Seòmar agus comataidhean

Forgive me, convener, but I am going to have to ponder that for stage 3, as I am not quite satisfied with the explanation. It may be perfectly right, but I need to tease it out and read the detail.

That would be good. My understanding is that the licence goes to a person or category as the bill stands. Therefore, if the licence is breached, surely the licence holder is liable, notwithstanding the fact that another party is undertaking the physical control. At the end of the day, it is the licence holder who says, “I’m getting a licence, and I’m responsible for what happens under this licence of mine.”

We would not know who those were. It could be anybody. It could be somebody who has nothing to do with the landowner.

I will leave it at that. I will have a big think about the matter again, because I am not sure.

So, there is a possibility of having a public register.

My goodness—what a long day the committee has had.

First, I will speak to my amendments 156 and 159, as they pretty well deal with the same thing. I will then move on to amendment 161. The amendments are probing amendments, and I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about them.

Amendments 156 and 159 seek to delete

“or to a category of persons”

and “or category of persons”. I do not quite understand those phrases—I am sure that the minister will clarify them for me. Rachael Hamilton and Jim Fairlie have referred to the licence holder, but a category of persons is not a licence holder—it is a category. I do not know what that means. Does it mean the farmers, the gamekeepers or the landowners? I do not know.

If I follow the line that it refers to gamekeepers, landowners or whatever, who will be liable for any breach at the end of the day? Who would be brought before the court for breaching the terms of the licence? There would be no name.

I understand that there might be several farms on a large piece of hillside in respect of which exceptions to exceptions require a licence over an area in which different persons own the land, but I do not see why a licence could not be granted to a particular person or persons. That might be the gamekeepers on three different estates, for example. At least there would then be a name in the frame.

I am not looking to persecute anybody; I just want to make things easier for enforcement and responsibility.

I think that I am getting multiple interventions, as is my wont. That is up to the convener.

I will get a badge.

I have not thought about that point, but my answer off the cuff in thinking about it now is that, no, they could not possibly be present when the activity took place. They would delegate holding the licence to a responsible person, as MSPs do to our staff. However, the buck would eventually stop with the landowner.

The issue is who has their name in the frame at the end of the day. That could be one person or two people. I do not know where “category” comes in.

I will move on to my next amendment before the minister responds. I am beginning to chair the meeting, and I did not mean to do that.

Amendment 161 follows on from that. I heard what was said about victimisation, but there is an element of how people know. This is about exceptions to exceptions. If members of the public or whoever are just swarming about and they see something that should be allowed, how do they know that it should be allowed? They may not know that the area has been licensed for certain pursuits that do not come under the general legislation. On the other hand, they might see something that should not be taking place. There has to be some responsibility there.

Are licences for publicans, for instance, published? I am trying to remember. Is there a list of licensed publicans or a list of licensed taxi drivers somewhere? Are they in the public domain? I appreciate that there might be data protection issues, but there might be ways of dealing with the addresses. Again, I am probing.

I understand that they are legal entities. Companies, clubs and partnerships are legal entities, but “category” is not a legal entity.