I accept those facts, although I am not quite sure what they have to do with the point that I am making. The reason why I gave the example is to point to the importance of publicly subsided services.

Over the past 16 years, £2.2 billion has gone into Scotland’s ferry services and infrastructure. I do not point that out to detract from the genuine problems that continue in a constituency such as mine, not least the recent issues on both the Sound of Harris and the Sound of Barra, where the interisland vessels are rapidly approaching the end of their working lives. For that reason, I have made a case to the Minister for Transport for the replacement of those vessels to be brought forward.

However, the focus of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s report is, as I say, on the future and on real and tangible progress. Therefore, I note the substantial upgrades to vital infrastructure in my constituency that have been completed, including the piers at Stornoway, Tarbert and Lochmaddy, as well as those in Ullapool on the mainland and Uig on Skye, which serve our routes.

Those examples are relevant to one of the primary recommendations in the committee’s report: namely, the importance of increased standardisation of port infrastructure, where practical, and of vessel design. The benefits of building vessels to more similar specifications, such as the four that are variously under construction or under order in Turkey, will include lower maintenance costs and quicker repairs, with standard parts allowing easier replacement.

My constituents in the islands of Harris and North Uist have long called for dedicated vessels for Tarbert and Lochmaddy, and the Scottish Government has listened. One of the new vessels that are being constructed will be allocated to each of those two routes, improving capacity and, crucially, helping the network’s overall resilience, as well as representing a significant reduction in the average age of major vessels in the fleet.

In its report, the committee recommends that the Scottish Government considers how public ferry delivery organisations can include

“meaningful representations of the island communities they serve.”

I remain firmly of the view that significantly more seats on the relevant boards should be occupied by people who live on islands and therefore rely on ferries in their own lives. That would ensure that more decisions were informed by local knowledge and experience.

Concessionary travel for young people is another element that the committee and many others have recommended be explored by the Scottish Government. I am very pleased that action has already been taken by the transport minister, with the recent announcement of four free ferry journeys each year for all islanders under 22 years of age.

This Parliament has, very understandably, had several debates in the past couple of years on ferry services. For obvious reasons, they have, completely legitimately, focused on the very real problems that services have faced. Equally legitimate, however, is the need to look to the future, and that is what the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s report does—and, I hope, what this debate is doing. I am therefore grateful to the committee for the work that it has done and the substantial report that it has presented to the Parliament.

As others have said, CalMac’s shore staff and crews do an outstanding job. They are not the ones we are criticising today, but there have been plenty of reasons to criticise wider aspects of Scotland’s ferry services in recent years, and I have certainly done my fair share of that. It is worth stressing, however, what I hope is the consensus that our island communities simply could not exist without the substantial and entirely merited public funding that ferry services receive. I will illustrate what I mean by that. I was genuinely shocked to discover recently what a ferry service looks like when it does not have a Government that is willing to give it that support.

Last month, I met local representatives from one of England’s very few inhabited island groups—the Scilly Isles. They explained to me that the United Kingdom Government provides no subsidy at all to their ferry service, leaving them with an operator that sails for only six months of the year, does not accept cars and charges foot passengers £200 a time to travel to the mainland.

I appreciate what you are saying about the fact that a final decision is still to be made, but, on vicarious liability, what likely consequences might there be under the legislation? For example, if someone on a farm or an estate uses a snare illegally, what might the options be for consequences? Could something be done in relation to support under agricultural payments, for example?

You mentioned the fact that most European countries have banned snares altogether. What have you learned from those examples, whether they relate to vicarious liability or anything else? My understanding is that the United Kingdom is one of only six countries left in Europe that even has the option of snaring. What lessons have you learned from other places?

Could you say a little bit about the circumstances in which you think, from the evidence that you have, that snaring is still used legally and about the arguments that are put forward for its being used legally? Also, you mentioned that you would like to see a ban on the use but not the sale of snares. Could you say a bit more about the reasoning behind that?

I do not know how the example that I gave relates to the present law and how it relates to the proposed new law, but what might be the consequences for a land manager more generally? Would vicarious liability be taken into consideration in relation to agricultural payments and so on?

Will the concept of vicarious liability apply to snaring offences under the proposed legislation? If so, how?

Minister, you mentioned the primacy of the police in investigations. What conversations has the Scottish Government had with the police and the Crown Office about those issues? There was mention of a proposed compromise around some of the reservations that had been expressed by them. I am thinking particularly about matters such as powers of entry.

Yes. Why is the bill framed as it is?

Will the member give way?