Chamber and committees

There have been assurances, and I presume that they are something that the Government—or any Government—will not be able to renege on. There have obviously been discussions.

I would like clarification from NatureScot. You said that a licence would be suspended if a crime had been committed. Would you use the term ‘crime’, or would you just say that it was a breach of the terms of the licence? It is important to distinguish between civil and criminal.

I beg your pardon.

I declare an interest as a member of the SSPCA. I absolutely appreciate the commonality and good will that exist between the SSPCA and the police. Why and in what circumstance would the SSPCA be seeking more powers?

Was it 40cm?

“Appropriate” or “practicable”.

The issue of training has been mentioned, and I wonder whether one of the questions that should be asked as part of the licensing process is what training on the various methods has been undertaken on the estate in question. It is a very good point; you would not put it in primary legislation, but it might be a question that those providing the licence should ask to ensure that, in granting the licence, they know that the people who will exercise the terms of the licence know how to do these things appropriately.

I do not think that it has seen the bill.

We can write to the Government, saying that it is our understanding that the NFUS has had comfort on this matter and asking the Government to confirm whether that is the case. I am sure that it is, otherwise the NFUS would not have said so.

I am completely muddled about the levels of proof. We are using the term “criminal” when we are referring to licensing, which is a civil matter with civil remedies and breaches.

Let me put to you a proposition, so that I can understand what will happen. The licensing scheme is in place, and the police receive a report of an incident and check it out. Let us assume that there is absolutely sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed that meets the standard of proof in the criminal courts, with the onus on the prosecution. Would the police simply bypass NatureScot and go to criminal prosecution? Please do not answer now, Mr Lynn—that is just my first proposition.

In my second proposition, the police get a phone call and carry out an investigation, but do not think that there is sufficient evidence to take it to the procurator fiscal. Do you then take the matter to NatureScot, which will look at what you have and decide whether, on the civil balance of probability, the licence should be suspended?

That is what I am trying to get into my head. The word “crime” is being used in the context of both NatureScot and Police Scotland, and what I need to know and what landowners would also need to know is: how does that work?

There you go—that was quite short.

I understand the difference. However, would Police Scotland bypass NatureScot if it thought, “Well—it’s right in front of us here”?