Seòmar agus comataidhean

If the GB approach is continuing to prescribe a minimum number of consignments that must have been imported into GB for a product to qualify for a reduced frequency of checks, what is that minimum number of consignments?

Okay. Thank you.

We have an acceptance across all the groups that a certain amount of wildlife control or predator control is a necessity for land managers, farmers and conservationists. We all accept that. If we are going to use dogs, all the evidence has shown us that the most effective way is to use an appropriate number of dogs, which is a full pack. Walked up, unmounted packs are a very effective way of getting foxes out of woodland and dense cover. To me, the number of guns seems to be the most important bit, as opposed to the number of dogs.

It was just a flush to get a shot.

Are there any other ways in which the approach to determining the frequency of checks differs from that of the EU? For example, will the default frequency in GB continue to be 100 per cent unless a commodity qualifies for the lower frequency of checks?

Let me clarify, then. Are you saying that the only way that a farmer should get a licence is if they document the losses that they are incurring every morning at lambing time—so they would have to go out and record how many lambs are being killed for an ear or a tail or for feeding a den? Would that be the requirement that you would rather see for a farmer to be able to get a licence to deal with a fox?

I ask this question purely out of curiosity. If ministers are required to get consent from local authorities when there is a national public health emergency, but a particular individual in a local authority says that they do not agree with the decision on the basis of education alone, who takes responsibility for the public health of that area? In other words, who takes final responsibility? We will have a public inquiry into what happened during the coronavirus pandemic, but if you take that decision-making power away from the Government and put it in the hands of local authorities, will we have to have public inquiries for every local authority that might have taken a different decision?

Murdo Fraser mentioned Professor de Londras. As the conversation went on, during stage 1, I said to her:

“The bill simply means that, in a legislative sense, we are preparing ourselves for the future so that, in the event of another emergency, we have the legislative competence to enable us to deal with it in this Parliament. Is that a fair assessment?”

She said:

“Yes, that is exactly right.”—[Official Report, COVID-19 Recovery Committee, 3 March 2022; c 11.]

We keep hearing about Professor de Londras being against the provision. I fully understand the position that Alex Rowley has taken, but the Government has stepped up and listened to what has been said. Surely nobody in the Parliament would suggest that we should not have the legislative competence to deal with any emergency that arises.

Will the member give way?

Therefore, the inclusion of the provision relating to horses in the bill does not cause you any concern.