Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is absolutely correct. On that specific point, I will quote Detective Sergeant Billy Telford. He said:

“We have talked about evidence and so forth, but we will still be able to use common sense and a degree of judgment to ask whether, in the balance of probability, an activity is a legitimate ... shoot or something else. That commonsense approach will take into account the types of dogs that are used, too.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 23 November 2022; c 13.]

The police are already on board with how the bill is going to work. However, I understand the concern of Ross Ewing and others that the public might not understand it as well as we do. The convener’s point about being taken down so many rabbit holes—pardon the pun—of all the permutations that could or could not happen is what the shooting fraternity is coming back with in asking what will happen.

I understand that there is no way of legislating for all the possible scenarios but, given the way in which shoots are currently conducted, they will be able to manage themselves. Their concern is that the police will be called out every other day on some basis or other. There has to be an understanding that common sense will be applied and that the relationship between the police and the shooting community has to be a strong one. Do you accept that?

The problem, from the Government’s point of view, is that housing is not necessarily the thing that is going to stop the spread of the outbreak.

Okay. One other thing that slightly concerned me earlier is an issue that I was aware of although the implications had not really dawned on me. The vast majority of turkey producers in Scotland are small-scale producers and they will buy poults for finishing. Where do those poults come from?

The primary problem is price to producer.

That is helpful.

Going back to the implications of imposing housing orders, a lot of the stuff that we are hearing just now is about a demand to get the birds housed. Your comment about a factor of 44 versus a factor of 2 was telling. The housing order was the thing that was going to protect the birds. As a livestock keeper myself, I know that biosecurity is always the thing that we have to worry about. It is important that we get across the message that personal biosecurity is far more important than the actual housing, given that, as you say, there is a factor of 44 as against a factor of 2. Are we getting that message across adequately?

Minister, last week, Robbie Marsland made the point that the purpose of not making the exemption for rough shoots is not about what is happening now and the legal way in which shoots are conducted now, but is about who might try to tag on to that and call something a rough shoot. During that evidence session, I became more comfortable with the way in which the bill is going on that basis. It is not about what is happening now—as you have just said, the people who conduct shoots at the moment do it in an effective and legal manner. We are talking about what would happen if people started to use such an exemption after the bill was implemented. Would that also be your concern?

Yes, that is probably it.

It is nice to see you both. I have a supplementary question on what Jenni Minto just raised. I clearly remember the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in 2001 and the differences between the different countries. For me—I want your opinion on this—Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales having the independence to make their own decisions was important. I get the fact that cross-border collaboration and discussion happen all the time, but how important is it to be able to make such decisions independently in your own area?

No, that was ideal.

One thing concerns me as a former pigeon fancier. I used to send birds to France all the time, and the birds were vaccinated to do such flying even when I was a boy. Does the vaccine prevent racing pigeons from carrying viruses?

Original.