Seòmar agus comataidhean

What would you like the funding to be? What figure would the Scottish Government like to deliver the vision and the route map in relation to that envelope?

On a point of order, convener. Colin Smyth needs to clarify his statement about my party wanting to maximise kill. It does not mean anything. I do not understand what it means. It is actually disrespectful. I can tell him categorically that I support rural economies and country sports pursuits. It is important that he acknowledges that and does not explain it as maximising kill. I have no idea what that means, and it is disrespectful.

Can I move that amendment, please, convener?

Can I intervene on that point?

I am trying to understand why the member has lodged amendment 143, so I would like to know whether he has ever been to see any black grouse conservation projects on moorland. Obviously, the practice of muirburn is actually conserving wildlife and red-listed species.

Will the member disaggregate the data that she has just quoted to refer to Scottish areas rather than to the whole of the UK, so that we can understand the quote in relation to the lapwing and golden plover?

Sure—thank you.

Sorry, convener—

Right—okay.

Amendment 62 would ensure that any licence conditions are reasonable. In other words, it necessitates the imposition of reasonable licence conditions only.

On amendment 63, a 10-year licence would ensure the greatest clarity for land managers and would be most consistent with the type of investment and land management associated with Scotland’s grouse moors. Ten years provides optimum certainty for investment, livelihoods, the wider supply chain and the economy—obviously, the rural economy is very important just now. Ten-year licences would ensure that sustainable grouse moor management could continue under licence, with greater opportunities to bolster efforts to deliver on climate and biodiversity targets due to the longer timeframe allowing for enhanced forward planning.

On amendment 132, we know that moorland that is managed for grouse shooting is often also managed for other purposes—examples include hill farming, deer, peatland restoration and renewables. In the light of the increasingly mixed-use nature of grouse moors, it follows that any licensing decision is made with reference to the taking or killing of red grouse in isolation. It would not be right that a grouse moor operator suffers a sanction on the back of the actions of a person who rents the land, for example. This simple amendment provides for that. Its effect would be to make it clear that it is only the conduct of persons who manage the land for the purpose of the licence—that is, grouse moor management—that can trigger licensing penalties. How can it be right that the conduct of persons who manage the land for a purpose that is unrelated to the licence—for example, an agricultural tenant—can result in the licence being suspended, despite the land management in question having no tie to the licensed activity or, to put it another way, the management of the grouse moor? That is irrational given that the purpose of the licensing scheme is to tackle raptor persecution connected with grouse moor management.