Seòmar agus comataidhean

Or whether it is a company in the Bahamas.

Therefore, to put it in simple language, I should not have any concerns about estates that have two or three companies operating on them that are registered abroad. You will still be able to revoke the licence. There will not be problems about intimation or anything such as that. You could put it in a newspaper or the internet, but you will be able to revoke the licence—you will not need to actually serve someone with a notice.

But that is what it means.

What are the current limitations on the SSPCA investigating anything? When must it just stop? What has been considered with regard to extending those powers?

That is, indeed, better done through primary legislation, in my view.

I asked earlier about amendments on snaring. Is it possible for even a draft of the SSPCA powers amendment to be put before the committee during our stage 1 contemplation, whether or not it is in its final form? That would give a steer on which anybody in the committee might take a view. Indeed, the Government might change it, or somebody on the committee might take a view to amend the proposed amendment in one way or another.

To go back to a question that was raised before, there were concerns about the ability to suspend muirburn licences where

“there is an official investigation or proceedings in relation to an offence under this Part”.

Could you perhaps give clarity as to what is “an official investigation” and what are “proceedings”?

What are “proceedings”, then?

I am trying to understand the issue of licences, which are terribly important in all of this. I take it that the licence will go with an area of land.

So, will there be a named person on the licence? I am just trying to understand this.

Therefore, it does not matter if you cannot serve a notice on them or anything like that.