³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Thank you for allowing me to ask those questions, convener.

This is the second time that I have been to the committee, but I again remind members that I have an interest in a family farm. It does not have lambs on it, for which I might be thankful.

Minister, I have a couple of what I think are interesting comments to make about licensing. I think that Jim Fairlie is right: flushing a fox out of a wood can be preventative if it moves the fox on before lambing starts. Foxes will use the same ground each year and should be moved on before lambing starts. However, I am concerned about the requirement to provide evidence of damage. If evidence of damage has to be submitted during the short lambing period, everyone will want to use the same dogs for the same 14-day period to flush foxes out of the woods to waiting guns. How will that issue be addressed?

So, you have no preconception about the number of dogs that might be required in any circumstance. As you have rightly said, the aim is to get the fox out and shot as quickly as possible, without it being chased, and that will require the use of more than two dogs. Am I right in saying that you have no preconception about the number of dogs?

I will be interested to see how the licence pans out. Mr Dignon will know that, in previous licensing schemes, gamekeepers were required to keep poults in a freezer until they had been inspected by Scottish Natural Heritage, in order to prove that they had been damaged by the species in question.

Lord Bonomy made a very interesting point about the number of dogs required to cover an area of ground. He said that more than two dogs and half a dozen guns would be needed to cover a 200-acre block of forestry. In your view, what would be an acceptable number of dogs? You said that you have been thinking about licensing. If somebody applied for a licence to use 10 dogs, would that be sufficient or too many? How about 15? Where is the limit?

You gave me sufficient time at the beginning to make my case. I have listened to what the Deputy First Minister has said. Before stage 3, I would like to explore with him and with the Scottish Government how we can resolve any perceived backlogs that are realistically felt to be affecting the First-tier Tribunal. By looking at that issue, we might be able to give some confidence if the changes are to go ahead.

I fear that Mr Fraser is right about unintended consequences. I think that churches, for a whole heap of reasons, would rather not risk going through a tribunal and would think that it would be easier to let premises lie empty. I think that that goes for many landlords who wish to house their employees.

I press amendment 70. I am sure that we can look at each amendment in turn.

I would move amendment 71, but I might be able to help you. I do not know whether this is impertinent, but I think that the voting might continue in a certain way. Therefore, I would be happy to move amendments 71 to 82 and 146 en bloc, if that suits the committee and you, convener. I do not wish to pre-empt your position, but I am trying to save you some time.

I am very happy to move amendments 71 to 81 en bloc.

I do not want to move amendments 84 to 108.

I will not move the amendment. I hope that I can discuss the matter further with the Scottish Government.

Amendment 107 not moved.

Section 36 agreed to.

Section 37—Assured tenancies: pre-action protocol

I have lodged amendment 111 to give a time limit to the proposed changes to the mandatory and discretionary eviction grounds under sections 33 to 35 of the bill, which will amend the housing legislation that we have been discussing. The amendment would require the Government to introduce its new housing bill by 31 July 2024, thereby allowing it to respond to the effects that the changes that it is bringing in will have on the lettings market.

I know that the Government will find it hard to accept putting a time limit on that, but it is suggesting a fundamental and retrospective change to existing law. To my mind, it is doing so without full consultation, without really speaking to all those whom it should speak to and without listening to people on both sides—that is, landlords and tenants—in relation to the changes.

I am sure that the way in which committee members will vote on the amendment will be driven by their wish to make good and watertight law. Therefore, to my mind, a sunset clause should find their favour. After all, that would ensure that a proportionate response to the pandemic is not allowed to be carried forward beyond the pandemic.

Before I finish, I highlight that Mark Griffin’s amendment 110 has merit. I would go further than it proposes—I would like it to be amended to include a note of all types of tenanted properties over the period. The Government will say that it is not possible to collect that information but, of course, it is possible—you need only speak to councils, which must have a register of landlords and their properties. You can easily find out how that changes on a yearly basis. As Mr Swinney will know, landlords pay a fee to councils to be on that register. Therefore, checking and keeping on top of that should be simple. We would then be able to see the effect of the changes.