Chamber and committees

I just want to be clear. Is an official investigation triggered by, say, a vexatious claim even if there is no evidence of, for example, a dead bird?

You are saying that the bill will improve that situation because you have evidence to suggest that that raptor persecution is linked to grouse moors.

Convener, I think that the committee needs clarity on that, because “could” and “would” is not “yes” or “no”. The question is: does it, or does it not?

In layman’s terms, can you give examples of what you mean by “some evidence of wrongdoing” to explain how that provision is compliant with article 1 of protocol 1 of the ECHR?

What is the difference between suspension and revocation?

I also need clarification of Mr Dignon’s response to Jim Fairlie that there is no evidence of trap interference, tampering or sabotage.

You will accept therefore that there are individuals who are concerned that traps are being interfered with and sabotaged.

Therefore, are you saying that there is a lack of evidence? That is exactly the same approach that the grouse moor licensing is taking—

What is the number on it? Can you quantify it?

So, to clarify, are you planning to set a minimum level?