Seòmar agus comataidhean

Based on your timing, are you suggesting that we will get to the group on “Muirburn licences—purposes” during those 45 minutes?

Amendment 130, in my name, would make the code of practice, to be introduced by the bill for land management under a section 16AA licence, mandatory. The wording of my amendment, particularly the phrase

“relevant to management of the area of land in question”,

clearly addresses the question of whether a person must comply with all aspects of the code where some aspects do not apply to the land management in question, which has been previously mentioned as a reason why the code cannot be mandatory.

The wording of the code could also easily set out the circumstances for which each part of the code is relevant, so suggestions from Jamie Halcro Johnston, which were taken word for word from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Scottish Land & Estates briefing note, that every aspect of the code must be “slavishly” followed in every single circumstance is simply untrue and does not reflect the wording of the amendment. Such a claim maybe reflects the weakness of the arguments against the amendment.

A requirement only to “have regard to” a code of practice is not, in my view, strong enough. When the code is relevant to the land that is being managed, the question of how we ensure that the code is followed remains. Under the current wording, a provision to “have regard to” will not ensure that the code is followed when it should be. My amendment would ensure that, importantly, the code is followed when it is

“relevant to management of the area of land in question.”

In response to Jamie Halcro Johnston’s comment on judicial review—which also comes from the briefing note—I say that every piece of legislation is open to judicial review. However, just because you do not like having something in the law, that is not grounds for a judicial review. My advice to Scottish Land & Estates and to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which are the only bodies making this claim about a judicial review, is that if their lawyer is seriously telling them that the amendment is grounds for a judicial review, they should maybe get themselves a new lawyer. It is simply untrue.

Amendment 131 would provide a degree of accountability that is currently lacking with regard to the numbers of birds and animals killed—both the game birds that are shot and the animals that are killed because they are seen as a threat to those birds.

The amendment would allow authorities to gauge the numbers of targeted and non-targeted animals that are being trapped and killed, which is surely important to allow a full understanding of species biodiversity, as I outlined in quite a lot of detail when I spoke to amendment 117. It is important to stress that the requirement is to report to the relevant authority for consideration. It is not to publish commercially sensitive information, for example about an individual licence holder. I repeat the question that I asked when I spoke to amendment 117. If the Scottish Government does not agree with reporting that information, what is it trying to hide?

My amendment 120 proposes that NatureScot should consider independent animal welfare expertise when determining the content of the trap training courses. The sentience of wild animals and birds is recognised across the scientific community, but trap design and use have not kept up with animal welfare science. With farmed and companion animals and those that are used in research, methods of killing are tightly specified and regulated, the aim being a humane death that is as near instantaneous as possible. That is in contrast to legislation on the trapping and killing of wild animals, which has fallen behind. The involvement of animal welfare expertise in trap training would be a good first step in helping to address that. The provision would not be onerous. It could be implemented simply through, for example, an independent veterinary adviser, an independent academic or the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission being asked to review the animal welfare aspects of the course content.

Amendment 121, like a number of my other amendments, draws on the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife management, which I have talked about on a number of occasions. In this case, the training and assessment that are required for a person to obtain a trap licence would include two particular principles. They would not prevent the use of traps or even restrict their use; they would simply require the use of traps to be justified on the specified ground. Trap users would have to have a legitimate reason to use the traps and consider, first, whether there was evidence of that and, secondly, whether there were non-lethal alternatives. Such evidence should be routinely required in wildlife management decisions.

Amendment 143 draws attention to another elephant in the room. As I explained when I spoke to amendment 113 on 7 February, the explanatory notes to the bill say that the Government wants to

“ensure that the management of grouse moors and related activities are undertaken in an environmentally sustainable and welfare conscious manner.”

Amendment 143 complements the environmental goals of the bill and speaks to the reasons why a muirburn licence should be given by NatureScot.

Although it may be accepted that muirburn can be a tool for land managers, it is environmentally and ethically indefensible for muirburn licences to be given for the sole purpose of maintaining and increasing moorland game only so that it can be shot. Some will oppose amendment 143 because they support maximising the amount of killing, but that is not the public’s view. Three quarters of Scots are opposed to muirburn for that purpose—solely so that grouse numbers can be maintained or increased for the grouse then to be killed for sport.

Amendment 143 will reduce unnecessary muirburn, but it will leave in flexibility for it to continue to be used when necessary. Put simply, if land managers want to obtain a licence to muirburn for genuine conservation reasons, the amendment in no way blocks that from happening.

I move amendment 143.

It is disappointing that the minister will not support the pretty modest proposal in amendment 120, particularly given the suggestion that the training would simply be reviewed by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which is an organisation that the Scottish Government itself set up for that type of purpose. The longer the bill is debated, the more the commitment that was given in evidence that a key aim of the bill is to improve “animal welfare outcomes”, even when traps are used lawfully, looks like rhetoric from Scottish Government officials rather than anything that is reflected in the bill.

However, I take on board what the minister said—that the issue that I have raised will be covered in the training. I would like to discuss that further with the minister before we get to stage 3, to outline exactly how that will be the case. Ideally, we could see some of the training before then or, at the very least, get more information about it. Therefore, I will not move amendment 120 at this stage but, subject to that discussion, I will consider bringing it back at stage 3.

Amendments 120 and 13 not moved.

Is Edward Mountain arguing that the only way to manage land and to protect a particular species against predators is by killing? The point of my amendments is that other forms of control should be considered before killing is used as a last resort, but Edward Mountain seems to be arguing that the only thing that we can do is kill.

Some time ago, in response to my members’ business debate on the ethical principles of wildlife management, the Government said that it would consider such an approach. Amendment 121 is a test of whether that was just the usual empty rhetoric that we have come to expect or is something that the Government is seriously considering.

Amendment 121 moved—[Colin Smyth].

Having lodged the same amendment as Kate Forbes, I express my support for the end date of the muirburn season being moved in the way that amendment 102 proposes. Ideally, the end date would be the one that is suggested in amendment 167, but, failing that, amendment 102 is a reasonable compromise. However, I do not support the start date of the season being moved as is set out in amendment 101, as I do not think that there are any justifiable reasons for that.

As we have heard, the current end date of 15 April for the burning season, as is proposed in the bill, overlaps with the breeding season of several bird species that often nest on moorland. A point was raised about the need for evidence on the issue. In its 2014 document “Bird Breeding Season Dates in Scotland”, NatureScot listed 18 species in Scotland whose breeding season overlaps the end date, and climate change is driving that number ever higher. We also heard about the evidence in the BTO’s report, “Nesting dates of Moorland Birds in the English, Welsh and Scottish Uplands”.

There is a strong case for having a mechanism for proper scrutiny by Parliament, outwith primary legislation, to amend the date as climate change continues to have an impact. However, the bill asks us to set a date, and I believe that the proposed date is too late. In Wales, the end date has been brought forward, from 15 April to 31 March, on the basis of current evidence of breeding seasons and climate change. At the very least, we should replicate that in Scotland.

I am happy to address that point. In previous amendments, for example, I proposed that we should not be trapping to minimise one species in order to maximise another species purely for the purpose of killing that other species. That circle of destruction has been debated time and again, and that is the point that is being made here.

I am not surprised that the Conservatives do not agree with amendment 143, but I am disappointed that the Greens seem to share that position. I am aware that the minister has no intention whatever of meeting me to discuss bringing back the amendment at stage 3, but I will not press it. The Government’s position on supporting muirburn purely to maintain and increase grouse to be shot for sport is very much now on record.

Amendment 143, by agreement, withdrawn.

If a land manager wishes a licence for conservation reasons, amendment 143 would not impact on that whatsoever. That important point needs to be made.

I am not surprised that the Conservatives do not agree with the amendment, because they want to maximise the level of kill. I appreciate that, but I have to say that I am disappointed that the Greens and SNP seem to share that position. Despite the fact that I know that the minister has no—