Chamber and committees

Over the summer—this relates to Liam Sinclair’s point—I had the privilege of seeing the quality of the creative and cultural industries, particularly across the Highlands. I want to focus a bit more deeply on three questions, which pick up on Kara Christine’s point about preventative spend and the need to acknowledge and quantify the wider outcomes that culture spend can deliver, because I think that all of us have continued to be inspired by the Christie commission. Preventative spend has been notoriously difficult to do, because any fixed budget requires funding to go up in one way and down in another way.

When it comes to the public discussion about funding the creative and cultural industries, to what extent do you think that progress has been made in acknowledging that culture contributes more generally to outcomes? When I talk about acknowledgement, I do not mean politicians saying, “We accept that”; I am talking about the concrete movement of funding. That might be a short answer.

Secondly, when it comes to more general outcomes, Duncan Dornan talked about the impact of culture on health and wellbeing, education and the economy. As we have seen in the Western Isles, it has acted as a tool for reversing depopulation, through spending on MG Alba. What further work would you like to be done to demonstrate and quantify the wider impact of culture spend that can be used as proof, for want of a better word?

My third and final question—I am just throwing them all out there, because I thought that you might be able to pick up on different elements of each—is about partnership working between the private and public sectors. I am talking, for example, about joint projects with the NHS or with organisations that are tasked with delivering economic outcomes and so on. To what extent have you seen growth in such partnership working so that some of the risk around projects can be shared, with the result that not just the museums, for example, have to fork out, but they can partner with other organisations?

It might be worth asking one of my follow-up questions now, just in case anyone else wants to come in.

To what extent might placing more requirements on the buyer—including adding more costs to the process—push buyers into trying to circumvent the formal process, thereby making the situation even worse? For example, if buyers have to complete the certificate and, as a result, might have to pay more for the whole process, that might make some more inclined to buy a dog from the back of a car in a car park. Is that unfair or incorrect?

The root of my question was that you can deal only with situations that you are aware of. To go back to what I said earlier, I imagine that it is much harder to follow up the anonymous guy with a puppy in the boot of a car than it is to follow up someone who is already in contact with some sort of organisation or body, which means that the public will be critical in looking out for problems. Gilly Mendes Ferreira made a fascinating point about certificates improving the rights of the buyer, who will have documentation and proof, even if that flags up inaccurate details.

Good morning. I do have a few questions about certificates.

In the evidence thus far, there has been a lot of emphasis on breeders and the fault lying there, whereas a certificate is presumably designed to trigger a commitment from the buyer to care for the puppy. I have quite a few questions about that. Do you think that the balance is right with regard to the proposal in the bill? On whom should the balance of responsibility lie: the buyer or on the breeder?

Secondly, there are already informal certificates that buyers can commit to, but they are not enshrined in legislation. Are there any learnings to be had from previous informal certificates that have worked? What are the right questions to trigger that commitment among buyers? I do not know who wants to go first.

For the record, if someone is tempted to rescue a little puppy from the boot of a car, what should they do?

My question goes back to a point that Gilly Mendes Ferreira made about enforcement. As always, and as with any legislation, its aims might be laudable but, if it cannot be enforced, we will not see the behavioural change that we are all keen to see. My first question also goes back to my earlier point about certification. To what extent will more formalised documentation and more of a record help with enforcement? Secondly, is it purely a question of financing boots on the ground to go and check or are there other ways of intercepting poor behaviour that does not meet the standards?

I have two more questions. One of the root challenges in relation to the statutory instrument is the sense from gamekeepers and land managers that their expertise and many years of experience are being sidelined. They often feel as though their vast knowledge is not treated with the respect that it deserves when it comes to such matters. What has the Government done specifically to consult gamekeepers and other land managers in order to learn from them? How do we ensure that the relationship between the Government and gamekeepers is strong and based on mutual respect?

I have some final questions. I have great respect for gamekeepers and land managers, many of whom have said that, irrespective of the legislation, they will still honour the close season. My concern relates to those who might prioritise environmental concerns over and above animal welfare issues. That sits quite uncomfortably with me. First, how will you keep that under review? Secondly, will you heed any new evidence that emerges relating to, for example, those who might disregard animal welfare concerns in order to prioritise tree planting?

Thank you.

I have a series of questions, the first of which concerns the comments that you helpfully made about the figures. You talked about the fact that nearly half of the deer that are culled are already culled out of season, so the primary change through the SSI is to the administrative burden. My challenge, particularly as a representative of a rural area who is always on the receiving end of legitimate lobbying, is that, during the past few years, we have generally been increasing the burden of administration and authorisation when it comes to shooting or culling. In this case, we appear to be reducing that need. Is that entirely for environmental reasons? How comfortable are you that we are actually reducing the administrative burden when it comes to what is essentially a licence to shoot, in contrast with the general theme of the past few years?