Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am asking about 15 March in the Highlands.

Minister, I am sure that you will accept that things happen at a different pace across Scotland. As a farmer, you will know, for example, that grass will grow quicker in Perthshire than it will in the Highlands. That affects all wildlife, as far as seasons go, because things may take longer when it is colder and darker for longer. That is why I am asking for allowance to be made for geographical variance across Scotland. To treat Scotland as being all the same seems to me to be somewhat strange if we are trying to control management and put it on a level at which we get the best possible outcome for each environment.

I am not seeking a meeting—I seem to be the only member who has not had, or has not been offered, a meeting with you, minister. Will you accept, nevertheless, that there is variance across Scotland and that it would be worth considering geographical variance to take into account latitude and conditions?

With the committee’s indulgence, I will comment briefly on Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 63. The reason for asking for the time period to be extended from five years to 10 years is purely that the period will have a huge effect on whether a business is viable. I do not think that anyone really understands that buying just an Argocat, without a sprayer on the back, is probably going to cost you £35,000. Buying a Land Rover or another vehicle to get round the land that you are managing will add another £30,000. When you add on the costs of the traps and the rest of the equipment that you will need, the cost of going on the training courses and the cost of providing a house for the employee, you are probably looking at an investment—just to start up with one employee—of north of £150,000, and the yearly running costs for these places are exceptionally high.

The point of having a 10-year licence is that it would give some surety and security, most importantly to the people who are employed there. There is a real fear that jobs that are here today may be gone tomorrow, and a five-year licence could bring that about. Everyone knows—I am sure that Ms Forbes knows this—the fragility of the rural countryside and of jobs for gamekeepers on upland estates when it comes to management. Protecting their jobs and giving investors some surety is therefore important, which is why I support the period being changed to 10 years.

I am slightly concerned about Colin Smyth’s amendment 131. He wants every single animal that is killed or taken on the land to which the licence relates to be recorded. We would have long lists of rats and mice and every other species that we could possibly record, and I am not sure what benefit would accrue from that at the end of the day. There might have been a way in which the amendment could be supported if it was targeted at species excluding rats and mice. It might have been important to include animals whose spread we want to keep track of that are being killed. An example is mink, which there is encouragement to remove as they are an invasive species.

I urge the committee to support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 63 and not to support Colin Smyth’s amendment 131.

I feel forced to move amendment 17, because I have received no reassurances from the Government; nor is it laid down in legislation what the procedure would be for other birds, notwithstanding some words that were given today. I therefore press amendment 17.

The beauty of submitting an amendment early is that it comes up early and you do not have sight of the minister’s amendment, which was lodged just prior to the window for lodging amendments closing. We kind of agreed among ourselves at the outset that we wanted to remove section 8, but that is as far as it went. I lodged my amendment to remove section 8 because I have very deep-felt concerns that section 8, as amended, would give powers to people who have never had such powers before.

I am a great believer in having respect for our police force and that it should be the police, not other people, who implement the law. I have always believed that. Therefore, I am concerned that the powers that will be given to the inspectors are greater than the powers that a policeman has. There is no need for a search warrant, there is no need for corroboration and no specified training is required. Therefore, identifying whether the person who turns up is trained and authorised is almost impossible. There is little or no training on pesticides, which means that collecting evidence on pesticides will be difficult. At the moment, as I am sure the minister knows, that issue is got around when an inspection is carried out by the police with a member of the agriculture department attending to identify and inform on pesticides.

I have real concerns about section 8, because I do not think that it clarifies all the issues that need to be clarified. It would remove powers and undermine the authority of the police, which I am against, and it would give powers to third parties who I do not believe are qualified or have the legal training to exercise such powers.

I hear what the minister has said, but I think that he is sending a very dangerous message, or an unconcerned message, to people who carry out field sports in Scotland. The industry is approved by law and regulation, and it should have confidence that it will be able to continue unless there is clear evidence that there is fear that the species that are being hunted will become extinct, which is why I specified that only species on the amber or red list may be added.

Do you agree that the Government, through you, is saying that it is not just about grouse moor management and that every field sport is in your sights?

Amendment 23 is simple in that it recognises that muirburn is carried out not only for moorland game but for wildlife. Most people will accept that muirburn has beneficial effects for ground-nesting birds such as grouse, snipe and other nesting species that require short heather for moving their chicks around. It also has benefits for other species, such as hares, blackcock, peregrine and hen harriers. In fact, everything benefits from muirburn, in my opinion, which is why I want to add the fact that it is for

“managing the habitats of moorland game or wildlife”.

That is, there are two reasons why muirburn should be allowed.

Turning to the other amendments in the group, I believe that Colin Smyth’s amendment 143 is, in effect, trying to destroy grouse shooting. I respect Mr Smyth’s position on field sports, which is that he does not want to see them, but his amendment tries to stop grouse shooting, or that would be its effect.

I find Kate Forbes’s amendments 88 and 89 interesting and I could sign up to them. I recognise that she has taken into account the horrific wildfires that we had in the Highlands recently. There is no doubt in my mind that they were due to a lack of management of fuel loads, and there are organisations that need to understand that. If Kate Forbes does not move her amendments, I will look to see how the proposals can be progressed at stage 3, but I hope that the Government will work with her on them.

I believe that amendments 144 and 145 are surplus to requirements given Kate Forbes’s amendments 88 and 89. I do not think that they are required.

I find amendment 90 interesting. I agree with it, but it presents me with a problem in the sense—

I am disappointed that we did not get into the actual facts about muirburn and that the minister did not engage with any of the specific issues that I discussed. I am also disappointed that he does not acknowledge the importance and skills of those who carry out muirburn, or the reasons for it.

To my mind, introducing another level of licensing will lead to a situation in which we will probably end up with so much analysis that there will be paralysis. The environment will suffer, along with all the species that rely on it and the people who live around the edges of that environment.

I am disappointed. However, I would be prepared, if the minister was willing, to engage with him on these specific amendments to see whether there is a way to recognise the reasons for muirburn and the skills of those who do it and to look at whether the limits can be reviewed at stage 3. I am prepared not to move the amendments, on the understanding that I believe that the minister will engage with me.

Can I check that you are happy that the declaration of interest that I made this morning is extant?

I am not disputing what you are saying, but how many firefighters have done a muirburn course in the past three years?