Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

You began by listing what essentially amount to new systems of veto, subtle though they might be, and new ways of encroaching on the Scottish Parliament’s budget, activities and powers. Obviously, at the heart of all that, as Mr Ruskell has alluded to, is the fact that one party in the conversation—the UK Government—ultimately has the power, if it chooses to legislate, to make up the rules as it goes along. The UK Government never really talks about this very much, but is there any way through this, as long as the doctrine of Westminster sovereignty prevails? Does that have a toxic effect?

We, as a committee, have had evidence from the police about what they view as the number of, if you like, suspicious disappearances of raptors, in addition to evidence on prosecutions. Professor Werritty said in evidence that licensing was not only appropriate but the only way forward that he could see to deal with the situation. Did the Government similarly feel that that was the only option available?

I have a final, related question, convener. Was the drive towards licensing as a model based on the understandable concern about raptor persecution? Was it also based on wider concerns about the management of grouse moors?

Are we on wildlife traps?

I am not suggesting that you would criminalise having planks of wood. That answers my question about how you define use and intent and all the rest of it. Thank you.

I presume that it is not particularly unusual in other spheres for licences to be suspended if prosecutions are being considered. What is unusual about that?

How will it reach a view?

Do you accept that it can be quite a prospect for a crofter or a common grazings committee with a piece of land that has peat of wildly varying depths to identify how much of the land is relevant?

So, NatureScot will not have to work on some kind of precautionary principle whereby, if people do not know how much peat there is, it will assume the worst.