 Good morning. Welcome to the 12th meeting of 2017 of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. The committee has received apologies from David Stewart. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, can I remind everyone present to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent for the duration of the meeting? Agenda item 1, can I welcome Richard Lyle to the committee and also invite him to declare any interests he may have that are relevant to the work of the committee? Mr Lyle. Thank you, convener. It's good to be back. I'll refer members to my register of interests. I believe there are no other interests that I need to register. Thank you and welcome to the committee. The second item on the agenda is for the committee to consider whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. Are we agreed? We are indeed agreed. We move to agenda item 3. This is to take evidence from two panels on petition PE1615 by Logan Steele on behalf of the Scottish Raptor Study Group on state-regulated licensing for gamebird hunting in Scotland. For the first panel, we are joined by the petitioner Logan Steele and Andrea Hudspeth, the treasurer on raptor survey of the Tayside Raptor Study Group. We are going to move straight to questions. Can I ask Mr Steele to begin? Can you outline for us the issues around raptor persecution that have prompted you to bring forward this proposal for a licensing system? Yes, I will. Raptor persecution has been sadly endemic within Scotland for quite some time. The Scottish Raptor Study Group, along with other agencies, has sat and discussed and negotiated with those in the shooting industry. Over many decades, we seem to have made very little progress. There is an element of frustration now with the Scottish Raptor Study Group that we are seeing several on-going scientific peer-reviewed reports detailing the absence of key raptor species on ground predominantly used for driven-ground shooting. In a nutshell, that is why we have put the petition forward and why we are here today. We will move on, Maurice Golden. Just to expand on that a little bit, what evidence is there that the problem exists specifically over the last few years and are there any specific geographical hotspots for this? The evidence that you need is just to look at several scientific reports that have been produced in the past 18 months. We have had the North East Scotland Peregrine population being reviewed in Moorland. That has been indicated a decline on driven-ground smears. We have had a henharrier population in North East of Scotland, of which I have a co-author evidencing a decline of henharriers and driven-ground smears. We also had a report on red kites in the Black Isle, which was published last October, clearly indicating that the red kite population is hemmed into the Black Isle due to raptor persecution. We had good news about the Golden Eagle survey report, which came out recently showing a recovery in the population. In North East Scotland on driven-ground smears and in southern uplands, Golden Eagles have a very low occupancy rate where they are found. There is the evidence. I know that people are inclined to point to body counts as being an indicator of raptor persecution, but the numbers have gotten down depending on chance locations and chance findings of birds of prey offences. Just to clarify, are you suggesting that the issue around raptor persecution is entirely linked to driven-ground smears? Raptor persecution is found right across Scotland, but it is particularly intense on driven-ground smears. That is because the industry that drives driven-ground shooting requires a large surplus of birds at the end of each season to shoot for the guests. Without that surplus of birds, the industry will not exist. Therefore, every illegal and illegal means are taken to reduce the number of predators that could prey on the surplus of birds. There are legal means by killing vermin such as killing traps, stoats, weasels, foxes, crows. That is legal, but what is happening is that on driven-ground smears we are having some estates now persecuting birds of prey because, like I say, they threaten their business model. Just to clarify something, when you talk about the peer-reviewed evidence that is available, how far back does that cover and how far back do you feel it is appropriate to go for it to be relevant to the current situation? That is a good question. To study groups have been collecting data since the 80s. As I would say, through our studies, we have numbers and trends that we can actually see. I think if we go back some of the papers, it is in the last decade or so where we can see that the management has become more intense and in line with that, that seems to go hand in hand with the raptor persecution. As I would say, we have been studying raptors since the 80s, so certainly there have been papers generated since that time up to the present day. Personally, I am responsible for co-ordinating the modernity of Golden Eagles west of A ninth and T side. My data set goes back to 1983, so every year the same sites are visited, and we are building up layer upon layer of data. That is one example of one piece of science. I think that what I am getting at is in terms of what has prompted us, what is driving it. Is it a concern that, over the past six years, the situation has worsened, or would you go back to the early 2000s when one can point to examples in particular parts of the country where there was a significant problem? There may not be quite so significant a problem in those parts of the country. What I am getting at is what has driven this. Is it the fact that, over the past five years, you have seen it worsening? What has driven it is primarily the intensification of driven grouse shooting. We are seeing more and more grouse moors becoming intensified, and it is becoming quite a good business model. Some people are investing money in buying driven grouse moors to force the bags up, and the more you can shoot off a moor, the higher the value is perceived to be. Therefore, the more you can charge, guess the following year. It has become a business now, and raptors, quite frankly, are seeing as being an impediment to that business. The cabinet secretary said herself that it is at a risk of business that raptors are on the ground in legitimately taking food. Is it about the present day in a worsening situation from your perspective? We know that it is worsening because we can look back at the history and the data sets going back many years. We can see an intensification, and we can also see going back many, many years, of species service, as Andrea said, a continual decline or a non-recovery in some areas. That is useful. Thank you. I think that the other thing—sorry, just to add to that, because you are asking—but the other thing that we obviously have now is the improvements in technology that we have to actually track these birds' movements. It is the satellite tagging data as well, which is—there have been some high-profile cases—golden eagles, henharriers, going missing, et cetera. That is also what has led us to this position. Now, we have more evidence and more data through this new technology. Thank you very much. Angus MacDonald. Okay, thanks, convener. Good morning. If I could turn to the environmental impact, clearly there has been some disagreement about the environmental impact of game bird hunting. Your petition refers specifically to the potentially adverse impacts of game bird hunting. Could you give us the evidence with regard to the extent of those impacts? Again, driven grouse moors need to be brought up to an optimum level to generate lots and lots of red grouse. We are seeing hill tracks being put out on to the tops of the moors. We are seeing deep peat burning. Some of you may have seen reports recently about the huge fire that took place on Moe estate recently. There was a big fire up near Tupperdall in the Spiddle, and huge numbers, huge acreages of heather are burnt. Best practice would suggest that the burning is done in small strips, but we are finding in some instances huge areas of moorland being torched. We are finding medicated grit being laid out for birds, and there is a question mark regarding the medicated grit that is coated with an intense chemical as to whether that is going to the food chain. That is some examples of the impact. We are also seeing severe water run-off causing pollution problems in some localised areas as well. You will be aware of the statement from Tim Baines of the Scottish Moorland grips evidence to the Public Petitions Committee last year that management of grouse moor on his positive net contribution to the environment. What is your view on that statement? There is an argument that says that, where you have driven grouse moors, you have a higher increase in the number of waders, for example, such as Golden Plover and Curlew. That is quite right. If you remove all the predators, including illegal removal of predators, you will get an increase in the number of birds that should not threaten red grouse stalks. Golden Plover and Curlew are mentioned specifically. Interestingly, the PESAC committee, which was published in 2014, indicated that 180,000 woodcock in the UK and 130,000 sniper-killed in that particular year. The interest in concern for waders is appropriate, but not appropriate in other areas as well. Question of Pete Burling and the Muirburden Code. I am not seeking to put words in your mouth, but I want to run this by you. One of the activities that has been suggested to myself that takes place is that rather than directly persecuting henharriers, there are examples where slopes that provide habitat for henharriers are burned, contrary to the Muirburden Code. Therefore, if you remove the habitat, you remove the henharriers from being there in the first instance. Is that something that you are aware of, conscious of? Yes. I am aware of slopes where pregnant nested burned out. I am aware of heather slopes where harriers have been either breeding historically or showing a degree of interest being torched out. I monitor one pair of golden eagles and the pair have five iris, four in one glen and a very old one in the other glen. This particular year, the pair of golden eagles had gone from traditional glen over the top into neighbouring glen, and they started showing interest in a rock where anari was to be built and that whole hill was torched. We have photographs of that. That is an extreme example of what happens on some Drift and Grasmus. An instance like that occurs as the raptor study group. Do you engage with the landowners responsible? Do you seek to find out why they are doing it? Do you ever get an answer around that? In those particular examples, it is a good case in point, that we do not meet the landowners. The particular estate that Logan is referring to, there is a management company that runs that one. I have never come across the owner. I do not know who owns the estate. The only people that I can talk to on the ground are the gamekeepers. They have just been less than friendly, and they are not really wanting to engage at all in any conversations. We tend to have good relationships with the large majority of people on the ground. We work well with crofters, shepherds, farmers and lots of gamekeepers. Where we find a particular issue is where you have driven grasmus management, and they are loathe to engage, and, as Andrea Sayes said, they are quite cold and unwelcoming. We have tried to make approaches to them, but it is futile. Is it all grasmus, or is it just the ones that are most intensively? It is intensive driven grasmus, where the business model generates a large volume of surplus birds to be killed. I say that there is not a problem. Generally speaking, walk-up grasmus are fine, because the business model that they have is that guests will walk up a hill and shoot grouse at flush on their feet. They tend to be happy with the experience, the day in the hill, the odd bird for the bag, as opposed to driven grouse shooting, where they are trying to shoot huge numbers and get big bags. We have had some evidence from the Game Wildlife Conservation Trust that listed all the legislation, regulation and voluntary codes of conduct that relate to game bird shooting. That is not a coherent licensing scheme in itself, but it represents a range of forms of separate regulation that are applied to that sector. In your view, why is that current system of regulation not working? Is it a matter that the regulations are not suitable, or is it about the enforcement and the policing of those regulations? Enforcement is a big issue. Certainly, the authorities do not have the time or the resources to put the checks and balances in there. As you said, a lot of these codes of practice are voluntary codes of practice, but if nobody is checking those, that is just where the current system does not work. I am sure that there are lots of people out there who are looking at those codes of practices and are following them, but there certainly are others who will maybe take a few chances to contravene some of the regulations to their economic advantage. Again, it is remote areas, it is rural, it would be very difficult without the resources to police these things. That is the problem that we are finding because we are out there, and we are out there with no backup, so to speak. We will witness that procedures are not being followed, but we do not have the backup of someone else there to corroborate what we are seeing. We feel that there needs to be extra regulation, and that regulation has to be backed up by proper enforcement. I am just wanting to tease out a little bit more about the current state of the regulations and the legal frameworks that we have. Are those adequate? There is a separate issue about policing and enforcement, but are you content with the current legal frameworks that, if they are enforced, should protect rat or species in the environment? The legal framework that we have is good. We have had lots of the previous governments have brought in new legislation, new actions, and vicarious liability was perhaps the most high profile of that. Enforcement of the law is a major issue. For reasons that Andrea mentioned, we need two independent witnesses to corroborate an offence. While there is a good suite of legal tools in place, it is still inadequate to crack down on the driven grouse more element, which quite frankly seems to be running fast and loose with the law. They do not seem to be concerned because the chances have been caught are very small, and the chance of prosecution is very small, and the chance of a successful conviction is even smaller still. My view is that they are very much aware of the legal tools in place, but they are happy to take the risk. A licensing scheme would effectively allow enforcement of existing laws. You are not looking for even more stringent protection of raptors because we already have that in law, but you are just looking for a way for that to be enforced. Is that right? Yes. What we would like to see, and it is not to us of course, but we would like to see licensing introduced based on a criminal basis, because that is where it is falling down. There is plenty of legislation in place and good legislation, but the problem is, as Andrea Gens mentioned, getting evidence and getting a conviction in law. That is the issue that we have at the moment. Looking at the review of the licensing systems elsewhere in Europe, you will see that their legislation goes hand in hand in hunting and conservation, and what we see is that there is an opportunity here to have further legislation that has a requirement on providing environmental benefits with the management of these hunting estates. That is what we think would help. Yes, we would hope that that would help with raptor persecution, but we are also helping it to have some wider environmental benefits attached to it. Kate Forbes? A lot of the regulations are relatively recent, and I am particularly curious about liability where I believe that there has only been two convictions. Is there not an argument to be made that it needs to have time to settle down and to be used more before introducing additional regulation and legislation? Well, sadly, we have had on-going raptor persecution for sadly decades, and with the introduction of vicarious liability, we have seen no diminution in the number of offences. Against that, we have seen an increase in intensification of grouse. If I got a pound for every time, I was offered a new initiative, a new action, give time for this, give time for that, let's do this, let's do that, I'll be a rich man. Vicarious liability, although it's very valuable and a very powerful tool, is just one more offer hope that I've been given personally over the years. In the six years that's been introduced, again we've got signs here, produced since it's come out, saying there's no diminution in the killing of birds of prey. I mean, I'd say we're running out of time, really, for some of these populations, particularly if you only got to look at the status of the henharrier in England, but we certainly don't want to get to that situation in Scotland, so we need to act now. So I'd say we don't really have that much time. I mean, as you said, there's only been two successful prosecutions of vicarious liability. I mean, how much time do we think we can give it, really? Which presumably comes back to the difficulties that Mark Ruskell mentioned in terms of enforcement, and you touched briefly on why, in your view, it would be easier with a licensing system to have better enforcement. Could you expand a little bit on that, based on the fact that, currently, with these two convictions, it's been very difficult with two witnesses, et cetera, finding dead birds? It's been very difficult to prove? I would draw a parallel between SNH's withdrawal of general licences. You may be aware that you've withdrawn a general licence from two estates, and that wasn't removed on the basis of criminal evidence, it was removed on the basis of civil evidence. I'd very much like to see any petition that might be introduced being based on the same principle, and I think that that would make a big step change in the levels of enforcement. How do you respond to the concerns that have been raised by some, and one might say that they would say this anyway, that if such a regime was not carefully drawn up, that estates could be the victims of being set up? That view has been expressed. How do you respond to that? I think that it would be down to the drawing up of the licensing requirements, and I suppose, ultimately, that could be a fear expressed by some, but I'd like to think that any requirements and regulations drawn up remove that. I can see a concern, but I also make the point that we're here today because of the inactions and inability of the driven grouse sector to clean itself up. For them to be concerned now about the possible implications of a licensing regulation, they've had a long time to clean their act up, and they've been dragged kicking and screaming to the stage that we're at today, when we're having to talk about spending a huge amount of time and resource asking a small element of criminality to stop breaking the law. Therefore, I've got some sympathy with that view, but equally, they've had it within their own gift to sort it out up until now, and we haven't done so. I have a further devil's advocate question. You've touched upon the existence of licensing regimes elsewhere in Europe, but those countries still have wrapped up persecution issues to some degree. That wouldn't be a reason not to introduce a licensing system, but would you accept that simply introducing a licensing regime wouldn't necessarily put an end to wrapped up persecution? No, it wouldn't. It would reduce it considerably, but there'll always be somebody somewhere in some remote estate who raises the rifle to an eagle or a harrier, but no, it won't stop it out and stamp out entirely. I would say that the SLE submitted a paper just before this meeting and highlighted the fact that thousands of raptors had been killed in Europe and quoted a bird life report from 2011. That was factually incorrect. The killings that are taking place in big numbers are more to do with the in Malta and Cyprus. It's not high numbers of raptors that have been killed but high numbers of birds in general, so it's a slight misunderstanding there. What's moved on, Emma Harper? Good morning, panel. In the Public Petitions Committee, Logan Steele, you said that you're not against game bird shooting and you've got no wish to ban it. I'm interested in exploring what would the solution be in a system of state-regulated game bird licensing. You've talked a little bit about civil licensing, so would it be licensing for all game bird hunting or who would require a license? What might be required to obtain a license in terms and conditions and who would administer or enforce that licensing? One possible variation is that the shoot manager will be licensed. In Europe, licensing is done on the estates, be it private or public, and individuals are licensed, but the thought that we have, and I'd say that any regulation that would be introduced with involvement with all interest parties, would see a shoot manager being licensed. For example, if there's a driven grouse moor in whatever area, that person would be responsible for what happens on the ground. That's how it would operate. We'd see the whole system monitored through the Government agency, which is currently Scottish National Heritage, and they'd be responsible for overseeing that activity. I hope that you've answered your question in its entirety. Any other points? Yes, I'm assuming that it would be the SNH that would monitor it or process it, which has other issues of logistics and finance and everything around that. I'm assuming that it would address the problems of illegal activity, if that's what your suggestion, because the convener is saying that that wouldn't stamp out. No, it wouldn't address the matter entirely. It would, hopefully, reduce it to a far lower level than it currently is. You talk about finance. Interestingly, in Europe, in the 14 countries reviewed by this report, quite a lot of them charge for a permit to go hunting. In many cases, a lot of that money goes a long way to offset the cost of running a licensing system, which might offset the impact on SNH of extra cost. I've spoken to a lot of people in the south-west recently that have concerns about increased number of hen harriers, not reduced numbers. They're saying that it's affecting other species, in particular that are talking about lapwings that they don't see on the ground anymore. People are saying one thing, evidence says another thing. The evidence needs to be definitive about the numbers of birds that are increasing or decreasing, whether they're raptors or lapwings or other birds. That was just about to come in on. In a lot of these systems within Europe, data is collected, so bag data, et cetera. They do a lot more studies of populations of birds in general in an area. You've got an idea of what is sustainable to hunt and what populations, natural fluctuations are, et cetera. We're hoping that this sort of system would actually mean that there is a co-ordinated approach to working out population levels of different species. To answer your question about lapwings, there's no association of hen harriers and taking out lapwings. For example, I wouldn't have thought that a hen harrier would have a detrimental effect on populations of lapwings. I was assuming that it was the eggs that they go after. No, hen harriers predominantly take small prey. They will take grouse chicks, they'll take small voles, but they'll take other small pasturing birds as well, but they don't take eggs. But there is a general feeling in the countryside that there's too many raptors, there's too many buzzards, there's too many harriers, but one thing I would say is that the environment controls the population of raptors the other way around, and there's some evidence for local surveys indicating that some raptor numbers are starting to decline. Buzzards, for example, have restored their levels to a natural population level, but we're seeing some regional decline, so it's concerned that buzzards are breeding and increasing beyond all recognition is not quite entirely correct. Clarify something. Are you looking for a one-size-fits-all national system, or would you favour? I think it's in Germany where there is local variation across the various bits of the country. I'm just thinking from the point of view of we all know there are hotspots in Scotland. Would you be looking for a system that could be tweaked to address that, or would you look for a system that was just nationwide? I wouldn't be bold enough to predict what it would look like. I think it's up to the people or the architects of any licensing regime that's drawn up, but it's a good point that you make because there are certain five key hotspots for raptor persecution. Perhaps when the architects of the licensing regulation are drawn up, some care might be taken to that. However, you're right, in Germany, there's a national application, and on top of that local governments can apply enhanced regulation with regard to that, and that might be a good way ahead. For example, in the national park, would that perhaps work in the Cairngorms national park? As an example, you could have enhancement there. I would have thought that licensing against persecution would be uniform across Scotland, where it might be tweaked. I cannot begin to imagine what tweaking would be required for trying to limit or stop the killing of raptors that wouldn't be applying everywhere else in Scotland. It's a good point. It's probably worth delving into more deeply, but I wouldn't be too binary to say that it would be this or that. I think that we need to be open-minded and speak with all stakeholders to come up with something that works for everybody. I think that any system that has the collection of data built into it is going to be helpful towards looking at populations of birds and whether we have different levels in different areas. Have you thought about the resourcing of such a scheme? Stakeholders, the Government, parliamentary committees are very good at finding things for agencies to do, but they have to have the resources to do that. We all know that SNH's budget has been stressed. Do you see this as a self-financing licensing regime? I wouldn't be too prescriptive, but if you look at the European models, most of them are cost-neutral in that the cost of the licensing tends to cover the cost of the extra work involved. We wouldn't want to see any additional financial burden placed on SNH for administering the scheme. After all, the people who are enjoying the benefits of shooting should be paying to cover the administrative cost of that. Indeed, some countries in Europe of the 14 surveyed some money goes back into active conservation management. Again, that's back the point that Andrea made. In Europe, there tends to be a culture of hunting. In Scotland and the UK, there tends to be shooting. That's a very interesting dichotomy, and that's why the European system seems to work well in some of the 14 countries that have been highlighted. I wonder if you could pinpoint the main ways in which the system that you propose will robustly contribute to addressing the problems that we've heard about. In summary, that would be helpful. If, for example, we have one of the five hot spots, we're finding a continual finding of instances where illegality is taking place. We've had instances of meat being laid out, which has been laced with poison. We've had a number of birds disappearing in specific areas. There could be some best practice not being here to from mure burning, for example. We could find an increased number of nest failures. We could find areas of suitable habitat being burned out, those sorts of evidence, which again would not be criminally provable, but if we had a civil burden of proof, we could find lots of evidence of illegality but no silver bullet, as it were, to find. That's what I'm trying to get to, would be a layering up of evidence of instances. I think also the system that we're looking for, if it's self-financing, but part of that finance would go towards the enforcement, i.e. actually having people on the ground. So, at the moment, there's not that many people proactive. We don't proactively go out. The police force don't have the resources to proactively go out and look for wildlife crime. But what we're saying is this kind of system where there's a regulation in place, somebody has to enforce it, this will require somebody to be out there checking that people are following the correct procedures. So, from that point of view, we are hoping that that would be a deterrent for people. If they know there are people watching, there are people who could just turn up and make spot checks, et cetera. We are hoping that that would be a deterrent. If you look at some of the European countries, they've actually got a force of conservation officers. France in particular has got over 1,000 conservation officers, part funded by the money raised from licensing. You could arguably have a force of environmental police officers working in the five areas, perhaps, paid for, cost-neutral, taking more of an interest in wildlife crime than the usual Bobby who's very busy with other matters. Why do you have highlighted the issue that it's difficult to find whether there has been a crime committed and the different burdens of proof in relation to civil and criminal law? How would you see it working in terms of the terms and conditions that might have to lead to the withdrawal of a licence? I know that's a difficult question, but if you could give us a sense of that, I think it would be helpful. So, what do you mean by terms and conditions? There'd be terms and conditions for a licence if you gave the example, I think, Logan of the shoot manager, but that was one way forward. There would be those terms and conditions. If those terms and conditions weren't honoured, how would you see the process whereby a licence could be removed? What I would like to see again, it's not up to us entirely, but in the licensing you'd be asking for a number of land management techniques to be adopted and to be adhered to. So, for example, as I saw myself just a few months ago in one particular area, a whole hillside being torched, which is against the more informed best practice. That would be an example if we had other instances of illegality taking place, but not enough to bring out criminal persecution. You could see an estate putting in hill tracks onto hills, which hadn't gone through the proper regulation. If you have deep peat burning, if you have moors being drained and not being wetted properly, things like that, they're not adhering to best practice. Does that answer your question? Yes, that's helpful. Thank you. Just to get a feel for that. Mark Ruskell. You mentioned the role of SNH in running this potential licensing regime. Would you see a role for the SSPCA in some way? I'd like to see the SSPCA being brought in to use their skills and expertise to fill gaps with the rural police can't. It doesn't have the reach or time to do that. That would be helpful, but I fully appreciate it on the cabinet secretary's desk at the moment. However, it has a special skill set that could be brought to bear. Given the concerns raised by Emma and others earlier, have you considered the environmental, economic and community impacts on such a licensing system? Of course, I'm going to explain what you mean. We've heard from Emma that some people have concerns that there might be an impact on raptor numbers or whatever. What sort of work and investigations have you done into what the environmental and cultural impact of the licensing will be over what we've got now? I would turn that on its head and say that I would ask the question of the shooting industry what impact it has taken on impacting on green tourism. We know that £1.4 billion spent per year on green tourism, an SNH figure, and it employs 39,000 people in green tourism. I would ask the shooting industry what impact it has done when it undertakes driving gross shooting and impacts it has on other people who could legitimately enjoy a business from that same area. I'm sure that they'll do that in the next session, but have you done any work? There's always two sides to every story. Have you done any work to look at what the negative impacts may be? Can I just make the point that raptor study group is voluntary? We all have other jobs. This is something that we go out and do in our own time. We perform a very important function in that we are collecting all this data and we're doing it voluntarily and we give this data to SNH and the rarebeads and birds panel etc. I don't think any one of us would have the time or the expertise to undertake such a study that you're suggesting. We would probably ask that the Government would look into having an independent body to do such an investigation. I think that the economics of this, whether it's green tourism and shooting industry, needs to be investigated further. We would expect that to be done as part of the review. To back up Mr Carson's point, let's forget about a formal study. You've put a lot of thought into the petition. You've come today, clearly having provided answers to a lot of the criticisms that would be made of what you're proposing. One of the criticisms that's out there, rightly or wrongly, is that if that was introduced, you might see some estates back away from driven grouse shooting and that would have an economic impact on the locality. Gamekeepers would lose their jobs allegedly. How do you respond to that? I presume that you've thought about that. Yes, we have. We're not against shooting. We're not asking for grouse shooting to stop. We'd be more than happy if intensive driven grouse shooting reverted to walk-up shooting. And we'd still have keepers employed, we still have the usual infrastructure, we still have the revenue coming in from guests at shoulder times of the season. So we don't see it being a major impact. All we're asking to do is the illegality, is the illegal element of grouse shooting to stop and therefore every start of being the law and we'd still see keepers employed, estates, estate houses, guests coming up, hotels, that sort of thing. So we just need to get that clear. That's a good point. Again, what other pros and cons do you see? It's a carry-on from the question again. Do you see the licensing system? I understand that in Europe the licensing system, in many cases, is based on hunting licenses on public land rather than private land. Have you thought about that? And also another point. What would happen, for example, if a tagged eagle disappeared from a certain estate? Would that result in that estate losing its licence? And what would happen if that bird turned up a year later somewhere else in the country? How would you go about enforcing that sort of thing? Well again, it's not for us to draw up the minutia and detail around that. Personally, I wouldn't see a satellite tagged golden eagle disappearing over one of the five hot spots and then being a ban. The police would be involved, there would be a criminal investigation, they'd look for evidence and then on the balance of that, if they didn't find the dead body or the satellite tag, I wouldn't see that going from there to straight banning of shooting licences. There need to be a tiered approach and there need to be a number of instances over a period of time before some action was taken. So why would that be different from what we've got in place at the moment? Why would a licensing system make that process any different? A licensing system would make a difference because any action that we've taken on the civil burden of proof, not criminal. You had a number of instances or evidence of illegality and you went to the civil burden of proof. That would take us to a situation far quicker and easier than one requiring a criminal burden of proof, which, as we know, is very difficult to achieve. Can you address the point about the licences in Europe being based mostly or generally on public land rather than private land? The review has reviewed 14 different countries where the licensing applies both to private and public land. In the summary document, it makes it quite clear that, despite the ownership of the land be it private or public, legislation can work across both sides of it. Again, that's only for 14 different European countries. What happens in Scotland would be unique to Scotland. A lot of best practice could be drawn from the 14 countries to bring up what is appropriate for the Scottish sitting. It would be feasible and practical to go through what's happening elsewhere and pick and mix, essentially. Possibly. It would provide a good starting spot, but, of course, we are different from everybody else and there would be a lot of local input. A lot of the laws that we see in other 14 countries are based on historical, cultural and hunting-type backgrounds. We are different over here, but it would be a good starting spot. Any other members or any questions? Obviously, you have mentioned Europe quite a number of times and using that as a starting point in terms of modelling a licensing system. Yet, the SNH report made clear that there is still, obviously, raptor persecution in the European countries. What do you think, in terms of looking at that, is obviously not perfect, in other words, is the point that I'm trying to make? Is that something that you would accept? I would certainly accept it, but if you look at all those different case studies, in a lot of them, it's improved the situation with raptor persecution. I think that there's only a handful that say that they still have a bad, you know, there is still a severe problem with raptor persecution. I think that, as Logan said, you're always going to have it. There will always be an element of criminality across all sectors. We're never going to get rid of it completely, but if you look at the Spanish example where the bird life partners worked with the government there, they've made great inroads into tackling raptor persecution. I think that just goes to show that, when people work together and they're on the same page, you can actually achieve great things. That is our home, really. We want to work with all the other stakeholders, and we want to come up with a system that works for everyone. There's a simple example talking about Spain. There was an instance a few years ago where a farmer laid out poison date and killed six imperial eagles, which are really, really rare birds. Following that, there was a huge increase in the number of public awareness, a free phone number, and that whole lot of information and dialogue was set up around that. That initiative has brought 30 convictions. That spotlight has been turned right on this particular issue. The farmer in question was given a very, very hefty sentence, not just financial but imprisonment, and also an obligation for him to provide money to try and restore the eagles that he killed. Also, the Spanish are quite innovative, because they've applied a monetary value against each bird of prey. So, when a bird of prey is killed, it can then fall on an economic value to that bird, rather than saying, well, it's just six imperial gold eagles. Thank you very much for the evidence that you've given. I'm going to suspend briefly until we switch over the panel, and we'll see you in the next panel as well, Mr Steele. Thank you. Okay, thank you. We now suspend. This meeting of the Environment, Climate, Change and Land Reform Committee, we continue our discussions with stakeholders on petition PE1615 by Logan Steele on behalf of the Scottish Raptor Study Group on state-regulated licensing of game board shooting in Scotland. We're joined now by Duncan Orr Ewing of the RSPB, David Johnson of Scottish Land and the States, Andy Smith of the SGA and Robbie Kernigan from SNH, and again by Logan Steele. Welcome back and welcome gentlemen. I'm moving swiftly on to questions. I wonder if I can get a general comment from the panellists who just joined us around the comments from Logan Steele earlier about raptor persecution and whether there is a specific problem around the areas of the country where there is intensive game board shooting going on. Is it as widespread a problem, as has been suggested by some, or is it done by a small rogue element? Who wants to go first? Duncan Orr Ewing. So just to take the last point first, the RSPB has for quite a number of years cataloged instances of wildlife confirmed instances of crimes against raptors in Scotland, and we produce an annual report on the illegal killing of birds of prey. Over the past 20 years, we have identified 779 confirmed incidents on 200 land holdings in Scotland. We think that this is a widespread problem. However, our main concern relates to areas of land that are managed for driven grouse shooting, where the illegal killing of birds of prey appears to be on a large number of those places, part of the business model. We think that the situation is as bad as it has ever been. The recent Scottish Natural Heritage Scientific Advisory Committee review of moorland management has indicated an intensification of the management of those areas in recent years, predicated on trying to increase grouse bags to very high levels. Thank you very much. It will come no surprise that I do not accept the presumption that is coming from here. The Government's own statistics show quite clearly that there has been a decline in the last five, six years relating to birds of prey crime. I can also caveat but say that we do not, in any way, in any shape or form within an organisation, condone wildlife crime of any sort, be it raptors or whatever kind you see. We have been working extraordinarily hard with the Government, with the Paws working group, to identify the issues surrounding it, to deal with the issues, to make recommendations, to ensure best practice, and I am sure that we are going to come on to discuss a lot of the legislation that has already been changed and how it is working. However, no, I simply do not accept what Duncan is saying at all. Can I just put a devil's advocate question to Mr Johnson? The figures that you referred to from the Government might be skewed by virtue of the fact that the increasing regulatory regime that has been introduced might lead those who are carrying out the crimes to hide the evidence. I have never understood the logic of committing a crime, murdering a bird of prey and leaving the evidence for it to be found. With the introduction of vicarious liability, general licences, etc., is it not possible that we are simply not seeing the evidence of those crimes taking place because people are hiding it? No. Since the Scottish Parliament came into power, we have the right to roam legislation. There are more people wandering around the countryside with social media, cameras and everything else. The scrutiny has never been higher. The police have the ability to take access and enter without a warrant to look at premises. The RSPB has cameras, hidden cameras, filming what is going on, so the level of scrutiny has never been higher. The estates themselves are absolutely clear and aware of that. They are bringing in practice, expertise, lawyers, etc., to address and tell their employees exactly what the law is, how it is to be enforced, and how they have to behave. It is not unequivocal at all. Everybody knows exactly what they are to do and what the law is, so the improvement is marked. Similarly, we do not condone any of the wildlife crime that happened at all. We are very keen for our members. As I have said before in this committee, any of our members that have been found guilty of any wildlife crime is expelled from our community. It is not what we want, it is not what we are trying to do. Once again, we hear the words endemic across Scotland, and then, oh, it is in driven grouse moors and intensified driven grouse moors. And, similar to what David was saying there, the Scottish Government figures that have been recently published show a massive percentage drop, 26 per cent drop in the buttercream crimes in the last 12 months, 40 per cent drop in buttercream crimes in the last three years, 85 per cent drop in poisoning cases between 2010 and 2016. Again, we ignore that there was a problem going back to the RSPB when they went back to the 20-year plan that they continue to bring out, but it has gone downwards since then. On some of the other things that we have seen as well, the endemic killing of raptor species, according to the BTO, the buzzers are up 23 per cent. Ravens, although raptors are up 41 per cent, and red kites are now off the endanger leads. Sieg has reintroduced an increasing, if this was an endemic crime that was happening all over Scotland, you wouldn't have buzzards, you wouldn't have Ravens all over Scotland, as we do now. But the fact is that both the SGA and the SLE, you're right, you do utterly condemn these kinds of activities, but you don't represent everybody out there and you can't control your membership, so there's no doubt there is a problem here that needs to be addressed. Given what David Sir earlier, I know myself from my own point of view, you have to make sure these days that vicarious liability is a big thing now, and there are courses all over the place of vast majority of keepers. I think there are not many keepers that don't go on a vicarious liability course, some say in their careers, so they are all over the place. We certainly try to make sure that everybody goes on one at the local estate, and most estates take it out on board as well. It is being addressed. Challenge the assertions by our speakers here to talk about the number of prosecution declining, the number of dead bodies declining. It's just not reality. I refer to the four recent scientific reports that have come out in the past 18 months for kites, henharriers, peregrins and, lastly, the golden eagle. The populations are in decline, they're not recovering, they're still suffering from historical lows, so for this to be not an issue and being evidenced by this body count is not reality. We're also about to hear very shortly the result of satellite tag survey, and that would be quite interesting as well. We've heard all the polarised views with respect. Robbie Kernigan from SNH, what's SNH's view of the situation? Good morning. I think that my starting point is probably slightly different from everyone else's, and I think that generally in Scotland we've probably got quite a positive message to tell about the recovery of raptor populations in Scotland from these all-time lows. It's certainly a national picture, but that's not to say that there are not issues. Certainly some of the concerns about the intensification of moorland management prompted our scientific advisory committee to have a review two years ago, and without wanting to go through that chapter on verse, there is no doubt that on-going issues of raptor persecution is inhibiting the recovery of populations in some parts of the country. Okay, thanks. Okay, let's move this on to Mark Ruskell. Just following that, what's the core issue here? Is it about raptor persecution in isolation, or is it about the intensive high-density game bird systems that we have? You seem to imply that there's a wider issue with those systems. Well, I think that, bearing in mind even this morning, we've touched on a whole range of things about the management of driven grouse moors. Some of those concerns are what prompted the scientific advisory committee review in SNH about what evidence is there to suggest that that type of intensification of land use is having a detrimental impact on biodiversity generally. Now, it didn't come up with any clear-cut conclusions, but there are some issues in the era of which raptor persecution is one. We've already heard about moorburn, about tracks, about deer management, about mountain hares. There's a range of things in the era which were of sufficient concern to prompt that review. It came out with a number of recommendations for further work, some of which is still on-going. We're here today to talk about licensing of game bird shooting, but it is symptomatic of some of the concerns that exist about land use and how intensely grouse moors have been managed. Do you have some other views about that, perhaps from the industry and the conservationists as well? It's about the intensification. I heard a bit about some of the previous sessions that were labelled towards the intensive being the area of greatest concern. Those are some of the estates that have put in the highest calibre of good management to ensure that all the employees that work within the estate are fully aware of everything that's going on. They've taken what happened in 2009 to be vicarious liability and all the rest of it, and they conduct regular seminars with the staff. They bring in outside professionals to explain chapter and verse exactly what is needing to be done. If you went back to, say, 15 years ago, 2004, before the previous act came in, I would suggest that some of the contracts that existed between the employers and the employees wouldn't even have existed, probably wouldn't even have a bit of paper, would have been a handshake. Now, they are very carefully laid out. It is crystal clear exactly what the rules are, what the regulations are, what you cannot do. I would say that the best practice has improved dramatically over the last four or five years, and that's what we're seeing the result filtering through. Could that be the basis of a licensing regime, then? Now, licensing, you're talking about something completely different. There's already compliance with, you're stating that you think there's already compliance with the various regulatory regimes. So, the regulatory regimes that have come about through the Wayne Bill, et cetera, have created good practice and gone beyond that to ensure adherence to the good practice. What you're talking about within a licensing regime is bringing in a different level of proof, the sort of civil burden of proof, which has a much more dramatic effect upon the ability of business issues, et cetera, to operate efficiently and safely without risking their investments. I think you've just stated, though, that there's already training and accreditation that happens within a state. Exactly how hard would it be for you to then move to a licensing regime that effectively reflects the regulations that you say that the majority of states would be? Within a licensing regime, what you're talking about here is not on the burden of criminal proof, on the burden of probability, removing the ability for that business to trade. If they lose that ability to trade, then that's the business finished. They just cannot no longer take part in the business. Therefore, that alters the risk of running that business considerably. Within a sporting business, it doesn't matter whether it's upland, grass shooting or lowland, pheasant shooting or anything else, there's a period of time at which you are bringing the customers in and interfacing with them. If you have an issue that rears at the start of that, you lose the whole season. All the income is gone, everything is finished, and your business is no longer viable. I'm struggling to understand why those businesses would actually be at risk. What we had in evidence was a list of all the regulations and laws and good practice, which the states are meeting. You just explained how you're putting in place the training and the appropriate record-keeping to ensure that that is done. What would be the risk of you failing to meet a licensing regime if you're already meeting the legal terms and conditions and good practice that already exist? I'm struggling to see what the extra burden is or what the risk is to a business that is already fully compliant. The risk of what you're talking about here is with a licence, from my understanding, is that it's to be a lower burden of proof, so that if something is found to be untoward that's happening within an area where shooting is going on, then the licence for that area can be removed. That doesn't mean to say that the person or the people involved in that area have been convicted or thought to do anything wrong, but your ability to trade has gone. You've suddenly changed dramatically the risk of operating that business. Running a shooting business itself is a very difficult business. It's a very finite margin. Things that change that risk profile will make people think twice. If that lower burden of proof was actually based on evidence, it still has to be based on evidence that's brought forward, and if you've already got systems in place to ensure compliance with existing regulations and laws, I still don't see what the risk is. You seem to be saying that there would be a risk of us getting caught. No, it's not a risk of us getting caught. It's a risk that's been discussed in the previous session, that if somebody interfered with, say, a license trap on the estate and the licence was removed because of damage to that license trap that the state didn't have anything to do with, the licence is suspended, that's business stops while it is sorted out. That's a huge risk to bear within that from the activity of somebody else going on when you haven't yourself done anything wrong. That's what the difference is here, is the changing of the burden of proof. In terms of the illegal killing of birds of prey, that is part of a package of issues that are causing concern at the moment in the way large swathes of upland Scotland are managed. The SNH Scientific Advisory Committee review of moorland management has highlighted how in recent decades the intensification of grouse moor management in particular has caused this concern. Part of the issue that we have here is that, unlike other natural resources management in relation to game bird hunting, we have no real assertion of the public interest. If we look, we've been considering the deer issue fairly recently. Of course, we have a deer act, we have a deer code, which sets out what the public interest looks like, what David Johnston and others are referring to, are largely voluntary codes that the sporting sector promote and encourage adherence to. When you're out on the ground, I'm afraid the picture that you see is very different, that a lot of these voluntary codes are simply not being adhered to. The moor burn code has been one example. We've heard some examples of bad practice, the code of shooting practice. I'm afraid, with the illegal activities that are going on, we see lack of adherence to that. We have the code that the Scottish Land and Estates GWCT drafted or drew up with Scottish natural heritage in 2014, which related to the culling of mountain hares, following public concerns on that issue. Again, simply when you're out on the ground, you see lack of adherence to these so-called industry standards. I think that what we need in place is a code that better defines the public interest, sets out clearly what that looks like and the expectations on the industry linked to a licensing system. David Johnson might be difficult to answer, but even if one accepts that your members are following those codes, you don't represent all the landowners in Scotland. Roughly speaking, how much of the land in Scotland is managed outwith your membership? Oh, blimey. That's a bit of an unfair question, but I'll try to get a feel for that. That's a very, very good question. We probably get about 70 per cent of Estates in Scotland. However, what that relates to landmine, I mean, I would be guessing. We have a good percentage of our members, so the majority of it would come under our membership. Roughly a third isn't, so even if your good influence isn't, it's brought to bear on your membership. There's still a third of the land out there. Yeah, but even within those third Attacks with our membership, they're exhibiting good practice as well. I mean, we accept that within any industry, whatever walk of life you're with, there are people, there are bad eggs, who will do stuff that is illegal. But I don't recognise this conversation that's beyond that it's endemic. I think it's become the exception. The culture has completely changed over the years within the land-owning community. Okay, thank you. I recognise that it was an unfair question. I mean, I can get back, I can work it and get back to you. It would be useful to have that information. Sorry, go back to Mr Roscoe's question, Andy Smyth. Yeah, just to let you know some of that. I mean, you've obviously got a list of some of the acts that are covered that are not codes that are actually legislation and they are quite widespread that cover both individuals. One of the big things that you've got, two of the big things you've got in Scotland just now that don't require a massive civil burden or proof is your firearms legislation and also your general licence, which is issued through the Wildlife and Countryside Act and through SNH. They're both containing legislation. They already have a civilian burden of proof. The police will remove firearms from a gamekeeper if he's suspected of any wildlife crime. Similarly, and that's a bit akin to having a joiner having his tools removed from him. It's exactly the same sort of thing. That is a pretty hefty sentence, if you like, in itself. We have quite stringent, in this country, we have a very, very stringent firearms policy and it's not an easy thing to get a firearm in this country. You've got to go through a lot of processes to get that. Similarly, the general licence, general licences, and since recently, more recently, they've been removed purely on suspicion and it's perhaps not just on suspicion. There's suspicion with evidence, obviously, that in itself is another tool that's taken away from us. That then can lead to individuals who are then under the spotlight, which I think is right in saying that they can reapply and then they can, but it's absolutely under the spotlight. That in itself is a massive, massive tool. I don't know if licensing would make that any different. I think it's got that already. I think you have that in place already and I don't think it would make a big difference. On the licensing thing, if you go down the licensing thing where you have a licence purely on a game board shoot, some of the things that's already happened to us, and this is some of the things that we've recorded from our members, we've had traps being sprung regularly, both upland and in lowland, set snares, snares have been removed, untagged snares have been hung on estate fences, which obviously, and again, every operator of a snare has to go through a training course, every operator of a snare is registered with the police, and every snare has to have an identification number on that, and the regularity goes with the snareing. We've had stote traps tampled with, traps broken with stones, we've had fires deliberately started, you go on a bit more burn earlier on there, we've also accepted that things can go horribly wrong. Some people go out there to perhaps point the finger. Rabbit Box is vandalised, we have had one keeper in an upland situation where he's actually had hidden cameras placed on the front door of his house, checking his family going in and out, unacceptable, unacceptable. That's something that's been worked on just now. We've had vandalism all over the place, I've experienced it, I keep her quite close to the town, and I've had my traps vandalised, I've had magpies released from traps, which is perhaps some people think that that's going to happen, but I've had one estate particular, it's got his GameCame staff, they've given them personal vehicle and handheld cameras so that they're going to make sure that they're going to be covered within the law. There's a lot going on and there's a lot of things that can happen out there that if you go down the licensing route, the total licensing route on your link, licensing to that, that's happening already, that's going to continue to happen. We already see on social media that there are a number of people that are actually actively telling people, with respect, some of the raptor groups, I'm not pointing a finger at anybody here, but some of the raptor groups are actually pointing the finger at people and saying, go out and check. So when you go into scrutiny, they're actually telling people to go out and check what's happening. That's happening, I can give you that. But with respect, Mr Steele's already acknowledged the possibility, as he discussed his petition earlier, and has indicated that there would have to be something built into a licensing regime that took account of the possibility of estates being set up. So I think everybody on the table recognises that as a riskant it would have to be catered for if a licensing regime were to be introduced. Does anybody else want to come back on Mark Ruskell's question? Claudia Beamish. Thank you convener and good morning to the second panel. Could I just get a bit of an understanding, a better understanding than I certainly have at the moment about in terms of the forms of game bird hunting in Scotland. In the previous panel, it was mentioned by your self-logan that there's the actual intensification process, which correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand in your view has increased in certainly in some areas of Scotland in recent years, and then there's as well as the driven grassmores, there's what one would term the walk-up grassmores. I'm wondering if there's any way in which anyone in the panel can shed any light on why that has increased so much, the intensification, and also whether the walk-up grassmore situation for a business is much less productive in terms of the profits that it would create or not, or is there any possibility of getting some sort of understanding of why these developments might be happening and whether maybe one might be better for wildlife and the environment more generally or not. The main forms of game bird shooting in Scotland are the grouse, partridge and the pheasant shooting that go on. I think we're basically talking about grouse shooting here. Walked-up grouse shooting is a much, much lower key affair. It's much—you have considerably less employment that goes on within doing that, both through the gamekeeping staff, which would be dramatically reduced, but also through the beaters that pick us up and everybody else that comes out on the day within that. Therefore, you end up with a lot less revenue coming into the areas where this takes part. You would also have considerably less income coming into the hotels, et cetera, that go on throughout that time of year. You would end up with a lot smaller businesses, a lot less employment in pretty fragile rural areas, as they are at the moment, especially coming up with Brexit and the changing of subsidies that are going to go forward into the future. There is no doubt a considerably greater turnover within grouse moors that shoot driven grouse. It doesn't mean to say that they're necessarily profitable within themselves because, a lot of the times, these grouse moors do not make a profit. There is an assumption out there that they are profitable. Sometimes they make quite considerable losses, but people are prepared to invest that money within the communities to ensure that they're viable and they survive. The environment that you're talking about within the grouse moors themselves, I think that the studies done at Ottoburn have shown that keepered grouse moors are good for things like curlews, latwings, and other species in there that benefit from the predator control that goes on, such as the weasels, foxes, et cetera. Do they need to be managed as intensively as they appear to be managed? Is there not a happy medium to be struck? It depends on the clientele that they're looking to come and shoot. The short answer is yes in places that I think they need to be managed as intensively as they are in order to ensure that they achieve the surplus that people are coming to Scotland to bring income, tourists income to come and… Is that not the root of the problem? That's what leads to the removal of birds of prey, because you cannot have birds of prey coexisting alongside that level of intensity. I'm sorry, but you can have birds of prey existing with that level of intensity. That's where we're coming to the heart of the argument. We've seen, as the RSPB survey from last year showed, that the golden eagle populations are going up. That's why you've got grouse moor owners up in the north-east, taking part in the Heads Up for Henarias campaign. I think there's about 325,000 acres or so, now signed up, asking for nest cameras to be put on to the nests to view exactly what is going on, what's causing those problems, to try and address what is happening there. I'm afraid that the national golden eagle survey does not paint that picture at all. The actual results for the east of Scotland, the area A, which is the Cairngorms national park and Angus Glen and that part of eastern Scotland, shows that just over a third of all known golden eagle territories in that part of the world are occupied and that the potential for golden eagle recovery there is massive actually. There are various other studies that point firmly at illegal persecution of golden eagles in that area as the main problem driving their low population status. Just to say, I think that the other point just with regards to the driven grouse system is that it is unique in world terms and many external observers from Europe and elsewhere who see it just say it simply wouldn't be allowed in their countries. It is not part of the culture of hunting and I think Logan Steele alluded to it earlier. We have a tradition of sporting in this country rather than the culture of hunting and this culture of sporting relies on having very high bag numbers of grouse. In some cases, autumn densities, we're now seeing 300, 400, well certainly over 300 per square kilometre for grouse more owners and their clients to shoot. In the autumn in England, the densities are even higher and these high densities have been bought around about by a range of management factors, primarily medication of grouse, but also increased mureburn, heavier duty predator control employing more gamekeepers per square kilometre to control predators. One of the things that emerges from the SNH review of game bird licensing in other European countries is simply these kind of high intensity models of game bird hunting don't exist and I would suggest that that is part of the root of our problems. Okay, we'll come back to that. Intensification as well. I think if you were going back to perhaps 1930s, 1920s, 1930s, that's when you saw grouse shooting at its absolute highest and that was when persecution was probably at its absolute highest. I think you probably find that over the years the numbers have actually reduced. There's a lot of grouse mures that don't exist anymore, so I mean from that point of view, I think that the numbers perhaps just now are up and that could be down to the good practice that the keepers that are employed there to do are working well there to do. On that as well, there's just another note that was made earlier about wildlife tourism. We have keepers on grouse mures, on intensified grouse mures if you want to use that word on well-managed grouse mures that actually have two businesses coming up, wildlife two businesses coming up onto the grouse mure with their clients to show them wildlife on a grouse mure, including raptors. That's happening in some of our members where they are up north. Okay, okay, let's move this on. Emma Harper. Thank you, convener. Good morning everybody again. I mean I'm interested in the environmental, economic community or cultural impacts of a licensing system if it were to be introduced. I know we talked about it a little bit earlier. I'm also interested in just economic impacts because I'm aware that it can cost a lot of money to shoot birds. You know, 70, what was it, £70 a brace? A brace has two birds and there's a minimum required. It looks like it states David Johnson is saying that there are finite margins, so can you help us to understand a bit better about the economic impacts or if we were to introduce a licensing system because I've seen that some of the states can make lots of money, £10,000 to £30,000 even at a shoot or a day or is it because the season is really short? I mean what would the impacts be if there was a licensing system introduced? I know one in the Angus Glen that was alluded to earlier on. We did a, not perhaps a scientific, it was for our own benefit really, but we did a report up there on three Glen over the winter time. It's making somewhere in the region of a million pounds and that is for there. That was only for our own benefit, certainly not any great impact on the economic side, jobs, all the rest of it that goes with any estate working and that's a knock-on effect from everything. It goes absolutely up there, I think. David will be the best way for that. That is not profit, so we're not talking about profit within this. So the economics are running a shoot, whether it's upland, lowland or wherever else it is, is you have the staff that you're employing, the gamekeepers, etc, are employed throughout the full 12-month period, and then you have that on costs of maintenance of houses, etc, that's provided within that, and all the feed that comes in, if you're on the low-bound and all the rest of it. What you find is that the money goes out considerably throughout the year and then you have the period of time when the people come in to pay to shoot at whatever price you're talking about, I think sometimes a little bit more than that for driven grass shooting, but at the end of the day when you add it all up you get a very large turnover within an area that filters through the area, be it on hotels or the schools or local shops and all the rest of it, but the actual profit within that business is very marginal, so these places are not making huge sums of money out of what they're doing, but the turnover and therefore the knock-on benefit to the wider communities is remarkable in places. I'm certainly down with us on the neighbouring valley in a low-ground shoot at the hotel in the middle of town, it's now being completely rebuilt, transformed on the back of the local shooting because they're able to fill the hotel for 80 bed nights throughout the winter when otherwise they would be dead, and the hotel had shut previously to that because it was no longer viable, and that then regenerates the whole town, so it is considerable. As Logan was hinting at earlier, you also need to look at the opportunity costs of this activity as well, so essentially we've been running a model for driven grouse shooting for nearly 200 years. Now the Scottish Government priorities are slightly different, we're looking at things like more diversified rural economies, we're looking at native woodland expansion, managing peatland areas for climate change and so forth, and effectively we have large areas of upland Scotland in particular that are sterilised under one land use, if you want to sterilise it probably in extreme terms, but you get the point that are focused on one particular land use, that is driven grouse shooting, and you will not achieve these other objectives, and I would add the Scottish biodiversity strategy delivery as well, if you are going to continue to have so much land continuing under one particular land use. The environmental issue, Angus MacDonald. Yes, I'm currently sticking with the environmental impact, and the point that Duncan O'r Unge just made, the panel I've heard Logan Steele detail earlier what he believes are the adverse environmental impacts associated with Gamebird hunting and the management of it. I'm keen to hear the views of SLE and the SGA, in particular, on Logan Steele's comments earlier. On the sustainability, I think that's the key element of the question that you're asking. Sustainability and the environmental impact. So I think that the key element within this, running any sporting enterprise, whether it's grouse shooting or anything else, is that it has to be sustainable because it has to be able to come back the year after that, the year after next year, and be able to retreat. So the conservation within the ethos of running a sporting estate is absolutely right up to the top, and that doesn't include just the Gamebird species within that, it's the whole remit that benefits the wider environment within that. So I think it's a very good use of land from the grass moors up in that part of the country. It provides that both economic benefit but also the environment benefit that goes within it. You'll have seen that, I think, lap wings or curlews are now being moved on to the endangered list, the red list for the RSPB survey, and certainly my understanding is that some of the surveys down at Otterburn have shown that they do very well on a keepered grass moors. So there is diverse benefit that takes place on these grass moors. One of the, I've got a report here from the S&HCPA about the Muirburn. Muirburn actually comes, although we've heard a lot about it here, it actually comes quite low down on the state of Scotland soils 2011, with great soil threats in Scotland. Muirburn is at number three, compared to a big part that comes in with the number three, which is lower in the forestry, for example, which is number seven. Development comes in at eight. Erosion and landslides, they are rated at five. They are on a par with grazing, but a lot less in agricultural cultivation, which is at eighteen. So yes, I know that Muirburn is always going to point, that there came out from the S&HCPA, and it does show, as I said, when you look at it quite, it's not perhaps the root of all evil is, perhaps, as it's made out to be, and it can be very beneficial from, obviously, not just from the grouse point of view, but from the weather's point of view as well, which, as we just heard, are certainly red listed, and undoubtedly will benefit from the management that's carried out by keepers on moors, so that's two things. I doubt within the constraints of the Muirburn code, and if you're burning deep peat, if you're burning out with a cycle of every seven years, and if you're burning slopes that shouldn't be burned, and therefore removing the habitat of hen areas, is having a detrimental effect? I totally agree, but hopefully none of our members are doing that, and I don't know if they are, so I can't really comment on that one, but yeah, I would definitely agree. It then perhaps goes on to enforcement, and that said, I think, which was elused earlier as well, and maybe some kind of enforcement that goes along with the Muirburn code might be needed to be looked at by SNH or whatever. That suggests that the voluntary approach isn't working, that suggests that we do need to do something, whether it's licensing or whatever, that further action does need to be taken around some of these parts of the country. What I would say on that one is that if it's specific areas, then you're talking about, rather than a blanket across everybody, you target where you know the problem lies. If you know the problem lies in a particular area, then target that area. If you know it's in a particular glen, then go and target that particular glen. Does everybody need to get the road of iron if you know something's happening particularly somewhere? That's what the police would do. I'm quite certain that if the raptor perthigoshin group came across a particular incident involving a raptor, the police will go and investigate that particular area, they target it. Looking at the environmental benefits or disbenefits of intensive grouse management, Robbie Kerlmigan, how does the balance sit on this? Beneficial, non-beneficial ward? I think it's only fair to recognise that well-managed estates can provide huge environmental benefits. We know the benefits of pest and predator control for species which are of conservation concern. We know that the type of land management which takes place in our uplands, the burning, the managed grazing, does provide biodiversity benefit. Indeed, we have recognised that for a long time. We manage those habitats in that transitional phase, which is almost unique to Scotland and it is internationally recognised. There is biodiversity benefit from upland management and from the benefits of keepering. I suppose the question is at what point do we see those biodiversity benefits change when the intensification of land management begins to persist? That's not an easy question to answer. I suppose that going back to some of the questions about the existing legislative framework and the purpose of this work, when we were first commissioned to undertake a review of what happens in other European countries, it was very much with a recognition that the current framework in Scotland transposes the birds directive into the Wildlife and Country Act. That is the current framework in which we operate. What we try and do in operating that framework, we issue 3,000 licences a year under that act or various licensing regimes in Scotland about 300 licences a year. What we try and do is apply the principles of better regulation. We try to be targeted, we try to be proportionate and we try to be risk based. If there is any appetite for introducing any additional regulatory system, I suspect that that would be the principles that we would be trying to adhere to. That takes us on to Kate Forbes' questions. Great, thanks very much. We have obviously had quite a wide-reaching conversation about the current regulatory regime. I would like to ask what you think are the next steps in terms of regulating the crime that does happen? There have been various points made about that you can never have a perfect system because crime will always exist. Nevertheless, we presumably want to move forward to a state where raptors are increasing and there is no persecution. What are your views on the current regulatory regime? Where is it feeling? Where might we improve it? I think that Scotland is recognised as having good wildlife protection laws in general. The issue, as we heard earlier, is one of enforcement of those good laws that the Scottish Parliament has put in place. It was mentioned earlier that there is consideration given to the SSPCA in increasing its powers slightly over and above what it has now. We think that that would certainly help with some of the enforcement side. However, what we have also seen, and this SNH review has shown that, is that, in Scotland, we are unique in many senses that we do not have an effective game bird licensing system amongst the European countries that have been studied. Our focus and our concerns may mostly surround the driven grouse shooting issue and the intensification of management and the business model that involves the illegal killing of birds of prey. However, we recognise that it may not be possible to design a system that just focuses on that form of hunting and that it may have to go wider and, sadly, encompass all forms of game bird hunting. What we are suggesting is that a licensing system might be attached to a code that we have in other forms of natural resources management and statutory code, which clearly defines the public interest and what people that are managing the land need to adhere to. That would include things such as hair culling and mure burn and some of the other things that are being raised at this forum as public interest concerns. It is also worth noting that, in the report, the European Commission has called for well-regulated hunting and stipulated that the essential characteristics of sustainable hunting include hunting within the framework of a management plan, which we do not have, temporary and permanent no take zones, which we do not have, full compliance with the law, which we do not have, awareness raising and training both of hunters and environmentalists. We have that partially. We were hearing earlier, but in some countries they have formal tests that hunters have to go through to identify quarry species, for example. Willingness to assess impacts of hunting and adapt sustainable practices where problems are identified, which we do not have entirely. Collection of good quality data. Most countries have compulsory bag returns and the equivalents of SNH collect bag data, which informs and helps to set hunting quotas and identifies whether the species should be hunted or not. We do not have that in place either. We think that there is quite a bit of work to be done here, and the RSPB view is that all of the issues are best encapsulated in a formal licensing regime. We still have a significant raptor persecution issue. How do we address that? If not a licensing regime, then what more needs to be done? What else needs to be done? Within Europe we have a quite different style of hunting, as we talked about, whereby it is very much the individuals going out into the countryside, or a lot of it is on public land, which is why you have the licensing system that is aimed over there. The idea behind that is to make sure that the people who are going out there are hunting sustainably the species that they are going to hunt and that they do not overexploit it. In Scotland we have a very different model whereby people are coming to shoot the driven birds and that sort of thing. That in itself is well run by the industry. There are problems within raptor persecution, which has been working very strongly with the Paws working group. We have absolutely no issue at all with strengthening Paws. We are looking at how we can make that better, introducing regional Paws groups to get better relationships going on within the industry. I think that the regulatory framework that has been brought into place is working. It has made a marked difference to both compliance, understanding and education within the industry itself. However, there is still a lot of work to be done within that. I think that that is where Paws comes in. I also think that that is where the likes of Wildlife and State Scotland come in. We have just over a million acres now within Wildlife and State Scotland, which includes things such as management plans of game, et cetera, and modest game. It is way more than just a game species, but all the other species exist within the state. That should be further strengthened. We are trying to get the Government to provide more support for that, and we would very much encourage them to do so. It is about better practice, better education, getting out there and getting people to understand exactly what they need to be doing. One of the things that has to be considered is that the Paws State recommendation for tougher sentencing is undoubtedly going to help as well. If you know that you are going to go to jail to do something, you might have to think twice before you do something. That makes sense. The firearms legislation that we have talked about, perhaps linking wildlife crime in some way to an absolute, along the firearms guidelines, certainly the police will now take guns off people and take their licence and remove them. They may or certainly remove their guns, but they might not revoke their licence. They might have their licence, which is valid for five years, but they might not actually have their weapons to do that to do the job. That might be something that might be looked at in a way of trying to deter those individuals that go out there and still do things. We have already got the general licence that has been removed from a couple of places now—two or three places now—where the general licence has been removed from estates, and rightly so. That is another way, if you like, that you can be looked at. Enforcement officers, perhaps if you were, for example, some kind of SNH enforcement officer, could physically go on to the ground and check out what is happening, especially in those areas where they have already lost their general licence. Those are other things as well. I agree with Paul. Paul is another way of definitely moving things forward. From what I understand anyway, Paul Highland seems to be doing very well, and maybe that is something that needs to be rolled out throughout the rest of the country. Maurice Golden. Thanks, convener. We have heard a clear differential in terms of the standard of proof between a licensing regime and the current status quo. Beyond that, Duncan Orr Ewing gave a list there in terms of management plans, formal tests, assessments and data collections, none of which are predicated on a licensing system. I am interested in the panel's views, particularly around that list, but also around policing and enforcement, in terms of a differential between a licensing system and the current regime. For example, if you put in a licensing regime but still cannot police it effectively or catch any criminal activity or civil activity as it would be in a licensing regime, then you are no further forward. Clearly, if there is a criminal burden of proof, we have the laws in place and that should proceed through the normal procurator fiscal approach. If there is sufficient evidence, that should be heard in court. I do not think that we have any issue with that, but we have heard earlier that getting that evidence in the first place, given that a lot of the crimes involving wildlife, particularly bird of prey, occur in remote areas, and it is easy to conceal the evidence. We know that people are using new technology to try and conceal their activities. Use of thermal imaging gear and that kind of thing, which a lot of this activity is probably happening at night now, rather than during the day. People are not using techniques that are more easily discoverable, such as illegal poisoning. What we see is a licensing system sitting underneath that. We have the good laws that we have in Scotland for criminal burden of proof, but underneath we have a licensing system that works, as we have heard in relation to the open general licence. Licensing systems generally work on balance of probabilities. As Logan Steel was intimating, it would be a civil burden of proof that would apply. This would be a layered approach, so you would envisage that information would go to SNH from the police and then, on the balance of probabilities, they would weigh up the evidence to see whether it was sufficient to require the removal of a hunting licence or whatever system we have in place. We would like to see an inquiry that is set up by this committee that looks into this whole issue, designs a system that is appropriate for Scottish circumstances, involves all relevant stakeholders and designs a system that is workable in practice. That is the way we would look at it. That is purely on a standard of proof basis. I think that the points have been made both sides. I was interested to see whether there were other aspects of the licensing regime that had particular advantages over the current status quo. Raptor persecution provokes great passion. Do you accept that there would be a risk of estates being set up by individuals who were fired up about the subject of raptor persecution and that there would be a danger if the regime was not structured in such a way to protect that burden of proof element, that you could have estates, swine managers penalised when they were innocent? I accept that there is a risk, but I am not sure that there is any evidence that has come to court of people setting up estates in the way that you have described. Clearly, interfering with traps and the like is already a criminal offence. There are criminal offences in place to deal with some of these issues. If you have a licensing regime, is it possible that individuals might be more encouraged to behave in that way? I am speculating here. I suspect not. Clearly, if a licence, the ultimate sanction, would be to remove a licence from somebody who might ultimately result in them not being able to operate their business. We accept that that is a stringent sanction. The civil burden of proof that the police and SNH would consider, as they have done recently with the open general licences, has removed that on the basis of evidence that the police have given them. It would have to work in a similar way, I would suggest, so there would still be strong checks and balances in the system. Andy Smith wants to come back. I was quite surprised to hear Duncan saying that he was very surprised that people would not do it now when there is not a licensing system. Not coming to court is something very unusual as well. Yes, it might not have come to court, but they are certainly there. It has got to the stage in some places that there is that much damage to property or illegality that basically the police have almost said, look, there is nothing we can do about this. It actually works almost the same way in the raptor crime, because it is happening out in the country. A dog walker comes across a last-on-trap, lets a magp out of a last-on-trap and walks on. Nobody knows. There is a lot of illegality happening out there. I will recount a story, if I may, for you on that one. Two farmers in Middleton down in the Borders have lapwings, curlews on their border, they shoot, they do not have any no-driven birds there, they do not release any birds there, but they shoot what is underground. They are quite keen to see lapwings, curlews, what have you got about the place. Last year I got a phone call from them to say that the magpies have been released out of the last-on-traps. Magpies at this time of the year will predate on chicks and eggs, so they put the last-on-traps out. They try and catch the magpies, which they are allowed to do under the general licence. They basically cut a long story short because it is long. They put a camera on to this trap after it had been released by a dog walker twice. The police were involved in that. The wildlife officer went along to the women's house, but interestingly enough she actually reset the trap. She allowed the magpie out of the trap and she then reset the trap. The trap that we set with or the food stuff inside for the baited bird was rabbit. Had a buzzard gone into that trap, it would have been a completely different thing. Those guys could have lost their single farm payments as far as that, and that was just pure and simply on the individual actions of somebody that did not go to court. The police when they went along, I spoke to the wildlife cop later on, because it is a very great area. There is not a specific piece of legislation for releasing a call bird from a larson trap. There is plenty about larson traps, but the specific of releasing a bird when it is in there is not there. There is a lot going on already without a licensing system. Whether a licensing system would help that or not, I certainly do not think so, and we will then go on to our things. Mr Golden touched on the issue of policing. One of the reasons why we are where we are today is because of the difficulty in getting convictions and solving raptor crime. Can you hand on heart say that, as well as utterly condemning, as both of your organisations have this kind of activity, that your members are as proactively co-operative with the police when they are investigating those activities as they could be? We are. More recently—I will be corrected if I am wrong here—the latest ego that went missing, the keepers on the estate offer to help to look for that bird as well, and their offer was refused. That is the most recent case. I will expand on that. You have a satellite tag that went missing, and the investigation was rightly conducted, etc., and the estate was offering to help and show where the eagle was, where it believed it to be. It has subsequently been filmed. We do not know whether it is that eagle or not. Ideally, we want to work to find out what is going on there, but the co-operation, the level of trust within that, is poor. That reflects badly on trying to work the framework going forward. The other thing that I would say is that Duncan, a minute ago, made quite a lot of accusations about practices that are going on within the countryside, which are pretty strong. I do not recognise them. I think that that should be challenged from the point of view of your accusing our members of conducting all sorts of nefarious activity. If we are going to do this, we are going to get to the bottom of this, it has to be based on evidence. We have to get hard evidence of what is going on and make legislation and act according to that. Richard Lyle wants to come in. There is one point that I listened very intently to your points, and I can see where both are coming from. Can you also tell me about your related story? Can you also tell me about what involvement in the gap to raptor crime is poachers involved in? Is there any work? The only thing that is probably with regard to, and you are better asking some of the experts on the raptor, I would imagine that the only poaching thing I would be would probably egg thieves. It would be the only one that I could think about, rather than poachers. I do not think of it. That is affecting the eggs for some people, which is a declining issue. That is something that I thought no-one had mentioned yet. Okay, thanks. Mr Lyle, do you want to go on to a line of questions? If I can turn to Dr Shedden of the British Association of Shooting and Conservation argues in evidence to the Public Petitions Committee that the current regulations in Scotland are unusually stringent. In line with the findings that you are talking about, the Gamebird review, is Dr Shedden correct to state that the regulations in Scotland are unusually stringent? If they are, why would we need changes in the law? I do not think that he is correct to say that. We have heard reference several times here to firearms legislation. Firearms legislation is stringent in most of the 14 countries that have been reviewed here. What is different is that we do not have a formal licensing system for hunting of gamebirds in Scotland. That contrasts with most other forms of natural resources management that go on in Scotland—for deer management, for water, for wild fisheries. We have regulations in place. We have authorities that oversee the management of those natural resources. For example, in the case of water at SEPA, in the case of wild deer, it is SNH. The exception to the rule is gamebird hunting. We do not seem to have any licensing system that sets the standards to which people that hunt gamebirds in Scotland should adhere to. Apart from the voluntary ones that we heard of from the sector earlier on, we support voluntary codes, but we do not think that they are working. They are not doing enough to combat what we see, which is the real, hard-edged problem of the illegal killing of birds of prey and other unsustainable management practices that are currently going on on Grousemoors. Frankly, we think that they are getting worse. The problems are getting worse, not better. The Government statistics show that they are not getting worse, but we will argue back and forwards over that. I think that, to answer your question, which is a little bit, I mean, Duncan, you have already said that the regulatory framework is sufficient in place within this country. To answer your question specifically, I think that it is quite draconian within that. If you take vicarious liability, so if an employee of yours does not matter as a gamekeeper, it could be anybody out doing it, does not it, is convicted or charged of wildlife crime, then you as an employer are automatically in the line for vicarious liability. Whether that prosecution is taken forward or not, it depends on whether you have got the safeguards in place and you have clearly instructed that person to not do it. That is a matter for the crime prosecution to decide. Furthermore, there does not have to be a conviction of your employee for you to be charged with vicarious liability. From an owner's perspective, you very much now are exposed and you are there. Your head is on the line and you have to ensure that good practice is adhered to. Otherwise, you run the risk and it is you personally who is liable for it. We have got 14 countries who get different, looking at that, okay, we have got hunting in different history in Scotland, various the way that we have done it. But sitting here as an ordinary person, I am saying, you know, the regulations that we have in these different countries, can we not have a pick and mix and get together? Mr Steele said earlier on that when he went to talk to some of your members, they did not want to talk to him. We have suggestions of, bear with me, we have suggestions of instances where people are burning, destroying, doing things that they shouldn't be doing because you want to sustain your business, you want to improve the business allegedly. So why can't two parties, we have got basically three parties here who are all talking, you know, saying no, it's no me, it's not, I didn't do it. So why can't you all get together, sit down and design regulations in Mr Steele, you want a law but you haven't suggested what should be in the law, you know, you're basically saying, well, you're the lawyers, you go and construct it. If you're coming to say you want something, you've got to tell us what you want. But I can't see why you three organisations can't sit down and work out what needs to be done to sustain what I would suggest is a very important economic situation in Scotland in order to survive. I just say that in the start 40th year of monitoring raptors and we've been trying to negotiate and talk in reason with the shooting industry and if I could go back in a TARDIS to 40 years ago, we have the same discussion. We've tried and tried and tried to try and move away from this killing of raptors and that's what's brought us here today. So I know outside looking in it seemed a sensible thing to do but take it from me please, we've talked and talked and talked and it's got nowhere. I don't agree with you and the point is before we have to legislate you will have to sit down and he has a need, you have a need and you have a need. Why don't you get together and get a need that suits everyone? The short answer to that is that exactly what Paws has designed to do, to bring the parties together to understand exactly what is going on and to discuss and work out the issues and drive it forward. It has made a difference and that's what we need to strengthen. We're all for strengthening, we're looking at it, reviewing it, finding out where it can be improved, made better, no problem with that whatsoever. It will have crossed your mind that there may be a licensing regime brought forward. It's perhaps a slightly unfair question but I'll ask it anyway. Have you looked through the 14 countries and wondered about Dick Wiles' suggestion of a pick-and-mix, that you could pick things from various regimes and come up with a licensing regime that was robust, brought about improvement but also protected as states from potentially being set up? How best to answer that one? There's no doubt that what this review does is provide just a bit of clarity about how some of the birds directive is being interpreted and implemented in other member states. That's a really useful reference point for us in Scotland. As we've heard today, the situation in Scotland is culturally very different from other member states and, as is the regulatory framework, to pick up on Mr Wiles' point in Colin Sheddon's comments, we have the least regulated system in Europe. Now we can debate whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but the reality is that the state in terms of how it intervenes in hunting is not very well developed or pronounced in Scotland. We don't have the type of relationship with individual hunters or sporting businesses in terms of understanding the data that is being generated either in terms of sustainable harvest or data coming back. Now there are merits, there are pros and cons to each of these models and I think what this report does is just highlight that there is no silver bullet in terms of a licensing regime. If ministers have got an appetite for additional regulation in Scotland, of course the sensible thing to do would be to speak to all of those affected parties and come up with something that we think best reflects the needs and demands of Scotland in the 21st century. But it's not that long ago, whilst the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act is being consulted on in seeking to modernise game law, we did away with a licensing regime which required hunters to register. In terms of making sure that we've got legislation that is fit for purpose, we need to ensure that public interest is firmly driving that. In all of those case studies, I think, they rely on either that developed ethos of shared understanding and trust, which we have in Scotland to a certain extent because that's what general licences are based on. It's only when we lose that trust or confidence do we begin to exercise a more informed and more interventionist approach to regulation. I think that if we've got any appetite in Scotland then that's the type of direction we should be going. Confused, there does seem to be a general consensus that the legislation we've got in place is fit for purpose and we have a Government that is taking steps to put that legislation in place. It's not quite simply that we need the commitment from the Government to provide the resources to police that legislation. Full stop? Both. We have good legislation. At the moment, we have inadequate enforcement of that legislation. There is a proposal to give the Scottish SPCA more powers, which would certainly help, but even that is not going to be the silver bullet. Still, the evidential process is difficult to bring cases to court. What we are suggesting is that a licensing system sits under that. I mean, some court cases will proceed where the evidence is sufficient, but in the many cases where that criminal burden of proof is not available, then we need a process that sits underneath that and is complementary, such as a licensing system. We are not anti-gain bird hunting provided it's carried out sustainably, but what we feel the next step here would be an inquiry that actually looks into how a Scottish system of gain bird, sorry, licensing of gain bird hunting in Scotland might work in practice, involves all the key stakeholders, which include all the people that are sitting at this table today. We get a bespoke system that is appropriate for Scottish circumstances. I'm afraid the pause, which David Johnston alluded to, the pause system is focused on wildlife crime and improving the enforcement and detection and deterrence to wildlife crime. It is not constructed to look at this kind of licensing issue. It's also not considering some of the sustainability issues that we've talked about, sort of sustainable management of some of these moorland areas, which the SNH Scientific Advisory Committee review has looked into, and which are part of this equation and are perhaps best dealt with in some form of statutory code that sits alongside a licensing system, we would suggest. To ask—I read the SNH report and perhaps I've missed this—we know that, despite the presence of licensing regime in these countries, there is still a raptor persecution issue. Do you have figures that show whether the introduction of licensing regimes led to a decrease, an increase or no effect at all on raptor persecution in these countries? I think that, convener, even from the report itself, there will be an easier tale to tell based on which member states implemented which. I think that we've already referred to Spain already this morning, where there is quite a clear dilation between increased enforcement and fines, which has led to a reduction in raptor persecution, but I don't think we'll have that for all member states. The one thing that I would reinforce, again, the key to the excess of any licensing regime, whether it's in Scotland or in these member states, it does require a significant commitment to police them and enforce them. That's part of the problem that we have in Scotland, whether we operate within the current system or, indeed, look to introduce a new licensing regime, whether it's a civil burden of proof or a criminal burden of proof, there will still be a resource requirement to make sure that the system works. It would be a considerable resource requirement for SNH. I can't predict what a new system may or may not look like, but if the expectation is that SNH take on any additional licensing requirements, then, yes, there would be significant resource. I think that you've covered some of the areas that are convenient, but I'm going to ask SNH, really, in conclusion, what is your view about the environmental impact of a licensing system for driven grass shooting? Would that have positive environmental impacts or not? Well, depending on what system was implemented, Mark, I think that it's quite difficult to say categorically, yes or no. We are working within the existing legislative framework just now. That's what we're tasked with doing. We're trying to strengthen it where we can, and the examples of taking a better regulatory approach to general licensing is a step forward. We've got some confidence that we can operate in that civil burden of proof within the existing framework. The judicial review case, which came to court two weeks ago, demonstrated that we can restrict general licences and operate a much more informed licensing regime currently. However, that's just for managing commonplace, well-established activities in relation to control of corvids principally. Whether we have got an appetite or whether we see additional benefit from additional regulation of grassmere management, I don't have the answer to that. Something that you don't have a view on at this point, but would there be ways to bring regulations together, effectively to streamline and bring a regulatory process together into one place through a licensing regime? Could it simplify or would it complicate? There is no doubt that the existing World Life and Countryside Act would benefit from consolidation, in my view, because it has been amended so many times that in trying to police it and force it and take cases to court, the existing legislative framework is quite confused because it has been amended so many times. There may be benefit in consolidating World Life legislation, yes. Whether that includes any additional refinements to incorporate new codes or some of the existing best practice guides, I don't think that I've got a strong view on. What I can say is that we are working within the current system as effective as we can just now and some of the work, the proactive work, which is helping certainly through pause, through the Moorland forum, by developing principles of best practice on Moorland management and to mountain hair and to mureburn and to a whole host of things, is actually making progress. The question is, are we seeing that progress kind of pace and results that we might all like to see, even with legislative change? It takes time. I think that Kate Forbes mentioned earlier on, even vicarious liability is still relatively new, so it's a question of pace for me and whether or not we want to see continued acceleration of progress or not. For some clarity, is it the view of the sector, the industry, that a licensing regime could lead to a ban on driven grass moor shooting? Is that the view of the conservationists as well or is it about reforming and improving and reinforcing best practice? I don't know if it's absolutely necessary. Going back to what Ms Carson said, I think that we've got plenty in place just now that perhaps need better pleased. One thing we do have, just to go back to your thing, is that we're quite lucky in this country that we do have it. We've got the Crown Office and PF service, which are accountable and justifiable to the Scottish Government. They will look at all the evidence that's there, and that is one thing no matter what. It's an individual's right that you are innocent until proven guilty. Is your fear that a licensing regime could lead to a de facto ban because the bar would be so high for driven grass moor estates? To give a short answer, the answer is yes. Within some of the groups that are looking for changes, some of the motives are against the driven shooting of game. That's something that they would like to see achieved, which would have a great detrimental effect within it. I think that there is a risk within lowering the burden of proof as we started off in the first conversation that it would lead to the ceasing of driven shooting in Scotland. What's the other conservationist on that? To be clear, our policy is not to support a ban on driven grass shooting. Our policy is one of licensing of driven grass shooting. We see this process of one of both improving enforcement of public interest and improving the standards that apply as apply in other forms of natural resources management. Game bird shooting is very much the exception to the rule. Other forms of natural resources management are regulated. I refer to page 8 of the SNH report, which highlights the countries. We have licensing systems in place across 14 countries that have been studied in the report. On page 8, the countries with the most significant problem with the illegal killing of predatory birds included the UK and Spain. We certainly see a licensing system as helpful in setting the public interest, more clearly defining the standards that should apply to the management of driven grass shooting and helping to tackle some of the long-standing and intractable problems around bird of prey persecution. Just a final point on this, to say that the RSPB is not invested in the conflict resolution process heavily would be wider the mark. We have been involved in the Langham demonstration project, for example, for many years, which helped as one of its outputs to develop a mechanism of diversionary feeding of hen harriers, so to prevent hen harriers from predating red grass chicks, which was highlighted as an industry concern. We have a method now, which is highly successful and very effective, but are we seeing any of the driven grass sector actually using that technique? No, we're not. Some might disagree with that, but let's not go there. I'm conscious that a number of members have indicated to me an interest in particular questions. As I read it, I think that we've pretty much covered everything that we were going to, but I'll open to members. Has anyone got a final question that they want to ask or a number of final questions? Claudia Beamish. It's possible to hear from Logan Steele if there was any comment on the evidence that you've heard in this second session. If you wanted to make any comment on it as a petitioner. I don't think that either has been said by myself this morning or just now. I thank everyone for giving evidence today. It's been very useful and informed on our thinking. As agreed earlier, I also thank the witnesses for their attendance. As agreed earlier, we'll now move into private session, and I ask that the public gallery be cleared as the public part of the meeting is closed.