Songbird Survival
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-3411, in the name of Jamie McGrigor, on songbird survival. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament is aware of the concerns of many bird lovers throughout the United Kingdom about the decline of the songbird population; notes research that suggests that over the last 40 years many species of songbird have seen a reduction in numbers of 50% or more with some species declining by over 90%; recognises that a number of factors have led to these declines and that these should be considered by policymakers, and commends individual birdwatchers and bird groups in the Highlands and Islands and elsewhere in Scotland for their role in recording species' numbers and the work of organisations such as Songbird Survival that campaign to raise awareness of the threat to our songbird species and ensure the creation of a balanced biodiversity.
I am very pleased to introduce this members' debate this evening. I think that it is the first debate that we have had on songbirds. I thank members of all parties for signing my motion. The level of cross-party support and the number of signatories demonstrate the real interest in and concern about this subject. I declare an interest as a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and am glad to see its representatives in the gallery for the debate. I also welcome to the Parliament a number of supporters of the excellent campaigning charity Songbird Survival, including its Scottish trustee John Haddington.
At the outset, I will set out the scale of the problem that we face following the decline in most of our key song and garden bird populations over the past 30 to 40 years. The evidence is frightening. Over that period, Songbird Survival suggests that bullfinch and yellowhammer numbers have gone down by 50 per cent and the song thrush—the "wise thrush" that sang its "careless rapture" in Robert Browning's famous poem "Home Thoughts, from Abroad"—is down by more than 50 per cent.
Indeed, the situation for some species is worse than that. The melodious and incredibly distinctive song of the skylark is heard less often these days—skylark numbers are down by 59 per cent. Like the yellowhammer and linnet, which are also in decline, the skylark is on the RSPB's red list of species. Likewise house sparrows and tree sparrows, which in my youth were considered to be common birds, are on that endangered list with declines of 69 and 80 per cent respectively. Starling numbers are down by 82 per cent and corn bunting numbers are down by 84 per cent. Worst of all, the lesser redpoll has seen a decline of a staggering 90 per cent.
In many parts of the Highlands and Islands, which I represent, farmers and crofters and those who have worked on the land for generations complain to me about not only the decline of the peewit, curlew and golden plover but, in some areas, their very extinction. When I started farming in Argyll in 1974, the song of lambing time was that of the curlew, peewit and golden plover. They would wheel around one's head in flocks, trying to lead one away from their nests. Later in the year, one would see them in even greater numbers with their young. Farming methods in my area have hardly changed since those times, but the birds are virtually gone.
My motion refers to a number of factors that have led to these declines. I will address one factor that many of my constituents have raised: the increase in predator numbers. I refer not only to mammals but to birds of prey and other birds such as crows and magpies. I am absolutely against any wildlife crime such as the indiscriminate poisoning of raptors. The subject is one of real controversy, but I make no apology for raising an issue that merits an open and balanced debate and full consideration by policy makers.
Most people will accept that, due to the agri-environmental schemes of the past 10 years, the farming, crofting and land management sectors have seen an increase in the type of habitat that our songbirds need. However, at the same time, the decline in species numbers has not been halted. Indeed, in many cases, the decline is more pronounced. We have to look at other contributory factors. What is the reason for the decline in species numbers if not predation by hawks, crows and ground mammals? We have to find out.
I commend to members the 2006 "Review of the Impact of Mammalian Predators on Farm Songbird Population Dynamics" by Professor Roy Brown of the University of London. Professor Brown concludes that predator activity, whether taking young or adult birds or destroying their eggs and nests, has a significant negative impact on songbird and other farm bird populations. Indeed, he found that mammal predation may be the "dominant" factor. Among other predators, he refers to domestic and feral cats, grey squirrels, brown rats, hedgehogs, stoats, weasels, foxes and mink.
Today, I received a message that Arctic terns have returned to long-abandoned nests in the Hebrides following the cull of alien mink. As is obvious, that is a good thing.
The 2006 report also suggests that, where there are high levels of sparrow-hawk and kestrel activity, up to 85 per cent of all songbird nests may be predated. I remember that, when I was a boy, my mother found an unconscious sparrow-hawk that had flown into the telephone wires. She and I nursed it back to health over some weeks and then we let it go. Much to my mother's chagrin, she later saw it emerging from a honeysuckle bush with a fully grown blackbird in its talons, which it had taken off a nest of young blackbirds. She wondered whether she had done the right thing by rescuing it. Nobody who has witnessed, as I have, the speed and stealth with which a sparrow-hawk can attack the residents of a bird-table could fail to be amazed by that B-52 of the bird world.
The reintroduction of other bird of prey species such as sea eagles and red kites means that there is even greater predator pressure on our declining songbird populations than there was in previous decades. Some species of raptors are now at historically high levels, beyond anything previously recorded. Constituents have questioned whether the threat to our songbird species, which are a key part of our biosphere and culture, is given enough or indeed any consideration by those who campaign so vigorously and successfully for the reintroduction of birds of prey. I have sympathy with their concerns and believe that the interests of all our bird species, and not just birds of prey, need to be fully taken into account. Are ministers prepared to look further into the issue of raptors and respond to the concerns of bird lovers throughout the country?
On mammal predation, I suggest that we could all play our part in preventing cats from taking songbirds by keeping our cats in at night or perhaps even attaching bells to them to make them more obvious. I point out that I have a cat—I am a great cat lover.
I am fascinated by the latest experiment at Langholm, where the feeding of predators and raptors is taking place, especially at times when songbirds are nesting. I have witnessed areas where, thanks to that practice, raptors and songbirds can live side by side. It is extraordinary how properly managed estates produce a far greater variety of songbird life than areas that are not managed at all.
As I have said, I utterly condemn any wildlife crime or indiscriminate poisoning. However, I say to the RSPB that it is the trade union for birds and I ask it to please support all its members, not just the cannibal ones.
I hope that today's debate can provoke discussion on how we can halt, and reverse, the decline in our songbird populations before it is too late and we lose the critical mass necessary to sustain healthy populations.
The Scottish Government has a key role to play, working with the voluntary sector and individual birdwatchers who care so much about our smaller birds. We must strive to achieve a diverse and balanced biosphere that ensures appropriate protection for the songbirds that have played such a key part in our environment, culture and history for so many generations and which, if we act now, can continue to do so in future.
I was happy to sign the motion when it was lodged in February. We have had a family membership of the RSPB since my children were very young, and I always do what I can by feeding and carrying out habitat management—or perhaps non-management—to support populations of passerines and other small birds in my garden, for which they reward me by messing up my garden furniture and not showing up on the RSPB's big garden birdwatch day.
I have to admit that I had not heard of the organisation Songbird Survival, and I was quite unaware of its activities until a constituent who noticed that this debate had been scheduled got in touch with me, because they were rather annoyed that I had signed the motion. The lesson is perhaps that I should google organisations that I have not heard of before I sign motions that mention them.
Although I share the concerns of Songbird Survival and Mr McGrigor about the numbers of songbirds, it seems to me that Songbird Survival places undue emphasis on the role of predators and, in particular, unpopular predators such as grey squirrels, magpies and raptors, although it seems to excuse domestic and feral cats. I have been a cat keeper and cat lover for many years, but I am aware that some cats are extremely predatory when it comes to songbirds—I had one that was the very devil—while others are not. I should say to Mr McGrigor that red kites are carrion eaters, like vultures; they are not predators, so I do not think that they are responsible for taking out songbirds.
My constituent, who, incidentally, gave evidence during the passage of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill, as well as to a United Kingdom parliamentary inquiry, stated in his e-mail:
"Songbird Survival is a very thinly disguised anti-raptor/pro-hunting lobby which repeatedly attempts to put forward the deeply prejudiced case against birds such as sparrowhawks, buzzards, peregrines and hen harriers … with the idea of obtaining licences to kill such birds".
I hope that that is not actually the purpose of Songbird Survival.
The case for blaming raptors for the decrease in songbird numbers is not proven. In its briefing for the debate, the RSPB refers to an analysis of the common bird census between the 1960s and 2000. The evidence suggested that it was extremely unlikely that the presence of predators such as magpies or sparrow-hawks contributes to songbird population decline. Many other factors play a part, including agricultural intensification, pesticide use, reduction in habitat and food sources and climate change.
Although I am sure that Songbird Survival would not condone the illegal poisoning of birds of prey—Mr McGrigor has made it clear that he abhors that—the case that is argued against predators to some extent plays into the hands of those people who do. The motivation for obtaining licences to kill raptors is, I would argue, as much to do with the interests of sporting estates as it is with the survival of songbirds.
In that regard, and like Mr McGrigor, I draw members' attention to the Langholm moor demonstration project, which the minister and I had the pleasure of visiting recently—although I do not know whether the minister had as much time as I did to go out on to the moor and have a picnic.
I did.
Good.
The project is a partnership between Scottish Natural Heritage, Buccleuch Estates, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, the RSPB and Natural England. It will run for 10 years, and it aims to demonstrate that raptors and grouse can coexist if the estate is properly managed for the needs of both. Obviously, the commercial interest will be an important factor for the estate. However, other ground-nesting birds as well as grouse also benefit from good management techniques. Although the Langholm project is not specifically about songbirds, I commend its approach in using science rather than prejudice in analysing the problem and assessing the solution.
I congratulate Jamie McGrigor on securing the debate. Like him, I declare a farming interest. I have also been the environment director for the National Farmers Union, a trustee for Borders Forest Trust and an RSPB member. I, too, condemn any wildlife crime.
We are lucky in Scotland to have such a diverse range of bird species, ranging from our seabirds to our almost unique red grouse, dotterels and golden plovers of the higher ground. Such diversity is due to the unspoilt and, I believe, well-managed farm land that we have in Scotland. On my own family farm, Sundhope hill farm in the Yarrow valley, we are lucky to have a decent black grouse lek, and we have farmed and entered projects with the likes of the Tweed Foundation, the RSPB, the Borders Forest Trust and the Southern Upland Partnership in order to encourage that lek to survive. As well as that, those projects have helped salmon in their spawning ground in the area. Many other birds have benefited, including a healthy population of curlew, which we call whaups in our area.
I have witnessed changes in bird behaviour in my lifetime. Oystercatchers and cormorants are now common inland, although they were once never far from the seashore. We must be aware of natural changes, too. Farming with the natural habitat in mind is important and it is being done well, but there are other factors involved.
The first of those is the impact of predators on bird numbers. I recognise that there is a division among bird enthusiasts as to the quantifiable risk that is associated with predation from birds such as corvids—magpies included—and perhaps some raptors. From my own experience, predation does have a significant impact on the population of birds. Jamie McGrigor's motion uses the key phrase of "balanced biodiversity", which reflects exactly how it should be. As such, some humane control can take place that can reduce the problem.
No one is talking about a mass cull of crows—a crow is too wise for that to be a threat anyway—but rather an attempt to balance the scales. I realise that this view will be unpopular with many people, but organisations such as Songbird Survival are right to welcome further research into the relationship between predator and prey species.
It is not just songbirds that are under threat. I have personally seen a change in crow predation, with even healthy lambs being mobbed. There is nothing worse than coming upon a lamb that has had its eyes, bottom and tongue pulled out while it was still alive—and I will never forget finding a lamb that had been preyed on while it was halfway out of its mother. I sound a note of caution about the release of predators, whether they are winged or four legged. They are at the top of the ecosystem triangle, and we should bear in mind their effect on the environment, including on songbirds.
There is no doubt that songbird population decline is inextricably linked with development. Perhaps local authorities could put conditions on planning applications to ensure that green spaces are left in which to accommodate wild birds. If the proposed quarry goes ahead at Overburns near Biggar, many tonnes of gravel will be extracted from Clydeside. Such development would surely lead to a decline in songbirds. Although there would be reclamation after the quarrying had taken place, the damage would have been done and it would take years to rebuild the wildlife population. We need sympathetic planning that makes the most of the green spaces that we have.
I commend the RSPB and the Scottish Ornithologists Club, which, respectively, have helped with the volunteer and farmer alliance and the south-east Scotland bird atlas. I welcome the motion and would correct it only by mentioning the biodiverse land of the south of Scotland and the work of the aforementioned groups.
I am quite worried by the inference that there is a serious problem with predators, which I take from repeated comments about not condoning the poisoning and killing of raptors.
Britain's gardens have a greater diversity of wildlife than does much of the countryside. I am a member of Buglife and the RSPB, so I look after my garden in such a way as to encourage bees and songbirds. Much of the countryside has been "trashed" by modern farming, according to at least one expert on urban ecology. Dr Ken Thompson, a senior research fellow at the University of Sheffield, thinks that even the smallest urban garden can contain a range of plants and insects that makes most farmland look like a "biological desert". It would be interesting for him to meet the professor from London to whom Jamie McGrigor referred.
Dr Thompson said:
"I know it's a heretical thing to say but most farmland would be improved by having a housing estate built on it from a biodiversity point of view … If you're comparing gardens with the equivalent area of modern intensive farmland, gardens are much better."
Fields tend to be devoted to a single crop, but gardens are usually home to a greater variety of plant and invertebrate life. Dr Thompson led the biodiversity in urban gardens project in Sheffield, so he knows what he is talking about.
I am glad that Elaine Murray made her speech, because I had not come to this debate prepared to respond to the inferences that could be drawn from Jamie McGrigor's speech. He has seized on someone's comment that raptors make a significant contribution to the decline of songbirds, but that does not mean that raptors make a critical contribution. On top of the contribution of our monocultures in agriculture and the activity of some raptors, there are almost certainly significant contributions from global warming. For example, changes in the availability of insects at birds' breeding times have often been flagged up, and there have been changes in the availability of other feeding matter, which is no longer present at the times when birds used to find it. I would resist any attempt to claim that raptors are the major reason for the decline in songbird numbers.
I apologise for having to leave the debate in a few minutes, but I must chair the meeting of a cross-party group at 5.30 pm.
I, too, declare my membership of the RSPB and congratulate Jamie McGrigor on securing this debate on the decline of the songbird population, which is an issue of importance to the many bird lovers in Scotland.
As we have heard, several species of songbird have struggled to maintain their numbers in recent years. I will focus on one: the corn bunting, which is one of Scotland's fastest-declining birds and a species with special connections to the north-east of Scotland.
Corn buntings were once abundant throughout the British isles but have declined drastically since the 1970s because of changed cropping and intensive agricultural production methods. They are now a red-listed species in the United Kingdom, extinct in Ireland and classified with unfavourable conservation status due to declines throughout Europe.
Around 800 to 1,000 territorial males remain in Scotland, but several local extinctions have occurred during the past decade. Eastern Scotland now contains most of the outstanding Scottish population, but even there they have declined rapidly. A recent study shows an 83 per cent decline in singing males on sites in Aberdeenshire and Tayside between 1989 and 2007. A combination of factors—notably a preference for nesting in growing crops, a late breeding season and a seed diet that centres on grains—is likely to have made corn bunting populations especially susceptible to modern agricultural practices.
The staggering 83 per cent decline over the past 20 years was revealed by a study called "The Decline of Corn Buntings Emberiza calandra on east Scottish study areas in 1989-2007". It examined 30 sites in Aberdeenshire and Angus and was published in Bird Study, the journal of the British Trust for Ornithology. Dr Adam Watson—a well-known scientist in Aberdeenshire—who led the study with RSPB Scotland scientists, said:
"When I began this study in 1989, I knew that corn buntings were already scarcer than when I saw them as an Aberdeenshire schoolboy in the 1940s, but thought they might hold their own in the strongholds that remained. Although it has been interesting to follow their numbers on the 30 areas, the huge decline has saddened and worried me. Many areas that held singing birds in the early years are now silent, as one local population after another went extinct. However, all is not yet lost and the government must urgently extend the targeted initiatives which have reversed declines on some farms."
To try to reverse that trend of decline, the RSPB set up an initiative called the farmland bird lifeline. The initiative is supported by Scottish Natural Heritage and with farm planning by the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group Scotland. It has been running since 2001 and involves 37 farms in Inverness-shire, Aberdeenshire, Angus and Fife. Where there has been sufficient winter seed provision, such as winter stubble, and safe nesting habitats, such as hedges at the margins of fields, a positive response has been recorded from the corn buntings: on 23 farms that were involved between 2006 and 2008, there was a 40 per cent increase in singing males at management sites. That shows that it is possible to halt and reverse the decline in one species of songbird and that we must act now to ensure that other songbird species manage to sustain healthy populations.
Further research is needed into the causes of songbird declines, especially among woodland species and long-distance migrants. It is vital that we raise awareness of the plight of songbird populations and that we work together to ensure that they can thrive in the Scottish countryside in time to come. I commend Jamie McGrigor for bringing that important issue to the Parliament's attention.
I call Liam McGrigor—sorry, Liam McArthur.
You are just keeping me on my toes, Presiding Officer.
As my wife and eldest son are members of the RSPB, it is probably safest and prudent for me to declare an interest on the off-chance that we have been upgraded to a family membership.
I confess that, at the moment, my thoughts are centred less on songbird survival and more on Scotland's hope of world cup survival. With that in mind, I will keep my speech brief, although I will make a number of points on this important issue.
First, I add my congratulations to Jamie McGrigor on securing the debate and on his motion, which highlights well the stark reality for some of our songbird populations, which have experienced a dramatic decline in recent years. It rightly commends birdwatchers and bird groups—not only in the Highlands and Islands, as Jim Hume said, but throughout the country—for the work that they do in recording the state of various bird species, not only our songbirds. As an aside, I observe that some of our most melodic birds are not, in fact, so-called songbirds.
Like other members—perhaps with the exception of Elaine Murray—I have been greatly impressed by the success of initiatives such as the RSPB's big garden bird watch, not least because it captures the imagination of the wider public and engages people of all ages in the necessary task of pulling together the most accurate picture possible of how our birds are faring. Of course, despite that public engagement, much of the responsibility for undertaking the fieldwork still falls to genuine birdlifers. Nowhere is that more evident than in my constituency, which is blessed with some of the most impressive and significant bird colonies in the world. I pay particular tribute to my friend Jim Williams, who regularly defies wind, rain and advancing years as he stomps across the Hoy hills gathering valuable data on red-throated divers and hen harriers, and numbers for other species. I find his efforts genuinely humbling.
I have no difficulty in lending my support to Jamie McGrigor's motion, but caution needs to be exercised when we draw conclusions from the songbird figures that he and others rightly highlight. Like Jamie McGrigor, I congratulate Songbird Survival on the work it does to draw attention to the plight of Scotland's songbirds and the research into the decline of certain species that it helps to fund, but I am concerned about its determination to lobby for changes to the law on predator control. I believe that that sends entirely the wrong signal and that at a point when Scotland is finally and slowly coming to terms with the need to treat wildlife crime seriously it is more than unfortunate. I do not think that it is overstating the case to suggest that such a signal could well be used by those whose motives are far from innocent to legitimise activities that have rightly been condemned by Jamie McGrigor, Jim Hume and every other member who has spoken in the debate, and which the Government and the previous Executive have taken steps to address.
More research is needed into the causes of songbird decline, especially the decline of woodland species and long-distance migrants, although it is clear already that seed-eating species have been hit hardest. In the main, that is because so few crops now contain enough weeds to keep such species going through the winter. In Orkney, the yellowhammer was the first species to become locally extinct—that happened back in the 1970s—and it was followed by the corn bunting, which Nanette Milne spoke about. It hung on in a couple of the north isles until about six or seven years ago but finally became locally extinct as a breeding species. More encouraging, though, is the fact that the fortunes of reed bunting and twite have been turned round through the provision of bird crops. The RSPB has paid for some of those, but they are increasingly financed through a variety of agri-environment schemes.
Further research is needed, but maintaining habitats through suitable management schemes and working closely with farmers and land managers is key to addressing the problem. It will not be easy, but it pales in comparison with the task that faces Scotland's football team in the next few hours.
I, too, congratulate Jamie McGrigor on obtaining the debate, even if it now allows us to say that we have heard him debating birds in the chamber. Those of us who know him well enough will appreciate that.
Biodiversity is of critical value to the prosperity of our society. Indeed, I spent a good hour and a half yesterday chairing the biodiversity forum, so I have discussed within the past 24 hours some of the issues that underpin the motion. Biodiversity is also important to the welfare of our community. Songbirds are a treasure of nature. I think that every one of us feels the same. If we are unlucky enough to be awake for the dawn chorus, it is perhaps some consolation to listen to it while we are sleepless. It is an event of true wonder, unless we are trying to sleep. Nevertheless, it is the kind of thing that we would all be the poorer for if it did not exist.
I share the concern that is expressed in the motion about the long-term decline in bird populations. We have debated that issue in the chamber previously on a motion from Nanette Milne, although that was on seabirds. As well as the joy that songbirds give us, terrestrial breeding birds are a good indicator of overall biodiversity because they react quickly to variations in habitat quality through changes in breeding output, survival and dispersal. As the motion notes, an army of enthusiastic volunteers helps to keep the records of the numbers of birds, making them among our best-recorded species.
Members may know that one of our 45 national indicators is increasing the index of abundance of terrestrial breeding birds, which includes songbirds. I am pleased to say that that indicator is showing overall improvement and that the trend since the early 1990s is positive.
Within the index, the picture for songbirds is mixed. The good news is that over the period there have been increases in many species, including song thrushes and house sparrows. Less positive is the fact that certain species are still declining. Others have stabilised but are not yet showing recovery.
Will the minister do all that she can to support the agri-environmental schemes that suggest that late harvesting of crops in parts of Scotland is a good idea because that provides a lot of extra feeding for birds as they come into the winter?
I will mention some of those schemes a little later. However, given the weather at the moment, I think that farmers are anxious to get the harvest in when they can. I am also not quite sure whether the member's suggestion raises other issues. The matter is slightly more complicated than simply delaying harvesting.
As I said, some species are increasing, some are declining and some are stabilising, so the overall picture is not clear. Even those species that have shown improvement in the recent past have some way to go before they return to the levels that were seen some 40 or more years ago. However, we can take some encouragement from the recent data.
There is a danger in having a too simplistic analysis—a point that was well put by Nanette Milne—given that changes in agricultural practice have no doubt contributed to the long-term decline in certain songbirds. There is no reason for us not to admit that. We all know that many hedgerows were lost due to the intensification of production, the loss of a mosaic of pasture and arable land and changes in cropping practices.
However, I think that we can now be confident that we have begun to turn the corner. Our farming and crofting communities are now our best asset in delivering improved habitats for Scottish songbirds through sustainable farming and crofting practices. To help to improve our songbird habitats, we are supporting our land managers through directly funded schemes under the Scotland rural development programme. We have also imposed mandatory cross-compliance conditions on all farmers who are in receipt of the single farm payment to ensure that there are no additional losses to important habitats. We are turning round the loss in hedgerows by providing a number of options through the SRDP and other related schemes.
On the point that was raised about the corn bunting, we are a little concerned that there were not enough observations to give a result in the breeding bird survey in Scotland. We recognise the importance of the bird, and that is why we have given the species its own funding package within the SRDP. However, we need the support of north-east farmers to retain what is an iconic species—perhaps I could pray in aid for that support Alex Johnstone, who is one of those farmers.
We also need to be careful about the figures. For example, the catastrophic decline in house sparrows in England from 1976 to 2004 was not clearly mirrored in Scotland. We need to be a bit careful about which declines and increases we are talking about. Between 1995 and 2007, the number of house sparrows in Scotland has increased—sometimes I think that they are all in my garden. We need to be a little bit careful about where the figures apply to and where the problems exist.
As I have discussed, we are seeing indications of recovery in Scotland in many of our songbird populations, including—although I do not want to overstay my welcome—swallows, house martins, grey wagtails, wrens, robins, blackbirds, song thrushes, mistle-thrushes, whitethroats, goldcrests, great tits, house sparrows, greenfinches and goldfinches. Skylark numbers have actually stabilised over that period. We need to try to get back to the higher numbers of skylarks that we had before, but the situation is not all doom and gloom and should not be presented as such.
I know that the Songbird Survival Trust has a particular view of the predation of sparrow-hawks, buzzards and so on in preventing a more robust turnaround in songbird numbers, but the broad consensus of informed opinion—as Elaine Murray referred to—does not seem to be on the trust's side. I am aware of comprehensive and authoritative reviews of the evidence that were published by the moorland forum in 2005 and by the RSPB in 2007—I will forgive the RSPB for its description of cats as non-native predators. We need to have regard to such published evidence. Both studies reached similar conclusions. In the words of the RSPB study,
"the evidence to implicate predators such as sparrowhawks in the declines of songbirds is very weak."
It is clear that predators kill other animals—that is what makes them predators. In some circumstances, predation may affect populations of local species. However, the evidence that is currently available does not seem to support the Songbird Survival Trust's view that predators such as sparrow-hawks are an important factor in the overall populations of songbirds. I have seen sparrow-hawks in my garden trying to take down pigeons rather than songbirds, so the picture is perhaps more mixed than might at first be thought.
I will finish on a positive note. I support the motion's commendation of
"individual birdwatchers and bird groups in the Highlands and Islands and elsewhere in Scotland for their role in recording species' numbers".
The commitment of those people to recording nature and to supporting schemes to improve habitats and promote understanding is to be celebrated.
I echo Robin Harper's sentiments and express my own appreciation for the many gardeners across Scotland who encourage birds in their gardens through planting choices, feeding, the provision of nesting boxes and the application of benign neglect, which is always helpful, despite the mess that birds might make. It is an area in which the action of individuals can make a big difference to biodiversity. Advice is available from SNH and the RSPB for those who want to increase the attractiveness of their garden as a home for songbirds.
Next year is the international year of biodiversity, so I hope that we will build on the enthusiasm of conservation volunteers and make biodiversity something that we in Scotland can be proud of. We appreciate biodiversity, which must go across all species. I am grateful for the opportunity that the motion has provided to discuss the issue; I simply ask members to be careful not to rush to very simplistic answers.
Meeting closed at 17:41.