Chamber and committees

Could other panel members comment on the point that Mike Flynn has just covered, around pest control, and, perhaps more generally, their view of the workability of the bill in that area? With previous panels, we have discussed whether the legislation might have unintended consequences, such as in cases where dogs slip their leads and chase after rabbits. I am keen to get a general view, first, of whether other panel members accept the point that has been made about the need for pest control and, secondly, about the workability of the bill on the issue of rabbits.

I want to ask briefly about annex 2 to the notification, which sets out the frequency of checks. It is proposed that there will be checks at a frequency of 30 per cent for some categories. Can you explain why that is the case? What is the reasoning behind that figure?

You may have seen that, in our previous meetings, we have discussed at length which wild mammals should be included in the legislation. There has been quite a lot of discussion about rabbits specifically. I am looking at Mike Flynn and Robbie Marsland. What is your opinion about that? Should rabbits be included in the bill, and would that work?

Do you think that hare coursing is still a problem in Scotland?

Do any other witnesses wish to come in? I suggested Robbie Marsland, but others may wish to come in, too.

My next question might also be a loaded one. You have pointed to history and said that, in the past, people at the UK level would not want to have been seen not to care about the view of devolved legislatures, so how do we cope with it when they do not?

Please do not take this question as unduly loaded or cynical, but it relates to some of the things that the committee has been looking at. Just on the context, is any dispute mechanism that is designed to fix the problems unduly hampered if the UK can fall back on residual powers simply to legislate in devolved areas to solve a problem that it sees? I do not expect you to solve that issue but, given that there has been a debate about the circumstances in which that can and should be done and about what constitutes normal circumstances, how does that context impinge on this whole discussion?

I have a supplementary question about innovation. When Mr Yousaf was before the committee, we talked about how to ensure that there is buy-in to social prescribing and spending to save, not just in Government—which there clearly is—but in agencies that deliver healthcare, not least the health boards. What work is being done to ensure that there is, in health boards, the cultural change that would facilitate that?

No, thank you—I am afraid that I must leave.

I do not know whether anyone else wants in on that point.