Chamber and committees

A couple of you have suggested that the proposal is a solution in search of a problem. My question is for John McVay and Nicole Kleeman. From a producer’s point of view, what do you see the motivation behind this exercise being? We have heard that Channel 4 is not a financial basket case. It is difficult to see, from what you have said today, how these changes would help the independent sector in any way economically. What do you think that this exercise is trying to achieve?

I have just one question, which is for Alex Mahon or anyone else who wants to join in. We have talked about the economic and cultural benefits of what Channel 4 does in bringing new people on. An issue that we have not talked about so much is that of writing. We have talked about how important it is to portray Scotland and to portray places in Scotland. Surely part of that is about encouraging writing—old and new—in Scotland. What is happening on that front? What would privatisation mean for that?

On that point, I have a hypothetical question based on what you have been talking about. You have indicated how difficult it would have been from a practical point of view to organise a census if the decision had been taken to go ahead with a census at the low point—or high point, however you want to look at it—of the restrictions around the pandemic. However, would it also have created some very strange data for historians looking back?

My other question is about household visits. The data that you have provided suggests that there were more than 1.5 million household visits across the country by field staff, and that more than half the households in my local authority area had such a visit. Can you explain for us what a household visit constitutes?

In that case, I will ask what I suppose is a related question. Channel 4 provides a distinctive output in the UK in terms of news and current affairs. What do you think stands to be lost in that respect if this move goes ahead? Again, I put that question to John McVay and Nicole Kleeman.

The example of the dog that slips the lead has been raised a few times. You must be tired of hearing about that particular dog, but is it fair to say that the use of the word “use” in the bill deals with some of the question marks? Prosecutors would be interested in the intentions of the human rather than the intentions of the dog. Does “use” encompass that clearly? If it is not a tautology, does the use of the word “use” make it clear in the bill that the examples that we have talked about on numerous occasions, such as that of a dog slipping the lead, are to do with the intentions of the dog, not the intentions of the owner, and that, therefore, the owner would not be prosecuted for that? Is “use” an adequate way of dealing with the problem that we have been talking about?

I have a question for Robbie Kernahan. I appreciate that it is not quite on the same subject, but it has been put to the committee that there might be an increase in the number of guns in the countryside as a result of the legislation. I know that you have touched on that issue, but can you say more about whether that is actually likely, in your view?

That would be fine. You can write a letter to the committee.

Yes, I have questions on the wider question of offences. Moving on to the issue of rabbits, a number of people have raised the issue of a dog—of its own volition—chasing a rabbit. I will perhaps not pursue that area too much further, other than to ask whether people have a view on the inclusion of rabbits under the definition of “wild mammal” and, if so, whether people are content that the bill still allows for adequate pest control. That question goes first to William Telford. Are you content that the bill allows you to make that distinction?

Does Sara Shaw want to come in on that?