Chamber and committees

Liz Barron-Majerik mentioned the benefits of sending policy signals—to use a phrase that Kirsty Jenkins used—about some of the issues, such as five-year funding for agriculture. I appreciate that you might not like me making this point, convener, but the Scottish Parliament does not know from month to month what its income will be next year, never mind in five years, not only on agriculture but on any other portfolio. Given some of what we have heard today, would it be worth another try to get a UK agriculture minister to come and explain that situation, given that the previous one told us that he was unavailable indefinitely?

I certainly assent to what Ms Hamilton says. We received evidence that some species thrive in grouse moor habitats. Will she accept that that is an entirely separate matter from the question of whether a minority of grouse moors do not operate in a way that tackles raptor persecution?

As other members have pointed out, the bill deals with very disparate subjects, but its title attempts to deal with that fact honestly. No such bill will please every interest group but, in this case, it does what it says on the legislative tin.

More importantly, it is a genuine attempt to address several real concerns around animal welfare and biodiversity, while balancing those needs against the genuine interests of those who work in the countryside, pest control and other areas of the economy.

With that in mind, as a member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I am happy to support the general principles of the bill and to recommend it to Parliament for further consideration. Incidentally, there is no contradiction between supporting the general principles of a bill and recommending it for further consideration.

I thank other members of the committee, the committee clerks and the many individuals and organisations who have provided us with evidence, both in person and in writing. Collectively, they have allowed the committee to produce the stage 1 report that we are debating today.

In the time that is available to me, I will not get round every aspect of the bill, but a substantial part of its scope deals with wildlife crime and, in particular, the issue of raptor persecution, as the minister mentioned. Raptor persecution is, by its nature, a crime that is largely committed without human witnesses. We received significant evidence that, as a consequence, the criminal standard of evidence that currently applies in raptor persecution cases is proving hard—indeed, perhaps virtually impossible—to meet. That is true even in situations where significant concerns exist about activities on a particular landholding.

In contrast to the rather fevered contribution that we heard from Mr Mundell, RSPB Scotland’s evidence pointed to

“an overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed science, innumerable police investigations and a considerable amount of witness evidence proving that crimes against raptors are inextricably linked to grouse moor management.”

The organisation highlighted a May 2023 study that analysed data from more than 140 satellite-tagged hen harriers. According to RSPB Scotland, the study revealed

“very low survival rates”

and showed that

“mortality hazards due to illegal killing were higher for birds using upland areas managed for grouse shooting.”

The committee heard significant evidence that, although the vast majority of land managers—including the vast majority of grouse moor managers—are working within the law, a licensing scheme around grouse moor estates is a proportionate response to ensure that raptor persecution, where it happens, is being tackled.

As I said, in the time that is available to me, I will not speak about everything in the bill. I am sure that other members will speak about snaring and other issues. However, I will briefly mention muirburn, which is one of the other major subjects of this bill.

The committee heard evidence from a variety of sectors, including crofting, which is relevant to my area. The Scottish Crofting Federation raised questions about how any new regulation would be designed and implemented with crofting in mind, as well as estates. Whatever system we use, it will need clarity around the responsibility for applications for muirburn on common grazings and how that might impact liability. I am sure that we will return to those issues.

On another completely different subject, one of the more unlikely questions about the bill that the committee took evidence on was, as other members have alluded to, the trapping of mice and rats, and how welfare concerns can be reconciled with legitimate pest control practices, not least in the health and hospitality sectors. It is undeniable that glue traps pose significant animal welfare concerns. Their indiscriminate nature means that, as well as rodents, unintended targets can be trapped, such as small birds or other animals. The committee heard evidence of the inappropriate use of such traps by members of the public. There is a general agreement that glue traps should not be available for the general public to purchase.

The committee also heard from the pest control industry about its preference for a licensing scheme to permit the continued use of glue traps in high-risk settings where, as others have alluded to, it may be difficult to find alternative solutions. Although the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission told the committee that a couple more years should bring better solutions for those settings, it has recommended a fallback option of a fixed term—a maximum of three years—of very strict licensing schemes for pest controllers while those alternatives are being investigated.

That is, incidentally, one area of the bill where it will be interesting to see whether the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 imposes constraints on the ability of this Parliament’s legislation to have practical effect. I appreciate that I have made this point before, but it is somewhat incredible that this place, which some members have disputatiously claimed to be the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, should require the blessing of the UK Government before it can effectively change the law on rat traps—but there you go.

As the committee report indicates, there are questions to which Parliament will have to return with further scrutiny and debate. I point out, for those who do not seem to understand it, that that is what happens at stage 2 of legislation. In the meantime, I am happy to support the general principles of the bill and recommend it to Parliament for further consideration.

Ministers will have to have regard to—I know that that is a loaded and specifically intended phrase—the climate change plan and other duties in law, and they must align their actions to the forthcoming climate change plan and the biodiversity plan. Can you tell me what “have regard to” means in this context, or what you understand ministers will have to do to comply with those areas of policy?

Is there a timescale in your minds for producing the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture?

But you recognise that voices in the sector have raised concerns about such scenarios.

Much of the debate around the bill will focus on what constitutes sustainable and regenerative agriculture. What is your definition of sustainable and regenerative agriculture as it applies to the bill?

That is comprehensive. Does anyone else want to come in?

Yes, it is. Ewen Scott, you mentioned that areas of policy in the bill could not be in conflict with anything on the statute book. Can you elaborate on what you had in mind that you were trying to avoid doing?

The policy memorandum sets out the workings of assimilated rules and sunset clauses, but can you say something about whether the retained CAP rules will, at some point, need to be replaced with new regulations? How will that be achieved, and how will things be maintained into the future?