Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-425, in the name of Ross Finnie, on the general principles of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill.
There can be no doubt that Scotland's natural heritage matters to us all. It matters both in its own right and because it is one of the most basic national assets—a key resource for our most important industries and a resource that sustains the quality of life. So often, we take it for granted. Scotland's natural heritage matters because we cannot squander our environmental capital and still hope to deliver the sustainable, long-term economic prosperity and environmental justice to which the Executive and the Parliament are committed.
The bill is part of a wider vision for an integrated approach to environmental protection, for sustainable resource management and for the conservation of the natural world that is our common heritage. It builds on our existing commitments to the integrated management of Scotland's water environment, to an ecosystem approach to fisheries and to sustainable farming and forestry and the careful stewardship of Scotland's countryside.
The bill provides us with new tools for safeguarding our natural environment. We are taking action in the bill to improve existing mechanisms for nature conservation by further strengthening the law on wildlife crime and modernising the protection that is given to sites of special scientific interest.
However, we recognise that it is no longer enough to focus simply on a few endangered species or to preserve a few special places as remnants of a once vibrant countryside. The major initiative in the bill is the recognition of our fundamental obligation to conserve biodiversity.
Is the minister aware that on 11 December the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development agreed with me—on the record—that the biodiversity strategy provided for in the bill should include the identification of priority species and habitats within a framework? No such provision is in the bill at the moment. Does the Executive intend to lodge an amendment to include the identification of those priority species and habitats in a biodiversity strategy framework?
If I may, I will come back to that point when I develop my theme. That was a cunning intervention, coming at that particular stage.
As I was saying, we have an obligation to conserve biodiversity. We need to reconnect with the living environment that surrounds and sustains us, and we need to manage it wisely. The innovation in this bill is explicitly to seek that Scotland's public institutions should play a special role—a leadership role—on behalf of the wider community. Many public bodies already work imaginatively to protect and enhance biodiversity and to conserve our natural heritage. In future, every one of them will have to demonstrate that it has integrated biodiversity issues in its policy-making processes and day-to-day operations.
Throughout the development of the bill, we have emphasised the need to listen to the voices of consultees and, as far as possible, to secure the widest possible support from a wide range of stakeholders. I commend the Environment and Rural Development Committee on its thorough stage 1 scrutiny of the bill and on the detailed report that has resulted. I welcome the committee's clear support for the principles of the bill. I also welcome the constructive recommendations that the committee has made. There is much to which I can respond positively.
Let me deal briefly with some of the key points arising from the committee's report. Rightly, the report is critical of how the term "natural heritage" is defined. I accept that criticism—indeed, I did so when I appeared before the committee. I intend to lodge appropriate amendments to resolve that.
In relation to non-native species, I can tell members that Executive amendments will indeed be introduced at stage 2 to address the threat posed by hybridisation and the unauthorised release of invasive plants and animals.
The Scottish biodiversity strategy—to be designated by ministers—is central to the new biodiversity duty in the bill. There is no lack of commitment on my part, but I am happy to accept the committee's recommendation that the bill should require ministers to designate a strategy. I therefore intend to change "may" to "must" in section 2(1) of the bill. I say to Shiona Baird that the matters that my colleague the deputy minister referred to will, of course, be addressed in the detail of the biodiversity strategy.
The emphasis given to biodiversity in the bill lends local wildlife sites a renewed relevance and importance. I welcome the committee's suggestion that local authorities and Scottish Natural Heritage should work together to improve existing arrangements. I will be looking to SNH to take the lead in initiating that process of review.
I acknowledge the concerns expressed to the committee by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation in relation to the "catching up" of game birds. I intend to lodge amendments to the bill accordingly.
The committee has suggested in its report that the new provisions protecting the capercaillie while lekking is in progress should be extended to other specially protected birds. In general, I agree with that and I will take it forward in the form of a stage 2 amendment.
The committee's report covers a number of other detailed points and I will be writing to the convener in due course with a full response. There are, however, a number of points that I do not think require additional legislative action. Most are minor, but I want to address three that are perhaps more significant. I remain of the view that the protection of important geological sites and specimens is properly secured by the bill. I recognise the strong feelings of some members of the committee, but I have to say that long and detailed consideration, and the long consultation process, have not produced practical alternative proposals. I do not, therefore, believe that we have got the balance wrong. On the contrary, I believe that we have got it right.
A number of suggestions have also been made for amendments to the biodiversity provisions in the bill. I have already restated our commitment to the designation of a biodiversity strategy. I am committed also to the participative process that took place in developing that strategy. The important point is that a successful biodiversity policy must be about changing attitudes and ways of thinking. We are seeking the creative participation and genuine engagement of public bodies. The biodiversity provisions in the bill have been carefully drafted and I do not believe that a more coercive approach would serve us well.
On the question of snaring, I welcome the committee's conclusion that better regulation and training—rather than a ban—is the correct way forward. I certainly recognise that snaring is an emotive issue, but again I believe that we have got the balance right.
In light of the remarks that the minister has just made, does he not agree that it is very disappointing that the committee's conclusions on snaring fail to recognise the indiscriminate nature of all snaring, which has the potential to cause extreme suffering to animals? Scotland is one of five countries in the European Union that continues to allow the practice of snaring. Why does he feel that it is not appropriate to take the opportunity that the bill presents to bring Scotland and, indeed, the United Kingdom into the main stream on that issue?
I feel that it is not appropriate to do so on the very good grounds of the evidence that was presented to the committee, which was very similar to the evidence that was presented during the consultation process. That evidence acknowledged that there are abuses and malpractice that must be stamped out and that is what the bill seeks to do. The bill also recognises that there have to be legitimate methods of pest control, provided that they are used in a responsible, professional and targeted manner. That is why we have drafted the bill in the way that we have.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I think that I am about to incur the wrath of the Presiding Officer.
The bill is important because it tackles issues that are of fundamental importance to the people of Scotland. It recognises the vital role that people must play in securing a vibrant and healthy future for our natural environment and it encapsulates a vision that I know members will share. I commend the bill to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill.
I take the opportunity to express my thanks to all those who have assisted the Environment and Rural Development Committee in the production of its report. I should also say that the Scottish National Party has no hesitation in supporting the motion, which endorses the general principles of the bill, even though I have a few questions about detail.
Nature conservation is an end in itself. We should want Scotland to follow a strategy that meets our commitments under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and we should welcome the opportunity to overhaul and improve our system of designating sites of special scientific interest, but there is more to the bill than that.
It is essential to the future of Scotland's economy that we take the steps that are prescribed in the bill. Scottish agriculture will not survive unless we proceed on a basis of sustainability and a great deal of business—not least in tourism, our biggest industry—is dependent on Scotland's image as a country with a clean environment, which provides a wide and fascinating variety of plants, birds, animals and habitats, so we must ensure that that continues.
The basic thrust of part 1 of the bill, which is about the duty to further the conservation of biodiversity, is to be welcomed, but I agree with the committee that there is a need for more clarity on the definition of biodiversity. It seems strange that the bill seeks to introduce a duty on all public bodies and office holders to further the conservation of biodiversity without providing a working definition of what the term "biodiversity" actually means.
It is true that the fact that the bill talks about regard being paid to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity provides a definition by implication, but if that definition is to be adopted as the Scottish definition, we should make that clear in the bill. Alternatively, if it is thought that the UN definition is not appropriate, the bill should provide an alternative definition. The bill should also do more than say that bodies should "have regard to" those principles. What sanctions are available if they do not have such regard? What will compel them to have such regard if they are not so minded? Let us not provide an easy opt-out right at the heart of the bill.
The committee needed to have the framework for a biodiversity strategy in front of it during its stage 1 consideration so that we and our witnesses could analyse, rather than speculate on, how part 1 of the bill would operate in practice. At stage 1, speculation is not a sensible way for any committee to have to do its work and the situation will become even more problematic at stage 2 if we still lack the clarity that we needed at stage 1. I wonder whether the minister will reassure us that we will not have to continue with one hand tied behind our back.
The committee has made a number of recommendations, with which I concur, on the part of the bill to do with SSSIs. For the purposes of the debate, I want to concentrate on three issues. A considerable number of environmental organisations, including SNH, have expressed the view that the statutory purpose of the SSSIs is drawn too narrowly and should be expanded to take into account other factors.
In his evidence, the minister relied on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee guidelines, but surely we should take the opportunity that the bill presents to ensure the greatest possible degree of transparency, as that should dictate a rather more expansive and explicit statutory purpose than is currently envisaged. I look forward to the minister's closing remarks on that.
I also want to draw the minister's attention to the concerns that the committee expressed about land management orders and nature conservation orders in paragraph 81 of its report. Those concerns reflect the SNP's long-standing argument, which has been expressed frequently in various land reform speeches in the Parliament, that the ability to establish who owns and/or manages land in Scotland is central to the ability of communities, both local and national, to make real progress. All the best intentions in the world will come to nothing if owners cannot be traced, so we should be prepared to impose a legal obligation of either disclosure of ownership or designation of a legal representative. I particularly look forward to the minister's response to that point in his closing remarks.
Equally, good intentions will not suffice if there is a lack of resources to carry out the designated work. Despite the minister's assurances at stage 1, there has to be real doubt about the ability of organisations to implement the legislation. I note that the Finance Committee shares SNH's concerns on that. I hope that the minister will take on board those concerns and review how the extra work is to be funded. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, which seems to be what is likely to happen, is hardly a positive approach to this aspect of Scottish politics.
Ironically, much of part 3 of the bill deals with problems of what might be called non-biodiversity, given that it deals with wildlife crime. The need for the new powers is great, but the resources will need to be available, particularly for the training and support of wildlife crime officers. Scotland currently has 80 specially trained wildlife crime officers who carry out investigative, educational and preventative duties relating to crimes against wildlife, but only two of them do so full time. Perhaps the minister will advise us what discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland about the best way forward for policing the legislation.
Members will already be aware of the controversy surrounding the proposed outlawing of snares. Strong opinions are held on the subject, but I believe that the committee has been sensible in taking the middle road. That means supporting the ban on the use of snares that are likely to cause injury while allowing the continued use of free-running snares for pest control and other land management purposes. I understand that that is in accord with the so-called Bern convention. The only comment that I would make on that is that it is ironic that the convention should be named after a city whose major tourist attraction is a bear pit. That seems something of a contradiction in terms.
I have already expressed my concern that we have not yet had the opportunity to consider a wider marine environment strategy. It would help if, in his closing remarks, the minister could give us a clear steer as to the time scale within which that will be introduced. I hope that we will see the strategy in the lifetime of this parliamentary session.
The bill is not yet perfect. It does not address areas that it perhaps should. Nevertheless, the bill is an important and significant step forward in protecting and conserving Scotland's natural heritage. I am pleased to be able to support the bill's general principles and look forward to working to improve it in committee.
As we all know, the Conservative party stands up for the interests of the countryside. In trying to do that over the past four years, we have on occasion found ourselves at odds with bills that were supported either directly or passively by the Scottish Executive. On this occasion it is pleasant, therefore, to come across a bill that appears at the outset to run in the same direction that we would.
It is interesting that, although the Conservatives are fully supportive of the principles that lie behind the bill—as was the committee in its report—we also find that much remains in the bill that will be contested, discussed and possibly amended at later stages. The Conservative party wishes to preserve that constructive attitude during the passage of the bill.
Let me consider the bill's parts one at a time. On part 1, which deals with biodiversity, I would like to move quickly to thank the minister for the concession that he has already made to introduce a requirement that the Executive must produce a biodiversity strategy. It would seem strange to have all this legislation in place with all its good intentions, if the biodiversity strategy were to be an optional add-on at the end of the day.
However, we have to be careful about what we do in relation to the biodiversity strategy while we are passing the bill. Although I agree with what Roseanna Cunningham said about how desirable it would have been to have had that strategy in front of us as we considered the bill, I also believe that it is appropriate that the strategy should be dealt with as secondary legislation, which will give us the option to reconsider it from time to time as time goes by. I therefore fully support the procedure that the bill will put in place.
At the same time, we must take the robust view—as we should with all legislation—that the legislation should stand the test of time. There is also an argument that it should stand that blind test of being sound legislation without members' having seen the secondary legislation on the biodiversity strategy. The argument can run both ways.
I move on to part 2 of the bill. I have concerns about it, but there is much within it that I welcome. The main concern has not been expressed during the debate so far. It is about the role of SNH and how SNH is perceived in areas where sites of special scientific interest are being managed. There is a belief that SNH is a secretive organisation that makes decisions without proper consultation and, in many cases, without proper information. There is a belief that it can take scientific evidence and advice and ignore it without giving any reason whatsoever. For that reason, SNH's reputation has been undermined. Although I will stop well short of suggesting that SNH's powers should be significantly curtailed at this stage, it is important that we take the opportunity presented by the bill to ensure that the future activities of SNH are more transparent and that the organisation is therefore more accountable than it has been in the past.
The committee's report has something to say on the role of the advisory committee on sites of special scientific interest. Evidence suggests that advice from that important committee has apparently been ignored when SSSIs have been allocated. It is unacceptable that that should happen without the reasons for those decisions being made public. Openness and transparency will reinforce the position of the decisions process.
The bill also proposes that the Scottish Land Court should take on a dispute resolution role and I welcome that. At the same time, I express a view that was expressed to me by an individual who contacted me in support of the notion of the Land Court taking such a role. He also said that we must do nothing to the Land Court that will undermine the position that that organisation holds. He described the Land Court as an organisation to which anyone could roll up on their bare feet and expect to get a fair hearing. We must not take any action that institutionalises the Land Court to such an extent that it becomes a forum where only those who are able to afford expensive lawyers can get a fair hearing.
Part 3 of the bill is significant and I and my party are keen to support it. It says quite a bit about poisoning and the control of pesticides. As a farmer who has had experience of controlling pesticides, I am aware that regulations are now run to such a standard that the bill will have no impact on the legitimate use of pesticides in the farming community. Consequently, I support the measures in the bill.
However, when we consider some of the evidence on snaring, for example, we see the suggestion that alternatives to snaring might be the shooting or gassing of animals. If we accept gassing, we will encourage the introduction into the rural environment of chemicals which have in the past been misused, and might be misused again. Shooting can also be a dangerous practice in certain circumstances. Consequently, the committee has taken the fair view that it must be possible to continue to use snares under controlled circumstances in Scotland. I am therefore strongly supportive of the terms in the bill that define how that can be done humanely. I also support the principles that are set out in the committee's report.
With that, I offer the support of the Conservatives to the bill at stage 1.
I wish to put on record that I am speaking as a Labour MSP and not as the convener of the Environment and Rural Development Committee.
I congratulate the committee on its work on the issue, and I congratulate the clerks for producing an excellent stage 1 report. It is worth saying at the outset that we had such overwhelming support from all the political parties that are represented on the committee and from organisations from outwith the Parliament that were consulted that we were able to get into quite detailed scrutiny at stage 1. I welcome the minister's responses so far to our detailed recommendations, and I look forward to his written response to those recommendations. We will consider his response carefully before we deliberate on our amendments.
The Parliament gives us the opportunity to improve nature conservation and our environment and to tailor our legislation to meet Scotland's specific needs. The first session of the Parliament legislated on national parks; this session will see the delivery of landmark nature conservation legislation. Our next priority should be to deliver legislation to protect our marine environment, which the committee considered at stage 1. We had particular concerns about how the bill related to the marine environment. I would like the minister to indicate a time scale for introducing a comprehensive marine strategy and to make a commitment to legislative proposals for such a strategy and to a bill on the subject.
Another important issue that has been highlighted is the current fragmented state of nature conservation legislation in Scotland. The bill takes us a big step forward in addressing that issue. There is still work to do on the clarity of the definition of biodiversity in the bill. The introduction of a statutory purpose for sites of special scientific interest is a big step forward, but a number of concerns have been raised about whether the definition of statutory purpose in the bill requires amendment. If we consider the impact of the bill on the delivery of nature conservation, another big issue that we must consider is the reform of the common agricultural policy. That reform is a huge opportunity to improve agri-environment schemes and to deliver new schemes that will result in greater public benefit from farming Scotland's landscape. Labour wants Scotland to make the most of those flexibilities in CAP reform, and many of the bill's provisions will greatly assist that process.
I will reflect on the wildlife crime provisions in the bill and then I will move on to the implementation of the bill's provisions and how that will be funded, as much work needs to be done on those issues.
Snaring was one of the most contentious and difficult issues that the committee dealt with. The committee heard evidence from individuals and organisations with strongly held and differing views. I was disturbed by the pictures of maimed and injured animals that were circulated to us as evidence. The challenge for the committee is to try to be pragmatic on the evidence we received from the land management sector and from the animal welfare sector. The difficulty the committee faced is that there are no easy choices in relation to pest control. Shooting and poisoning can cause suffering and can injure or kill the wrong animals. Even without a full ban on snaring there is a lot more that can be done, such as stricter enforcement and tougher rules. The committee has recommended a number of changes to the snaring provisions, which we believe would make them more enforceable and would improve animal welfare. The new provisions that the minister is considering producing on recklessness and responsible management will also push land managers and owners in the right direction. Those are issues that we must return to at stage 2 to ensure that the detail in the bill is right.
In addition to the snaring provisions that members have commented on, the bill improves on existing wildlife crime legislation on, for example, poisoning of birds such as red kites, egg stealing and dolphin welfare. If we take those measures and the measures contained in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, we will in future have strong and comprehensive legislation to tackle wildlife crime. We on the Labour benches welcome that.
I want to concentrate on the issue of how the bill will be implemented and how the measures will be funded. Stakeholders such as public bodies and local authorities throughout Scotland will be working to implement the bill, but they will need clear guidance to ensure that they get it right. To deliver on the biodiversity duty, ministers will have to consider additional funding to ensure that public bodies undertake the biodiversity work that the bill should bring through.
The minister told the committee that he believed that the current budget for the implementation of the bill was adequate. However, both the Environment and Rural Development Committee and the Finance Committee, along with a range of external organisations, are concerned about the stretching of budgets to make the bill work. I remain concerned about the work of key organisations such as SNH. We know that SNH is being forced to relocate and the last thing that we want is budget displacement to take place, moving resources from other priorities to implement the bill. We need the minister to examine further the budget issue as the bill proceeds through Parliament.
The Scottish Labour Party is committed fully to seeing the bill on to the statute book. Through committee scrutiny, we will work to improve the bill that the minister has introduced so that we can get on with the task of protecting Scotland's environment and wildlife. We support fully the principles of the bill.
I welcome the bill. There is a good deal of consensus around its basic principles, which is down to the good policy development process that was followed from the outset. The Executive needs to continue to be responsive to the consensus that exists in the Environment and Rural Development Committee and in civic society to deliver an effective piece of legislation. At the moment, the bill has the promise of being effective, but it will require amendment at stage 2 to turn it into a piece of legislation of which the whole Parliament, including the Scottish Green Party, can be proud.
I want to mention briefly two aspects that are not included in the scope of the bill. First, marine issues, which Sarah Boyack mentioned, are left out. That is acceptable only if a Scottish marine strategy progresses a review of marine legislation, leading to reform within the next two years. Secondly, the local site network throughout Scotland is of major importance to nature conservation, but if the promised action to develop local site systems fails, as it appears to be failing, it might be necessary to incorporate local sites into the bill at stage 2. I would appreciate the minister's thoughts on that point.
Various amendments were suggested in the committee's evidence taking and they will be considered further at stage 2, but I will focus on biodiversity and a biodiversity framework. First, biodiversity needs to be defined in the bill, in line with the definition in the UN convention on biodiversity. Secondly, the bill must require ministers to put in place a strategy, rather than say that they "may" do so. I was glad to hear the minister's commitment to changing the wording of the bill to that effect. A vague power to designate a strategy is arguably no improvement on the existing situation; a law has to require action.
Thirdly, and most contentiously—the issue was brought up in Shiona Baird's intervention on the minister—the bill must define a framework for action to take place. That does not mean enshrining certain actions into law for all time. It means setting into legislation a process that has to be stuck to for the development, implementation and monitoring of biodiversity strategies. In no way would that prescribe the exact detail of what should be in the strategies, but it would ensure that they will happen and that certain key themes will not be forgotten, such as a requirement to focus on priority species and habitats.
There are many precedents for a legislative requirement for plans to be developed, implemented and monitored on a cyclical basis, such as the framework for riverbasin management plans in the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. I do not see the point of introducing legislation that is so loose that it could lead to inaction or to important aspects being left out of implementation. When we ask people in the business sector, voluntary sector or public sector whether they work with a defined strategy, with objectives and targets to meet along the way, the answer is always yes.
I do not understand the minister's reluctance to legislate in areas that require action by other bodies. Civic society wants a framework for a biodiversity strategy put into legislation, and its commitment to deliver is there. What is lacking is a matching commitment from the Executive. The minister needs to show leadership. The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development agreed with my colleague Shiona Baird several weeks ago when he said that a framework should be outlined in the bill. I take it that the minister is reconsidering that aspect of the bill, as the committee requested. Is he ready to report back or even to lodge an amendment that, presumably, we could all sign up to happily?
As with the need for an effective biodiversity framework, an underlying concern with the bill, which relates to its effectiveness in delivering on its objectives, is to do with resourcing. As Sarah Boyack mentioned, CAP reform provides the best chance of resourcing the improvements that are needed in biodiversity. The bill must make biodiversity central when consideration is given to what to do with the hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money that is put into farming every single year in Scotland.
If CAP reform delivers the status quo, however, the implementation of the bill will fail. The minister's suggestion in committee that refocusing existing budgets would provide the resources that are needed for the implementation of the bill is worrying. Does that mean a displacement of the existing work that is being undertaken by public bodies? The Executive needs to discuss urgently with SNH what revisions will have to be made to existing budgets if the bill is to be fully implemented.
Unless the improvements in police powers can be matched with an increase in resources, the police will find it very difficult to add the new duties to their work load. The resourcing issue is crucial in that respect because, as we know, the reported wildlife crime rates are only the tip of the iceberg.
The Green party has no problems with the general principles of the bill and we will support it. However, many amendments will be required at stage 2 to ensure that the bill will safeguard and regenerate the ecology of Scotland. I hope that the minister will show leadership and lodge many of the amendments that have been suggested at stage 1.
I speak in support of the general principles of the bill, which has been welcomed widely outside and inside the chamber.
In spite of what the minister said in his opening speech, I have some concerns that the bill neither makes sufficient mention of geodiversity nor provides sufficient protection for our geological heritage. I believe that that heritage needs similar protection to the protection that is to be given to wildlife in the amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 that are contained in the bill. I hope that I can persuade the minister and the Parliament of that—I should say that I am considering the stage 2 amendments that I will lodge to allow us to debate those issues further.
In particular, I would like to see reference being made in the bill to the protection of Scotland's internationally important fossil heritage. Professor John McManus raised the matter in evidence to the committee, but it had been brought to my attention previously by Jack Saxon, a palaeontologist from Caithness who is a member of the Caithness fossil group.
I ask the indulgence of members before I give a short lesson in geology. About 380 million years ago, Lake Orcadie stretched from Shetland through Caithness, east Sutherland, Easter Ross and the Black Isle to the Moray and Aberdeenshire coast. Fossil fish of world importance are now to be discovered in the laminated siltstone that is to be found in the Orkney and Caithness flag quarries as well as along the Moray coast.
Members who are familiar with the life and work of Hugh Miller, the quarryman from Cromarty who was an eminent political and religious writer of the 19th century and one of the fathers of modern geology, will be aware of the importance of the region to our national geodiversity. If I were still a teacher and members were my class, I would now ask the minister to pass around some examples of tiny ammonite fossils that I collected some years ago at the Eathie burn on the Black Isle. I would also show members photographs of fossil fish from Lake Orcadie, one of which was first discovered by Hugh Miller.
When I visited Our Dynamic Earth recently, I noted a book for sale on how to build up a fossil collection and the fact that fossils were for sale. There was no indication that fossils were anything other than fair game for the collector.
Members should note that we are no longer allowed to dig up wild flowers, nor are we allowed to collect bird's eggs. Indeed, the penalties for robbing the nests of rare birds of prey are severe. What of the rare fish fossils in Orkney and Caithness, however? Collecting ammonites may be seen to be akin to picking daisies. However, the fish fossils that are to be found at sites such as Achanarras quarry near Thurso are like rare orchids or sea eagle eggs, except that, unlike flowers, they cannot be grown again from seed and, unlike birds, they cannot breed again another year. Once the fossils are removed, they are lost.
Achanarras quarry has the largest number of fish genera in the world, yet its protection is minimal when compared with lesser sites in other parts of the world. Achanarras quarry belongs to SNH and is an SSSI. This year, it will cease to be a national nature reserve because it is feared that the site is no longer safe for the general public to visit.
Although people are supposed to have a permit to collect a limited number of fossils from the quarry floor, that does not deter the fossil thieves who, like rare egg collectors, steal for their own very private collection or have a lucrative market waiting. They attack the quarry face, often destroying good examples of fossils in their search for the most valuable ones. Specimens stolen from Caithness or Orkney quarries can fetch up to £20,000 in Germany and can be found in German museums. Indeed, Caithness fish fossils can be found on sale in other parts of Britain.
These fossil stealers are not scientists. They are businessmen, who come equipped with great diamond-toothed chainsaws to rip into the stone in search of valuable prizes and who, as they cut, destroy the environment and rob us of our geological heritage. As a result, I urge the minister to include rocks, fossils and minerals in the bill's preamble and to make it plain in the bill that fossils and so on are explicitly included in third-party damage to an SSSI or a nature conservation area.
Furthermore, I ask the minister to consider including in the guidance on the bill a list of named fossil types that are not to be removed without authorisation, whether or not they are in an SSSI or an NCA. There is a significant problem with designating fossil sites as SSSIs. When a fossil site is so designated, it becomes a focus for fossil theft. Many now see Achanarras as a sacrificial site that protects other sites by attracting collectors. As a result, I want the bill to be amended to protect our geological heritage in the same way that part 3 seeks to protect wildlife.
There is also a need for police training. At the moment, officers will carry out stop-and-search exercises on cars, looking out for the equipment that signifies an egg thief. It should also be possible for the police to spot stone-cutting equipment, to recognise fossil types and to gather intelligence on habitual culprits. Although I realise that such measures cannot guarantee success, I believe that an explicit inclusion of fossils in the bill will help local people in the north of Scotland to protect their geological heritage in the same way that the people of Mull protect their sea eagles. I also hope that it will have the same effect in other parts of Scotland, because the north is not the only area where rare fossils are found and need protection.
We must also indicate to the Crown Office and the judiciary that such environmental crimes are to be taken seriously and dealt with severely. What is important is not just the monetary value of the thefts but the incalculable harm that is done to the environment. The same is true of, for example, illegal salmon netting. Such netting has been the cause of death for two of the Moray firth dolphins, which make up the only dolphin population in Scotland. When such cases come to court, judgment must be based not just on the value of the catch but on the potential effect of illegal netting on the dolphins.
I support this most important bill. However, I ask the minister to consider whether the matters that I have raised can be included in the bill or in the guidance on it.
First of all, I congratulate the minister on introducing this important bill for consideration. After all, many issues related to nature conservation law in Scotland need to be addressed. At this point, I should also congratulate the Environment and Rural Development Committee on its thorough stage 1 examination of the proposals.
The bill is a good stab at setting the appropriate framework, but some important areas will need to be strengthened. Although I am glad that the minister has begun that process so positively this afternoon, there is still some way to go.
I want to concentrate on how the bill can improve deer management in Scotland. No one can doubt the majesty of Scotland's largest animal or can fail to be moved by the sight of a deer running across the open hills or foraging for food in one of Scotland's woodlands. However, although deer might be Scotland's largest and noblest beasts, we must urgently address the issue of their fast rising numbers.
I do not know how many of my colleagues have had the chance to read the excellent report "Impacts of Wild Deer in Scotland—How Fares the Public Interest?", which was produced by WWF Scotland and the RSPB Scotland.
Although I agree that it is possible that there are too many deer in some parts of Scotland, does the member agree that in many parts of Scotland the numbers of deer have fallen to record low levels because of the Forestry Commission's decimation and slaughter policy?
I certainly do not agree with much of the intent behind Jamie McGrigor's statements. For example, around the area that I know—the Stirling area—the Forestry Commission has done a superb job in bringing back the habitat. That would never have happened if it had not taken out some of the deer.
I recommend the report that I have mentioned to my colleagues. Let us look first of all at what the document says about the numbers of deer. It says that, as far as red deer on the open hill are concerned, the Deer Commission for Scotland's annual report for 2001 gives an approximate figure of 300,000. The estimated numbers of red deer in woodland, according to the report, is 100,000. That provides a conservative estimated total of 400,000. It is conservative, because the report says that the true figure is likely to be much closer to 454,000. The numbers of red deer alone have doubled since 1974, when the figure stood at 200,000. The same can be said for roe deer, whose numbers are expanding, and for other species of deer in Scotland.
The numbers need to be reduced significantly, not only to protect the deer's own habitat but because their increasing numbers are impacting on every person who works, lives and enjoys the wildlife in rural Scotland. As well as having a negative impact on rural communities and on wildlife, high deer numbers are holding back the rural economy. Walking, climbing and green tourism in general are of increasing importance to that rural economy.
Will Mr Crawford give way?
I have already given way to Jamie McGrigor once and, quite frankly, his point was so ridiculous that I am not going to give way again at this stage.
Not only would a reduction in deer numbers be good for the species itself, allowing people to see the deer in the wild in their best condition, but it would add significantly to the experience of visiting Scotland by allowing a more diverse landscape to return.
On the impact on biodiversity, the report states:
"The greatest impact which deer have on biodiversity will result from changes to soils and vegetation caused by deer grazing, trampling etc. Loss or degradation of native woodland, upland heaths and mires etc will have a knock-on effect on wildlife which is dependent on these habitats".
Experience from other countries has also shown that, where deer densities are held at lower levels, foresters are able to regenerate woodland naturally, without the substantial extra cost of fencing and replanting.
I therefore urge the minister to consider introducing at stage 2 amendments in the following areas. First, the compulsory control powers available to the Deer Commission for Scotland under section 8 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 have never been used, simply because they are far too cumbersome. Although the voluntary powers have worked pretty well, in situations where a landowner is unwilling to co-operate, the Deer Commission for Scotland is virtually toothless.
Does Bruce Crawford accept that the Deer Commission for Scotland itself is not advocating any strengthening in the powers to cull deer? As he rightly says, it has powers, and it is not suggesting that there should be any extra powers.
Oh, yes it is. I think that Ted Brocklebank should take a look at the Official Report of the Environment and Rural Development Committee meeting at which the director of the commission said:
"We also feel that section 8 is a rather difficult and convoluted piece of legislation that is not designed to be used easily."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee,12 November 2003; c 413.]
I do not know which report Mr Brocklebank has been reading, but that is what the report that I have been reading says.
The process needs to be simplified in the public interest. If that means that the cosy relationship that sometimes exists between the Deer Commission for Scotland and landowners is put at risk, so be it. As I have already explained, such a move might even get support from the Deer Commission for Scotland itself.
Secondly, there is another argument that, to avoid unnecessarily protracted and expensive procedures, a further simplification could be achieved by removing the requirement for the Deer Commission for Scotland to establish serious damage to agriculture and the nature environment, leaving only the need to prove damage. That move would have the positive effect of protecting and enhancing biodiversity. A definition of what constitutes damage would also be a step in the right direction; such a definition does not exist at the moment.
It is time for the minister to make some bold moves on controlling deer in Scotland. The question is, does he have the will? Perhaps, in summing up, he will let me know.
Scotland's beautiful and diverse countryside is, of course, one of its priceless assets. Through a unique combination of circumstances, including history, the weather and good custodianship, the rural environment of Scotland is as distinctive as it is irreplaceable.
Broadly speaking, we believe that the bill will help to preserve and conserve our natural heritage for future generations. We support any improvement in biodiversity. We also welcome the introduction of compensation for the management of SSSIs, although our comments on that section highlight some wider reservations that we have about the bill—namely, that a reasonable level of compensation should be identified to ensure that the money provided by the Executive is commensurate with any cost to landowners, so that it can make a realistic difference to those affected by the SSSIs.
The same reservations on finance apply to aspects of part 3, which toughens the rules to end wildlife crime. The Finance Committee, of which I am a member, is concerned that there will be insufficient funds for the increasing case loads of wildlife officers and Scottish Natural Heritage. Those concerns will have to be addressed at a later stage.
Although I broadly welcome the increase in powers for SNH, I share Alex Johnstone's view that a breath of fresh air should be allowed to flow through the corridors of that body. In particular, we believe that SNH should give more attention to fostering a partnership relationship with landowners rather than continue with the current approach, which is perceived to be adversarial. Although Scottish landowners as a breed have not had the most sympathetic press over the years, the fact is that, without their efforts and the large investment that they have made in rural Scotland, we would not have the diverse and beautiful countryside that we have today. Certainly, there are bad landowners, but the trumpeted sins of the tiny minority should not be visited on the very large majority of decent, caring owners and stakeholders.
In that connection, I come to the vexed question of red deer—a species that is not mentioned specifically in the bill, although deer perhaps contribute more to the Highland economy than any other species. Without deer stalking and the injection of funds that that pursuit brings to the remotest glens—
Does the member accept the fact that the species that contributes most to the Highland economy is the human species, not the red deer?
The member is absolutely right, but the human species would not be in the Highlands in the same numbers without the presence of the red deer and annual stalking.
Will the member give way?
No, Rob Gibson has had his opportunity. I will press on.
The emptying of the glens that would result if deer stalking was abandoned would make the original clearances look something like a family flitting, in my view.
Bruce Crawford believes that the Deer Commission should be given greater powers to cull deer, and he mentioned the report by the WWF Scotland and RSPB Scotland on deer numbers. The fact is that no one—including the Deer Commission—has any real idea whether there are too many deer on Scotland's hills. However, there are certainly areas of great concern. Glen Feshie, for example, and Inverpolly, in Sutherland, are especially under pressure.
Each year, the Deer Commission seeks to identify approximately eight priority sites where deer pressure is most acute. Nevertheless, deer counts are carried out only approximately every seven years. Those counts are only snapshots and provide unreliable evidence, at best, especially as deer are no respecters of boundaries, estate marches or the like. Certainly, no one would argue that SSSIs must be protected from the ravages of deer; however, many parts of the Highlands are understocked, as Jamie McGrigor has underlined.
I accept some of what the member says about the figures that are available, but the point is surely whether he supports what I said about potential amendments. I do not see how that, in any way, shape or form undermines what he is saying.
I will deal with that in the next three sentences.
I believe that the best people to manage deer in the Highlands are the landowners and estate factors who make up Scotland's 60 deer management groups. The Deer Commission attends all the committee meetings of those management groups. I find it surprising that Bruce Crawford is calling for more powers for the Deer Commission when it already has clear powers under section 8 of the 1996 act to control deer numbers on land where they are considered to be excessive. The fact is that the Deer Commission has decided not to use those powers—nobody has been leaning on it—and agrees that the way ahead is through co-operation and voluntary participation by landowners.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
No. I am just finishing.
We do not believe that the Deer Commission seeks or requires any extension of its existing powers relating to the compulsory culling of deer, and we would draw that to the attention of the minister when he comes to look at amendments for stage 2.
I feel that I should be standing up and saying, "Oh deary dear," but I shall resist.
I express my pleasure at having arrived at this stage of the consideration of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill and I add my thanks to all those who have contributed to getting us to this point. The stage 1 consideration has been, in some respects, unusually detailed, reflecting the bill's long gestation and the degree of consultation and input. It seems a long time since the publication of "The Nature of Scotland: A Policy Statement". Indeed, it has been a long time—the statement was published in March 2001. However, I still think that the document was by far the most attractive that the Scottish Executive has produced in five years and I should add that the content matches the quality.
There is still detailed work to do on the bill, but it is basically sound, as is widely recognised. However, it is not the final word on nature conservation. It is important to stay focused on getting the bill right—but only after a small digression at this point.
The bill deals with SSSIs, but not with local sites. I do not think that those should be covered in the bill, but I am given to understand that SNH was charged with undertaking a review of, and with developing some common standards for, the treatment of the 3,000-odd local sites in Scotland. Many of those local sites are of SSSI calibre and could be spares to draw on if replacement SSSIs are needed. I would find it useful if the minister said whether SNH has been charged to do that work and if he outlined the probable time frame for that.
The bill is not the vehicle for tackling every form and level of designation, for rationalising the plethora of legislation that deals with nature conservation and for ensuring the proper protection of the marine environment, but it has been encouraging to hear from ministers that the last two matters—in particular the protection of the marine environment—are high on their agenda and are on the near rather than the far horizon.
On the very near horizon is a Scottish biodiversity strategy. All members of the committee and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development agree that the bill should require a strategy to be designated. Our challenge is to ensure that the bill states unequivocally what the size and shape of the strategy should be; we need to create the right-sized hole for the desired strategy to fit into while being clear about what should properly be in the strategy and what should be in the bill.
Part 2 of the bill deals with SSSIs. We will have to consider whether there should be—as has been suggested—a statutory purpose for SSSIs, which would include both the notification and designation side and the management and protection side.
In general, I welcome the greater openness and transparency and the shift in emphasis towards positive management that the bill will deliver. I am also interested in the enhanced role of, as Alex Johnstone described it, that excellent body the Scottish Land Court. I wonder whether that could be a straw in the wind that indicates the future development of an environmental court with an even wider scope. Again, that is not for the bill, but it is an important future item.
If all the proposals for improved processes and approaches are to work properly, it is necessary to ensure that the resource implications have been fully and adequately identified and will be met. The committee's report flags up concern on that front.
Part 3 of the bill relates to wildlife crime and builds on the legislation that was passed in the previous session of Parliament. Again, I hope that the outcome will be not only greater transparency and openness, but better law and a better understanding of the law on the part of professionals and the public alike, all of which should enhance enforcement. There are issues on which the committee has sought clarification—those are detailed in the report.
The subject of snaring received significant attention from the committee while it was taking evidence on the bill. A wide range of views was heard and many of the representations have been acted on. We were effectively lobbied by animal welfare groups, which would infinitely prefer a complete ban on snaring. However, we came to the view that a blanket ban on snares is not currently a practical option because of the lack of suitable alternative methods for effectively or humanely controlling vermin. Alternative methods of pest control are available, but we note in our report the reservations of land management practitioners about their effectiveness.
Although I acknowledge the strongly held views on the matter, I agree that free-running snares should continue to be available as a method of pest control until an alternative that can fully satisfy both animal welfare and land management objectives is developed. The bill includes a number of measures that are aimed at improving the operation and effectiveness of snaring. It will be important to ensure that those provisions are sufficiently tightly drafted and properly enforced, so that any irresponsible use or misuse of snares is firmly dealt with.
There are particular difficulties associated with dealing with wildlife crime because, not surprisingly, it is usually perpetrated in wild and remote areas. A careful balance will have to be struck between the practicalities of bringing a prosecution and the protection of civil liberties. Those practicalities include single-witness evidence and the question of what constitutes reasonable powers of entry and search without a warrant.
There will be considerable resource implications if the police are to be able to deal effectively with wildlife crime. My local police force, Grampian police, has seven designated wildlife liaison officers, who are backed up by crime analysis and are allocated one day per month on which to work proactively on wildlife crime. That is a significant commitment and has to be met from existing resources. In due course, I would like police funding allocations to recognise the impact of the devotion of resources to wildlife crime on the police forces that choose to use resources in that way.
The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill is a good bill and it has been widely welcomed. I look forward to helping to make it even better and I commend it to the Parliament.
I start by declaring an interest, as I am a member of the RSPB committee for Scotland and of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on animal welfare. I am not a member of the Environment and Rural Development Committee and I appreciate the chance to speak in today's debate, as many members know more about the subject than I do.
I welcome the bill, which represents a genuine attempt to consider important conservation issues. I will mention one or two issues in particular and perhaps some that have already been mentioned in the context of how the bill might be improved.
Part 1 of the bill deals with biodiversity. I welcome the fact that the minister said that he would reconsider the definition of natural heritage, but I agree with Roseanna Cunningham and others that there is a need for a definition of biodiversity. Roseanna Cunningham suggested that, if the definition is not linked to that in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, there should be a separate one. I agree that the inclusion in the bill of a definition is necessary.
The Environment and Rural Development Committee's report argues that the bill should relate biodiversity to the wider context of sustainable development. RSPB Scotland and other agencies regard the biodiversity strategy as very important, in part—at least—as a framework that can consider priority species and the action that is required in implementation, monitoring and reporting. We need the biodiversity strategy and the committee was concerned that it was not able to scrutinise it—or even an outline version of it—before the bill was introduced. It is essential that agencies have access to a framework for the strategy, so that they can work with it to move forward and work in partnership. One good thing about the bill is that it has already led to much partnership working among the various agencies, the Executive, the committee and others.
On the sections on land management in part 2, a general issue has been raised about the need for conservation matters to be high on the agenda for the reform of the common agricultural policy. I am sure that the minister will take that matter forward. On land management orders and nature conservation orders, the need to ascertain who owns what land is critical. Again, Roseanna Cunningham made that important point. Bruce Crawford talked about deer, although I do not think that he raised the issue—I apologise if he did and I missed it—of how land management orders will interact with the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996.
The Finance Committee and the Environment and Rural Development Committee have expressed concerns about the resource implications of the bill. As Sarah Boyack emphasised, the matter should be reconsidered—I notice that the Environment and Rural Development Committee's report suggests that SNH discuss the issue with the Executive.
I welcome the introduction of a recklessness principle in relation to part 3. I note that ACPOS thought that the proposals represent a "major step forward".
Much has been said about snaring, which is obviously a big issue in the cross-party group on animal welfare—I am sure that it will continue to be discussed for a long time. The committee's report raised concerns about training and about the different snares that can be used and it recommended that the Executive liaise with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about information from the current trials of different kinds of snares. Perhaps the minister will comment on that.
One of the main issues that the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which I convene, had with the bill relates to paragraph 17 of schedule 6, which concerns the alteration and updating of the lists of birds, animals and plants that are eligible for special protection. We thought that, although there has to be flexibility to enable the lists to be changed, it would be preferable if the power associated with that were exercised through an instrument subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. We realise that a means is available to the Executive by which it can notify local authorities and that the mechanism allows subsequent objections to be lodged and a public inquiry to be held if ministers so decide. However, we think that that would be a lengthy and expensive process and that it would be far better to use the affirmative rather than the negative procedure.
A constituent of mine mentioned an omission in the bill in relation to nest sites of birds of prey. The bill says that sites are to be protected only while they are in use. It has been suggested that that provision should be extended, as should the provision relating to communal roost sites.
I congratulate the Environment and Rural Development Committee on its report, which is extensive—clearly, a lot of work has been done on the matter. The committee attempted to take a broader view than the bill does, by examining the marine strategy that Sarah Boyack mentioned, and it has considered how it can set in motion a constructive dialogue with the Executive on many issues. Although we have not yet got very far on geodiversity, I am sure that that battle will be extended. A lot of work remains to be done, but I propose that, as the committee suggests, we accept the general principles of the bill.
The Scottish Socialist Party broadly welcomes the general principles of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill, but we are concerned that the proposals do not go as far as a complete ban on snaring. When I consider the number of constituents who have notified me—and, I am sure, other MSPs—of their concerns about the matter in the past week or so, I am disappointed by what I have heard in the chamber today. We have good reasons for seeking a complete ban on snaring.
Will the member explain to the chamber what her preferred alternative method of vermin control would be?
As has been stated in the chamber already, people are examining alternative forms of vermin control. I am not going to come up with all the answers today; all I know is that the cruelty that is involved in snaring causes a great deal of concern in our communities and I am glad that I am highlighting that, as I do not think that anyone else in the chamber has done so.
The bill addresses many of the issues that have been raised since the passing of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It will become an offence to use a self-locking snare, even if it is not calculated to cause bodily injury. It will become an offence to use other snares where they are calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. It will become an offence to set a snare that is likely to cause bodily injury to animals listed under schedule 6. Snares will have to be inspected once every 24 hours. All those changes are welcome, but they do not go far enough. The bill could be improved in principle and in terms of enforceability and could further enhance biodiversity and wild animal welfare by banning the use of all snares.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not just now.
The bill will not stop animals being trapped in snares and suffering severe stress for up to 24 hours and it will not stop substantial numbers of non-target animals being caught in snares.
According to a survey conducted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 103 of 246 animals snared in a given period were badgers. An RSPCA survey in 1983-84 found that, of the 360 snaring reports that RSPCA inspectors dealt with during their routine work, 150 involved cats, 52 involved badgers, 29 involved dogs and the remainder involved various animals including rabbits, hedgehogs, a deer, squirrels, a stoat, a polecat and a partridge. If members had seen the results of a dog being caught in a snare, perhaps they would be more sympathetic to what I am trying to highlight.
Will Rosemary Byrne give way?
No, I do not have time.
The problem is that there is very little difference between a legal snare and an illegal one and that the differences are not always clear—a bit of rust on a snare can make it illegal when it was once legal. Free-running snares have been mentioned. Have any members seen a fox that has been running for days attached to a free-running snare? How cruel that is; it is a terrible end for any animal, and we must think about that.
The Bern convention has been mentioned. I feel that members were trying to justify the fact that we are not banning snares completely. I will quote again from the information that the League Against Cruel Sports passed on, because it did a good briefing and it is interesting to note what it says about the matter. It is concerned about
"the compatibility of any form of snaring within the Bern Convention on Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, in relation to the indiscriminate nature of snares. Hitherto, the reason cited for the compatibility of snares with the Bern Convention is that legal snares are a form of restraint and therefore do not kill unselectively. However, the evidence that even legal snares are lethal, whether through pressure necrosis or free-running snares starting to lock, puts compatibility within the Convention in severe doubt."
I therefore question the bill's provisions on snares.
The second matter on which I will focus is the retention of sites of special scientific interest in Scotland and the proposals to modernise the legislation. Those provisions are welcome, but it is important that the conservation of rare species and/or the irreplaceability of a particular habitat or species be criteria for SSSIs. One example is the protection of the bog bush-cricket at Dalbeattie. That was not covered in the legislation, so the planning permission for the landfill site there is going through. It is extremely sad that that extremely rare cricket and the rare bird life in the area were not protected. I hope that the bill will improve and strengthen the legislation for us. I ask the minister to review the state and status of local sites and to confirm that the Scottish biodiversity strategy will recognise local sites as a key mechanism for prioritising biodiversity action.
Like other members, I welcome the bill, which has had widespread support, as a step in the right direction. The Executive said that it would make sustainable development a priority and the bill provides a useful framework for the protection of wildlife and biodiversity, while allowing considered rural development.
I particularly welcome the introduction of measures to allow control over third parties on SSSIs. I recall the difficulties that I had in a former life with industrial dredging for cockles on a beach that was an SSSI. The bill will help people to deal with such circumstances and all of us who have sensitive sites in our constituencies should welcome it.
Certain aspects of the bill need closer scrutiny and, although some of those that I will mention have already been mentioned, it is important that we highlight those areas in which we believe work remains to be done. The minister mentioned the first such aspect in his opening remarks: the biodiversity strategy. I, too, feel that the bill could go a bit further and give a broad definition of what the strategy should be. The bill should not give a detailed definition, but some indication of what the strategy is, what it can do and what its aims are is needed in the bill to ensure that the strategy goes ahead. I hope that the minister will confirm that that is what he meant by his remarks.
Another aspect that has been welcomed is the measure to protect birds in the breeding season. For some reason, reading about capercaillies during the lek conjures up images of David McLetchie and Brian Monteith in feather cloaks shaking their bottoms at each other and seeing who can hold his nose highest in the air. I have to say that I think David McLetchie would win every time, hands down.
If had known about that, I would have banned it.
Indeed. However, one concern that has been raised with me is that the guidelines do not apply to certain nests outside the breeding season. Like others, I believe that they need protecting. Not every empty nest is important, but the bill could be altered specifically to protect, for example, the nests of ospreys and golden eagles. Those endangered birds return to the same nests year after year and a disruption to their breeding pattern could prove disastrous. I ask that consideration be given to that at stage 2.
The bill does much to promote the welfare of raptors. Although the number of raptors is no longer declining, it is not on the increase, as people hoped it might be. I agree that raptors should be protected. However, constituents have raised concerns with me about raptors and increased predation on racing pigeons. Will the minister assure me that ways of minimising that predation will be considered, as was outlined in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' United Kingdom raptor working group report of 2000? I have already written to the minister on that topic.
Does the member accept that what she said about the non-increase in the number of raptors is a bit of a generalisation? I am sure that she would agree with the observations of many, including me, that some species of raptors, such as buzzards, are increasing enormously in number.
I accept that, for the purpose of making my point, I was generalising. To be fair, I do not have sufficient specific knowledge to answer the member in any detail.
I will have a chat with the member later.
Indeed. Coming from a rural background, I know about the raptor issues that affect farming communities and about the concerns that have been expressed by people who operate commercial fisheries. However, people with objections cannot be given licence to go back to the wholesale culling of raptors.
Although the bill is welcome, it is not enough without the funding to back it up. That point has already been made by other members, but I make it again. It is all very well to bring in new legislation, new regulations and new guidelines, but land managers cannot be expected to foot the entire bill for implementation. Will support be given to councils and organisations such as SNH, which will bear the brunt of the cost?
Finally, I thank the Environment and Rural Development Committee and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development for their work on the bill. I support the motion.
I thought at one point that I was not going to get an opportunity to speak in the debate, but I am glad that it has been so well subscribed to and that there is such an interest in the bill. With my committee deputy convener's hat on, I echo the thanks that other members have expressed to everybody who has been involved in the bill. I give a special honourable mention to Sarah Boyack. This is the first time that I have been through the process, but she chaired what felt to me like a fairly intensive series of evidence-taking meetings. It seemed like quite hard work to me. I hope that the public out there realise that.
I will go back to wearing my Green hat now. I welcome what the minister said in his opening speech. He used a nice phrase about our fundamental duty to conserve biodiversity and said that we cannot squander our environmental capital. That is important. For too long, Governments around the world—I am not singling any one out—have treated our natural resources as if they were interest, rather than capital. If we realise that we are dealing with capital, we will treat our natural resources rather better.
The bill is much needed. In many ways, the most important part is the first and shortest: part 1, on biodiversity. Essentially, its measures are new. The other parts more or less contain improvements to existing legislation or beef up things that already existed. Part 2 deals with SSSIs, which are viewed as the jewels in the crown of our natural environment—at least, they are a representative sample of those jewels. The part on biodiversity, on the other hand, relates to the environment as everyone experiences it. I will mention in particular the importance of local sites. I would like the minister to undertake, as part of the Scottish biodiversity strategy, to provide guidance to local authorities and other public bodies on the implementation of their biodiversity duties at local sites. There are currently 3,000 such sites, which are managed in diverse ways and to different standards, and we could do with looking into that. The local sites are the bits of natural environment that people see; not all SSSIs are visited by many people and some are quite remote.
I welcome the minister's confirmation that the Executive will amend the bill so that the Scottish ministers must—not just may—designate a biodiversity strategy. The strategy is a vital tool for protecting the whole of our natural environment and it should be taken seriously. The Greens agree with the committee's conclusion that
"Scottish Ministers should be obliged to report to the Parliament on an annual basis on the implementation of the biodiversity strategy".
For that report to be meaningful, the strategy must contain targets and an action plan, for which the bill should specify a framework. I hope that the minister can assure me that the Executive will support that.
Part 3 of the bill, on wildlife crime, is very welcome, as it removes the perception that has existed that Scotland is rather soft on wildlife crime and on offences such as egg theft. In particular, I welcome the proposed powers to proscribe certain pesticides that are often implicated in illegal poisonings. I emphasise the committee's view that the minister should consider an amnesty for such substances, as it would be inappropriate or dangerous for people to dispose of them via domestic refuse or sewerage.
I do not have time to say much about part 2 of the bill, which deals with SSSIs, but I would like it to be recorded that I welcome the changes that the bill proposes to the designation and management of SSSIs, in particular the shift towards rewarding positive management. I hope that that will not only serve the cause of conservation better but make for improved relations between SNH and land managers and communities—in the past, those relations have not always been characterised by trust.
I welcome the provision to make the rules governing the use of snares more stringent. I also welcome Sarah Boyack's suggestion that we firm up those provisions at stage 2. However, I would like to go further and to propose a complete ban on the use of snares. I echo much of what Rosemary Byrne said. The committee heard powerful evidence from animal welfare lobbies about snares, their effects and the suffering that they cause to animals that are caught in them. Under the Bern convention, snares should be used for restraint, but we heard from gamekeepers that almost all rabbits, in particular, that are caught in snares are dead when found. Perhaps not intentionally, snares are being used to kill rather than just to restrain, which is against the Bern convention. As Rosemary Byrne mentioned, there is also a significant bycatch of other animals in snares, such as otters, badgers and domestic pets.
The United Kingdom is one of only five European Union countries that allow snaring. To be honest, I am not sure what happens in other countries. I would be interested to find out, as clearly they are not overrun by foxes or rabbits. I do not know what Germany, Austria or Italy do to kill their pests. I suspect that they shoot them. To prevent the intervention that I feel rumbling among Conservative members, I point out that a Macaulay Institute survey in 2000 found that snaring accounted for only 18 per cent of pest control, 70 per cent of which was carried out by lamping and shooting. Alternatives can be used.
In committee, Alex Johnstone said that he preferred snaring to what he nicely termed the
"artillery and poison gas route".—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 26 November 2003; c 541.]
However, there are circumstances in which poison gas and artillery are more humane than snaring. We should seriously consider banning the use of snares.
I have much sympathy for gamekeepers. The committee made two useful site visits—I took part in one of them—to estates where gamekeepers were able to talk to us informally. Those visits were helpful. I suspect that many larger estates are using snaring as a method of pest control not because it is the most effective or appropriate method but because it is the least immediately labour intensive. It is not necessary to have someone on the spot at the time when an animal is snared. Snaring is being used as a substitute for employing gamekeepers. Estates that 50 years ago employed half a dozen gamekeepers are now employing one. We do not need snaring; we need more, and highly trained, gamekeepers.
Presiding Officer, I wish you and other members a very happy and prosperous new year. I have already said "Bliadhna mhath ùr" to my friend Alasdair Morrison.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute at this stage of the consideration of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill. The general duty, in part 1, on public bodies to further their conservation efforts must be welcomed and I am sure that it will be.
Part 3, which covers the law relating to the protection of birds, animals and plants, is of concern to me. In particular, I believe that the bill must be flexible enough to allow for changes in populations of currently protected species. There has been considerable debate about some of the populations of concern.
A recent example of a problem for some of our protected species was the competition for habitat between the capercaillie and the pine marten in the Grampians. As everybody will know, the pine marten is a very rare species. It has a great liking for birds' eggs and chicks and no doubt that is contributing to the decline in the population of the capercaillie. I have received correspondence from both sides of the argument. The bill must allow ministers to take action when such conflicts arise. Burying our heads in the sand for fear of upsetting one group or another will not, in the long run, serve our wildlife.
Similar things can be said about the argument over the use of snares. As we have heard, the snare is not selective. It is set for pest control but very often what is caught is a badger, an otter or a pine marten. I have even seen roe deer and red deer caught in snares. It is justifiable to debate the use of snares as the bill progresses.
Jamie McGrigor spoke about the decline of the red deer, which he attributed to the overindulgence of the Forestry Commission. That was rather unfair, James. The Deer Commission for Scotland has insisted that the major estates in Scotland increase their cull numbers by 100 per cent in some cases. That has had a detrimental effect on the numbers of large deer.
The bill should be flexible enough to deal with future unchecked expansion of certain species of predatory birds. The prevalence of predatory birds in some areas is believed by some to be leading to the decline in the numbers of the most common birds that we all know and love, such as the robin, the chaffinch, the blackbird and the thrush. I have seen that in my own area. It can be argued that the decline cannot be put down entirely to modern farming methods or the destruction of hedgerows. In Wester Ross, we do not have such things, but the populations of common birds have been slashed. That, I believe, is down to the increase in the numbers of predatory birds.
I think that my sister spends more on food for the birds than she does on herself. Recently, a sparrow-hawk chasing a little robin landed in her kitchen. The sparrow-hawk hit the window and knocked himself out. When I heard, I was so glad that I said, "I hope you wrung his neck." "No," she said, "I took pity on him and put him back outside." I ask you. It is a good job I was not there.
It is important that the bill recognises that future bird and animal populations will change. The bill must therefore allow ministers, in ever-changing circumstances, to take action whenever it is needed. Our Scottish environment is largely natural and partly man-made. We have a duty, having started to manage our environment, to continue to do so for the benefit and enjoyment of generations to come.
It is good to take part in a constructive debate at the beginning of a new year, and it is certainly unusual to be in this chamber without the usual invective being sprayed around from all sides. Roseanna Cunningham began with a warm endorsement of the principles of the bill. She was certainly in a very positive frame of mind—one that I suspect will not see out the week. Never mind. We must welcome it nevertheless.
Roseanna Cunningham rightly highlighted areas on which the committee sought further clarification from the Executive. The minister responded positively in his opening remarks to a number of the committee's recommendations. In due course, we will receive his written responses.
Another constructive start to the year came from Alex Johnstone of the Tory party, who said that he wanted issues to be contested and discussed at stage 2. That is exactly what this place is for. It certainly does not make for good headlines or juicy copy, but it lends itself to the formulation of good, sensible legislation. I agree with what Mr Johnstone said about the Scottish Land Court, which, since its inception many years ago, has been a force for good. As the court evolves, it will have to take account of the modern context of what is happening in our country. Mr Johnstone was right to say that the court must be a forum that is accessible to all and not just to those who can afford to engage lawyers.
Bruce Crawford was right to dwell entirely on the issue of marauding deer, which—like Bruce Crawford, on occasion—are a menace. They ruin valuable crops and destroy precious habitats. I know from experience in my constituency that crofters lose substantial amounts of money when large herds of deer jump into fields and destroy valuable crops. Bruce Crawford was also right to highlight the duplicity of private landowners, who have often refused to cull deer in sufficient numbers, simply because they could make an economic return from them. They were taking account of their own narrow economic interests and disregarding the interests of everyone else.
In my view, only one unfortunate remark has been made in this afternoon's debate. I was surprised that it was Ted Brocklebank who made that remark, as I know that he is a man who knows the Highlands well. He stated that, if deer stalking were limited in any way, it would have a negative impact on landowners and would make the Highland clearances look like "a family flitting". I say to Mr Brocklebank, who has just come back into the chamber, that he has demonstrated that he has neither a sense of proportion nor a sense of history. His remark was most unfortunate.
Several members mentioned the importance of the marine environment and of the Executive developing a strategy on that, which I certainly welcome. I will cite the example of the importance of protecting the Minches from the dangers that are posed by the supertankers that ply their trade through them. At the narrowest point, there is a channel that is only 1.5 miles wide, which is very narrow indeed in the context of a supertanker. The passage of tankers through that channel poses a great threat to our marine environment. I hope that, when the time is right and we have dealt with the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill, the Executive will work closely with the UK Government to introduce a pilotage system that would result in large tankers being taken through the Minch by experienced west coast mariners. Although we must never ban tankers from the Minch, a pilotage system for those waters must be implemented as part of any strategy to protect our marine environment.
It goes without saying that snaring is an emotive issue—that fact has been demonstrated again this afternoon. I believe that, in its conclusions, the Environment and Rural Development Committee got things right by taking the pragmatic route. I am not a betting man but, if I were, I would happily wager £1 that, at stage 2, snaring will generate a great amount of debate and interest. As Sarah Boyack said, there are no pleasant choices to be made on pest control, but the bottom line is that controls are needed. I refer again to experience in my constituency, where we are dealing with non-native species—the hedgehog and the mink—which are being eradicated in a humane and proper manner. On occasion, crofters and farmers need to have methods for dealing with pests.
I agree with what my colleague Maureen Macmillan said about the importance of Scotland's fossil heritage. She has pursued that issue assiduously since the bill began its parliamentary journey and I am certain that she will continue to raise it as a matter of importance at stage 2.
The bill fulfils a Labour Party manifesto pledge. We are committed to taking action to protect and preserve the environment, not just to provide a good quality of life in Scotland today, but to ensure that the environment is safeguarded for future generations. I am happy to endorse the general principles of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill.
I thank Alex Fergusson for indicating that he would agree to take only four minutes, as that allowed John Farquhar Munro to make his speech.
If I had realised that, I might not have been so generous with my time. I do not mean that at all.
As many members have said, the bill has been long awaited. I have been getting letters on the subject of nature conservation ever since I first became a member of the Parliament. It is also highly relevant to my constituency of Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, which I am proud to say is one of the few areas of Scotland that has been chosen for the reintroduction of red kites. Last spring, I was privileged to release a batch of nine chicks and I was horrified to hear about the death of five kites in that area in the late summer of last year. Although I do not believe that any illegal activity was aimed specifically at the kites, I deplore such activity and welcome all the parts of the bill that will strengthen the penalties for those who indulge in wildlife crime.
The minister spoke of the empowerment of public institutions. I perceive a potential danger in that. The unaccountability of those institutions can lead to management by diktat rather than by consensus. In the previous session of Parliament, the Rural Development Committee conducted an inquiry into integrated rural development, which we recently debated. All over Scotland, one of the foremost barriers to that policy that was highlighted to us was the dictatorial attitudes and activities of agencies such as SNH. I hope that the Executive, in altering management agreements covering areas of land under designations such as SSSIs, will take every opportunity to open up the operations of the public institutions to full accountability. There must be an increasing development of management by consensus rather than by order—Eleanor Scott alluded to that in her speech—and the bill provides a great opportunity to do that.
On funding, which has been mentioned by members, it is obvious that mere legislation will not bring about the improvements that the bill promises. Robust funding will be required to back up the legislation. I share the concerns that have been expressed by several members, as well as by the committee, that the bill's funding back-up is unclear and uncertain at this stage. Frankly, I find that unsatisfactory. I trust that, when the bill returns to the chamber, the issue will have been suitably clarified.
The subject of deer has arisen as a contentious issue. My colleague Ted Brocklebank has informed me that the director of the Deer Commission for Scotland, in a conversation with him this morning, confirmed that the commission does not seek further powers for the culling of deer, as it believes that it has enough powers under section 8 of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1996.
As Alasdair Morrison rightly said, snaring is the most contentious issue, which is bound to come back at stage 2. I applaud the committee's brave conclusions on the subject and the minister's commitment to adhere to those conclusions. It would be easy to give in to the simple and highly emotive argument, which was made perfectly clearly by Rosemary Byrne, that snaring is cruel and must therefore be banned. The issue is not that simple.
I believe that the minister would have agreed with my entirely helpful intervention—had he chosen to accept it—that any further diminution of a land manager's ability to control vermin will simply endanger the very biodiversity that the bill rightly seeks to enhance and conserve. If a suitable alternative to snaring is developed, I will be amongst the foremost of those who seek to replace snares, if necessary with the help of legislation. However, let us be quite clear. Currently, the answer lies in education and training to minimise the accidents and tragedies that quite understandably concern members. It is a question of balance, which a ban would fail to achieve. I urge the minister and the committee to reject any further attempts to ban snaring.
I congratulate the Environment and Rural Development Committee on its report. As convener of the previous Rural Development Committee, I could not possibly say that the committee has produced a better report than we would have done, but it has managed to come up with a report that is every bit as good as what we would have produced. I cannot be more generous than that.
The stage 1 debate has provided us with a long-overdue chance to try to create the circumstances in which Scotland's countryside, and the people and wildlife that inhabit it, will have a far better chance of sustainability in the future than they have had until now. However, aspects of the bill will have to be clarified. Part of the committee's work involved asking 20 questions of the minister over the Christmas break. Unfortunately, the minister's answers so far do not match nearly 10 of those questions. Further answers on what are perhaps more tetchy points will need to be given before we move to stage 2. As a member of the committee, I would welcome some of those answers.
The first question, which has been raised by Roseanna Cunningham, Sylvia Jackson and others, concerns the biodiversity framework. The minister said that the framework was about changing attitudes and that the process would be participatory. It would be interesting if the framework could be set before the public in the same fashion as all other frameworks and laid out as a national planning policy guideline. In that way, people would know exactly what to expect in the framework. The bill will need to lay out in clear detail how the framework will be stated. I hope that the minister will give us more detailed answers on that than he has until now.
Criticisms have been levelled at SNH for its not being involved enough with communities. SNH must become more transparent and the bill gives it a great opportunity to do so; several members have mentioned that. The key to that is discussed in the committee's stage 1 report. The development of local sites would allow common standards to be developed. The biodiversity strategy would include those local sites and all the country would have a chance to take part in the process of valuing our wild land and wild species. SSSIs are often a considerable distance from where most of the population live, so the development of local sites could be seen by people as a means whereby they too could be involved. Whether that can be done will be a test of SNH.
We are approaching a better definition of the statutory purpose of SSSIs, but we will want to firm that up at stage 2. We will await developments.
An area that has been controversial during the debate relates to clashes between the evidence that was given by SNH and that which was given by the Deer Commission for Scotland, and to the reality of the increasing deer numbers in Scotland. I was one of the questioners during the evidence sessions and it is clear that the Deer Commission for Scotland has not used its section 8 powers because they are too complex. During December, the press led us to believe that the minister was not minded to give more powers to the Deer Commission for Scotland, even though the commission appeared to have asked for them.
Alex Fergusson referred to that in his summing up. The hard fact is that only this morning, I checked out that point with the Deer Commission for Scotland. The commission does not wish any further powers. It believes that the powers are entirely adequate for it to cope with any perceived difficulties in specific areas.
The member is trying to have it both ways. The evidence is in the Official Report and it shows clearly that there is a clash over whether SNH should prosecute the issue of the over-stocking of deer and deer damage. We will want that to be clarified during stage 2.
As a new member coming to the debate, I find it strange that while we are talking about protecting wild species, we are not including partridge, grouse, black grouse and so on because they are seen as game birds. At the same time, we are trying to use the bill to modernise the way in which the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 works. Questions arise about modernising the way in which we see all wild species. I hope that it will be possible to consider the protection of all species and not to discriminate against some. It is an anomaly that wildfowl are seen as wild species, but that partridge and grouse—which are also native—are not. That is ridiculous, but it throws up the anomaly that much of the bill has to deal with land use that is pretty much anti-biodiversity.
For all that people say, we must acknowledge that a lot of the questions about wildlife crime have arisen from the maintenance of deer and grouse-shooting estates. The bill begins to tackle the difficulty of the poisoning issue.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time to take an intervention.
There should certainly be greater clarity as we go forward, and we must ensure that the poisoning issue does not interfere with the view of biodiversity that is defined in the bill.
The minister will be answering questions about the common agricultural policy and how it might help wildlife and nature in due course. The agricultural support systems that have been mentioned by members must focus on certain areas and on how the CAP can help conservation in the countryside. Small farmers and crofters are the best people to do that in the farming environment, because they have some of the most natural environments.
Many members mentioned aspects of the marine environment that the bill does not deal with. The minister pointed out in his evidence to the committee that we have a huge amount of work to do with the bills that are in train. I suggest that we consider whether we need separate committees for environment and for rural development to do the different jobs.
It is important to get one's facts correct on emotive issues. I inform Rosemary Byrne that the RSPCA deals with English figures on snaring and that the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals deals with the Scottish figures. However, let us not be snared by that. Let us ensure that we welcome the bill, which will be good for the countryside and for our wildlife. We welcome the bill's general thrust.
Just as in the bill's preparation we achieved a wide consensus among the main participants, so the Environment and Rural Development Committee's excellent report drew together a wide audience and concluded that there was wide support for the bill's principles. In addition, this debate has undoubtedly shown that there is wide support among members for the general principles of the bill. Therefore, I will confine myself to answering some of the questions to try to put stage 2 on the front foot and to take a positive view. I hope that I indicated in my opening speech that we had taken more generous account of questions than Mr Gibson was prepared to concede.
I was challenged earlier by one or two legal points, which I am always rather frightened of getting into, particularly when Roseanna Cunningham is the person who leads them. She made a point about the issue of definition. I understand that issue, but I find difficulty with it and I will not debate it with her now. Perhaps we can return to it at stage 2. However, the word "biodiversity" has a common and well-understood meaning and the bill specifically refers to the 1992 Rio convention. We do not, as a matter of practice, go around defining everything. However, we can return to that matter.
Likewise, Roseanna Cunningham raised the issue, in relation to some of the SSSI statutory purposes, of the JNCC guidelines. Again, our understanding is that there is an accepted and well-understood meaning and that a definition is unnecessary. Alex Johnstone posed the trickiest point of law, but I am bound to say that it is not for me but for Lord McGhie to decide whether people should come before his court on bare feet. We will leave it at that.
Other serious issues were raised in the debate. There is the issue of statutory purpose and the selection criteria for sites. Our view remains that those concepts are inherent in the selection criteria for the SSSI series, to which section 3(2) refers explicitly. Therefore, it is unnecessary to specify those. I ask members to consider that. The concept of a site's special interest includes considerations such as rarity or conservation importance and the features that that contains. I ask members to be careful. There is always a danger—I am guilty of the tendency myself when we are drafting a bill—that once we get the short title, we get out the pail and spade and tip everything in our in-tray into a specific bill. I caution against doing that because we would end up with something unwieldy and unmanageable.
A number of members, such as Nora Radcliffe, Roseanna Cunningham and Alex Johnstone, talked about local sites. The local site label can be regarded as indicating an area of high biodiversity, which public bodies will want to take account of when prioritising their conservation activity. SNH has the choice of becoming involved in the local site system. Given what was said in the stage 1 report and in the debate, it would probably be helpful if I encouraged SNH to engage in local sites. We might then get consistency between the two systems.
Severe criticisms were levelled at SNH. Roseanna Cunningham talked about transparency in public bodies. It has never been my intention—I do not think that it has ever been anyone's intention—to suggest that SNH should not be open and transparent. It is unfortunate that the fact that SNH will be required under the European habitats directive to identify a large number of sites led to confrontation throughout Scotland. That was an unfortunate feature and I know that SNH is upset that its reputation was damaged in that way.
That takes us on to what we do about the strategy and whether we need it to be reported annually. That would be cumbersome. We are talking about a 25-year framework for action, so to impose an annual cycle rather than review it on a three-year cycle would be unnecessarily burdensome.
Roseanna Cunningham raised the issue of who owns the land in SSSIs. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 dealt with that more adequately, but section 22 of the bill refers to the register of SSSIs. On the intention of section 22, the Registers of Scotland indicated that it is rare not to be able to identify the owners of SSSIs. The registrars and SNH are in regular correspondence to try to ensure that owners and occupiers are recorded and notified properly. I know that that does not deal with the whole ambit of the question that Roseanna Cunningham raised, but within the confines of the bill it is an important aspect to address.
Many members, such as Roseanna Cunningham, Alex Fergusson, Sarah Boyack, Mark Ruskell, Ted Brocklebank, Bruce Crawford and Sylvia Jackson, were concerned about the resources required for the bill. I assure members that we deal with SNH separately, as we review its requirements annually. Much of the bill is about changing mindsets and I hope that none of the public authorities will come back and say that changing mindsets has proved a hugely expensive exercise. I would regard that as unfortunate.
On deer, the very circumstances that Bruce Crawford described are almost word for word those that are described in section 8 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. There is an issue about why the provisions are not used, but the powers exist. There might be a discussion to be had about why the Deer Commission for Scotland does not use those powers, given that if the circumstances that Bruce Crawford described are correct, they meet the requirements of the section. It is wrong to suggest that there are not powers, although there might be a discussion to be had about why they are not used in every case.
Sylvia Jackson asked me to consider the varying of the powers contained in schedule 6, at paragraph 17. I do not necessarily agree that changes to the schedules and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 need to be made by affirmative procedure. Such changes have to be proportionate and the terms of the 1981 act require changes to be made by statutory instrument subject to negative procedure. It would be a disproportionate step for us to advance that further.
Nora Radcliffe mentioned schedule 6, which amends the 1981 act. The question of powers of search is a matter that the Executive also wishes to consider further before coming to final conclusions.
Several members raised the question of snaring, which is a complex issue. Many people will write to members and make their point. If I had taken Alex Fergusson's intervention, I would have agreed with him, because we need to make a proportionate response. Some of the numbers and figures relate to the position before the provisions of the 1981 act are improved. It is acknowledged that there are weaknesses and loopholes in the 1981 act. We need to be clear that the bill seeks to reinforce and improve the way in which practice can be carried out.
Some members raised resource implications in respect of snaring and other aspects of the bill. I am bound to refer them to the evidence that ACPOS gave to the committee. Its representatives said that they did not think that there would be resource implications as a result of the implementation of the bill.
The debate has been largely constructive. Members have made clear their overwhelming support for the principles of the bill. A number of sections will require detailed scrutiny at stage 2 and I have indicated the Executive's willingness to consider constructive amendments. However, we believe that the bill will make a huge difference to Scotland's biodiversity. We also believe that the great public obligation that public bodies and all of us have to preserve our biodiversity will be hugely improved by the passage of the bill. I hope that everyone will agree to the adoption of the Executive motion.