Seòmar agus comataidhean

Again, that would be done in accordance with existing legislation that regulates the use and the removal of firearms in certain circumstances. This bill makes no difference to that.

I have certainly heard a great deal of evidence about the behaviour of gun dogs, their control and how well trained they are, which gives me confidence that they will be able to comply with the requirement not to do that. On whether I can envisage a scenario in which it could happen, of course it could happen. Mike Flynn, who has decades of experience with the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has given evidence to the committee that it can happen.

My colleague Hugh Dignon wants to come in on that, and then I will come back to you.

I heard Mike Flynn make that point last week. It is a reasonable point among many points about why we should not create an exemption here. As Hugh Dignon said, we would risk creating a glaring loophole in the bill. Mike Flynn’s point was about consistency and the fact that it would be imbalanced and disproportionate to put greater restrictions on those who are seeking to protect their livestock from predation than on those who pursue sports. That is not me making a comment about people pursuing sports and their reason for doing so; it about me saying that I want a bill that applies consistently across the piece, and that is the only way to do it properly.

The other point to make is that we are talking about the risk of creating a loophole and I believe that, if the shooting industry and the folks who you had at your round-table meeting were taken outwith the scope of the bill, they would not want to find themselves being part of a cover for illegal hunting in future when the bill has been passed. They are law-abiding people who are undertaking an activity in the countryside, and I am asking them to make minimal adaptations in order to comply with the bill. That will mean that, in the aftermath of the bill passing, they will not find themselves besmirched by any attempts to circumvent the law.

That is absolutely right—control is a fundamental part of the bill. I know that we are here to talk about rough shooting, but the bill as a whole is supposed to be about control being important and its being readily obvious when control had been lost. The two-dog limit allows that to be much more easily picked up.

Yes. It is part of the concern. My job is first to regulate the way in which dogs are used in hunting in the countryside, but it is certainly a consideration that consistency with that is important to avoid future loopholes. I have tried to say that from the beginning. This work is about closing the loopholes in the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 and making sure that more do not open up, so that we can finally end unlawful hunting in Scotland. Equally, the shooting industry clearly has an interest in not getting into a situation in which its perfectly legal activity is found to be the guise under which unlawful hunting is pursued.

Absolutely. Thank you for the question, Mercedes. I was interested when you mentioned that last week, at the round-table meeting. It was an interesting point for me because, in that very conducive evidence session, we managed to get clarity on what was expected during a rough shoot. I think that we managed to understand the conditions that would be expected, and we went through how some parts of the legislation would not require much change and others would require a bit of adaptation.

Despite accepting that, it all appeared to boil down to concern, especially from BASC’s point of view, about vexatious complaints. If that is a concern for the shooting industry, again, I am happy to work with its representatives on how to mitigate the risk of that. I have already said that I have not seen any evidence of that risk increasing as a result of the changes in England and Wales. I do not know how receptive the shooting industry would be to more bureaucracy, but, if its representatives come to me and say that they are very concerned about vexatious complaints, we would consider such a measure in order to mitigate that.

I have not spoken with Police Scotland since the committee’s round-table meeting; I am not sure whether officials have done so. We have been in contact with Police Scotland since the bill was introduced and we have been able to clarify certain points—for example, about the training of police dogs. I think that you raised that point in the stage 1 debate. We will continue to discuss with Police Scotland how to create the best possible enforcement situation. This is an odd situation whereby we are having this helpful but nonetheless extraordinary evidence session. I will certainly engage on that again prior to stage 2 proceedings.

I am sorry, but I do not understand the question.

Convener, again, there are a number of questions in there, and I am finding it increasingly difficult to follow exactly what it is that Rachael Hamilton is trying to ask.

As I said, we have had on-going engagement with Police Scotland. We will continue to engage with Police Scotland as issues arise. At your round-table discussion last week, when the operation of the bill as it pertains to rough shooting was explained, the issue of vexatious complaints was raised by BASC and others, and my officials and I will engage with Police Scotland on that, likely before the formal move to stage 2.

On enforcement, investigative powers and police funding, I have confidence in Police Scotland’s ability to fulfil the requirements. Detective Sergeant Telford said that he has views on how the bill could be better but that, ultimately, Police Scotland will work with whatever is passed.