Chamber and committees

So, you have no preconception about the number of dogs that might be required in any circumstance. As you have rightly said, the aim is to get the fox out and shot as quickly as possible, without it being chased, and that will require the use of more than two dogs. Am I right in saying that you have no preconception about the number of dogs?

I will be interested to see how the licence pans out. Mr Dignon will know that, in previous licensing schemes, gamekeepers were required to keep poults in a freezer until they had been inspected by Scottish Natural Heritage, in order to prove that they had been damaged by the species in question.

Lord Bonomy made a very interesting point about the number of dogs required to cover an area of ground. He said that more than two dogs and half a dozen guns would be needed to cover a 200-acre block of forestry. In your view, what would be an acceptable number of dogs? You said that you have been thinking about licensing. If somebody applied for a licence to use 10 dogs, would that be sufficient or too many? How about 15? Where is the limit?

Thank you for allowing me to ask those questions, convener.

This is the second time that I have been to the committee, but I again remind members that I have an interest in a family farm. It does not have lambs on it, for which I might be thankful.

Minister, I have a couple of what I think are interesting comments to make about licensing. I think that Jim Fairlie is right: flushing a fox out of a wood can be preventative if it moves the fox on before lambing starts. Foxes will use the same ground each year and should be moved on before lambing starts. However, I am concerned about the requirement to provide evidence of damage. If evidence of damage has to be submitted during the short lambing period, everyone will want to use the same dogs for the same 14-day period to flush foxes out of the woods to waiting guns. How will that issue be addressed?

I will not move the amendment. I hope that I can discuss the matter with the Scottish Government.

Amendment 108 not moved.

Section 37 agreed to.

After section 37

Amendments 64 and 65 moved—[John Swinney]—and agreed to.

Thank you, convener. Having not been to the committee before, I do want to make a declaration of my interests, which have already, of course, been declared to the Parliament.

My farming business includes six rental properties. The rental income from those properties is critical to the security of the core agricultural business. I also remind the committee that I am a qualified rural surveyor with more than 20 years of professional experience, including the letting of properties for clients who are on holiday, and short and long-term lets. That experience has allowed me to develop a good understanding of the three housing acts that will be amended by the bill. I am not practising in the surveyors market at the moment, and have not done since I was elected.

I understand your points about amendments 107 and 108. Regarding your other points, it is critical that the First-tier Tribunal is correctly resourced. Given that you support keeping the act as it is, can you give some indication of the additional resources that will be made available to the First-tier Tribunal? For how long would it be reasonable for tribunals to wait before hearing a case?

At the risk of “interfering”—I do not know whether that was directed at me, Mr Swinney, but I am trying to help—I am prepared to not move amendments 84 to 106 to allow us to move on. I am also prepared to not move amendments 107 and 108 in the hope that the Scottish Government will be prepared to discuss with me how to resource the First-tier Tribunal to ensure that delays are reduced. There has been no undertaking from the Government; I just hope that it will discuss that with me.

I am prepared to not move any of the remaining amendments in my name in this section.

You gave me sufficient time at the beginning to make my case. I have listened to what the Deputy First Minister has said. Before stage 3, I would like to explore with him and with the Scottish Government how we can resolve any perceived backlogs that are realistically felt to be affecting the First-tier Tribunal. By looking at that issue, we might be able to give some confidence if the changes are to go ahead.

I fear that Mr Fraser is right about unintended consequences. I think that churches, for a whole heap of reasons, would rather not risk going through a tribunal and would think that it would be easier to let premises lie empty. I think that that goes for many landlords who wish to house their employees.

I press amendment 70. I am sure that we can look at each amendment in turn.

I would move amendment 71, but I might be able to help you. I do not know whether this is impertinent, but I think that the voting might continue in a certain way. Therefore, I would be happy to move amendments 71 to 82 and 146 en bloc, if that suits the committee and you, convener. I do not wish to pre-empt your position, but I am trying to save you some time.