Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 20 November 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2388 contributions

|

Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee

Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 29 June 2022

Jim Fairlie

I fully understand your difficulty in trying to walk that fine line.

My other question is about other conditions that you might apply—again, I have raised this issue at a number of meetings. Is the number of guns on the other side as important as the number of dogs that are flushing? Hugh, I might have made this point to you when you were last at committee. If you have only two guns covering 150 yards of forestry, a fox will run straight through the middle and not get chased. If you have 15, the fox will not run anywhere and will get shot. Is the number of guns as important in the licensing scheme as the number of dogs?

Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee

Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 29 June 2022

Jim Fairlie

Okay. I will come back to my other point later.

Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee

Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 29 June 2022

Jim Fairlie

Good morning. A point was raised about hunting and flushing last week, I think, although I cannot remember, because the weeks are running into one another. One of the issues that was raised was the potential situation in which people are shooting pheasants and game birds, and their dogs flush a rabbit out, which is perceived to be a criminal offence. However, if a dog flushes a rabbit but does not chase that rabbit and kill it, is that an offence or is it not? We need to get clarity on what the offence is.

COVID-19 Recovery Committee

Communication of Public Health Information Inquiry

Meeting date: 23 June 2022

Jim Fairlie

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

COVID-19 Recovery Committee

Communication of Public Health Information Inquiry

Meeting date: 23 June 2022

Jim Fairlie

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?

COVID-19 Recovery Committee

Communication of Public Health Information Inquiry

Meeting date: 23 June 2022

Jim Fairlie

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?

COVID-19 Recovery Committee

Communication of Public Health Information Inquiry

Meeting date: 23 June 2022

Jim Fairlie

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—

Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee

Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 June 2022

Jim Fairlie

A lot of the stuff that we have talked about has been based on hunting foxes with dogs, which is where a lot of the controversy has been centred. However, we heard this morning from Sara Shaw and William Telford that the controversy also spreads into other areas. What impact will the scheme have on the wider review of species licensing to which the Scottish Government has committed?

Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee

Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 June 2022

Jim Fairlie

We have moved forward a wee bit quicker than I was thinking we would. To take a wee step back, I will quickly ask Michael Clancy for clarification on part 1, section 1 of the bill, which says:

“A person commits an offence if ... the person hunts a wild mammal using a dog”.

From the Law Society’s point of view, is there clarity on the difference between a person who is walking a dog and a person who is using a dog? Do you have a concern about that specification?

Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee

Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 June 2022

Jim Fairlie

Sorry, can I interrupt you for one wee second? I am really conscious of time; I may bring William Telford into this as well. I want this to be really quick—I am sorry.

Let us imagine that William Telford goes out and finds three guys coming out of the back of a white van with three lurchers and the guys say, “Yeah, we were just walking our dogs.” Does the court have the discretion to say, “No. We find, on the balance of probability, that you were coursing hares”? Can the law do that?