Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, Graham. You are a very disruptive influence on the committee because, subsequent to your questions, there is a whole heap of members who want to ask more questions; I do not know whether or not I welcome your attendance.

I am suggesting politely that you might want to think carefully about the questions that you are asking.

My understanding, Mr Doris, and I am pretty sure that I am correct, is that the original specification that was put out to tender was for 1,000 passengers, 127 cars and 16 lorries. It might have been changed subject to tender, but that was in the original tender documents that were submitted.

You went through a huge learning process. I want to understand whether the client—CMAL—went through a huge learning process as well. It appears that, over the period from the original award of the contract to 2020, CMAL’s learning experience was fairly limited, or was it not involved?

Not only were CMAL representatives on site, but its headquarters are less than 600m away, so it was only a brisk walk away, surely, if an issue was identified.

Our next item of business is consideration of two type 1 consent notifications. These are two instances of the UK Government seeking the Scottish Government’s consent to legislate in an area of devolved competence. The Parliament was notified of the biocidal products proposal on 24 January and the retained European Union law proposal on 30 January. In both cases, the Scottish Government has indicated that it proposes to consent to the instruments being made in the manner that the UK Government has indicated. The committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government.

If members are content for consent to be given for the UK statutory instruments being made in the manner proposed by the UK Government, the committee will write to the Scottish Government accordingly. In writing to the Scottish Government on both UK SIs, we have the option to pose questions, highlight issues or ask to be kept up to date on the relevant developments. If the committee is not content with the proposals, however, it may make one of the recommendations that are outlined in the respective notes from the clerks on the instruments.

Do members have any views, first, on the biocidal products UK SI?

Unless other members have comments, I will move to a substantive question. Is the committee content that the provision that is set out in the notification should be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument on biocidal products?

Members indicated agreement.

We will write to the Scottish Government to notify it of that. In that letter, we will ask the Government what monitoring will be carried out of the effect of the SI, not only on the Government but on stakeholders.

Moving on, does anyone have any comments on the retained EU law UK SI?

The beauty of submitting an amendment early is that it comes up early and you do not have sight of the minister’s amendment, which was lodged just prior to the window for lodging amendments closing. We kind of agreed among ourselves at the outset that we wanted to remove section 8, but that is as far as it went. I lodged my amendment to remove section 8 because I have very deep-felt concerns that section 8, as amended, would give powers to people who have never had such powers before.

I am a great believer in having respect for our police force and that it should be the police, not other people, who implement the law. I have always believed that. Therefore, I am concerned that the powers that will be given to the inspectors are greater than the powers that a policeman has. There is no need for a search warrant, there is no need for corroboration and no specified training is required. Therefore, identifying whether the person who turns up is trained and authorised is almost impossible. There is little or no training on pesticides, which means that collecting evidence on pesticides will be difficult. At the moment, as I am sure the minister knows, that issue is got around when an inspection is carried out by the police with a member of the agriculture department attending to identify and inform on pesticides.

I have real concerns about section 8, because I do not think that it clarifies all the issues that need to be clarified. It would remove powers and undermine the authority of the police, which I am against, and it would give powers to third parties who I do not believe are qualified or have the legal training to exercise such powers.

I hear what the minister has said, but I think that he is sending a very dangerous message, or an unconcerned message, to people who carry out field sports in Scotland. The industry is approved by law and regulation, and it should have confidence that it will be able to continue unless there is clear evidence that there is fear that the species that are being hunted will become extinct, which is why I specified that only species on the amber or red list may be added.

Do you agree that the Government, through you, is saying that it is not just about grouse moor management and that every field sport is in your sights?