Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do you accept that £250 for an annual muirburn licence, which would be required by small crofts and tenant farms, is probably disproportionate, especially when there might be a requirement for more than one licence for peatland and non-peatland?

What is the point of the numbers in the financial memorandum if you do not have a commitment to them? Perhaps you might address that issue.

I, too, apologise to Colin Smyth. After my previous contribution, he asserted that I was echoing views that had been presented on behalf of the sector—and that is absolutely the case. I am unashamedly here to speak up for the people who work in the sector, which makes a fantastic economic contribution to rural Scotland. In fact, the sector is a sustaining power behind the existence of many of the people who live in rural Scotland, and I am unapologetic about that.

I completely respect Colin Smyth’s conscientious objection to all of the matters that we are discussing in relation to grouse shooting. As I think is well known, Colin Smyth is a member of the League Against Cruel Sports. I am not sure whether he mentioned that in his earlier contributions, but that must flavour the way in which he views all aspects of the bill. Moreover, it is absolutely in order for Rachael Hamilton to ask the question that many people in rural Scotland will seek an answer to, which is whether the amendments in question and the way in which they have been presented are, in fact, the position of Scottish Labour on rural Scotland and the lifestyle of the people of rural Scotland.

Having listened to what has been said about Colin Smyth’s amendments, I think that, despite his protestations, it is not stretching the point to suggest that they are all, in effect, designed to end grouse shooting by the back door. I say that because the amendments make it practically impossible to conduct any form of grouse moor management.

Let us look at amendment 113, for example, by which Colin Smyth is seeking to undermine the whole sector. The amendment seeks to amend provisions on the granting and content of licences by requiring that licences not be issued in circumstances where they would be used

“to maintain or increase the number of wild birds available to be shot for sport”.

That sport exists and is legal in Scotland, so the amendment is wholly designed to end grouse shooting. Therefore, amendment 113 is absolutely an attempt to wreck a whole sector.

On amendment 114, the question has to be asked whether Colin Smyth thinks that any action should be taken against predators in a rural setting. Trapping is an essential conservation tool that is used in a number of land management contexts right across Scotland, including by the RSPB. I am sure that Colin Smyth has had a briefing from the RSPB—it uses traps in places such as Orkney.

Amendment 114 would make it impossible in practice to attain a trap licence. Not only would that make countless Scottish businesses unviable, but it would have a devastating effect on Scotland’s wildlife at a time when we are tackling what can only be described as an urgent biodiversity crisis that has got worse over the past decade.

Amendment 115 is fundamentally unworkable. The number and location of traps vary regularly, which would make it impossible for NatureScot to administer the licensing scheme. It is hard not to see that either as a misunderstanding of the whole sector and how it operates or as a wrecking measure. It would have a devastating impact on Scotland’s environment and fragile rural economy.

On amendment 116, there is no discernible public benefit to be gained by reducing the licence duration to five years. That would be a strike against the interests of practitioners and, frankly, the regulator, the capacity of which is already subject to scrutiny.

On amendment 117, I do not believe that Colin Smyth answered the questions that were raised by Edward Mountain about exactly what the records in question would be used for. Everyone who spoke in favour of the amendment said that it would be a good thing to do, but to what end? They have not been able to properly address that question. I am more than happy to be intervened on so that I and the rest of the committee members who have to vote on the amendments can properly understand exactly what would be gained by what would become a massive bureaucracy. We already have vast swathes of bureaucracy in Scotland, with records kept but never referred to or utilised.

On amendment 118, Edward Mountain summarised the issue well when he talked about his experience of the sector. It is more than mildly insulting to the people who work in the sector to ascribe to them an interest other than that of maintaining the highest standards of animal welfare. Nobody goes to work in the morning to inflict cruelty on wildlife. In fact, they spend their entire careers doing everything that they can to support Scotland’s biodiversity.

I support the convener’s remarks on Colin Smyth’s amendment 109, which appears to be more of a probing amendment than a realistic attempt to amend the bill. Live-capture traps for mammals are not generally used in moorland management contexts, and the consequences that have been described by the minister, Edward Mountain and others make the amendment somewhat unworkable. I also think that the amendment is out of scope and inconsistent with the purpose of the bill.

Amendment 110 would render the trap licensing scheme fundamentally unworkable in practice. Again, the minister has covered this well, but it bears repetition: trap licences are personal to individual operators, whose circumstances will vary vastly. Some will be lone operators on small landholdings and others will be on large landholdings, supporting large businesses. Likewise, the nature, extent, need and purpose of trapping varies vastly, depending on the land management activity that is being carried out, the scale of the land, its topography and so on.

The effect of replacing “reasonable” with “practicable” would be to provide that trap licence holders would have to take all steps that were theoretically possible to prevent bycatch, such as standing beside the trap for 24 hours a day—I know that Colin Smyth dismissed that, but it would certainly come within the scope of the definition—as opposed to the steps that are reasonable, such as having regard to the land, its resources and risk. It is therefore essential that the reasonable steps test be retained, as it allows NatureScot to assess conduct in context and takes the flexible and risk-based approach to regulation that is envisaged by the principles of better regulation.

The idea that John Mason puts forward—that what appears in the financial memorandum is somehow a ballpark figure or a rough estimate—is the root of many of the issues around cost that we seem to have had in Parliament in this parliamentary session. Surely, as a Government minister, you do not accept that those numbers are just thrown together. What is the rationale for the numbers in the financial memorandum? I do not believe that it is appropriate for you, a minister, to disassociate yourself from the numbers that you have published.

I will limit my remarks to my amendments 134 and 155.

The minister addressed my amendments by referring to the elements of the bill that deal with the 14-day notice that is given once a decision has been reached. I am proposing that the applicant should get 14 days’ prior notice in advance of a proposed decision to refuse, modify, suspend or revoke a licence. That would give them the opportunity to submit representations on the proposed decision. The amendments say similar things. They are basically an appeal to the idea of reasonableness, which is quite common in other licensing schemes. If there is a proposed change in status, the applicant should be notified ahead of the decision. The minister referred to the 14 days that follow a decision. The basis of my amendments is to allow the applicant the opportunity to make representations on a proposed decision.

Oliver Mundell clearly articulated why it is important that the interests of the sector and the people who work in it are represented and discussed in Parliament. On that basis, I am more than content that we give our approval.

Provided that there is cross-party participation in a group, whether or not the group’s focus is consistent with a party’s or Government’s policy is not really relevant. The relevant issue is that there is cross-party participation. For example, I might be involved in a number of cross-party groups that have positions or views that the current Government might not approve of. That would not be a reason for not having those groups.

Do you accept that the narrative around the closure is that hundreds of jobs—potentially thousands—will be lost, with a devastating impact on the Grangemouth and Falkirk area? Do you accept that?

What is your modelled impact on the supply chain of a potential closure?

This is the quote:

“We want to keep jobs in manufacturing here but Labour hasn’t understood that we need supplies. I need ... gas, ready, cheap and available as a feedstock.”

Is that wrong?