Chamber and committees

Over the years, we have known that raptors, including some of our most prized bird species, such as golden eagles, have been illegally killed, and—long before I was in Parliament—we have worked to try to put in place measures to significantly reduce the number that are killed and to eradicate their killing. During my time here, we have put in place more extreme penalties as well as vicarious liability to see whether that would put an end to that. A lot of the measures have reduced it.

I am looking at the figures: 25 bird of prey crimes were recorded in Scotland in 2019; in 2020, there were 11. In my view, that is 11 too many. I do not have information in front of me that goes beyond 2020.

The last part of your question probably nails it, because NatureScot will deal with the licensing scheme, and it will decide with stakeholders on the parameters for the scheme and what information it requires from people ahead of their getting a licence.

If I understand your question correctly, you are right in saying that the licensing scheme could have a dual function—in effect, that is what I said to Alasdair Allan. Many of the issues around that are to do with data and evidence for things such as the practices that take place on peatland and whether they damage or enhance it, and whether they enhance or degrade biodiversity. I see the licensing scheme as a very useful tool in evidencing where that happens.

We cannot pre-empt what that evidence will be. However, we hear from land managers all the time—you will have heard from them directly—that their practices increase biodiversity. They might tell you that you will see bird species on grouse moors that you do not see anywhere else, for example. They will point to their land management in terms of areas where they rewild and have brought back species that have not been there for some time.

I think that the licensing scheme will be a useful tool. Again, I make the point that how that will be set is not for me to decide; rightly, it will be for NatureScot.

When NatureScot was before the committee, I was pleased to hear its commitment to working with a large range of stakeholders to make sure that the licensing scheme is simple, easy to apply for and not onerous in terms of evidence that land managers must produce. However, if it has concerns or it does not quite know about something, it will work with the land manager or the person who is applying to find out more information. It will not be a rubber-stamp exercise, or a yes or no. NatureScot will have a conversation and, if it has any issues, it will iron those out before deciding on whether to grant a licence.

The philosophy that I heard NatureScot outline is the right one. It is not there to stand in the way of good practice; it is there to encourage good practice, to licence it and, as you said, to get data off the back of that. I look forward to seeing what it will do on that.

I listened to the evidence where that issue was thrown in, and I have to say that I did not quite understand where people were coming from. This bill is ECHR compliant. The officials have gone through the process of testing that, and the Presiding Officer has decided that it is compliant, too.

I had wondered whether this question would come up. When Liz McLachlan was in front of you, she made the point that, under the general licence restrictions, NatureScot operates an agreed framework before it will use any of the powers associated with a licence. It is not as if a Government body is going to behave in a way that is not compliant with human rights legislation or with the agreed framework that is set out in the bill, which is ECHR compliant. I therefore struggle to understand why anyone would say that it is not compliant.

Hugh Dignon might want to say a bit more about this, as he was mentioned, if indirectly.

I gave you my initial personal thoughts about why we have not included possession in the bill, but I am, obviously, willing to move on anything. Beatrice Wishart raised the issue; it is, perhaps, something that she feels should be included in the bill. We are at the general principles stage, so I am willing to speak with anyone who thinks that the offences could be widened or improved.

I do—and you have just articulated effectively why I am open to considering something. First, we need to look at whether the existing offences and the associated penalties are enough of a deterrent. However, we also need to put our trust in the police. The system of ID numbers has been operational for a number of years, and for good reason. Let me put it this way: the police are not daft. They are going to sus out pretty quickly whether somebody is at it. As for whether taking a belt-and-braces approach and providing more of a deterrent will deter people, I am absolutely open to suggestions on that.

No, I would not. I have seen people claiming that the Werritty report was concerned with only raptor persecution—it was not. The Werritty report was by the grouse moor management group, and it made more than 40 recommendations relating to grouse moor management, including recommendations on licensing, grouse shooting, muirburn and the use of traps. The bill is reflective of those recommendations and the issues that the Werritty report identified. So, no, I will not reduce the scope of the bill.

To my understanding, we are also seeing that the populations are of a disproportionately younger age, which suggests that there are issues relating to the suspicious disappearance of more mature adults. I stick with what I said in response to Mr Allan. We feel that the licensing scheme is necessary, because we are not seeing the significant improvement that we wanted.

For me to lodge amendments, or if people were to come to me with amendments for me to look at and decide whether we would support them, I would need to do a little bit more work so that there are no unintended consequences.

I keep coming back to the fact that I have had the bill in front of me for only a week. Between now and stage 2, I need to determine what length of licence is appropriate—what will hit the mark and is neither too long nor too short—so I cannot really make that commitment to you right now.

No. We will have to disagree on that.

The code of practice will be designed by NatureScot after the bill has been passed.