Chamber and committees

This might be the final question, so I thank you for your evidence to date. I will return to my favourite subject, which is enforcement. With regard to the approach that you have outlined, I note that any legal change will only be as effective as the enforcement of that change. In the light of how difficult it has been to monitor and enforce some measures, do you think that the proposal, as it is being worked out, will have a meaningful impact on enforcement?

This was not going to be my question, but I will comment in order to bring all of this to a point. There is quite extensive qualitative evidence—it has been really helpful to hear that qualitative evidence this morning and to read it in our meeting papers. However, quantitative evidence has always been difficult to gather. We will ask questions later about enforcement, but enforcement has notoriously been extremely difficult; therefore, it has been extremely difficult to gather that quantitative data.

I would be very grateful if the minister, when she is responding to the committee as promised with some of that granular data, could provide a list of the quantitative data that is collated, because that would cut through some of the comments. Some of the points that have been made are absolutely critical. An SGA member—a practitioner of many years who cares immensely about animal welfare and biodiversity—who is doing the right thing does not want to get lumped in with those who are not doing the right thing, although that is not what anybody is suggesting. That quantitative evidence might really help to cut through some of those comments.

My question is about conservation and biodiversity. All of us are very conscious that, in order to reach net zero targets, we need to really improve our biodiversity. Unfortunately, that requires quite significant predator control. Will the minister comment on the evidence around our approach to biodiversity, the role of predator control in that, and whether she thinks that some predator control can be conducted only through snaring, as some have suggested?

I have a brief question. Minister, you have very kindly said that you will share data. It is important that we put on the record that that needs to be reasonable data—what the Government might reasonably have. Of course, with any change to the law there would be a requirement to monitor its effectiveness and so on. Is the Government considering what kind of data it would collate and how it would monitor the effect of this change? Given the conversations about predator control, in particular, and Jim Fairlie’s point around the well-documented challenges and dangers of shooting in some circumstances, it is important that the committee is assured that the Government will monitor the situation with quantitative data.

In summary, those are relatively minor points. Nothing is fundamental.

This fairly simple question is based on a question that I put to our stakeholders. On the one hand, Governments and decision makers are always inclined to improve behaviour by regulating it further, but one of the risks of bringing more people into better regulation is that it can push bad behaviour further underground. With the greater costs at various points of the process, how do you ensure that enforcement is targeted not only at those who are reachable, but at those who might be most inclined to engage in even worse practices in the darkness?

At the risk of giving evidence and not asking a question, I would just say that the advantage of simplicity is that it attracts more people, but if the registration system is overly simple, people might not take it seriously.

Good morning. You mentioned in your opening statement that the Government had identified some areas in which it might seek to amend the bill, and your memorandum specifies that. Can we unpack a little bit more the specific amendments that the Government would work with Christine Grahame on, particularly regarding tweaks to part 1?

Thanks, convener, and welcome, cabinet secretary.

Last week, we had Creative Scotland in front of us expressing, as it has in the public realm, some concerns about recent funding decisions. I have a few questions about that issue, and to start with, I want to go back to your opening statement, which contained a lot of information.

Just for absolute clarity, can you explain to us whether, as a result of recent decisions, any culture organisation has seen an unexpected change in its funding allocation for this year? How much information did you have and how much discussion took place with Creative Scotland before you came to any of the recent decisions? Finally, what are you promising in your statement with regard to the budget impact this year and in subsequent years as a result of some of these particular pressures now being managed corporately and centrally rather than by the culture portfolio?

That leads to a follow-up question. Clearly, the bulk of the budget is set by block grant and is fixed, and we are all very aware of the economic challenges, including inflation, energy costs and the fact that our economy is not growing with the speed that we would like to see. I was really struck by Creative Scotland’s written evidence that culture is a huge economic driver. From memory, the gross value added cultural contribution has increased by 62 per cent since 2010, while the Creative Scotland workforce has increased by 9 per cent. That fact tells its own story about culture as an economic driver.

What can be done in the coming years to continue supporting the culture sector in making that massive contribution? How do we ensure that that contribution is recognised as widely as possible?

I will comment rather than ask a question—feel free to comment in return. The sector is also a bulwark against depopulation, because situating organisations such as MG Alba outside the central belt—and not even on the mainland—at a time of growth attracts huge numbers of people to the islands who might not have otherwise lived in the islands. It is not just about that stark national growth but about the disproportionate impact on our islands.