Chamber and committees

Yes.

I just wanted to hear what you had to say. On amendment 113, what is your party’s position on support for country sports? It sounds as though you do not support that sort of activity. This is about raptor persecution on grouse moors. What, then, is the purpose behind amendment 113? Is it to unintentionally bring in a ban by the back door?

Will you take an intervention?

Before I speak to my amendments, I thank the minister for setting aside time to speak about them with me—I appreciate that.

My amendments 53 and 75 would introduce and outline a clear set of principles on which licensing schemes could be based. A framework based on principles would help to provide clarity to all land managers, gamekeepers and other relevant bodies that are involved in the licensing scheme. I hope that we can agree that

“a licensing scheme should only be introduced where there is a legitimate need for one”.

The amendments would ensure that we do not burden land managers and gamekeepers with unnecessary restrictions.

Another principle is that a licensing scheme should not put “excessive pressure” on NatureScot, which, as we know, is already stretched with other legislation that it is delivering on. Another important benefit that would be gained through the principles is that they would ensure that there was no “disproportionate cost” for licence applications.

Another benefit of introducing the principles in the bill is that they would ensure that the licensing process would be reviewed to ensure that the application process is as efficient as it can be—and we all like efficiency. The issues with obtaining a hunting with dogs licence are a perfect example of the challenges that arise when an application process is neither practical nor workable, even though, to be frank, ministers promised that that process would be both of those things when the legislation on that licence was put in place.

I move amendment 53.

Amendment 111 and the other amendments in the group centre on the premise of cost recovery for the various licensing schemes in the bill. For hundreds of years, landowners and land managers have been the champions of conservation in rural Scotland. Whether it is a sporting estate or a family-run farm, which my colleague Edward Mountain spoke of earlier, those conservation efforts have been conducted with the experience and understanding that is handed down from generation to generation.

The legal control of pest and predatorial species has been undertaken at the expense of landowners or tenants and has served to preserve, recover and promote endangered and red-listed species. To date, those conservationists have never been paid for providing that service, nor do they ask for money for providing it. It is a service that they are willing to undertake, as they have an appreciation of how important certain vulnerable species are to their local and national habitats. Members should think about the benefits of the work that land managers already undertake. Without them, we are likely to lose our iconic capercaillie. Work has also been done to recover the numbers of lapwings and curlews, and that work will come to nothing if those practices stop.

We have an opportunity to support those who are out before light and who get back home to their families well after dark; instead, we seek to punish them by twisting the financial thumbscrews at a time when they are being asked to contribute positively towards addressing the nature and climate emergencies. The expertise of some of the operators is frequently drawn on by the likes of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, as well as by organisations that are dedicated to promoting and protecting certain species. We simply cannot afford to lose the skill of those people and the equipment that they invest in.

Finally, NatureScot recognises that the control of certain species is a public service and it does not charge for wildlife management licences that directly benefit the public. To push for cost recovery now would likely ensure that individual conservationists, smaller farmers, tenant farmers and projects that work on a shoestring are hardest hit. As a result, they will be unable to afford to carry on that vital work. I hope that the minister will understand my argument that they are currently undertaking that work for free. Success in conservation needs national involvement, and the combined efforts of small projects and landholdings are key to that success. Amendment 111 would ensure that that key work continues unhindered.

I move amendment 111.

Will the minister take an intervention?

My question is quite straightforward. Are you keen on the Scottish Government aligning with the licence cost proposals that are set out in the financial memorandum?

Yes.

I agree with Edward Mountain. I should declare an interest as someone who used to be an agronomist. I completely understand why sprayer operators born before the end of December 1964 were given grandfather rights. It was important that they were able to do that work without a certificate of competence.

However, I slightly disagree with the full extent of Edward Mountain’s amendment 10, which is why I seek to amend it with amendment 10A. Having engaged with young gamekeepers and land managers, I think that, in some circumstances, they are possibly more experienced or competent. That does not mean that I am ageist. Mr Mountain has demonstrated his significant experience over his years as an MSP, and it is sometimes the case that experience comes with age with regard to land management. I therefore do not want to take away from the point that he is trying to make in amendment 10.

I welcome the minister’s reflections on amendment 10A and her support for what I am trying to achieve. We do not want to discourage active management by young people, particularly those who are incredibly engaged in the profession. We need to bring such people into the system, and that is what I am trying to achieve through the amendment.

With respect, this is an opportunity for debate.