Chamber and committees

If that were to be the case, I would have included other ground-nesting and game birds in the amendment, but it is about pheasants only. That is because pheasants are not native to Scotland and are not part of our natural ecosystem. If we are releasing tropical birds into Scotland, we should at least know where they are being released, who is releasing them and what impact they are having on the environment. It is suspected that they have an impact by eating the eggs of native reptiles such as the adder, which contributes to reductions in the number of those reptiles. It is also suspected that pheasants contribute to an increase in the fox population, which menace farmers around the country.

However, research has not been done to show how much impact pheasants have, because there has been silence from the gamekeeping lobby. They say, “We’ll not look at pheasants, and we’ll present that there’s no problem.” However, the 31.5 million pheasants that are being released into the UK each year—[Interruption.] Just let me finish my line.

Those 31.5 million pheasants have more biomass than all the native birds of the UK combined. There are more pheasants by mass than all the native birds in the UK. That is absurd; there is no way that they are not impacting the environment, although I accept that we need to collect data on that.

The best numbers that I have are from the RSPB, which says that 31.5 million pheasants a year are released into the UK. That figure is not disaggregated for Scotland. I assume that the figure for Scotland is proportionate, because that is the best evidence that I have. However, that is irrelevant to the point that the release of pheasants should be licensed. I am not at this point suggesting that we stop pheasant releases altogether. We would need more data to evidence that.

My understanding is that, when the bill that became the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 was being debated, the evidence suggested that pheasant releases should be licensed, and that was proposed, but an exception was carved out in a negotiation with the gamekeeping industry. That should be reconsidered.

It is significant that members of three Opposition parties—the Scottish Green Party, Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats—have lodged amendments about pheasants. It is time to do something about this. Mercedes Villalba and I have proposed licensing through removing the exemption in the 2011 act, while Beatrice Wishart has proposed specific restrictions. The Scottish Government has some options and it must take a serious look at pheasant releases if it is to have any credibility on biodiversity.

I am not familiar with the evidence that Tim Eagle cited, but it sounds as if it is specifically about the Cairngorms national park. We are considering legislation for the whole country. The sheer quantity of game birds and pheasants that are being released in Scotland is enormous. If the numbers in Scotland are proportionate to those in the UK, the mass is more than all our native bird species put together. There should absolutely be some urgent research on the impact of that, but it is extraordinary and unusual that pheasants are specifically exempted in the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011. There is no reason for that one species to be exempted other than that gamekeepers want to be able to shoot them for sport. Consideration was not given to how those pheasants are impacting the environment. Consideration should be given—by licensing.

No one is releasing or relocating feral—

First, I note that, unfortunately, Sarah Boyack’s amendment 103 conflicts with my amendment 36 in the drafting. That is a shame, because we are working with the same intention in the amendments. Perhaps we can work together to create amendments at stage 3 that do not conflict with one another and support the same aims.

The Scottish Government has already signed up to implement the commitments of the United Nations global diversity framework. One of those is the much-publicised 30 by 30 commitment—that is, to conserve 30 per cent of the land, sea and waters in Scotland.

Another of those commitments, which is much less talked about but which the Scottish Government has already made is to restore 30 per cent of all degraded ecosystems. The UN states that that commitment is to

“Ensure that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and marine and coastal ecosystems are under effective restoration, in order to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity and connectivity.”

Amendment 36 would bring that prior commitment into legislation to encourage action on it. The amendment shines a light on the fact that the Scottish Government has already committed to that significant level of nature restoration. This is a chance to put that intention into legislation.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

My intervention follows on from Rachael Hamilton’s earlier point. According to Scottish Land & Estates, there are around 439,500 jobs in rural Scotland, which means that the 4,000 gamekeeping jobs that Rachael Hamilton noted represent less than 1 per cent of our rural jobs.

Given that such a huge amount of land is given over to only 4,000 jobs, there is a question to be asked about whether we are using our resources efficiently and appropriately. If that land were to be used for anything else—whether forestry, nature restoration or farming—more jobs may be created.

The idea that gamekeeping is the best use of that land and the best thing for the economy is incorrect. The data does not show that. It is one use of the land, which is challenging for biodiversity and is not necessarily creating the optimal result for Scotland’s rural economy.

We are in some agreement on the data collection point. My Conservative colleagues to my right have also expressed some frustration that we do not have the data. However, arguing that we do not know how many game birds are released is somewhat circular, given that licensing would provide a mechanism to determine that. I am not suggesting that any restrictions be applied until data is gathered. I am interested in hearing a more robust commitment from the cabinet secretary about data collection so that both sides of the argument can come to the discussion with some evidence, rather than our own particular views.

Pheasants contribute to the spread of avian flu.

In order even to relocate a red squirrel—something that the members round this table are keen on—you would have to have a licence and 40 pages of paperwork showing that the animal is not diseased, that it is being put in a correct location and that you have considered its wellbeing. However, you can release dozens, hundreds or thousands of tropical birds in Scotland without any consideration of whether they are diseased, whether you are looking after their welfare or whether the release is appropriate to the environment.

I am not saying that we should stop pheasant releases—although, personally, I think that that would be a good idea. I am proposing that they be licensed as we license the release of beavers and as we would license, if we ever got there, the release of lynx—because we want to know who is releasing what into Scotland’s environment.

My understanding is that people who keep pheasants have to register that on the poultry register. That is because, while they are being kept in pens for breeding, pheasants are domesticated. As far as I know, the poultry register is not well kept and is not up to date, and that needs to be worked on. However, once the pheasants are released, they become wild animals. That is specific to game birds. It is true for other types of game birds that are kept in that way, including native ones. If someone is going to relocate a wild animal or introduce one to Scotland, they need a licence. All other species of animals require licences so that we know how many there are and where. That is what I am proposing in relation to pheasants.