Chamber and committees

I have two more questions. One of the root challenges in relation to the statutory instrument is the sense from gamekeepers and land managers that their expertise and many years of experience are being sidelined. They often feel as though their vast knowledge is not treated with the respect that it deserves when it comes to such matters. What has the Government done specifically to consult gamekeepers and other land managers in order to learn from them? How do we ensure that the relationship between the Government and gamekeepers is strong and based on mutual respect?

I have some final questions. I have great respect for gamekeepers and land managers, many of whom have said that, irrespective of the legislation, they will still honour the close season. My concern relates to those who might prioritise environmental concerns over and above animal welfare issues. That sits quite uncomfortably with me. First, how will you keep that under review? Secondly, will you heed any new evidence that emerges relating to, for example, those who might disregard animal welfare concerns in order to prioritise tree planting?

Thank you.

I have a series of questions, the first of which concerns the comments that you helpfully made about the figures. You talked about the fact that nearly half of the deer that are culled are already culled out of season, so the primary change through the SSI is to the administrative burden. My challenge, particularly as a representative of a rural area who is always on the receiving end of legitimate lobbying, is that, during the past few years, we have generally been increasing the burden of administration and authorisation when it comes to shooting or culling. In this case, we appear to be reducing that need. Is that entirely for environmental reasons? How comfortable are you that we are actually reducing the administrative burden when it comes to what is essentially a licence to shoot, in contrast with the general theme of the past few years?

Your report considered five areas—glue traps, food and drink, genetic technology, single-use plastics and the deposit return scheme—all of which probably appeared more often in the press than some other issues.

My question was about the qualitative evidence that you have taken from businesses and what they have expressed to you.

Mr MacLennan, in your response to Neil Bibby, you mentioned the fact that most businesses do not think of trade barriers when they are trading freely. If we reflect on the past few years, we know that there has been a huge amount of upheaval, such as rising costs, Covid or the trade barriers associated with Brexit, which might have done more than at other times to push businesses into new markets. Those factors might have encouraged Scotland-based businesses that had been trading within the EU to trade more within the UK, or vice versa. I can think of one business in my constituency that used to trade primarily within the UK but that now trades in Europe, and I can think of another that has done the opposite.

You have taken a lot of qualitative evidence from businesses. Have you come across a lot of examples of businesses that might have traded more frequently in Europe having to adjust to operating within the UK and dealing with some of the challenges that that brings?

My second point is about the notion of raising awareness. You said that the issues about which you have received most submissions are probably those that have been covered most widely in the press. Might the fear created by some of the press cause more concern among businesses than would be caused by the genuine trade barriers that exist?

Do concerns largely get raised about issues that are focused on by the media, or do they largely come from the direct experiences that businesses have had?

I suppose that it raises awareness, which you earlier suggested is needed.