Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Official Report 659KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2019 (SSI 2019/64)

Welcome back to the 10th meeting in 2019 of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee.

The third item on our agenda is evidence on the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2019. I welcome Roseanna Cunningham, who is the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform; Hugh Dignon, who is the head of wildlife and biodiversity at the Scottish Government; and Lindsay Anderson, who is a solicitor for the Scottish Government.

As members will be aware, at last week’s meeting John Scott indicated his intention to lodge a motion recommending that the regulations be annulled, which he has done. Before we hear from the cabinet secretary and her officials, I offer John the opportunity to speak to his motion.

I will be brief. I declare an interest as a farmer and landowner, although one who is currently not affected by beaver release.

The background to my lodging a motion to annul the species introduction regulations is that an illegal release of beavers into the Tay catchment area is leading to the European beaver becoming a protected species. That species introduction will, potentially, cause damage to farmland and property, which will inflict a cost burden on farmers and riparian owners. In addition, it will put property and bridge infrastructure, as well as land and property other than farmland, at flooding risk. The introduction will also potentially damage wild salmon breeding patterns and reduce salmon populations in some of our most famous salmon rivers. Above all, it will make food production from agricultural land in Scotland more difficult and expensive. It has all been done without any debate in the Scottish Parliament, with the exception of a member’s business debate in 2005.

11:30  

We now move to the question-and-answer session. Members should indicate that they would like to ask a question and to whom it is directed—the cabinet secretary and her officials, or John Scott. I invite John Scott to ask the first question.

What estimates have been made of the costs of beaver introduction for farmers and riparian owners?

It would be very difficult to make specific cost estimates. There are some areas in Scotland where the impacts are greater than others, so it would be very difficult for us to make a cost estimate across the whole of Scotland. We are very conscious of the impacts of beavers on what we have designated as prime agricultural land. That designation, in the context of the statutory instrument, is specifically to deal with those impacts. The reason for the long delay, between my original announcement in 2016 that we were going to proceed and the instrument’s introduction, was that we were having conversations and trying to work out how best to mitigate the undoubted impacts that beavers have.

I need to correct John Scott’s assertion that the instrument is the result of the release of beavers in Strathtay. The fact is that had it not been for the release of the beavers in Strathtay, it is probable that the SSI would have been presented to Parliament some considerable time ago. Far from triggering the introduction of the regulations, the release of the beavers in Strathtay and the issues around that has delayed them.

Do you mean that, notwithstanding the experimental basis of the release, it was always your intention to release beavers?

Is that what I just said? I do not believe that it is.

I think that it is what you said.

There was a formal trial. I make the point that discussions about the reintroduction of beavers date as far back as 1998, when Scottish Natural Heritage first carried out a consultation across Scotland on the issue. The five-year trial that was embarked on in Knapdale in Argyll, which was the formal Government-led trial, was begun on 29 May 2009, when release of three beaver families took place. The five-year trial lasted until 2014.

We took considerable time to think about the situation because, simultaneously, there had been either accidental or deliberate illegal release of beavers in the Tay area, which complicated the debate. The formal trial finished in 2014, and at the end of 2016 I came to the view that given the formal trial results and the increasing number of beavers in the Strathtay area, the appropriate thing to do was to seek to formalise the situation. As I indicated, had we been dealing with only the Knapdale beavers, it is likely that the SSI would have been something of a formality.

I have been criticised from many quarters for taking such a long time to proceed with the instrument. However, that was absolutely necessary in order to allow the continued conversation and consultation over the intervening period between the end of 2016, when I made the announcement, and February 2019, when I laid the instrument.

I have two questions for John Scott, the first of which is very simple. Has he actually read the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994, which are being amended?

No.

In that case, I draw the member’s attention to the effect of adding the beavers to schedule 2 of the 1994 regulations. I particularly direct his attention to regulation 39, which covers

“Protection of wild animals of European protected status”.

That is conferred on beavers by the instrument that is before us. Regulation 39(2) reads:

“It is an offence to keep, transport, sell or exchange, or offer for sale or exchange, any live or dead wild animal of a European protected species, or any part”.

The effect is that, if beavers had been added to the list earlier—we have heard that the addition was delayed by the criminal introduction of beavers in Tayside—the people who have the beavers would have been prevented from being able to

“keep, transport, sell or exchange”

them in the first place. Therefore, the Tayside release would not have happened. The effect of adding beavers to the list in schedule 2 of the 1994 regulations, which are being amended, would have been to prevent the people concerned from being able to have the beavers, which—depending on one’s interpretation—either escaped accidentally or, as I suspect is more likely, were deliberately placed. Adding the species to schedule 2 of the 1994 regulations will serve the purpose that John Scott and farmers across Scotland want.

John Scott is right to bring the issue up. I want to make it clear that I am trying not to distort what he is trying to do but to draw us back to the piece of legislation that we are amending and to say that it would be good for us to actually read and understand the amendment’s legal effect. I hope that John will acknowledge that.

It is also worth saying that Salmo salar, which is salmon, is included in schedule 3 of the 1994 regulations. Without having read it in detail, I believe that there is scope for that species’s protection.

Thank you for the question. I have not read the regulations that are being amended, because the intention is perfectly clear.

However, the Tayside release, which you helpfully note was a criminal release in the first place, was not properly dealt with at the time. Had it been dealt with, perhaps the cabinet secretary would have been able to lay regulations earlier. However, the people who knowingly and criminally broke the law at that time would not necessarily have been deterred simply by knowing that they were breaking the law, because it was clear that they were already breaking the law in that illegal release. The fact that, under the law, they would not have been able to keep or access beavers would not necessarily have been a deterrent. The problem is that the Scottish Government did not deal with that illegal release at the time.

I have more questions, but other members may have some.

Does the Government wish to respond to that?

I will make the point that it is simply wrong to say that the Scottish Government did not deal with the illegal release at the time. Over a number of years, real attempts were made to capture and remove beavers from the Tayside area.

I was the minster with responsibility for the environment between 2009 and 2011, and I distinctly remember that, over that two-year period, the matter was a consistent part of the conversations that I had with SNH as we attempted to reduce the numbers. Unfortunately, it was quite clear that, by that point, there were already too many beavers for that to be easily done.

In the circumstances, I am not at all clear what John Scott’s efforts today could achieve. I note that Maurice Golden, who is the Tory shadow environment spokesperson, takes the view that beavers “must be ... removed” from the Tay area. I do not know how he imagines that to be possible.

Regardless of what happens today, there will continue to be a significant and growing beaver population in Strathtay. We are trying to put in place proper formal management of that, which has not been the case until now, pending the SSI.

Stewart Stevenson made the assertion that, had measures already been in place for control and for listing among protected species of beavers, it might have been easier for the Government to convict the perpetrators—the people who released the beavers. Will you clarify that?

I will not step in and give a legal opinion that I am not qualified to provide. We have a Government lawyer here, who might wish to do that.

I have been careful to say that we cannot be certain what the basis of the release was. Was it accidental, negligent or deliberate? I do not know, and that was the fundamental point at the time: nobody could know. Although people think that they know where the beavers came from, nobody actually knows, which is a fundamental issue that has been a problem from that time.

I am not sure for how long the beavers had been released before people realised that they were there. Folk need to remember that they are largely nocturnal and are not particularly easy to see unless there are large numbers of them. They could have been living in the area for some time before it became apparent that there was a problem.

Hugh Dignon was in the Scottish Government at that time—I do not know whether he can recall at what point it was first flagged up that there were beavers in the wild in an area in which there should not have been beavers.

I remember that the first reliable reports that we received came after we released the animals in Knapdale.

That was in about 2009.

Yes. There were some reports before then, but they were not confirmed. We started getting confirmed reports after 2009.

The instrument is designed to manage beavers. My understanding is that annulment of it would not mean that beavers had to be removed.

No, but I was quoting directly from what sounds like a misunderstanding of what an annulment would achieve. The quote from Maurice Golden that was in the newspaper the day after last week’s committee meeting was that beavers

“must be immediately removed.”

I am sorry but, in practical terms, that is now an astonishing expectation, unless it is seriously being mooted that we send out kill squads of people to remove them. I do not understand why the misunderstanding exists that not passing this SSI would lead to removal of the beavers. It would not.

My first question is for Mr Scott. Is Mr Scott aware of the position of Scottish Land & Estates, which represents landowners in Scotland? Scottish Land & Estates has written to me to say that its position remains that beavers should be given European protected species status and that it is confident that

“the proposed management framework”

in the instrument

“is both practical and adaptable and provides a range of suitable management options and tools ... our focus will now return to the framework’s implementation, ensuring it works for all land managers.”

Is Mr Scott aware of that support for the instrument from landowners?

11:45  

I am aware of the position of Scottish Land & Estates. It is not a view that I share, and I believe that it is not a view that the majority of landowners share. Notwithstanding the position of Scottish Land & Estates on the matter, most landowners would prefer that the beavers were not there and that they had not been introduced in the first place.

Are you saying that the position of Scottish Land & Estates is not representative of landowners’ views on the matter?

I regret to say so, but yes.

Thanks for that.

I will turn to a question for the cabinet secretary. We have already talked this morning about the planned reintroduction at Knapdale under controlled circumstances and about the situation and the challenges that emerged in Tayside. What is the Scottish Government’s vision for beavers in Scotland? Is it about containing the animals where they currently exist, or is it about facilitating or allowing their spread to other areas of Scotland, where they can bring tremendous benefits to our environment, as well as some practical management challenges? I think that it was pointed out in the previous evidence session that beavers are already spreading—they are now in the Forth valley and in a range of different areas—so I am interested to know what the Government’s vision is. Is it about containment or is it about facilitation?

I have previously made the Government’s position clear, but I will restate it. We now anticipate that beavers will simply be allowed to spread naturally. We will not be attempting to formally contain them in certain areas, but neither will we be particularly incentivising them to spread further, and we will certainly not tolerate pop-up beaver populations in completely separate areas of Scotland. In our view, now that the beavers are here, they must be left to simply spread into a natural range—that is the best way for matters to proceed.

Twenty other countries in the world have reintroduced beavers and I am sure that Scotland cannot be the only country where that cannot be done successfully. I do not want to downplay the impacts either, because it does not do us any service to pretend that there are not significant impacts, some of which will be on land management and some of which [may be biodiversity impacts. It is not always an absolute, 100 per cent given that, even in a biodiversity sense, there will not be some impacts. There can be a tendency for people to overromanticise the issue. I see references to the creation of gently stilling pools and so on, which is fine, unless you are standing in a field where a beaver has built a dam in a field drain and that productive field, which is meant to be getting ploughed, is being flooded as a result. That is a pretty big impact and we wish to help land managers to manage such things.

It does not do anybody any service to downplay the impacts, but neither does it do anybody any service to imagine that we can somehow remove animals that are already living here and are now part of our landscape and biodiversity, which a Government has chosen to reintroduce. I would be very glad if Scotland were to be the 21st country to successfully reintroduce the beaver—I certainly hope that we will be successful.

Other members have questions, but I will come back to Mark Ruskell if we have time.

I have two other questions, so I would like to come back in.

My Conservative colleague and I strive for the highest standards in animal welfare, whether that relates to domestic animals, farm animals or wild animals. I am aware that the sequence of events stems from 2016, when beavers were given protected status—

No. Beavers do not have protected status at the moment. That is the point. In 2016, I announced that I was intending to give them protected status, but it has taken us more than two years to get here, because we have had to deal with some of the issues that arose.

My apologies. The sequence of events started in 2016 and we are now at the point of giving beavers protected status. We are very concerned about animal welfare, just as Scottish Land & Estates and NFU Scotland are, so I welcome those parts of the framework that ensure animal welfare. No one wants any animal to suffer or be shot without due consideration for animal welfare.

However, I welcome John Scott’s intervention in the debate, because it highlights some of the issues that remain around giving the animals protected status. I am disappointed that more work has not been done on mitigation or the compensation of landowners who could suffer as a consequence of the natural expansion of beavers. There appears to be an assumption that farmland other than farmland of the highest quality could be lost to beavers yet there is no clarity on the compensation. At our last evidence session, I asked questions about public good for public money, which is a concept that most landowners buy into, but there was no clear direction of travel or policy on how that would be rolled out in the future.

What compensation will there be for farmers and landowners where the natural progression of the beaver colonies reduces those people’s ability to make a living?

We are working closely with farmers to ensure that they can manage land and put in mitigation measures early so that the consequences suggested by Finlay Carson do not arise. SNH is engaging closely with the farmers who are at the sharp end of this right now on the work that needs to be done. Farmers have to manage a range of issues. At the moment, we are not considering financial compensation; we are getting alongside farmers on management of the issue to ensure that they are equipped with the tools necessary to prevent beavers from having maximum negative impact and to manage the impact of beavers in those areas that we have called prime agricultural land.

We are not designating Strathtay as the only area of prime agricultural land in Scotland, but it happens to be the epicentre of the maximum number of active beavers.

There is no question of other bits of Scotland other than prime agricultural land not having access to the same licensing and management arrangements. Exactly the same considerations and arrangements will be available to farmers or any other land managers everywhere. The only difference is that on the prime agricultural land of Tayside, SNH has made some arrangements to recognise that it already well understands the issues and that those arguments do not need to be replicated for every licence application. The same consideration of licences will be available to farmers anywhere in Scotland, should they need them.

Good morning. I am very pleased to see these iconic animals back in the countryside and Scottish Labour is happy to support adding them to the list of protected species under the 1994 regulations.

There has been a bit of discussion this morning about the negative impacts of beavers, but the cabinet secretary will be aware that, since their reintroduction, beavers have contributed to the public good in a number of ways. I understand that one of those is in the soil quality in the areas that they inhabit. Can you or your officials comment on that?

We may not be quite prepared to comment on very specific benefits.

Perhaps you can speak about the positive impacts more generally.

It is important that we take a balanced view of the issue. For obvious reasons, most of the focus in this session is on negative impacts, because that is the nature of the discussion. I prefer to talk about challenging impacts. The challenges go beyond the impacts on productive land; they are also about tunnelling under riverbanks and so on. There are issues that need to be addressed, but there are also enormous benefits, as we are all well aware. The point of the reintroduction trial in the first place was to provide biodiversity benefits over and above the reintroduction of the animal itself. That was the purpose of the entire trial project and of the process that SNH began with the consultation in 1998. Given that it has been debated in Scotland since that time, we have not rushed to any judgment on the issue.

I have a question for my colleague John Scott that follows up one from Mark Ruskell. What evidence do you have to lead you to consider that landowners are against the SSI, and how has that evidence been gathered?

I have visited some of the landowners involved. Also, as a farmer, I know just how difficult it is to work on riverbanks, either by hand or with heavy equipment. I know how dangerous it is, and because of a lifetime’s experience in farming, I know that the reintroduction of beavers will lead to a significant amount of additional work and checking of rivers, burns and streams in affected areas. That will have to be done on a very regular basis, because any dam that is there for longer than a fortnight cannot be removed. Therefore, if farmers want to remove a dam in their own best interests, they will have to check those river courses at least once a week. Farming is in an industry that in many cases is under extreme pressure to produce food at below the cost of production—as the TIFF figures testify, and as the member and the cabinet secretary are well aware. What we are discussing is an additional cost burden that would be inflicted on those food producers in Scotland, and I have spoken to enough of them myself—I do not think that you would expect me to name names—to know that that is very much their point of view. Several press articles, which the member may or may not be aware of, concur with what I am saying.

I will quickly follow up on that point and touch on one made by Finlay Carson. I understand from the cabinet secretary that it is not the case at the moment, but if there were some financial recognition of the need for additional work by land managers and farmers in areas where beavers have been found, would you reconsider your opposition to the SSI?

12:00  

That should be the case, but it will be a matter for the agriculture bill that the cabinet secretary, Fergus Ewing, will introduce in due course to show how to support farmers through public good payments. I hope that that will be part of the consideration of the public good requirement that has been inflicted on farmers.

To answer the rest of your question about whether that would encourage me to drop my opposition to the introduction of the SSI, I regret to say that it would not. I am firmly of the view that, even if farmers are compensated under an agricultural support scheme, I very much doubt that it will get anywhere close to the real costs of, for example, having to clear dams with track diggers in burns or rivers. It costs thousands of pounds to do that. Farmers will be between a rock and a hard place with their insurance if they do not do that. If they do not do it, it may subsequently cause other areas downstream to flood, because beaver dams get washed away in once-in-20-year, once-in-30-year and once-in-40-year floods. That could block bridges.

Where does all that stop? I am immensely concerned about the implications, as I will say when I move the motion in my name in the debate.

I want to clarify something about dam removal. Dams can be removed for up to a fortnight with no costs. Farmers do not have to refer to anybody or ask anyone’s permission. They can remove a dam that they see being built. If the dam is there for longer than a fortnight, it can still be removed, but the farmers have to ask for and ensure that they have permission to do so. It is not true that farmers cannot remove a dam after it has been there for two weeks. They can remove such a dam; the difference is that they would need permission. They can remove dams that are in the early stages up to 14 days.

I will add one point to what the cabinet secretary said. Some dams will never need a licence or permission to be removed. The only dam that will need a licence to be removed is what is known as a natal dam, or one that is protecting a breeding place. Beavers make dams for any number of reasons and all other dams can be removed without any need for a licence at any time.

Nevertheless, the cost will still fall on the farmer and the person who does the work to remove the dam. What estimate has been made of the cost to SNH and the Scottish Government of mitigation of beaver damage, and will new additional funding be given to SNH for that?

Please speak through the chair, Mr Scott.

Forgive me.

SNH will manage the cost. It has worked closely with landowners on the costs and they will be managed within SNH’s budget. I continue to remind members that SNH’s initial consultation was done in 1998, so SNH has been planning for and working on this for a long time.

Mr Scott, I will come back to you, but other members want to ask questions.

If I recall correctly, when we took evidence on the matter previously, possibly from Hugh Dignon, it was said that there are approximately 500 beavers in the Tayside region. We have also heard that they are moving into the Forth Valley area. As I understand it, and as we have heard today, the SSI is not about whether beavers remain in Scotland; they are already here so annulling the SSI will not remove them. Does John Scott acknowledge that?

Does John Scott further agree that it would be good for animal welfare to have a licence condition that states that anyone who carries out lethal control of beavers should have undergone training in humane dispatch best practice?

Yes, I fully accept the second point—that those who will be charged under licence with culling beavers should be properly trained marksmen.

On the first point, if the instrument were annulled, beavers would almost inevitably continue to prosper as a species, given—as Angus MacDonald rightly points out—that the most recent estimates show that there are now some 500 of them in the catchment areas, despite the fact that they have not been protected. The species is thriving enormously. The initial projections—if my memory serves me correctly—are that their numbers will reach something approaching 700 by 2042 or thereabouts. That would suggest that they are thriving way beyond the expectations in 1998, when SNH first proposed their introduction.

I am not the only one who finds the role of SNH in the matter odd. When beavers were discussed in 2005, Fergus Ewing, now our esteemed cabinet secretary, said that he thought that SNH was conflicted in being the body to judge whether or not beavers should be introduced, yet it is now charged with bringing forward, supporting and enforcing the regulations. I am not certain where that leaves questions around a legal challenge, but perhaps someone else would like to talk about that.

I thank Mr MacDonald for his questions.

I have a key question for you. If you can distil it for us, what do you think that your proposal to annul will achieve in the management of beavers in Scotland?

That is a good question. Without the instrument and related legislation being in place, beavers have gone from strength to strength, despite the current efforts of landowners to reduce their spread. Therefore, the status quo, which has existed by force of circumstance, should continue.

You are asking Parliament to annul the SSI. What will that do to manage the existing population?

The SSI offers beavers a level of protection and, given that they will become a protected species, the opportunity to expand their numbers even more.

Good.

I hear Mark Ruskell saying “good”. That is his point of view, but it is not mine. Beavers are already causing more than enough damage in the areas into which they have been illegally introduced. Nobody questions the fact that they will spread, and they will do damage wherever they go, putting cost burdens on those who have to deal with that damage.

We have about 10 minutes left for this part of the meeting, Mr Scott. I think that you wanted to ask the cabinet secretary some other questions.

Thank you, convener.

What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact on public liability insurance costs for landowners and riparian owners where beaver populations exist or are expected to exist?

I do not have an answer to that at the moment. I can ensure that we write to John Scott with the details, but that issue has not been a factor in our decision-making process.

What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact of beaver populations on land that is classified as non-prime agricultural land?

The classification that we are discussing is prime agricultural land, and the issue is simply about the ability of landowners in pressured situations to fast-track some management procedures. As Hugh Dignon has indicated, management procedures will be available to everyone, regardless of the category of land that they are on. There is an interesting discussion about the extent to which beavers might move into areas that are less favourable, but, at this stage, it is hard to say whether that will be the case.

Has the Scottish Government looked at zoning, as practised in Norway, the Netherlands and Germany, during its consideration of how best to introduce European beavers into Scotland?

I am not aware of what the zoning procedures in those three countries involve. Our original decision to put beavers into Knapdale rather than areas such as Strathtay indicates that we are very conscious that there are some parts of the country where it would not necessarily be helpful to trial beavers. I do not think that we thought of that formally as zoning. At the time, we anticipated that the badger population in Knapdale would be the one that we would gradually begin to grow. As I indicated, our intention is simply to allow beavers to increase their range naturally. We have not looked at the potential for zoning, unless we count the designation of prime agricultural land as a kind of zoning, but that is perhaps not the zoning that John Scott is thinking of. We have designated areas in which we expect owners to be able to fast-track management procedures, whereas that might not be the case for landowners in the Knapdale area, for example.

Given that the introduction of beavers is a hugely significant event in rural Scotland, why has there been no Government debate on the subject in Parliament since 2005? Even the debate in 2005 was a members’ business debate.

I cannot speak about the period between 2005 and 2007, because we were not in government.

The issue of beavers has come up pretty regularly in questions and in wider debates that have not focused on one animal. I say this without any reference to parliamentary business or the Parliamentary Bureau but, had we tried to hold a debate on one specific animal, I do not know whether that request would have been looked on particularly favourably. We have had debates about biodiversity, and the issue of beavers was part of that discussion. We have had debates about land management, during which issues about beavers could be raised. It would not have occurred to me to ask for a debate about one specific animal. Beavers are important. As well as presenting challenges, they can have significantly good impacts. They are part of a much bigger debate about biodiversity, and that is the debate that Parliament should be having.

Finally—

In the gentlest possible terms, I need to say to the member, whom I have now known for a very long time, that at no point have I received any formal representations from other parties about beaver management. There has been no indication directly to me that there would be any consideration such as that which he has brought to the committee. It might have been helpful to have had an opportunity for discussion before this, so that some of the specific things that John Scott is concerned about could have been talked through directly with him.

12:15  

One of the consequences of our not having a management regime in place is that there has been a free-for-all around beaver control, particularly in Tayside. As a result, there have been animal welfare abuses, with pregnant animals—and probably kits, as well—being shot.

In a previous evidence session, we talked about the certainty of having a close season, in which the lethal control of animals is not allowed. We sought clarity from SNH on the transparency of the licensing regime, so that we can know exactly what is happening on the ground at certain times of the year. I am broadly content with what came back. However, it would be useful if the data on licensing actions, including lethal control, could be broken down on a quarterly basis, so that we can know what happens during the period when beavers are pregnant or looking after their young. Will there be quarterly data?

I will feed back your question about whether SNH will gather the information on a quarterly basis. The close season is April to August. It might be instructive to look at what SNH’s figures show, but of course that information will not be particularly meaningful for a year or two—I hope that you accept that.

What steps do you intend to take to ensure that everyone who has an interest is able to contribute to the process of finalising the management framework? Is there a proposed timescale in that regard?

The management framework has been published on the SNH website, but we continue to have conversations. One of the most important groups in that respect is the Scottish beaver forum, which comprises 13 or 14 different interest groups and which, for us, will continue to be the primary point of discussion as we go into a future in which—I hope—beavers are a protected species.

We anticipate that there will be a need to continue tweaking and reconsidering some aspects—I do not think that anyone would anticipate otherwise. SNH itself accepts that. That is why dialogue must continue.

The final question is from Finlay Carson.

I am looking for a simple yes or no answer, just to get this on the record.

Ha! [Laughter.]

Do you support fully compensating landowners, through land management contracts or in the spirit of public good for public money, given the Government’s desire to see the natural expansion of beaver colonies?

At the moment, that is not what we are discussing; we are discussing management, mitigation and how we equip farmers with the necessary tools and knowledge so that we do not get to a point at which that is necessary.

Thank you.

I invite John Scott to speak to and move motion S5M-16304.

I thank the convener for allowing me to speak and the cabinet secretary and her officials for attending. I declare an interest as a farmer.

Let me give some of the reasons why I am seeking to annul this negative instrument. My concern is, first, that the Scottish Government is seeking today to achieve protection for beavers as a result of an illegal act—the illegal introduction of beavers into the Tay catchment area.

At the time, the Scottish Government chose not to remove beavers from the Tay catchment. That population of beavers is expanding rapidly. In 2012, it was estimated that there were around 146 individual beavers, and modelling predicted that the population would expand to a mean of 771 beavers in 160 families by 2042, assuming no human interference. In 2018, the estimate was that the population had already grown to 550 in just six years—that is without protection. The population has continued to grow since 2018. Illegally released beaver numbers are growing very rapidly even without protection. The statutory instrument will offer the beaver population protection, allowing it to grow even more rapidly.

The costs of that are many and various, and include the costs of removal of beaver dams and of repairing riverbanks and field drains. An article in The Courier in 2018 estimated the cost of repair of riverbanks at about £2,000 to £3,000 per repair, with the estimated cost of dam removal to be about £200. However, as the cabinet secretary said, the cost to farmers and landowners of such damage will vary from incident to incident.

In addition, there will be costs to local authorities. The Courier reported that it was expected that Angus Council would have to seek additional funds from the Scottish Government to protect roads such as the A90. Beaver felling of trees reported in the Kingoldrum area has already created unexpected hazards where roads are close to beaver breeding grounds. Trees felled into rivers and the creation of dams will not just put at risk food production on agricultural land, but create local flooding risk in the Tay and Earn catchment area and further afield, as beavers spread naturally—as they will—enjoying the protection of the Scottish Government as they go.

For example, residents of Pitlochry were aware of beaver attempts to build a dam in the mill pond in 2016, with wood and debris removed daily by nearby hotel staff. That demonstrates that constant monitoring and removal of wood, branches and dams are required. In areas affected by beavers, riverbanks will now have to be inspected weekly, if not more regularly, and debris removed on a similarly regular basis. All of that costs time and money for those living in affected areas and trying to make a living in those areas.

For dam removal requiring in-river work, controlled activities regulations licences will be required, at a cost of some thousands of pounds for the granting of the licences, never mind the potential costs of putting a track digger into a river to remove trees and branches that are too large to remove by hand.

The cost of insurance for farmers and landowners of land that is likely to flood will rise because of beaver activity. The potential impact of unremoved dams, which, when breaking up or dislodging in massive floods, can cause further damage downstream, such as blocking bridges, means that public liability insurance is likely to become a problem for river owners and landowners. Carefully planned natural flood management prevention schemes will be put at risk by the unmanaged and uncontrolled activities of beavers, and the risk of flooding in places such as Perth will become greater if the instrument is not annulled.

Finally, it is my view that fishing interests will also be affected by beaver introduction. Spawning upstream is likely to become much more difficult for hen salmon seeking to access their traditional spawning grounds, which will damage salmon fishing interests in the long term. As we all know, sustainable wild salmon fishing is under significant pressure across Scotland and introducing physical barriers to spawning grounds, as well as a new predator of salmon, can only make a difficult situation worse. Now is not the time to be introducing beavers into Scotland and affording them protection.

I move,

That the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee recommends that the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2019 (SSI 2019/64) be annulled.

I will not speak at great length. John Scott was perfectly correct to seek to address the effect of beavers on land management. There is nothing whatever wrong with his doing that. Just as he is, I am concerned about the effect that the illegal introduction of beavers has had on some areas. He concluded his remarks by saying that now is not the time to introduce beavers. Unfortunately, however, they are here, so we need to manage the consequences.

John Scott talked at great length about how successful beavers have been without the proposal that is before the committee today but said relatively little about how the situation would be different if we were to annul the instrument.

In my questioning, I established that John Scott has not read the 1994 regulations that are being amended—I understand why he would not do so; they are 61 pages long—so I would like to highlight a couple of points from them in relation to the granting of licences to manage the impact of species. Regulation 44(e) says that the grounds that may be used in that regard involve

“preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment”.

In other words, if economic interests are damaged, it is perfectly proper that licences be granted to deal with that.

Further, regulation 44(g) says that licenses can be granted for the purposes of

“preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries.”

In other words, all the issues that John Scott mentioned in his remarks are issues that suspend, under licence, the protection that the order will give under regulation 39, with reference to schedule 2.

I say, very gently, that it is always worth reading the legislation—I almost always do—because it tells you things that you will not get anywhere else.

Without the amendment order, beavers have gone from strength to strength. With the order, they can continue to do so—I wish them every success—but they will do so within a legislative framework that properly protects them while striking a balance with economic and agricultural interests that need to be protected through issuing of licences to deal with problems that arise. Therefore, I will not be able to support the motion that John Scott will move.

I, too, will be unable to support the motion that John Scott has had us consider today.

This has been an interesting debate. I speak in support of the protection of the species. As Stewart Stevenson said, beavers are here. It is important that management and mitigation arrangements are formally developed in an inclusive way as we progress, and that the criteria for licences to kill should be revisited once there has been time to establish how matters are developing. I will follow developments with care. I hope that the cabinet secretary will agree to update the committee, if we are where I hope we will be after the vote.

It is no surprise that I will not support the motion to annul, either. Having said that, I put on record the fact that I am not insensitive to some of the challenges that are being faced by farmers, in particular in arable farming areas of Perthshire. I have visited a number of farms there and have seen some of the challenges that farmers face through having active beaver populations on their farms.

However, I have also seen the other side of the coin: for example, extensive wetland creation on an estate in Highland Perthshire, where a contained population of beavers has been working for many years. I do not think that we can ignore those benefits, if they are delivered in a controlled way in the right places.

We are failing on our biodiversity targets. Wetlands are hugely important, not only for retention of water but for the creation of more complex biodiverse ecosystems. We are signed up to international conventions to deliver that, so there is a potential win-win for farmers and land managers in delivering those public benefits. In many ways, I cannot see a more iconic animal for this age of climate change than the beaver. If they are properly managed and in the right place, they make a valuable contribution.

12:30  

However, it is clear that there is much to learn. We need to educate people about the benefits of well-managed beaver populations and about the management issues, and we need to create the right incentives. Finlay Carson pointed to the need for that. It is not just about compensation for damage; it is about active management and looking at where we can incorporate some of the amazing public goods that beavers deliver into our agricultural subsidy system. The same goes for flood management.

We have seen the benefits in tourism, as well. Introduction of beavers is a popular move that the Government is getting behind. I am aware of one local paper in Perthshire—the Blairgowrie Advertiser—that has run an active campaign for many years to protect beavers in that area.

Notwithstanding the concerns about active management, we can get behind the process. I close with this point: we must ensure that the new management regime that is being put in place does not create animal welfare challenges. It permits lethal control of beavers, so we need to maintain close scrutiny of it. I have heard what the cabinet secretary has offered today. There will be further discussions with SNH on transparency in licensing. I would like to look over the Official Report of the meeting to get certainty on that, because we have seen an animal welfare crisis in relation to the Tayside situation, which I am concerned about. I want to see an end to that. Lethal control is absolutely the last resort and it must be done in a controlled and transparent way.

Would the cabinet secretary like to speak to the motion?

I will not speak in favour of the motion and I hope that the committee will not vote for the motion. Mark Ruskell raised an important point about international conventions. The SSI brings us into compliance with the EU habitats directive. I have been keen to ensure that we will—notwithstanding the B-word—continue to accept and carry out all our duties and responsibilities, as we have done up to now.

I remind John Scott that the beavers are here now; this is not about reintroducing them. That stable door has long been open and the horse has gone. Beavers are here.

The SSI has not been triggered because of illegally released beavers: I do not know how often I have to say it. If anything, the SSI has been delayed because of the illegally released beavers. If we had not had that Strathtay beaver population, I expect that the SSI would have been dealt with fairly quickly and with no particular controversy.

I listened with interest to John Scott’s somewhat apocalyptic vision of the impact of beavers. I do not accept that apocalyptic vision. Even by his own admission, if the SSI is not passed today, none of what he believes to be happening would change, so I do not understand what the point of not passing the SSI would be. I do not buy into his vision, but even if it were true in every single jot and iota, not passing the SSI would change none of it. That, to me, is the remarkable thing about the current discussion.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. Would John Scott like to make any closing remarks before we go to a vote?

I welcome the debate and thank members for their contributions. I thank Stewart Stevenson for his support for my approach to raising the matter, if not for seeking annulment of the instrument.

I thank Claudia Beamish for her contribution and note that neither she nor Mark Ruskell will support my motion to annul the instrument. I note Mark Ruskell’s point that beavers support biodiversity, which I entirely agree with, but it remains my view that the costs to farmers and landowners outweigh the benefits of the species being given protection.

I regret that I do not share the view of Scottish Land & Estates on the matter. I note the cabinet secretary’s comment that beavers are here and that they are here to stay. That is a self-evident truth. However, I am not convinced of the need for the instrument, because it offers additional protection to a species that is already thriving under the circumstances that it currently enjoys.

I press my motion to annul.

The question is, that motion S5M-16304, in the name of John Scott, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)

Against

Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab))
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Abstentions

Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 1.

Motion disagreed to.

Are members content for me to sign off the committee’s report on the SSI?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes the committee’s business in public today. At its next meeting, on 26 March, the committee will hear from the Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands on the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc) Order 2019. We will also consider our future work programme. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their attendance.

12:36 Meeting continued in private until 12:38.