The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 2837 contributions
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
Therefore, the inclusion of the provision relating to horses in the bill does not cause you any concern.
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 1 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
Okay.
I very much take Hugh Dignon’s point about the raven licensing scheme. I had a severe problem with ravens. When the licensing process started, it was clunky and it took too much time to grant a licence, meaning that too much damage was done in the interim. However, NatureScot quickly got its act together and the scheme worked a treat.
That said, the method for controlling ravens is different from that for controlling foxes, and the important period in which to grant a licence for fox control is prior to lambing, not during lambing. We do not need proof that foxes kill lambs—they do. We do not need proof that the damage that they will do is anything other than a reality.
The licensing period should not be for a short, 14-day period but for a season, to allow landowners, farmers and tenants to ensure that they have the numbers under control as much as they can. With the best will in the world, Leia—I do not mean this to be derogatory—lamping foxes is not easy. It takes a lot of skill and time, and you have to know the foxes’ movements.
If we have a licensing scheme in which we can control an animal that we know will predate stock prior to the start of lambing, we will already be halfway there. If we wait until after lambing has started to grant a licence, there will be disruption to lambing fields and parks. I urge you to consider how you will create the licence. It should not last for just 14 days, and it should not be issued during the lambing period but prior to it.
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 1 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
What, then, would be the purpose of recording numbers?
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 1 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
It is not, then, to show the number of foxes that would be controlled.
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 1 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
Thank you. I will move on from there.
Under what circumstances would the Scottish Government consider it appropriate to make use of exceptions in relation to the two-dog rule? What circumstances would constitute “serious damage” to livestock, woodlands or crops, and under what circumstances would it be appropriate to use the exception for “protecting human health” and “preventing the spread of disease”? Basically, why would there be exceptions? What would be the grounds for exceptions? Can you give us a broad outline of what you are trying to achieve there?
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 1 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
So, if an illegal act took place on the Queen’s land, the person who perpetrated the act, rather than the Queen, would be liable. Is that what that means?
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 1 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
If you do not mind, Leia, I want to go back to what you said about flushing. In paragraph 21 of the policy memorandum, Lord Bonomy is quoted as saying:
“in general 20% or more of foxes disturbed by hunts are killed in this way by hounds”.
The policy memorandum also states that Lord Bonomy
“noted that there were legitimate grounds for suspicion that the present arrangements were providing cover for the unlawful use of dogs, contrary to the intention of the 2002 Act, and that such illegality raised concerns about the welfare of foxes and other wildlife.”
It is mentioned that a fox will sometimes be killed before it has been flushed from cover.
I want to get an understanding of what you mean. If the intention is to stop foxes being chased through open countryside, does that not defeat the point? If people are finding a loophole—if foxes are being killed while they are still in cover—there is very little that you can do about that.
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 1 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
I promise you that it is very short.
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 1 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
Thank you, convener. I would like to come back in later, on the timing of licences.
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 1 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
That is my point—they are not really breaking the law by deliberately allowing a fox to escape.
I will continue with the example of foxes, because that is where a lot of the concern lies. People are not breaking the law if a fox is killed before it escapes, because the purpose—as you have just said—is to prevent the hunt. I fully understand the problem that we have if a fox escapes and people shout, “Tally-ho! We’re off!” and they start chasing the fox around the countryside. Would that problem not be alleviated by having more guns and making sure that there is a minimum number of guns so that the fox never gets past the line of guns? Would that not cover that problem?