Seòmar agus comataidhean

I ask the committee not to support any of the amendments in the group, but that is not because we are against or are trying to subvert what Mr Ruskell wants to achieve. We absolutely agree with all of that, but we want to do it in the most efficient and effective way possible, and in a way that does not disadvantage our industry in Scotland in comparison with that in other parts of the UK.

Constructive discussions on a four-nations approach are on-going at the moment, and I would like that process to continue. If the amendments in this group are agreed to today, that could subvert the work that is being done on a four-nations basis. I give an absolute commitment to push as hard as we can to get the UK Government to come to the table so that we can reach an agreement on an approach that can be taken across the four nations that will be effective throughout the UK.

I ask that amendments 32 and 32A not be pressed and that the other amendments in the group not be moved. If they are, I ask the committee to vote against them.

I do not have the information in front of me, but I will make sure that officials write to Rachael Hamilton to give her that information.

Rachael Hamilton raised a number of points. On whether I am convinced that article 1 of the ECHR will not be breached, yes, I am. We do not give out legal advice, so I will not narrate that. There was a comment about dark forces getting into my head. Things get into my head, but they are certainly not dark forces, so I do not know where that came from.

On the rationale for changing the licence, the change came about because 94 licences were altered to show a smaller area after the original licence was agreed. That demonstrated that there was a rationale for closing that loophole—because it is a loophole. The important thing to state is that we are talking about the spirit of the legislation and how we want it to proceed. Had those licences not been altered, perhaps the system would have stayed exactly as it was, but that did happen, so we are closing the loophole.

When the 2024 act was passed, there was general agreement that, according to the spirit of the law, the licence would be based on the landholding. When it became clear that the drafting had left a loophole, there were people who then changed the boundary for which they held that licence. That created a red flag, and that red flag is now being addressed by this amendment to this bill, to ensure that we close the loophole.

Tim Eagle talks about people being very concerned about this change. The biggest concern should be about being perceived to be doing anything to try to subvert the law, which was introduced as a result of the Werritty review, to reduce and completely eradicate raptor persecution. We would not be sitting here having this debate had raptor persecution not carried on for the years and years that it did. We made that position quite clear during the initial phase of the bill process. Everybody has accepted that—

The licence would not be revoked; it would be refused, and NatureScot has a duty to be reasonable in its determinations. To me, that feels like the right way to do it, with a proper discussion about and understanding of what you are trying to achieve. If both parties come to an agreement, you have a licence scheme that works.

Various discussions have been held with the UK Government about banning peat, but it should be borne in mind that we had a change of Government last year, so the conversations that we had with the previous Government are not the same as those that we are having with the current Government. If I continue going through my notes, I will perhaps answer some of your questions.

Banning the sale of peat in Scotland ahead of the rest of the UK risks our industry in Scotland and the vast number of jobs that it supports. Having a backstop for the legislation to come into force creates risks of an exclusion from the UKIMA if agreement with the four nations is not reached before then. The process that is implied by the amendments is not feasible within the timescales.

I will make one point. We had an effective ban on glue traps, which was caught by the UKIMA during the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill, and that has still not come into effect. The point that I am making is that, rather than our trying to do this individually to make some sort of statement, we should be doing it in collaboration with the rest of the UK, and that is what I am trying to do.

I absolutely accept that, but I did not call it “ridiculous”. I called it “ludicrous”.

They were experimental.

I believe that the legislation would have been robust enough, except that 94 boundaries were redrawn after NatureScot had started to implement them. It was robust enough, but this goes back to the trust issue: 94 boundaries were redrawn, and that causes doubt. We are now in a position of having to put in place proper legislation so that there is no doubt.

It is quite the opposite: I am trying to put legislation in place that will be above and beyond doubt for anyone. It should, in reality, be a benefit to landholders because they know that the legislation will be above and beyond doubt, and that strengthens their arguments.