Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

The second item on the agenda is consideration of the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2022. This is a negative instrument, and there is no requirement for the committee to make any recommendations on it.

Do members have any comments on the instrument?

Nobody has any comments to make. Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

This is the final question that I need to get answered, convener. Professor Griggs, I want to understand the concern in community groups and non-governmental organisations about the proposed central science evidence base being run and managed by the industry and the Scottish Government. How would you reassure concerned stakeholders that your recommendations will ensure the independence of the science that is used for decision making on aquaculture expansion and regulation?

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?

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”—

Thank you for that response. I will move on to questions about the exceptions in sections 3 and 5 to 7 of the bill. Last week, Chief Superintendent Mike Flynn from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals stated:

“The purpose of the majority of the bill is to close the loopholes in the act”.

He related that, under the 2002 act,

“every badger baiter has said that they were after foxes, and every hare courser has said that they were after rabbits”.

He also stated that many terms

“have to be defined better”

and that

“the licensing provisions have to be specified and fleshed out if NatureScot is to have a reasonable chance of doing a good licensing job.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 15 June 2022; c 11.]

Do the witnesses agree with those statements? Will the bill close loopholes and remove ambiguities despite its many exceptions and its licensing scheme?