Environment and Rural Development Committee, 29 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Official Report 300KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/358)

Good morning. I apologise for the delay, but I was informed that the lifts were not working and I wanted to ensure that witnesses and committee members were able to make it upstairs in one piece and to recover from the effort.

I do not think that there are any apologies for absence. We have two visiting members with us this morning—John Farquhar Munro and Fergus Ewing. I welcome members, witnesses and members of the press and public to our meeting. I remind everybody to switch off their mobile phones.

Our first item of business is subordinate legislation. We are considering under the negative procedure the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/358). I welcome the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Allan Wilson, and his officials. I remind members that this is the second set of regulations that we have considered on this topic. The previous regulations were revoked by the minister during the summer in response to substantial concerns that had been raised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee about their drafting. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has now considered the new regulations and reported that it has no comment to make, so in a sense that means that the Parliament's scrutiny of legislation is working.

Today, we have a motion that has been lodged by John Farquhar Munro inviting the committee to recommend to the Parliament that nothing further be done under the regulations. I thought that I should first of all clarify how I intend to deal with this piece of business. I shall do what has been done with other pieces of subordinate legislation when there has been a challenge to the Executive. I propose to begin with a question-and-answer session, to let members clarify any purely technical matters and ask for explanations in relation to these detailed regulations while the officials are at the table. Once we move on to the debate, we will not be able to ask any technical questions of the officials, so members will have the chance to address those issues in depth first. Once we have done that and members have raised any technical points that they want to raise, we shall move on to the debate on the motion itself.

I invite the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development to make some opening remarks. I am particularly keen to get factual background information rather than have a debate on the motion, which we shall come to when I invite John Farquhar Munro to move his motion.

I shall be as brief and factual as possible in the circumstances. The simple aim of the regulations is to prevent lead shot from causing pollution of the environment, which is fully consistent with our previous discussion on the water framework directive. I know from some of the views that were expressed in our extensive consultation on banning lead shot that there are people out there who do not believe that lead is a poison. However, there have been decades of research to that effect. Lead is a very harmful substance both to land and to wildlife, which is why we also take steps to reduce its use in other areas of life.

The case that lead is a poison is, I submit, overwhelming. That is why the regulations seek to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for the dual purpose of ensuring that lead does not contaminate wetlands and that waterfowl are protected. The regulations seek to ban the use of lead shot over wetlands in order to protect our waterfowl, as clear scientific evidence has shown that lead is a threat to birds such as swans and ducks. Those birds ingest grit, which often contains spent lead shot, and the consequence of that is a slow poisoning—when enough lead is ingested, obviously the birds can die.

A voluntary ban on the use of lead shot has been in place in Scotland since 1995, and many of our responsible shooters have already moved away from using lead shot over wetlands. However, there is a further need to introduce a legal option of control, which is to comply with an international commitment given by the UK Government in 1999 under the African-Eurasian migratory water bird agreement, which included an obligation to phase out the use of lead shot over wetlands. Legislation is already in place in England and Wales, so I submit that it is appropriate that we do the same in Scotland as part of that international commitment.

We obviously had the option of following the English example when that legislation was introduced five years ago, but we did not think that that approach was appropriate for those who shoot in Scotland, given some of the differences in sites and species north of the border. The clear message that we got from consultations on the subject, and from discussions with shooting organisations and individual shooters, is that measures in Scotland should reflect what is happening in the Scottish countryside. I believe that that is what we have done in the regulations, which are proportionate, relevant to the Scottish situation, enforceable and fully in line with our international commitments to the African-Eurasian migratory water bird agreement.

As far as our consultations are concerned, people have argued that some shooters might be confused about what constitutes a wetland. However, we do not share that view. We have worked closely in this respect with the most prominent shooting association in the UK, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which is satisfied that we are putting in place measures that its members will understand. Indeed, BASC itself acknowledges that our proposals represent the best possible deal for Scotland's shooting community.

I realise that the proposals will add to shooters' costs in pursuing their sport, but I do not believe that the increase will be significant. That said, I acknowledge that not all guns will be able to use steel shot. I expect that the greater move towards the use of steel shot will lead to an increase in steel shot production which, in turn, could reduce the cost for shooters. That has certainly happened in other countries where the use of lead shot has been restricted. I imagine that the same thing will happen in Scotland.

I appreciate the shooting community's importance to our wider rural economy. However, I do not believe that our proposed ban will have any negative impact on the number of shooting trips that are made to Scotland, principally because responsible shooters already use non-toxic shot over wetlands. That in itself indicates that responsible shooters accept that we are doing the right thing. Although we are not entirely banning lead shot, restricting its use over wetland areas will have the environmental and wildlife benefit that I have outlined.

I hope that that clarifies our position. I have tried to stick to the facts of the matter, although I appreciate that there is some debate to be had around the fringes.

I think that every committee member bar one—who I have no doubt will volunteer themselves soon—wants to ask a question. I will try to work through everyone before we get on to the debate itself.

Karen Gillon caught my eye first.

There seems to be some confusion over the definition of wetlands and over the areas in Scotland that will be affected. How can the matter be better set out in the accompanying guidance?

We hope that the guidance will eradicate practitioners' doubts about the definition of wetlands in the regulations. Indeed, in the regulations, we have already moved to clarify the basic Ramsar convention definition underpinning the definition of wetlands in respect of peat-lands. As we do not intend the regulations to have an adverse impact on, for example, grouse shooting, they will cover only peat-lands with visible water. That clarification was made as a result of responses we received to the consultation on the initial regulations.

The response to the consultation also indicated that some further clarification was needed on temporary areas, which are now defined in the regulations as areas that are

"covered with water on a seasonal, intermittent or regular basis".

That definition, which is already acceptable to representative bodies such as BASC Scotland, will be clarified further in supporting guidance.

I am slightly concerned about that. Only last month, there was a not particularly seasonal prevalence of rain in my constituency that resulted in large areas of peat-land being covered in very visible water. How do the regulations affect such areas?

Ultimately, it would be up to the courts to interpret such matters. In the regulations, we simply set out our intention to prevent the irresponsible discharge of lead shot over temporary wetlands, as defined. We have discussed this matter with the representative organisation of British shooters, which is content with our definition and thinks that it offers the best possible deal for shooters.

I echo Karen Gillon's concerns about a definition having to be interpreted in the way that will be necessary in this case. I think of grouse moors on which there are peat-hags and visible water—they could be described as puddles, but there is still visible water. Would it be possible to have map-based definitions, so that we could examine wetlands on a case-by-case basis to determine whether there was a danger to wildfowl?

We have taken a habitat-based approach to the issue. The difficulty of using the site of special scientific interest-type, map-based approach that was used in England and to which the member refers is that unless someone has detailed knowledge of an area and a map in front of them they will not know that they are on an SSSI. However, most people will know when they come across wetlands. If they are responsible shooters, they will know not to discharge lead shot over that area. The intention is not to discount large areas of the nation's peat-lands, as would have been the case had we used the simple Ramsar definition. That explains the use of the visible-water definition. I submit that people will understand that on their shooting expeditions.

Is there any prospect of your producing map-based guidance, perhaps as something separate from the regulations? It seems to me that such guidance would be less subject to interpretation and clearer for people. Anyone shooting over a piece of ground would have to have the permission of the owner, who would know how the map defined the vulnerable area.

We have clarified the position so that peat-lands are understood to mean peat-lands with visible water. Similarly, temporary areas will mean only

"wetlands which are covered with water on a seasonal, intermittent or regular basis".

We think that the visible-water approach is much simpler, because we do not intend to cover puddles or very small areas of water. The regulations refer to areas that most people would recognise as wetland sites, which would probably be marked by emergent vegetation. Every permutation of the regulations has been underpinned by Crown Office support, legal support and ecological advice. The supporting guidance will receive a similar level of scrutiny and will be consistent with the terms of the regulations.

We do not think that there is scope for grid references. The position becomes a bit more confusing if people have to refer to Ordnance Survey maps and so on. This is a visible, simple approach that is proportionate to the policy behind the regulations.

The inclusion of areas that are covered with water on a temporary or intermittent basis, which has already been mentioned, is particularly significant. Taken as a whole, the approach constitutes a proportionate but responsible approach to the problem.

How did you arrive at the estimate that about 5 per cent of the landmass would be defined as wetlands? Was that done on the basis of maps?

The estimate was not made on the basis of maps, but relates to known sites that are recognised as wetlands. Obviously, we also took into account areas that are temporarily recognised as wetlands—they are still wetlands, even if only temporarily. It is not our intention to cover puddles or other bodies of water that occur infrequently. The definition relates to areas that are known to flood and are recognised as such. Those areas have all been included in the 5 per cent figure.

If I were a shooter and had doubts about whether an area constituted a wetland, I would err on the side of caution and use alternative shot.

It strikes me that there are very few areas outwith towns and cities in Scotland that are not prone to flooding from time to time. So far, the definition seems about as clear as mud.

The regulations create a criminal offence and therefore, as with any criminal offence, the first requirement of the law is that it must be clear, because, unless it is clear, it will be unclear to shooters whether they are breaching the law. I will ask a couple of questions on that topic.

Just stick to questions, Fergus.

Article 2 of the Ramsar convention as revised by the Regina amendments states:

"The boundaries of each wetland shall be precisely described and also delimited on a map",

but the minister states that there will be no map. The Scottish Executive is therefore in breach of the Ramsar convention.

The first thing that I will say, which I said in response to Nora Radcliffe's point, is that current best-practice guidance for shooters—which is produced by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, as well as the Countryside Alliance, the Game Conservancy Trust, the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association—already recommends that only non-toxic shot be discharged over wetlands that are of importance to waterfowl. There is already good-practice guidance, and most responsible shooters already follow it.

That is not the question, though.

Let the minister continue.

Thank you, convener.

My legal representative will come to the precise legal definition of Ramsar sites. I submit that, if the best-practice guidance that is already adopted by those involved in the practice is well understood and is already being observed, the requirement to define wetlands better or further on maps does not arise. We have taken a habitat approach to the matter, examined closely the definition of temporary and intermittent wetlands to which Fergus Ewing refers and come up with a description that could be applied fairly and equitably in our courts. We have also considered the Ramsar definition in relation to peat-lands. I have made it abundantly clear that it is not our intention to extend the ban on the use of lead shot to peat-lands generally, but only where there is a visible water presence.

On the alleged breach of the Ramsar convention, we use the definition of wetlands from the Ramsar convention as a recognised definition, but simply for the purpose of these regulations. The regulations are not intended to implement the Ramsar convention; they have a domestic policy purpose. We simply used a well-recognised and known definition of wetlands and refined it for the purposes of the regulations to create a proportionate and recognisable offence.

Fergus Ewing says that there is a need for certainty, but we think that we have achieved certainty. We have had many and long consultations on the definition with colleagues in the Crown Office in particular, and they are content—as we are—that the courts can interpret the definition on the basis of the facts and circumstances before them. Our criminal courts are used to doing that.

I take it that it is accepted that article 2 of the Ramsar convention is binding and therefore that, when it provides that

"The boundaries of each wetland shall be precisely described and also delimited on a map",

that obligation has been obtempered. Has it?

We are not implementing the Ramsar definition in the regulations.

Is there a map showing the wetlands?

No.

Is that not a clear breach of article 2 of the convention, which says that that is what is required?

There are two points here: the first is whether the regulations implement the Ramsar convention and the second is whether, because another piece of legislation implements the convention, there is clarity on what the wetlands boundaries are. That is my understanding of the question.

I think that we have answered it.

Yes, we have answered it. We are not relying on any of the maps that were prepared for the Ramsar convention. Indeed, my administrative colleague tells me that no UK maps were prepared for that convention. That does not prevent us from relying on an internationally-recognised definition of wetlands in our definition of wetlands in the regulations, which have another purpose.

Okay. Thank you. As no other member wishes to come in on this issue, I will move on to the next on my list of members.

Minister, in your introductory remarks, you said that the aim of the regulations was to prevent further pollution of the environment. How do you and your officials quantify the extent of damage to wildlife, watercourses and so forth?

My other question relates to the way in which information and data are collated. Do you have independent, credible sources? For example, do you rely heavily on information that the RSPB Scotland provides or do you go to independent, credible sources?

A lot of issues are involved and my colleagues will come back to the member on some of them. Clearly, there has been a welter of research into the impact of wildfowl ingestion of lead shot, dating back to as long ago as 1983, when the study "The incidence and significance of ingested lead pellet poisoning in British wildfowl" was published. That study included samples from the Solway firth, Islay, south Tayside and Fife, north-east Grampian and the Moray firth. There is evidence of the impact of lead shot in Scotland.

The overarching policy objective of the regulations is to prevent lead shot from entering wetlands. As I said, comparable regulations have been in place in England since 1999 and in Wales since 2002. They are based on recommendations and advice from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which incorporated input from Scottish Natural Heritage—our own independent advisers—and from bodies across the UK.

As I said earlier, recommendations and advice led to the previous Government adopting a voluntary phase-out of the use of lead shot over UK wetlands in 1995. The UK Government that came to power in 1997 determined that the voluntary approach was not sufficient to ensure the protection of waterfowl. Furthermore, it determined that that approach did not meet our obligations under the African-Eurasian migratory water bird agreement to which I referred.

The regulations meet our international obligations. They will prevent wildfowl from ingesting lead shot that is used over wetlands and, as a consequence, prevent the slow and painful death of many wildfowl.

Following on from that, I was confused by your opening remarks. What are we trying to achieve with the regulations? Are we trying to keep lead out of the water or lead shot out of waterfowl?

We are trying to produce wide environmental benefits through preventing lead from entering the water environment and, therefore, from being ingested by wildfowl, which would suffer as a consequence. As the member knows, the use of lead shot outwith wetland areas is not prohibited. It could be argued from an environmental perspective that a more comprehensive ban would be a better approach. However, we take the view that to do so would be disproportionate to the impact that is liable to be produced in terms of wider recreational interests and the rural economy. We have taken a proportionate approach that seeks to prevent the use of lead shot over wetlands and the consequential harmful effect on wildlife.

I accept that the ingestion of lead shot by waterfowl can have serious effects on their health, but given the scale of the impact, would not it be appropriate, in defining the area to be covered by the regulations, to take into account areas in which waterfowl feed rather than areas in which water lies?

As I said, we could have used more extensive regulations that prohibited the use of lead shot—a prospective poison—throughout the entire expanse of Scotland. However, in recognition of the substantial contribution that recreational shooting makes to the rural and national economies, we decided—in accordance with our international obligations—to take the proportionate response of banning the use of lead shot in wetlands in order to protect wildfowl that may ingest it. That does not mean that we will remove entirely the adverse environmental impact of lead shot. Clearly, we will not do so if we continue to permit its use in other areas.

In many people's opinion, the voluntary ban fulfils our international obligations. The regulations will extend the ban in accordance with the desires of the Government in Scotland.

The international agreement that I mentioned, to which the UK Government signed up, places an obligation on us to introduce regulations to comply with the intent of the agreement. I repeat that the response is proportionate. We accept our international obligations but aim to ensure that recreational shooting, with its contribution to the wider rural economy, can continue in a responsible manner that takes into account the adverse impact of lead shot on the wider environment.

Has research been done into blood lead levels in trapped live wildfowl?

As I said, extensive research has been done and dates back almost 20 years. That research includes the samples to which I referred—some of which were from Fergus Ewing's constituency—that indicate that the ingestion of lead shot has an adverse impact on birds, in that they die as a consequence. I do not believe that that is in dispute.

No one is resisting the contention that ingesting lead is poisonous or not good for you.

You seem to be in favour of continuation of the use of lead shot.

Can we stick to the questions? This is not a debate—at this point, we merely want to establish points of fact and to ask technical questions.

Let me restate the question. Has specific research been done into blood lead levels in trapped live wildfowl? That is the specific issue that we are talking about.

The specific issue is whether wildfowl ingest spent lead shot and whether they are poisoned as a consequence. Considerable research has been done on that and the case has been proven. We have signed international treaties that seek to prevent the practice.

Early in your presentation, you suggested that evidence has been established that the ingestion of lead shot is fatal to many wildfowl. What is that evidence?

I am sure that the member would accept that lead is universally regarded as a poison and that many years of research have established its toxic effect on animals and humans. Lead shot has been identified as posing a particular threat to waterfowl because it results in lead poisoning. As I say, that was recognised in an international agreement—the African-Eurasian migratory water bird agreement. Considerable research was done around the globe in respect of that agreement.

I mention again the 1983 study by G P Mudge to which I referred earlier—"The incidence and significance of ingested lead pellet poisoning in British wildfowl"—which included samples from the Solway firth, Islay, south Tayside, Fife, north-east Grampian and the Moray firth. Well-founded research evidence helped the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to come to the conclusion that it did and to advise Government in 1999 in England, in 2000 in Wales and ourselves here in Scotland five years later than in England that the incidence of lead shot in our wetlands, and its subsequent ingestion by wildfowl, has a debilitating effect on them: it poisons them and ultimately kills them.

You mentioned research on the Scottish coast—on the Solway and the Moray firths. A fairly extensive investigation was undertaken on lead shot on foreshores. In spite of that extensive survey, statistics have never been produced to show what was discovered by that research. Can the minister enlighten the committee on that research?

I can only add to what the minister has said. The overwhelming factor is that the provisions have been endorsed at international level through the African-Eurasian migratory water bird agreement, which cannot really be argued against. The UK has already put in place two sets of regulations. The other main issue that we cannot sidestep is that, in addition to the effect on waterfowl, the regulations state that they are

"for the purpose of preventing the substance or articles specified from causing pollution of the environment and harm to the health of animals".

I think that it is undisputed that lead is a contaminant.

That introduces an element—pollution of the environment—that we are not debating today. We are here to discuss the ingestion of lead shot by wildfowl.

Yes, but I referred to the joint purpose of the regulations.

I thought that I made clear in my response to Alex Johnstone that we could have taken a more disproportionate approach to the issue—given that lead is a contaminant that we all know—and banned the use of lead shot more generally. However, we did not do that; we took what we consider to be a proportionate response, taking account of the fact that, as I said, recreational shooting makes a contribution to the rural economy that is valued locally and nationally. We have adopted what I think is a balanced approach, which seeks to prevent the use of lead shot over wetlands rather than more generally, because wetlands are where wildfowl are more commonly liable to ingest it. That is not to say that lead shot cannot be ingested by wildfowl elsewhere, as has been suggested by others. Ours is a balanced and proportionate response. The alternative was to ban its use more generally.

The minister has quoted extensively from research that has been done on the ingestion of lead by waterfowl, but is there any research or evidence available to him that covers the issue of lead as a dissolved contaminant in water in the natural environment?

I do not have such information at my fingertips, but I have been at the committee on previous occasions when members of your party and other Opposition parties have called for action on replacement of lead pipes in our water distribution and supply system precisely because of the contaminant effect of lead. There is considerable scientific evidence to support the view that lead is a contaminant and that it is a toxin when it is dissolved in water. Consequently, the actions that we are taking are to help prevent wildfowl from ingesting lead shot.

Two members—Mark Ruskell and Maureen Macmillan—have not yet asked questions.

Excuse me, but I have not asked a question yet, either.

I have been waiting for you to catch my eye. I will add you to my list.

One criticism that has been levelled at the regulations concerns the increased use of steel shot. It has been argued that steel shot is deficient in its effective range and killing power compared with lead and that, as a result, it can lead to a higher wounding ratio in the quarry. What consideration have you given to that issue in redrafting the regulations?

We have given some consideration to the issue because, if the argument had been shown to be true, there would obviously be an impact on animal life and bird life. However, studies have shown that, if steel is used appropriately, its range is not significantly reduced and it is no more likely to wound than is lead. As I said, the regulations have been worked up closely with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which has welcomed their introduction as being the best deal on offer. Obviously, that organisation is best placed to judge such issues.

Is it true that the regulations will inadvertently impact on some clay pigeon shooting clubs—for example, those with a range that borders a firth or the sea? Did you consult clay pigeon shooting organisations before the regulations were laid?

The regulatory impact assessment identified that a few clubs shoot exclusively over wetland sites. As I said, supporting guidance will be produced on the scope of the regulations. My officials would expect to visit sites, in respect of which particular concerns have been expressed, in order to ensure that the appropriate alternative arrangements are put in place or that the sites have the best available guidance on the appropriate use of shot. Officials will work on such matters and guidance will be produced with clay pigeon shooters so that they are fully prepared for the implementation of the regulations next March.

I accept that an on-cost for shooters is involved, and there is obviously a price difference—which I referred to in my opening remarks—for people who currently use lead shot and those who will consequently have to use alternative shot. However, that is the price of the environmental benefits that will be brought for wildfowl.

I want to follow that up. I would be interested to know whether, in the evidence that you received, you received any information about whether clay pigeon shooters have moved over to non-lead shot.

I am not particularly familiar with that matter.

We have received responses from clay pigeon sites. Obviously, our contention is that alternative shot—such as steel shot or other types of shot—can be used, but as the minister said, we would certainly be happy to meet representatives of any clay pigeon shoots who have particular concerns. It was identified that very few will be exclusively affected by the regulations because their intention is curtailed to cover only wetland sites and not surrounding areas.

In the area in which I live, there is one such clay pigeon shoot, which fires on to an estuary in order to avoid danger to other people. It is interesting to note that in England, areas such as those in question have been defined as all areas below the high-water mark. Why was that definition not adopted in Scotland?

It is included as part of the Ramsar definition. Intertidal and marine areas are included, too.

I am familiar with the example that you refer to—Maureen Macmillan and others have also raised it with me. The guidance will seek to assist the few clay pigeon shoots that are likely to be adversely affected by the regulations either to change their shot, which is the obvious alternative, or to redirect their activities to avoid shooting over wetlands.

I will take up a second issue. It has been suggested that not many countries or parts of the world have introduced a lead-shot ban, yet we know that in Canada, the United States, Sweden and Denmark such a ban has been in place. Have you any consequential evidence on the effects of shooting—either of clays or wildfowl—in those areas? Has there been any diminution of the business of shooting in those areas as a result of the ban?

I do not have any evidence to hand but, as the minister said, our approach is intended to be proportionate and the ban would cover only areas that the African-Eurasian migratory water bird agreement specifies—namely, wetlands. We decided against taking a piecemeal approach so that we would cover all wetland areas because all such areas are of importance to waterfowl whether they are designated or not. The key is that the ban would cover wetland sites only. The evidence has been scrutinised fully by the Crown Office so that the ban is recognisable and enforceable.

I understand that, but do you have any international evidence about such a ban's effects on the shooting business?

We have sought to take a balanced and proportionate approach. There is already evidence from down south and internationally of a more responsible approach being taken by shooters in voluntarily not using lead shot. There has been a diminution internationally and domestically in the use of lead shot.

We now propose to take that voluntary approach one stage further, and to ban the use of lead shot over wetlands for the reasons in which we are now well versed. That should have a beneficial environmental effect, but it will also not prevent groups of international shooters from coming here to enjoy the recreation that shooting as a sport provides in large parts of our country. Guidance will be available in different languages for those international shooters so that they do not fall foul of our laws when they come here. I stress again that we are taking a balanced and proportionate response that recognises the importance of shooting in an international context, with international visitors coming here to practise their sport, as well as in the context of protection of wildfowl through better environmental protection measures.

Okay. We have been round the table and everybody has had a chance to ask questions. I am keen to move to the debate if everybody is content to do so.

I would like to raise another topic briefly.

What is the topic?

The topic is the impact of the possibility of steel shot having a greater chance of becoming embedded in nearby trees, which might cause many health and safety concerns in relation to cutting and dressing timber.

Can I have a quick response from the minister or his officials?

You asked what the topic was, but may I pose a particular question?

I am sorry: I thought that you asked a question about the impact of steel shot.

It has been put to me that, if steel shot becomes embedded in trees and those trees are then logged with a band-saw in the sawmill, the band-saw will splinter and disintegrate if it comes into contact with any steel. That would mean in turn that steel detectors would have to be used in sawmills. Has any assessment been made of that problem and of the potential financial consequences that it might have on the sawmill industry in Scotland?

That issue has been raised previously and we are fully aware of it. Alternative shot is already widely used by responsible shooters and—according to BASC Scotland—

"bismuth is widely and successfully used and steel shot is increasingly being used without the problems that shooters were led to expect."

Representative bodies already recognise and use non-toxic shot over wetlands. We do not imagine that steel shot embedding in trees would be a particular difficulty over purely wetland sites.

I will supplement that—

Be brief, because I want to move to the debate.

The Forestry Commission Scotland has not objected to the proposals in the regulations.

We move to the formal debate—[Interruption.] I ask members to be quiet, please. I invite John Farquhar Munro to speak to and move motion S2M-1712. I hope that he will keep his speech to the time limit.

The committee will know that when the Westminster Parliament debated similar legislation, a spokesperson said in evidence that many countries had already banned lead shot, but further investigation determined that that was untrue. Many parts of the world have no such ban and I am concerned that the committee might be misled.

It has been suggested that wildfowl are at particular risk from poisoning by lead-loaded cartridges, but most of the evidence that has been collected on that is based on research in America. It is hardly surprising that the evidence from America suggests that, because America shoots as it does everything else: to excess. The US has shot duck heavily from raised platforms over shallow lakes, which concentrates residual lead pellets in a small area and makes them more likely to be ingested by resident wildfowl. Such shooting does not take place in Scotland, so the risk to wildfowl here is minimal.

The research that was undertaken in Scotland over a period of months concentrated on a heavily shot area of the Moray firth, which we have heard about this morning. After much work, a single pellet was found at quite some depth. Other areas in which samples were collected were the Solway firth, Islay, Tayside, Fife and north-east Grampian. It was estimated that 2.3 per cent of the wild mallard population might die—not would die—each winter as a result of lead-pellet ingestion. No evidence has been produced to support that suggestion and no statistics were produced following those extensive coastal surveys. It is interesting to note that fewer than 10 incidents of wildfowl poisoning have been reported in the past 20 years, so we do not have a serious problem in Scotland.

The alternatives to lead cartridges, which cost about £3 for a box of 25, are steel, bismuth and tungsten cartridges. Steel-loaded cartridges are slightly dearer than that, but tungsten cartridges cost in excess of £20 for a box of 25, which I suggest puts them out of the average shooter's reach. Steel shot also damages the modern gun and can lead to serious injury, especially from ricochet in woodlands, as we have heard, or near rock outcrops.

We have also heard about the ambiguity over the definition of wetlands, which is so vague as to be almost impossible to divine with any certainty. It is claimed that wetlands amount to about 5 per cent of Scotland's land surface. Any legislation would require to define their location. The regulations will also restrict shooting over Scotland's foreshores between high and low watermarks. That surely represents considerably more than the estimated 5 per cent of Scotland's surface area. After all, we have a huge coastline.

Apart from those who participate in game shooting, on which we seem to be concentrating, many hundreds of sportsmen participate in clay pigeon shooting. Most clubs have sited their target areas to allow shooting over water in the interests of safety. The regulations will force those clubs to move to other sites if such sites can be identified and—more important—approved in their localities. That will entail considerable expense.

The voluntary approach, which is currently encouraged by the "Code of Good Shooting Practice" should be adopted and accepted by the Executive without the need for further legislation.

Accordingly I move,

That the Environment and Rural Development Committee recommends that nothing further be done under the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (Scotland) (No.2) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/358).

I will briefly supplement my earlier remarks. The different approach that has been taken reflects in part the fact that Scotland is different from England and Wales. The proportion of shooting that takes place outside wetlands is much higher in Scotland, contrary to what we have just heard. Additional species restrictions, which might have offered an alternative approach, would impose unnecessary burdens on people who shoot in such areas. The Executive's approach is simpler and would identify wetlands by habitat definition rather than by site boundary, which would ensure that all wetlands, whether or not they are designated, would be covered by the regulations. That approach would enable us fully to meet our international obligations under the African-Eurasian migratory water bird agreement. Members should note that I said "African-Eurasian"; hence the lack of reference to North America, despite John Farquhar Munro's rather gratuitous reference to that part of the world.

The regulations represent a proportionate response. The evidence that wildfowl ingest lead shot and suffer painful death as a consequence is available to anyone who cares to look for it, as is scientific evidence of lead contamination in the wider environment. Far from banning the use of lead shot completely, which some people might consider to be a more proportionate response, we will continue to permit the use of lead shot outwith wetlands. That means that clay pigeon shooters and other shooters will have to use an alternative: steel shot, which I accept is more expensive. However, that is the price that must be paid for the environmental benefit that banning lead shot would bring. We recognise the important contribution of recreational shooting to the rural and national economy and we will take steps via guidance associated with the regulations to ensure that the recreational shooting trade continues unaffected. In conclusion, the response is proportionate and the regulations are worthy of members' support.

I understand the reasons for the regulations and I accept many of the principles that lie behind them. However, I have problems with the regulations and cannot support them. I am well aware that ingestion of lead shot by waterfowl can lead to serious ill health and death and I am aware of the action that has been taken over a number of years in an attempt to prevent that from happening; for example, the ban on use of lead shot as a line weight by fishermen represented a major step forward.

There is due cause for considering how we can reduce the amount of lead shot that is fired in wetlands. However, we must look closely at the instrument's purpose. The problem is that there is a vagary in the motivation for the instrument pursuing the line that it does. I do not believe that there is adequate evidence to suggest that firing lead shot over wetlands causes water contamination—we are talking about an awful lot of water and very little lead shot.

The issues that we must deal with are those that revolve specifically around ingestion of lead shot by waterfowl. The lead shot is in the mud at the bottom of shallow water, which waterfowl filter in order to feed. If we are to go down the road that the instrument proposes, we must be prepared to be specific about the instrument's purpose and what we want it to prevent. Consequently, I cannot support the instrument because its purpose and scope are not tightly enough defined; it is inadequately focused in respect of protection of water birds that feed in such circumstances. We need more tightly focused legislation, so I will vote against the instrument in the hope that the minister might bring back something that sets out specifically to achieve the aims and objectives that he and I both support.

There is an existing and apparently widely observed voluntary code that prohibits the use of lead shot when shooting over wetlands that are of importance to waterfowl. The regulations seek to encapsulate that in law and indeed to extend the prohibition to all wetlands because of the polluting effects of lead. I share in some measure Alex Johnstone's concern about an apparent lack of research to underpin the regulations, but this is an occasion where the precautionary approach is acceptable.

I would still like tighter, map-based definitions of wetlands in general. We make far too little use of maps, which are a useful tool that could be used much more in official measures.

I do not understand why, other than for reasons of cost, clay pigeons cannot be shot with steel shot. It occurs to me that, if steel shot is lighter, clay pigeons could be thinner and the cost could be equalised in that way. However, that is a bit of a diversion.

I presume that the minister's assurances that there is no intention for grouse moors to be affected by the measure will have force in any interpretation of the regulations in a court of law. I think that, on balance, the regulations are reasonable and proportionate and I am happy to accept them.

In his arguments, the minister has made much of the support of the BASC. However, the BASC may be concerned that, were it not to support the instrument, there would be stricter regulations. That concern is perhaps borne out by the fact that the minister has pointed out that a stricter, more draconian regime could have been introduced.

It seems to me that there is a lack of clarity in the instrument's definition of wetlands. The minister has resisted providing a map, but regulation 3 plainly says:

"‘wetlands' has the meaning given in … the Ramsar Convention."

As I have previously said, the convention says that wetlands

"shall be … delimited on a map".

The instrument seems to be in glaring breach of the Ramsar convention. How exactly shooters are supposed to know whether they are on wetlands is unclear to me. If they do not know that, they will not know whether they are potentially committing a criminal offence. Clarity is the first requirement when drafting any statutory offence.

The Fraser of Allander institute estimated that the value of wildfowling to the Scottish economy was £5.7 million a year. That was in 1990, so the value is likely to be much greater now. We heard that the cost of bismuth or steel shot is likely to be far greater than that of lead shot. People who are members of clay pigeon clubs may not be wealthy enough to be able to continue with their sport.

Perhaps the most serious point is the lack of evidence on which the measure is based. No one denies that consuming large quantities of lead is dangerous to the health of humans, animals or birds—that is not in dispute. However, it is unclear that there is evidence to demonstrate that ingestion of lead shot has led to widespread wildfowl poisoning. Where is that evidence? John Farquhar Munro mentioned that there have been 10 cases in 20 years. In my view, that is an unsound basis on which to proceed.

When I asked the minister whether he could identify specific evidence, there was no answer. The evidence, such as there has been, seems to emanate from the United States of America. As John Farquhar Munro has pointed out, the evidence from the Moray firth and the Solway that has been referred to does not exclude the clear alternative possibility that the lead poisoning emanated from ingestion of split shot from fishing. Although the use of split shot has been banned, I understand that the lead from it will not necessarily have dissipated, because it will have been attached to fishing lines and will tend to have become embedded in the sea bed.

Once again, the Parliament is being asked to support a piece of legislation that will impact severely on many people's recreational pursuits and on an area that is of great value to the economy on the basis of, at the very least, spurious evidence. The minister has not addressed the question of why there has not been testing of ducks to see whether they have lead poisoning. For example, at the Highland Deephaven Clay Pigeon Club in Evanton, which has operated for 30 years, twice a week 50 or 60 people shoot clay pigeons, using perhaps 100 or 125 shots apiece and discharging into the estuary 390lb of lead per session. If ever there was a place in Scotland at which evidence could and should have been taken to see whether lead poisoning resulted from the deposit of such a huge quantity of lead, that would be it. No such evidence has been taken and not one dead duck has been spotted on the shore. Where is the evidence?

We are being asked to proceed on the basis of what people describe as the precautionary principle. Put simply, that principle states that it is better to be safe than sorry. We all agree with that, but at what cost? Where is the evidence? I respectfully suggest that in his answers today the minister has failed completely to describe any evidential basis on which to proceed with the measure.

The past hour has been very instructive. I knew a few things about the issue before I came to the meeting at 9.30 am. One of those indisputable facts is that lead is poisonous both to waterfowl and to human beings. I also knew the importance of shooting to the rural and national economy, as outlined by my good friend John Farquhar Munro. As a fellow Highlander, a crofter, a shooter and—I have heard alleged—a poacher of note, John is well aware of the importance of shooting in his constituency. I, too, know the importance of clay pigeon clubs from a recreational point of view. Clay pigeon shooting is one of the few sports at which Scotland does reasonably well at international level.

When I came here this morning, I intended to support my friend John Farquhar Munro, but we have had a very good question-and-answer session. That is a credit to the system that we use in the Parliament, which allows us to ask questions that relate to the facts, although I note that one of the visiting members failed to observe the normal courtesies that are always extended and adhered to by members of the committee. However, that is another issue.

I return to the overarching aim of the regulations and the question posed by Alex Johnstone. Preventing waterfowl from ingesting lead shot is a good aim. What about the evidence? Again, I have heard Mr Ewing—a visiting member—saying that there is no evidence. I fondly recall Mr Ewing discounting and dismissing out of hand almost a year ago another topic that we are talking about—scallop fishing and the need to conserve. He said that livelihoods would be ruined and that fishermen would be made bankrupt. Then, he accused the same minister of failing to produce evidence. Twelve months later we have the evidence—scallops are being conserved and the livelihoods of fishermen and processors are being protected.

Although I will not support my friend John Farquhar Munro, that has absolutely nothing to do with the Lord Burton of Dochfour. I know that John Farquhar will appreciate why I will not be listening to the Lord Burton's contentions and petition—neither will I be listening to the evidence of Mr Ewing, his political and philosophical soul mate.

The regulations are well framed, although there are issues relating to clay pigeon clubs. One of the officials said that the Executive would willingly discuss with clubs the implications and potential fall-out if the regulations are passed. I urge the minister and his officials to do that. I came here with a view to supporting John Farquhar, but I genuinely believe that I have heard enough to convince me that the regulations are worth passing.

We have had a useful discussion and evidence session this morning. On balance, I will be voting for the regulations, because they are adequately focused.

The Ramsar convention has been a red herring this morning. As the minister said, in this instance part of it is being used solely to define wetlands. The regulations are not about implementing the Ramsar convention. I say that as a member who came to this committee to argue for a statutory underpinning of Ramsar in the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill.

The definition of wetlands in the regulations is adequate. In Strathallan where I live—I am not a shooter, by the way—I know where the wetlands are. I know where the permanent wetlands are, I know where the Ramsar wetlands are, and I know where the temporary wetlands are—I know which areas flood. If I were a shooter, I would know the areas in which I could not use lead shot.

I do not think that there is evidence from England and Wales that the regulations will damage the shooting industry. I say to John Farquhar Munro that I have not been convinced by his argument. The regulations will build on the good practice that has been established through the voluntary code and give it a statutory underpinning, so I will support them.

I am generally the most sympathetic member of the Labour group to the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. I am not known for being the most environmentally stringent member of our group. However, I read the information carefully and I have listened to the debate. For me, the key questions are: are alternatives available? Yes, they are. Are the costs of those alternatives prohibitive? They do not seem to be, from the evidence that I have seen. Do the regulations represent good practice? Yes, they do. The voluntary code, which others are urging us to continue with, is good practice. The regulations seek to implement in law what is already good practice, as currently followed by good shooters. For those reasons, the environmental gains outweigh the other points that have been made and I will support the regulations.

I support the regulations and I will vote against John Farquhar Munro's motion.

I am pleased that the minister is taking account of clay pigeon clubs, for which there might be some difficulty with changing to steel shot, as steel shot can ricochet off the traps. The solution is not just a simple one of saying that the clubs should go for steel shot. Moreover, tungsten is too expensive for the amount of shot that is used.

I would like all possible help to be given to clubs such as the one in Evanton, on which I have corresponded with the minister. It will be a big upheaval for those clubs if they have to move clubhouses and traps and find other sites. I would like the minister and his officials to work closely with those clubs that are affected to find a good solution. The clubs appreciate the problems of lead shot and I do not think that they are opposed to the legislation, but they want to see how they can deal with it in a way that does not affect them too badly. With those provisos, I am happy not to support John Farquhar Munro's motion.

We have heard from all the members who wanted to speak. Do you want to respond briefly, minister?

I agree entirely with what Mark Ruskell had to say latterly about an attempt—not a deliberate attempt, I presume—to obfuscate and obscure. It is difficult to believe that Fergus Ewing, given his legal background, does not understand the concept of importing a definition from one document and using it in another. The explanatory note makes clear what the definition is. As I said, we have acted in consultation with shooting interests to better define peat-lands and to further define what constitutes temporary wetlands, in order to minimise any confusion that could arise. I repeat that the regulations are a proportionate measure, which take account of the wider interests of the rural economy—and of our national economy more generally—with regard to the income generated from recreational shooting. The regulations also address the real environmental problem posed by the use of lead shot over wetlands and I commend them to the committee.

Thank you, minister. I invite John Farquhar Munro to wind up with any final comments and to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his motion.

We have taken up quite a considerable amount of the committee's time on the issue, so I shall simply press my motion.

The question is, that motion S2M-1712, in the name of John Farquhar Munro, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)

Against

Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Motion disagreed to.

As the motion is disagreed to, the committee is content with the instrument and will make no recommendation to the Parliament.

As John Farquhar Munro said, we have had a lengthy debate, but I feel that it is important to discuss such matters in some detail, especially when we receive so many representations. In some ways, therefore, I am grateful to him for taking up the committee's time this morning.

I thank the visiting members for attending and the minister and his officials for fielding a whole host of questions.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—