 Dwi i ddim wneud. Welcome everyone to the 20th meeting of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee in 2023, before we begin, can I remind those members using electronic devices to please turn them to silent? First item on the agenda is the wildlife management, Muirburn Scotland, bill. The Committee has taken evidence from the minister. I welcome the minister to our first committee meeting yw Gillian Martin, Minister for Energy and the Environment, who is joined by Hugh Dignan, the head of wildlife management. Leif Fitts-Gerald, the team leader from the wildlife legislation team, and Norman Munro, the solicitor from the Scottish Government. I will kick off with the first question. Did the Scottish Government balance any potential increase in public health risk with animal welfare considerations coming into that conclusion about the purchase and use of glue traps and that they should be banned? Yes, we did. It is fair to say that we did look at how other countries are dealing with this as well. I know that the UK Government is looking at a licence scheme for those particular incidences when you have maybe got the pest control or saying that glue traps are necessary, maybe in healthcare settings or in food production settings or whatever. There are a number of reasons that have come to our position. We feel that there are sufficient alternatives to glue traps in the first place to successfully deal with rodents, such as snap traps, live box traps and electric traps. We are liais with pest controllers. We looked at what other pest controllers are doing throughout the country. Some of the big names in pest control have opted like rent-a-kill and have opted not to use glue traps because of animal welfare concerns. We reached out to local authority pest controls, all local authorities. The 14 local authorities that responded 11 said that they would never use glue traps. Two stated that they would not provide pest controls. Only one said that they had used glue traps in the past, but very rarely. We look towards other models that have been banned completely. For example, the Republic of Ireland has banned them completely. You will note that last night the Senate in Wales voted to ban the sale and use of them completely as well. We think that that is the right way to go. We think that those traps are inhumane. I totally get what you had summoning in your committee session that made the point that sometimes they felt they were necessary. We are going to have a period of time in which they can adjust in order to find alternative methods that they may not be trained in already or that they may need to source. We are going to do that by regulation, bringing in the directives on this to allow the pest control sector to adapt. As you mentioned, we heard from pest control professionals who suggested that the use of glue traps is limited, but it is an essential part of the toolkit and there are some circumstances where it is very important. Why did you realise the possibility of a limited licensing scheme? I heard his testimony and I have to say that he made a good case. I was speaking to my officials who had been working in this for a lot longer than I have, as you appreciate, environment only came into my portfolio just over a week ago. Officials have been dealing with this and there are a lot of questions that I had around this. The officials already had teased out quite significantly. The main reason is that there is not a regulatory framework in place for pest controllers so that there is not an accredited body. If you were to sell to a licensed operator—a licensed pest controller—what accreditation would they have? It does not exist. How could sellers know that they are the real deal? I know that in England they are going to have this situation. I do worry how they will be able to monitor and police it. That was the main reason why we decided that a complete ban was the way to go. There are very inhumane traps. I forget the name of the traps that was in front of you when you were saying about using cameras and being on-site and so on. Even an hour of an animal trapped in that is extremely distressing for an animal. It is an inhumane type of trap. It is suffering involved. We just felt that it was not possible to monitor a licensing scheme around that in a way that would be watertight. We heard from Police Scotland and there was a suggestion that there could be some dubiety around the offence of acquiring a glue trap. What consideration did the Government give to an offence of possession? I might bring in my officials in a second. As I said, they have been working on it for quite some time, but I think that the language around use and sale is much cleaner and clearer. Thinking about this and again my official comment down to the rationale that they have been working on for some time, we could have a situation where possession, someone could have old glue traps in a garden shed that could have them in their loft. I do not think that we should be criminalising people who are not intending to use them. They have bought them a long time ago and they do not even know that they have them. I think that it is the sale that will stop the sale and anyone who will stop the use of them as well. I might bring in Hugh in this because he will be able to give you the detail of the investigation into the aspect of the bill. Certainly, my feeling is that it is almost overly criminalising, which could be something that someone has forgotten. Police Scotland is also going to be involved in the disposal of any that people have. I guess that they will do some work in that area to make sure that people do not possess them when they should not have them. I personally do not see that they need to criminalise those people if they do not intend to use them. We want to bring in as complete a ban as possible. On the face of the bill, we have the ban on use, but as we set out the policy note, there are some other potential offences such as sale that may invoke the Internal Market Act. What we have on the face of the bill is the key one, which is the use. We are looking at the range of other offences such as the sale, but that has to be compliant with the conditions of the Internal Market Act. In the letter that was written to Trudy Harrison, it states that it is your intention to introduce further provisions to ban the sale and possession of glue traps by amendment stage 2. We will look into that. I wrote to Trudy Harrison that it was just over a week ago, maybe not even that. We need to be hearing back from her. I think that this issue will be on the Welsh Government's plate as well. I guess that having a look at what is happening there, because they are in the same position as us. They have voted to ban the sale. It is specifically the possession. I gave you my initial personal thoughts as to why I did not put that in the draft, but I am willing to move on anything. Beatrice Wishart, you have brought this up, it is something that you feel that should be included in the bill. We are at the general principle stage of the bill. I am willing to speak to anyone if they think that those offences could be widened or improved. I wonder if you can elaborate on the point about use and how the police will deal with that. I might have this recollection wrong, but I think that I am right in saying that we heard someone indicate to the committee that a glue trap could, in many circumstances, be literally a plank of wood and a tin of glue. Is what is being proposed adequate to deal with that situation of homemade traps? Do they fall within the scope of what you have said? I guess that that would come down to the definition of what a glue trap is, and on that level of detail about what could constitute a glue trap, that is the detail that I might have to go to my officials on. It is something that we can maybe write to the committee and give you the firm definitions on that. To me, a plank of wood with a layer of extremely powerful glue would constitute a glue trap. At the same time, I get where you are going, Mr Allen, because the sale of a recognised brand of glue trap, with someone doing a home-made version of that, Hugh has perhaps said that, in the bill, glue trap means a trap that is designed or is capable of being used to catch an animal other than an invertebrate and uses an adhesive substance on one of the means of capture. Your home-made version that you have said is a glue trap. The issue there would be the use of that. We are not in a situation where planks of wood and tin of glue— No, I am not suggesting that. I am not suggesting that you would get criminalised planks of wood. I am just answering my question about how you would define use and intent and all that. Just to be clear, will you be bringing forward amendments at stage 2 to ban the possession of glue traps? We might have a grey area there. We have not decided on that yet. The Scottish Government has said that it may bring forward amendments to the bill at a later stage to ban the sale of glue traps if an exclusion to the UK Internal Market Act is agreed to. Can you update the committee in the progress of those discussions and is it likely that an exclusion will be agreed in time for stage 2 or 3 of the bill? Mr Fairlie, your convener has effectively answered your question because I have written a letter to Trudy Harrison, who is my opposite number in the UK Government, setting out our plans for what we are going to do and highlighting the fact that we will need—well, we might, but I think that we will need—an exemption from the Internal Market Act to ban the sale. It is too early for Ms Harrison. I know what ministerial inbox is—a length of time it takes to respond. I was not expecting a reply from Ms Harrison by this point. I would expect a reply from Ms Harrison by the point that we get to stage 2, because then we will have an idea of what we can do there or what we will have to change our amend in the bill. Now that the Senate has passed the ban on glue traps, I will reach out to my Welsh counterparts as well to ask what they did in the area around the exemption to the Internal Market Act, because it could be that they were a lot further ahead. I would imagine that they might not have pressed ahead with it if they did not have that exemption, but I would need to reach out to them. That is helpful in that regard, but it is still our intention to ban the sale. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask for an exemption in this case. We will see what Ms Harrison comes back with, but I think that I will also be liaison with my Welsh counterparts as well on that. The Internal Market Act seems a bit of a devil, because it would apply to practically anything, including snares and vaping products. It has the potential to be something that we are asking for exemptions on quite often. If we want to put forward our progressive policy objectives in the Scottish Government and indeed the Scottish Parliament, it would be reasonable to suggest that the Welsh Senate has an exemption, or that they have brought it in without seeking that? To be honest, Mr Carson, I would need to look into that. Do you have any information on whether they have achieved that exemption? The Welsh Parliament has brought in a ban on the use of glue traps, which, if everyone is satisfied, does not invoke the Internal Market Act. It would be the offences such as the sale and potentially possession where the Internal Market Act has come into play. The Welsh Government has just gone down the use, and it has set out its reasons for that in its policy memorandum. However, we have committed to bringing in a fuller ban as we can, so that would include the sale and potentially possession. My understanding was that they had a complete ban, but, again, I just looked at that last night as they passed it. I still think that I want to speak to my Welsh counterparts just to see what they have done in that area. However, our intention is to ban the sale, and we need to negotiate that with our UK counterparts to see if we can do that. We are going to move on to the next session with a question from Karen Adam. Moving on to the wider discussion on wild life traps, we have had quite robust discussions in regard to the proposed licensing of them. There have been concerns from stakeholders and land managers that, if there are any tampering of those traps, it might make them liable to prosecution. I wonder whether the Scottish Government has given any considerations to making the tampering of traps an offence? Having a specific offence for the tampering of traps is not really there. At the moment, we are satisfied that there are already offences that would be committed if people were tampering with traps. I am just having a look at vandalism under criminal law consolidation act 1995. It is also capable of being prosecuted as a malicious mischief. I watched all your sessions and some people were making the point that an additional specific offence that might have an element of it being cruelty to or distressing to the animal because, if somebody is tampering with a trap, it has the potential to prolong the suffering of the animal. I am open to suggestion on that. There might already be existing legislation that could be triggered as a result of that. For example, I might off it off my head. Finlay Carson will remember that we had the animals on wildlife bill where there were penalties for certain offences against animals. We can look at that. Members are at liberty to come forward for suggestions. There might be other existing legislation that might be able to be used in that manner or, indeed, new offences that might be. The issue that I have, Ms Adam, is that I do not know how convinced I am that somebody tampering with a trap, probably for the reason that they, as has been suggested not by me but the people that you have heard, are activists on animal rights or are against the operation of grouse moors, and they want to effectively try to get a prosecution in a vexatious way. I am not convinced that they would really want to do what you are suggesting in a way that would prolong the suffering of animals, because that is probably not their modus operandi. That is probably not where they come from from a philosophical point of view that they would want to do that. From what I have heard, what they are most likely to be doing when they are interfering with traps or tampering with traps is disabling them so that they do not trap, taking doors off, taking hinges off, whatever they might do, smashing them up, whatever they might do, so that they just are not operational at all. I think that what has been suggested by some of the people, and I listened to what Alex Hogg said about being very frightened about this, because these traps have ID numbers on them and people are actually effectively trying to point the finger at somebody who is not. That defence is available to the people who are operating the trap. The police do not tend to criminalise people if there is sufficient evidence that somebody is setting them up. On the one hand, I will answer to your question. I am open to suggestion on this, but on the other, I am just wondering what the reality is here on the trap tampering, whether it is from the place of causing additional suffering to an animal. It seems to me that it might not be. We have heard lots of evidence from practitioners that they are constantly finding traps that have been exposed that should be hidden. It is not necessarily—I take the point that you were making there—that you could do something on the basis that would increase animal cruelty or animal suffering. What about the protection of the people who are the actual practitioners? That is where they are coming at this from. They are not coming at it from the point of view of anything other than there needs to be some kind of safeguard there, and a vandalism prosecution is probably not going to be enough of a turn in the minds of the people who are trying to do this job legally. They are looking for some kind of balance to make sure that what they do as a legal course of their work is not tampered with, but they could then give them a difficulty with law enforcement. Do you understand where they are coming from? I think that you have just effectively articulated why I am open to considering something, because we need to look at whether the existing offences are enough of a deterrent to do this, first of all, and the penalties associated with them are enough of a deterrent. However, I also think that we need to put our trust in the police as well, because the identification numbers—this is something that has been operational for a number of years for good reason—let's put it this way, the police are only daft. They are not going to frit quickly suss out whether someone is at it, I think. However, if the bill embraces a approach more of a deterrent for people, would it deter people? I am absolutely open to suggestion on that, Mr Fairlie. There was certainly a suggestion. We visited Amour as a committee a few weeks ago, and we heard that there were 100 traps being tampered with. In one example, where an individual thought a gamekeeper had trapped their cat and actively set about identifying the traps that the gamekeeper had set to try to get them in trouble, only to discover that the cat had just disappeared for a couple of days. That is an example of where somebody maliciously went out to get the gamekeeper prosecuted, and that is why there is an issue potentially with individually identifying traps and associating that with one gamekeeper. We certainly heard that there is a lot of tampering. We would urge you to look at the potential to bring in a crime and offence that is specifically around tampering. Given the significant penalties for a gamekeeper or an estate, a loss of a licence potentially puts them out of a business, where it is not widely known and using other vandalism or whatever, what we have heard is that there is evidence that we would raise awareness of how serious tampering with traps is. On the one hand, I get the worry. It is probably not enough for me to say, well, it is unlikely that the police would ever fall for this activity and be convinced by it, but it is still a worry. It would be enough of a worry to be accused and be investigated, and we would need to accept that fact. I was struck by how vociferous Alex Hogg was when he said that he was scared to death, the phrase that he used. I cannot remember, but I was struck by that. I thought, well, we need to have due regard to that worry, and I will just reiterate what I said. I am open to what suggestions might come in your report, might come from individuals, amendments at stage 2 or whether we put forward an amendment, but I am more open to suggestions. At the moment, we think that it is enough of a deterrent. There are other offences, but, as I said, I cannot say it much more strongly than that. We are open to it. The only other thing that I have just crossed my convener's touch on it is the fact that illegally tampering with a trap could effectively have somebody's licence suspended. I think that that is possible. On the one hand, you have a keeper who would lose his house, job and everything else. On the other hand, you have the estate who would lose the ability to trade for that entire season, potentially. As we work our way through the bill, we will hopefully liar now at those wrinkles, but it is just to have it on the record that those are the main concerns as far as the trap tampering side of things is concerned, where the main concerns are from the practitioners. I know that you also heard from NatureScot about how serious things would have to be and how convinced they would have to be that something serious had happened if they were to spend their licence. It is not going to be something that they are going to do on supposition. Come on to that, because there is also a committee that has concerns around that as well and the relevant authorities and the powers that they might have. Rachael Hamilton. I am from the minister on what she said there in terms of considering amendments to the bill. So are you saying that you would consider a specific offence for malicious tampering with traps? We are only at stage 1 of a bill, Ms Hamilton. It is my job to consider any proposals that any member wants to put forward to me ahead of stage 2. What I would say is that I mean certainly having been on the other side of the table for so many years, I would encourage members to speak to me, to ask for meetings with me with their proposals, and then we can look at them and we can see whether we can support them. In the session on 31 May, we had heard that the SAWC had recommended that the sale of snares and their use by both public and industry be banned on animal welfare grounds. Officials indicated that the announcement on the snaring review was imminent, so I wonder if you could update the committee on the timing of that announcement. I think that when my officials were in front of you, we were probably at the pot three or four weeks ago now. We were hoping to have a sort of a decision on whether we were going to be making that amendment by today. The reality is that we are still looking at some of the proposals that have been put to us about other types of snares. We do not want to make a decision before we are fully investigated that, but our decision on that will be imminent. I am conscious of the fact that Christine Grahame was the person who brought that up in your session that the committee is going to need time to scrutinise whatever it is that we decide to do. I am completely alive to that fact. One of the things that I would get quite upset when things changed halfway through a bill and there was not adequate time for scrutiny. I understand that you need to know quite quickly what our position is going to be on the snaring. I expect something very soon. I think that it is incumbent on us when stakeholders come to us, as they have, particularly from game-keeping fraternity, to say to us, that there are more humane ways of doing this that we would like you to look at. There has been modernisation in this field. We cannot dismiss that out of hand and just barrel on regardless. We need to be looking at whether or not those mechanisms are humane. We are doing that with veterinary colleagues and animal welfare colleagues at the moment. However, I cannot give a date in response to your question, because I do not know yet, but it is soon. Why was there urgency to lay this bill when two of the most important elements, so extra powers to SSPCA and snaring, potentially being banned, are coming late in the process? Why did we not wait until we had all the evidence to make sure that the committee had the fullest opportunity to scrutinise these two important topics? You will appreciate, Mr Carson, that I only realised that I was taking forward this bill a week past Tuesday. I have not been involved in the drafting of the bill, so I cannot speak to that. That is really a question for my predecessor, but of course the predecessor is not accountable to you anymore. Bills do change. If we bring things forward, we have to make sure that you have the time to scrutinise that. That is why I am flagging up. That is why I made the announcement yesterday about the SSPCA ahead of you deliberating on your report. I mean, I am looking to my officials about when we think we would actually have anything on the snaring proposals. I would want to, and I am sort of looking at my officials just to say, I would want to get that to you sooner rather than later, so that as you are putting your stage 1 report together that you have got the full information. Can your officials give us an indication? Yes, I absolutely support what the minister said. We will do it. It will be soon. I would imagine that I would be too specific on this, but within a few weeks, certainly. Thank you. Christine Grahame. I am just looking at what the Scottish Animal Weal Food Commission does. It has said, we looked at snare generically, but we have also looked at humane or modified cable restraints. The basic operation of the snare is the same, whether it is modified or not, etc. We looked at that and we could not see any fundamental difference between the manner of operating of the conventional type and that of the new type. Two questions. Why do you not just simply come out and say, we go with the Animal Weal Food Commission? That is why it was set up. Secondly, if we are going to be in a similar position, let us say if you try to ban the sale of snares under the internal market, have you raised that or are you raising that again with your UK counterpart in advance? So it is not just a case of possession and use, but also sale, because the same issue will arise. Ms Grahame, you have pointed to the Animal Weal Food Commission and its recommendations, and that position is one that we take very seriously and we actually look to them for advice. However, individuals, stakeholders and organisations have asked us to look at what we are doing. We will come to the conclusion on that. It might be the same conclusion that you have just cited there, but we will be doing that soon. Once we have arrived at our position, and as you will understand again, I want to be cited in all the decisions around this because I have now got responsibility for this bill, so I want to see what has been looked at and what conclusions have been made before we make a decision. However, I want to do that quickly, as I say in the next couple of weeks. After this session, it is something that I am going to be looking to seek when we can give you a definitive date. If I can get a definitive date to you even quicker than it has been released, I will do that. At the IMA, on the sale of sales? Myself and my officials need to decide on what our policy objective is going to be and what our proposal on our amendment is going to be at stage 2. If that bans the sale in the same way that it proposed to the glauftraps, then it will be an immediate letter notifying the UK Government that is our intention. I am going to put in an amendment if you don't. Thank you for that notice. It is not often that Christine Grahame gives ministers notice an error. You have got it. I think that it is difficult for you, minister, but perhaps the officials can step in here and help you out. Has any enquiries been done about the IMA regarding banning the sale of snares? Is it something that you have considered? I would take one of the obvious points about snaring and sale. Many snares are not sold that lots of keepers and other snare users will buy the components and assemble themselves. The components are pretty simple in terms of swivels and wire cable and so on. We think that while there may be a case it may help the argument to ban snaring, it is not really one of the key issues. The key issue really is to ban the use of those. The snares have been made at home for many years. One of the issues around the banning of the use of snares is that the illegal use of snares may continue. Those are almost always snares that are home made using readily available components. That is not going to help, is it? Snares at the moment are registered, and you are considering banning the use of registered legal snares. That is not going to address the issue with home made unregistered illegal snares. The banning of the use of snares is already illegal. There is nothing further that we can do about that. The police and SSPCA do what they can in seeking to enforce that in terms of banning of the legal use of snares. I make the point that many of those still are items that are constructed at home by those who are going to use them. While it may help the general thrust of the policy to ban the sale as well, it is not going to really address the main issue. If it is decided that that is the direction that we will go down, banning the sale, we will certainly need to speak to the UK authorities about the IMA implications. You have not done that yet. It is on the proportionality of the licensing scheme. Last week, we heard from various witnesses that there should be a rational connection between the content and design of the scheme. It is aimed to tackle raptor persecution. It has been demonstrated that there is no rational connection. As a Government, do you think that it is fair and proportionate to introduce a licensing scheme that does not have a rational connection? I might have to ask for a bit of clarity on your question. Can I ask what I do not get about your question? Are you saying that there is not a connection between the evidence and what we are doing in the bill? What do you mean by rational connection? Proportionality. It was made in terms of the point of the design of the scheme. In law, it requires that there has to be a rational connection between the content and design of the licensing scheme and its aim. Therefore, we know from evidence that the raptor persecution RSPB has demonstrated that raptor persecution has reduced by 75 per cent between the years of 2007 and 2021, and that is the raptor persecution of illegal killing of raptors. I am just trying to determine whether the bill goes further and cannot demonstrate a rational connection. What I would say is that, over the years, we have known that raptors and some of our most prized bird species, such as golden eagles, have been illegally killed. We have worked long before I was in this place to try and put measures in place that would reduce that significantly and eradicate it. In my time here, we have put more extreme penalties in place. We have put in vicarious liability in place to see whether that would end it. A lot of those measures have reduced it, but I am just looking at the figures here. In 2019, we had 25 recorded bird of prey crimes in Scotland. In 2020, I do not have information right in front of me ahead of 2020, where they are living. I am living too many, in my view. When measures that we have put in place are still not making the significant difference that we intended them to, or they are not eradicating that crime, and just because there has been recorded crime, does not mean that there are unrecorded crimes. A lot of the evidence has been disappeared when this has been done. I think that we are maybe talking about tagged birds, so that would be 11 tagged birds in 2020. However, what are the ones that were not tagged? Specifically, those are 11 recorded crimes by the police. They are all related to grouse malls, are they? No, not all related to grouse malls. How many were related to grouse malls? I do not have that information, how many of those are 11 are. Why is it proportionate to bring forward a licence scheme that is not related to grouse malls? Over a long period of time, there has been a clear historical association between raptor persecution and grouse mall management. That has been shown by the maps that we produced over a period of years. It has been shown by the evidence that the RSPB have published in their bird crime report. You mentioned the RSPB, and it was clearly drawn out by the field and fielding report that looked at the analyses of the fate of golden eagle. We are satisfied with that connection. The other thing that I would say, Mr Hamilton, that review was very clear in its recommendations to the Government. It made a few recommendations that we took on board, but it recommended that licensing would be a measure that could make a difference in that area. I know that you asked my officials when they were in front of you for more evidence, as the connection that my officials sent on to the committee. That was sent. That is a matter of record. I do not think that we can stand by and just accept the status quo. I think that we need to go to the licensing, where it is to report, and his team said that it would be an option if some of the other measures were not getting us to a solution on that. That is what we are proposing. Do you agree that it is not proportionate on the basis of suspicion to impose sanctions specifically to a certain sector where there is no direct correlation? Ms Hamilton, you are asserting that. I do not agree with that. No, I am asking you. What I am saying is that the evidence is there to suggest that many of these crimes have taken place on Grasmers, and that is a fact. The silence that follows from the detailed stats that we have provided in the letter to us says that information provided by the National Wildlife Crime Unit shows that the land use category that is most associated with raptor persecution is Grasmers. I think that what would be helpful to the committee is to expand, perhaps not now but in a further letter, on what that information was, some detail, because you have simply got information provided. If that was expanded upon, that would be helpful in understanding that assertion. Okay. If that is additional to what my officials have already sent to the committee, and it has not been sent to the committee, there is not... But I think that there was quite comprehensive evidence sent to the committee a couple of weeks ago. Was it? Sorry. I think that that evidence has not been directly provided, as far as I am aware, and we would, I am sure, be happy to provide it once the minister had a chance to see it, but I would just caution that we would need to check with the NWCU that there wasn't within their sensitive information. Yes, but if it's sensitive, but I think it'd be helpful rather than just have the word information, which you obviously have, that we don't have. I get that, so that's time for... We'll pass it on. Rachel Hamilton. So continuing my line of question, would the minister be open to narrowing the scope of relevant fences to focus on raptor crimes in isolation? No, I wouldn't, and the main reason I wouldn't is not. I have seen that this has been suggested, trying to make a claim that Wherity report was only concerned with raptor persecution that was not. The Wherity report was actually the Grouse Moor management group, and they looked and made over 40 recommendations relating to Grouse Moor management, including recommendations on licensing, shooting, grouse shooting, mirror burn and the use of traps. I would say that this bill is reflective of those recommendations and some of the issues that the Wherity report, so no, I'm not going to adjust the scope of the bill. How does the committee evidence from the police about what they view as the number of suspicious, if you like, disappearances of raptors in addition to those where there have been prosecutions? Professor Wherity said in evidence to us that, in his view, licensing was not only appropriate but the only way he could see ahead to deal with the situation. Did the Government similarly feel that this was the only option available? Yes, because the alternative is something that we absolutely don't want to do. Grouse Moors make a significant contribution to the rural economy. They provide jobs. You've heard from many of the people who have those jobs. They also make a significant contribution to countryside management, to biodiversity. Grouse shooting in Scotland is something that brings a tremendous amount of people to spend their money in Scotland. The alternative to a licensing scheme of a type that has licensing schemes for many activities across Scotland, is the option that Professor Wherity has recommended that we do should a lot of other measures not solve a lot of those problems. I think that it's fair to say that, when you are doing certain things that could have unintended consequences in any area of life, that licensing and monitoring of that activity, science and the evidence that can come out of the monitoring of that activity, particularly in terms of the impact on the environment, the impact on peatland, for example, licensing will also offer us and the land managers that evidence base to be able to say, right, we wouldn't have known that X activity didn't have a detrimental impact on this piece of land if we hadn't had this monitoring in place. Licensing also gives us the mechanism to do that. The main reason, Mr Allan, is that the alternative is for the rural economy, not where we want to go. Related to that, was the drive towards licensing as a model based on that very understandable concern about raptor persecution, or was it also based on any wider concerns about the management of crowd smear? I would like to highlight some concerns, and I would like to say up front that the vast majority of states that have gross shooting on their moors are acting in a way that is satisfactory. To be honest, the few that haven't been are giving those other estates, which is the vast majority, a bad name, a bad reputation, which is completely undeserved in those cases. I think that it's in the interests of those responsible land managers, those responsible estate owners, that their whole sector has a licensing scheme behind it, because when their good practice can be recognised, their licenses will be renewed, there won't be any problems with their licenses being suspended if they're acting in a way. I'm notwithstanding some of the concerns that I heard about vexatious attempts, et cetera, but it might just bring those other estates up to the standard that we expect when they're working in their natural environment. Before we come to the end of this section, where it is made it quite clear that over a five-year period license should be brought in if there wasn't a reduction in raptor persecution, we've seen a significant decrease and we're not at five years yet. The recorded birds of prey crimes in Scotland for 2021 said there was 11 cases. Can you tell us where they were, were they related to Grasmure? I think that the majority of those were in Dumfries and Galloway, and there's no Grasmure in Dumfries and Galloway. I don't have that disaggregated data in front of Mr Carson. Does Mr Trigdon have that? It's incredibly important, because we're talking about crimes specifically related to Grasmure. I get that not everybody in this room or across this Parliament agrees with what we are proposing in terms of licensing, but we always said that if we didn't feel that progress was significant enough— Is 75 per cent reduction not significant? It is not significant enough, Mr Carson. There are still raptors that have been persecuted, but there are still issues about land management in some places that we think should be addressed. We're bringing forward those proposals. You will be able to, as a committee, make recommendations on whether or not you agree with those proposals, but those are the Government's proposals, and we feel that that is a proportionate measure to deal with some of the issues that are long-standing and not necessarily improving to the degree that we would like. However, you will agree that the data is incredibly important, so we get the real picture of what's happening. Off those 11 in 2021, how many were related to Grasmure and where were they? As I said earlier, I don't have specific data on that. You will write that there was an incident in Dumfries and Galloway that accounted for a number of crimes around that time, and that may well be that. I would just, if I may, make two points. One is that these are recorded crimes, and we have long known that recorded crimes doesn't necessarily tell the whole picture in that many crimes go unrecorded because it's a difficult environment in which to detect crime. Evidence disappears, there are no witnesses, there are no victims to complain or anything like that. For that reason, the evidence that we've got around suspicious disappearance has been quite important, and that hasn't shown the same sort of decline. The other point, I would say, is that I think Professor Wherty's report talked about a recovery in raptor populations in those areas was the key metric that he would be interested in, and I don't think that we can say that we've seen that recovery in raptor populations. We are also, to my understanding, saying that the populations that we have are of a younger age, disproportionately younger age, which we would be suggesting. That there are issues there in, again, that suspicious disappearance of some more mature adults. I stick with what I came up with. The licensing scheme, as Mr Allan asked me, is a measure that we feel is necessary because we are not seeing the significant improvement that we've wanted to see. I'm just going to broaden out on the licensing a bit. Good morning, minister, and it's been really an engaging session so far. Professor Newton mentioned that one of the reasons for the Wherty Group's recommending licensing of grass mowers was to, quote, fill an important evidence gap in relation to land use in Scotland, and that was by requiring annual information returned on the number of species of all animals killed. Alex Hogg said that the Scottish Game Keepers Association would agree with that, and Ross Ewing said that such information is already being collected, though not reported. Will you be interested to hear if the Government would introduce such a requirement or recommend that NatureScot does? The last part of your question there probably nails it there because NatureScot is obviously going to be dealing with the licensing scheme, and they're going to be deciding with stakeholders on the parameters of what that licensing scheme looks like and what information that they require from people ahead of them getting a licence. If I forget your question right, I think that you're right in saying, effectively, what I was saying to Alasdair Allan there is that the licensing scheme could promote a dual function here. Many of the issues around that are data and evidence for things like the practices that take place on peatland, whether they damage that peatland, whether they enhance that peatland, whether they enhance the biodiversity, whether they degrade the biodiversity or whatever. I would see the licensing scheme as being a very useful tool in evidencing where that happens. You can't pre-empt what that evidence is going to be, but you hear from land managers all the time, and you'll have heard from their practices, increased biodiversity, you'll see on gross mursia, you'll see bird species that you don't see anywhere else, for example. They will point to their land management in terms of any areas in which they rewild and bring back species that haven't been there for quite some time. That licensing scheme is going to really be a very useful tool. The way that it's set up is not going to be for me to decide. It's going to rightly be for NatureScot, but NatureScot is in front of you. I was very pleased to hear their commitment to working with a large range of stakeholders to make sure that the licensing scheme is simple, easy to apply for, and not onerous in terms of the evidence that has to be given for land managers to produce. Where they are concerned or have issues that they don't quite know about, they should be working and speaking to the land manager that's applied, or the person that's applied for it, to find out more information. It won't just be a rubber stamp, yes or no. It will be a conversation that they will have, if they have any issues, they'll iron them out before they decide on the licence being given. I think that that kind of philosophy that I heard been outlined by NatureScot is the right one to do. It's not there to stand in the way of good practice. It's there to encourage it and it's there to licence it and get the data, as you said, off the back of that. I look forward to seeing what they're going to do in that space. Last week, we were talking about annual licensing. I think that I was the only person in the room that thought that that was a good idea, including NatureScot. Has the Government considered whether or not it could extend the period of licensing? I'm sorry to disappoint you and not chum along with you in thinking that annual licensing is a good idea, because I'm actually really open to any suggestions that haven't been longer. I think that it comes back to something that I was saying to Ariane Burgess about the fact that NatureScot wants to make this process as easy as possible for the people who are applying for the licence and not on a risk in terms of administration. I am completely open to suggestions as to how long the licence issues run for. I don't see that a longer licence, longer than one year, would have any unintended consequences necessarily at all. I'm open to them being for longer. Will you bring forward amendments to take away what seems to be in a bizarre draft for one year? We're here to ask you what length do you see to be a reasonable length in three, five years? If I were to bring forward amendments in this place, people were to come with me through amendments and I was to look at them and decide not whether we were going to support them. I would need to do a little bit more work so that there aren't any unintended consequences. Again, I know I keep on coming back to the fact that I've only had this bill in front of me for a week, but this is something that I need to do between stage 1 or now and stage 2 to determine what length of licence is appropriate, what is going to hit the mark in terms of what's too long, what's too little and so I can't really make that commitment right now to you. It's a bit bizarre again. We've got a draft piece of legislation that's just one year. We've been through most of our stage 1 inquiry and you're sitting in front of us and you still are looking for ideas about licensing, surely? You've been here long enough to know that a draft bill of any type does not stay in its current form to get to stage 3. But was one of you ever reasonable? Evidence gets taken and indeed ministers change. I am looking at this for one week. I'm looking at some of it. I've watched all your evidence. I'm speaking with SLE tomorrow on their views. I'm meeting the stakeholders. I'm going to be speaking to a lot of the people that, if I had been here at the start of the drafting of this bill, that I would have spoken to already. Forgive me, but between stage 1 and stage 2 is when I need to make quite a lot of these decisions. Absolutely. Accept the difficult position you're in, but there must have been some rationale for having a one-year licence in there. I'll bring in Hugh. I wouldn't say I'm in a difficult position. I'm going to take forward this bill. There are things I need to be satisfied for, and there is rationale for what the draft was, so if you want to come in on that, then that's fine. Well, as we previously explained before the committee, there was a rationale for the one year, and that was around the utility of that in being able to frequently or regularly at reasonably short intervals gather the sort of information that Ms Burgess was just referring to, and we thought that that combined with a licence, which is easy to obtain and didn't produce an administrative burden, would be a good way of operating. Since then, we have had very strong representations from some of the stakeholders that they thought this would cause difficulty for their long-term planning, and we have agreed to look at that and think whether there is any grounds for changing that, as the minister has just described. Thank you, convener. We were just wondering what you are likely to achieve through the code of practice, and if stakeholders, some of the stakeholders that will be affected by the code of practice, will be included in shaping that code of practice. The point that was made last week is that we cannot scrutinise what the code of practice looks like if we haven't seen it, and we cannot make a decision as a committee to decide whether the bill is proportionate. It is very unusual for the code of practice to be on the face of a bill. I can think of only one in my seven or eight years here, where that has been the case, and that was not even in this portfolio. The code of practice was a recommendation of the Wherity review, but, as you will have heard from Nature Scott, the code of practice is something that is going to be developed by them in consultation, and I was very pleased to hear how vociferously that was put forward in consultation with stakeholders. It is only right that this is a collaborative effort and agreement on the code of practice. I think that everyone that you have spoken to in that space will be involved in that and invited in that. As far as your deliberations as a committee, I do not need to tell you how to operate at all, but I would just say that requiring more information on the code of practice is put in the cart before the horse, very much so. Nature Scott will be delivering on that code of practice. The bill is to put in place the law that is going to facilitate a licensing scheme. You have just said it yourself. It defines the clarity of the law. I did not say that, Ms Hamilton. It does not define the clarity of the law. You mentioned the law, and it does define the clarity of the law. We will have to disagree on that. Just on your point about referring to the Wherity report, in the answer to Jim Fairlie's question regarding the licensing period, the one year, the timeframe, you have chosen to ignore the Wherity review because, given the bill provides quite wide powers for ministers when Nature Scott has to modify suspended or revoked licenses, I think that annual renewal is probably unnecessary. Therefore, on one hand, you are using the defence of the Wherity review to justify your decisions and, on the other hand, you are rejecting the recommendations of the Wherity review. How is there consistency in that approach? A Government can decide what to put in its bill that is proportionate and reasonable based on advice that it gets and recommendations that it gets. It puts that to the committee to deliberate whether that is proportionate and reasonable and to take forward any kind of recommendations or amendments. I believe that the draft bill that is in front of you is very much in line with Wherity and I stand by it. Is it going to change ahead of the final passing? Of course it will. I am open to that. I am open to speaking to stakeholders and how it can be improved. If any members think that they have improvements to making it, I am open to those two. As I said, I think quite clearly. On the code of practice, is it consistent with the approach that you have taken with other land management sectors? A code of practice will be designed by Nature Scott after the passing of the bill. Is it consistent with other sectors in the land management? The code of practice is not written yet. Clearly. Is it possible to see a draft of the code of practice? There is not a draft of the code of practice because it is not me that is drafting it. Is that proportionate in terms of the clarity within the definition of the list? I refer you to my earlier answer that explained that it is very unusual and I do not think that the right approach for the code of practice to be written for them by a minister when, in fact, we have got a body, like Nature Scott, which is going to be taking forward the licensing and the code of practice in consultation and working together with stakeholders. I accept that minister, but is it possible for Nature Scott to draft a code of practice within conjunction with stakeholders so that the committee can in this instance scrutinise what effectively is looking at whether the bill is going to be proportionate in terms of that code of conduct? Ms Hamilton, you can ask me as many times as you want, but the code of practice is going to be written by Nature Scott after the passing of the bill in collaboration with stakeholders. I think more broadly that having a code of practice, no matter what is in the code of practice except we have seen the code of practice with hundreds of dollars as well, and the process has been drawn up, but is the approach of having a code of practice in line with other land management sectors, or is it just specific to Grace Muir? I will bring in a cube because he has examples, but there is nothing unusual in this at all. I will bring in a cube because he will probably have some examples since it is his remit. Specifically, there was a key code of practice for deer management, which was produced after the implementation of all the or reforms to the deer act. That is a clear example in a similar area. It will involve many of the same land managers. There is quite a long history of Nature Scott working closely with stakeholders to ensure that those codes reflect industry and other stakeholders' view on what is best practice. I am losing the will to live there for a moment. It is important, minister, that much of the land management is done appropriately, and it is just the odd one that causes difficulty if I can put it in my own way. However, every business has to comply now with everything. How did you come to the conclusion that there is little or no impact on businesses that currently comply with the law? You will be referring, of course, to the Bria, which set out that there has been a great deal of collaboration with my officials ahead of drafting the bill. There was also a review group that met a number of organisations and businesses to ascertain a lot of Grousmour estates, a lot of the representatives of Grousmour estates. There were meetings and questionnaires put to them. Questionnaires put targeted to land owners, land managers, gamekeepers and any other interested bodies on that. We commissioned the search a few years ago on the socio-economic impact of licensing, and I think that there was quite a number of the financial information from estates collated to provide that evidence base. It is not just estates that are involved. We also looked at the implication of the banning of the sale of glue traps, for example. There were meetings with the pest control sector about the implications that it could have for them and the implications of the people who sold the glue traps. That should have been cheap, so there was not much implication there. I am effectively saying that there was a great deal of work in working and speaking to the stakeholders and reaching out to them in a number of ways to ascertain, as you always have to do in bills, any financial implications that it might have on them. We really thought that there were minimal. However, here is the thing. The proposal of a licensing scheme in itself is not problematic in terms of whether we want to make it simple. NHS Scott said that they want to make it simple. We do not want it to be too complicated. We take time away from the day-to-day work that has been done by land managers. NHS Scott is saying that they currently do not charge for licences. I wonder how sustainable that will be. That is something that they need to decide, and maybe people in the committee need to decide whether or not there will be a lot of applications for licences coming forward from NHS Scott. They seem quite happy that they can continue a situation in which they are going to have to do, I would say, quite a lot of work. We need to look at that as well, but, even so, I think that it would be minimal to effectively cover the Administration costs. Surely it is the case, and NHS Scott made this point of evidence to us that if the licensing renewal is put triennially, say it annually, that this again reduces the administrative burden on NHS Scott and, indeed, on those applying for the licences. Perhaps that is a good reason on top of everything else for the Government to consider at least three-year renewal as a target. You make a good point, or she would be giving evidence. It says that the Government did not intend to engage specifically in the Bria stage, but that is probably a key assumption of establishing the implications or the impact of the bill. The Government did engage with representatives of the estates. It did engage with business owners. I watched your line of questioning on this in the previous committee, and I think that it was to Professor Rarity, and I was quite surprised. I went and looked at the Bria afterwards. A wide range of businesses that previously notified an interest in wildlife management and rodent control were sent to public consultation directly and encouraged to respond. Those proposals have been informed by two independent reviews, which gathered evidence and liaised with stakeholders. That, to me, would be business engagement. You do not have evidence of that being. Clearly our committee needs to look into that. The independent reviews did engage, and if you wanted the information as to what that engagement looked like, I am sure that you could have provided it. On the European Convention of Human Rights, I would be interested to hear if the minister agrees with Scottish Government officials that the proposed grass more licensing system in ECHR is ECHR compliant, and how would you respond to stakeholders who claim that it is not? Obviously, I agree with my officials. Every bill that comes before this Parliament has to be ECHR compliant, and the Presiding Officer has to decide whether that is the case as well. That simply is. Can you go into a little bit more detail? Clearly, you are getting some pushback from people saying that it is not. I listened to the evidence where that was thrown in. I did not quite understand where they were coming from in terms of that, because this bill is ECHR compliant. The officials have gone through the process of testing that. The Presiding Officer has decided that it is compliant as well. I wondered whether that would come up. Liz McLaughlin, who was in front of you, made the point that under the general licence restrictions that are there, operate in the grid framework before they would use any of the powers associated with that licence. It is not like a Government body is going to behave in a way that is not compliant with human rights legislation or is not compliant with the grid framework that has been set out in this bill, which is ECHR compliant. I am struggling to understand why anyone would say that it is not compliant, but he might want to come in a little bit more, since he was mentioned indirectly. At the basic level, we are well aware that interference with someone's property rights and rights to operate their business is a serious business. Clearly, ECHR implications. However, we are aware that in order to intervene in that sort of way, we need to be sure that what we are doing is proportionate and justified. We think that the long history of seeking to tackle wrapped persecution and other unsustainable practices around graspable management provides a clear policy justification. It has been a Government objective for many years, and we think that the proportionality of that is justified, given the number of other initiatives that the Minister referred to earlier, have already been tried. At its basic level, we are content that the scheme itself is ECHR compliant. I am very much in danger of speaking at my colleague Dormand's area here, and he might want to correct me on some of this. However, in terms of the actual process itself for issuing licences and removing licences, we are satisfied that it is consistent with the sort of processes that are ECHR compliant. As has been mentioned before, there are remedies for appealing within NatureScot and for external appeal to a sheriff if people are not satisfied with decisions that they take. As a broad scheme, we have taken advice from our legal colleagues, and we are content that it is indeed compliant with ECHR. I am not sure that there is no one to have to. Just to say that I agree with everything that Hugh has set out, although the bill was being drafted, the provisions were drafted with an eye towards the convention rights and making sure that the proposals that are in the bill strike a fair balance between the rights of individuals and the general community interests. The Scottish Government's position is that that fair balance has been struck by the provisions of the bill and, as a consequence, the bill is ECHR compliant and also within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. We have heard about the fears of licences being suspended on the initiation of an official investigation. That could be into some traps that have not been set correctly or inappropriately. That would result in a licence being suspended. I just assume that it will potentially take a court case to decide whether removal of a licence and, potentially, the loss of half a dozen jobs will knock on effect in the local economy, whether that is proportionate. Sorry, are you expecting that the first time that this will be tested in court? I would point you to NatureScot's evidence that they gave you where this was put to them about a heavy-handed approach that has been taken. I very much have a very clear impression from NatureScot that the way that they want to operate with regard to those licences is that if they have concerns, whether they have been raised by the public or whether they have their own concerns, however they have found out about concerns, they will be liaising with the land managers in the first instance around things. They will be giving advice if they want to help them to rectify some of the issues. They would not be suspending any licence unless there was a very good reason to do so. I think that that is the right approach to take. It is not just going to be a letter coming through the door saying that your licence is suspended with absolutely no communication, no collaboration, no opportunity for the land manager to rectify some of the issues, and I think that is the right to take. I will also come back to what Hugh MacDonald is saying about the fact that NatureScot is a public body means that there is quite a lot of guarantees on their behaviour. You can go to the public service sector ombudsman if you are not satisfied with any decisions that they have made. You can challenge the decisions that they have made to a sheriff, which I guess answers your question as well. However, I would imagine and I would hope—and I certainly have the impression here in what NatureScot I have got to say—that there would be a lot of negotiation and a lot of communication between themselves and the land managers before any decisions would even be made with regard to the licence. We will move on to a question from Alasdair Allan. We heard from Jamie Bilt from the Lost Society of Scotland last week, and they are going to come back to us with some written information on the basis of property rights and interference for property rights, but the one that keeps sticking with my mind that was raised to me before we actually taxed that to take scrutiny of the bill was the fact that, as a sheep farmer, if I shot an eagle, I would not be stopped from then farming sheep. I would be prosecuted under a different law, but if I am a grousman manager and I shoot a hen harrier, I can have my licence suspended. Do you see that being difficult in terms of ECHR at a later point in the bill? No, that has all been looked at. I will hand over to Norman, who could maybe give you chapter and verse on this. I am not a lawyer myself, but I trust the advice of Scottish Government lawyers in that regard, so it is possible that Norman might be able to address the specific scenario that you have outlined, Mr Fairlie. To address the specific example, the Scottish Government's position, at the starting point, is that the provisions of the bill are ECHR compliant. The position as regard suspension of a licence will be a decision that is taken. It is a power. It is not a duty on the licensing authority. Whether or not that is the Scottish ministers or, as it will likely be, the case that is delegated to NatureScot, it will be incumbent upon NatureScot when reaching a decision as to whether or not to suspend a licence in that case, to have regard to the whole circumstances of the case, to have regard to any representations that are made by the licence holder as regards their case. They would need to reach a view on the case, which is compliant with ECHR, as NatureScot being a public body is required to do so. The Scottish Government's position is that the provisions as regard suspension of licences are ECHR compliant and are capable of being exercised in a way that is complies with the ECHR. I was just going to make the point that clearly the difference between the two scenarios that you paint, Mr Fairlie, is that we do not have a long track record of farmers shooting golden eagles. That is the issue that we have been seeking to address with this bill. That is why we think that the measure is proportionate and justified because of that long association between some elements of grasswell management and wildlife crime. Is that not the area of proportionality that the stakeholders are bringing to the table? Is it proportionate for them to be able to lose their livelihood on the whole whereas the same proportionate response is not carried out for a sheep farmer? Under both scenarios, criminal prosecution is an avenue that can be pursued by authorities, but the issue has been that over a number of years the difficulty of establishing criminal prosecutions in those cases where there is little evidence, there are no witnesses, where carcasses disappear and so on. In those situations where we have had a number of initiatives that have been brought forward to address the issue. If it could be addressed simply by prosecuting those people who did it, that would be the ideal solution, but over a number of years it has been very difficult to identify the actual individual who may have carried out such an act. For those reasons, we have been taking this different series of measures and we have ended up in this position now with licensing. I am going to go back to the proportionality on the basis that, yes, there are other areas in law that you could prosecute me if I had done something wrong, if I could get jailed, if I was fined and all the rest of it, but you would not have the ability to say that you now need to stop farming sheep on your land. That is where I see that this bill will end up being challenged at some point or has the potential to be challenged. You accept that that is something that could potentially be difficult for the bill later on. The scenario that you have put forward is very specific. I go back to what Hugh said about the proportionality that is based on the evidence that we have had over many years, that the issues that were looked at and then put to us by recommendations needed potentially a licensing scheme in order to provide the framework for this to be monitored but also the framework for it as a deterrent to practices that were on-going. Mr Fairlie, with all respect, I think that we have my position as the minister of responsible for this bill is that the advice that I got from the Scottish Government lawyers is that this is proportionate and that this is ECHR compliant, and that is the line that I will be sticking to. The legislation that stands is probably compliant. It is how it is applied. We talked about the code of practice. It is not like any other code of practice because this code of practice is more or less like a statutory instrument because if you do not follow the code of practice, in this instance, the chances of you getting a license will be gone. If you do not, it is regulation rather than just a code of practice that she suggested. It is not regulation. It is a code of practice that is going to be worked on by NatureScot and in collaboration with the stakeholders that are going to be applying for those licences. Let me finish the point. If you do not follow the code of practice, you will not get a licence. It is like a regulation. The perfect storm is whether this is proportionate. If you do not follow the code of practice, you do not get a licence and then that has a disproportionate effect on that business. I think that is why the stakeholders are concerned. You also talked about, because NatureScot is a public body, there is a level of protection there, but another area that we are unclear on is that a licence can be suspended without NatureScot being satisfied that an offence has been committed. That is another area that is very worrying. If a licence was to be suspended in that way, ECHR might well kick in because it would not be proportionate. That is the concern that we are hearing from stakeholders. A couple of things there, Mr Carson. First of all, people will be applying for licences and the licences will be granted when they provide certain information and that process will be quite straightforward. It is not the case to say, if you do not follow the code of practice, you will not get a licence. You will have a licence, and if you are found to have complaints being put in that you are not following the code of practice, the idea is that NatureScot will be liaising with that particular land owner, land manager, in order to ascertain what parts of the code of practice they are not compliant with and what they can do by way of advice or assistance to get them to comply with that. That seems to be the philosophy from NatureScot that they want to go down that route of liaising and working with land managers, so that they can get them up to code, so to speak, so that that does not come to pass what you are suggesting. The second point that you make around a disproportionate and almost knee-jerk reaction from NatureScot to suspending licences based on very little information, I just cannot see that coming to pass. They would lose credibility very quickly. This is an organisation, used to be Scottish natural heritage, people know them well, have been working in Scotland, operating in Scotland for many years. They have, on the whole, very good relationships with land managers. Yes, but none of that is in the bill. None of that information is in the bill. The liais are on all this. There is nothing in the bill about it. I go back to the point that NatureScot does not have to be convinced that a crime is being committed for a relevant body to suspend a licence. That is a concern. That is in the legislation. The legislation is setting out the framework in order for the code of practice to be made the licensing scheme to be operated in consultation between NatureScot and the stakeholders in which order to be made. Just specifically, if NatureScot did not agree that an offence had been committed, do you think that it is right that a licence can be suspended, whether NatureScot does not have to agree? I cannot talk in hypothetical situations. That is not in the legislation. I am here to talk to every line in this bill. I am not here to look into the future as a situation where somebody is not content that NatureScot might have operated in a certain way. However— That is specifically aligned in the bill. I do not want to tell you your job, but you have NatureScot in front of you anytime you want. I have NatureScot in front of me anytime I want as well. As that becomes an act and as the code of practice is being put together, as it has been put into operation, there is a licensing scheme that has been put into operation. Why is there a line in the legislation that says that NatureScot does not have to be satisfied that an offence has been committed for a relevant body to suspend the licence? There is a potential for an incident to be so severe that they might have to suspend a licence. Surely NatureScot would agree with that. It says in the legislation that if NatureScot does not have to be convinced that an offence has taken place, we do not believe that an offence has taken place. I get that we are arguing back and forth here, but NatureScot has to have the flexibility to be able to act in order to stop any further damage from happening. That is in there to allow them to do that. It can take a while for a police investigation to take place, but if something is so egregious and severe has happened that NatureScot feel, whether they will ever do that is another matter, but they need to have the flexibility to be able to do that. That is why that line is in the bill. No, I might not make myself clear. NatureScot will not have a role in it if another relevant body suspects a legality. Licence can be suspended without the agreement of NatureScot. I do not understand your question, but I think he does. I might come back to that because I am going to get the actual line in the legislation to repeat. Can I have Rachel Lynn-Allister-Allan? It is on this because the bill actually says that licences can be suspended for an unlimited time where the regulator is not satisfied. I think that we need clarity on what you are saying, minister. I do not really get what you are asking, so I am going to ask Hugh to come in on that, because my understanding of what you have said is not the right understanding, so I am going to bring in Hugh. Just to be clear, it is only NatureScot. It will only be whoever we delegate the power of being the relevant authority to, and that will be NatureScot. It is only them who can issue or suspend licences. I cannot imagine or cannot see how there could be any circumstance where anyone else could suspend a licence other than NatureScot. NatureScot could suspend a licence without them being satisfied as to all of the conditions that are set out in section 8. That is envisaged to operate in the sort of circumstances where, as the minister says, some event has happened and the investigation is on-going, but it is not that NatureScot disagree with any of the conclusions that have been reached, is that they are taking action in advance of the being so satisfied. I have got Alasdair Allan, then, Jim Fairlie. That is not, presumably, particularly unusual in other spheres that licences are suspended if prosecutions are being considered. What is unusual about that? You could look at it in environmental health, for example. The licences would be suspended in environmental health if they thought that there was a public health risk. You are absolutely right. There are myriad areas in which that would happen. I guess it is like you hope that this would never happen. You hope that something so serious would never happen that they had to take this action. If they did not have the flexibility to do it, it is potentially that US MSPs would be coming back in future years and asking for additional secondary legislation to have this amended if something did happen in that case. As you say, the bill gives that flexibility in the way that quite a lot of other licences would do. Norman has some examples. I have mentioned environmental health, but I obviously was not anticipating your question, but if the lawyer could jump in. There are a number of examples in which licences may be suspended throughout Scottish legislation. For example, the Marine Scotland Act 2010 allows ministers to suspend marine licences and the grounds under which a licence can be suspended in those circumstances are quite broad. As is the case with our bill, there is a statutory appeals mechanism, so that is one of the key things that goes to the proportionality of the provisions that we have in the bill in that if a licence holder has their licence suspended or revoked, they would be able to apply to the sheriff to appeal that decision. As Hugh MacDonald alluded to, the power that is to be delegated to NatureScot is but one of the approaches that they may take in any particular case. They may do nothing, they may elect to modify a licence, they may elect to suspend a licence or, in a particularly egregious case, they may decide if they are satisfied that, following the conclusion of the official investigation that relevant events have been committed, they may ultimately determine that it is appropriate to revoke the licence. There is a spectrum of potential approaches that NatureScot may ultimately elect to proceed with. On those examples, I am going to bring Jim Feeley and Christine Grahame in, but on those examples, is there any case in those examples where the regulator does not have to be satisfied that an offence is taking place? The examples that we have and will be able to write to the committee with specification on each of those examples, they are drafted entirely in terms and a lot of cases where the licensing authority is conferred a power to modify, revoke or suspend a licence. There is no further clarification or qualification of the power in which a licence could be suspended or revoked. Obviously, those powers must be exercised in a way that is compliant with ECHR, and so, reading between the lines, we would imagine that the licensing authority in each of those cases would not be revoking a licence, although an official investigation is on-going unless the circumstances of the case were in such a way. However, the legislation that we have prepared puts those qualifications on the face of the bill so as to restrict the powers of the licensing authority to only be able to suspend or revoke a licence in particular specified circumstances. However, those are on the face of the bill. The specified circumstances are in section 16AA subsection 8. The licence being modified at any time it may be suspended or revoked if the licence authority is satisfied that a relevant offence has been committed, or it may be suspended if the licensing authority is not at that time satisfied that a relevant offence has been committed, but it would be so satisfied at the conclusion of the official investigation in that particular egregious case, as the minister has alluded to. That is quite concerning, because on the suspension that we could lose a business or multiple businesses on that, that is where the concern is. I was just looking for clarification on the wording there, but I think that you have actually just answered it. Christine Grahame? I am quite happy, because I am looking at section 7 and subsection 8 and the suspension that takes place whether or not relevant authority is satisfied. You do specify, in my view, because it talks about an official investigation, it then defines an official investigation, it then says the relevant authority, and it then defines what a relevant offence is, and you have got a list of other statutes, am I correct? You refer to. It is in pretty dramatic circumstances, in my view. I have got that right, a relevant authority, NatureScot, whosoever suspends a licence there and then, because there is something pretty dramatic and obvious that has happened, but I think that I am also understanding that you then can go straight to appeal. Just one thing that I would ask, and maybe you cannot answer this, is how quickly would an appeal be taken? Would it be around like an interim interdict, and you can almost get that repeal the interim interdict to have it removed the next day? Would it be quite quick? It depends on the circumstances, so it certainly wouldn't be sitting for months waiting for a criminal prosecution with a licence suspended or amended, but that the process, because of the impact, could be accelerated by the sheriff. That is what I am trying to find out, and I think that that would be a better way of looking at that. Maybe you can get up in the circumstances, but I think that that is an important thing to know. Certainly. As you know, it will depend on the circumstance, and it would depend on the remedy that is being sought by the licence holder's solicitor. They may seek an interim interdict of the suspension of the licence, so that they would be able to apply to the sheriff for that, but it would depend on the remedies that they wished to proceed with, and that would be for the licence holder and their solicitor to discuss. Will you create a remedy beyond the repeal procedure that a solicitor could say, look, this is just out of place? I am going to seek an interim interdict or suspension of the revocation of this through the interim interdict to prevent this happening. I am trying to follow a process that would be fair to the landowner and obviously to the acting agent body that is in charge. There would be other remedies apart from the repeal procedure. Yes, that would be part of it. That is okay then, that makes things better. On this last very brief supplementary, Rachel Hamilton, please. In evidence, we have heard that, for example, if a crime is being committed under conservation legislation on a farm, a farmer is not required to stop working, but that bill does not make it clear. It makes it almost disproportionate, as we have heard, but I just want to press you on whether an appeal would be weakened if nature scot actually did not have to be satisfied that a relevant offence had been committed. The circumstances in which a licence may be suspended whilst an official investigation is on-going is that the wording of the legislation refers to the, despite the relevant authority not being satisfied, as mentioned in paragraph 1b, the circumstances that that is envisaged to capture is the circumstances where the official investigation is on-going and nature scot are not, at that time, able to say that, with the balance of probabilities that the relevant offence has been committed by the licence holder or somebody in connection with the management of the land, however, there is sufficient information that they have and that the offence is particularly egregious that justifies relations. What is egregious? You might wish to give some examples in this scenario. Well, I mean, there have been in the past situations where people have come across poison birds more than one. But we heard cases last week about toxicology reports. Yeah, but there have been cases where people have discovered birds, poison baits, clearly carbafurum present. There have been cases where people have discovered birds hanging off of pole traps, trapped by their legs and so on. Some of these cases, I think, will cause considerable outrage amongst the public and the idea that people will be able to carry on business as usual while those things are being fully investigated by the police is probably difficult to sustain. But in relation to your specific questions, Norman, in terms of appeal, that applies where a licence has been suspended, not in the circumstances around which that licence was suspended, as indeed things like the period of 14 days which must apply before any suspension takes effect, that would also apply in those circumstances. So there are opportunities for people who feel they have been hard done by in that situation to take action, whether that's to seek interiminterdict or to get in motion an appeal process. Can I just confirm that interiminterdict could be heard actually the next day, if you wish, on cause? Am I correct? I don't know. It's long time since I was in practice. We're now going to move on to the next section. I'm very conscious that we've actually already up to our time limit, but we would like to keep going on because we're not touching the wheelburn yet. Ariane Burgess. Thanks, convener. I thoroughly welcome the announcement yesterday that the Scottish Government will bring forward amendments at stage 2 to expand the powers of the SSPCA. It's something that green colleagues have been campaigning on for many years. In the letter to the committee yesterday, it said that, at the end, it says subject to further consultation with stakeholders. So I'd be interested to hear who you're going to be consulting and the kinds of questions you are going to be asking them. Hugh, I'm going to have to defer to Hugh and that, but I'll put the consultation. One of the things before I hand over to you that I want to say is that this issue of the… I just want to clarify what we're actually saying to the SSPCA and what we're at the agreement that we've got. Time and time again, it's come up not just in evidence on this bill but in other bills as well to do with any kind of animal harm and cruelty. It has come up that there has been a situation in which the SSPCA hasn't been able to act and take evidence that would help a police investigation. When they have maybe been called to a scene, they've dealt with a live animal but they're seeing dead animals have not been able to give that evidence to the police. This has been something that came up when we were doing the animals and wildlife bill in the last session of Parliament. It was mentioned by Mike Flynn by the SSPCA, but we also had wildlife officers, police officers as well, saying that yes, there could be a situation where SSPCA is first on the scene and it takes a bit of time for the police to come. I mean, it could be hours, it could be, you know, but they're the first on the scene and they can't do anything, they can't take evidence. So by the powers that we're given to the SSPCA and I should also mention that the powers are not going to be blanket powers to everybody that works on the SSPCA. What I'm going to be doing as minister is I am going to be given licences to specific individuals and who have been trained up in this area and that I'm satisfied that they have got the training required to be able to do this in a way and I will have oversight of that and I would also be able to sort of, you know, take away those licences if it's an individual and get, you know, and I want to also make the point is that in case there's any doubt, the police have primacy when it comes to investigating wildlife crime. The SSPCA, the powers that we're given to the SSPCA are around evidence gathering which assists the police in their investigation and I think that's closing a loophole that's been mentioned for many, many years and I think it's going really quite compelling. So that's where it comes from. On your other question about what consultation is going to take place, I'll defer to Hugh if that's okay. Thank you minister. I think, you know, in line with our general commitment to consult, we will plan to run a short public consultation so anyone with an interest will be able to respond, including, obviously, all the sort of key stakeholders who have a very direct interest, but we'll also, as always with this, be very open to people coming to talk to us on specifically whether they're on welfare groups or conservation groups or land management groups or, you know, we will undoubtedly be talking with our colleagues in the police and the crown about it as well. So we'll be, the short answer is, a public consultation but alongside that we'll be talking to stakeholder groups. Thanks very much. Richard Hamilton. Minister, I had a look at the report and I can't see how the recommendations of the report chime with what you're saying, particularly around the concerns over primacy of responsibility, access to intelligence, interference with other cases, and health and safety risks to personnel. We also heard strong evidence from Dr, sorry, Detective Sergeant Lynn regarding exactly that they have concerns about when an investigation progressed, police became involved, it would be a disadvantage because things that they would have done early in the investigation might not have been done. So there's a huge amount of concern around your interpretation. You're talking about the official report, right? You're not talking about a report that was meant okay, but I understand it. Susan Davis' report. Right, okay, sorry, it was helpful, I had no need to put you mentioned. Right, so, I mean, we obviously have, the officials have been working very hard before, we made this announcement what, two days ago now, I think? And up until that point, that announcement really is, and with Police Scotland on this, quite comprehensively. The position that we've arrived at, we think, and we've been liaising with our police colleagues on this, is to close this potential loophole where evidence might be got rid of, in a time lag, particularly when it's been seen by SSPCA, but they can't do anything about it, they can't gather that evidence, and in the intervening period, if there was a lag in a period where the police could actually get there, and let's face it, we could be talking about quite a long, you know, we could be weather implications, there could be, you know, geographical implications around this. Hugh mentioned suspicious, you know, suspicion of crime, and there's been issues with actually being able to recover evidence to support any kind of investigation. That's why we've arrived at this position for the SSPCA and the powers that they should have, and we hope and we think that they are going to assist the police. There was absolutely no doubt that the police have primacy. We'll continue to liais with the police around how this is going to work on the ground. If the police feel that a particular officer from the SSPCA is not acting within that remit, or they have concerns around it, as I said before, I have the powers minister to take that licence away as well. Hugh wanted to come in to give maybe some detail on the exact thrust with regard to the comment on that report, but this is my view. I have got the ability, if there is any issues from the police about SSPCA officers in a way that hinders an investigation in any way, I have the ability to act and to investigate that myself. I don't know if you wanted to come in on that. How would a minister have the ability to be able to understand if already you're saying that you're trying to close a loophole by saying that you're trying to get to a situation where potential wrongdoing has been carried out? How does a minister react to a situation if we're actually trying to improve persecution of raptors? I'm not involved in an investigation of wildlife crimes. No, I know, but you're saying... What we're doing, we're giving the SSPCA the powers to be able to gather evidence that would assist the police. But the police don't agree with you? Actually, that's not the case. In the last Parliament, when we were doing the animals and wildlife bill, we had one of the wildlife officers in a round table. I think that it would only be myself and Mr Carson that would round the table at that point. There's already a strong relationship between the police and the SSPCA, and the wildlife officer that was present in that meeting did recognise that this could be an issue about the hiding or removing of evidence, and that it was a situation that was regrettable if somebody like the SSPCA was called to a scene and they couldn't gather evidence in that that would help an investigation. In terms of the police, I think that Susan Davis' report sets out a number of the concerns, and you've mentioned some of them around health and safety, access to police intelligence, database and retaining primacy for the police. We looked at all of those, and we think that the proposal that we've come up with addresses those concerns, because it won't involve issues around access to police intelligence database, it won't involve SSPCA being anywhere where they wouldn't already have been under their existing powers. It means that police will retain primacy and that people will not be able to ring up the SSPCA to go and ask them to investigate crimes that are outside their 2006 act powers. I have to say that we have, of course, talked with our police colleagues about that, and no doubt you will want to speak to them again at some point, but I can report at this stage that they have indicated to us that they think that this compromised position is something that they can work with. Can I just ask, would the SSPCA be a relevant body, as referred to in the legislation, and if the SSPCA was to establish our investigation, would that potentially be a cause for licence suspension? The SSPCA is not establishing an investigation into wildlife crime, it would be the police that would be conducting an investigation into wildlife crime. Would the SSPCA be a relevant body, which, if it had concerns, a law had been broken, would it potentially be able to... No, so that would be the police, and that would be in NatureScot as the issues of the licence. I can see what you are getting at, but the SSPCA cannot make claims that are going to revoke or suspend any licenses. NatureScot is the licence supplier. Have they had the licence scheme? They work closely with the police. I see what you are getting at, but I do not think that that is a concern. The SSPCA is effectively now able, if it has already been called to an area, if it sees evidence of wildlife crime, as part of that call, which could be something completely different, it can gather that evidence and supply it to the police. In the legislation, just for clarity, again, there is the final point on that. When it comes to suspension, we are talking about official investigation, and the definition of that means an investigation by the police service of Scotland or any other body that has, as one of its function in reporting, for consideration of the question of prosecution's offences, alleged to have been committed. However, the SSPCA would absolutely not be covered by that. Any other body, as one of its function, is reporting for consideration for question of prosecution's offences, so, effectively, they are gathering evidence. They are able to provide evidence. The SSPCA does that, even before they had the powers in a range of cases. They do it when there are issues of illegal breeding of domestic animals or there are concerns about the suffering of animals. They will provide evidence should something go to court. That is what that means. Just for absolute clarity, when it talks about official investigations, that includes SSPCA? Potentially it does. However, under the additional powers that we are proposing, they will be subject as part of our conditionality of agreeing those powers with SSPCA to the establishment of a protocol with the police. The SSPCA will only be pursuing criminal investigations in relation to any additional evidence that they get under those new powers with the agreement with the police. The police will remain the primary force for investigating that. SSPCA may seize evidence under those new powers, but what they do with that evidence is that they have to discuss with the police. That does not mean that they automatically are on that case. My main point is that, when it comes to an official investigation, which is mentioned in one of the reasons that a licence can be suspended, any work relating to SSPCA gathering evidence would be effectively defined as an official investigation as per the bill? They certainly would fall within the definition of having a function of reporting for prosecution. However, it is extremely unlikely that they would be investigating the sort of offences other than gathering evidence and liaising them with the police on that. The main point is that that would be defined as an official investigation, which then relates to other legislation. I have to say that I welcome protocols, because it seems to me that that may be formalising what is already happening, but can I ask how the police feel, or is this the early days, about establishing protocols? The primacy in all of those aspects. What is their reaction to that? They want those protocols established. As Hugh MacDonald says, people want us to go further in that area. That is where a lot of the police criticism came from. It is about the other position that we have taken that would have given far more powers to the SSPCA. The SSPCA itself was not exactly—I cannot remember what my point was. I am a member of the SSPCA. The SSPCA was like, given these powers or don't, but they have been pointing out—other people have been pointing out—that there is an issue where evidence can be destroyed or removed. The main point is that the police are content with the protocols, but they need protocols in place, because they are going to be working together. They already work together very closely in domestic cases. I would like to get a little bit more clarification. Perhaps, after the meeting, you could write just to clarify exactly in which circumstances the SSPCA, as part of the work, would form the definition of an official investigation. That would be helpful. I am going to suspend the meeting for five minutes for a comfort break, and we will come back into the topic of Muirburn. We will reconvene at 10.51. We are now reconvening the meeting. We are moving on to the topic of Muirburn and to ask Rhoda Grant to ask the next question. I ask some questions around the Muirburn licensing scheme and how it is going to operate. Larger states may have a lot of people out undertaking Muirburn. Crofters may have one person out undertaking Muirburn. Will it take into account the impacts on smaller operators and different operations? Given that the science is not entirely clear around the benefits or disbenefits of Muirburn, how will the code be adapted to follow the science? You make a really good point about the smaller landowners and crofters that might have to apply for licensing. I would expect that NatureScot will take that into consideration when they are working the liaising with stakeholders, that they are speaking to crofters about how that might impact on them, and when they are putting the licensing scheme together to take that. Again, it cannot be on this. It cannot have crofters having to go through a whole series of things that do not even apply to their land, that they have to approve or measure or provide evidence of. It would be ridiculous, frankly, if that were the case. When they are talking about what I have said before, I listened to NatureScot and the impression that they want to work with all sectors that might be affected by the licensing scheme, so they have to have buy-in. In such a state, the actual application itself has to be in a way that is not onerous for people. In terms of the code, there are going to be lots of things in that code that will not apply to certain landowners. I think that they come back to that whole idea that was mentioned and that they are having due regard to. Not every single person every item in that code will be relevant to a crofter, but some parts will be relevant to them, some parts will be completely irrelevant as well, so that has to be taken into account. The code has to work for and has to be meaningful and has to be bought into by everyone who is really engaged in Muirburn. I guess that is my answer. However, the science that you mentioned, the evolving data—first of all, I point to the fact that the licensing scheme itself will enable collecting that data and providing information to people involved in various scientific efforts around Peatland in particular. It will be very helpful to have what is happening and where. At the moment, we do not know what is happening and where in terms of Peatland, for example, and any practices such as Muirburn practices on Peatland. We are then able to give evidence to anybody who wants to undertake any scientific survey as to what the effect of Muirburn will be on Peatland. It cannot pre-empt what that will be. It might have a positive benefit or a negative benefit. We need that flexibility in terms of the code for NatureScot to be able to react to evolving science around that. I cannot look into the future and see what that data is going to show, but the very fact that we have a licensing scheme that is going to prompt having better data about what is happening and where will allow that science to develop in a way that it has not been able to so far. It would be possible to review the code quite easily. Along similar lines, and again about Peatland versus non-Peatland, I wonder if you can say a bit more about the reasoning behind that distinction. I know that that is something that we have been through several of us asking about in questions in committee before. Is the distinction between Peatland and not Peatland to do with releasing carbon from a carbon sink directly? Is it about protecting the type of vegetation that is found on pristine Peatland and maintains it in that condition? For crofters and others or farmers who are having to identify mixed land that is peat and not peat, it would be helpful to have an idea of the rationale behind why the distinction is being made. I think that it comes down to the fact that Peatland is so important. The science on that has developed quite substantially in terms of how much of a carbon sink Peatland is. It is a big secretary of carbon. You will know, Mr Alland, from a number of ranges of policy objectives in the Scottish Government. The protection of the rewetting of Peatland is now in my portfolio. The regeneration of Peatland is going to be very important in terms of us reaching their climate change targets as set out, both the interim ones of 2030 and the 2045 eventual target of net zero. More than that, Peatland is rich in biodiversity, not just in terms of the plant life that is there, but in the fungus that is absolutely crucial for the health of the land and the species that live on it. When activities like Muirburn are proposed to take place on Peatland, we propose that there are special considerations around that. One of the things is monitoring what is going on, given some guidance as to where it can happen, but also monitoring what is going on and where and when it is happening in Peatland. Given an idea of what we consider Peatland to be that you need a licence for—the depth, for example—it all comes down to the code, the adherence to the code and the licence applications, whatever, can add to the science and data around Muirburn on Peatland, which will be very helpful. The precautionary principle that we are adhering to is that the massive value of Peatland in terms of the environment more generally but also for the health of the soil in Scotland is so substantial that it requires special measures in that way. Would you accept, however, that it can be quite a prospect for a crofter with a piece of land or a common grazing committee with a piece of land that has peat of wildly varying depths to identify how much of the land is relevant? I think that that is where I see NatureScot providing advice to individual applicants would really help. We are proposing effectively 40 centimetres and there are ways in which you can identify the guidance given out as to how you measure it and the declaration of what you believe the depth of the peat to be. Explanations as to, again, the liaison with NatureScot to say that I am proposing to do some Muirburn on this piece of land. However, I am not entirely sure how deep the peat is all over the areas. Could you give me some guidance? NatureScot would be responding to that and helping people. That is very much what I hope to see as part of this licence and arrangements. It is not just a case of people putting in an application and NatureScot deciding, well, hang on a second, I do not believe that that is... NatureScot would not have to work on some kind of precautionary principle that, if they did not know how much peat there was, they would assume the worst. No, no. I think that this is where you are declaring that you are wanting to do it on peatland, so therefore that would be part of the licence. We are talking about one licence and then there is going to be a section on which you are going to be doing this on peatland. I cannot say how the form is going to look, but I think that that needs to be taken into consideration. I also would expect that NatureScot would have guidance in place for crofters, guidance in place for anyone filling in those licences but also the ability to contact them and to ask for advice if you are unsure of any situation. I do not want to see licences applications going in and then a rubber stamp exercise of no when communication can happen between the licence applicant and the licence holder, the licence and the organisation. As a point when we look at stage 2, you have said that the relationship between NatureScot can you provide some reassurance that those who apply for a licence and follow what they believe is the right way to measure peat depths, if it turns out to be wrong, that those people applying for the licence will not be prosecuted? I think that we have pretty much already given that assurance. My officials gave that assurance when they came in front of you as well. Those licences are going to be straightforward to apply for. It is really in the space of if people are not adhering to the code where that liaison might happen. I understand why you are putting those worst case scenarios to us, but if you need something in writing to confirm what we have already said, we are happy to do that. Hugh, I do not know if you want to come in and identify something in the bill itself that might be helpful. The bill already provides that the licence will specify whether the land is peatland or not peatland. If you have a licence which has been granted by NatureScot that says this land is not peatland, then it is not peatland. If someone comes along and says, if you measure it in a different way, it could be peatland, that is not really relevant. If you followed the methodology that NatureScot set out and you have honestly done that, given the results, and they have concluded that it is not peatland, then it is not peatland. I have got Rich Hamilton then, Christine McLean. It is a point of clarification, convener, on the minister keeps talking about one licence, and Hugh Dignan just mentioned peatland and non-peatland. Can I get some clarification as to whether there will be a licensing scheme specifically for both? It is two licensing schemes. Again, I point to the fact that NatureScot are going to be taking forward a development of the licensing scheme, but I think that they said in evidence to you that what they would say is actually a declaration on whether it is peatland or not within the one licence. I cannot see that changing, but that certainly seems to be the position that they have set out. I was under understanding that there would be a licence for non-peatland and a licence for peatland, but you are saying that that is not the case. There will be one licence, and that will state… It is up to them to decide how that licence is taken forward. Certainly from the discussions that I heard them having with yourself, that seems to be the indication that they are not going to have this onerous process where you have not to apply for umpteen licences for umpteen different mirror burn activities. Again, it is up to them to take that forward. Can I go to the interpretation part of that? We are all talking about peatland, but the only thing that we have in interpretation section 18 is the land where the soil has a layer of peat, which is a thickness of more than 40 centimetres. I appreciate that you can by regulations change this, and it will be an affirmative procedure. When I move to section 10, application for mirror burn licence, whether you and you are the applicant are saying, I can do mirror burn here because the land to which this application lays is not peatland or you are making an application where it is peatland. I do not know this, but you are going to have to tell me how you know what is peatland. You have only given a definition of death, not acreage or anything. That is where the guidance that NatureScot will be developing around this. In the bill, we have kept it really quite strict. There is a second part to your quote. Peat means soil, which has an organic content of more than 60 per cent. If we were to be more definitive in that, I might have something about the size of this room that has peat to a depth of 40 centimetres and complies with your definition, is that peatland? Can I burn it? Which application do I come under? Who is going to tell me? If you are wanting to do the burning on peat that is more than 40 centimetres, then you will need to have that. Even if it is just the size of this room? That is exactly the issue that will be covered by the methodology that NatureScot will be giving out to applicants and discussing with them before the scheme comes into effect. It may well be that any piece of land may have pockets that are deeper than 40 centimetres. It does not mean that the whole part of the land is defined as peatland. There will be precisely, as you say, specifications on what proportion of the area is depth, what number of measurements needs to be over 40 centimetres. Imagine that they comply with the chemical definition and the depth definition, but are they going to get guidance as they apply NatureScot? Do I have to apply, here is my bit of land, because it does say that you specify the land to which the application relates, so presumably an acreage or a map or something. As they are making the application, NatureScot means that we do not need to bother in terms of peatland. That does not comply with the size—I am talking about acreage or size—to Rhoda Grant about the issue of crofters. The guidance has to take into account the different types of land and the different acreages of land that we are talking about. You can see why that is not in the surface, the bill. It has to be done in collaboration with the many different types of businesses that we are talking about, as to what guidance they need, what is acceptable and what practices are taking place. I was just concerned that we keep talking about peatland as if everybody knows what that is, and, of course, we do not. There is already some measurement and determination of something that peatland needs to be done, for example, in forestry work, so there is already an established way of measuring that, and there are already examples where people are having to do these measurements in order to undertake forestry work. It is already there. It is already in practice something that has designated what is and is not peatland. It is analogous. It is not exactly the same, and there are different definitions. Beatrice Wishart. Thanks, convener. Could you explain in which circumstances you consider mureburn to be appropriate on peatlands and, in practice, where you would expect mureburn on peatlands to be licensed? I guess that we are coming back to that definition, Ms Wishart. A number of things. Obviously, in the face of the bill, we have set out what we want to see licensed for, again, as Christine Grahame said, the 40 centimetre and the soil that has organic content of more than 60 per cent. I will just read the part of the bill. You have got the front of you as well. When the land relates to peatland, it is a peatland that is restored in the national environment, preventing or reducing the risks of wildfires causing damage to habitat, or preventing or reducing the risks of wildfires causing harm to people with damaged property. That is probably why they are making the application for this. They are actually wanting to create the habitats for ground-nesting birds, for example. It could be grouse, it could be any species of bird, and I know that that is an established practice where they actually burn pockets in the vegetation so that it provides that kind of area in which it encourages the birds to nest. You could have a situation, and I know that that is very topical, where the land manager will want to use mure burn as a way of preventing wildfire, and that would be an absolutely acceptable thing for them to do in the areas in which they want to do that. If they were peatland, they would have to have a licence. That was the last one. Any research would be acceptable in that area. That comes back to the whole data collecting thing that I mentioned in response to Ms Grant. Those are all acceptable reasons for wanting to do mure burn on peatland. Obviously, that would be the guidance on that again, as well as part of the code and the licence system that is going to be set up by NatureScot. That is what it says in the bill. I ask—with regard to the licence for burning on peatland, it says that it can only be issued if no other method of vegetation control is available. Can I ask what those methods would be that would be preferable to mure burn? That is the other method that I will probably have to bring to you in here, because I do not have a list of them in front of me. We have to know that mure burn is not necessarily the first option where another process could achieve the same outcome, because mure burn could have the potential to damage the peat. If there are other methods that have not been taken into account and they have gone straight to mure burn, that is probably something that NatureScot would want to go, what else have you looked at and why cannot you use them? As to what those methods are here, could you help me out here? The main method is cutting or swiping, so people will cut the heather rather than burn it, so there are pros and cons to it. It may not always be the most suitable method, but it is definitely an alternative in some, if not many cases, cases to mure burn. Is that not though, and I know that we are going to come to wildfire, but my understanding is that if you cut it, you are basically cutting heather that will dry out and create a greater risk. That is the reason for going for an alternative method. If that case is put, we do not want to cut the heather because that could effectively provide the fuel for a wildfire. That is a perfectly legitimate argument to put forward. I recognise that that is where that collaboration comes in, where that communication comes in and where the code would come in as well. If somebody applies to do mure burn on peat, NatureScot, again, they are not going to do a rubber stamp of no, they are going to be—I would suggest that in the application process that there is an opportunity within that application to state why you think that this is the way—the reason why you want to do it, because obviously we have set that out in the bill, but an opportunity for the applicant to be able to state why they think it is necessary, and that will be taken into account as well. It is not strictly if there is no other vegetation control available. It is what it may need to be. I think that we are using practicable. I think that that is a good word to use in those cases, and maybe we need to reflect on that at stage 2, because I think that maybe available gives the wrong impression there, because of course there are other methods available, but whether or not they are the right methods for the reasons that you have just given an example for, so there you go, that could be something that we can look at. Can you give us a picture on that that will be available at stage 2? A more precise wording that covers the concerns that some people have that actually some other methods of vegetation control may be available, but they may not be appropriate. I would like to ask what was the rationale behind the 40cm depth in the definition of peatland, and also what objectives are we trying to achieve by doing that? I suppose that we have to come to a decision on the depth. At the moment it is 50, but other people have called for 30. We have taken a sort of compromise position. We are completely aware that the science around this is not exact. There are conflicting views on whatever, but it comes back to what I was saying to Alasdair Allan about the value of peatland, and we are taking this view that 40cm would suggest that it is significantly mature peatland, that it is of a significant depth. We do not want it to be too restrictive by going to 30cm, but if the science were to develop in either way, that 50 would be better, or 30 would be more reasonable, whatever. If that were to do, whatever suitable science would come in front of us, we have that flexibility there, but for the purposes of this bill, we have gone for the 40cm because we think that that is a reasonable depth to assume. We need to protect peatland as much as possible. We do not think that the importance, and I went through all the reasons why peatland is important, is that 50cm was just not the right approach. I cannot be merely more exact. I would love to be able to effectively point to a definitive reason for 40cm, but that is certainly where we have landed based on the value of peat and the potential risk to a very valuable natural resource. That is where I am confused, because peat burn does not burn peat. Whether it is 40cm, 50cm or 20cm should be irrelevant, because only times that peat is actually burnt, or the majority of times that peat is burnt is when there is a wildfire, and it is only going to have a few occasions. We heard that from witnesses previously. However, why would you pick 40cm when there is data out there that identifies where 50cm is currently? We are going to have to do a whole remapping, so I do not understand why that 10cm is going to cause a lot of problems, because we do not have the data. Why would you go for 40cm rather than 50cm when peat is not being burnt? I will come back to the first point that you made about peat burn. I absolutely get that, when peat burn has been done well by trained people who know what they are doing, hence the reason for, I guess, a licence and another reason for a licensing scheme, there are people out there that maybe are not trained, that are not doing it properly, that are putting peat lender at risk. You say that there is data out there that suggests 50, but is also conflicting data that says that 30? There is actually the national survey, where data tells us where it is, whereas we do actually know where 40cm is, but we know where 50cm is. I think that, although there are maps, they are not in sufficient detail for this purpose, so I do not think that it is particularly useful to have those maps. I am going to bring up the subject of wildfires. I have got a couple of questions in that area. Gwmiti has heard arguments that mirror burn is an important tool in the toolbox to manage wildfire risk, but that risk must be justified by a genuine need to manage wildfires in specific circumstances, so I would be interested to hear if the bill strikes that balance. More generally, I recently went to the site of Canich and Coromani and saw first hand the devastation that took place there. What was interesting to see was that there was an area of peatland where the fire basically skipped around it. The other thing that I thought was really interesting was that, on the hillside, where there were mature trees, the fire stopped. You could see a line of burn and the mature trees held it back, so I think that there is something in that. I would be interested to hear in what ways the Scottish Government is looking longer term to create more wildfire resilient landscapes as the climate changes and will you look to commission further research on how peatlands and other landscapes, those mature landscapes, can act as natural fire breaks without the need for more burn? That has been great here in that example from you, Ariane, because peatlands can provide a natural fire break if they are in good condition. If they are degraded, they probably will not, but if they are in good condition, that is why we are putting so much effort into rewetting peatlands. There are a number of schemes that you will be familiar with in that area as well, because that provides a natural fire break. It is great to hear that example that you have just given there. However, we also have to recognise that some new burn practices also can provide a fire break as well. I am not an expert in how fire works. The experts, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, have undertaken work with them at the moment that they are liaising on that. They are obviously the people that are having to deal on the front line when a wildfire actually happened. We also come back to what is the major cause of wildfires. There are two things. There is a practical aspect that is usually human behaviour, first of all, but the prevalence of wildfires in northern countries is due to climate change. I was at the Arctic Circle a couple of years ago, and we met some of the Sami people representatives from the north of Norway who, for the very first time in their existence, were having to deal with wildfires in the Arctic Circle. We cannot dispute the fact that peatland and the rewetting of peatland is always a carbon sink, which is helping in that regard, but the restoration of it will protect against the wildfire. However, it is also helping us to get to our climate change objectives. Scotland cannot do that alone, although all the countries have to be involved in that. However, climate change itself is one of the main reasons that we are seeing wildfires in Canada. You will have seen terrible wildfires in Canada, which are making cities in America in the most polluted places on the air quality, and the place that is Chicago, for example, is intolerable. However, if the Sami people of the Arctic Circle are dealing with wildfires, that tells us the story. I have a follow-up question. I asked about whether you would be willing to commission further research on how peatlands and its mature landscapes can act as natural firebreaks. I think that that is something that we can look into. If it has not already been done, I could check and say that there might be a number of things done in that area already, but we will look into that. I think that I am going to ask about training in relation to mure burn. I see in the application section, section 10 and section 3, an application under section 1 must be made to the Scottish ministers and subsection to that. In such a manner of form, as the Scottish ministers may require, would you consider having, in that application, when somebody is applying to have mure burn on peatland, that they have confirmed that they have undergone any form of the gun deform training in relation to mure burn? Again, that will be for NatureScot to determine, but I would say that it would probably form part of the licence application that there was a confirm as the person applying to do it would actually have. I am having a look here at my notes. We have got in there substantial compliance with the mure burn code. Again, the mure burn code will put down whether or not training is required. I suspect that it will. That will be part of the code itself. It says that mandatory training for staff directly involved in the setting and managing of fires and keeping a record of each operation. We have already set out that intention there. We would expect to see the code to have that in there and more detail on there. We would expect the code to be actually saying what training was the accredited training. It was good to hear from representatives, from gamekeepers in front of you, that they accepted that training and the proving of competency in this area was absolutely something that they signed up to. I can be satisfied that the position of the Scottish Government is that it is in such manner and form that a Scottish minister may require it. The way that you are going, minister, is that there will have to be something in there that is complied with the code that is not actually in existence. Maybe we can put that down in the bill at stage 2 a little bit more strongly. Or can you give consideration to that? That is good. Okay. Now, we move on to the next section. Beatrice Wishart. Thanks, convener. What consideration is the Scottish Government given to procedural safeguards where licences are suspended? Did you consider putting time limits on suspension, or would you expect that to be part of NatureScot's guidance? I clarify that this is across all three licences and regimes. It is not specifically myrburn. We have had quite a robust discussion already about where people might object to NatureScot's decisions on things and the process that is available to them, if they disagreed with anything. There was a right for a person to appeal to a sheriff if there has been a decision by NatureScot against refusing to grant a licence or attaching a condition to someone's licence or modifying or suspending or revoking that licence as well. In terms of if anyone is dissatisfied with how NatureScot has operated with regard to them in any communication or liaison with NatureScot, there is obviously the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman as well, which is available to people as well. However, I keep on coming back to the intention set out by NatureScot in your evidence session where it was made very clear that they want to work with licence applicants, potentially stakeholders in this area, to make sure that the licensing scheme and the code of practice and advice and guidance given is appropriate and is bought into by the people that are going to be applying for those licenses as much as possible. I think that that is where a lot of confidence is going to come in this area. As I said before, NatureScot, as was SNH, is used to working with all those stakeholders already on a number of areas, and I hope and think that they do have the confidence. Certainly, I saw that demonstrated in the back and forth in your round table. I guess that some of the criticisms would be that, while I like you and I think that you are decent and you are in charge of NatureScot, what of its certain personality? There are processes and procedures and frameworks in place that would avoid it becoming a personal decision. They would have to adhere to those frameworks, and if they did not adhere to those frameworks, then a person could appeal and be successful if that was found to be the case. I hope that gives comfort. I think that that answered quite a lot of the concerns. I think that one concern, without going over it again, is that there is the worry that it can all be undermined by NatureScot's ability to suspend even if they are not satisfied, and if an offence has been committed. That is in there and it does cause some concerns. I really cannot say more than I have said already. I take those concerns seriously, but we have to have, as Beatrice Wishart has alluded to, robust processes and procedures, appeals procedures and additional bodies to which somebody can go if they are not content. Is there any consideration that will put in time limits on suspensions? That is something that has been discussed so far. We have not put anything in the face of the bill. Whether or not that is something that we want to or not put in the face of the bill, I do not know. I am sorry to Beatrice Wishart. I missed that part of your question. I think that that is something that we need to potentially leave to NatureScot. Look at the 16AA licences that are called around wildlife traps. Those can be suspended or revoked. We have heard various evidence from stakeholders about that around whether or not there is a greater risk of those being used in grouse mures or not. I wonder if you can say a bit more about the 16AA licences and the reasons why they have been drawn, the way they have been drawn and whether they have been framed to cover things other than merely raptor persecution. I think that that cuts stems from the Wherity review, where we looked at some of the things that they have flagged up as being other offences that are an issue covered relating to taking the wild birds, wild animals, some of them. We have taken the badgers in there as well. I am aware that all offences are not relevant in every kind of situation, but Professor Wherity gave support for legislation, including in this section. The bill includes the power to amend that list via secondary legislation. I want to be clear that commission on offences under listed legislation does not automatically require a licence authority to suspend or revoke a licence, and they might elect not to do so. I hope that that gives a bit of comfort there, Mr Rowland. In relation to the relevant offences in 16AA licences, that is BV Scotland, I think, when it written evidence that it should also include offences under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland act, did the Scottish Government consider that? Are you talking in relation to, like, tampering with traps? No, the RSPB is looking for offences under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland act, 2006, related to animal suffering due to the relevance, for example, of misuse of traps. That is where live-captured bird traps have been misused, etc. I think the question is, have you considered including the 2006 act in the 16AA licence? I have something that I am looking into. I guess I come back to, is the law sufficient in itself as drawn? All I can say is, Mr Fairlie, I am open to suggestion on that. I know that some people have been calling for that. I am open to suggestion on that. I keep on coming back to the fact that there are a lot of things that people are concerned with that I have not personally been able to have one-to-one conversations with people around, so I want to have those conversations from now on to stage 2, and I am willing to look at anything where we can be strengthened in this bill in areas where it is not strong enough in people's view, or we could be maybe changing some of the word to make it clearer or anything else that people want to bring to me. Very briefly, have you had any discussions with NatureScot around the ability for them to issue fines for more minor breaches, for example not giving neighbour notification when you are near burning or whatever? Is that a conversation that you have had? Is it something that you consider? I might bring Hugh in on that, but my initial thought on this whole thing, and I have heard it talked about, I am not convinced that fines are the way to go in this. Sometimes I think that fines can be the price for not doing something. Well, we do not have to do that because it is just a small fine or whatever. I guess that it is in relation to rather than revoke or suspend a licence if someone still has breached the regulations. What happens in that case? I would rather that NatureScot, and I think that this is their intention, that NatureScot use other methods to get people to conform to the code. And what might those be? They could be going and visiting the particular licence holder, speaking to them, giving advice on how to do things in the future. It could be letters, just learning them, that they are aware that this has happened, and could they please rectify this, and we will be following up. That is the approach that I would prefer. I get the impression from NatureScot that that is the approach that they would prefer as well. I am fine, thanks. Unless you want me to cover a bit about the monitoring and the compliance around NatureScot. How does the Government envisage monitoring the compliance within the scope of the bill? How will NatureScot monitor compliance? Well, I guess through some of the things that we have just discussed. Obviously, compliance, if someone is not compliant, obviously we have the public who will soon let them know that they will respond to any kind of public intervention in that respect. NatureScot lays with shooting estates all the time in a number of areas. Again, this is up to them to set out how they would monitor compliance. I am very aware that NatureScot may have an increased workload as a result of that. I will be looking and I have not met NatureScot one-to-one. These are one of the bodies that I really need to get up to speed and have that conversation one-to-one about what this bill is going to provoke by way of their work, what they want to do in that compliance area, and what they want to do in their licensing area so that we can make sure that they are adequately resourced. That is probably the next point that I was going to make. How will the Government ensure that the new responsibilities that NatureScot are undertaking do not divert from their wider work? That is a serious consideration. I need to be satisfied that what we are asking them to do is what they have the resources to do. That is why I alluded to the fact that, at the moment, they have been in a position where they have felt quite comfortable and able not to charge for some services. Could a small charge be something that could help? I do not know. I need to have that conversation with them. Miss Hamilton will understand that I would have loved to, in the last week, have sat down with NatureScot and talked about that in detail, but it is something that I absolutely have to do between now and stage 2. Have you spoken to or had the opportunity to speak to any of the stakeholders or organisations so far? On my last point, what is your intention to look at full cost recovery in terms of the wider species licensing? Huw is just saying that there is going to be a review looking at that. I think that it does need to be done. Whenever we are looking at giving more work to an agency, we need to look at how that is going to be funded. There is a review on going. Huw has just notified me of that. Did I miss the date on that review or when is that planned? If I can jump in there, the review is looking at NatureScot charging across the piece, not just for this particular sort of licence. That is why we have been generally resistant to the idea of introducing charging for individual licences in advance. That review has not yet started, unfortunately. I am hopeful that we will get it under way this summer. That is my ambition. I also ask you, finally, on the suspension of a licence or suspension of any activities that can affect lives, livelihoods, etc., perhaps investment. If a case is to be found, first of all, NatureScot only has to say that they are satisfied that they believe that there is an issue. However, if, for example, there is not, notwithstanding all the conversation or the explanation that the minister has given around having the conversations between individuals, what would happen? Would there be the ability for an individual who has had a licence suspended or revoked to then go into a cost recovery situation on the other way round? I think that I have to point to the appeals process and everything that I have said so far around that. I am again open to having discussions. I need to think about what you have said and reflect on it. That brings us to the end of this mammoth baptism of fire in your first appearance in front of the committee, so I very much appreciate the time of yourself and the officials. I will now suspend very briefly to allow you a change over of witnesses before we move on to agenda item 2. Our second item of business today is consideration of agriculture and horticultural development board amendment order 2023. That is a UK instrument, but we must complete the affirmative procedure in the Scottish Parliament before the UK Parliament can consider it. To make members aware, the instrument was considered by the delegated powers and law reform committee yesterday and no points were raised. I welcome back Gillian Martin, the Minister for Energy and Environment and her officials, Caspian Richards, the head of policy from the pesticide survey unit and Emily Williams, Boilston solicitor. I invite the minister to make an opening statement. It feels like I have never been away. Thank you for asking me to give evidence on the draft UKSI, the Agriculture and Horticultural Development Board amendment order 2023. The Agriculture and Development Board is a statutory levy board, funded by farmers, growers and others in the supply chain. It provides services and advice to support a world-class food and farming industry. The AHDB comprised of four statutory leving paying sectors, currently included in the scope of the order, which are the cereal and the oil seed industries in the UK, the milk and bovine dairy industry in Great Britain, the pig industry in England and the beef and sheep industry in England. The amendment is a UK-wide instrument, as has been said, to make the remaining exercise of powers conferred by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, on the Secretary of State acting with approval for Scotland of Scottish Ministers. The main purpose of the order is to deliver a set of modernising updates in the principal agricultural and horticultural development board order 2023, which will enable it to deliver operational and financial improvements. A consultation UK-wide on the proposed amendments was launched on 4 December last year and closed on 28 February this year. It was led by DEFRA, who contacted all stakeholders by email. 17 responses were received, and the majority of respondents agreed with the proposals included in this instrument. I won't outline all the nine amendments because you've got them in front of you. I support the changes of the amendment order, which makes it to deliver those improvements. Are we happy to take any questions if anyone has any? We now move on to the formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument, and I invite the minister to move motion S6M-09530, that the agriculture and horticultural development board amendment order 2023 be approved. Is the committee content to recommend approval of the instrument? Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report on our deliberations on the affirmative SI? We will aim to publish as soon as possible today in order for the chamber to consider the instrument before summer recess. That completes consideration of the affirmative instrument, and thank you very much for the minister once again and our officials for attending today. We will just continue, we will not suspend. We now move on to consideration of consent notification for the UKSI, the validating alternative methods for Salmonella typing amendment regulations 2023. Does any member have any comments on the notification? No. Are members content to agree with the Scottish Government's decision to consent to the provision set out in the notification being included in the UK rather than Scottish subordinate legislation? We now move on to consideration of five notifications for UKSI's implementing the Windsor framework. Those notifications were received on Friday afternoon and it is regrettable that they were added to the agenda at the very last minute, so the members haven't had very much time to scrutinise all the implications of the UK legislation on devolved competence. Before I invite comments from members, I would like to say that I think that it is vital that any letter that we send to confirm our decision should include a strong word form of words about the lack of time for adequate parliamentary scrutiny of these instruments. Does any member have any comments on the notifications? Are members content to agree with the Scottish Government's decision to consent to the provision set out in the notifications being included in the UK rather than the Scottish subordinate legislation? That concludes our meeting in public. We are now going to private session and I suspend the meeting for a few minutes.