Chamber and committees

Yes. Why is the bill framed as it is?

Could you say a little bit about the circumstances in which you think, from the evidence that you have, that snaring is still used legally and about the arguments that are put forward for its being used legally? Also, you mentioned that you would like to see a ban on the use but not the sale of snares. Could you say a bit more about the reasoning behind that?

I appreciate what you are saying about the fact that a final decision is still to be made, but, on vicarious liability, what likely consequences might there be under the legislation? For example, if someone on a farm or an estate uses a snare illegally, what might the options be for consequences? Could something be done in relation to support under agricultural payments, for example?

You mentioned the fact that most European countries have banned snares altogether. What have you learned from those examples, whether they relate to vicarious liability or anything else? My understanding is that the United Kingdom is one of only six countries left in Europe that even has the option of snaring. What lessons have you learned from other places?

We are together for Parliament.

I apologise, but I am going to move on unless anyone else wants to come in. I am conscious of the time, which is the usual hue and cry from our conveners.

One of the aspects that we have explored—we have highlighted the challenge in it—is that the Parliament is just one element in what sits here and what we call democracy. We have party politics and we are all members of political parties. The extent to which Parliament can influence political parties is always challenging. As Ivan McKee pointed out, that should be done very cautiously. Political parties play an important role with regard to the number of members that they return and the relationships that exist within the Parliament. The Government draws its members almost exclusively from elected MSPs. Ivan McKee has hinted at the challenge for the Government: the larger a Government is, the fewer back benchers it has and the harder the situation it is.

We have already considered myriad questions, but the issue is where they interact. I would particularly like to hear our witnesses’ comments on a question that Ivan McKee raised and that we did not quite get to the bottom of, which is whether we should look at the reality of how committees are created here. I use the word “committees” in its widest sense. Should we look at how people are appointed to formal roles in the Parliament, or should we look at how people perceive it happens? Which way do we want the rules to go? Do we want the rules to influence how it actually happens? That is perhaps more of a reference to culture, which Karen Adam talked about. Should we create rules so that there is a way of circumventing them to get the decision that works for the Parliament? How do we reconcile that tension with regard to what this committee is being asked to look at?

You have hinted at this, but what is your view on the fact that, under sections 2 to 4, a code of conduct is set out on the face of the bill? If, at some future stage, we were dealing with new breeds of dogs and new problems, what would be involved to amend that code of conduct?

It has been put to the committee that enforcing the register would have resource implications. Again, I appreciate that this is not your bill, but what is your understanding of what resources might be required for enforcement? What is the cost-benefit analysis, and how would enforcement of the bill relate to enforcement of any existing measures?

I am sure that all ministers come under pressure, particularly at stage 3 of legislation, to put all sorts of things on the face of a bill—that phrase is thrown around—but are you saying that putting everything with regard to the code of conduct on the face of the bill would not be helpful, in the Government’s view?

Yes, thank you, convener. I appreciate that we are asking a lot of questions about a bill that is not yours, minister, but I am keen to know your view about the efficacy of a registration scheme, the costs associated with maintaining it and who would update it.

Thank you, minister.