Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is that two-week period that I am concerned about. As a practical land manager, I think that the period should be outwith nesting season and when we know that foxes are not going to ground to cub. There is plenty of scope for having a season during which hounds can be on the ground and able to flush those areas where you know that you will not be able to get out with a lamp. Will the bill consider that specific situation?

If you do not mind, Mr Dignon, I want to come back to you on your previous point, as it ties in with my next question.

I am just thinking about the type of licence or about having a seasonal licence—[Interruption.] I am sorry—I know that you cannot follow what is going on in my head. I was thinking back to what the minister said earlier about dogs going to ground. Nobody wants dogs to go to ground, but if the licence is left until, say, lambing time, foxes will already be in the ground and you will have more dogs going underground instead of flushing.

In several evidence sessions now, I have made the point about the licence pre-empting cubbing time to stop more terriers going underground. Are you prepared to consider that? I am sorry—that should have been addressed to you, minister. I am concerned about getting the timing for applying for a licence wrong and about its being too prescriptive.

No—but if, in the process of dogs flushing game birds, a rabbit or fox comes out and the dog does not chase that rabbit or fox in order to kill it, is it correct that no offence is being committed?

Does NatureScot have the local understanding to build up that relationship? The committee has also discussed the need for a working relationship between NatureScot and land managers. Could that sort of thing be built into that relationship?

Thank you very much to the panel.

Dr Witcher, I will come to you first, although I know that you have been tasked with answering a lot of the questions so far. In your article in The Herald this morning, you talk about feeling that “vulnerable” people were “treated ‘like lepers’”—that is the headline in the paper.

I absolutely get the feeling of, “It’s okay, and everybody else is moving on, but what about us?” Is it your sense that those who are clinically at risk—I am trying not to use the word “vulnerable” because of your previous comments—are getting left behind?

Yes. The highest-risk people are stuck. Is there a need for the general public to get a better understanding, through public health messaging and improving people’s literacy and understanding of what we are trying to achieve, so that nobody has the feeling that everybody else has moved on but they are still in the same place?

That comfortably leads me on to where I wanted to go. I will give my general sense from today’s evidence session. Right at the start of the pandemic, everybody got behind the Covid response—we all understood it, everybody was at risk and the message was simple. We started to change it, because things were moving and evolving. The message became more complicated, and it became more difficult to have that one-size-fits-all approach, so we tried to fragment it. Then we came into the later stages, where we got competing voices. The hospitality industry wanted things opened up. People wanted flights opened up. They wanted life to go back to normal and get their businesses moving. In among all that, people had fatigue and wanted to move on. However you, the clinically vulnerable—sorry; I am trying to get the right phrasing—

As Murdo Fraser said, you are being heard loud and clear.

I want to pursue that point—I promise that I will be quick, convener. I have previous experience of licensing. I have gone through the process, proved the damage and the effect and got the licence. From then on, it became very easy.

We already know that foxes predate lambs during lambing time. I have asked this question in previous sessions. Is a farmer going to have to go to NatureScot with pictures of dead lambs with their tails and ears off in order to prove that a fox has killed them? Alternatively, will you be comfortable in saying that we know that foxes kill lambs and that, prior to lambing, there could be a good reason for a licence?

I return to Robbie Kernahan. Regarding NatureScot’s position as the proposed licensing authority, what resources will it require in order to fulfil its role? Is there adequate provision in that regard in the financial memorandum?

I would point out that, in previous evidence sessions, people said that they were generally content with NatureScot being the licensing authority. As you said, you have issued thousands of licences. However, there were some concerns among the rural pursuits groups and farming groups about whether NatureScot staff would have a full understanding of the circumstances under which they were trying to manage particular species of wildlife, especially foxes.