Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much to the panel.

Dr Witcher, I will come to you first, although I know that you have been tasked with answering a lot of the questions so far. In your article in The Herald this morning, you talk about feeling that “vulnerable” people were “treated ‘like lepers’”—that is the headline in the paper.

I absolutely get the feeling of, “It’s okay, and everybody else is moving on, but what about us?” Is it your sense that those who are clinically at risk—I am trying not to use the word “vulnerable” because of your previous comments—are getting left behind?

Yes. The highest-risk people are stuck. Is there a need for the general public to get a better understanding, through public health messaging and improving people’s literacy and understanding of what we are trying to achieve, so that nobody has the feeling that everybody else has moved on but they are still in the same place?

That comfortably leads me on to where I wanted to go. I will give my general sense from today’s evidence session. Right at the start of the pandemic, everybody got behind the Covid response—we all understood it, everybody was at risk and the message was simple. We started to change it, because things were moving and evolving. The message became more complicated, and it became more difficult to have that one-size-fits-all approach, so we tried to fragment it. Then we came into the later stages, where we got competing voices. The hospitality industry wanted things opened up. People wanted flights opened up. They wanted life to go back to normal and get their businesses moving. In among all that, people had fatigue and wanted to move on. However you, the clinically vulnerable—sorry; I am trying to get the right phrasing—

As Murdo Fraser said, you are being heard loud and clear.

I want to pursue that point—I promise that I will be quick, convener. I have previous experience of licensing. I have gone through the process, proved the damage and the effect and got the licence. From then on, it became very easy.

We already know that foxes predate lambs during lambing time. I have asked this question in previous sessions. Is a farmer going to have to go to NatureScot with pictures of dead lambs with their tails and ears off in order to prove that a fox has killed them? Alternatively, will you be comfortable in saying that we know that foxes kill lambs and that, prior to lambing, there could be a good reason for a licence?

I return to Robbie Kernahan. Regarding NatureScot’s position as the proposed licensing authority, what resources will it require in order to fulfil its role? Is there adequate provision in that regard in the financial memorandum?

I would point out that, in previous evidence sessions, people said that they were generally content with NatureScot being the licensing authority. As you said, you have issued thousands of licences. However, there were some concerns among the rural pursuits groups and farming groups about whether NatureScot staff would have a full understanding of the circumstances under which they were trying to manage particular species of wildlife, especially foxes.

It seems to highlight that we need something that is a bit more robust. Would that be fair? We are trying to get at the distinction between somebody who is out walking the dog when the dog takes off and starts chasing a rabbit or hare and somebody who deliberately sets out with a dog to hunt animals.

Clearly, as William Telford said, there is a loophole—it is easy for someone to say that they were just walking their dog and it took off to chase a hare. However, I know that guys go out with lurchers and greyhounds in a specific way.

Can we find another way of making that part of the law more robust without including rabbits? That is what I’m trying to get to.

I have a quick supplementary question on your point about bringing everybody together in a one-stop shop. In your introduction, you said that one side of the argument is more organised than the other. Could it potentially stifle the growth of the industry in Scotland if one side got more organised through that one-stop shop? I am sorry to use the phrase that you challenged; it is not a one-stop shop.

Good morning, folks. Unfortunately, I will—pardon the pun—take us down a rabbit hole. Am I right in thinking, on the basis of my own experience, that hare coursers have a particular type of dog?

So, somebody who is out walking a poodle is highly unlikely to be hare coursing, but it is far more likely that somebody with a lurcher or greyhound will be doing so. Does the bill need to specify a particular type, or types, of dog that are ordinarily used in hare coursing?