Westminster severely impacts on what goes on in Scotland. I was interested to hear the comments from you and George Macpherson on how the continuity act is not the only way in which we in Scotland are maintaining our links with European law. I would like to hear a couple of examples of that, so that the normal person might be able to put things into perspective.

Okay. Thank you.