To ask the Scottish Government what single-use items will be removed from the baby box, in light of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill. (S6O-02816)

If I can comment, I apologise profusely if I have overstepped the mark. I would like to make an intervention.

On the issue of licensing and the removal of licences, if a licence is to be removed, does Beatrice Wishart think that it is important that the estate or the landowner knows for how long the licence will be removed, so that they can ensure that the people on the ground who rely on it, whether keepers or farmers, know that they will have some security in the future?

I reiterate my apology for my intemperate intervention on Ariane Burgess. I will, of course, be prepared to give way to her if she wants to interrupt or make an intervention during my speech.

I declare that I have no registered interest in the moorland and muirburn aspects of the bill. However, I want to make it clear that I have an interest in what the bill aims to do, especially in relation to trapping.

For many years—probably more than 40—I have been involved in upland management. I have learned that achieving a balance is what is best for the environment. No one wants a desert, and that is often the consequence of overmanagement or undermanagement.

I will admit to getting blood on my hands from controlling and fighting moorland fires, culling deer, creating and defending habitats, and protecting lambs and ground-nesting birds from predation. I have got dirt under my fingernails and I have been covered in soot. I am proud of what I have done and what I have achieved, and I am proud of what I have achieved and led others to do.

Some of that might seem unacceptable to those who seek to make changes to the way we manage our countryside, but those are the people who have often become instant experts by reading biased briefings. Their hands are dirty from the ink on the paper of those briefings, and the blood that they have shed is from the paper cuts that they have got from turning the pages, not from working in the countryside. They have never spent freezing cold, wet nights out, waiting for foxes that steal their lambs, or spent days fighting fires. That is why people in the countryside feel ignored and marginalised.

Let me be clear: managing wildlife is gruelling hard work, and it requires the striking of a balance between giving life and ending life. People in the countryside know that and accept it. I am somewhat disappointed by the arguments that I have heard during the evidence sessions, which have often been ill informed and based on arguments put forward by single-issue pressure groups that do not promote balance.

I turn to the points that have been raised in the debate. I do not believe that the minister is right in her belief that grouse moor licensing will prevent illegal raptor persecution. I believe that illegal raptor persecution is a scourge, and I have always said that. I do not think that licensing will make a difference, but I think that, because of the way in which the bill is being forced through, it will come. If the minister is to make that law—

As we know from the European courts, it is never considered a good thing to have one person responsible for issuing a licence, for regulating it and for prosecuting those who do not follow the licensing regime. I think that we need to find a new body. I do not know what the answer is.

Let me turn to raptor persecution. I believe that we will hear—indeed, many will have heard—the RSPB saying that the six birds of prey offences that were recorded in 2023 were the tip of the iceberg. They perhaps were the tip of the iceberg, and they were unacceptable, but I know from freedom of information requests that I have made to NatureScot that, in 2021, 11 birds of prey were chopped up by wind turbines, and they were the tip of the iceberg. Those birds included two golden eagles and a white-tailed sea eagle. That is unacceptable, in the same way as it is unacceptable that people persecute raptors. Oliver Mundell was right to bring up that issue.

When it comes to muirburn, I am probably one of the few people—I will take an intervention from anyone who wants to make one—who has done a considerable amount of muirburn. There are 25 pages in the muirburn code, and I think that I know them pretty well. It is a pretty good code. In fact, I have gone to arbitration over the muirburn code with NatureScot, and I won, because NatureScot did not understand it as well as I did. Abiding by the muirburn code is the right thing to do. There is no doubt in my mind that burning bits of heather that are on short peat—that is, small peat—is probably the wrong thing to do, because it is probably on higher ground.

I am conscious that I am running out of time, but I want to mention snaring before I close. I have not heard of a logical alternative to snaring. I am clear that placing live traps around the countryside does not really work. I believe that snaring works and that, if the snares are operated correctly and within the law, they should not cause suffering. I heard Karen Adam’s comment and am deeply disturbed to know that that happened. My response is that, if that had been a legal snare and had been operated within the guidance and rules that people are trained to use, that could not have happened, so someone must have done something wrong.

I believe that the argument for banning glue traps is a bad one but that the argument for banning their use by the public is a good one. Therefore, I would like to see regulation to allow professionals to use those traps. I do not accept the Government’s view that it cannot do that for the simple reason that it has done so with snaring, where there are rules and people must pass a course to be allowed to snare.

I cannot support the bill, and neither could the committee, but I know that it will be forced through by a majority of urban MSPs who have the best of intentions but have never faced some of the issues that we are discussing. Muirburn is a vital tool in our armoury to prevent wildfires, but there ain’t much heather round Edinburgh and Glasgow. Snaring might seem cruel, but is it more cruel than letting a fox or badger eat the rear end of a sheep that is in the process of lambing? Is chopping up birds of prey with wind turbines as unacceptable as poisoning and shooting them? I believe that it is.

Therefore, I cannot support the bill, because I do not believe that it supports the countryside and environment that this Parliament should support.

Given the limited positive impact on new mothers and infants of the baby box, as laid out in The Lancet, does the cabinet secretary believe that ensuring that adequate maternity services are available to local mums in rural hospitals, such as those in Moray and Caithness, is as important?

I think that a huge amount has been done. On raptor persecution, which I will cover separately, the fact that there were only six incidents last year shows the huge decline that there has been. In my opinion, the fines should be increased and there should be increased policing.

To return to grouse moor licensing, I believe that the minister needs to consider making the length of a licence much longer. I think that five years should be the minimum period. A huge amount of investment is required in the countryside. In addition, I personally do not like the idea of NatureScot being judge, jury and executioner. What I have seen of NatureScot in the past indicates to me that it is not always fair, and those who fall under its clutches and are met with disapproval often do not feel that they have been treated fairly. I would be more convinced about supporting a form of licensing if I believed that NatureScot would be taken out of the equation, but I do not believe that I can be convinced, because I do not believe that NatureScot is an honest broker.

With regard to the disturbance of traps, can the minister clarify whether that covers all traps, including live-capture traps, live-capture traps for birds and spring traps, which are all considered to be perfectly legal?

Obviously, some arrangement has been made to allow Michael Matheson to pay only £3,000 from his office expenses to offset the £11,000 bill. Will the member confirm when Michael Matheson first offered to pay a contribution, who set the amount and on what basis it was set?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sure that Alex Cole-Hamilton does not need my assistance, but I clearly heard him say, “No”, and I think that the chamber did, too. I hope that that assists you, Presiding Officer. If not, I will sit down.