Chamber and committees

Amendment 111 and the other amendments in the group centre on the premise of cost recovery for the various licensing schemes in the bill. For hundreds of years, landowners and land managers have been the champions of conservation in rural Scotland. Whether it is a sporting estate or a family-run farm, which my colleague Edward Mountain spoke of earlier, those conservation efforts have been conducted with the experience and understanding that is handed down from generation to generation.

The legal control of pest and predatorial species has been undertaken at the expense of landowners or tenants and has served to preserve, recover and promote endangered and red-listed species. To date, those conservationists have never been paid for providing that service, nor do they ask for money for providing it. It is a service that they are willing to undertake, as they have an appreciation of how important certain vulnerable species are to their local and national habitats. Members should think about the benefits of the work that land managers already undertake. Without them, we are likely to lose our iconic capercaillie. Work has also been done to recover the numbers of lapwings and curlews, and that work will come to nothing if those practices stop.

We have an opportunity to support those who are out before light and who get back home to their families well after dark; instead, we seek to punish them by twisting the financial thumbscrews at a time when they are being asked to contribute positively towards addressing the nature and climate emergencies. The expertise of some of the operators is frequently drawn on by the likes of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, as well as by organisations that are dedicated to promoting and protecting certain species. We simply cannot afford to lose the skill of those people and the equipment that they invest in.

Finally, NatureScot recognises that the control of certain species is a public service and it does not charge for wildlife management licences that directly benefit the public. To push for cost recovery now would likely ensure that individual conservationists, smaller farmers, tenant farmers and projects that work on a shoestring are hardest hit. As a result, they will be unable to afford to carry on that vital work. I hope that the minister will understand my argument that they are currently undertaking that work for free. Success in conservation needs national involvement, and the combined efforts of small projects and landholdings are key to that success. Amendment 111 would ensure that that key work continues unhindered.

I move amendment 111.

Will the minister take an intervention?

My question is quite straightforward. Are you keen on the Scottish Government aligning with the licence cost proposals that are set out in the financial memorandum?

Yes.

I agree with Edward Mountain. I should declare an interest as someone who used to be an agronomist. I completely understand why sprayer operators born before the end of December 1964 were given grandfather rights. It was important that they were able to do that work without a certificate of competence.

However, I slightly disagree with the full extent of Edward Mountain’s amendment 10, which is why I seek to amend it with amendment 10A. Having engaged with young gamekeepers and land managers, I think that, in some circumstances, they are possibly more experienced or competent. That does not mean that I am ageist. Mr Mountain has demonstrated his significant experience over his years as an MSP, and it is sometimes the case that experience comes with age with regard to land management. I therefore do not want to take away from the point that he is trying to make in amendment 10.

I welcome the minister’s reflections on amendment 10A and her support for what I am trying to achieve. We do not want to discourage active management by young people, particularly those who are incredibly engaged in the profession. We need to bring such people into the system, and that is what I am trying to achieve through the amendment.

With respect, this is an opportunity for debate.

I want to develop the discussion following what the minister has said. You heard me describe why I lodged amendment 161 and similar amendments: I feel that NatureScot would be marking its own homework. The minister seems to be content with the internal process for reviewing a licensing decision, but such decisions could not be appealed at the sheriff court on their own merits. That is what specifically concerns me.

Douglas, you furnished me with a copy of a Scottish Tenant Farmers Association newsletter in which there was a piece on agricultural support payments that criticised the lack of meaningful engagement. However, it went on to say that you were pleased to see that, born out of that frustration, FAST—the food and agriculture stakeholders task force—was set up. How is FAST achieving that meaningful engagement with the Government that you are looking for?

Just to clarify, animal welfare is devolved, so could you at any point take a different approach to the matter?

It was pointed out earlier that the DPLR Committee has had difficulty in understanding why the first rural support plan is not at a more advanced stage. Comments in the responses to the call for views said that there is not a clear direction of travel, which the DPLR Committee agrees with.

I, along with the DPLR Committee, would like to know whether the witnesses agree that a draft plan should be published ahead of stage 3 of the bill, and whether that should be subject to statutory consultation. In addition, is there a place for annual scrutiny by the Parliament?

I will start with Professor Thomson, as he made the initial comments on that.