Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7484, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.
15:26
I thank the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for its careful consideration of the bill and for its extremely helpful report. The committee has been assisted by the evidence and insight of a great many people from a variety of sectors and walks of life. The range of people and organisations that have been involved shows just how far reaching the impact of the bill is.
The committee’s report highlights two watchwords for the bill: balance and compromise. Those are absolutely right. The bill is about balancing competing demands on the Scottish countryside, whether we are talking about land managers running a business, conservationists seeking to protect species and habitats, deer stalkers and grouse shooters, or walkers and birdwatchers. All those people make legitimate calls on the resources of the countryside. The bill seeks to ensure that the law in relation to the countryside acknowledges those competing demands and applies compromise and balance in dealing with them.
I am pleased that the committee has recognised that practical approach. We certainly share the more visionary aspirations that have been articulated by others, but the bill is intended to be about the nuts and bolts. It will create a number of criminal offences. We need to be careful about the language that we use when people might be prosecuted. There are no general statements and duties in the bill, in part because the possibility of unintended consequences looms large, particularly regarding the legal and judicial interpretation of such statements. The committee has recognised that but, rightly, it has questions on how we are addressing the wider issues. I am happy to write to the committee in more detail about that work. There is not enough time today to do real justice to the committee’s report, so I will limit my comments to some key areas—wildlife crime, snaring, invasive non-native species and deer. The Government’s full written response to the committee will be published next week.
I turn first to wildlife crime. When we set out to draft the bill, we regarded the legislative framework as being robust and we believed that what was needed was effective enforcement of the law. I remain of the view that enforcement is key and I agree with the committee that wildlife crime should be vigorously pursued by the police and the Crown. However, as members know, I cannot direct the police or the prosecution service as regards their operational decision-making processes.
The committee recognised the strength of feeling that wildlife crime generates, in particular the poisoning of Scotland’s striking birds of prey. A year ago, I wanted to be able to stand here now telling Parliament that the persecution of birds of prey had become a rarity and that poisoning statistics showed a marked decline. Sadly, I cannot do that, because 2010 is set to be one of the worst years on record for poisoning of birds. The committee has recognised that something more must be done, and I agree. I looked long and hard at a range of options, including all those that were put to the committee and those that were raised in the report “Natural Justice: A Joint Thematic Inspection of the Arrangements in Scotland for Preventing, Investigating and Prosecuting Wildlife Crime” and through the partnership for action against wildlife crime—PAW—Scotland.
There are many interesting ideas about how best to tackle the problem. It is my view that any further measures must be carefully thought out and, crucially, must be specifically targeted so that the whole of the rural sector is not penalised because of the criminal actions of a minority. I have therefore indicated to the committee that I intend to lodge an amendment that will introduce vicarious liability, which was one of the options that were mentioned in the “Natural Justice” report. It will target criminality and ensure that employers whose employees are involved in persecution of wild birds will be forced to shoulder responsibility for the actions of those employees. There will, of course, be a defence of due diligence, as there must be, but turning a blind eye will no longer be an option.
There is a proposal in the report that we take a power to introduce a licensing scheme for shooting businesses. Such a move would undoubtedly be a severe disincentive for people who contemplate committing offences, but the fact that it would be such a significant step suggests to me that it is not appropriate for an enabling power. If it looks to be preferable that we go down that road, I would very much prefer that we carry out a proper consultation and legislate in the normal way.
With that in mind, I should add that I have no plans to try to take over the newly launched wildlife estates initiative and to make it part of a compulsory scheme. I recognise that that scheme is a genuine attempt by the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association, the Scottish Estates Business Group and others to embed sustainable management in sporting estates, and that any attempt by Government to hijack it would kill it stone dead.
I am interested in ideas on how to improve enforcement against wildlife crime. The proposal that we provide the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals with additional powers is worthy of consultation, but I am concerned about including enabling powers in a bill before even initial discussions have taken place. Consultation should come first.
I turn to snaring, which has long been a controversial and emotive issue. This Government recognises that pest and predator control is necessary to protect livestock and crops and that, in some circumstances, snaring is the least bad option. I thank the committee for agreeing that snaring is
“a vital part of land management”.
Our intention in introducing further regulation in this area is to ensure that snaring is carried out by trained operators, working to the best standards of animal welfare.
I draw the chamber’s attention to the comments of Dr Hal Thompson, the eminent wildlife pathologist of the British Veterinary Association, who told the committee:
“What is in the bill is excellent. If the bill is adopted and its provisions put in place, that will provide for very effective use of snares.”
He went on to say that the bill would introduce sensible and reasonable controls that
“present a balance between the people who require snares and the people who are interested in the protection of animals and animal welfare. I do not have any problems with what the bill contains in that regard. It is a commendable piece of proposed legislation.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 6 October 2010; c 3234.]
However, I recognise that we cannot rest on our laurels, so I am content to agree to the committee’s recommendation that a further review of snaring be carried out in five years to assess the effect of our proposals.
At this stage, I am not clear on what the committee’s proposal for individual identification numbers for each snare would deliver. It seems that it would lead to a burdensome system of record keeping for the police, which would only add considerably to the cost of administering the scheme.
I agree with the committee that we need to keep abreast of technological developments, especially those that protect animal welfare, and I advise the chamber that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 contains an order-making power that will allow us to update regulations as required.
I welcome the committee’s support for the Government’s approach to invasive non-native species. Members will be acutely aware of the problems that they cause. As we know, red squirrels face a threat from their grey invasive non-native cousins, but there are also less well-known species that pose a threat, such as piri-piri burr, which is a plant that has caused considerable problems on Lindisfarne. If members are wondering what on earth it is, it is a New Zealand plant with small seed-heads that are covered in hooks that attach themselves to walkers and dogs. It outcompetes native species. Alarmingly, it has already spread to Harris and is also, unfortunately, appearing in my constituency.
Although much of the bill relates to rural Scotland, we know that invasive non-native species are no strangers to urban areas. Last week, we heard that American signal crayfish had been found in the River Kelvin in Glasgow. The cost of invasive non-native species to the Scottish economy is upwards of £200 million. The bill will allow us to be better prepared in the future for invasive non-native species, and it will ensure that action can be taken when it is the best thing to do.
The committee recommended that there should be a lead body for invasive non-native species and, in its evidence to the committee, Scottish Natural Heritage indicated its willingness to take on that role. I agree with the committee’s analysis, and confirm that a lead body will be identified to co-ordinate responses to invasive non-native species. I will ensure that that is publicised and included in the code of practice.
The code of practice will be an important document and I am happy to accept the recommendation of the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the lead committee to make the code subject to parliamentary procedure. The best way to proceed is to propose that the code be subject to affirmative procedure when it is first introduced, and that any future revisions be subject to negative procedure. That will strike the right balance and allow flexibility for future changes in what can be a fast-moving area.
I turn briefly to deer. As with some other matters, the committee had to navigate through some conflicting evidence on the state of deer management in Scotland. I am pleased that the value of retaining the voluntary and privately delivered approach to deer management has been recognised. However, improvements can be made and the bill will do that. It will give SNH a better framework within which to work when the voluntary approach fails to deliver for the greater public interest. The Subordinate Legislation Committee and lead committee also recommended that the code of practice on sustainable deer management be subject to parliamentary procedure. Again, I accept that recommendation, and am considering the most appropriate way to do it. I will write to the committees with further detail.
I thank the committee for recognising that the Government listened and acted in response to the consultation on deer and that, as a result, the deer provisions in the bill are acceptable to the Committee.
I look forward to hearing members’ contributions in the course of this afternoon’s debate.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.
15:37
Consideration of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 was a challenging and fascinating task for the committee. The bill contains a number of different subjects as part of its package of provisions, covering game management, wildlife crime, species licensing, invasive non-native species, protection of badgers, management of deer and the administration of designated protected areas, such as areas of special protection and sites of special scientific interest.
On the surface, the bill is largely practical and seeks to update and strengthen existing law to make it fit for the Scottish countryside of the 21st century. However, it also raised some fundamental questions that galvanised people across Scotland to make their views known to the committee. What should our priorities be in the countryside? What is the ideal balance between different management objectives, such as grouse moor management, protection of species, forestry targets and environmental concerns, and how can we achieve that balance?
When the committee visited the Langholm moor demonstration project, which is an experiment that is attempting to manage a grouse moor with a sustainable hen harrier population, it became clear that what could appear on first sight to be a vast natural wild moor, is actually a piece of land that is extensively managed. Foxes are being controlled, birds are being fed and heather is being burnt. As much as the bill is about the natural environment, it is also about how land is managed.
All committee members engaged with the bill from the outset, and I thank them for their dedication. I also thank all those who gave evidence to the committee, and those who assisted the committee with our external meeting in Langholm, Dumfriesshire, and with our informative visits to the Langholm moor demonstration project, Alvie estate near Aviemore, and the RSPB Scotland-managed Loch Garten and Abernethy reserves in the Cairngorms national park.
I also take this opportunity to thank the committee clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre for their support during stage 1.
As I am sure that members will appreciate, there was no shortage of strongly held views on issues such as snaring, species licensing, game and deer management, and wildlife crime. I will come to each of those shortly. I should also say that, although the committee was not in complete agreement on how to take forward some of the issues, we were unanimous in agreeing that the bill is necessary and important and that the Parliament should support it at stage 1.
On a general issue, it was made clear to the committee that wildlife law has become increasingly complex and difficult to follow. How can we expect everybody to understand the law when there is such confusion and lack of clarity? When the committee heard that respected legal experts struggle to make sense of it, it realised that consolidation of the law was overdue. The committee believes that that should be a priority for any future Administration.
Let me now turn to the various issues in the bill, starting with the provision on game law. The committee supported the Government's intention to modernise archaic game laws and to bring game birds under the auspices of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The committee also supported the creation of a single poaching offence, which should prove to be more transparent and effective. On the topic of ground game—brown and mountain hares, specifically—the committee welcomed the proposed introduction of close seasons to protect dependent young at important times for their welfare.
Wildlife crime and single-witness evidence became a central issue in the committee’s considerations, and a very lively session was held on the subject. The bill restates the current position that poaching offences and egg stealing can be prosecuted on the evidence of a single witness, but other wildlife crimes require corroboration. A majority of members thought that that position is not sustainable and that the law must be made consistent, either by extending single-witness evidence to all wildlife crimes or by abolishing it altogether. Members had different views on which route to recommend—I am sure that others will clarify their positions during the debate.
There was a great deal of discussion about the on-going problem of raptor persecution—a situation which seems, as the minister stated, to be getting worse, rather than improving. The committee agreed that the law is not working. We should be seeing more prosecutions for persecution of raptors and fewer reported cases, but sadly we are not. A majority of the committee therefore welcomed the minister’s announcement that she intends to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to introduce a vicarious liability offence, which will target not just individuals who directly poison a bird of prey but landowners who direct them to do so. It is important that our laws can deal with the few who are tarnishing the reputation of the vast majority of estates, which do a great deal for Scotland both culturally and economically.
The committee unanimously welcomed the recent wildlife estates Scotland initiative, a voluntary initiative that is managed by the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association and the Scottish Estates Business Group, supported by the Scottish Government. It seeks to set and maintain the highest standards for our sporting estates.
Some committee members supported enabling powers being put in the bill so that future Administrations could introduce an estate licensing scheme if the vicarious liability offence and voluntary scheme were shown not to be making an impact on the problem. I note that I did not agree with that recommendation, but I am sure that other members will give their views on it, in due course.
Deer management is another important issue that the bill deals with. It proposes a series of amendments to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 in order to realise fully the intentions of that legislation. There can be few finer sights in Scotland than a red deer stag standing majestically on a hill, and many tourists come to Scotland to see deer in their natural environment. However, as Scotland has somewhere in the region of 750,000 deer and they have no natural predator, deer numbers need to be managed to prevent significant damage to habitat and to ensure that any threat to public health and safety is kept to a minimum.
The committee agreed with the Government that the most effective method of managing deer across the country is to encourage co-operation and collaboration among all those who manage deer for a variety of objectives. However, the committee also heard persuasive evidence that the system is simply not working as well as it should be, and it therefore calls on the Government to re-examine the operation of deer management groups, which gather local landowners together to agree how to manage deer numbers in a particular area, and to ensure that all those who are responsible abide by the proposed code of practice.
The committee supported the Government’s proposed presumption against the release of invasive non-native species. In this country, we have seen many examples of non-native species becoming invasive and damaging natural wildlife and habitat, from the non-native grey squirrel, which the minister mentioned, and the rhododendron to the signal crayfish, which was discovered only last week in the River Kelvin. The best way of preventing future generations from having to deal with problems that are caused by non-native species is to have a presumption against the release of such species.
There were less contentious measures in the bill that the committee supported, such as bringing consistency to the laws protecting badgers; making changes to when and how muirburn should be practised; and the proposed streamlining of designations of protected sites, such as areas of special protection and sites of special scientific interest. The committee welcomes all those provisions, with some minor suggestions and recommendations.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, in many ways the fundamental question behind the bill is what our priorities should be in the countryside. How do we achieve a balance between public and private interests, between landowners and environmentalists, and between animal welfare organisations and those who shoot for sport? The bill has begun to answer that question and to better address the balance. I look forward to its being strengthened further at stage 2.
15:46
First, I thank the committee, the clerks and all those who contributed to the consultation process and the analysis of those comments in preparing the report that we have in front of us for the stage 1 debate. The bill is complex, with controversial elements and detailed proposals, but it is also wide ranging and, potentially, involves a huge number of stakeholders in rural and urban Scotland.
One of the key things that comes through from discussions in the Parliament on landscape, farming, crofting, recreation, access, tourism and human activity is the fact that balances must be struck. Decisions on how we use our land have a huge impact on our flora and fauna that pass us by, but which are crucial to maintenance of our biodiversity and the quality and health of our environment for the future. That means protecting and enhancing our natural environment, and making sure that we have the right frameworks and interventions where that is appropriate.
One of the long-term challenges that comes from climate change is the fact that SSSIs may need to be reviewed. The Scottish Wildlife Trust makes powerful arguments about the need to take a wider ecosystems view. That may be beyond the bill, but it will become part of the backdrop of our future land use. Therefore, we very much welcome the provisions on SSSI amendment and restoration powers, which we think will make a positive difference.
The provisions on deer management are long awaited. The John Muir Trust is disappointed that the Scottish Government has stepped back from its initial proposals and asks about the extra costs to the public purse if the management action that is required by the code is not undertaken—for example, in relation to woodland planting targets. I wonder whether the minister would like to comment, in her winding-up speech, on those comments from the John Muir Trust.
Labour welcomes the proposals for a statutory code of practice for deer management. We also welcome the fact that SNH would have to have regard to that code in exercising its powers to secure sustainable deer management. Like the committee, we seek clarity on how that would work. We think that it is an important issue that needs to be clarified properly. The committee has asked the Scottish Government to clarify whether all landowners will have to abide by the code and what powers SNH will have for intervention if the code is ignored or breached. That is a fundamental point, so it would be helpful to all who are involved in deer management to have that clarified by the minister from the outset.
We support the committee’s view that everyone needs to be around the table to ensure that the code is right from the start. So, we support the committee’s recommendation to the minister that NFU Scotland and at least one environmental organisation be at the table at the start in order that we can make sure that the code has broad support. We also support the committee’s suggestion that there be a review of deer management groups. In the light of the new provisions in the bill, that would be a very useful step.
There are suggestions in the report for further consideration of definitions. The committee has come up with a sensible recommendation that the Scottish Government use the term “damage” throughout the bill and remove the word “serious”. That will be debated in the context of amendments at stage 2.
We also support the measures to improve action on non-native species. As the minister has said, where they are introduced, they can cause huge damage to biodiversity and bring about major costs, as well impacting on other species. For that reason, we strongly welcome the minister’s commitments, which we will support at stage 2.
Since our Parliament was established, we have made progress on wildlife crime, and this bill provides us with an opportunity to enhance our law and give further clarity on its enforcement. There are still places in Scotland where species are illegally poisoned, but no one is ever prosecuted. Some excellent work is being done by the partnership against wildlife crime, which is pulling together people and agencies to give a sharper focus and greater co-ordination to work on wildlife crime.
The committee strongly supported new provisions on vicarious liability, so I welcome the minister’s commitment to take that forward and we very much look forward to her official response to the committee’s report next week. We think that the proposal will make managers and landowners much more focused on ensuring that there is best practice on their estates, and it will send out the right message.
We also support the rationalisation of poaching offences in the bill to support a single poaching offence.
The principle of single-witness provisions has worked well with regard to poaching, and we think that it should be extended to tackling other wildlife crimes, too. We also support the potential use of SSPCA inspectors to help to tackle wildlife crime.
As the minister said, the committee has heard divergent evidence on snaring and has attempted to deliver a compromise. Labour still remains unhappy about the current practice of snaring. We accept that there have been improvements through the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, that technology has changed, that monitoring has been tightened and that more is possible still. However, we remain faced with the fundamental problem that many animals still suffer.
Having chaired the last committee that considered snaring, I know that some people will argue that the new provisions will make the bill work. However, we remain to be convinced and we think that, as suggested by the committee, ministers should have the power, through the bill, to enable a ban on snaring. There are still animals suffering that were not intended to be caught by snares. I understand that OneKind has suggested that five years after the introduction of the provisions is too long to wait for a review, and so recommends a shorter timescale of two years. I hope that the committee can consider that at stage 2. Certainly, a five-year timescale would see the issue kicked further into the long grass—it would not be considered even in the next session of Parliament. We suspect that there is no majority in Parliament for a ban on snaring, but that does not mean that we cannot take more serious action on snaring.
There is a need to support the bill tonight, as it contains important new powers. There is an opportunity for delivering clarity at stage 2. If improved, the bill could certainly deliver much-needed support to improve the quality of the environment and ensure its protection. We will try to amend the bill at stage 2, and we will work constructively with colleagues to try to develop majority support on what are extremely contentious issues, as the minister ably outlined earlier.
We are happy to support the principles of the bill, so that it can be taken forward to stage 2 for amendment.
15:53
I declare an interest as a farmer, and thank everyone who has contributed to getting the bill to this stage 1 debate.
The Scottish Conservatives welcome much of this largely amending bill that deals with modernisation of game law, abolition of areas of special protection, improvements to snaring, species regulation, changes to deer management and changes to muirburn practices. We support most of the bill, while recognising that there is a need for consolidating legislation at some future date.
However, there will still be much to debate at stage 2, and the principal concern that I have is the Government's intention to introduce vicarious liability into the bill by amendment at stage 2 in an attempt to stop raptor persecution.
Let me state categorically that Scottish Conservatives utterly condemn those who carry out raptor persecution, in the same way that we condemn deer poaching and other wildlife crimes, and we want to make every attempt to stamp out these abominable crimes.
However, the scale of raptor persecution is the unanswered question. The case that is being made for the introduction of vicarious liability is largely predicated on the alleged disappearance of approximately 50 golden eagles in the north-east of Scotland each year, with the suggestion being that they have been poisoned or otherwise killed. However, that suggestion is simply not entirely credible, as Sheriff Drummond pointed out in evidence to the committee when he noted that
“Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 15 September 2010; c 3092.]
Everyone who has lived and worked with livestock and wildlife in rural Scotland knows that if birds and animals are conceived in the first place and survive until birth, they can regrettably die for 101 reasons and from various combinations of circumstances that can include hunger, weather conditions and misadventure. That sad fact is worse in the wild and in wilderness conditions. We should look at this week’s weather, for example. The unusual early snowfall will reduce raptor food supply and affect the success of next year’s breeding of golden eagles. Those are simple but well-known issues that relate to the effect of available food supply on body conditions and, ultimately, on fertility.
It is simple animal husbandry, but those very real issues affect successful breeding patterns in all animals and birds; the science is well documented in that regard. We do not believe that poisoning and persecution is widespread. The great proportion of disappeared birds are simply not born, or else they die of natural causes.
We do not believe that the case has been made for the introduction of vicarious liability, as it is neither a proportionate nor reasonable response to a partly real and partly imagined crime. We do not view it as a positive way forward, especially given that it may be an active disincentive to land and estate ownership in Scotland.
Much more reasonably, we believe that police forces throughout Scotland should be strengthened by the creation of more dedicated wildlife crime officers to investigate all forms of wildlife crime, including raptor persecution, and by using existing legislation if and when evidence can be found to demonstrate that a crime has been committed. We also believe that police forces should be strengthened, where it is appropriate in remote and rural areas, by increasing the number of special constables.
On estate licensing, I welcome the wildlife estates Scotland initiative that the SRPBA has developed in conjunction with SNH, RSPB Scotland, the Scottish Estates Business Group, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and others. It will raise the level of sustainable management of estates throughout Scotland and help to meet targets in biodiversity, sustainability and climate change, as well as delivering socioeconomic objectives. I agree with the minister that now is not the time—and nor is there a need—for estate licensing.
On deer management, we largely welcome the revised provisions in the bill. However, we still have concerns about how best to make deer management groups work successfully, given the different priorities that different estates have in relation to managing a transient deer population that now—as Maureen Watt mentioned—numbers around 750,000. I welcome the minister’s intention to consider that further.
I support the Government’s intention to allow the continued use of snaring in a much more humane way than it has been practised in the past. I share members’ concerns about catching wildlife other than foxes or rabbits, but I believe that snaring is still a very necessary tool for the control of foxes in particular. In that regard, I look forward to the further development of snares, which we should aim to use in the future as restraining devices with breaking strain releases and individual identities so that ownership of each snare can be established.
Finally, I will say a word on geese and the emerging problem of species that are now overwintering as a result of climate change in Orkney, other islands and northern mainland areas. I am sure that Liam McArthur will want to draw attention to that problem too, and he will perhaps support me in asking the Government to at least think about the issue before stage 2.
I also welcome the more relaxed provisions on muirburn and the greater flexibility that is proposed. We will support the bill, and we look forward to lodging appropriate amendments at stage 2.
15:59
It is a pleasure to be here, all the more so since I spent a large part of the past two days in Kirkwall airport waiting for Edinburgh airport to reopen. On the up side, that allowed me to read through a number of briefings for the debate and undertake an impromptu surgery with constituents, many of whom had been there a great deal longer than I had.
I start by adding my thanks to all those who helped in the production of the stage 1 report on the WANE bill—my fellow committee members, the clerks, SPICe and other support staff and, of course, the wide range of individuals and bodies who have given evidence in recent months. The fact that, at times, the evidence has been contradictory does not detract from its value to the committee in reaching conclusions on a wide range of often contentious issues. The visits to Langholm, Alvie and Abernethy proved particularly informative, and I thank those who hosted us, not least Jamie Williamson of Alvie estate, whose dramatic retractable window is surely worthy of a mention on the public record.
I also commend the minister for the way in which she has engaged with the committee. The initial consultation process was clearly thorough, but we have welcomed her attempts to anticipate and respond to the concerns of committee members, be they unanimous or held by a majority. We have seen further evidence of that today. It has been helpful and I hope that it will continue through stages 2 and 3.
Although further improvements are undoubtedly necessary, and I will try to touch on some of those, the bill has generally received a broad welcome. Concerns that the reference to the natural environment in the bill’s title underplays the extent to which much of what we are talking about is actively managed are understandable, but I am not sure what would be achieved by a name change at this stage. It is imperative to stress, however, the value that we attach to that activity. As the committee’s report acknowledges up front, management of land plays a significant role in creating and sustaining the types of biodiversity and landscape that have come to be valued as typically Scottish. The economic, social and cultural importance of that activity is also recognised and highly valued, as the convener suggested.
Similar to the issues surrounding the title of the bill are the concerns that have been raised about the supposed lack of an overarching narrative. Although I am happy for the Government to give more consideration to how a coherent approach to safeguarding Scotland’s biodiversity can be achieved, perhaps through a beefed-up land use strategy, I accept that the bill is essentially intended to tidy up the law in a range of areas. As such, retrofitting a narrative seems fraught with dangers. Indeed, I do not believe that providing a narrative is necessarily an integral part of legislation. However, it is an entirely necessary function of legislation to set out clearly what the law is. As Sheriff Drummond said, it is getting difficult for legal experts to
“find and see the direction in which”
the law
“is going.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 15 September 2010; c 3078.]
Professor Reid said:
“having clearer legislation is so important to ensuring public access and understanding. It helps you ... ensure that it is understood and enforced.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 6 October 2010; c 3222-3.]
In that regard, it is incumbent on any future Administration to embark on a consolidation of the law before, or at least at the same time as, proposing any further amendments to it.
That brings me to the changes that are being proposed at present. I do not want to diminish the importance of other issues in the bill, but I hope that members will understand why I choose to concentrate my remarks on snaring, wildlife crime and deer management, in that order. Initially, snaring was widely considered the most contentious aspect of the bill. Those who advocate an outright ban on the practice have argued their case powerfully and, in most cases, constructively. There is little doubt that, despite the steps that have been taken in recent times to improve the design and placement of snares, abuses still occur, sometimes with deeply disturbing consequences.
However, on the balance of the evidence that the committee has taken, I am persuaded that the case for allowing snaring to continue as one tool in pest and predator management has been persuasively made. I believe that further safeguards are needed, as well as improved training in relation to animal welfare and better record keeping. It is also imperative that innovation in snare design and use continues to take place. That is why, in part, I accept the need for a reserve power in the bill. It will allow time for the changes to bed in, provide an incentive to make them work, and look to further improvements. I am also conscious that any outright ban would be unlikely to deter many of those who are guilty of malpractice.
I acknowledge the consensus that exists in condemning acts of wildlife crime. Sadly, despite efforts in recent years to tighten up laws and increase resources, the signs are that the problem persists and is getting worse, as the minister has confirmed. Raptor persecution in particular drew much of the committee’s attention during stage 1 and I offer the following thoughts as we look ahead to stage 2. We need greater clarity on what constitutes a recordable wildlife crime if we are to achieve greater consistency between police forces, but we must also add to the potential armoury of those who are tasked with combating such crimes, which are not imaginary, as John Scott asserted, although I associate myself with his comments on geese.
The Government’s willingness to introduce a vicarious liability is therefore welcome, although it is not straightforward, nor is it a silver bullet. Concerns about the potential for the power to be abused must be addressed in amendments, although due diligence will remain a defence and obtaining evidence will be essential to any successful prosecution. However, along with changes to offences relating to the possession of illegal poisons and “concerned in the use of” provisions, the change can help to shift the balance and provide a real deterrent.
On evidence, I have reservations about extending the SSPCA’s powers, but I await with interest the outcome of further work on the subject. In the meantime, I am coming to the view that single-witness evidence has illusory value and could safely be dispensed with, although current inconsistencies need to be addressed one way or the other.
On licensing, I note the concerns of the SRPBA and others about reserved powers. I sympathise with some of those misgivings and I welcome the wildlife estates initiative, but there could be value in keeping pressure in the pipe while we see how events unfold.
I share the Government’s view that a pragmatic approach to deer management structures must be taken. The approach should be one in which firm and effective back-stop powers can and will be exercised if plans are not produced or implemented. In that regard, I want amendments to clarify when and how the powers will be triggered. It is essential that back-stop powers have teeth.
I welcome the bill’s general principles and thank everyone who assisted the committee in producing its stage 1 report. I look forward to helping to ensure that further improvements to the bill are made, in the interests of our wildlife and managed natural environment.
16:05
I confess to some confusion. I see Roseanna Cunningham sitting on the front bench, but surely she is the wrong minister and it should be Adam Ingram for the wean bill.
In light of John Scott’s comments, I say that vicarious liability is a tremendous idea, which is long overdue.
It is probably fair to say that single-witness evidence has vexed the committee. Currently, such evidence is acceptable for poaching and egg-stealing offences. I was initially very much in favour of extending the approach to wildlife crime but, after I understood that single-witness evidence means that an individual can be convicted without corroborating evidence, I began to have my doubts. Should it be possible to convict an individual solely on the word of another? Perhaps it is time to repeal the law. Whatever the minister decides, as a matter of principle, the law must be regularised. Either single-witness evidence is unacceptable and should be abolished, or it is acceptable for offences that occur in remote areas and it must logically follow that it should be possible to convict for wildlife crimes on single-witness evidence. As a point of principle, it should be one or the other.
We live in uncertain times. Climate change is resulting in the movement of species’ ranges and changes in ecological communities. If we are to meet our biodiversity targets, we must be prepared for such changes. That is what lies behind the recommendation for an ecologically coherent network of environmentally protected sites. Even if climate change were not occurring, simple island biogeography theory would predict a progressive loss of diversity from small, isolated reserves. Climate change can only exacerbate the situation. An ecologically coherent network need not exclude development; a wide range of actions could be taken that would have minimal impact. Furthermore, clearly defined objectives would benefit developers. A clear definition of where it is intended to leave room for species movement would assist developers in knowing what type of development would be appropriate.
I appreciate that the minister does not think that the bill is the appropriate place to introduce a duty in relation to an ecologically coherent network. I understand her logic. There are alternative vehicles, such as the land use strategy. A clear commitment from the minister to consult on the proposal for an ecologically coherent network, even if the measure were not to be included in the bill, would be a positive step.
On the whole, the muirburn code does not appear controversial, but there remains a concern that inappropriate muirburn might be causing significant soil damage in some parts of the country. The committee has proposed that there should be a mechanism that allows the withdrawal of Government money from landowners whose failure to abide by the muirburn code causes soil damage. I hope that the minister will consider the proposal.
The committee heard evidence that snaring might be an important tool in predator control. I should say that I believe the scientific evidence that foxes do not predate lambs to be clear and overwhelming. I am not a vegetarian and I have no inherent objection to killing an animal, but there are concerns about the ethics of snaring and about the specificity of the species that are targeted.
The bill will be the first piece of legislation on snaring to be passed by the Scottish Parliament. After some 12 years, that is a positive step, but we should go a little further. I hope that the code of practice will work, but if we are to know whether it is working we will need to examine the situation some years down the line. I am therefore delighted that the minister accepted the committee’s recommendation that there be an independent study into the code’s effectiveness. The knowledge that snaring will be re-examined five years down the line would reassure members and the country as a whole that we have not simply legislated and then washed our hands of the matter. It follows that, if the code is shown not to be working and it cannot be made to work, Parliament should act. For that reason, I ask the minister to consider introducing the power to ban snaring via a super-affirmative instrument.
Having perused the draft code on the introduction of non-native species, I must say that it looks to be a positive step. However, I have one concern. Roadside verges are not defined as wild areas, which means that planting on them is not restricted. Of course, the draft code makes it clear that, should a non-native species be planted and then escape into the wild, the individual who planted the species can be held responsible. That is right and proper and should discourage the planting of non-native species on roadside verges, but that will not be prohibited. An individual could decide to plant anyway and hang the consequences.
I enjoy pretty flowers on roadside verges as much as the next person does, and the people who voluntarily plant our verges should be praised. I understand that concern will be felt about discouraging such individuals from a public-spirited act, although I do not imagine that many of them are doing it just now. However, the risk to our countryside from invasive non-natives is real. As the climate changes, which species are invasive is likely to change, so I urge the minister to consider altering the definition of roadside verges. However, those who plant our verges should not be discouraged, so perhaps the Government could create a website that recommends native species that are suitable for planting. That would have the additional advantage of enhancing our biodiversity.
Considerable concern is expressed about the decline in the number of bees. Native flowers on our roadside verges might help to halt that decline. Bees are educated consumers and are fussy about the nectar on which they dine. Foreign fast foods are not for them—we have no burger-and-chips bees; it is fine Scottish nectar that our bees seek. I urge the minister to support Richard Lochhead’s campaign for Scottish foods: for the sake of our bee numbers and bees’ delicious vomit, which we all like to spread on our toast of a morning, let us have roadside verges that are planted with native species.
The bill is excellent, but even what is excellent can be improved. I am proud to belong to the party that introduced the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill, which was aimed at introducing sustainable and environmentally friendly flood control, and the Marine (Scotland) Bill, which will create an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill will add to the Government’s excellent environmental record.
16:12
The bill has turned into a worthwhile document and I am happy to support its general principles. The bill provides the opportunity to tidy existing legislation and to clarify and tighten the law.
I will focus on raptor poisoning. If I have time, I will touch on deer, snaring and bees, which Bill Wilson introduced, although I will talk about bees in a slightly different context from him.
In talking about raptor poisoning, I make it clear that I am a member of the RSPB and of the Scottish Ornithologists Club. Devolution has brought many new opportunities to legislate, but legislation on some subjects is still comparatively rare. The bill is significant because it provides what is still a rare opportunity to consider its subject matter and to try to do something important—to right the on-going wrong of raptor poisoning, to send clear signals of intent from the Parliament about what we want to happen, to take the toughest actions that we can to eliminate the practice and to remedy an unacceptable set of behaviours that, sadly, not only continues but seems to be growing, as the minister said.
Our raptor populations, which include eagles, peregrine, hen harriers and—yes—buzzards, stand as a symbol of a magnificent natural Scotland. It is unacceptable that such beautiful and majestic creatures are still poisoned, shot, trapped and killed. We see that that is unacceptable to people in Scotland in general from the reaction to such crimes. Today, the Parliament has another opportunity to make it clear that such practices are unacceptable to the Parliament, too.
The bill provides an unrivalled opportunity to take actions against the perpetrators of such crimes against raptors. I warmly welcome the minister’s intention to introduce a new provision on vicarious liability, which I am pretty confident—subject to seeing the detail—we will support.
That said, I am under no illusion about how difficult it will be to secure convictions under such a provision. I hope that its existence will be sufficient to create a climate whereby we bear down further on the crime of raptor poisoning. However, vicarious liability will not of itself go far enough. I urge the minister to consider other charges and offences, particularly one that would, figuratively and literally, capture those involved in raptor persecution, whether it is because they handled the poisons, the traps or the gun that shot the bird.
If the Government is prepared to keep single-witness evidence in law for the collection of bird eggs, I see no reason why it should not be extended to cover raptor persecution. However, I agree with other committee members that it has to be one thing or the other—it should be either extended or taken out entirely.
Further, I urge the minister to make provision for the possible future—I stress “possible future”—licensing of estates to provide a potentially tough outcome for those estates on which persecution is shown to be continuing. The potential loss of the ability to continue activities as a result of the loss of their licence would have a powerful effect. As a society, we license all sorts of people and things, such as taxi drivers, window cleaners, social workers, lawyers, street traders, pubs, off-licences, gaming activity and betting. If, to protect the public interest, we can license people to do those things, it is entirely reasonable that we license to protect raptors. Although I would prefer that provisions on that were in the bill now, I accept that that would be a significant development of policy. The matter has not been fully consulted on, and it would be difficult to come up with a workable scheme in the short term. It is for those reasons that I consider that the recommendation of the committee for a reserve power is entirely appropriate. I stress that there is a variety of ways of doing that. I ask the minister to keep an open mind to the idea of working with others in Parliament to consider the possibilities, including a licensing scheme that would not cover all estates but would isolate those where problems are continuing.
I support the potential extension of the powers of the SSPCA—I stress “extension”, as the SSPCA already has significant powers in relation to the welfare of animals. It would be worth while to extend those powers to allow the SSPCA to investigate the persecution of raptors. I urge the minister to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to give ministers powers to do that, after the consultation that she has rightly said is still required takes place.
It is also important, in tidying up the law, that the minister clarifies once and for all—in the bill, I hope—which birds that are kept for release for shooting purposes are livestock and which are not. There is ambiguity about that and I hope that the minister will take the opportunity to correct that.
On deer, I support the principles that the minister has set out in the bill. Greater clarity is required on compliance with the code by landowners and to ensure that the complex provisions from the Deer Commission, which will continue under SNH, can be brought into play effectively. Further clarification on that is required, too.
I agree with the position that Sarah Boyack set out on snaring. More could be done on that issue and I support what Liam McArthur said in that regard.
Finally, on bees, the bill gives us an opportunity, if we think imaginatively enough, to give Parliament and ministers powers to protect various groups of bees in certain parts of Scotland that are not yet subject to disease. I urge the minister to keep an open mind on the issue and to consider it imaginatively—in due course I will give her some ideas on how to do that.
16:18
I agree with practically every word of Peter Peacock’s speech. He has saved me a little time because I do not need to cover everything now.
I will pick up on two of Peter Peacock’s observations. I agree whole-heartedly with his comments on snaring. The proposals are a good start, but we need to ensure that, if the provisions do not work, we return to the subject, preferably within five years. We should still be able to consider an outright ban on snaring. That is my objective, and the objective of my colleagues in the Scottish Green Party and of many others from whom we have heard.
In response to what John Scott said about eagles, I point out that, if people are poisoning eagles, they hide the evidence of their crime as well as they can. There is good evidence of that practice from the Highlands, where someone was observed catching a buzzard in a crow trap and was then tracked to where he buried it in a rabbit hole; when the buzzard was pulled out, the corpses of another seven buzzards were also found. That kind of thing happens and, on that evidence, there is no reason for us to think that it is not happening in the Western Isles, too.
I agree with Liam McArthur that geese are a problem, but they are also climate change refugees. Surely we should be doing what we can within our powers to welcome them and, at the same time, control the problem in a reasonable and rational way.
Several mentions have been made of climate change. The bill has no overarching purpose in that regard. No member has mentioned Professor Sir John Lawton CBE’s supplementary evidence on the bill, which came as a late submission to the committee. He makes the strong argument for the backdrop to the bill being
“ecological coherence and habitat connectivity”.
He points out that
“These subjects were not originally included within the scope of the ... Bill as introduced. However, I believe the inclusion of provisions in the Bill relating to ecological coherence and connectivity will make the Bill a more complete package of measures and would genuinely further the protection and enhancement of wildlife and the natural environment in Scotland.”
Surely we are talking not just about a tidying exercise but about a bill that provides a complete package of measures to protect our wildlife and natural environment.
Sir John goes on to say:
“The Scottish Government has targets for improving the condition of designated areas ... However, there are currently no such targets for improving the connectivity of semi-natural habitats or ensuring new developments are located and designed in such a way as to minimise further fragmentation (or in fact enhance connectivity through good design) ... there are some notable ... policy initiatives (e.g. Glasgow Clyde Valley and Central Scotland Green networks)”.
Why do we not try to include Sir John’s proposal in the bill as a general principle across Scotland’s environment? Picking up on what Bill Wilson said, I think that doing that would be extremely good for bees and other insect populations that have to survive in sensitive areas that have become cut off from other such areas. We must minimise fragmentation. I would welcome a response from the Government on the general principle that Sir John outlines of
“a general duty within primary legislation on public bodies to have regard to further the ecological coherence and connectivity of existing protected areas, including the features outside those areas which contribute to ecological coherence.”
I hope that the committee will have time to consider that during its detailed consideration of the bill.
Deer management has been mentioned several times. I commend all the comments that have been made on that. There is concern about the absence of powers if non-participation continues and deer management groups do not produce deer management plans or landowners fail to introduce such plans. We need further measures under the bill to introduce powers of compulsion. The committee called for clarification on how to make landowners abide by the code of practice on deer management and, in particular, on how breaches of the code could lead to SNH intervention and how they could trigger sections 7 and 8 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. I ask the minister to say whether the Scottish Government will support an amendment to make those processes clearer and more robust in the bill.
16:25
Although I am not a member of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, I am delighted to take part in the debate, because I have had previous involvement with the subjects to which the bill relates and wish to contribute some remarks that will, I hope, be helpful.
Robin Harper cited Sir John Lawton’s remarks about ecological coherence, which are interesting, but the issue might be more suitably addressed through the land use strategy. We are talking about the management of land. By and large, the land of Scotland is highly managed—very little of it is wild—but its ecological coherence can be addressed in that context. As we know, ecologies change. At present, the rewetting of peatlands, which is a particular interest of mine, is improving habitats for many of our species. It also allows us to tackle some climate change issues by sequestering carbon. There will be changes in the way in which land is used, in the way in which certain ecosystems are developed and so on. It is difficult to address the issue of ecological coherence here, given that it was raised only following the bill’s introduction.
Robin Harper described geese as refugees. When people first began to live off Solan geese, or gannets, and other birds on islands such as St Kilda, I wonder whether they saw them as refugees, as likely to be food or—as someone has put it in more modern terms—as flying duvets. It might be suggested to people in North Uist, who are responsible for a lot of the correspondence on the problem that members in the Highlands and Islands receive, that there is an opportunity to make some new industries out of the excessive numbers of geese that are present. They find it difficult to get people to shoot the geese, but perhaps a new industry will come out of that.
I have a serious point to make about non-native species. We regularly have to pass secondary legislation on mink. That is an example of a long-running effort to remove a non-native species from our midst. It has always worried me that we do not get updates on record keeping about how well we are doing, except perhaps once a year, when the secondary legislation is considered. It is important that the bill should make more detailed provision in that area, if possible.
I note the moves to give beavers—a reintroduced species—protected status. I wonder what would have happened to the osprey, when it first came back in the 1950s, if we had treated it as a non-native species. We must be careful to recognise which animals and birds can live in our habitat and have been here before, and ensure that they are protected.
The issue of deer management, which is close to my heart, has been raised. I wish that deer management were practised to the full extent that it can be, but I believe that it is not. Although we recognise the great job that deer management groups do, I am concerned that the management of deer is tied up so much with the ownership and value of land, from which it should be somewhat detached.
We still have far too many deer. If there were an opportunity for them to live in a more natural habitat, which would include woodlands, they might grow larger; that would provide us with a much better stock of animals. We are hampered by the fact that the sale of estates is governed by the number of stags that can be shot. Careful consideration must be given to the issue of deer management. The Deer Commission for Scotland has just merged with SNH. We must see how that arrangement works out, but the voluntary principle must be kept under close scrutiny.
I turn to the issue of effective enforcement and the police response to wildlife crime. Other members have mentioned that illegal raptor persecution is still too widespread in various parts of Scotland. The recent incidents in my region this summer, at Skibo and Moy, illustrate the need for urgent efforts to be made to tackle such persecution, as raptors are a key part of our Highland natural heritage and are a major attraction for eco-tourists. It worries me that findings of eagle, sparrowhawk and buzzard carcases were reported in May this year. The owners of Skibo castle said:
“The owners and management of Skibo Castle are committed conservationists and do everything they can to support the welfare of wildlife and birds and will co-operate fully with the investigation.”
I am not talking about guilt or innocence here, but it is very difficult for estates to manage such incidents. It depends on their outlook and their views on what the estate is for. It is important that, under the bill, we will at last make some link with what gamekeepers do—perhaps, they think, in the best interests of their employers. We ought to know that the employers are quite clear on that.
I welcome the letter from the Scottish Estates Business Group and the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association, which have “repeatedly condemned such incidents”. They suggest that a better way forward is possible.
Vicarious liability measures are absolutely essential for the bill, and I hope that they, along with many other measures, will strengthen our support for wildlife in this country.
16:31
We have had an interesting debate this afternoon, and I too start by declaring an interest, in hill farming. I took a particular interest in the section on muirburn.
There can be no doubt that we are fortunate to live in a country of such beauty. The scenery in every corner of Scotland is complemented by diverse wildlife. Indeed, I argue that our most profitable natural resource is our environment and wildlife. It is not just profitable; it provides great enjoyment for everyone who goes into the country.
A report that was commissioned by SNH and published this year estimated that nature-based tourism was worth nearly £1.5 billion annually to the Scottish economy, and that it supported 39,000 full-time jobs. Wildlife tourism alone is estimated to generate £127 million each year, and it is the driving force behind more than 1 million visits annually.
The intentions behind the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill are good. It was appropriate to hold an extensive consultation to ensure that a wide range of stakeholders could help to shape the bill prior to its introduction. It seems rather ridiculous that there are still sections of game law that are derived from a piece of legislation that was passed before the US declaration of independence. I welcome the bill’s attempts to provide a more modern legal framework for tackling wildlife and environmental issues.
There are a number of concerns in my region. Country sports play an important part in the economy there, with many hotels surviving only because of the winter visitors for game shooting and because of the environment. An independent survey from eight years ago estimated that 80 per cent of woods in the Borders were used at some stage for country sports. Many of them were planted solely for that reason. In one year there were up to 196,000 participation days in rural sports, and in the Borders alone an estimated £29.5 million was spent by providers and participants. We must be careful not to shoot ourselves in the foot with a well-intentioned bill. I also recognise the importance of pheasant rearing and release in that regard, and I would be interested to hear the minister’s views on that when she sums up the debate.
Vicarious liability has been discussed, and no one here will wish to condone any land user giving orders to kill wildlife illegally, so the bill must tighten up that area. It must also ensure that land users cannot be prosecuted for a crime just because it happened on their land. I am glad to hear that the minister will lodge an amendment regarding due diligence to address that point.
The sections of the bill that seek to legislate on non-native species are of particular interest to me, because non-native species are of some relevance to me and others in the South of Scotland. American signal crayfish have become a significant problem in various areas of the country, with Loch Ken in Dumfries and Galloway being especially badly affected. It is estimated that the income that is generated by people who use the loch for boating and angling exceeds £740,000 per annum. That has come under threat from the crayfish, which eat young fish and destroy their habitat. I understand that, in a five-month period last year, more than a million of the creatures were captured on the loch in a Government-funded pilot scheme, which highlights how serious the problem is. Such is their impact that the species was described by Colin Bean of SNH as
“the Steve McQueen of the invertebrate world”,
because the crayfish can escape from anything, probably due to their being amphibious.
That is only one example of the kind of economic and environmental impacts that an invasive non-native species can have when introduced into an alien ecosystem. It is therefore only right that we take a dim view of those whose actions, or inaction, endanger native animals and plant life, so I welcome the Government’s efforts to tackle invasive non-native species. However, I am mindful of the number of organisations and members awaiting clarification on certain of the provisions, which I am hopeful will be provided at stage 2.
When we consider that Scotland possesses 80 per cent of the UK’s blanket bog peat and that the amount of carbon currently lying underneath our soil represents about 190 years’ worth of Scotland’s total emissions, we get a sense of how potentially serious the degradation of our peatland is. The continued presence of about 750,000 deer in Scotland, many of which are located in peatland areas, is probably not helping.
With that figure in mind, as Liam McArthur said, it is worth looking at deer management. However, I am aware of the concerns about possible contraventions of the European convention on human rights by placing a legal duty on landowners to manage deer sustainably, and of the disagreements that became apparent during the consultation. I note the committee’s belief that the deer management provisions in the bill have struck an acceptable compromise and I broadly support them.
I look forward to monitoring the bill as it progresses through Parliament, as it is important that we streamline and simplify the legislation in the areas specified in the bill.
16:37
I am delighted to sum up in this debate. It is vital that we get the bill right for those men and women who work in the hills and glens and keep them well managed, even when, as now, they are hindered by several feet of snowdrifts while we sit cosily in the chamber. They are straightforward, tough people—the very salt of Scotland’s earth—and they deserve a fair deal.
The minister said that she had listened to many people from different walks of life. Well done to her for that, and well done also for recognising the importance of this sector of rural life. She has listened to people who do not often get heard and who do not get heard often enough.
I thank my friend John Scott and other members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, as well as the committee clerking team, for a thorough stage 1 report, which has informed today’s debate. Much of the debate has focused on wildlife crime and, as John Scott set out, we believe—like Bill Wilson—that the argument has not been made convincingly that single-witness evidence should apply on this issue. Rather, as Sheriff Drummond suggested when he gave evidence, the focus should be on the collection of solid evidence. Given that the evidence to the committee suggested that it was incredibly rare for someone to be prosecuted for an offence of egg stealing on the evidence of a single witness, it surely is illogical to extend single witness evidence to other wildlife crime. Such a move might even open up the door to frame-ups. Surely law is good only if it works to stop crime.
Likewise, the Scottish Conservatives have serious worries about the Government’s intention to introduce vicarious liability at stage 2, because we again pay heed to the words of Sheriff Drummond, an expert on wildlife crime, who said:
“There are so many ways round it. Vicarious liability has been floated as some kind of answer. It is not an answer”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 15 September 2010; c 3104.]
Much legislation already exists, and we should surely concentrate on achieving better enforcement of current laws before adding additional measures to the statute book. In other words, we should tighten up existing laws and ensure that they work against wildlife crime.
Snaring is another subject that many members have raised. I am well aware of the strong feelings about snaring—indeed, I, too, have strong feelings about it—and I welcome the committee’s balanced conclusions on it. Its report states:
“the Committee also acknowledges that pest control is a vital part of land management and that, if properly regulated and managed, limited and appropriate use of snares should continue to be an option for land managers in Scotland.”
As Bert Burnett of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association said this week, the majority of practitioners are already highly skilled, and they have welcomed the tightening of snaring regulations and demonstrated a clear willingness to meet modern expectations by signing up for detailed practical and written training in order to meet the highest welfare standards.
To many of my constituents in the Highlands and Islands, snares remain a vital tool in controlling escalating fox numbers, which can do much damage to our populations of rare waders and ground-nesting birds as well as to valuable game birds, not to mention the lambs on numerous sheep farms throughout the Highlands. At this point, I suppose that I had better refer members to my agricultural interests in the register of members’ interests.
On game management, we are happy to welcome the modernisation of game law and the abolition of game licences. The bill will also repeal the restriction on selling game at certain times of the year by amending section 4 of the Game Act 1831, which was aimed at stopping the killing of game birds and hares during closed seasons. Refrigeration now means that game that has been killed in the open season can be kept and sold throughout the year. I hope that the bill will open up more marketing opportunities for those who wish to sell Scottish game in restaurants and shops all year round.
The SRPBA is right to argue that any future changes to the list of game species must be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. I strongly support the committee’s call for any proposed removals from the game species list to be subject to affirmative rather than negative procedure, which would mean that any proposals would be voted on.
More generally, I welcome the Government’s and the committee’s recognition that shooting and red deer stalking are of real economic importance to many areas of Scotland. That is especially so in the Highlands, where the income from country sports provides work for gamekeepers and numerous other jobs associated with them.
I want to put on record my support for the wildlife estates Scotland initiative, which I was pleased to see the minister launch at Colquhalzie in Perthshire on 23 November. Everyone involved in that initiative is to be commended. I know that those people will step up to the mark in showing to the public that our Scottish country estates are integral to protecting and preserving our natural environment. The pilot scheme will run in the Cairngorms national park area, and will doubtless be reviewed regularly. The scheme is not, as some have suggested, some sort of voluntary licensing scheme; it is a voluntary accreditation scheme in which the code of acceptable good practice that everybody should follow will be set out.
Finally, Bill Wilson referred to bees. He may know that the bees in many hives in Scotland stopped breeding in September because they knew that bad weather was coming. That shows that a bee is better than the BBC at weather forecasting.
The Scottish Conservatives are happy to support the general principles of the bill, and we welcome the fact that many of the concerns that existed, particularly relating to deer management, have been dealt with.
16:43
I thank everyone who provided written and oral evidence on the bill, the committee clerks, and our hosts at the meetings that we undertook.
When the bill was introduced, it appeared at first to be a rather random amalgam of different pieces of legislation, and I found it difficult to feel enthusiastic about it. However, during its progress I have, like Peter Peacock, learned to love it more and to become more engaged with it and enthusiastic about it, as it has enabled us to consider how to tackle issues such as wildlife crime and to tidy up some rather antiquated regulations, such as the game laws. As usual, the committee’s recommendations offer opportunities to strengthen further the regulations.
Robin Harper and Rob Gibson referred to the overarching vision for the environment. During stage 1, some contributors have been disappointed that there is no overarching vision for the natural environment in the bill through, for example, strengthening the biodiversity duty or improving ecological coherence, and they have pointed that out that that was, however, achieved in the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. Ecological coherence would provide corridors for the spread of wildlife should the conditions alter—through climate change, for example—and it would help to preserve biodiversity. I know that the minister feels that that is not appropriate in a bill that will create a criminal offence: I bow to her knowledge as a solicitor. I presume that the difficulty is because of possible ambiguities about the meaning of terms such as “biodiversity duty” and “ecological coherence” in a bill that will create criminal offences. That said, I am sympathetic to the need to make progress on those issues. If that cannot be done in the bill, we need to consider carefully how it can be done elsewhere.
Wildlife crime took up a lot of the committee’s time and has taken up a certain amount of time in the debate. Scotland’s natural environment and the wildlife that inhabits it are among our greatest assets, as many have said. A recent SNH study estimated that wildlife tourism is worth about £126 million annually to the Scottish economy, which compares fairly closely with the income of £137 million that is generated by all field sports. However, past practice has decimated some of that wildlife, particularly raptors, as Peter Peacock and Robin Harper said. Some species were persecuted to the point of local extinction and have had to be reintroduced. An example is the red kite in Galloway, which is now a considerable attraction. The species had to be built up in the past 10 or 12 years through a reintroduction programme and now makes a significant contribution to the economy in the area.
Unfortunately, because raptors are predators, they are still targeted through poisoning and, in some cases, shooting. Despite all the outrage, the situation is not improving, as the minister said, and stronger action needs to be taken. I am afraid that John Scott appears to be in denial on the issue. We cannot shy away from the fact that some of that illegal activity appears to stem from shooting estates. Wildlife crime does Scotland’s image no good at all and it is unhelpful to wildlife tourism and field sports.
I am not in denial about the issue and I acknowledge that it exists. It is the comments on the scale of the problem with which I have difficulty. Vicarious liability is, to use the overquoted comment, a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I hope that the member accepts that that is my position.
There is a lot of evidence in terms of successful pairs of breeding raptors in particular habitats and so on. There is also evidence on the other side. We are broadly supportive of the minister’s intention to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to introduce vicarious liability. Obviously, we have yet to see the amendment.
Current legislation allows the prosecution only of the person who actually carried out the crime, which is usually the gamekeeper, and does not recognise that the keeper might be under pressure from his boss to reduce the loss of his birds. Why should the guy on low wages in a tied cottage have to take all the responsibility? After the conviction of a 22-year-old gamekeeper in Karen Gillon’s constituency just a few weeks ago, his lawyer stated that he had been trying to impress his boss. There is a precedent. Vicarious liability already exists in the licensing trade, as a pub landlord can be held responsible if his or her staff break the law. However, we received evidence that it might be difficult to enforce such a provision.
If vicarious liability does not work and if that stick is not successful, we will need another tool in the toolbox. We believe that we should give ministers the power to develop a licensing scheme and to introduce it under the super-affirmative procedure. I, too, welcome the wildlife estates initiative. Nobody intends to hijack that. We want it to work. If it works, and if vicarious liability works, there will be no need to introduce a licensing system, but if those measures do not work, we will need to clamp down further on wildlife crime. Some of the provisions in the voluntary code could form the basis of a licence.
Labour and the SNP have been sympathetic to an outright ban on snaring; the issue has been discussed at both parties’ conferences. I was happy with that position until I visited the Langholm moor demonstration project the summer before last—although I did not do so as part of the bill process. That project involves the SRPBA, SNH and Natural England. As members have said, it aims to manage uplands to support game birds, hen harriers and wild ground-nesting birds. There is a little part of me that cannot quite see an alternative to using snaring in that type of terrain. I am a bit anxious that, if we take away snaring, we might damage that type of project. There has been contrary evidence on the issue. Bill Wilson alluded to that and mentioned the question whether predation of lambs by foxes leads to significant losses. Bill Wilson thinks that it does not, but John Scott thinks that it does.
The contrary evidence is such that I think that I support the recommendation that the effectiveness of the regulations needs to be monitored, maybe after five years. It has been suggested that that needs to be done after two years, and perhaps we should look at that at stage 2. I would like that to be coupled with a power to introduce a complete ban, in the event that what is proposed in the bill does not work. In that sense, it is a bit like the situation with vicarious liability.
Will the member give way?
No. I have already taken an intervention and I need to get on.
On deer management, as others have said, deer are an iconic species, especially the red deer, which, like the golden eagle, is strongly associated with Scotland. However, large numbers of deer are damaging to the environment, through overgrazing, and to biodiversity.
Some stakeholders have expressed disappointment that the compulsory approach that was suggested in the consultation has been replaced by a voluntary code. We believe that clarification is necessary on what measures will be taken if landowners do not participate in deer management groups, or if the groups fail to produce deer management plans. The code of practice is welcome, but what will happen if it is breached? What sanctions will SNH be able to apply? We might need to consider further whether a duty to comply with the code is required and should be added to the bill.
The provisions on non-native species are broadly welcome. The most contentious issue is whether pheasants and red-legged partridges should be exempt. The issue is not whether they are native but whether, if they are released in large enough numbers, they can cause damage to the environment. If that is the case, we believe that it would be appropriate for reserved powers to be available.
Bill Wilson and Peter Peacock made important comments about native species, notably bees, which I hope will be looked at further at stage 2.
I must hurry you, I am afraid.
I conclude by saying that I welcome the bill. I am more enthusiastic about it than I was, and I look forward to further discussion of it at stage 2.
16:51
There is broad agreement on the general principles of the bill, for which I am extremely grateful. I thank the members who have contributed to the debate, as well as the members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, who have been involved in the process of getting the bill this far.
As is patently obvious, there are positions on some sections of the bill that will never be reconciled because one group of stakeholders wants more control in one direction, which is resisted by others. In some of those areas, there is no easy compromise that will satisfy everyone.
There is a tension between the idea of more centralised control of aspects of rural management and the continuing desire for things to be worked out voluntarily. It is clear that the Government has tended towards the voluntary approach, unless there has been compelling evidence that we should act to the contrary. I accept that we are dealing with a broad continuum, and that the tension that exists on those issues will not go away.
I will try in the time that is available to address as many as possible of the points that have been made, but it is inevitable that I will not be able to deal with all of them. Matters that I cannot deal with now will be picked up directly with the appropriate member or in the Government’s response to the committee’s report.
Maureen Watt and others mentioned consolidation. I do not believe that there can be any principled objection to the idea of consolidation, but the difficulty arises when one begins to consider the practicalities of it, because it is a highly resource-intensive exercise and there may be other pressing cases for consolidation that would take priority when it comes to parliamentary time. I know, for example, that the committee has already raised the prospect of consolidation of crofting legislation. It is difficult to see how one could pursue too many bits of consolidation. I see that one member of the committee is shaking his head—I suspect that he is pleading, “No, no.” Carrying out too much consolidation can be problematic.
Many members mentioned snaring. I understand what an emotive issue it is, but we must remember that not snaring would not mean that animals would not die. The control would still have to happen. Among the questions that members raised is whether we should hold a review in five years—which I point out is the committee’s recommendation; it is not a timescale that I plucked from the air—in two years or at some intermediate point, as appropriate. We have to allow sufficient time for the new rules to come into play.
We already have the capacity to deal with snaring as we go along. We do not need any reserved powers; we have the powers already. Those powers could extend to a severe restriction on snaring that would respond to every concern that has been expressed: the powers already exist in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The power to move to the final step of an absolute ban should require very serious consultation because the implications for rural Scotland of doing so would be pretty serious.
Deer have been mentioned by a number of members. Again, in that area, we are sticking with the voluntary principle, and I make no apology for that. A number of questions have been asked about what will happen when the code fails. The bill will sharpen SNH’s powers of intervention, including by bringing in clear time limits. We do not think that any additional powers are required to protect the public interest. The costs of the Government’s proposals would pale into insignificance when compared to the cost of statutory deer management. I understood the committee to be content with the deer proposals. In this time of financial stringency, we want to consider carefully whether we should move into an area that would add cost.
The deer code will apply to all landowners, not just to private landowners, and it will set out examples of sustainable management. If landowners are not taking note, that will prompt SNH’s intervention powers—[Interruption.]
Order. The only person I really want to hear is the minister. I can hear far too many other people.
People rarely have difficulty hearing me, Presiding Officer.
On the more general issue of wildlife crime, I was rather disappointed by John Scott’s remarks. The statistics that we have are about verifiable poisonings, not about disappeared birds. We know that many disappeared birds will have died natural deaths, but that does not mean that we can ignore the poisonings and the appalling publicity that they generate.
I also remind people who talk about the licensing of shooting estates about the importance of shooting estates to the economy. The information that I have suggests that they are worth £240 million to the Scottish economy. It is estimated that 58,000 workers are paid by shooting, which amounts to the equivalent of 11,000 full-time jobs. That is an enormous contribution to our economy and we have to be careful that we do not damage it.
Will the minister taken an intervention on that point?
I do not have enough time.
We would move towards licensing shooting estates very carefully and gingerly.
Lots of issues have been raised, not so much about vicarious liability, which is generally welcomed, but about other potential changes that might be made, including single-witness evidence. We have looked at all those issues. Some people wanted single-witness evidence to be wiped out altogether, and some wanted it to be extended. We came to the ultimate view that, since there was no particular balance of opinion one way or the other, we would be as well sticking with the status quo. I accept that some people might feel differently, but I remind people that the broader justice review—the Carloway review—is considering corroboration in Scots law in a wider context, so it might be worth focusing on that.
Issues around invasive non-native species seem to be uncontroversial, and I welcome that. Other, smaller points have been raised and I will go back to individual members on them, if they will allow me to.
I am not a particular adherent of littering legislation with multiple reserved powers, as has been suggested for the bill. Some of the powers are absolutely appropriate, but others are not. I believe that the bill will make a fundamental and good change for the future of wildlife management in Scotland. That is extremely important: the natural environment is enormously important in Scotland. I am very glad that there is unanimous agreement on the bill, and I look forward to its subsequent stages.