Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would like to ask DS Telford how many activities—I was not sure what to call them—he has been called out to that fit the description that Robbie Marsland gives of rough shooting being used as a smokescreen.

I also have a question for Alex Hogg. Is that description of rough shooting being used as a smokescreen a reflection of what you see it being used for? The SGA submission states that people attend rough shooting with

“the intent ... for the dogs to flush the game for the guns to shoot.”

Is there some sort of interpretation here that is not true?

What happens in such a case? Does it tend to involve somebody who is hare coursing, or does it tend to be a genuine mistake? For example, someone might have taken reasonable steps to control their dog but, unfortunately, if the dog was not trained, they might have been unable to control it. You might therefore say, “We understand; it happens.”

No worries.

Can you give that evidence to the committee? I have not seen it, so it would be good to have it.

Sorry—it is just for the purpose of amendments; that is all.

No worries.

The pressure is on DS Telford today, but it is his job to enforce the law.

The policy memorandum to the bill says:

“Including rabbits in the definition of wild mammal will aid in the detection and enforcement of hare coursing offences by removing this activity as a potential cover.”

If the Government is hell-bent on including rabbits in the definition of “wild mammal” but prosecution rates for hare coursing offences do not improve—it is obviously very difficult to prosecute at the moment—should that issue be considered in the post-legislative process? Should figures be presented to Scottish ministers regarding that issue? Should the committee consider the matter if the bill does not work, with hare coursers still not found to be breaking the law?

And the evidence for it.

I am the MSP for Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire.

Even a tiny number can be impactful in certain circumstances. It is therefore important that we do not put a number on things, because that number—even if it is one—could have significant and severe unintended consequences.