Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the proposed SI continue to prescribe that commodities for which more than 1 per cent of the consignments are found to have harmful organisms are not eligible for a reduced frequency of checks?

Let me give you an understanding from a sheep farmer’s point of view. If you are lambing—

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?

Good morning, Lord Bonomy. Thank you for coming along. I really liked your description of urban foxes being the new Teddy boys—without being denigrating to Teddy boys. That was brilliant.

I am trying to piece together all the stuff that you have been talking about, but I have asked this question from day 1. Is the problem with the legislation not the number of dogs but the number of guns? At the start of your evidence, you asked how the hunters can maintain their sport and allow the fox to be chased while they stay within the law. I cannot understand how they can do that, because, from what I can see, the sport is that the fox gets flushed and then chased so that the riders can ride after it. Pest control is the fox being flushed and shot immediately on sight.

I can see a loophole in the law in that, if there is a 200m distance from the wood or whatever is being flushed, there may be a gun at one end and a gun at the other. The fox may go straight through the middle and everybody else will come in behind it. Surely the law should look at the immediate death of the fox on flushing, rather than the number of dogs that chase it.

I would like to offer a brief clarification on the point that Ariane Burgess made about a shepherd monitoring a field after losing a lamb. As a former shepherd-farmer, I can say that we would call that passing trade. If you get one lamb lifted, you can live with that; two, and it starts to become a problem; three, and there is an issue.

On alternative forms of control, I keep coming back to the pre-emptive strike of catching the problem before it occurs. There is lamping, snaring, den poisoning and the use of terriers and other dogs. Do you agree that every tool in the box should be available to ensure that there is the most welfare-efficient management of problem animals?

My question is this. Robbie Marsland mentioned that Lord Bonomy gave an estimate of 20 per cent of foxes being killed by the pack. Last week, we had before the committee Ian Duncan Millar, from the highland Perthshire foot hound pack. These guys are not going out hunting; they are trying to control a predator that is damaging to all sorts of wildlife and farm animals. Ian Duncan Millar estimates that up to 95 per cent of the foxes are driven out and shot. A concern that I have always had is that, if you are driving to standing guns, there are not enough guns. The most important thing, when a fox gets driven out, is that there are enough guns outside.

Surely the loophole in the law is that not enough care has been taken about how a fox is dispatched once it has been driven from cover. Surely having enough guns is far more effective than trying to use two dogs. Again, I know from experience that two dogs in a very wide area will not necessarily flush the fox. They will go round in circles, because the fox—which I have huge respect for—is a very clever animal. The point is to get the fox out of cover in order to shoot it, so the number of guns would surely be more important than the number of dogs.

I will ask a question of Robbie Marsland directly, if that is okay. First, I want to put on record that I am glad that everybody in the room accepts that there is a need for land managers to be able to have a method of controlling wildlife. It is great that we have consensus on that.

I also put on record that I would in no way advocate that it is a good idea to allow packs of dogs to go chasing across the country to catch a fox and kill it. I am absolutely opposed to that—