I am grateful to the minister not only for those comments, but for the engagement that we have had previously.

On the timing, there is a risk that, if one part of the levy is put in place ahead of the other, the unfairness that I talked about will be seen to apply, even if only for a year or two until a cruise ship levy applies. Therefore, the choreography of the way in which the levy will apply will be crucial to most local authorities that rely heavily on cruise line traffic. Has the minister’s engagement with COSLA picked up on the need to ensure that all aspects of the levy can be applied simultaneously, if councils wish to take forward the proposals?

I am encouraged by what you have said about your openness to discussing the issue. As I raised with the convener, there is an opportunity for island authorities to levy any such charge on vehicles that come via ferry. That seems to be an appropriate way to apply the principle that the levy is about supporting infrastructure and services. Are you open to considering whether an option exists for local authorities to apply such a levy through that route—albeit, as the convener said, it could not be applied in a similar way by mainland-based local authorities? In the spirit of allowing flexibility for the measure to be applied in appropriate ways, depending on need and circumstances, that option should, I would have thought, be available to island authorities.

In the hope of working with the minister to see whether there are ways forward, either in relation to camper vans or cruise traffic, I will not move amendment 1.

Amendment 1 not moved.

Amendment 2 not moved.

I absolutely understand the complexity of applying the levy to motorhomes. To go back to my earlier point about flexibility, there would at least be an opportunity to apply it in island communities, where the issue of motorhomes is about their impact not only once they arrive but on the capacity of ferries to and from the mainland. There is an option to apply a levy to motorhomes travelling on ferries, irrespective of where those motorhomes come from or have been leased. The revenue gathered could be allocated to benefit island communities.

As you said, that would not necessarily apply across the board. However, there needs to be recognition that local authorities should be able to apply the levy flexibly.

Any MSP will tell you that the more casework you do, the more you generate. The point that you make about better use of the existing resource is well made, but it is not unreasonable to suggest that the more the SSPCA goes down this route, the more it will do and the more it will find that it could be doing. Therefore, the anxiety might be that there is diversion away from some of the other animal welfare work that it does to focus more on this. Have you discussed that with the SSPCA?

I, too, send Jim Fairlie my wishes for a speedy recovery. Just following up on his question, has the Government developed or built up any evidence on the effectiveness of some of the alternatives?

Minister, you are absolutely right that a suite of measures is being used—that was certainly the evidence that we got during the passage of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011. However, even then, as Jim said, the argument was made that, in certain terrain, snaring was seen as the only effective, viable option. In a sense, it is a last resort rather than a first resort. My understanding is that live-capture traps have been deployed and their effectiveness in capturing foxes is debatable. I appreciate that there is a suite of measures, but I wonder whether you or your officials have built up an evidence base on that.

Good morning, minister. I was on the predecessor committee that scrutinised and helped to pass the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011, which introduced licensing tags on snares. At that stage, the feeling was that that would give us visibility on the effect of snares that were being set legally and in accordance with the legislation, as opposed to those that might be set by poachers, as the convener was suggesting. If that level of granular detail is not available, I would have real concerns.

I understand that the BVA, of which I am an honorary member, and other organisations have long campaigned for the banning of snares. However, as a Parliament and as a committee, we should be concerned about how effective any ban is likely to be if we are simply banning legally set snares, which are not causing welfare problems, but leaving poachers to continue snaring, which is what they will do. As you said, minister, there is no way to ban the means of making snares, and the Government is not proposing to do so, so it is fairly safe to assume that those home-made snares will continue. If we do not have granular detail on the snares that are legally, as opposed to illegally, set, that will have an impact on animal welfare, which goes to the very heart of what we are discussing here.

As Rhoda Grant has said, the SSPCA has closed its rehoming facility in Caithness, and there has been widespread conjecture about the financial situation that it is in. Orkney has been without an SSPCA inspector for some time now, and I know from speaking to local vets that that has given rise to serious concerns about animal welfare issues.

I appreciate what you have said about the SSPCA insisting that these additional powers do not necessarily require additional resources, but there is some anxiety about there being a patchwork in this respect, with some areas having inspectors who have been well trained to take on the additional powers while, in other areas, the SSPCA has not been able to resource that sort of thing. I think that that will likely have an impact on the public’s confidence in the SSPCA taking on these roles. In your discussions with the SSPCA, have you been able to ascertain the extent to which it believes that, in the challenging financial environment, it is going to be able to meet the expectations that are being placed on it across the full gamut of animal welfare?

I was not suggesting that. If you have a situation where shooting is being deployed more routinely because snaring is no longer an option, you are potentially undertaking it in terrain where it is not felt to be ideal. It is not the skill set of the people who are undertaking the activity that is being called into question; it is simply that the amount of shooting would be greater than it is at the moment. I wondered whether a risk assessment had been carried out on that.

That is very helpful. On shooting, I know that, in relation to goose management, for example, and some of the issues that have been faced in places such as Orkney, anxiety has been raised about the potential risk from having more people shooting across more types of ground. Has the Government done any analysis or assessment of the potential risks from increasing the level of shooting and how those could be managed?