Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning and welcome to the 21st meeting in 2022 of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. We have received apologies from Mark Griffin. I ask all members to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent, and that all other notifications are turned off during the meeting. Marie McNair and Annie Wells join us online.

The first item on our agenda is a decision on whether to take items 3, 4 and 5 in private. Item 3 is an opportunity for us to consider our approach to our report on the allotments inquiry. Item 4 is a chance to consider correspondence from the Scottish Government on national planning framework 4. Item 5 is an opportunity for the committee to consider its approach on pre-budget scrutiny. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

As that was the final public item on our agenda, I close the public part of the meeting.

I will pick up on what Professor Griggs said about science. You say in your review:

“Those using science must ensure that they have the most current, effective and relevant scientific evidence to defend their arguments against any negative issues raised”—

Good morning. I am sorry that I cannot be there in person today. I appreciate your coming to the committee to add your perspectives on the bill.

I want to pick up on a statement in the written evidence from the National Working Terrier Federation, which I raised with Barrie Wade from that organisation a couple of weeks ago. Its evidence states that

“It is commonplace on a shoot day to use more than 2 dogs while flushing game from cover ... We do not believe that the intention of the Bill is to restrict, control or interfere with normal shooting practices”.

However, the bill does restrict the number of dogs to two for game shooting and to one for flushing game. When I questioned Barrie on that, he admitted that

“you might be using three spaniels to flush ground game. If part of that ground game is rabbits, and if rabbits are part of the act, you are committing an offence.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2022; c 4.]

I want to ask Michael Clancy and Sara Shaw whether they believe that the bill as worded will restrict normal shooting practices so that flushing to guns by using more than two dogs—whether you are flushing rabbits, foxes or other wild mammals—will be a prosecutable offence.

Does anyone else want to come in on that?

Thank you for that reassurance. In conversation with coastal communities, I have been told that they feel that they would not be recognised. It is good to hear that you are concerned about them and want to ensure that they have a voice.

I have some more questions for Robbie Kernahan.

Robbie, you started to go through the types of things that you will ask people to demonstrate when they apply for a licence. In the discussions that I have had with people on the bill, I have heard that we have a situation where people are killing foxes to protect land year after year without any long-term improvement and with no reduction in the local fox population and no increase in lamb retention rates. Last week, we heard from OneKind and the League Against Cruel Sports that they oppose licensing schemes because they fear that such schemes will create new loopholes that will allow the continuation of hunting with dogs for sport.

If a licensing scheme is to be retained, I would be interested to hear what you think about it being aligned with the international principles for ethical wildlife control. Groups and organisations such as those that I have just mentioned have called for that. In order to obtain a licence, applicants would have to demonstrate that they were complying with those principles. What are your thoughts about that?

You have just touched on the fact that the aquaculture industry has a target to double production by 2030 through expansion of open-net salmon farming. However, I have been talking to concerned environmental non-governmental organisations and communities who stress that there is no evidence, from Scotland or anywhere else, that open-net farming is or can be environmentally sustainable. On the contrary, we know that effluent from open-cage farms is discharged and dumped untreated into the sea; toxic chemicals that are used to kill sea lice are also discharged into our marine environment; and tens f thousands of wild wrasse are taken from the wild to clean the sea lice off the salmon and are then killed. That is to say nothing of the emissions from importing salmon feed from across the world or the impact on wild salmon populations here due to sea lice, fish escapees and disease.

Do you recognise the fact that the industry’s environmental impacts are not sustainable? I use the word in an environmental rather than the economic sense. Have you seen any evidence to suggest that open-net farms could reduce pollution, sea lice and fish escapees to close to zero?

It is great when you get specific like that. Thanks very much. I will turn to the environmental benefit exceptions. Michael Clancy has touched on the specifics of the species list, but some witnesses, notably RSPB Scotland and Scottish Badgers, have in written evidence questioned the need for the exception and licences in connection to environmental benefit, and the League Against Cruel Sports highlighted the concern, which is shared by many, that that exception will be exploited and used as a smokescreen for traditional hunting with dogs. If we retain that exception and licensing scheme, do you believe that those sections would benefit from clearer definitions of terms such as

“significant or long-term environmental benefit”

and from guidance on how to determine whether each case meets those criteria?

Professor Griggs, I am joining the meeting virtually and am very sorry that I cannot be with you in person today. I was interested to hear your perspective on community. I thank you for doing all that work.

I have been speaking to coastal communities as well—I speak to people who earn their living by catching crabs and lobsters. The coast is where people in those communities swim, where their children play and where tourists, who also bring money into the local economy, come to enjoy diving and water sports. It is interesting that you were talking about who the community is. Some people do not want fish farms even if they would receive payment, because many of them would see that as being bought off.

You have recommended a single consenting document, but that seems not to include a mechanism for communities to reject the imposition of a new or expanded industrial fish farm in their local waters. I would like to hear your thoughts on the principle that coastal communities should have a say in where fish farms are located.