Seòmar agus comataidhean

On that theme, I wonder whether, in coming to a view about banning glue traps, it was envisaged, discussed or debated what that transition would be to, given what Ian Andrew has said. What is the transition to, in schools and hospitals?

Can you explain a little bit about how you came to the conclusion that there was a need for a new regulation around wildlife traps? Are you satisfied with what the bill has done in terms of making your recommendations real?

In some of the evidence that we have taken and some of the things that we have looked at, there has been a concentration on the proposed distinction between peatland and non-peatland areas and on questions relating to the 40cm figure for peat depth and all the rest of it. From what you are saying, I am trying to get a picture of whether there is evidence that muirburn per se is responsible for the kinds of fires that you are alluding to, where peat burns on the hill, or whether this is an entirely different type of fire that we are talking about. Is muirburn a factor in the type of fire in which peat burns on the hill?

I want to focus on the licensing system. We have not allowed the witnesses to explain why they came to the conclusion that it was necessary to legislate in order to address abuses. You have mentioned that the vast majority of estates operate responsibly, but what evidence led you to conclude that there is a need for a code of practice, for example? Can you give us a flavour of the incidents and evidence that drew you to the conclusion that a code of practice is necessary?

Your review recommended SNH—or NatureScot, as it is now—as the licensing authority. Does the bill that we are looking at allow for a scheme that you feel NatureScot is in a position to deliver?

Without second guessing what SNH—or NatureScot—might do, do you have any views about the choices that it faces in terms of licensing? You said that it should be light touch. What is the scope of the options that you feel we should be considering?

Building on what Mark Ruskell asked about, I want to ask about responsiveness to local communities’ needs, and specifically the fact that not all culture takes place in a theatre or traditional cultural venue. I am thinking about traditional culture, but that could apply to all sorts of local culture. How do you recognise that fact in how you approach things nationally?

I appreciate that.

I have been in it. I have seen “Star Wars” in it in Barra.

I agree with your point that some of the funding for the big cities reflects the fact that people come into big cities to access stuff. However, when you measure success rates, do you also take account of the fact that visiting some parts of the country—I represent the Western Isles—would involve an overnight stay and that those places are therefore out of some people’s reach? That is not a case against the centres of excellence in the Burrell collection or the national museum of Scotland, but are we measuring success in terms of enabling people to access national assets that are in places that are so far away that an overnight stay is involved?