Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful—I thank you both.

I thank both of our guests for covering just about everything that I was going to ask about—in fact, they did so just a moment ago. I would, however like to re-emphasise the rationale for this committee’s role in the Parliament, because the purpose of scrutiny is to provide clarity of the message in law and to enhance that for us all.

Are there any possible transparency implications with regard to the use of the made affirmative procedure? Is there a danger that it might be used only to press home a political point of view, for example? I may be putting you on the spot, asking that. Is there a danger of that, and therefore a necessity that scrutiny should take place in committees before a made affirmative instrument is debated in the Parliament? Does that make sense?

Thank you very much for that. Dr Fox, do you want to add anything?

It may do no harm to raise the question of whether falcons and other birds of prey can differentiate—obviously, they cannot—between hunt species and ask what the petitioner’s response is to that question.

I agree with my colleagues.

I have seen what the Scottish Government has said that its intention is, how it is approaching the matter and to whom it has spoken about it. Even so, it would not do any harm for us to write to the Scottish Government to ask for a review of the effectiveness of the current financial support that is offered to ensure that all occupiers have the capacity to meet the regulatory requirements and be kept safe. I think that there is still some confusion among the general public, and it would not do us any harm to do that.

This is not a throwaway comment, but I think that it is perfectly understandable that the relatives of a deceased person would want that person to be treated with as much dignity as possible.

On the back of what has already been stated, we should probably write to the Scottish Government to ask what consideration it has given or plans to give to the automatic return of tissue samples or to the seeking of authorisation for the retention of samples, in line with practice in other parts of the UK.

Given what you have just outlined and the expected delivery of a new vessel and consultation with communities next year, I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

To be honest, I do not know anything about falconry other than the broad outline, but the issue here is how falconers can maintain their work without causing damage to protected species. The falconers’ response to that would be interesting.

I actually agree with what has been said. I understand that, if you are to introduce legislation, particularly if members of the public are going to comply with it on a daily basis, you have to try to make it straightforward and avoid the possibility of the rules being broken. It is important that we raise the issue with the COVID-19 Recovery Committee and ask it to consider the matter. After it has done so and we have heard what it has said, we can consider the instrument again next week.