Chamber and committees

So, the minister will monitor the situation by taking information from those who have extended powers—that is marking your own homework.

On a point of order, convener. I am very concerned that we are making allegations against a certain group of people here. There is evidence in the papers that we have today to say that poachers may use illegal snares. That is very worrying, because the Scottish Gamekeepers Association has been critical of people using illegal snares. It is concerning that we have a civil servant making such allegations to the committee without evidence.

It looks as though I am going to do this question to death, as it has already been asked twice by my colleagues. The feedback that we got from stakeholders was that the 2006 code needed to be updated and revised. Indeed, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission suggested that a solution would be for Scottish ministers to introduce a revised code under the combined authority of the 2006 act. There has, therefore, been considerable evidence that Scottish ministers should consider the issue.

One area that has been discussed is whether we should consider using the mechanisms that are already in place. Given that the committee needs to come to a conclusion on Ms Grahame’s bill, what are your views on using those existing mechanisms? Can you expand on some of the questions that have already been asked and reflect on the evidence that people have given?

[Inaudible.]—we consider and come to the recommendation that we believe that the code of practice under the 2006 act could be revised or updated. What happens after that? Would Scottish ministers respond in a more detailed fashion? I do not feel that the committee is able to make a decision on whether we need another code of practice at the moment. The code under the 2006 act provides a high level of parliamentary scrutiny, because, if it was revised, it would have to come back to the Parliament for consideration, but the code of practice under Ms Grahame’s bill would not. Can you enlighten us or even possibly commit to writing to us on what might happen if there was a recommendation from this committee to revise the code of practice under the 2006 act?

I have a supplementary question that follows on from Jim Fairlie’s questions. Given what you said about public awareness, you must have concerns about the awareness of the code of practice under the 2006 act and how effective it is. If you create another code on top of that, will it not just have the same outcome? Failure to comply with the existing code is not an offence, so where is the carrot here? Would the proposed code not be duplication? Would it not just be for show?

Thank you.

I am not trying to be cheeky; I am trying to establish in my own mind how we understand this process. It is ultimately up to you to decide whether the code of practice in the 2006 act could be revised, updated or amended to reflect the new content that some stakeholders are asking for.

It needs to be.

Let us be clear. You, as the minister in charge, believe that the content of the code of practice under the 2006 act could be updated, amended or revised.

The convener asked about the cost of the public awareness campaign. How much involvement have the Scottish ministers had in relation to the cost of the staffing for that? Were the figures provided by Ms Grahame? I cannot ask her directly about that.