Seòmar agus comataidhean

The plan not being—

No. Previously, licences had to be issued on the basis of health and safety rather than nuisance. What was happening previously was that health and safety and nuisance were being conflated.

The conditions are not legally binding; they are certainly not as legally strong as the bill that is in front of the committee. I return to point that I have made right from day 1 of trying to get through, first, the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 and then part 4 of the bill: it is about changing the narrative in Scotland. If there is absolute trust that everything that is going on in estates is good quality, well managed and all the rest of it, that changes the narrative. It changes the ridiculous position that we are in just now whereby people feel demonised for doing a particular job. I would like to change that.

Amendment 35 helps us to do that, because the people of Scotland will look at grouse moor management and say, “You know what? This is robustly regulated, they’re doing a very good job, they’re bringing money into our rural communities and they’re doing the things that help us to be Scotland plc.” However, without the trust, we will still be in a position in which people do not trust what is happening on estates. This is not about us trying to demonise or not trusting landowners; it is about ensuring that there is absolute certainty in everybody’s mind that what is happening in those places is good for Scotland.

Let me rephrase that: the conditions are not as legally strong. They do not have the same legal strength as the legislation that we are in the process of bringing in. The other part of it is that, if NatureScot is working with estates in drawing up boundaries, they have a discussion and negotiation—they come to an agreement. It is not done by one side or the other; it is done in agreement. The position that we are in will help to strengthen the robustness of the legislation, but it will also give security to landholders that they are portraying the image of a properly regulated, well-run business that is good for Scotland. That will help us to change the narrative, which, at the moment, is not as good as it could be.

Although amendment 253 is well intentioned, it contains a fundamental flaw. The provisions in the bill will not be commenced in unison—a staggered approach will be taken—so it is unclear when the proposed five-year review period would start.

In addition, as I have set out in amendment 74, the review that I propose will look at more than just sections 13 to 16 of the bill. It will look at all the modifications that have been made to the 1996 act.

I would be happy to work with Mr Eagle on my proposed mechanism for reviewing the operation and effectiveness of the modifications made to the 1996 act by part 4 of the bill. However, based on what I have said, I ask Mr Eagle not to move amendment 253. If he moves it, I ask members to oppose it.

Amendment 74 agreed to.

Amendment 253 not moved.

I ask the committee not to support any of the amendments in the group, but that is not because we are against or are trying to subvert what Mr Ruskell wants to achieve. We absolutely agree with all of that, but we want to do it in the most efficient and effective way possible, and in a way that does not disadvantage our industry in Scotland in comparison with that in other parts of the UK.

Constructive discussions on a four-nations approach are on-going at the moment, and I would like that process to continue. If the amendments in this group are agreed to today, that could subvert the work that is being done on a four-nations basis. I give an absolute commitment to push as hard as we can to get the UK Government to come to the table so that we can reach an agreement on an approach that can be taken across the four nations that will be effective throughout the UK.

I ask that amendments 32 and 32A not be pressed and that the other amendments in the group not be moved. If they are, I ask the committee to vote against them.

I do not have the information in front of me, but I will make sure that officials write to Rachael Hamilton to give her that information.

Rachael Hamilton raised a number of points. On whether I am convinced that article 1 of the ECHR will not be breached, yes, I am. We do not give out legal advice, so I will not narrate that. There was a comment about dark forces getting into my head. Things get into my head, but they are certainly not dark forces, so I do not know where that came from.

On the rationale for changing the licence, the change came about because 94 licences were altered to show a smaller area after the original licence was agreed. That demonstrated that there was a rationale for closing that loophole—because it is a loophole. The important thing to state is that we are talking about the spirit of the legislation and how we want it to proceed. Had those licences not been altered, perhaps the system would have stayed exactly as it was, but that did happen, so we are closing the loophole.

When the 2024 act was passed, there was general agreement that, according to the spirit of the law, the licence would be based on the landholding. When it became clear that the drafting had left a loophole, there were people who then changed the boundary for which they held that licence. That created a red flag, and that red flag is now being addressed by this amendment to this bill, to ensure that we close the loophole.

Tim Eagle talks about people being very concerned about this change. The biggest concern should be about being perceived to be doing anything to try to subvert the law, which was introduced as a result of the Werritty review, to reduce and completely eradicate raptor persecution. We would not be sitting here having this debate had raptor persecution not carried on for the years and years that it did. We made that position quite clear during the initial phase of the bill process. Everybody has accepted that—

The licence would not be revoked; it would be refused, and NatureScot has a duty to be reasonable in its determinations. To me, that feels like the right way to do it, with a proper discussion about and understanding of what you are trying to achieve. If both parties come to an agreement, you have a licence scheme that works.