Chamber and committees

I think that you have just said yourself that it defines the clarity of the law, and that is very important—

You mentioned the law, and it does define the clarity of the law.

Okay. You referred to the Werritty report. In relation to your answer to Jim Fairlie’s question about the one-year licensing period, you have chosen to ignore the Werritty review, because we heard:

“Given that the bill provides quite wide powers for ministers or NatureScot to modify, suspend or revoke licences, I think that annual renewal is probably unnecessary.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 14 June 2023; c 6.]

Therefore, on one hand, you are using the Werritty review to justify your decisions and, on the other hand, you are rejecting the recommendations of the Werritty review, so how is there consistency in that approach?

Is the Government’s approach to the code of practice consistent with the approach that it has taken to other land management sectors?

Thank you.

But it says here—

But you do not have evidence in that respect. Clearly, the committee needs to look into that, because we are getting the wrong information, if that is the case.

We heard last week about toxicology reports—

But the police do not agree with you.

The minister keeps talking about there being one licence, but Hugh Dignon has just mentioned peatland and non-peatland. Will you clarify whether there will be two licensing schemes—one for each type of land?