Seòmar agus comataidhean

I, too, am confused about this. When it comes to people carrying out hare coursing on land without permission, would it not have been simpler to have kept the existing exclusion for rabbits but required landowner permission? Under the bill, if a hare courser was caught, would they be able to use that defence of hunting for something else?

What about sheep? How would you enclose them?

Through land reform, the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 allows people to walk. What if there were two people walking across a hill and they each had one dog? Would they be taken to court if they joined other dogs?

I will move on to section 7. Why is the licence to protect livestock limited to a maximum of 14 days in a consecutive 14-day period but a licence in respect of a scheme for environmental benefit can be granted for up to two years in a consecutive two-year period?

I will try my best, convener.

To pick up on Jenni Minto’s point and what you just said, Leia, 11,000 out of the 30,000 deer that are shot in Scotland through Scottish Government schemes are shot at night, with lamps. How do police look at that activity in terms of injury? With all the forests that we have, we need to control deer. How do the police monitor that, particularly if in only one season out of a whole year there is ample sight to ensure that there is no injury?

I want to pick up on something that Hugh Dignon said to Jim Fairlie. You mentioned an appeals process, but there is no provision in the bill for that. You may argue that it will be part of the consultation to do with licensing. However, the financial memorandum says:

“There are no costs on other bodies, individuals and businesses arising from the provisions of the Bill.”

Why, therefore, have you separated that element out? You made that comment in relation to the bill, but you have omitted to include—or perhaps it was an oversight in drafting the bill—an appeals process for farmers, for example. As we have heard from Jim Fairlie, farmers are going to experience severe loss.

So, a farmer would have to go to NatureScot and say, “I’m sorry, but my farm income is only £12,000 a year. Things are really tough. I don’t want to employ a shepherd. I’m using EasyCare sheep on an upland farm. I’d like to control foxes. I have a declining population of wading birds.” How easy will that be? The agri-environment climate scheme is very complicated to apply for.

The same applies if a fox travels across upland of 3,000 acres to the next farm when the first farmer has applied for a licence. How does it work if the second farmer dispatches the fox over the march?

NatureScot could grow arms and legs, which could be a really positive conduit to ensuring that we increase biodiversity. As you know, curlew numbers are in huge decline. The Government could consider that to be part of a long-term environmental project, particularly because there is to be a change in support for agriculture and farmers will be paid to be conservationists—not that they are not conservationists now.

I feel that what I have heard from Leia Fitzgerald suggests an almost discriminatory approach to animal welfare and biodiversity protection.

Okay.