 Welcome back to the 20th meeting of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. The third item on our agenda is to hear evidence on the Conservation and Natural Habitats Amendment Scotland Regulations 2019. I would like to welcome Rosanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Hugh Dignan, head of wildlife and biodiversity of the Scottish Government, and Lindsay Anderson, slister for the Scottish Government. Good morning to you all. As members will be aware, at last week's meeting, John Scott indicated his intention to lodge a motion recommending that the regulations be annulled, and he has now done that. Before we hear from the Cabinet Secretary and her officials, I would like to offer John the opportunity to speak to his motion. I will speak briefly to this, and I will again declare an interest as a farmer and landowner, although currently not one affected by beaver release. The background to my lodging, a motion to annull the species introduction, is that an illegal release into the tecatchment area of beavers is now leading to the species introduction of European beavers becoming a protected species. The species introduction will potentially cause damage to farmland and property and inflict a cost burden on farmers and riparian owners. It will further put at risk property and bridge infrastructure as well as flooding land and property other than farmland. The introduction will also potentially damage wild salmon breeding patterns and potentially reduce salmon populations in some of our most famous salmon rivers. Above all, it will make food production more difficult and expensive for agricultural land in Scotland, and that has all been done and the introduction is now under way without any debate in the Scottish Parliament apart from a member's debate in 2005, for the time being, that's enough. Okay, thank you very much. We now open our question and answer session. If the members indicate to me if they would like to ask a question before they do so, if they can indicate as to who they want to ask a question to, whether it's Cabinet Secretary and Officials or John Scott. I invite John Scott to ask the first question of the Cabinet Secretary. Thank you again, convener. What estimates have been made of the costs to farmers and riparian owners of beaver introduction? Specific cost estimates would be very difficult to achieve because there are some areas in Scotland at the moment where the impacts are greater than others and it would be very difficult for us to make a cost estimate across the whole of Scotland for that. We're very conscious of the impacts of beavers on what we have designated prime agricultural land and that designation in the context of this statutory instrument is specifically to deal with those impacts and the reason for the long delay between my original announcement at the end of 2016 that we were going to proceed with this and the actual introduction of the SSI is because we've been having conversations and trying to work out how best to mitigate the undoubted impacts that beavers have. I need to correct John Scott, however, in his assertion that this is happening because of the release of beavers in Strath Tae. The fact of the matter is, had it not been for the release of the beavers in Strath Tae, the SSI would have been probably presented to Parliament some considerable time ago. The beavers that have been released in Strath Tae and the issues around that have delayed the introduction of the SSI far from triggering the introduction of the SSI. So, notwithstanding the experimental basis of the release, it was always your intention to release beavers then? I'm sorry? Is that what I just said? I don't believe it is what I said. There was a formal trial and can I just make the point that actually discussions about the reintroduction of beavers date as far back as 1998, when SNH first consulted across Scotland on this issue. The five-year trial that was embarked upon in Napdale, Argyll, which was the formal government-led trial, was triggered on 29 May 2009, when the release of three beaver families took place. The five-year trial lasted until 2014. We took some very careful and considerable time to think about the situation. By then and simultaneously, there had of course been the either accidental or illegal deliberate release of beavers in the Tae area, which were complicating the debate that we were having. The formal trial finished in 2014, and at the end of 2016 I came to a view that between the formal trial results and the increasing numbers of beavers in the Strath Tae area that proceeding to formalise the situation was the appropriate thing to do. However, as I indicated, had we only been dealing with the Napdale beavers at that point, it is likely that the SSI would have been something of a formality. I have been criticised for many quarters for taking a very long time in order to proceed with the SSI, but that was absolutely necessary to allow us to do the continued conversation and consultation that has taken place over the intervening period between the end of 2016, when I made the announcement, and February when I laid this SSI. My questions, and I have two for John Scott. The first is a very simple question. Has he actually read the conservation in natural habitats regulations that are being amended? No. In that case, can I draw his attention to the effect of adding to schedule 2 the beavers? I particularly direct his attention to section 39, which is the section covering protection of wild animals of European protected status, which is conferred on beavers by the instrument that is before us at 39.2. It reads, It is an offence to keep transport, sell or exchange, or offer for to excel or exchange, any alive or dead wild animal of a European protected status species, or any part of, etc. The effect of that is if beavers are added to the list and had been added to the list earlier, and we have heard that that addition has been delayed by the criminal introduction of these beavers in Tayside, it would have prevented the people who had these beavers from being able to keep transport, sell or exchange in the first place, and therefore the Tayside release would not have happened. The effect of adding beavers to the list at schedule 2 in the instrument that is being amended would have been to prevent the people from being able to have the beavers, which, depending on your interpretation, escaped accidentally or deliberately placed, as I suspect was more likely, would have prevented it. Therefore, adding species to the schedule 2 probably late from now on serves the kind of purpose that I think John Scott and farmers across Scotland would be likely to want. I absolutely recognise John as perfectly correctly bringing this up, and I just want to make it clear that this is not to distort what John is trying to do, but mainly to draw us back to the piece of legislation that we are amending and say that it would be as well for us all to actually go and read and see what the legal effect is. It is also worth just saying that on schedule 3, of course, we have Salmo Salar, which is salmon, so the internet, there is some scope it would seem to me without having read it particularly for looking at the protection. I just hope that John will acknowledge that it is always as well to go and look at the legislation that we are amending and see what the effect might be. Of course, indeed. Thank you, convener. I thank you for your question, Mr Stevenson. No, I have not read this because the intention is perfectly clear, and therefore I have not in this set of circumstances. However, the T side release, which, as you helpfully note, was a criminal release in the first place, was not dealt with at the time and was not properly dealt with at the time. Had it been dealt with, perhaps the cabinet secretary would have been able to make an earlier order. However, the people who knowingly and criminally broke the law at that time, I do not believe, would necessarily have been deterred from doing what they did simply because they were breaking the law, because they were breaking the law in this illegal release, which was perfectly clear. Therefore, the fact that they would, under the law, not have been able to keep or access beavers, I do not think, would necessarily have been a deterrent. The problem here is that the Scottish Government did not deal with its illegal release at the time. I may have got other questions, but others may be a question. If I could go to—would the Government like to respond to that point here—to say that the Scottish Government did not deal with the illegal release at the time is simply wrong. Over a number of years, there were real attempts made to try and capture or trap or remove beavers from the T side area. I distinctly remember being the environment minister between 2009 and 2011. Over that two-year period, that was a very consistent part of the conversation that I was having with SNH, as we did attempt to reduce the numbers. Unfortunately, it was quite clear that, by that point, there were already too many for that to be easily done. I am not at all clear in these circumstances what today's efforts would achieve. I note that the comments around this from Maurice Golden, who is the Tory shadow environment spokesperson, seems to take a view that beavers must now be removed from the T area and how he imagines that now to be possible. I do not know. Regardless of what happens today, there will continue to be a significant and growing population in the T area. What we are trying to do is to put in a proper formal management of that, because that has not been the case up until now, pending the SSI. Cabinet Secretary, can I ask you to clarify that Stewart Stevenson has made the assertion that, if the measure has been put in place around the control and the listing of them in the endangered protected species, it might have been easier for the Government to actually put in place the perpetrators of the people who released the beavers? Would it have been easier to actually convict that? I am not going to step into giving a legal opinion, which I am not qualified to do in this. I have a Government lawyer here. I do not know whether she will wish to do it, but I want to make a very clear point that I have been very careful to say that we cannot be certain what the basis of that release was. Was it accidental, negligent or deliberate? I do not know. That would have been the fundamental point at the time. Nobody could know. Although people may think that they know where the beavers came from, the truth of the matter does actually know. That is a fundamental issue that would have been problematic at the time. I am not sure how long the beavers had been out, so to speak, before people realised that they were there. Folk need to remember that they are largely nocturnal. They are not particularly easy to see if there are not larger numbers, so they could well have been living in that area for some time before it became apparent that there was a problem. I do not know—I think that Hugh Dignan would have been around at that point—whether he can recall at what point it was first being flagged up, that there were beavers in the wild in an area where there should not be. I do not know if you can remember. I can remember that the first reliable reports that we received were after we had released the animals in Napdale, so I think that we are talking about 2009. There were some reports before them, but they were not confirmed when we started getting confirmed reports after 2009. However, the instrument is designed to manage beavers. It is not designed—an annulment of it is my understanding is that it would not mean that beavers would have to be removed. No, but I was quoting directly from what sounds like a misunderstanding of what this annulment would achieve. The quote that was contained within the newspaper the day after last week's committee meeting by Mr Golden was, that they must be removed as soon as possible. I am sorry, but that is in practical terms now an astonishing expectation unless there is seriously being mooted that we send out kill squads of people to try and remove them in that way. I do not understand why there should be that misunderstanding that revoking or not passing the SSI would in any way lead to the removal of the beavers, it would not. Mark Ruskell? I have three questions, convener. Is it okay to run through them just now? The first question is for Mr Scott. I was going to ask Mr Scott if he is aware of the position of Scottish land and estates who of course represent landowners. Scottish land and estates have written to me to say that their position remains that beavers should be given European protected species status. Are they confident that the proposed management framework that is in this instrument is both practical and adaptable and provides a range of suitable management options and tools that our focus will now turn to the framework's implementation, ensuring that it works for all land managers? I was wondering if he was aware of that support for this instrument from landowners. I am aware of Scottish land and estates position on this. It is not a view that I share and it is not a view that I believe that the majority of landowners share is notwithstanding Scottish land and estates position on this. Most landowners would prefer that beavers were not there and had not been introduced in the first place. Mr Scott, do you think that Scottish land and estates are not representative of landowners' views on this matter? I regret to say yes. I turn to Cabinet Secretary. We have talked already this morning about Napdale planned reintroduction under controlled circumstances and the situation that emerged in Tayside and some of the challenges around that. What is the Scottish Government's vision for beavers in Scotland? Is it about containing the animals where they currently exist? Or is it about facilitating or allowing their spread to other areas of Scotland where they can bring tremendous benefits to our environment, as well as some practical management challenges? I think that we have pointed out in the previous evidence session that beavers are already spreading. They are in the fourth valley now. They are in a range of different areas. I am interested to know what is the Government's vision. Is it containment or is it about facilitation? I think that I made the Government's position clear previously and I will restate it, which is that what we anticipate now is that beavers will simply be allowed to spread naturally. We will not be attempting to formally contain them into certain areas. Neither will we be particularly incentivising them to spread further. We certainly will not tolerate pop-up beaver populations in completely separate areas of Scotland because, in our view, now that they are here, they must be left to simply spread into a natural range. That is the best way, in my view, to allow those to proceed. Can I just make the point that some 20 other countries in the world have reintroduced beavers? I am sure that Scotland cannot be the only country where that cannot be successful. I do not want to either downplay the impacts because it does not do us any service to pretend that there are not significant impacts. Some of those impacts will be on land management, some of them may be by diversity impacts. It is not always the case that it is an absolute 100 per cent given that, even in a biodiversity sense, there will not be some impacts. There can be a tendency for people to over-romanticise this. I see references to the creation of gently stilling pools, etc., which is fine unless you are standing in a field where a beaver has built a dam in a field drain and a productive field that is meant to be getting cloud is actually being flooded as a result. That is a pretty big impact and that is the kind of thing that we do wish to help land managers manage. I do not think that it does anybody any service to downplay the impacts. Neither, however, does it do anybody any service to imagine that we can somehow remove animals that are already here and are living and are now part of our landscape, part of our biodiversity, and that a Government has chosen to reintroduce. I think that I would be very glad to have Scotland be the 21st country to do a successful reintroduction of the beaver and I hope that it will be successful. I am going to move on to other members. If we have time at the end, I will come back to you. I will move on to Finlay Kerr, so I would like to ask a question. I wonder if you put in record that my colleague and I absolutely hold animal welfare and we all strive for the highest standards in animal welfare, whether that is domestic animals, farm animals or wild animals. I am very much aware that this has been a process, a sequence of events that stemmed from 2016 when they were given protected status. Is that the next? No, they have not got protected status at the moment, that is the point. I announced in 2016 that I was intending to do so. It has taken us over two years to get here simply because we have had to deal with some of the issues that arise out of that. Yes, my apologies. The second started in 2016 and we are now at that point. Like Scottish Land and Estates in the United States, we are very concerned about animal welfare and so I welcome some of the framework that will ensure that that is the case because nobody wants to see any animal suffer or be shot or whatever when there is not due consideration given to animal welfare. However, I welcome John Scott's intervention today to highlight some of the issues that we still feel are around the animals given protected status. I am disappointed that there has not been more work done on mitigation or the compensation of landowners who could potentially suffer as a consequence of the natural expansion of beavers. There appears to be an assumption that farmland, other than the highest quality, could somehow be lost to beavers without clarity on the compensation. The last session we had asked questions about public good for public money and that is a concept that most landowners are bought into. However, there was no clear direction of travel with regards to that or clear policy on how that would be rolled out in the future. I would ask the cabinet secretary, as a matter of urgency, to make it quite clear what compensation there would be to farmers and landowners where the natural progression of the beaver colonies would reduce their ability to make a living. We are working very closely with farmers to ensure that they can manage land and put mitigation measures in early so that the consequences that Finlay Carson suggests do not happen. SNH is very closely involved with the farmers who are perhaps at the most sharp end of this right now in terms of the work that needs to be done. Farmers have to manage a whole range of issues. At the moment, we are not considering financial compensation because what we are doing is getting alongside them in terms of management to ensure that they are equipped with the tools that are necessary in order to ensure that beavers do not have maximum negative impact and that the impact of beavers is managed in those areas of what we have called prime agricultural land. We are not designating that as the only bit of prime agricultural land in Scotland. It just happens to be the epicentre at the moment of where the maximum number of beavers are active. I do not know if you want to say anything further. I should just add that there is not any question of other bits of Scotland other than prime agricultural land not having access to the same licensing and management arrangements. Exactly the same considerations will be available to farmers or any other land managers anywhere else. The differences on the prime agricultural land of Tayside SNH have made some arrangements that say that we already well understand the issues here. You do not need to replicate those arguments to us each time you make a licence application, but exactly the same consideration of licences will be available to farmers anywhere in Scotland should they need it. Claudia Beamish Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary and to your officials. I am very pleased to see these iconic animals back in the Scottish countryside. Scottish Labour is happy to support the moves to add them to the list of protected species, if I have got it right, under the 1994 regulations. The cabinet secretary has been quite a bit of discussion this morning about the negative impacts, but the cabinet secretary will be aware that, since the reintroduction, beavers have contributed to the public good in a number of ways. I understand one of those is in relation to the soil quality in areas where they are, and I wonder if your officials could make any comment on that. Claudia Beamish I think that asking us to comment on very specific benefits might be just a bit more than we are quite prepared for. What I would like to say and respond to is that it is important that we take a balanced view of that. Most of the focus for obvious reasons in this session is about negative impacts, because that is part of the discussion. I prefer the word challenging impacts. The challenges go beyond simply the impact on productive land, the challenges are about riverbanks and tunnelling, etc. There are issues that need to be addressed, but there are enormous benefits as well as we are all very well aware. That was the point of the reintroduction trial in the first place. The potential for reintroduced species provides potential biodiversity benefits over and above the animal itself. That was the purpose of the entire trial project. That was the purpose of what SNH began to do in terms of the consultation that it had in 1998. I do not think that we have been rushing to any judgment on that, given that there has been a debate about that in Scotland since 1998. Could I, through the convener, ask a question of my colleague John Scott as well? It is a follow-up to Mark Ruskell's question. I wonder if you could explain what evidence you have that has led you to consider that landowners are against the SSI and how has this evidence been collected or gathered? I have visited some of the landowners involved. I know from being a farmer myself just how difficult it is to work on riverbanks, either by hand or with heavy equipment. I know how dangerous it is. Because of a lifetime experience in farming, I know that that will lead to a significant amount of additional work. It will lead to a huge amount of additional checking of rivers, burns and streams in affected areas. That will have to be done on a very regular basis, because any dam that is there for longer than a fortnight will not be able to be removed. If farmers in their own best interests want to do that, they will have to check those river courses at least once a week. In an industry in which the TIF figures testify as you and the cabinet secretary will be well aware that it is under extreme pressure to produce food below the cost of production in many cases. That will be an additional cost burden that is being inflicted on those food producers in Scotland. I have spoken to enough of them myself—I do not think that you would expect me to name names—to know that that is very much their point of view. There have been several articles in the press that members may or may not be aware of and concur with what I am saying, so I hope that that answers your question. Can I just very quickly follow up on that and just ask you which touches on the point that Finlay Carson had made? If there was—I understand that the cabinet secretary is saying that it would not be the case at the moment—if there was some financial recognition of the need to where beavers have been found for land managers and farmers to be able to put that as part of what their work will involve, would you then even consider dropping your opposition to the SSR? Thank you for the question. I think that that should be the case, but I think that that will be a matter for the agriculture and the next bill that the cabinet secretary, Fergus Ewing, will be bringing forward in due course as to how to perhaps support farmers through public good payments in that bill and at that time. I very much hope that that would be part of the consideration of this public goods requirement that has been, as I say, inflicted on farmers. To answer the rest of your question directly, would that encourage me to drop my opposition to the introduction? I regret to say that I do not, because I am firmly of the view that even if farmers are compensated under an agricultural support scheme, I very much doubt that it will go anywhere close to the real costs of, for example, having to clear dams with track diggers in burns or rivers, which costs thousands of pounds to do. The farmers will be between a rock and a hard place in terms of their insurance. If they do not do that, the fact that they do not do that may at some subsequent point cause other areas downstream to flood, because beaver dams get washed away in once in 20, once in 30, once in 40-year floods, and then there could block bridges. Where does all that stop and start? I am immensely concerned about the implications of this, as I will mention when I move the motion in my name in the debate. Cabinet Secretary has indicated that she would like to— I wanted to clarify something about dam removal. Dam can be removed for up to a fortnight with no cause shown. Farmers do not have to refer to anybody. They do not have to ask anybody's permission. They can remove a dam that they see beginning to be built. If it is there for longer than a fortnight, it can still be removed, but they do have to ask and ensure that they have permission to do so. However, it is not true that they can't remove a dam after two weeks. The difference is that the permission that they would need after two weeks, but they can remove dams in the early stages and up to 14 days. I am going to come back to what other people want to do. I want to add one point to what the Cabinet Secretary said. Some dams will never need a licence or permission to be removed. The only dam that needs a licence to be removed is what is known as a natal dam, a dam that protects a breeding place, but all other dams and beavers will make dams for a number of reasons can be removed without any need for a licence at any time. However, notwithstanding, the cost will still remain with the farmer and the person doing the work to remove the dam. What we have not looked into and I may ask you this question, Cabinet Secretary, is what estimates have been made of the cost to SNH on the Scottish Government, therefore, of mitigation of beaver damage. That is mitigation that I am talking about, and will new additional funding be put in place and given to SNH for this? Can I go through the chair, please? Oh, forgive me. SNH will manage the cost of this. It has worked closely with land owners on this, and it will be managed within the SNH budget. I continue to remind people that the initial consultation that SNH did on this was in 1998. SNH has been effectively planning and working around this for a very long time, indeed. If I recall correctly, we took previous evidence, possibly from Hugh Dignan, where it was stated that there are around 500 beavers in the Tayside region, and of course we have heard that they are moving into the 4th valley area. As I understand it, and as we have heard today, the SSI is not about whether beavers remain in Scotland. They are already here, so annulling the SSI will not remove beavers. If I could ask John Scott if he would acknowledge that fact, and if I could ask John Scott if he would agree that having a licence condition, stating that anyone carrying out lethal control of beavers should have undergone training in cumain dispatch best practice will be a good thing in terms of animal welfare? Yes, I accept the second point that you make, that those who will be charged under licence with culling beavers should be properly trained marksmen. I accept that absolutely. If the incident was annulled, I would merely say that, if it were annulled, beavers would almost inevitably continue to prosper as a species, given that, as you rightly pointed out, there are now some 500 of them in the catchment areas in the most recent estimates, and they have not been protected. They are a species that is thriving enormously. The initial projections on that would reach numbers approaching 700. If my memory serves me correctly, by 2042 or thereby, I would suggest that they are thriving way beyond the expectations given to them in the early days when SNH first proposed its introduction in 1998. On that matter, if I may say, I find it extremely odd. In fact, it is not me in the debate in 2005, when beavers were discussed, Fergus Ewing, our esteemed cabinet secretary, now pointed out that he thought then that SNH were conflicted in that regard as being the judge in that regard, as to whether or not they should be introduced. Now, the enforcements of the regulations that they are charged with are bringing forward and supporting, and I do think that I am not certain where that leaves questions around legal challenge. Maybe someone would like to talk about that, but thank you for your question, Before I go to Mr Scott's questions, I have a key question to Mr Scott. What can you distill it for us? What do you think your annulment will achieve in the management of the beavers in Scotland? I think that it would, it is a good question. I think that we would probably continue, well, self-evidently, without this instrument and the legislation that surrounds it being in place, they have gone from strength to strength. That is with the current efforts of landowners to reduce their spread, notwithstanding that they are spreading still. I think that the status quo, which, by force of circumstances, has existed, should continue. You are asking for the SSI to be annulled. What do you think that that will do to manage the existing population? I think that the SSI in particular offers them a level of protection and the opportunity to expand their numbers even more, given that they will become a protected species. I hear Mark Ruskell saying that that is his point of view, but it is not my point of view, because I think that they are already causing more than enough damage in the areas in which they have been illegally introduced into and that they will spread self-evidently. I do not think that there are any questions that they will spread, and they will do damage wherever they go and cause burdens of cost to those who have to deal with the damage that they cause. We have got about 10 minutes left in this part of it, so if I can go, Mr Scott, you want to ask some other questions, and then I will go to Mark Ruskell. Can I ask what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the impact on public liability, ensuring that it is cost for landowners and riparian owners where beaver populations exist or are expected to exist? I do not have an answer to that at the moment, but I can ensure that we write to John Scott with any details around that, but that has not been a factor in our decision-making process. What assessments has the Scottish Government made of the impact of beaver populations on land classified as non-prime agricultural land? The classification that we are discussing prime agricultural land is simply about the ability for landowners in those pressured situations to fast-track some of the management procedures. The management, as is already indicated by Hugh Dignan, will be available to everybody regardless of what category of land they are on. There is an interesting discussion about the extent to which beavers might move into areas that are less favourable—that is very hard at this stage—to say whether we are going to see that or not. Has zoning been considered by the Scottish Government in their consideration of how best to introduce the European beavers into Scotland as practised in Norway, the Netherlands and Germany? I am not immediately aware of what the zoning procedures in these three countries might involve in respect of our original decision to put beavers into Napdale rather than into an area like Strath T. It would indicate that we were very conscious that there were some parts of the country where, if we were going to trial these beavers, it would not be necessarily particularly helpful. I do not think that we formally thought of that as zoning. We anticipated at that time that the Napdale population would be the one that we would gradually begin to grow. However, as I have indicated earlier, our intention is simply to allow beavers to grow their range naturally, so we have not really looked at the potential for zoning unless you count the prime agricultural land designation as not a zoning in terms of perhaps what you are thinking but a kind of zoning because we are actually designated areas where we expect owners to be able to fast-track management procedures that might not be the case in, for example, for landowners in the Napdale area. Finally, given that the introduction of beavers is a hugely significant event in rural Scotland, why has there not been a Government debate on the subject in Parliament since 2005? Indeed, then it was a member's debate in 2005. I will speak for the period between 2005 and 2007 because we were not in the Government. I think that beavers have come up pretty regularly in questions and within bigger debates that were not particularly focused on one animal. I am not entirely sure, and I say this without any reference to parliamentary business or the bureau, that had we tried to have a specific debate about one animal that would have been looked upon particularly favourably. We have had debates about biodiversity where beavers were part of the discussion. We have had other debates about land management where there would perhaps be possible issues around beavers could be raised. From my perspective, it would have occurred to me to ask for a specific debate about one specific animal. Beavers are important. They have significant impacts for good, as well as challenging, but they are part of a much bigger debate about biodiversity. It is that bigger debate about biodiversity that I think is the one that Parliament should be having. I have to say this. In the gentlest possible terms to the member whom I have known for a very long time now, at no point have I had any formal representations from other parties about beaver management or otherwise. There has been no expression directly to me that there was going to be any consideration such as the member has now brought to the committee. It might have been helpful, had there been an opportunity for discussion before this, so that perhaps some of the specific things that he is concerned about could have been talked through directly with him. I am going to bring in Mark Ruskell. One of the consequences of us not having a management regime in place is that there has been a free-for-all, particularly in Tayside, around beaver control. We have seen animal welfare abuses as a result of that. We have seen pregnant animals being shot. We have seen probably kits being shot as well. In a previous evidence session, we talked about the certainty around there being a closed season where this kind of lethal control of animals is not allowed. We saw some clarity from SNH around the transparency of the licensing regime, so we know exactly what is happening on the ground at certain times of the year. I am broadly content with what has come back. However, it would be very useful if the data around licensing actions, including lethal control, could be broken down on a quarterly basis. We actually know what is happening during that time when beavers are looking after their young and there may be pregnant animals as well. That is the question. I will feed that back to him. The question is, will there be quarterly data? I will feed that back as to whether or not SNH will be gathering this information on a quarterly basis. The closed season is April to August, and it may be instructive to have a look at what SNH figures show. However, it will not be particularly meaningful for a year or two, and I hope that the member accepts that. Claudia Beamish I ask your cabinet secretary what steps you intend to take to ensure that all those who have an interest have an ability to contribute to the process of finalising the management framework, and if there is a proposed timescale for that. The management framework has been published on the SNH website, but we continue to have conversations. One of the most important groups in respect of that is the Beaver Forum, which comprises 13 or 14 different interest groups. They will continue to be for us the primary point of discussion for this as we go into a future where beavers, I hope, are a protected species. I think that we would anticipate that there may be continued tweaking and need for reconsideration of some aspects. I do not think that anybody would anticipate otherwise that SNH themselves would accept that, and that is why the dialogue has to continue. Finlay Carson Thank you. It is a simple yes or no question just to put it on the record. The cabinet secretary, are you supportive or would you be supportive of fully compensating landowners, whether that is through land management contracts or in the spirit of public good for public money, given the Government's desire to see natural expansion of beaver colonies? At the moment, that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing management, mitigation and equipping farmers with the necessary tools and knowledge to not get us to a point where that is necessary. I am now going to invite John Scott MSP to move motion S5M-16304 that the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee recommends that the Conservation, Natural Habitats, Amendment Scotland regulations, SSI 2019, oblique 64, be annulled. I now like to ask John Scott to speak to his motion, if he wishes to do so. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate. I thank you to the cabinet secretary and our officials for attending today. I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer and giving some of the reasons for seeking to annull this negative instrument. My concerns are first that the Scottish Government is seeking to achieve protection today for beavers as a result of an illegal act when beavers were illegally introduced into the Tay catchment area. At that time, the Scottish Government chose not to remove beavers from the Tay catchment, and today this population of beavers is expanding rapidly. In 2012, it was estimated that there were around 146 individual beavers, and modelling predicted that this population would expand to a mean of 771 beavers in 160 families by 2042, assuming no human interference. A subsequent estimate of the population some six years later in 2018 estimated that the population had already grown to up to 500 in only six years, and that was without protection, and that population has continued to grow since 2018. Illegally released beavers numbers are growing very rapidly without protection, and this statutory instrument will offer protection, allowing the beaver population to grow even more rapidly, all of which comes at a cost. Convener, the costs are many and various, including the cost of removal of beaver dams as well as repairing riverbanks and field drains. An article in the courier, for example, in 2018, estimated the cost of repair of riverbanks at about 2,000 to 3,000 per repair, with the estimated cost of a dam removal to be about 200. Of course, as the cabinet secretary has said, the cost to farmers and landowners of such damage will vary from incident to incident. In addition, there will be cost to local authorities as well. Again reported in the courier, what it was expected Angus Council would have to seek additional funds from the Scottish Government to protect roads such as the A90, while beaver felling of trees already reported in the King Oldham area has already created unexpected road hazards where roads are close to beaver breeding grounds. Trees felled into rivers, and the creation of dams will put at risk not just food production from agricultural land but also create local flooding risk in the tea and air and catchment area, and further afield as beavers spread naturally as they will in joining the protection of the Scottish Government as they go. For example, residents of Pitlochry are aware of beaver attempts to build a dam in the mill pond in 2016, with wood and debris removed on a daily basis by nearby hotel staff, an event that demonstrates that constant monitoring and removal of wooden branches and dams is required. In the areas affected by beavers, river banks will now have to be inspected, certainly on a weekly basis, if not on a more regular basis, and debris removed on a similarly regular basis, and all of this costs time and money for those living in affected areas and trying to make a living in those areas. For dam removal requiring in-river work, car licences will, I believe, be required at a cost of some thousands of pounds for the granting of such licences. Never mind the cost of perhaps putting a triad digger into a river to remove trees and branches too large to remove by hand. Insurance costs can only rise to farmers and landowners of land likely to flood because of beaver activity, and public liability insurance is likely to become, in my view, a problem for river owners and landowners for unremoved dams when breaking up or dislodging in massive floods causes further downstream damage, for example bridges becoming blocked and flooding. Confina, carefully planned natural flood management prevention schemes will be put at risk by the unmanaged and uncontrolled activities of beavers, and the risk of flooding in places like Perth will become greater if this instrument is passed today. Lastly, as time is short, it is my view that fishing interests will also be affected by beaver introduction. Salmon spawning upstream is likely to become much more difficult for hen salmon seeking to access the traditional spawning grounds, and that will damage salmon fishing interests in the long term. As we all know, sustainable wild salmon fishing is under significant pressure across Scotland that was discussed in the committee just last week. Introducing physical barriers to spawning grounds, as well as a new species of predator to salmon themselves, can only make a difficult situation worse for salmon. It is now not the time to be introducing beavers into Scotland and affording them this protection. I would like to ask any of our members if they would like to speak. Stuart Stevenson has already indicated that, if we just want to show our hands, I would like to ask Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am not going to speak at great length. John Scott was perfectly correct to seek to address the issue of the effect of beavers on land management. There is nothing wrong with his doing that whatsoever. Like him, I am concerned about the effect that the illegal introduction of beavers has had on some areas of Scotland. John Scott concluded his remarks by saying that now is not the time to introduce beavers. Well, unfortunately, they are here and we need to manage the consequences of their being here. His contribution went on at great length how successful the beavers have been without the proposal that is before us as a committee today. He said relatively little about how it would be different if we deny this particular instrument. In my questioning, I established that John Scott had not read the order. I can understand why he should not do 61 pages. It is a very big order that is being amended. Let me just highlight a couple of points from it in relation to the granting of licences to manage the impact, which is section 44. In particular, section E, giving the grounds that may be used, preserving public health or public safety are other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature. In other words, if economic interests are damaged, it is perfectly proper that licences to be granted deal with them. A paragraph G, preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries. In other words, all the issues that John Scott included in his remarks are issues that suspend, under licence, the protection that this order will give under section 39 of this order with reference to schedule 2. If I may say very gently, it is always as well to go and read. I almost always go and read the legislation, because it tells you things that it will not get anywhere else. I think that without this order, beavers have gone from strength to strength. With this order, they can go from strength to strength, and I wish them every success in that. However, they will do so within a legislative framework that is properly giving them protection, but provides the balance to those who have economic and agricultural interests to get licences to deal with issues that arise. I therefore will not find myself able to support the motion that John Scott moves today. I, too, am not able to support the motion that John Scott asked us to consider today. I think that it has been an interesting debate. I do speak in support of the protection of this species, as Stuart Stevenson says, beavers are here. It is important that the management and mitigation arrangements are formally developed in an inclusive way as we progress and that the criteria for licences to kill should be revisited once there has been time to establish how those are developing as well. I will follow the developments with care and I hope that the cabinet secretary will agree to update the committee where I hope that we will be at the end of this vote. I am no surprise that I will not be supporting the motion to a null either. Having said that, I would like to put on record the fact that I am not insensitive to some of the challenges that are being faced by farmers, particularly in arable areas of Persia. I have been visited by a number of those farms. I have seen some of the challenges that are faced by having active beaver populations on those farms. However, I have also seen the other side of the coin. I have seen the extensive wetland creation on an estate in Highland Persia where there has been a contained population of beavers there working for many years. I do not think that we can ignore those benefits if they are delivered in a controlled way in the right places. We are failing on our biodiversity targets. Wetlands are hugely important not just for the retention of water but for the creation of much more complex, biodiverse ecosystems. We are signed up to international conventions to deliver that. There is a potential win-win here for farmers and land managers to be delivering these public benefits. In many ways, I cannot see a more iconic animal for this age of climate change than the beaver, if properly managed in the right place and making a valuable contribution. However, it is clear that there is much more to learn. We need to spread the education around the benefits of well-managed beaver populations as well as the issues around management and create the right incentives for the need to do that. It is not just about compensation for damage. It is about active management and looking at where we can incorporate some of the amazing public goods that beavers deliver into our agricultural subsidy system. The same goes for flood management. We have seen the benefits of tourism as well. This is a popular move that the Government is getting behind here. I am aware of one local paper in the Persia area that has run a very active campaign by a Gary advertiser for many years to protect beavers in its areas. I am notwithstanding the concerns around active management, I think that this is something that we can get behind. The one point that I would make convener in closing is to ensure that this new management regime that is put in place does not create animal welfare challenges. It does permit the lethal control of beavers. That is something that we need to maintain very close scrutiny of. I hear what the cabinet secretary has offered today. There will be further discussions of SNH around transparency of the licensing. I would like to look over the official report again on that and get some certainty on that. We have seen an animal welfare crisis so far in the situation in Tayside. I am very concerned that we see an end to that and we see where lethal control is an absolute last resort than it has done in a very controlled, transparent way. I would like to speak in favour of the motion. I hope that the committee will not vote for the motion. Mark Ruskell raised an important point about international conventions. SSI brings us into compliance with the Habitat Directive. That is something that I have been very keen to ensure that notwithstanding the B word that we are going to continue to accept and carry out all our duties and responsibilities that we have up until now. I need to just remind John Scott that the beavers are here now. This is not about reintroducing the beavers. That barn door is long since opened and the horse has gone. They are here. The SSI is not triggered by the illegally released beavers. I do not know how often I have to say it. If anything, it has been delayed by the illegally released beavers. My expectation is that it would not have that strath Tay population. The SSI would have been dealt with fairly quickly and with no real particular controversy. I listened with some interest to what John Scott's somewhat apocalyptic vision of the impact of the beavers. I do not accept his very apocalyptic vision, but even by his own ambition, even if this SSI did not go through today, none of what he believes to be happening would change. I still do not understand what the point of not passing the SSI would be. I do not buy and tease apocalyptic vision, but even if that were true in every single jot and iota, not passing this SSI would change none of it. That, to me, is the remarkable thing about the discussion that is being had just now. John Scott, if you would like to make any closing remarks before we go to a vote. I thank members for their contributions. I thank Stuart Stevens for his contribution and support from my position for properly raising this matter, if not his support in seeking annulment of this instrument. I thank Claudia Beamish for her contribution and note that neither she nor Mark Ruskell will support my motion to annul this instrument. I note from Mark Ruskell that beavers will support biodiversity and with which I entirely agree, but it remains my view that the costs to farmers and landowners will outweigh the benefits of this species being given protection. I regret that I do not assure the view of Scottish land in the States on this. I note that the Cabinet Secretary has commented that beavers are here and that they are here to stay a self-evident truth. However, I do not am not convinced of the need for this instrument as it offers additional protection to a species that is already thriving under the circumstances that it currently enjoys. The question is that motion S5M-1634 in the name of John Scott MSP be agreed? Are we all agreed? Yes. We have a division. We will call for votes for the motion. I will give the clerks a time to record. We have no abstentions. We have one abstention. The motion is disagreed to. Can I confirm that members are content from me deciding off the committee's report on these regulations? That concludes the committee's business in public today. It is next meeting on 26 March. The committee will hear from the Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands on the Scotland Act 1998, transfer functions to the Scottish ministers order 2019. We will consider our future work programme. We will now move into private session and ask the public gallery to be cleared. I thank the cabinet secretary and our officials for their attendance today.