 The next item of business is a debate on motion 1, 2, 5, 3, 5, in the name of Jim Fairlie, on wildlife management and Muirburn Scotland Bill at stage 3. As members will be aware, the Presiding Officer is required understanding orders to decide whether or not, in her view, any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this bill, in the Presiding Officer's view, no provision of the wildlife management and Muirburn Scotland Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. Before we move to the debate, I also call on Shona Robison, Deputy First Minister, to signify crown consent to the bill. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise the Parliament that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the wildlife management and Muirburn Scotland Bill, has consented to place his prerogative and interests insofar as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill. We will now move on to the debate. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request-to-speak buttons, and I call on Jim Fairlie to speak to and to move the motion up to seven minutes, please, minister. I am honoured to present my first bill to the Scottish Parliament as a minister and to open the stage 3 debate on the wildlife management and Muirburn Scotland Bill. As I said in my stage 1 contribution, my boy had ambition to get a glimpse of my favourite bird, but bird of prey, the Peregrine Falcon. Never for a moment believing that I would one day be standing in this chamber, putting legislation through our Parliament, that would, I hope, finally riddus of the scourge that has seen too many of these magnificent birds and many others disappear as a result of illegal persecution. Perpetrated by a tiny minority who just do not accept that it is simply not going to be tolerated by Scottish society or by the industry that it shames any longer. With over 10,000 responses to our two public consultations from stakeholders and public alike, this debate has generated great interest and has clearly shown support from all sides for what this bill seeks to achieve. The history of this bill's conclusion is long and there are many who should be thanked from my friend and predecessor, Roseanna Cunningham, to Mary Gougeon, to Mary McCallan and to my immediate predecessor, Gillian Martin, who not only started the stage 2 process but has and is my wing woman throughout the stage 3 proceedings and again today. Thank the minister for taking his intervention. Whilst I join him in congratulating the efforts and the work that his predecessors have made, would he not also agree with me that he's led to some problems with continuity and particularly with parts of the bill like snaring and glue traps bringing some uncertainty as to what the Government's position was right up to the very last minute? To the rule, I'd like to thank, put on record, my thanks to the rule affairs committee for their careful consideration of the bill and thank you for all their hard work. But I would also like to say that each of the people I just spoke about have played a significant role and I put on record my grateful thanks to all of them. There are those who disagreed with the principles of this bill, but had the grouse shooting community shut down raptor persecution, had stopped killing our most iconic birds of prey, we would not have had to legislate in that way, but sadly they didn't shut it down, so now it's up to us to make sure that they do, and it is for that reason that we have this bill before us today. However, this is not just about raptor persecution. When the Scottish Government commissioned the Verite review of grossmure management, they were asked for wider recommendations on how grossmures could be managed more sustainably. On behalf of the Scottish Government, I'd like to thank Professor Verite and the group for providing the recommendations, which are the foundation of this bill, covering a breadth of topics including mureburn and several other important matters. The bill introduces licensing schemes from mureburn and for the taking of red grouse. There are measures to better protect animals by regulating the use of traps and giving enhanced powers to the SSPCA officers, helping them to support police in their efforts to tackle wildlife crime. We are finally banning the use of snares. We are banning not only the use of glue traps but also their possession and sale going further than any other country in the UK. The bill has caused concern for folk who work legally and responsibly in mureburn pursuits, and I completely understand that. However, I want to be clear that there should be no victory parade here, because this Government I want to reassure them recognises the economic contribution and, as importantly, their work in combating biodiversity loss and guarding against the risk of wildfires, and we value it immensely. As often it is not as keepers who are on the front line beside our fire and rescue services protecting local communities when fire breaks out. They are a highly skilled standing army of vital volunteers in our rural and remote areas and the very places that we are looking to protect, so I wish to thank them for their continued efforts. Throughout this bill process ministers and officials have worked hard to develop and improve its measures. Where concerns have been raised we have sought to address those with amendments from Government and members from across the chamber at stage 2 and stage 3. I am pleased to have seen the willingness from everyone to find real solutions to sometimes complex issues that had to be addressed. Although we may not have agreed on everything, I hope that members can see that we have tried to find that balance. That common ground that has helped us to achieve clarity and a workable bill made better by members listening to each other that the industry will embrace and ultimately benefit from. I believe that we will all benefit from this bill. I am fully committed to continuing to listening to the concerns raised around the details in the coming schemes and to working with people from all sides and for people to be fully involved in the work that NatureScot will now lead on to implement those schemes, not least of all to complete the development of the Grousemure and Mureburn codes that will accompany the bill. I welcome the minister's confirmation on Tuesday night that historic fences are not a basis for revoking a section 16AA licence. However, we would like some clarity on whether there will be a retrospective angle to that. In relation to 16AA licence coming into force, would that be a lawful basis for refusing to grant a licence in the first place? Would the minister address that? That should be addressed by NatureScot as we go through the process that we have already talked about. I made a climate and biodiversity crisis. Science and research has demonstrated to us all that some practices undertaken in the past are harmful, despite, as Edward Mountain rightly pointed out, that at the time we thought they were advantageous, like draining peatland and O for the gift of hindsight. Others are simply no longer going to be tolerated, but the aims of this bill are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to manage wildlife while ensuring the highest standards of animal welfare. People who live and work on their land do so every day. It is possible to undertake mureburn in a manner that does not damage fragile ecosystems and brings positive benefits for rural communities. It is possible to support activities that immensely contribute to a rural economy such as grouse shooting, while at the same time taking a zero-tolerance approach to raptor persecution and wildlife crime. We may have our differences of opinion in this chamber. One thing I know for sure is that there is an unwavering commitment to protect our wildlife, to support our rural businesses and to protect our iconic moorlands. That is why this bill is so important. If members vote to pass it today, we will be voting to end the stain and the shame of raptor persecution. For animal welfare to be at the forefront of responsible land management and to support those hardworking people in our rural communities, those highly responsible grouse moon managers that manage their land in an environmentally sustainable manner, which will give long-term security to them and their families. With that, I move that the Parliament agrees that the wildlife managing a mureburn Scotland bill will be passed. I am pleased to be able to speak to the wildlife management and mureburn bill at stage 3 on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I want to take the opportunity to thank all stakeholders who have provided evidence in what is a very complex and intricate piece of draft legislation. I also want to thank the extreme patience and efficiency of Marina Sinclair-Chin and Lucy Sharbot from the Scottish parliamentary bills team. Last, of course, not least, I would like to thank the various ministers for meeting with me. In total, there have been four ministers presiding over this bill, quite a churn. I noted that Gillian Martin joked on X with Jim Fairlie about how quickly she could send her bill folder off to her successor. Scrutinising this bill has been an eye-opening experience from my colleagues and I, the extent to which this SNP green government has ignored evidence and sidelined science has been frankly astonishing. Why should I have been surprised? After all, we have had a raft of bills and policies since the SNP have been in power that are completely off the mark, such as GRR, the DRS, Hunting with Dogs, HPMAs and the Hate Crime Bill, which, of course, comes into force on April Fool's Day. You could not make it up, could you? Members across the chamber will know that the catalyst for this legislation was the Scottish Government's independent review of the Grousemore management chaired by Professor Alan Warrity. Since its publication, ministers have been on the record saying that they are implementing the recommendations of the Warrity review. At best, this is a gross mischaracterisation. Professor Warrity's review in 2019 was very clear that the licensing of gross shooting, the flagship provision of this bill, should only be implemented if, within five years, the ecological favourability of Grousemores in relation to three key raptor species had not been improved. Would Rachel Hamilton not recognise that the variety review was brought in because of decades of raptor persecution and that the Parliament, the Government and the public had finally lost patience? I think that bringing forward a bill because people have lost patience is entirely the wrong way. Bringing in legislation should be about evidence-led, science-led. No, it wasn't Jim Fairlie. Jim Fairlie is trotting from the sideline. Raptor persecution, Presiding Officer, is at an historic low, and I will come to that, but let's be clear. Ministers plowed on with implementing this bill and, in effect, ignoring their flagship recommendation of an independent review commissioned by ministers costing £86,000. The disdain that this Government seems to have for evidence-led policymaking and independent arbitration is, frankly, shocking. Take another key section of the bill, the provision of enhanced powers for SSPCA to investigate wildlife crime. Again, ministers commissioned an independent task force to consider whether the SSPCA should be given enhanced powers. That task force concluded that the extension of such powers would not be appropriate without the institutional support of the police and Crown Office, and yet, despite crystal clear recommendation, which called for partnership working over enhanced powers, ministers rode rough shot yet again. Presiding Officer, what is the point of commissioning independent review after independent review if ministers are ignoring it? I think in reality, Presiding Officer, is that the SNP ministers don't care about this bill, not the people who are set to be impacted. They don't care about independent arbitration, they don't care about evidence-led policymaking, and they certainly don't care about the people and wildlife. This bill is likely to effect. It is a shameful reflection of the derision that the Government have for rural Scotland, and it is all those reasons that the bill itself has ended up being conceptually flawed. Ministers appear to have no understanding whatsoever of proportionality, something that should be a central component of every bill put before this Parliament, in effect going no further than is required to achieve the policy aim. They are appetite to punish landlords for anything and everything and sees no bounds, a fact that is crystallised in with other legislation that has been passed in this place. We know that the genesis of this licensing scheme is about one issue and one issue only, raptor persecution, the prevalence of which is thankfully now at historically low levels, as I said. Raptor persecution was a problem on Scotland's grassmalls in the past, but has thankfully been largely consigned to the history books with on-going issues limited to a tiny minority. To be clear, we condemn this minority and they should be punished with the full force. I have said already that I do not want sedentary chitchat. Please have the courtesy to listen to the member who has the floor and, in this instance, it is Ms Hamilton, please regime. I am surprised that Shona Robison, of course, with grass shooting on the horizon, would think and ought to be focused on tackling raptor persecution. Not so, not so, Presiding Officer. However, they continue to demonise and penalise grassmall operators at any cost. The bill is a classic example of a tail wagging— Excuse me, Ms Hamilton, please point to boarder, if you want to hear his last point of order. Point of order. I understand that people feel strongly about different debates, but in terms of that, I aspect in standing orders to do with respect for other colleagues. I have been sitting next to Ms Robison and she did not utter a word since she moved the motion at the beginning. I do think that this is creeping in too often and your guidance, Presiding Officer, would be gratefully received. I thank Ms Hyslop for her contribution. That is not a point of order, but the matter is on the record. I had already indicated to the front bench that they should not be engaging in sedentary conversations, if you like, while another member had the floor and notwithstanding my entreaty that was ignored. Ms Hamilton, please continue. This is just a classic example of the bill. The green tail is wagging the yellow dog and the antipathy of the Scottish Greens towards people that live in rural areas, landowners, landlords and virtually anyone else who has been remotely successful in their life knows no bounds. Country sports are like catnip for Scottish Greens and we should be in no doubt that the disproportionality inherent in this licensing scheme is their doing, with SNP ministers too weak to say no. Again, rural Scotland suffers the consequences. At a Bask event, which the minister attended, he addressed a room full of aspiring gamekeepers and told them that the bill addresses what society demands. Last week, he doubled down on the snaring ban and said that we do not support the licensing scheme because of the overwhelming evidence that the public simply will not accept SNERS anymore. That is not evidence, Mr Fairlie. It is a weak SNP Government led by ideology. Ministers have taken a wrecking ball to the toolkit for effective predicate control, which is likely to have dire consequences for nature, for biodiversity and for protection of livestock during lambing months. It is with regret that I did not submit an amendment to reflect the need for a humane cable restraint under licence to be used during the lambing season or indeed a derogation from the total ban to protect livestock and to protect those lambs. Those opposed to this may argue that if a farmer wants to reduce predation, he or she should consider lambing indoors. For many farmers, that simply isn't practical. They may not have the facilities or the flock as traditionally lambed outdoors. Ms Hamilton, you need to bring your bicycles please. Thank you. Overall, this bill is a product of disinterested and unevidence policymaking exacerbated by disproportionality in the flagship provision. The Scottish Conservatives will always stand up for Scotland and the rural Scotland in particular, and as such, we will not be supporting the bill at stage 3. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. I now call on Rhoda Grant on behalf of Scottish Labour up to five minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also thank the clerks and all those who have worked to the committee and all those who give evidence on the bill. I also thank the parliamentary staff, who stayed late on Tuesday night to allow us to get through the stage 3 amendments. This was an extremely difficult bill to scrutinise. We were handed a bill and told that major amendments would be added at stage 2. What we didn't realise at that time was that major amendments would also be dropped in at stage 3. That is not the way to make good legislation, and I fear that there will be consequences to the way that the Scottish Government has handled the issue. That is not a new issue. It had time to legislate. Indeed, my colleague Peter Peacock raised the regulation of Grouse Moores a way back in 2010, during the wildlife and natural environment Scotland act, when that was going through Parliament. That is not something that was raised recently. However, it is a shame that the behaviours have not changed sufficiently in the intervening years regarding raptor persecution. We are now licensing Grouse Moores because of that behaviour. I hope that Grouse Moores owners realise that they are also unnoticed. If illegal raptor persecution does not stop on Grouse Moores, I am sure that there will be further legislation. I am not a fan of Grouse Moores. I cannot understand the pleasure that someone gets from killing a living thing for sport. However, that bill is not about banning Grouse Moores. It is about putting them on notice. What was interesting from our evidence was that other species thrive on Grouse Moores—Curly, Merlin, Golden Plover, for example. There is something to be learned from the management of Grouse Moores and about how we provide habitats for those birds to encourage their numbers and protect them in the future. There is a huge amount of knowledge on land habitat management held in those moores. We need to be able to learn from that, regardless of our opinion of the purpose of Grouse Moores. I have concerns about the amount of legislation that is coming through the Parliament. The bill is no different. We have presided over a Government that does not believe that it will ever lose power. Their backbenchers do their master's bidding and I, for one, will have a rice mile when they cry foul in opposition and when the new Government uses the powers bequeathed by them for carrying out policies that are not to their liking. A wise Government legislates like it is their last day in office and, in the full knowledge that they will be required to keep future Governments in check. That is not about the balance of power. It is about legislating wisely and ensuring that there are checks and balances in place. There is, of course, a need on occasion for enabling legislation. Mureburn is a case in point. The science is not clear. Wildfires on degraded peat with a large fuel load release huge amounts of carbon, and we saw that in the devastation in Cannack last year. Does Mureburn have the potential to protect peat from wildfires? We must ask those questions because we need to manage the fuel loads to make sure that wildfires are kept in check. However, we do not know the science. We have to be honest about that. Therefore, the ability to adapt regulations is necessary. When scientific knowledge evolves, the regulations need to be evolving, too, but that needs scrutiny and the bill does not allow for that. I really hope that the bill will provide a step change on how grouse moors are managed. Raptors should no longer be persecuted and grouse moors should be playing their role in protecting nature and the environment. I very much hope that that comes from this bill. I am pleased to speak for Scottish Liberal Democrats at stage 3 of the Wildlife Management and Mureburn Scotland Bill. As others have done, I offer my thanks to organisations that provided briefings and gave evidence and to all involved in organising the stage 2 and 3 amendment processes. I extend my particular thanks to the clerks and supporting staff of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for their hard work. From the beginning of the bill's process, Scottish Liberal Democrats have been broadly supportive of their legislation. We committed to implementing the recommendations of the grouse moor management group's review, chaired by Professor Huwerty. We recognise the need for action to address raptor persecution, noting that while most estates that shoot grouse are run responsibly, there was not sufficient evidence that the situation regarding raptor persecution had improved since the Wildlife and Natural Environment Scotland Act 2011. Wildlife crime and raptor persecution is never acceptable, and I hope that future reviews of the legislation will demonstrate its effectiveness in reducing instances of this crime. The bill introduces a licensing scheme for land that is used for the shooting of red grouse. At stage 1, I raised concern that the bill would grant licences for only one year. That was at odds with the consensus from stakeholders in NatureScot that a longer licence period would be preferable and correspond to similar schemes. I supported the amendment at stage 2, which changed the licence period to five years, improving this aspect of the bill. Scottish ministers are required by the bill to create two codes of practice, one relating to licences to shoot red grouse and one on how to make mureburn safely and appropriately. Both codes need to be workable and proportionate and have relevant stakeholders involved in their creation. There has been much debate over the use of an arbitrary depth measurement to define peatland in the bill. I am persuaded that when done correctly, mureburn burns only the vegetation on top of the soil. I supported the addition of a requirement in the bill for the Scottish ministers to approve training courses on mureburn and the mureburn code. Therefore, under the new provisions, all those conducting mureburn under licence will be trained, and that should reassure those with concerns about mureburn that takes place on peatland. Turning now to other provisions in the bill, at stage 1, I noted my concern regarding evidence that the committee received on the lack of alternatives to glue traps and the potential impacts on banning them on the ability to control rodents in public health settings. I welcome amendments that the Scottish Government has made enabling ministers to make a scheme for the authorisation of glue traps for the purpose of protecting public health. While I trust that the Scottish Government will continue to engage with industry as research into alternatives to glue traps develops, I consider this limited authorisation necessary to safeguard against outbreaks in settings with enhanced public health risk. It is important that there is monitoring and evaluation of any new law. I note the Scottish Gamekeepers Association's opposition to the banning of snares and their view that humane holding devices were not fully assessed. The impacts of this bill must be evaluated to ensure that it is acting proportionately and fairly. I supported amendments to include a review of the bill's operation and effectiveness, and I would ask that the minister to give assurance that the Scottish Government will bring forward changes if a review shows it is needed. I hope that this bill's process has brought a better understanding of the rural way of life as something to be valued. Those who work and live on the land have demonstrated their passion for our rural areas. Important discussions that affect rural areas need to engage all communities and not just be viewed through an urban lens. I also hope that we can all agree that Scotland's unique countryside and wildlife are to be celebrated and protected. As a member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I can confirm that the bill has been the subject of rigorous debate and scrutiny since it was first brought to the Parliament. In the end, despite some of the more colourful comment, I believe that the committee managed to steer some sort of middle path and did improve the bill. This week, at stage 3, the chamber has gone through the legislation with a similarly fine-toothed comb. That, as was pointed out at stage 1, is a bill that deals with subjects as disparate as raptor, persecution and rat traps. If I may deal with the latter first, since it has been raised this week as an issue in amendments at stage 3, the Government and the committee faced no simple task in reaching a workable solution. I hope that we have, however, reached a reasonable solution this week by seeking to move glue traps out of the use by the general public while retaining residual powers to deal with any scenarios such as an outbreak and a healthcare setting, for example. Perhaps a more substantial part of the bill's scope is that which deals with the issue of raptor persecution. Raptor persecution is, by its very nature and location, a crime largely committed without witnesses. I hope that the bill, which we have now put together, provides the means that we need to tackle the issue more effectively. We certainly received much evidence that the criminal standard of evidence, as it was currently applied around raptor persecution, was proving virtually impossible to meet. I do not doubt that the vast majority of land managers are working within the law. However, a licensing scheme around grouse moore estates is a proportionate response to ensuring that raptor persecution, where it does happen, is being tackled. Indeed, when so many other areas of activity operate via a licensing scheme, I think that this is a more proportionate response than some of the criminalising alternatives. Snaring is a substantial part of the bill, and I believe that we are aligning Scotland's criminal law here with other European nations, with a ban on the use of snares. On the issue of moore burn, again, there has been improvement to a number of areas of the bill. A number of the amendments that were tabled at stage 2 recognise that not all the alternatives to moore burn are necessarily practical and that allowance should be made for that fact. I am pleased that an amendment in my own name making that point was accepted at stage 2. The committee heard evidence from a variety of sectors, including crofting, seeking to make sure that this and other issues were not overlooked. I believe that, as in other areas of the bill, an improved wording has been arrived at. There are areas of the bill that, for some interest groups, will always remain contended and contentious. That is the nature of any legislation that touches on biodiversity, animal welfare and land management practices. That bill does all of those things. However, in my view, it is a necessary and a balanced measure, and it has been subjected to a process of rigorous scrutiny and improvement, which I believe means that we should vote for it now. Thank you, Dr Allan. I now call Finlay Carson to be followed by Ariane Bridges. The catalyst for the legislation was the review by Professor Warrity, which was reported in December 2019. Four years on, we will see the introduction of licensing schemes for grouse shooting, Muirburn and Wildlife Traps. Professor Warrity's flagship recommendation was clear that the question over whether or not grouse shooting should be licensed was a matter to be addressed in December 2024, five years on from the review's publication. It was envisaged at such a decision that we have predicated on the ecological favourability of grouse Muirmanagement with reference to Golden Eagles, Henharriers and Peregrine Falkins. Ministers, however, pressed ahead with their own interpretation of the recommendations without sufficient assessment of the foresaid ecological favourability, clearly not in the spirit of good evidence-based policymaking. Should we be surprised, given that rural communities feel increasingly marginalised by the SNP-Green Government's anecdotal, rather than scientific approach to traditional rural sectors? Can I remind the chamber that this bill was intended to deter raptor persecution linked to grouse Muirmanagement in Scotland? We are all united that raptor persecution is absolutely deplorable and there is no place for it in modern-day society. This bill should have been a fantastic opportunity to address this heinous crime, but it has fallen short, taking away some of the tools that are critical for good wildlife management. There has been significant progress in driving down raptor persecution over the years and I believe that we all recognise that it is a tiny minority of grouse Muir's that engage in this illegal activity. Many Moorland managers are doing incredible work in the name of conservation and are wholeheartedly committed to helping raptors to flourish. It is critical that the licensing of grouse shooting does not detract from those operators who are doing everything right and more. In a nature crisis, we cannot afford to compromise extensive private investment that has been shown to deliver decisive net gains for biodiversity through good Moorland management. However, this bill is disproportionate to those who are doing tremendous things for conservation and will ultimately hold licences to shoot grouse. Grouse Muir's are being singled out, targeted even by ministers and certainly the Greens in the Scottish Labour with the desire to bring in anti-country sports. This bill gives the Scottish Government broad enabling powers to add further species to this licensing scheme. Constituencies like my own are heavily reliant on other types of game shooting, including pheasant, red-leg, partridge and duck. The possibility that those birds could be brought into scope of this scheme by regulation is extremely worrying, not least because the entire premise of this scheme is about deterring the persecution of raptors in relation to grouse Muir's. The mission creep that we have seen with this bill has been quite astonishing and it is important that I and others on these benches make clear that this bill exceeds what is set out to do, including banning, glue traps and snare policies that have been brought in after the bill was laid. The Scottish Government knows just what is at stake if landowners invest in Muirland management for grouse shooting decide to pack up and go home. They know it because they commissioned research to better understand the socio-economic and biodiversity impacts of grouse Muir management. That research could not have been clearer on the benefits this sector brings to rural Scotland. More jobs for hectare than any other comparable land use, employing gamekeepers, shepherds as well as countless seasonal workers in the form of beaters, flankers, pickers-up and hospitality staff. The highest level of local and regional spending compared to other land uses, stimulating rural businesses across the business divide from garages to game dealers. No public subsidies, unlike some NGOs, in return for delivering conservation for some of our most threatened upland birds, including curlew, latwing, black grouse, oyster catchers and golden plover. This is a sector that we need to support, not to incentivise. In closing, I want to put on record my thanks to the committee clerks and my committee members and all stakeholders that I have had the privilege of engaging with in this bill. It has been an interesting experience being at the sharp end of a topic that clearly divides. Success now depends on NatureScot taking heed of the considered views of those who will ultimately have to obtain these licences. I call Ari Ambergus to be followed by Emma Harper. Presiding Officer, this legislation is a momentous step forward in the laws protecting the welfare of Scotland's wildlife. Raptor persecution was described by the late First Minister, Donald Jure, in the early days of this Parliament as a national disgrace. Today, we can take confidence that the window of opportunity has closed for those few individuals who continue to perpetrate crimes against our birds of prey and other wildlife. Indeed, since there have been Scottish Greens in this Parliament, we have demanded tougher penalties for those who commit wildlife crime and an end to blood sport and the wildlife management practices associated with it. While the bill does not go as far as to entirely outlaw grouse shooting, it makes no mistake that the robust licensing system passed today will regulate that industry and the small number within it that continues to flout the law. The legislation was a fundamental component of the Butehouse agreement that brought the Scottish Greens into government. It is built on the legacy of work by my Scottish Green colleagues, past and present, who have campaigned with steadfast determination for a full ban on snares, tougher restrictions on the use of inhumane wildlife traps and increased powers for animal welfare inspectors and restrictions on mureburn to address the climate emergency. All of those measures have made it into the bill before us today. I want to take a moment to highlight the important provisions on extending the powers of Scottish SPCA inspectors that have been secured. For more than a decade, shameful wildlife crimes have gone on unpunished because of the difficulties faced by the police to gather evidence to secure prosecutions. Such crimes often occur in remote isolated areas with evidence disappearing by the time the police arrive on the scene. SSPCA inspectors who may arrive earlier as part of their duties have found themselves unable to take action on illegally set traps in the vicinity. The extension of SSPCA inspectors' powers to gather evidence to aid police prosecutions is a proportionate way forward, enhancing the work of the police and should bring more of those who perpetuate wildlife crime to justice. However, that progress could not have been achieved without the tireless work of stakeholders from animal welfare and environmental organisations. I would like to extend personal thanks to the brilliant RSVB Scotland team, the dedication of Revive Coalition, Trees for Life and the third sector's animal welfare champions, including one kind. The IUCN peatland programme also provided valuable impartial advice based on the latest science, which has certainly deepened my understanding of the vital importance of protecting our fragile peatland ecosystems. This is a significant step forward in bringing Scotland's wildlife management into the 21st century, but, as with any legislation, there is more that I hope to see this Parliament act on in the future. The conversation on implementing ethical principles for wildlife control, which the Rural Affairs Committee started during the Hunting with Dogs Act last year and continued to hear in stakeholder evidence during stage 1 of the bill should not end. I think that there is more that the Government can do in the years ahead to implement these in a meaningful way, just about winding up. Members working on this bill have also heard about the emerging science in the areas of raptor population recovery, the control of wildfire, the environmental impacts on mureburn and the restoration of peatland. Eleanor Wittam's amendment passed on Tuesday evening commits the Government to review the legislation every five years. Between now and then, we should use that time to improve our evidence-based data sources and ensure that the legislation continues to deliver for Scotland's wildlife and uplands for generations to come. The Scottish Greens wholeheartedly support this bill and I am proud to vote for it today. Emma Harper is the final speaker in the open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the stage 3 debate, particularly as a member of the RIA committee, and I moved a number of amendments in the bill, both at stage 2 and stage 3, with much thanks and appreciation for the minister helping me on that. The bill, which supports wildlife management and mureburn, has been interesting to be part of all the scrutiny process. I am going to focus my comments mostly on birds of prey. Fundamentally, we know that the illegal killing of Scotland's magnificent birds of prey cannot be tolerated, and members across the chamber have already stated that. It is therefore right that the bill will seek to tackle the destructive minority who would continue to commit these wildlife crimes. I also thank, especially as a representative of a large rural area in the South Scotland region, that it is important to put on record that the Scottish Government does recognise the economic contribution of grouse shooting to Scotland's economy. While life crime is abhorrent, it is reprehensible and unacceptable, and the persecution of birds of prey has no place in a modern Scotland. It is also completely at odds with work to address the biodiversity crisis, which is supported by so many people and organisations, including across the whole of Scotland. I do not know how much time there is to take interventions. We are very tight for time this afternoon. Very tight? I will not, actually. I will just keep going. Raptor persecution is a serious problem in some parts of Scotland, particularly in areas linked to driven grouse shooting. We just heard another report four hours ago on a missing hen harrier called Shalimar, the fourth bird to suspiciously disappear from the Angus Glen. That was just four hours ago. Of the 131 tired golden eagles analysed in the fielding and wetfield report in 2017, 41 birds suspiciously disappeared and were assumed to have been killed. Since that report, a further eight golden eagles reported by RSPB, eight golden eagles, 21 hen harriers and five white-tailed eagles, and a red kite were recorded as stopped normal function-tagged birds on Scottish ground grouse moors. We know Merrick, the female golden eagle, which was translocated from the Angus Glen to south of Scotland region, was reported missing. She was last recorded on 12 October in an area of the Scottish borders associated with grouse moor management. The bill will include monitoring and reporting and improving investigation powers of any incidents reported. The Scottish Government recognises that grouse shooting contributes absolutely immensely to the rural economy, and the bill is not about stopping this activity. It is interesting to note that we keep hearing that the Scottish National Party does not care about rural, but it is interesting that there are 29 SNP members here and online and only five Tories in chamber and three online, so it is really interesting for me to see these numbers. I have said that I am not taking any interventions. The Scottish Government recognises that grouse shooting contributes immensely to the rural economy, and it is worth repeating that. For many years, conservation groups have reported the number of raptors over grouse moors to be lower than expected. Other issues that I want to touch base on, because I realise for a short time that the introduction of moor burn licensing, one of the subjects that relates to my bill's amendments, will ensure that moor burn is undertaken in a safe, environmentally sustainable manner in line with best practice. The licensing scheme will allow moor burn for a number of purposes, including preventing and reducing the risk of wildfires. I know that time is really short. The bill is important in ensuring that the balance between conservation, moor burn and wildlife management is supported and sustained. My final point, Presiding Officer, is that I thank the committee clerks, all the witnesses and colleagues for their input into the bill. Thank you. We move to winding up speed chase. I call on Colin Smith up to four minutes, please. Presiding Officer, it has been a long stage three process, but it has been an even longer way for action to disrupt that and then I will link between driving grouse moors and raptor persecution. Rhoda Grant reminded us that it is nearly 14 years since Labour MSP Peter Peacock brought an amendment to the wildlife and natural environment bill to establish license, and it was dismissed at the time by the SNP as too far reaching. When I look back at the dozens of unsuccessful amendments that I have had to this bill, I am comforted by the fact that Parliament does eventually get round to agreeing with Labour. I suspect that the exception to this will be the Conservatives if their contributions in this debate are anything to go by with their warnings of Armageddon for rural Scotland just because of licensing. The truth is, Presiding Officer, they do not speak for rural Scotland on this issue. Rural Scotland overwhelmingly backs these reforms and, in fact, they wanted to go further as Poland has shown. It should, Presiding Officer, and it could have been better, but it was not because if the contribution of Conservatives had been many a noisy. I have to say that I am disappointed at the silence of the Greens throughout this process. Not a single amendment to this bill was pressed by a single green MSP. Many amendments were brought forward to improve animal welfare, but on every occasion the Scottish Greens voted with the Tories against them and against the very views of the animal welfare charities that Ariana Burgess listed earlier. Presiding Officer, has a party ever voted? I will give way on that point, absolutely. I do not know if he has recognised that the fact that the Greens are now a party of government, that we have been influencing and working on this bill for some time, including the important provision of SSPCA powers, that probably would not be in this bill, was it not as a result of the Bute House agreement and the amazing work that the Government has done on the back of that? The Rallied is Mark Ruskell fails to explain why, when we had stage 2 and stage 3 amendments, he took the whip from Edward Mountain more than he did, listening to the animal welfare charities. Dozens of amendments were put forward. Mr Ruskell voted against every single one of them, many of them. He thinks that it is amusing that we cannot even have improvements to the bill that could have been achieved if his party had stuck to its policies and its principles. I want to thank those who did stick to their principles, who campaigned for reform for so long. The Revive Coalition members, one kind, League Against Cruel Sports, Raptor persecution UK, Commonwealth, Friends of the Earth, charities like RSPB, the SSPCA, Scottish Badgers and so many others. It was their tenacity, persistence and determination that led to this bill in the first place. A bill that will end the cruelty of snare-in, a bill that will call time on the barbaric use of glue traps, that will properly utilise the immense skills of professionalism, the experience of the SSPCA in the battle against wildlife crime, and a bill that will pave the way for the long overdue licensing of traps in Muirburn and Argyll Smyr. I am sorry, we did not succeed in making the bill stronger. It will remain a mystery to me why Green and SNP MSPs joined with the Tories to block even modest improvements such as the recording of numbers in species killed to improve our understanding of species biodiversity. We have to be honest also that this bill will not end the mass killing of one animal to protect another solely for the purpose of then killing that animal for sport, the so-called circle of destruction that Revive described. I also want to thank those who will feel that the bill does go too far, groups like BAS, the Gamekeepers Association Scotland, Land and Estate. They put forward a number of constructive changes to improve the working of the bill and we backed some of those changes. I know it will be the skills, the experience of our land managers, our gamekeepers and others who work their land, who will implement the bill and who will continue to manage and protect their countryside. They have absolutely nothing to fear from this bill and what is a modest overdue licensing scheme, a scheme that will protect the innocent but start to rid the grousemure industry of the minority who bring it into disrepute. Those who think that it is acceptable to illegally shoot, trap and poison protective birds of prey on our grousemures are the only ones that should fear this bill. I hope that, as a result of this bill, their time, Presiding Officer, will at long last be well and truly up. Thank you, and I call on Edward Mountain up to five minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Where do I start? It's been a heated subject and I guess that I would say that I don't think anyone across the whole of the chamber would sanction or approve it in any shape or form, any form of wildlife persecution. It's just not on. I've made this point on numerous occasions and it needs to stop. There are selfish and stupid few that carry it out and I'm happy to put that on the record. I thought I was going to enjoy talking about a subject which has taken up a huge period of my life and I have enjoyed engaging with the committee and with some of the groups that sought to change some of the activities that I've been involved in during the course of my life. Most of those engagements have been good-natured, although we've agreed to disagree, and I hope that, as things continue, dialogue can still continue on an open and frank basis. There's been an unusual bill. We've seen a new section added at stage two, which I always think is not good for a parliamentary procedure. We've unfortunately seen a change of ministers. I understand the reason for that. Then we saw a minister arguing against his own amendments at stage two, which have found quite odd and went challenged about it the other day in the chamber. The minister said that, since becoming a minister, his eyes had been opened and he was aware of more figures. Well, it's a pity that wasn't the case during the debate. Then, at stage three, we saw an about turn on glue traps, so I think it's been a bit of a roller coaster ride. I want to talk just about glue traps very briefly. My time is very short, I understand that. I'm disappointed that we are where we are with glue traps in some respects. I hope that the minister will bear in mind that there are plenty of times when road denticides are not appropriate to be used, certainly in schools, in my opinion, hospitals and educational, sorry, schools, hospitals and also in restaurants. You don't want dead rats and mice lying around and certainly those who smelt them when they've been behind floorboards could put you off more than just your dinner. I think that glue traps are something that we should be considering. I'm disappointed on snaring and I made no bones about the fact that removing snaring as a tool I think is regressive and it will end up bringing firearms closer to urban conurbations and I think that's bad news. I also think it's very difficult to control rabbits and I'm just going to quote the example on one particular patch I managed in one year alone. We had to kill 12,000 rabbits to maintain and look after the designated habitats within there. As far as trapping generally is concerned, I think that there are bits of it that I'm unhappy with. I do actually welcome the Government's point of bringing forward damage to traps. I think that was helpful and I do hope that the Government will make sure that they follow that through. When it comes to mule burn, I am concerned. I remain deeply concerned. Everyone thinks that mule burn is just something done to promote grass shooting. It's absolutely not done just purely for grass shooting. I think that as Kate Forbes in the stage 2 debate made it clear that mule burn is vital for protecting communities, making sure that there isn't a heavy fuel load within and close to habitation. Also, it's about managing the actual vegetation on the hill and that's not just for grass. Yes, species do need long rank heather to nest in. Hen harriers prefer that and they would prefer to nest on burn edges where there is this longer heather. To allow them to do well on the moor, they need to have the prey species that will benefit from the shorter heather, whether that be grass or other birds. In the case of eagles, they probably benefit from having the shorter vegetation that hares can go. I think that we will need to monitor and I would urge the Minister to monitor carefully the effects of mule burn, the effects on all wildlife. It's not just about grass. If necessary, come back with amendments at a later stage to try and make it more easy to carry out in the benefit of managing our high hills. Presiding Officer, just to conclude if I may, I did find one thing amusing in the debate and that was a justification for making something that was already illegal in case anyone illegally makes it legal in the future, which was the argument that the Minister put forward to on making traps for killing birds illegal. The twisted logic of it perhaps defines a lot of this bill. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As I close, I would like to thank again the members of the Rural Affairs Committee and Parliament, in particular the committee clerks and those who have spoken today, and for all of those organisations who have contributed to the debate. At the inception of this Parliament, it was hailed as the people's parliament and the level of engagement and participation through this and many other bills demonstrates how much better legislation is when the Government and the people engage to get it right, so I want to thank everyone who has done so to get us here today. I am much of my closing remarks to those listening right now. Finally, and this is probably my most important thank you, because the only way that this very new Minister was able to manage a stage 2 with 23 groupings and over 200 amendments and now a stage 3 with 15 groupings and over 100 amendments is because of the absolutely brilliant team supported by outstanding policy and legal officials who have helped me every step of the way in navigating the complexity of making complex law. They do all the heavy lifting, and I am not sure that many of us in this chamber really realise just how hard Scotland's civil servants work in the service of Scotland, so I give my thanks to them for their expertise, for their diligence, but most of all for their patience. Presiding Officer, as someone whose entire life, our entire adult life hasn't all very recently been bound by the rhythms of nature, the ebb and flow of seasons, the understanding of new life and of course the acceptance of deaths, acceptance of death that is the reality of our natural environment, then it's perhaps fitting that this has been my first bill as a minister. It is vital part of the Scottish Government's wider programme of work to protect and restore our wildlife, biodiversity and natural environment. It builds on the strong foundations of the animals and wildlife penalties, protections and powers of Scotland Act 2020, the 2020 hunting of dogs act that we passed in chamber last year. Presiding Officer, as a young man, I remember being brought up in a council housing estate in Perth to over 30 years of working on the land. I have always had a love and a passion for our countryside and the wildlife that we share with it. I have lived through some great highs and very real lows in my farming career and I'd briefly like to touch on that point and make a comparison to those folk who we rely on now to manage our landscapes. Today, most folk in our country and most certainly in this Government absolutely get that farmers play a vital role in our society and in serving the nation by providing the raw product to feed us and to generate income that we spend more widely, by enhancing our environment and working with nature. A new ag reform bill will do even more to strengthen that symbiotic relationship, the respect that we have for each other and to cement that absolutely vital relationship. It's not that long ago where it was farmers who were seen as the villains. With the BSc, Frankenstein Foods and Food and Mouth, all those things had the industry on the rack and feeling as though they were public enemy number one. As a young shepherd with a very young family in a tied house, I am well aware of the anxiety that that uncertainty can bring. During that bill, we have been reminded of that uncertainty that hangs over a group of rural workers in regards to housing, which the housing minister has agreed to meet with me to discuss, but I will revisit that at a later date. By engagement with the public, by looking at the positive stories, by reminding folk of the good work that farmers do, the narrative started to change and attitudes changed with it. We now have a healthy relationship between farmers and consumers, which is to be celebrated and continued. That, Presiding Officer, is the opportunity which the passing of this bill affords the rural practitioners on grouse moors and in game businesses. It's a demonstration that this industry is regulated and adhered to by hardworking responsible people who love the natural environment as much, and if not more so, then we all do. That should be celebrated. If the BBC can make blockbuster viewing figures from the heroes in this farming life, then why not the environmental heroes in this moorland life? They could do worse than starting off with the aforementioned D-word in the Rotla estate, which I've already stated is doing amazing work. When taking this bill forward, the Government and all the ministers who have helped this passage were clear that balance was the key to making this legislation work for all. Our aim was clear. The tiny number of bad apples should be weeded out. We will far more consider in our burnings. We will have the highest standards of animal welfare that demonstrates that this industry will do its job better than anyone could have imagined was possible, and it will gain the respect that it so richly deserves by being the custodians of the landscapes and of the standards that society expects and wants. I urge the industry to grab this opportunity and make it their quest to be recognised not just in Scotland but across the world as the beating heart of an environment that we can all be proud of for generations to come. For the benefit of our environment, for our wildlife and for our rural communities, I urge all members to pass the wildlife management and moorburn Scotland bill today. That concludes the debate on wildlife management and moorburn Scotland bill at stage 3. It's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 12592 on committee membership, and I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motion. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion 12535 in the name of Jim Fairlie on wildlife management and moorburn Scotland bill be agreed, and as this is a motion to pass the bill at stage 3, the question must be decided by division, so there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.