Seòmar agus comataidhean

My question is directed, first, at Robbie Marsland and then, if there is time, at Kirsty Jenkins.

The submission from the League Against Cruel Sports states your organisation’s belief that

“the proposed licensing scheme will simply create a new loophole which will still allow for traditional”

fox

“hunting to take place.”

Can you please explain that? Why would being allowed to use more than two dogs allow traditional fox hunts to continue whereas a hard limit of two dogs maximum would effectively end the practice?

So, it is not really part of the legislation that we are considering, but it could be handled in some way, regardless of what happens with the bill.

Mike Flynn started to talk about this issue a little. Last week, we spoke to Barrie Wade from the National Working Terrier Federation, and he stated:

“The point of a terrier being below ground is not to fight with the fox, but to bark at him and discourage him from staying below ground.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 8 June 2022; c 16.]

He also explained to my colleague Mercedes Villalba that, in certain circumstances, it would be a welfare issue to send only one dog under ground, because that would not motivate the fox to come up and the dog might stay there too long.

However, that concern for animal welfare does not sit well with other descriptions of terrier work that I have heard. Last week, I was talking to a shepherd, who told me that, when he was returning from work, he encountered a hunt and saw a terrier with half its face torn off after it had been sent down to find the fox. I am also aware of the case in Angus last month in which a gamekeeper was taken to court after his dogs were found to be seriously disfigured from fighting foxes and badgers, although he claimed that the dogs had been injured while carrying out legitimate ratting and foxing duties.

Apart from the impact on the dog, I would like to hear more about the animal welfare implications for foxes and mink. Can the panel give us information on the welfare impacts of terrier work and your views on exception 5? Perhaps Mike Flynn would like to pick that up, because he had started to comment.

I will direct my question to Robbie Marsland, after which others may come in. I ask for clarification. The written evidence that was received by the committee includes many statements that the bill will limit the efficacy of so-called “pest control”, but I thought that the main substance of the bill—the offences in sections 1 and 2—relates to hunting with dogs in circumstances that are already illegal. Will you clarify what you believe is the intention of the bill and why it is necessary?

The framework work informs how the SIs are designed.

Last week, I had a conversation with a shepherd who works in the Borders. He said that he loses lambs, so I asked him what he did when he starts to lose them. He said that he monitors the fields where it is happening, and he noted that the fox tends to take one lamb from a pair of twins. He described the method that he uses if predation is frequent. He said that mounted hunts are not an effective form of fox control. I asked what he did instead, and he said that they bring in a marksman who does lamping and sits out on the land overnight. That tackles the situation.

It was illuminating to hear what you said at the beginning of the evidence session about the shift from mounted hunts being a sport to their being a form of pest control. The shepherd told me that he knows people who participate in mounted hunts on quad bikes and, from talking to them as well as people who do mounted hunts on horseback, he said that it is a day out for the lads; it is not really about pest control.

Why are we going down the road of saying that people can use dogs when those who work in the sector say that that is not an effective form of control? They say that using a marksman and sitting out is an effective and humane form of control. What are your thoughts on that?

I have a question that follows on from Jim Fairlie’s question. I find myself quite confused every time that he brings up the issue of flushing to guns and says that the issue is not the number of dogs but the number of guns. However, I do not think that there is a legal limit on the number of guns—at this point, you can have as many guns as you want. That is not—

At the moment, is it legal to have more than two guns? Could you have 10 guns?

That is a really important point—if we have got good land, let us grow food on it.

We will move on to another theme. I do not know whether Mark Griffin still has questions on waiting lists and trigger points.

I have another couple of questions to ask. The first is about the relationship with planning. It might not be relevant to all witnesses, but some of you might have experience in this area. I am curious to hear about how communities can use local place plans to ensure that local authorities include community growing in local authority development plans, and to hear your general views on how the planning system could be better used to ensure that adequate provision is made for new and existing community growers. There are quite a few elements to that question, but it is generally about local place plans.