Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not think that the importance of lifeline flights has ever been in dispute. Do you have a sense of when that issue will be resolved? We have been talking about it for a number of years now, although I understand that it is largely on the UK Westminster Government to address the issue with the subsidy control regime. Is there a sense of when it might be resolved so that there is at least certainty about the options that the Scottish Government has at its disposal?

Is there a point about needing to hold regulators to account in a situation in which they were reckless? That might be a question for Mark Roberts.

Do you agree with the point that was made about omissions as well as acts?

You are saying that applying surgery to section 40 of the 2014 act is problematic without there being a much wider review of environmental regulation and governance.

I was just agreeing with you and underlining your point.

Thank you.

Clive, do you want to come in?

I simply point out to Tim Eagle that we have seen continued raptor persecution. Landowners who are law abiding have absolutely nothing to fear from a licensing scheme—nothing at all.

However, I point out to Tim Eagle that we have already seen a peregrine and an osprey found shot in the Angus glens last autumn and a red kite in Strathdon earlier this year. Open your eyes, Mr Eagle, to what is actually happening.

Eighteen months ago, Parliament passed the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which introduced a licensing scheme for shooting red grouse in Scotland. The policy intent of that legislation was for the whole area of an estate to be included in the licence, given that gamekeepers are normally employed to undertake predator control over the entire estate.

A loophole in the legislation is allowing grouse moor managers to specify a specific part of an estate to which the licence is to apply—essentially, the grouse moor itself rather than the surrounding land of the estate. That is concerning, given that incidents of raptor persecution often occur outside of the grouse moor.

I simply reflect on the fact that, since the bill was passed, we have seen continued raptor persecution happening across Scotland. That is deeply concerning, and we need to get to grips with it. For example, the nest sites of some birds, such as buzzards and goshawks, are usually found off the grouse moor area, and those nests can be a target for those who want to persecute the birds. Amendment 317 seeks to close that unintended loophole, clarifying that a grouse moor licence would cover an entire landholding, thus keeping the licensing scheme in line with the intention of Parliament.

Because of those concerns, NatureScot has attempted to plug the loophole with a new licence condition, but it is considered by many to be unworkable. That condition requires that, where a raptor persecution offence occurs away from the specified licensed grouse moor area, there needs to be evidence to link it to the management of the grouse moor for any consideration of a sanction to take place. The bodies that are experienced in the investigation of such offences agree that obtaining evidence of a link, even with a civil burden of proof, will be virtually impossible in most cases. The new condition also does not allow consideration of other “relevant offences”, such as those relating to badgers or animal welfare.

Nevertheless, the fact that NatureScot sought to plug the loophole with a condition confirms the original intention of the Scottish Government to include the whole estate in the grouse shooting licence and to apply the full agreed list of offences.

I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2. I have reflected on the comments that were made then, as well as on the points that were raised by a range of stakeholders. I have made technical changes to the drafting to take account of those cases where a grouse moor is managed by a sporting agent and of the definition of “contiguous land”.

I note that the minister has recently written to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee to confirm that the Government’s intention is to fix that issue, not in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, but in the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which we will be considering in just a few weeks’ time—lucky us. On the basis of that, and of what I hope will be an explicit commitment by the Government tonight to address the issues that amendment 317 raises and take that forward in stage 2 consideration of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, I will not press amendment 317. However, I consider this to be a campaign and a mission in parts, and I look forward to these issues being brought back to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee in a few weeks’ time.

I move amendment 317.

I do not have anything to add. I look forward to the debate to come. I will not press the amendment.

Amendment 317 withdrawn.

Amendment 318 moved—[Douglas Lumsden].