Chamber and committees

It is great to hear that example from you, Ariane, because peatlands can provide a natural firebreak if they are in good condition. If they are degraded, they probably will not, but if they are in good condition they can. That is why we are putting so much effort into rewetting. There are a number of schemes that you will be very familiar with in that area, because that provides a natural firebreak. It is great to hear that exemplified.

However, we have to recognise that some muirburn practices can also provide a firebreak. I am not an expert in how fire works. The experts, of course, are in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Work is being undertaken with the service at the moment, and it is liaising on that. The people in the service are obviously the ones who have to deal with it on the front line when a wildfire happens.

We also come to the question: what are the major causes of wildfires? There are two. One—this is a sort of practical aspect—is human behaviour, which is the usual cause. Another is that the increasing prevalence of wildfires in northern countries—we are one of those—is due to climate change. A couple of years ago, I was in the Arctic circle, where we met some representatives of the Sámi people, who are from the north of Norway. For the very first time in their existence, they were dealing with wildfires in the Arctic circle, so we cannot dispute that fact.

Peatland and rewetting provide a carbon sink, which is helping in that regard. Their restoration is helping to protect against wildfires and helping us to reach our climate change objectives. Obviously, Scotland cannot do that alone—all countries have to be involved in that—but climate change is one of the main reasons why we are seeing more wildfires. You will have seen on the news that there are terrible wildfires in Canada, which are making cities in America the most polluted places. The air quality in Chicago, for example, is intolerable. However, if the Sámi people of the Arctic circle are dealing with wildfires, that tells a story.

When my officials were in front of the committee three or four weeks ago, we hoped to have a decision by today on whether we would seek to amend the bill in that regard. The reality is that we are still looking at proposals that have been put to us about other types of snares. We do not want to make a decision before we have fully investigated those proposals, but our decision will be imminent.

I am conscious that, as Christine Grahame said at the 31 May meeting, the committee will need time to scrutinise whatever we decide to do; I am completely alive to that fact. When I convened committees, I got quite upset when things changed halfway through a bill process and there was not adequate time for scrutiny, so I understand that the committee needs to know our position on snaring quite quickly. The committee can expect a decision very soon.

When stakeholders tell us—as they have done, particularly from the gamekeeping fraternity—that there are more humane ways of doing things that they would like us to look at and that there has been modernisation in the field, it is incumbent on us not to dismiss that out of hand and simply barrel on regardless. We need to consider whether the mechanisms are humane, and we do that with veterinary and animal welfare colleagues.

To respond to Ms Wishart’s question, I cannot give a date, because I do not know it yet, but it will be soon.

Let me answer the question. Measures that we have put in place are still not making the significant difference that we intended them to make; they are not eradicating that crime. The fact that there has been recorded crime does not mean that unrecorded crime does not exist. I also note that a lot of the evidence has disappeared.

We are maybe talking about tagged birds—so, there would have been 11 tagged bird crimes in 2020. However, what of the ones that are not tagged? We have no way of knowing. Hugh knows about that figure.

Maybe we can put that down in the bill at stage 2, to set that out a little more strongly. I am open to that.

Yes.

We have already had quite a robust discussion about the process that is available to people if they object to or disagree with NatureScot’s decisions. They have the right to appeal to a sheriff if NatureScot decides to refuse to grant a licence, to attach a condition to a licence or to modify, suspend or revoke a licence. If someone is dissatisfied with how NatureScot has operated in relation to their communication or liaison, they are also able to contact the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

However, I keep coming back to the intentions that NatureScot set out in its evidence. It was made clear that NatureScot wants to work with potential licence applicants and other stakeholders in the area to ensure that the licensing scheme, the code of practice and the advice and guidance that are given are appropriate and are bought into as much as possible by the people who will apply for the licences. That is where a lot of the confidence will come in that area. As I said, NatureScot—or SNH, as it was called previously—is used to working with all those stakeholders in a number of areas. I hope that there will be that confidence, and I think that there will be, as was demonstrated in the back and forth during the committee’s round-table session.

One criticism is that someone could say, “Well, I like the person who is in charge of NatureScot—I think they are decent—but what if it was someone else with a different personality?” There are processes, procedures and frameworks in place to avoid personal decisions being made. NatureScot would have to adhere to those frameworks and, if it was found to be the case that it had not adhered to them, an appeal would be successful. I hope that that gives comfort. I think that NatureScot’s answers addressed quite a lot of the concerns.

I have looked into it. I come back to whether the law, as it is drawn, is sufficient in itself. All I can say is that I am open to suggestions on that. I know that some people have been calling for that, but I keep coming back to the fact that people are concerned about a lot of things and I have not been able to have one-to-one conversations about them. I want to have those conversations from now as we move on to stage 2, and I will consider anything that could strengthen the bill in areas in which people believe that it is not strong enough. Alternatively, we could change the wording to make it clearer, or look at anything else that people want to bring to me.

I would rather that NatureScot used other methods to get people to conform with the code, and I think that that is the intention.

I guess that it will monitor compliance through some of the things that we have just discussed. If someone is not complying, the public will soon let NatureScot know, and it will respond to any public intervention.

NatureScot liaises with shooting estates all the time on a number of areas. Again, it is up to NatureScot how it would monitor compliance. I am very aware that it might have an increased workload as a result of the scheme. I have not yet had a one-to-one meeting with NatureScot, but it is one of the bodies that I really need to get up to speed with and have a one-to-one conversation with about what the bill will provoke in its work and what it wants to do on compliance and licensing, so that we can ensure that it is adequately resourced.

I will have to defer to Hugh Dignon on the consultation. However, before I hand over to him, I want to clarify what we are saying to the SSPCA and the agreement that we have. Time and time again, what has come up in evidence on this bill and others that deal with any kind of animal harm and cruelty is those situations in which the SSPCA has not been able to act and take evidence that would have helped a police investigation. When the SSPCA is called to a scene, it is able to deal with any live animals, but, if dead animals are involved, it is not able to give that evidence to the police. The issue came up during the passage of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 in the previous parliamentary session, and it has been mentioned by Mike Flynn and the SSPCA.

Police wildlife officers have also said that they can find themselves in a situation in which the SSPCA is first on the scene and it has taken a bit of time for the police to come. Indeed, it can take hours. If the SSPCA is first to arrive on the scene, it cannot do anything or take any evidence. The powers that we are giving to the SSPCA will not be blanket powers that will be given to everybody who works for it; instead, I will, as minister, be able to give licences to specific individuals who have been trained in the area, and I will have to be satisfied that they have had the training required to do the job. I will have oversight of that, and I will also be able to take those licences away from those individuals, if necessary.

In case of any doubt, I make it clear that the police have primacy in investigating wildlife crime. The powers that we are giving to the SSPCA are for evidence gathering to assist the police in those investigations. It closes a loophole that has been talked about for many years now—indeed, the need for it is quite compelling. That is where we are coming from on that point.

As for your other question about what consultation will take place, I defer to Hugh Dignon.