Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

That is another interesting point, similar to the one about the training of police dogs. We would not want to do anything that got in the way of the operation of Police Scotland duties.

The absence of stop-and-search powers in the bill reflects the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which does not contain such powers. However, as with the training of police dogs, we will speak to Police Scotland and decide whether something needs to be accommodated at a later stage.

My understanding is that the definition that has been used is one that is used across the piece in legislation; I understand that it is derived from European Union retained law. I am pleased about the fact that we have the ability to amend and add to the list. If there are specific issues with regard to the definition, I am happy to address them, but those were the main points that came up. The fact that we have the flexibility to add and remove things from the list is important.

I can include more on that when we write to you about our considerations in developing the two-dog limit, but I have to say that it largely reflects what we have been told about what is necessary. By the same token, if I am being told that it is not going to work, my mind is not closed to that. After all, I do not want this not to work or its availability to undermine what we are trying to do. That said, where it is needed, I do not want it to be a fudge.

I cannot give detail today on the content of the licence beyond that which is set out in the bill. The bill sets out the mandatory requirements for what will be in the licence, but the development and terms of the licensing scheme will be informed by the bill process and the stakeholder engagement that we are already undertaking.

NatureScot will review the operation of the licensing scheme, as it does with the operation of all the licensing schemes and other matters that it is in charge of. In the Bute house agreement, there is a commitment to review the operation of licensing schemes generally to ensure that they are compatible with the law and in line with our expectations. The licensing scheme under the bill will be part of that review, too.

For the two policy reasons that we have pursued the ban, which includes the fact that trail hunting is not a well-established practice in Scotland, I am content that it is a proportionate measure to take.

I am. That is another good question. During my discussion with Rachael Hamilton, I explained the reasons why we have included the welfare of rabbits, one of which is to bring them into line with welfare concerns about hares. The second reason is that people use rabbits as a cover for hare coursing, which we want to avoid. Of course, the bill will not prevent the control of rabbits and it will not stop the use of two dogs to help to flush rabbits from cover to waiting guns.

I am comfortable that there will still be scope for control under the bill, but it will be done more humanely, and the bill will protect other wild animals in the countryside and allow us to have clarity about when hare coursing is undertaken.

Okay. I take your point. As I said, I have been watching quite closely what other people have said. I have seen a lot of support for the inclusion of rabbits within the definition of wild mammal. For the record, I know that Detective Sergeant Telford said:

“Police Scotland welcomes the inclusion of rabbits”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 22 June 2022; c 6.];

Chief Superintendent Mike Flynn said that the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

“welcomes the inclusion of rabbits”;

and Lord Bonomy said:

“On the definition of a wild mammal, my only comment is that it makes sense to protect rabbits for the reason that is given. To me, that is common sense.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 15 June 2022; c 13, 42.]

I think that it is an indictment with regard to what the horticulture and potato sectors felt was their experience with regard to value for money, the quality of the services provided and the accountability for decisions that were made and for what the levies were spent on. For the remaining sectors within the order, that second provision in the legislation ought to improve the circumstances, because there will be a vote every five years on what the levies should be spent on.

With regard to the future of the horticulture and potato sectors outwith the statutory mechanism, it is now open to them to decide either on a whole-sector or subsector basis how best to organise themselves and what they wish to prioritise. As I say, the Scottish Government is happy and willing to continue working with them on that.

Absolutely. It is a tumultuous time for the sectors, particularly since EU exit when, at the stroke of a pen, the UK Government’s Brexit deal ended the Scottish seed potatoes market for trade into the EU virtually overnight.

The cabinet secretary, Mairi Gougeon, and I, along with our officials, have regular round-table meetings with the potato and horticulture sectors to get an on-going understanding of their concerns and how we can address them. To date, the concerns largely centre on trading opportunities post-Brexit—as I just mentioned, the EU market was cut off overnight—the availability, or lack, of a workforce, and supply chain disruption, on which Brexit, the pandemic and other global issues have had a huge impact.

Most of those areas are reserved, and we are in almost constant contact with the Home Office and the UK Government, making representations on behalf of the Scottish sector. So far, responses have been very disappointing, but we will continue to make representations.

In the meantime, we are providing support in the way that we can; for example, in R and D and in some of the ways that I mentioned to Rachael Hamilton, such as by investing in research into blight and other pests that cause problems for the industry.