Chamber and committees

I will be brief, convener. Ms Grahame, you spoke earlier about common sense, and we have all heard a fair bit about how it should apply but often does not. The minister and some stakeholders have suggested that public awareness of existing practices might be low. What is there in the bill that could improve public awareness of what is expected of people when they buy a puppy?

I share the convener’s disappointment that some of the supermarkets have chosen to not turn up. That is not something that I can hold the witnesses responsible for, and I will not.

The figures that I have show that 60 per cent of the market for the food that is being sold in the UK—rather than just Scotland—is in the hands of five retailers. However, in many towns across Scotland, you could replace that number with two or three retailers. Can such a situation go on forever without people asking whether it is entirely healthy?

You have mentioned some of the things that you are doing on that front. Clearly, farmers are committed to environmental and animal welfare aims—as, I am sure, you are. You mentioned some interventions, but the big influence that you have is, of course, the price that you are prepared to pay. How do you ensure that the price that you are prepared to pay is having the right influence and is not creating perverse incentives or pressures that are difficult for farmers to reconcile with the high aims?

I have a question on the way in which the operation of snaring offences under the bill might work. I wonder whether anyone has a view on how vicarious liability, which the committee has touched on before, might apply, and what the consequences of it might be.

Can you say a bit more about your work with farmers and others to ensure high standards in environmental and animal welfare? You just touched on that, but will you comment specifically on how that is scrutinised, reported and assessed by you?

I appreciate that you have touched on this, Mike, and that others have touched on it as well. I also appreciate that there is no law or legal framework for you to operate within yet. However, so that people who are looking in can understand what option 2 is and what compromise is, can somebody from the police, the SSPCA or anyone else say whether they have a shared understanding of who does what under that option?

How does the market share compare with that in other European countries?

I do not know how the example that I gave relates to the present law and how it relates to the proposed new law, but what might be the consequences for a land manager more generally? Would vicarious liability be taken into consideration in relation to agricultural payments and so on?

Will the concept of vicarious liability apply to snaring offences under the proposed legislation? If so, how?

Minister, you mentioned the primacy of the police in investigations. What conversations has the Scottish Government had with the police and the Crown Office about those issues? There was mention of a proposed compromise around some of the reservations that had been expressed by them. I am thinking particularly about matters such as powers of entry.