Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to pick up on the points that have been made about rabbits. Last week, when we had people in from the Government who drafted the bill, a number of us pressed them on the subject. As far as I understand what was said then, the bill’s intention is very much about—as others have alluded to today—preventing the chase, if you like, and killing by a dog, rather than preventing the killing of rabbits. Perhaps Penny Middleton can answer this question. Notwithstanding your concerns, do you accept that that intention is in the bill?

Some of the concerns that exist around rabbits are about pest control. That is a legitimate concern. Many of us who live in the country will appreciate that rabbits can be a pest. However, it has been put to us that the intention behind that part of the bill is not to prevent the killing of rabbits; it is simply about the method. Do you recognise that that is what the bill is intended to do?

Although I live in the countryside, unlike most members of the committee, I do not have foxes in my constituency, so I defer to your knowledge on the issue.

Jake Swindells has spoken about trail hunting. Whether we are talking about trail hunting or something else, would you draw a distinction between dogs following an animal scent and a non-animal scent in relation to the usefulness of that exercise or the potential abuse of it?

I want to follow up on your comment that you had never felt the need to go beyond what is proposed in the bill when it comes to controlling foxes. I appreciate that you have given us an ethical view, but have you or the people who practise agriculture on your land ever felt the need—for agricultural reasons, as it were—to go beyond what is envisaged in the bill, for instance as regards the number of dogs?

Section 12 of the bill, as it is envisaged, provides for the training of young dogs to follow an animal scent or an animal-based scent, but it does not envisage trail hunting per se taking place. Can either of the witnesses offer any observations about that? Do you feel that that distinction in the bill is adequate? How does it sit with your ethical point of view?

Very briefly, Mr Orr-Ewing, do you see the motivation behind making a distinction between training a young dog and having an organised trail hunt?

My question follows on from that and is about the aims of the bill. To a large extent, the bill has emerged from what Lord Bonomy had to say about the failures of the existing legislation, as he saw them. Do you identify with Lord Bonomy’s views? Can you say anything about whether the bill’s aims match the recommendations of Lord Bonomy’s review? Do you agree with what he had to say?

You mention unintended consequences regarding the bill. I appreciate the concern that you raise, but a number of witnesses have indicated that unintended consequences may be associated with the current law in this area. One of you—perhaps Penny Middleton or Ian Duncan Millar—might want to say something about the unintended consequences that may currently exist around hare coursing. I know that some of you have different views on the extent to which that is happening, but could it be described as an unintended consequence of the current law?

Does the bill not provide for the training of dogs for those very reasons?

Is there an analogy between that and what you said earlier about hares and rabbits, in which one thing can be done under the cover of another thing or can turn into something else? Did the public express concerns about such a situation in the consultation?