Chamber and committees

We have talked and have asked about whether exemptions around rough shooting might be workable. In our additional call for evidence, we received a comment from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which stated:

“In the commission’s view, extending the bill’s provisions further to accommodate other forms of rough shooting is undesirable and unnecessary. To do so would seriously risk undermining both the legislation’s purpose and its enforcement.”

Did the Government consider that further exemptions in respect of rough shooting would undermine other parts of the bill or the principles of the bill?

My question is for anyone to answer, but I will direct it first to Mr Livingstone.

Aside from all the democratic questions that trouble everyone on the committee about what is in the bill and the tabula rasa that it seems to want to create, I have a question about the sheer scale of what the UK Government is proposing. It is difficult for us to get an idea of the amount of civil service time that might be involved in trying to recreate the laws that are sunsetted, whether the Scottish Parliament chooses to go along with the approach or not, given that the Government has just discovered 1,400 laws that it had forgotten about.

I see that Dr Hood is interested in answering, but I will go to Mr Livingstone first.

Dr Hood, I think that the broader question is: why would any country volunteer to go down this legislative route?

If there is time, convener, I will direct my other question to Mr Livingstone, as he referred to some of those themes.

The Hansard Society has indicated that the proposed legislation would be “an abdication” of many of the UK Parliament’s roles. I do not know what word would be used if the UK Parliament chose to remove some of the roles of the Scottish Parliament—I presume that it would be “deposing” rather than “abdicating” those roles; I am not sure how it works.

The Hansard Society has said that the bill could have

“potentially serious implications for devolution”.

Will you give an indication of the implications for Scots law and the way that it develops? What will happen if it is developed increasingly by ministers who might have, to use Mr Clancy’s words, limited sensitivity to Scots law making?

I am keen to have your comments on the impact not just on agriculture but on the wider environment. My understanding, from looking around me, is that greylag geese are pulling up—despoiling, if you like—areas of agricultural land. They pull up the grass, but they are also making areas ungrazeable—if that is a word—for a long time after they have collectively decided to visit. If, for the agricultural and environmental reasons that we have talked about, the primary method of controlling them is through shooting, how do we address the fact that, in communities where agriculture is part time, we are going to need significant numbers of shooters to deal with the problem?

I think—if I have picked her up rightly—that Morag Milne alluded to the licensing of meat from greylag geese. I realise that, in the short term, we are never going to sell all the meat that results from shooting the geese. Nonetheless, I can confirm that goose burgers are very nice. Has part of the problem been that licensing of the meat for sale has happened on a short-term or sporadic basis that has not encouraged businesses to exploit and make something of that market?

It is interesting to hear what has just been said about greylag goose numbers. As I live on the Isle of Lewis, I will declare a sort of interest. Although I am not a crofter, I am, where I live, surrounded by greylag geese and by comment on them.

So that the committee can get a better picture of greylag goose numbers, can you say a bit more about what has changed in relation to their migration patterns and their numbers, and can you also talk about the impact that that has had on agriculture, particularly the sort of agriculture that supports habitats for a wider range of species?

On the back of that point, I know that some of you are involved in trying to match people up and create projects. Can anyone say anything about how that might be helpful in relation to finding roles for people in Scotland or matching people up with events? I know that Tatyana Filevska has an interest in that.

I am sure that there will be stiff competition between the two events.

A few people have rightly mentioned Ukrainian identity and the threats that it has always faced. I wonder about language and literature. What efforts are being made with partnerships to ensure that Ukrainians and others get to hear about the Ukrainian literary tradition, and what opportunities do young Ukrainians and children have to learn to read and write in Ukrainian once they are here, so that they can keep that connection with their culture?

We have touched on the EU civil dialogue group. The previous set-up in the EU gave certain stakeholders a voice—in that example, in the context of organics. Are there any other groups that we need to reinvent to ensure that stakeholders are as involved as they were when we were in the European Union? That is not meant to be a trick question; I am just curious to know whether there are other things that we need to reinvent—apart from our reputation in the world.