Chamber and committees

This new petition raises extremely serious points of principle that have concerned a great many people, including myself, for a long time. As the petitioner points out in their central argument, there are vast numbers of people in the public sector who are paid in excess of £100,000. People doing various jobs—I will not mention any of them particularly, although some are going through my mind—are paid far more than the First Minister. We wonder whether the balance has somehow gone seriously askew.

This new petition raises an issue of considerable public interest, especially at a time of real financial pressure. It is hard to explain to people the pay of some chief executives. They are often the most invisible people in an organisation and you cannot actually get to meet or see them, although I had better not name any, or I will get myself into trouble. The reply from the Scottish Government is completely hopeless and does not answer the point at all, but the issue is not going to go away. Personally, I find the level of salary paid to some people in quangos to be incomprehensible.

I hope that I have made my position clear. We should keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government to demand a little bit more substance to the reply. Will the Government ever tackle this problem, or do we just accept the situation and thole it, warts and all, obvious injustice though there is?

So, where there is no predator control, it becomes a species desert.

That is very clear. Thank you.

The Scottish Government says that it recognises

“that predator control is a ... component of species conservation alongside other”

measures. In your opening statement, you called for the minister to confirm the Government’s support and that it values the work that keepers do and that what you described assists with nature recovery. You have also asked for information about the cost of alternative proposed methods such as habitat control. No doubt we can pursue all those things; you have asked us to do that and I hope that we can.

Do you have anything specific in mind when you say that you want the committee to explore how predator control as an important component of species conservation could be officially recognised? Are you asking for a ministerial statement, a letter to the SGA, or perhaps evidence before this committee, where the minister may be given an opportunity to confirm all the matters that you have requested? Do you have something in mind that would embody official support?

Otherwise the caper is likely to become extinct. NatureScot has also said that it is likely to become extinct if current trends continue. Is that right?

He is head gamekeeper at the Seafield estate.

Well, I did wonder if there was much more we can do, for the reasons that Mr Torrance said, but if members want to write to the society, there is perhaps no harm in that.

Although I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation, I note that we might, in addition, when writing to the Lord Advocate, seek from her such data evidence as is available, without going into names, of cases that have arisen over the past few years. Legislation was passed in this area fairly recently, I think.

There is no doubt whatever that it is an area of huge public concern, for the reasons that the petitioner sets out in their supplementary submission.

As well as the review of diversion, which I think was instructed last July so might not yet have been completed, it would be useful to find out how many cases there have been of rape by under-16s, how serious the situation is, how many instances there have been each year and any further information about that. That would help to provide a bit more background. It is plain that any case can have tragic consequences for the victim, which is what the petitioner has emphasised in the supplementary submission.

I support that, but in doing so I am aware from my own constituency that the pavement parking ban has caused practical issues for residents in residential areas where the street is narrow and there are usually cars on each side of the road and where, if there is some abuttal of the pavement, unless a car can mount the pavement to an extent, it becomes impossible for people to have a car. That in turn means that some people are effectively isolated, particularly elderly people, those with impaired mobility and those with disability. It is an issue that has been raised with me, and it has quite severe consequences.

The safety of pedestrians is very important, but there is another side to it. In taking up Mr Torrance’s suggestion, could we ask whether that aspect has been considered and whether local authorities in other parts of Scotland have received complaints such as those that have been raised with me? If not, perhaps some further work might need to be done, because I suspect that the issue will come back, and we will probably receive a petition on the topic before too much longer.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to Alex Hogg. In the interests of transparency, I should say that Alex Hogg and I have known each other since he first gave evidence on Lord Watson’s bill, which I believe was 25 years ago. We have since become friends, and I am also a supporter of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, although I cannot remember whether I have paid my annual subscription. Having made a clean breast of it, as it were, I will move to questions.

First, Mr Hogg, why is predator control required as a species conservation tool? I think that the main point of your petition is to acknowledge that that is the case. Could you explain why predator control is required and talk us through the main methods used by gamekeepers and the role that gamekeepers, in particular, play in species conservation?

What species are most at risk if there is an absence of the predator control that has historically been carried out?