Chamber and committees

Eleven recorded crimes—

Ms Hamilton, you are the one asserting that point—I do not agree with it.

Okay—if that is additional to what my officials have already sent, because quite comprehensive evidence was sent to the committee a couple of weeks ago.

I get that. That is fine. We will pass that on.

Yes, because we absolutely do not want to do the alternative. Grouse moors make a significant contribution to the rural economy, and they provide jobs. You have heard from many of the people who have those jobs. They also make a significant contribution to countryside management and biodiversity. Grouse shooting brings a tremendous amount of people to Scotland to spend their money. There are licensing schemes for many activities across Scotland. The licensing scheme in the bill is the option that Professor Werritty has recommended that we take forward, should other measures not solve those problems.

It is fair to say that, in any area of life, certain things can have unintended consequences. The science and evidence that comes out of monitoring that activity, particularly on the impact on the environment—for example, on peatland—will offer us and land managers the evidence base to be able to say that we would not have known that X activity had a detrimental impact on a piece of land had we not had that monitoring in place. Licensing gives us the mechanism to do that.

The main reason, Mr Allan, is that the alternative for the rural economy is not where we want to go.

It is not significant enough. Raptors are still being persecuted and there are still issues about land management in some places that we think should be addressed. We are bringing forward the proposals. The committee will be able to make recommendations and say whether it agrees with the proposals, but we feel that this is a proportionate measure to deal with some of the long-standing issues and areas in which there are not necessarily improvements to the degree that we would like.

I am sorry to disappoint you and not to chum along with you in thinking that annual licensing is a good idea, but I am really open to any suggestions about the licensing period being longer. That goes back to something that I mentioned to Ariane Burgess about NatureScot wanting the process to be as easy as possible for people who are applying for a licence and for the administration not to be onerous.

I am completely open to suggestions as to how long the licences should run for. I do not see that a licence of longer than one year would necessarily have any unintended consequences. I am open to the period being longer.

Mr Carson, you have been here long enough to know that no bill stays in the form in which it is introduced until stage 3. Amendments are lodged—

It is very unusual for a code of practice to be in a bill. I can think of only one bill where that was the case in my seven or eight years here, and that was not in this portfolio. The code of practice was a recommendation of the Werritty review, but, as you will have heard from NatureScot, the code will be developed by it in consultation with stakeholders. I was pleased to hear how vociferously that was put forward. It is only right that the code of practice is a collaborative effort and that there is agreement on it. I think that everyone the committee has spoken to in that space will be involved in the process and invited to collaborate.

As far as the committee’s deliberations are concerned, I do not need to tell you how to operate, but requiring more information on the code of practice is very much putting the cart before the horse. NatureScot will deliver on that code of practice. The bill is to put in place the law that will facilitate the licensing scheme.

I did not say that, Ms Hamilton. It does not define the clarity of the law.