Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sorry—Hugh Dignon was just reminding me what RELM stands for.

I have undertaken meetings across the piece, and I have actively tried to engage with everyone who has an interest in the bill. From the beginning, I have always said that I am particularly interested in developing policy that people who will be affected by it will understand.

On the specific point about the RELM group—we think that RELM stands for rural environment land management—my colleague Leia Fitzgerald was just telling me that she has been invited to a meeting of the group and will be attending.

That is another interesting point, similar to the one about the training of police dogs. We would not want to do anything that got in the way of the operation of Police Scotland duties.

The absence of stop-and-search powers in the bill reflects the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which does not contain such powers. However, as with the training of police dogs, we will speak to Police Scotland and decide whether something needs to be accommodated at a later stage.

My preconception is that the minimum number should be used to fulfil what is needed across the space of land, depending on its size and the issue at hand. I am not able to say what that number would be in the multitude of possible scenarios. The minimum number should be used to do the job in hand.

This comes back to the bones of the licensing scheme, as set out in the bill. Explicit reference is made to

“the minimum number of dogs”;

thereafter, that issue will be for NatureScot’s experts to determine—I am, of course, a politician, not an expert—according to the circumstances in front of them, which will include the size of the farm, the size of the fields, the number of sheep, the size of the environmental project and the rate of spread of the invasive non-native species. All those things will have to be taken into account. Therefore, I could not possibly determine what the minimum number of dogs would be in the circumstances.

I am sorry, convener, but will you describe the first scenario again? You talked about the use of nets.

The Bonomy review was a really important part of our development of the terms of the bill, as were two public consultations and, of course, the extensive and deliberately wide-ranging stakeholder consultation that we undertook. We have implemented a lot of what Bonomy recommended, but we decided not to pursue his recommendations on vicarious liability or on the reverse burden of proof. I am happy to go into more detail on that, if the committee would like, but I think that you have already discussed that quite a bit.

I suppose that the two-dog limit was not explicitly recommended by Bonomy, but he said that there was evidence that foxes were being unlawfully chased and killed, and I think that he has subsequently said that the combination of the two-dog limit and the licensing scheme is a workable and proper approach.

In terms of alternative approaches, probably one of the main ones that we considered was whether to seek to amend the 2002 act or to redo it. Some of the feedback that we have had about the clarity that we have achieved via the bill and the way in which it is drafted—albeit that we are at the beginning of the parliamentary process—has justified our approach.

Yes—because there would not be intent behind the activity.

We have a financial memorandum, which was published with the bill. On the basis of that, and given the organisation’s experience of administering similar schemes, NatureScot has assured us that it has sufficient resources to develop and administer the scheme.

I should probably go away and think about that, but my instinctive response is that I would not want to do anything that stopped the transplanting of animals. I would not want to say that they must be killed at the point of flushing if, on occasion, they can be netted and moved.

That is understood.

To recap, the bill contains two offences: to hunt a mammal with a dog and to knowingly permit someone to hunt a mammal with a dog. However, there are exceptions to that, as Mercedes Villalba said.

The first exception is the management of wild mammals above ground. That will require two dogs, which will have to be under control, and the person will have to take reasonable steps to ensure that the dogs do not join others. What is envisaged with those provisions is farmers, land managers and others having to undertake control to protect lambs, poultry and ground-nesting birds, for example. Basically, that refers to the use of dogs above ground.

The second exception relates to the hunting of wild mammals below ground. I know that there has been extensive discussion about that and that the committee has heard very opposing views on it. That exception provides for the use of one dog that is under control, with the permission of the landowner. That is about controlling species such as foxes and mink underground.

There is also an exception for game shooting, deer stalking and falconry, which involves using a dog to, for example, flush a wild animal to be killed by the falcon or, as I understand it, be shot and fed to the falcon.

The fourth exception is for environmental benefit. That allows for projects to tackle invasive non-native species, for example. There have been a couple of examples of that, such as the projects to tackle stoats on Orkney and hedgehogs on Uist.

There are a few circumstances in which we envisage that dogs may be used in the pursuit of different activities, and those are laid out in exceptions in the bill.