 Felly, we should hopefully be about to get started now, we have our Minister back a bit later than I think we had anticipated. Which only adds on time at the other end of the day but we'll deal with that when we get to it. We will now move to group 5, section 16AA licences grant suspension etc appeals. I call amendment 61 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Rachel Hamilton, to move amendment 61 and speak to all amendments in the group. Ms Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think we should give Jim Fairlie the Minister a little bit of leeway, because it's his first time at this thing. So, we heard during evidence throughout stage one of the bill about the fundamental importance of route shooting and moorland management to Scotland. It is an activity which the Scottish Government commissioned research and provides the highest levels in employment compared to other upland land uses, which simultaneously generating the highest levels of local and regional investment. That is so crucial in underpinning rural economies, and we know that the sector is financed almost exclusively by private capital, giving rise to demonstrable net gains for nature and biodiversity, or at least we would hope so. To put it bluntly, there is a huge amount riding on licencing being issued seamlessly, and it is important also that suspension and revocation of licences is confined to circumstances where there is robust evidence of raptor persecution. My amendments in this group seek to ensure that this is the case. Amendment 61 creates a rebuttable presumption in favour of granting licences. That will in no way detract from the discretion of nature's got to refuse licences if it does not consider it appropriate to do so, but the wording reflects sentiments which have been trailed extensively by ministers and their officials. We have repeatedly been assured that the starting point in respect of these new licences is that they will be granted. Changing the word from may to must puts beyond doubt that expectation in doing so provides prospective licence applicants and stakeholders with greater certainty. Amendments 63, 64 and 65 would compel nature's got to specify reasons for modifying, suspending or revoking licences. One of my foremost criticisms of the Bill is that it empowers nature's got to readily modify licences at any time. I do not think that it is proportionate or reasonable to empower an accountable public body to act with impunity in relation to licence modification, particularly when there are so many downstream consequences associated with the section 16AA licence in terms of jobs, investment, biodiversity and public good. At the very least, nature's got should be compelled to provide reasons for modifying a section 16AA licence. I thank the member for giving way on that. The amendment 63 that the member is talking about is that the relevant authority, if they refuse a licence, must give written notice to the applicant for the reasons for not doing so. Can the member think of a single reason why they would not want to do that in the first place? No, I would not. I agree with Edward Mountain. I think that it is important. I think that the minister actually did reflect on earlier comments that nature's got almost have an obligation and he would expect, as a Scottish Government, to ensure that nature's got are doing their role properly and in that circumstance give reasons for doing so. At the very least, nature's got should be compelled to provide reasons for modifying a section 16AA licence. Thankfully, the thresholds that need to be crossed in relation to licence suspension and revocation are considerably higher, but I still think that it is important that reasons for such actions are prescribed and these amendments ensure that this will be the case. Amendment 67A is designed to make it clear that offences committed prior to the initial grant of licence are not considered relevant offences for the purpose of section 16AA licensing. In other words, to make it clear that the law is not retrospective in its effect, which would be unlawful. It is clear that this amendment is consistent with the intentions of ministers from the way in which the scheme has been designed, which is to empower nature's got to bear down on crime once the scheme is up and running by suspending or revoking licences, as opposed to refusing the commencement of the scheme. Indeed, evidence at stage 2 suggested that ministers expect a relatively fast and unbureaucratic procedure for granting licences. However, I believe nature's got and those engaging with the licensing scheme would benefit from this intention being put beyond doubt in the letter of law. Finally, amendments 68 and 69 are designed to tackle what I consider to be disproportionality at the heart of section 16AA licensing. The singular driver for licensing grouse shooting is raptor persecution, and although we on these benches do not accept that premise in light of the fact that raptor persecution is at an historic low, it would follow that raptor persecution ought to be the only type of relevant offence that could see a licence suspended or revoked. Sadly, ministers have blown the scope of the licensing framework wide open by including relevant offences that have no historical or current connection to Scotland's grouse malls. Chief among those relevant offences are those listed under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and Hunting with Dogs Act 2023, and it is really quite appalling that operators of Scotland's grouse malls are effectively being singled out as being more culpable of such offences without a shred of supporting evidence. Ministers should remember that badgers do not generally occupy heather mall and habitats, and in the case of Hunting with Dogs, there have been no prosecution so far under that act, although I do recognise it's relatively new. Simply not credible to suggest that grouse malls are likely to be more culpable than most. My amendments would remove these outrageous disproportionate relevant offences in an effort to refocus the scheme back on the matter at hand. In relation to other amendments in this group, I'm very supportive of amendments 15 and 16 in the name of the Minister, which put beyond doubt the ability for a sheriff hearing and appeal to make interim orders and also ensuring that the provision of notice of a licensing scheme is what initiates the timeline to appeal. I'm also firmly supportive in support of amendment 17 in the name of my colleague Edward Mountain, which would give a sheriff the option of awarding expenses against the relevant authority if a licence refusal is overturned at appeal. Given the immediate financial consequences of not having a section 16AA licence in place during the grouse shooting season, that strikes me as an extremely sensible amendment. I now call Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 66 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 66 in my name and the consequential amendments 77 and 79 seeks to close a potential loophole in the bill where some states that lose their licence to shoot grouse due to criminality could seek to get around the loss or suspension of licence by releasing non-native red leg cartridges or pheasants as an alternative to grouse, thus allowing shooting to continue. My amendment would disapply the exemption given to those two species in a very focused fashion by only covering the land holding that has lost its grouse shooting licence. It would allow Scottish ministers or NatureScot to act to prevent the establishment of alternative shooting-based recreation in those circumstances where there has been a suspension or revocation of a grouse shooting licence. In the previous group, the minister did acknowledge that this is a possibility that states could substitute other species to replace grouse if they lose their shooting licence. I hope that, at the very least, he will set out what action the Government would take to tackle what would be a clear attempt to get around a grouse shooting licence sanction and to go against the spirit of this bill. The loophole in the bill also exposes the fact that, following the wildlife and natural environment act 2011, Scotland has, among the weakest roles in the UK governing game bug releases. I hope that, if evidence emerges that states were carrying on driven shooting, regardless of losing the grouse licence, that matter will be investigated further and addressed by the Government during the forthcoming natural environment bill. I do not support amendments 67, 68 and 69, which are, in my view, simply seeking to reduce the relevant offences previously accepted at stage 2 that could lead to suspension or revocation of a licence and simply yet another attempt to water down the bill. I hope that members will reject those amendments and support those, in my name, number 67 and the consequential amendments. I call the minister to speak to amendment 15 and other amendments in the group. Rachael Hamilton's amendment 61 would require that NatureScot, as the licensing of the authority, must grant a 16AA licence if it is satisfied it is appropriate to do so. While I understand the reasons for this amendment and I am sympathetic to it, I have concerns about any unintended consequences that this amendment may introduce. It is impossible to predict every circumstance that could arise in relation to an application for a licence and, as such, I believe it is important that NatureScot have some discretion when considering whether or not to grant the licence. I think it is especially important when we consider that a grouse licence will be valid for five years. I fear that by setting on the face of the bill that NatureScot must grant a licence, this amendment risks creating an expectation that gaining such a licence is simply a tick box exercise. Although I appreciate that it is not the intention of the amendment, I remain concerned that it could remove the element of discretion that NatureScot must have to assess the various factors, including the applicant's background and compliance history. It would also impact on NatureScot's ability to refuse a licence in situations in which they have good reasons to do so. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 61 and I encourage members to vote against it. As a public body, I would always expect NatureScot to give their reasons for refusing a licence application. I am therefore very happy to support Rachel Hamilton's amendment 63 and 64 and I would encourage members to vote for them. Amendment 65, however, requires that the notice of any modification, suspension or revocation of a licence must include the reasons for doing so and information about the process of the appeal to a sheriff under 16ab. Information about the appeals process against licences and decisions will be included in the licence and guidance that will be developed. I would also expect, therefore, that before making an appeal to the sheriff, the applicant would first go through NatureScot's internal appeals process. A sheriff will likely require that the applicant first makes an attempt to resolve the dispute outside of the courts by use of the internal appeals process before appealing to the sheriff. That amendment overlooks the internal appeals process provided by NatureScot's of that reason. I cannot support amendment 65 and I would encourage members to vote against that. Colin Smyth's amendment 66, 77 and 79 would allow for section 142A of the 1981 act to be disapplied in relation to land where a 16AA licence has been modified, revoked or suspended. The effect of disapplying section 142A would be to prevent the release of non-native species such as pheasant or red-leg partage for the purpose of shooting. While it be a consent of a grouse-mure licence scheme proves not to be the term to wrap the persecution, I believe it would not be a simple thing for grouse-mure estates to change the quality that they offer sport for shooting. Despite the fact that I know that it does happen, to put it into that context that Colin Smyth has spoken about, it is highly unusual. Additionally, as grouse-habanat is heather mureland, any sport shooting of other game species on mureland that is not covered by a section 16AA licence runs the risk of flushing and shooting grouse. That would constitute an offence under section 1 of the 1981 act, with the possibility of vicarious liability also applying to the land owner or the land manager. Currently, the bill provides that both of these species can be added to the section 16AA licence scheme by regulations in the future if evidence supports a link between the management of those species and the illegal killing of birds of prey. But at the moment, we do not have the same evidence based to link the release of those game words to raptor persecution. For those reasons, I cannot support those amendments and encourage members to vote against them. Colin Smyth. Does it become clear, minister? You said that it would not be unusual, but it would not be impossible. If it does become clear that people are seeking to get round the loss of a licence, what action are they actually proposing to take to clamp down on that, because it is not clear? Minister. We have already cleared that amendment in the last section where we have the ability to bring in legislation if we get to that stage, but I go back to the point that I said to you earlier on, this is where the industry must work together to make sure that those kinds of actions are not taken, therefore the Government will have no need to legislate for it. The effect of amendments 67 and 67A would be that only wildlife offences committed after the initial grant of a section 16AA licence could be taken into account when deciding whether to suspend or revoke the person's section 16AA licence. I understand the principle behind these amendments as I would not expect the licence to be revoked on the basis of historic wildlife crimes. However, I believe that amendments 67 and 67A could cause an issue in relation to the investigation of relevant offences. We all know the nature of wildlife crimes. They are often committed with no witnesses and they are not often discovered until some time has passed. If a wildlife crime is discovered and it comes to light that it was committed before a section 16AA licence was granted, those amendments would mean that NatureScot could not suspend that licence to allow a proper investigation to be carried out. I think that it is entirely reasonable that NatureScot should be allowed to suspend the licence if necessary for however brief a period to allow the investigation into that matter. To do otherwise may create a loophole where individuals would be able to commit relevant offences such as wrap their persecution on land that is not currently licensed and any future licence could not be revoked on the basis of those crimes. I cannot support those amendments and encourage members to vote against them. Amendments 68 and 69 have the effect of reducing the range of offences that the relevant authority can take into account when deciding to suspend or revoke the 16AA licence. The purpose of the licensing scheme is to address the ongoing issue of raptor persecution. Therefore, the relevant offence is closely linked to the management of grossmores or causing the suffering of a wild mammal. In fact, at stage 2, the relevant offences list were expanded to include offences under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 upon the recommendation of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. I cannot support those amendments and encourage members to vote against them. My amendment 15 makes a change to the provisions relating to the appeals process to provide that appeal must be made within 21 days of the notice of the decision being given. The bill currently sets out that a person may appeal to the sheriff against NatureScot's decision to refuse to modify a revocal licence and that an appeal must be made within 21 days from the day on which the decision was made. I heard the concerns from stakeholders that the current wording could cause issues if there were any delays between the decision being made and giving the notice of that decision. I believe that it is only fair that a person should have the full 21 days from when they are notified of the licence decision, not from when the decision was made. Therefore, I encourage members to support amendment 15. Amendment 16 allows some of the sheriffs to have the same power as sheriffs to make interim orders in relation to appeals against their licence decisions. 16AB allows a person to appeal to a sheriff against the decision made by NatureScot in relation to a 16A licence. Sheriffs have the power to make an interim order, for example, to temporarily suspend a licence revocation so that it would still be in effect. Some of the sheriffs, however, do not have that power. Where new powers are being created for sheriffs, the standard approach is that those powers should also be capable of being exercised by some of the sheriffs, unless there is a good reason not to do so. There are practical benefits to some of the sheriffs having wider powers as it provides more flexibility in terms of court programming, particularly in rural settings. If any matter can be heard by as wide a range of judges as possible, then that is a good thing. For those reasons, I encourage members to support amendment 16. Amendment 70 provides that where an appeal on the granting of a licence is made to the sheriff who then directs the relevant authority to grant a licence, the sheriff must consider making a ward of expenses to be paid by the relevant authority to the applicant. The amendment is unnecessary because it is common in litigation that expenses follow success. That means that a person who successfully appeals could expect an award in the expenses of their favour. The amendment is unnecessary and it would be for the successful party to request an award of expenses once the appeal has concluded. It is not common for the sheriff or some of the sheriff to consider this matter of their own accord. I do not support amendment 70 and I encourage members to vote against it. Thank you. I call Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 70 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I'm going to start by speaking to amendment 70. There was I hopeful as Colin Smith hadn't mentioned it that he would support it. He hasn't said that he's not going to support it, so I'm still hopeful. What I'm disappointed is that the minister has said that he's not going to support it. When I raised this as an issue at stage 2, the minister said that there was no need—sorry—that this amendment was wrong for the simple reason that it would force sheriffs to consider costs. He didn't say that it wasn't necessary, so I went to a great deal of time trouble to re-amend the amendment, having listened to what I'd been told at stage 2 to say that the sheriff officer must consider costs. That doesn't mean that they have to award costs. It means that they must consider it. Now the minister says that it's not needed. Well, I'd agree with him. If it's not there in black and white, the sheriff doesn't necessarily have to consider it. If it's there in black and white, then he has to consider it or she has to consider it and therefore it's right and proper that it's in there. I have been through the licensing process with Scottish Natural Heritage and I find it a particular difficult and torturous process to go through. I find it difficult and torturous because they often take the opinion that, if in doubt, do not. That's why I support Rachael Hamilton's amendments to make sure that they actually make a decision within a timescale and give their reasons for not doing so. I've also fallen foul of the fact that they are judge, jury and executioner when it comes to making decisions and that the only way is to take out an expensive legal challenge. Whilst it may be open to many people to take out legal challenges, a lot of people out there won't be able to make legal challenges and therefore I like the idea of it not just being down to Scottish Natural Heritage or NatureScot to hold all the powers in their hands. I would also say, just looking at Colin Smith's amendments, I think that that's quite a cynical view if I may be so bold to say that, Mr Smith. I don't believe that anyone will deliberately say, oh, well, stuff it. I haven't got this license so I'm just going to go on and do that. I think they will review their whole position whether they actually continue shooting if they've been found guilty of an offence. And if they don't, my message to them is that they should. So I commend him for trying but I think it's unnecessary. As far as my amendment 70 is concerned, I do hope that the minister will think about what I've said because it's just not good enough to say one thing at stage two and come back and say something completely different at stage three. I think it's disrespectful to the members and to this Parliament. Thank you, and I call Finlay Carson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 6677 and 79, in the name of Colin Smith, really does constitute an attack by Scottish Labour on rural communities. The effect of these amendments would be the suspension of a section 16AA licence potentially, while still being investigated, effectively removes the ability for the same land owner to operate a pheasant or a patrid shoot and maintain an income. The member, Fulwell, knows that the defined aims of the bill is to deter raptor persecution in relation to grousemure management. Such a disproportionate power would blow open the scope of the bill and, in effect, the bill would also focus on regulating game shooting in the broadest sense. I also think that it would be hugely irresponsible for a substantive amendment such as this to be approved at stage three, especially given that it has received zero public consultation or, indeed, any scrutiny from the committee. Does Finlay Carson believe that an estate that has lost its grouse licence due to being linked to criminality should be able to carry on business as usual by simply offering sport and clients an alternative quarry? That is exactly what he is saying. Finlay Carson, if you listened to the earlier part of my question, this is about a suspension during an investigation or whatever, might lead to the removal of the ability for that estate to carry out what is a legal activity, which has nothing to do with deterring raptor persecution on a grousemure. I am not surprised that you are doing this, because, at every turn, Scottish Labour fears to want to completely close down Scotland's world-class country sports sector, but, to see it highlighted in such a disproportionate amendment at stage three, without any indication of the long-term impacts on rural communities, is very disappointing and I encourage members to vote down this amendment. I call Rachel Hamilton to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 61. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the Minister for supporting my amendments 63 and 64. I will press my amendments to specify reasons of modifying suspending or revoking licences. I just want to add that I was slightly confused by what the Minister said in terms of they do not have evidence at the moment to link raptor persecution to game bird shooting, which flies in the face of wanting to add species through enabling powers in the licensing scheme, or are ministers just using this as a threat? Do they mistrust the industry who managed our lands responsibly and then become victim to those who spoil it for others and those who are bad actors? My starting point is trust, whilst I also want to ensure that people who practice this persecution are punished. Beyond that, Presiding Officer, I believe that we should not go beyond in terms of the relevant offences. Again, it begs the question whether, both in fact and in law, that this is informed by necessity and proportionality. I do not believe that it is. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 61 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is, yes, 30, no 84. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 62 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 55. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Jamie Hepburn. I would have voted no, Presiding Officer. The result of the vote on amendment 62 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is, yes, 30, no 85. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 63 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 61. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 64 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 61. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 65 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 61. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 65 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is, yes, 51, no 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 66 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 61. Colin Smith, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. I call Jamie Hepburn for a point of order. The result of the vote on amendment 66 in the name of Colin Smith is, yes, 18, no 97. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 67 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 61. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move, moved. I call amendment 67a in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 61. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 67a be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on motion 67a in the name of Rachel Hamilton is, yes, 48, no 65. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore not agreed. Rachel Hamilton, to press or withdraw amendment 67. Rachel Hamilton seeks to withdraw amendment 67. Amendment number 67, as any member, object. No member, object. Therefore, the next question. I call amendment 68 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 61. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 68 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is, yes, 30, no 85. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 69 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 61. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 69 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is, yes, 30, no 85. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 15 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 61. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 16 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 61. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are agreed. I call amendment 70 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 61. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 70 in the name of Edward Mountain is, yes, 48, no 67. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move on to group 6, section 16a, licences, code of practice. I call amendment 71 in the name of Colin Smyth, grouped with amendments 72, 73, 74 and 75. I point out that, if amendment 73 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 74 due to a preemption. Colin Smyth, to move amendment 71 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 71, which I move, and 72 in my name relate to the code of practice for a section 16a, licences. In the clause outlining what the code may in particular provide guidance on, a is, and I quote, how land should be managed to reduce disturbance of and harm to any wild animal, wild bird or wild plant. That's positive, but b and c then contradict a as they refer to how wild birds and predators should be killed. The current wording assumes that killing wild birds and predators should be the default position, which is questionable ethically and also ecologically. My amendment changes the wording from how to whether, when and how birds or predators should be killed, shifting from killing as a first resort to asking if it is necessary and if so how to do it in the least harmful way. Those are questions that should routinely be asked in any wildlife management. Contrary to what the minister said at stage 2, this amendment is not prescriptive. In fact, it is less prescriptive than the current wording by giving land managers more options rather than restricting them to the ethically and ecologically dubious route of routine killing without evidence of necessity or efficiency. I therefore move amendment 71 in my name. I call Alistair Allan to speak to amendment 73 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 73 clarifies the consultation requirements in relation to preparing, reviewing or revising the code of practice. It seeks to ensure that Scottish ministers or NatureScot will consult people that they consider likely to be interested in or affected by the management of land to which a section 16AA licence relates, where previously the requirement was to consult any other persons that they consider appropriate. The purpose of the code of practice is to provide guidance about managing land to which a section 16AA licence relates. I think that it is a fair requirement that the people having to use the code are the ones who have a hand in developing it. I understand that this is already the case to some extent and that NatureScot is already taking a collaborative approach to developing the code of practice and that a working group has already been established to that end. Amendment 73 therefore simply makes sure that this collaborative approach continues. I call Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 74 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and amendment 73, as articulated by Dr Alan Sands, eminently sensible. In fact, it's so sensible, it's exactly the same as my amendment. And it looks suspiciously like it was an amendment that was offered to me by the Government to take prior to this meeting. But I decided not to because I thought my amendments were better in the sense that my amendments included land managers. Am I feeling about putting land managers in there with the simple reason is those are the people that are working and using the land. It doesn't matter what they're using it for, it could be any section of land managers. It would be a bit like trying to rewrite a health plan without including doctors in the process. So my amendments 74 and 75 just bring land managers into it. So it's a toss up, I guess, between amendments 73 and 74. 75, I think, is eminently reasonable. I'm afraid Mr Smith and I again disagree in 71 and 72. You know, sometimes when there are no other options, which is the reasons why you then go out and remove predators, legally remove predators by killing them, you can't relocate them or move them elsewhere. That just creates additional problems for other people and exasperates the problems. It would be a bit like trying to move mustlids from Orkney and putting them on to the mainland. I'm not sure people on the mainland would necessarily approve that. So, Presiding Officer, I would urge the Parliament to vote for my amendments 74 and 75, not to go for amendments 73 and to take amendments 71 and 72 as wrecking amendments and not afraid for those other. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendments 71 and 72, in the name of Colin Smith, I believe, are overprescriptive. Scottish ministers have, rightly in my opinion, specified the broad area of focus that the statutory code of practice will cover. Adding specific requirements for the code to specify methods that have the least animal welfare impact adds a degree of prescription that is not for us in this place to provide. NatureScotR is the regulator best placed and most qualified to understand, with input from practitioners, what the code should and should not say. The amendment constitutes yet another example of the Labour Party trying to frustrate the statutory code to determine the detriment of Begir Parham of Grace Moore managers. The members should have trust and confidence that NatureScotR is the correct arbiter for this code, and will ensure that its contents set out the statutory obligations of those managing Moorland for grouse shooting. What they don't need is Scottish Labour with an ulterior motive to make their job harder. I urge members to vote against this amendment. The bill is drafted states that the code of practice on grouse management may provide guidance on how the taking or killing of any wild birds should be carried out and how predators should be controlled. Colin Smith's amendments seek to change this so that guidance must be provided on whether, when and how the taking or killing of any bird and predator control should be carried out prioritising methods with the least negative animal welfare impact. As I said, when Colin Smith brought forward a similar amendment to stage 2, I understand his intentions behind them. However, I express concerns about those amendments at stage 2, and I have the same concerns now. The code of practice is being developed by NatureScotR in collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders, including animal welfare and conservation groups such as the SSPCA and the RSPB. It will draw on the range of experience that those stakeholders contain, and they will have the ability to put forward what they consider to be the best practice. I believe that it is better to leave the details of the code of practice to that group rather than being prescriptive on the face of the bill. I therefore will not be supporting amendments 71 and 72, and I encourage members to vote against them. Amendments 73 and 74 in relation to Alastair Allins amendment 73, I have listened carefully his reasons for lodging this amendment, and I am happy to support it. I appreciate that Edward Mountain's amendment 74 is very similar to Alastair Allins, and I am therefore also supportive of the intentions behind it. However, of the two amendments, I believe that amendment 73 is a preferable one, as it mirrors the wording in the bill that sets out that the code of practice is for the purpose of providing guidance about managing the land to which a 16A licence relates. I therefore encourage members to support amendment 73 and reject amendment 74. Amendment 75, in the name of Edward Mountain, specifies that where Scottish ministers delegate the drafting and publication of the code of practice to NatureScot. NatureScot must consult such persons, as it considers, likely to be interested in or affected by the code of practice, including land managers. This amendment is not needed, as there is already a requirement in the bill for the Scottish ministers or NatureScot, if the function is delegated to them, to consult any other person they consider appropriate when making, reviewing and revising the code. If amendment 73 is in the name of Alastair Allins passed, that requirement to consult would include other persons, as they consider, likely to be interested in or affected by the management of the land. Amendment 75 is there for unnecessary, and I encourage members to vote against it. Thank you, and I call Colin Smyth to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 71. Presiding Officer, I think that it is important to point out that amendment 71 and 72 do not stop anybody doing what they do at present, including killing. It simply ensures that questions that should routinely be asked in any wildlife management in a civilised society are asked, and that all options are considered. That is not less prescriptive, minister. That is not prescriptive, minister. That is actually less prescriptive, because it does emphasise more options. It will be the case that, when those questions are asked, killing will still be the chosen method on occasions. However, the claim that there aren't ever any viable alternatives or, as Edward Mountain says, the alternative is relocating to species, which is simply not what is being suggested. The fact that there are viable alternatives in many circumstances in opposition to that comes from a very narrow prescriptive that, frankly, nothing must change, therefore predators must always be routinely killed as a first choice. I have previously spoken about the ethical principles in wildlife management in this chamber. At that time, the minister said that the Government would consider that approach carefully. I have to say that the opposition to many amendments, including this from the Government today, suggests that that was little more than empty words. For the benefit of Edward Mountain, alternatives are not about relocating species. I would suggest that he has a look at the work of Nature Scotland around capricaly conservation, where they are trying various innovative approaches, rather than simply having a default position of predator killing. That shows that alternative approaches can be explored. However, as the bill stands, there is no requirement even to ask if there are an alternative. Never mind, use one to seek to reduce animal welfare. The last group is saying that the Conservatives could not make up their mind how they wanted to attack my amendments. Edward Mountain said that my amendment that states that had lost its gross licence should not be stopped offering alternative quarry, because that would never happen. The infinitely Carson said that my amendment should be stopped because they should be allowed to make that happen. There is complete confusion from the Conservatives, but at least on this occasion they are consistent and that opposition is simply a case of nothing must change, it should be business as usual. On that basis, I will certainly press amendment 71. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 71 in the name of Colin Smith is yes, 17, no, 97. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 72 in the name of Colin Smith already debated with amendment 71. Colin Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Colin Beattie. I would have voted no, unfortunately my system didn't connect. Thank you Mr Beattie, we'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 72 in the name of Colin Smith is yes, 18, no, 97. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 73 in the name of Alasdair Allan, already debated with amendment 71. I remind members that if amendment 73 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 74 due to a preemption. Alasdair Allan to move or not move. The question is that amendment 73 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, therefore I will not call amendment 74. We will go straight to amendment 75, which I will call in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 71. Edward Mountain to move or not move. And the question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. I call Craig Hoy for a point of order. I have a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. My app is frozen. Thank you, Mr Hoy. We'll ensure that it's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 75 in the name of Edward Mountain is yes, 51, no, 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Before we move on to the next group, I'm going to briefly suspend proceedings so that members can have a comfort break, but I would ask everyone to be back within five minutes or so. Thank you.