Seòmar agus comataidhean

And what about the scientific data?

Is the licensing scheme proportionate and workable, including the requirement for compulsory training and registration for all trap use? Should there be a bespoke scheme that is identified to one serial number rather than individual serial numbers, where an operator may not use all of those traps?

I seek clarification on that evidence. In the previous session the Government official said that the evidence is missing and that the Government is still gathering evidence on the new development in snaring techniques such as humane cable restraints.

Okay.

I just understand this—

You have made a number of points, Professor Reid, and I want you to clarify some of them. Are you saying that what the Scottish Government has done in shaping the bill is broader that what the Werritty review recommended in terms of the scope of triggering a licence for suspension or revocation? I would also like to explore what the Werritty review believed was the causal link between raptor persecution and grouse moors.

The point is that the bill that the Government has shaped covers a broader range of crimes.

My colleagues have asked about proportionality. Do you have any comment to make about that, given the recommendations that the Werritty review made?

That is generous of you, convener. Thank you.

Going back to my original question, page 16 of the BRIA states that the Scottish Government has not consulted on the impact of licensing on businesses either directly or indirectly. Bearing in mind what you said about the challenges around determining the socioeconomic impact of grouse moor licensing, would you have expected the Scottish Government to have done that as part of the BRIA?

Has the agreement only recently been approved?