Chamber and committees

Thank you. That is helpful. Alasdair Allan has a brief supplementary question on exceptions, after which we will move to licensing.

The Scottish Government has said that it will publish guidance. On the back of Jim Fairlie’s question, I note that that will be critical to how the licensing system works. Have you been involved in putting that guidance together? If not, will you be involved? Do you have any idea when the guidance notes will be published before the bill becomes an act? Do you know whether the guidance will be consulted on?

I have a question for Michael Clancy. The Law Society’s written evidence mentions the ancillary powers under part 4 of the bill. Regulations made under section 21 may

“make different provisions for different purposes”

and

“modify any enactment (including this Act).”

Even I, as someone who is not a lawyer, would suggest that that is a very wide power that could allow ministers to make modifications to the legislation without parliamentary scrutiny. Could you comment further on that?

On the decision not to provide for vicarious liability or to reverse the burden of proof, Police Scotland said that it is not in favour of such provisions, but it did not give any reason. Could you give us the reason why you do not think that having provisions on vicarious liability or reversing the burden of proof in the bill would be a good tool to have in your toolbox, so to speak?

Welcome back, everybody. Our next agenda item is consideration of the Scottish Government’s aquaculture regulatory review. I welcome to the meeting Professor Russel Griggs OBE, whose “A Review of the Aquaculture Regulatory Process in Scotland” and recommendations for change were the first stage of the review process. We have questions that will take us to about 10 past 12. I will kick off. On the basis of your engagement with the industry and communities, what are your views on the current relationship with stakeholders and the level of trust in the decision-making process?

Obviously, you have years of experience of big industry and communities and so on, and you are well aware of the pressures on communities with regard to renewable energy in the south of Scotland. Is it a similar situation for communities where there are fish farms? Is there scope for it to improve, or do we need to start to make improvements now to ensure that communities and industries thrive?

You mentioned some communities being well funded, but my issue is always about whether evidence on that is well founded. “Funding” and “founding” are two similar words that can drive a different outcome. Are there plans to put the right mechanisms in place, so that we have peer-reviewed evidence, rather than a polarised argument?

We would absolutely appreciate your views on that. Ariane Burgess has the final question.

Unfortunately, we had a lot of supplementary questions that we were not able to bring in, but we intend to carry on with the topic in our next evidence session. We hope to ask the cabinet secretary about your review and the establishment of the short-term project board at our first meeting in September. I have no doubt that our paths will cross again in the future. Thank you for your time, Professor Griggs.

We will move on to our next item, which we will take in private.

Mr Telford, how often do you and your colleagues turn up to an incident of hare coursing and have to stop and ask what the chances are of it leading to a prosecution because there are too many opportunities for the criminals to come up with an excuse? Under the bill, would the number of times that that happens reduce because the law is clear? Would it be more likely that, when you take a case to the procurator fiscal, it would be progressed?