Seòmar agus comataidhean

Again on rabbits, I would like an indication of why the bill is framed as it is with reference to rabbits and how you will ensure that unintended consequences are avoided. I am thinking of pest control and how we avoid leading people to think that they have other options, which are probably less palatable in welfare terms. I am curious to know why the bill is framed as it is around rabbits, with pest control in mind.

Actually, convener, I am interested in the issue of trail hunting. Do you want me to wait until later to ask about that, or shall I ask my question now?

I want to ask about rabbits, as they got a mention earlier, and about how the bill has been drafted to avoid any unintended consequences in that regard. The obvious example is where a dog slips its lead and chases after a rabbit. Is that captured by the bill? Does it deal with that scenario?

Why is trail hunting included in the bill’s scope?

I appreciate that you are not here to speak on the political or wider ethical issues, so I will concentrate on some of what has gone into the bill. Specifically, what are the Government’s aims in terms of the loopholes in the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 that it seeks to plug? I am not looking for a comprehensive list, but we are at the point at which this has to be explained to, and debated with, the public.

Thank you. I am thinking again about welfare concerns and the aims behind the legislation. You mentioned how the existing legislation relates or does not relate effectively to police officers and the judicial process. How will the new legislation make it more justiciable—if that is the right word—or more appropriate when it comes to how it is dealt with by the police?

In relation to those points, in seeking to address welfare concerns in that piece of legislation, is a distinction being drawn between mounted and other types of hunts, given that those are different activities, or are both being treated in the same way?

I will turn away from the relationship between the UK and the EU and towards how that fits into, if it does at all, relations between the UK and Scottish Governments. Can you offer any observations on that, particularly now that we might be entering a period in which there might be not only policy disagreements between the two Governments but different understandings of what is or should be devolved?

Professor Forrester, could you elaborate on a couple of interesting points that you made? First, you talked about the thinness of the TCA. Can you say a bit more about why you feel that it is so “thin” and what that means?

I am interested in that point about there being a sense of movement away from things that may have been needed to cope with an urgent Brexit situation. Professor, McEwen, in your written evidence, you mentioned about a similar point. You talked about how, initially, the “not normal” reasoning was used around the Brexit deal because it was an urgent emerging situation, but you drew a contrast between that and things such as the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, the Professional Qualifications Act 2022, the Subsidy Control Act 2022. Do you have a view on whether there is a contrast to be made between urgent emerging situations and pieces of legislation that do not meet that requirement, in your view, when it comes to using the phrase, “not normal”?