Chamber and committees

Hugh Dignon has just told me that a review will look at that. That needs to be done. Whenever we look at giving more work to an agency, we need to look at how it will be funded, but Hugh has just notified me that there is a review.

I would just point to the appeals process and everything that I have said so far about that. Again, I am open to discussions. I need to think about what you have said and reflect on it.

So, you are not talking about a report that was produced—okay, I understand you.

Okay—sorry. It would have been helpful to have known which report you were referring to.

Obviously, officials have been working hard on the matter. We made the announcement two days ago now, I think, and up until we did so, we were liaising with Police Scotland on the issue quite comprehensively. The position that we have arrived at aims to close the potential loophole that could be used to get rid of evidence, due to the time lag. That is particularly the case when SSPCA officers have seen something but they cannot do anything about it—they cannot gather evidence. Something could happen in the intervening period, if there was a lag before the police could get there. Indeed, we could be talking about quite a long period, as there could be weather issues or geographical implications.

Hugh Dignon mentioned suspicion of crime. There have been issues with the ability to recover evidence to support any kind of investigation, which is why we have arrived at our position with regard to the powers that the SSPCA should have. We hope and think that those powers will assist the police, but there is absolutely no doubt that the police have primacy. We will continue to liaise with the police on how the measure will work on the ground. If the police have concerns or feel that a particular officer from the SSPCA is not acting within that remit, I have, as I have said, the power as minister to take away that licence.

Hugh Dignon wants to give some detail on the exact thrust of the comments with regard to the report. In my view, however, if the police raise any issues about SSPCA officers acting in a way that hinders an investigation in any way, I have the ability to act and to investigate that myself.

I do not know whether Hugh wants to come in on that.

Over the years, we have known that raptors, including some of our most prized bird species, such as golden eagles, have been illegally killed, and—long before I was in Parliament—we have worked to try to put in place measures to significantly reduce the number that are killed and to eradicate their killing. During my time here, we have put in place more extreme penalties as well as vicarious liability to see whether that would put an end to that. A lot of the measures have reduced it.

I am looking at the figures: 25 bird of prey crimes were recorded in Scotland in 2019; in 2020, there were 11. In my view, that is 11 too many. I do not have information in front of me that goes beyond 2020.

The last part of your question probably nails it, because NatureScot will deal with the licensing scheme, and it will decide with stakeholders on the parameters for the scheme and what information it requires from people ahead of their getting a licence.

If I understand your question correctly, you are right in saying that the licensing scheme could have a dual function—in effect, that is what I said to Alasdair Allan. Many of the issues around that are to do with data and evidence for things such as the practices that take place on peatland and whether they damage or enhance it, and whether they enhance or degrade biodiversity. I see the licensing scheme as a very useful tool in evidencing where that happens.

We cannot pre-empt what that evidence will be. However, we hear from land managers all the time—you will have heard from them directly—that their practices increase biodiversity. They might tell you that you will see bird species on grouse moors that you do not see anywhere else, for example. They will point to their land management in terms of areas where they rewild and have brought back species that have not been there for some time.

I think that the licensing scheme will be a useful tool. Again, I make the point that how that will be set is not for me to decide; rightly, it will be for NatureScot.

When NatureScot was before the committee, I was pleased to hear its commitment to working with a large range of stakeholders to make sure that the licensing scheme is simple, easy to apply for and not onerous in terms of evidence that land managers must produce. However, if it has concerns or it does not quite know about something, it will work with the land manager or the person who is applying to find out more information. It will not be a rubber-stamp exercise, or a yes or no. NatureScot will have a conversation and, if it has any issues, it will iron those out before deciding on whether to grant a licence.

The philosophy that I heard NatureScot outline is the right one. It is not there to stand in the way of good practice; it is there to encourage good practice, to licence it and, as you said, to get data off the back of that. I look forward to seeing what it will do on that.

I listened to the evidence where that issue was thrown in, and I have to say that I did not quite understand where people were coming from. This bill is ECHR compliant. The officials have gone through the process of testing that, and the Presiding Officer has decided that it is compliant, too.

I had wondered whether this question would come up. When Liz McLachlan was in front of you, she made the point that, under the general licence restrictions, NatureScot operates an agreed framework before it will use any of the powers associated with a licence. It is not as if a Government body is going to behave in a way that is not compliant with human rights legislation or with the agreed framework that is set out in the bill, which is ECHR compliant. I therefore struggle to understand why anyone would say that it is not compliant.

Hugh Dignon might want to say a bit more about this, as he was mentioned, if indirectly.

I gave you my initial personal thoughts about why we have not included possession in the bill, but I am, obviously, willing to move on anything. Beatrice Wishart raised the issue; it is, perhaps, something that she feels should be included in the bill. We are at the general principles stage, so I am willing to speak with anyone who thinks that the offences could be widened or improved.

I do—and you have just articulated effectively why I am open to considering something. First, we need to look at whether the existing offences and the associated penalties are enough of a deterrent. However, we also need to put our trust in the police. The system of ID numbers has been operational for a number of years, and for good reason. Let me put it this way: the police are not daft. They are going to sus out pretty quickly whether somebody is at it. As for whether taking a belt-and-braces approach and providing more of a deterrent will deter people, I am absolutely open to suggestions on that.

No, I would not. I have seen people claiming that the Werritty report was concerned with only raptor persecution—it was not. The Werritty report was by the grouse moor management group, and it made more than 40 recommendations relating to grouse moor management, including recommendations on licensing, grouse shooting, muirburn and the use of traps. The bill is reflective of those recommendations and the issues that the Werritty report identified. So, no, I will not reduce the scope of the bill.