m working on that and much of that work is delivered with the different delivery partners in terms of the advisory services on the ground so we'll be developing that as soon as we can thank you um beaterswish it would be something about the the budget in terms of cpd how that's going to be how cpd would be supported again it's not possible for me to put a figure on that or set out what that's what that can look like at the moment because i don't know what future budgets are going to be but of course and i think sometimes it can be interpreted that because this is tier 4 it's like it's seen at the the end of a scale rather than it's something that actually supports everything else that happens within the framework which i think is the way that that should be viewed but of course we want to make sure that we're enabling that going forward now we currently fund we have a number of different schemes that we fund at the moment the knowledge transfer and innovation service we have the farm advisory service and we've set out the broad envelope of what we think that the direct element of that support is going to look like but in terms of future budgets it's not possible for me to set that out at the moment but there will be supported there will be some support yes if we're bringing forward this i think it's a critical element we support schemes like that just now and as those schemes evolve and we transition into what will become that that formal tier of the new framework then of course i would fully intend to support that going forward just a question that i know that we're not looking for specific figures but we know that the budget set aside in the financial memorandums about 340 million is it foreseen that the cpd cost of delivering the cpd will come from that budget or will it pull on budgets from other sectors again it's not possible for me to set that out at this stage and what that might look like and also we've undertaken a financial memorandum you must have done work to decide where that money what that was based on so we've got 70% and basic payments we will have tier two tier three whatever so i think it's a simple question do you foresee cpd funding to come out of that 840 million that you expect to to be the budget up until 2028 sorry well yeah within the overall quantum of what we have in the portfolio funding then i would expect us to be funding that cpd okay so the cpd is going to come come yes sorry so that was a question will the cpd funding come out of that pot the 840 million pot that the financial memorandum has identified yes yeah okay i think that was the the crux of the question from butress wish of whether okay sorry if i was misinterpreted in the question there but yeah that's where i would expect that that funding would come from thank you very much cabinet section your officials we appreciate your your time this morning that's been hugely helpful thank you for attending today i will now suspend the meeting for for 10 minutes our third item of business this morning is consideration of a negative ssi the sea fish prohibition on fishing first of Clyde order 2024 given that the committee has received some further information on this instrument i propose that we defer consideration to next week in order to invite the minister to discuss the evidence base further the committee in agreement thank you our fourth item of business is consideration of three UK si consent notifications the sea fisheries amendment regulation 2024 official controls fee and charges amendment regulation 2024 and sea fisheries international commission for the conservation of atlantic tuna amendment regulations 2024 do any members have any comments on either of these notifications no our members content to agree with the Scottish Government's decision to consent to the provision set out in the notification being included in UK rather than Scottish subordinate legislation thank you our next item of business this morning is consideration of the wildlife management and mureburn Scotland bill at stage 2 and invite to the meeting Jim Fairlie minister for agriculture and connectivity and his supporting officials and also welcome to the meeting uh Jamie Halcro Johnston uh Colin Smith and Edward Mountain so i call on amendment 180 in the name of Edward Mountain grouped with amendments 120 13 121 14 15 and 16 Edward Mountain to move amendment 180 and speak to all amendments in the group thank you convener before i do that as our new members of the committee and uh i would like to make a declaration of interest in line with the declaration of interest that uh may that i've made before um just so people are aware i am a member of a family farming partnership and partnership and a joint owner of a wild fisheries both roles require the controlling of some species of wildlife including states weasels minks rats mice foxes and corvids including crows roats and jackdaws i've been controlling and managing wildlife to manage environments for over 40 years i use licence firearms and spring traps and i make clear that i do own i'm sorry i make it clear that i do not own any hillground but i have been involved for more than 40 years in mureburn and burning to manage grassland and farmland and to protect it from invasive species such as gorsamburum in the past i've supervised muleburner and have contributed to muleburn consult consultations and management plans i hope that what i've said is sufficient for the committee to understand that i have a relevant interest in this matter convener i move amendment 180 in my name and i'm just going to talk to the amendments in this group that are relevant to me uh the reason why i've moved these amendments is to ensure that training courses are relevant and that they include consultation with interested parties and land managers when it comes to setting them up one thing that i've found in my in my experience in the countryside is when courses are set up they tend to expand in time so for example a dcs one course could have been two days now extends to four days it concerns me that a whole industry is building up around these courses so i believe that the the courses can be limited in time to make sure that they are short and relevant the other thing that i've found as with courses is that it's becoming increasingly expensive so that you may have maybe up to eight to ten people on a course each being charged five to six hundred pounds for that course which per day works on three thousand pounds for one instructor that to me seems to be extremely high and therefore i seek to limit the cost of the courses to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to do it as far as the other amendments in the group uh convener i don't propose to speak to those yet but listen to the arguments and comment on them at the end uh thank you convener for your time thank you mr mighton uh collin smith to speak to amendment 120 and other amendments in the group thank you very much convener amendment 120 in my name proposes that nature scott should consider including independent animal welfare expertise when determining the content of the trap training courses the sentence of wild animals and birds is recognised across the scientific community but trap design and use has not kept up with animal welfare science with farmed and companion animals or those used in research methods of killing are tightly specified and regulated aiming for a humane death that is as near instantaneous as possible but that's in contrast to legislation at present on trapping and killing wild animals which has fallen behind animal welfare expertise and trap training would be a good first step in helping address this this would not be an onerous provision and could be implemented through for example an independent veteran advisor an independent academic or the scottish animal welfare commission simply being asked to review the animal welfare aspects of course content amendment 121 like a number of my other amendments draws from the internationally recognised ethical principles and wildlife management which i've talked about on a number of occasions in this case it would mean that the training and assessment required to obtain a trap license would include two particular principles these won't prevent the use of traps or even restrictor use it simply requires their use to be justified on the ground specified namely trap users would have to have a legitimate reason to use the traps and first consider whether there are non-lethal alternatives and secondly consider whether there are non-lethal alternatives such evidence community really should be routinely required in the wildlife management decisions thanks thank you other members jimmy halker johnson thank you very much convenient can i draw members attention to my register of interests as a partner in a farming business and through that as a member of a number of organisations including nfu and sle i'm speaking today i'm delighted to speak in support of my colleague steven kerr who can't come along today and he's asked me to cover a number of areas and to move his amendments when we come to those i was just going to speak very briefly to two amendments 120 and 121 in the name of collin smith on stevens behalf we are against these amendments we do not consider this amendment 121 adds anything instructive or novel to what would be expected on such training courses it is unnecessarily prescriptive and similarly in relation to amendment 121 which we do not see a rationale for being so prescriptive course content including animal welfare considerations that practitioners should be cognizant of ought to be a matter for nature scot and accredited training bodies it would be highly unusual for ministers to prescribe syllabus content in this way thank you um before i ask the minister to come in i'm going to make a contribution i wonder whether minister in his contribution could confirm whether the licences suggested within collin smith's amendment actually are compliant with international agreement on the cumane trapping standards i would like confirmation on that now call the minister thank you very much convener and i have to say it's quite strange being sitting at this end of the table having spent the last two years sitting in the seat that Emma Harper is now sitting in so um yeah it feels a little bit odd for me i don't know how odd it feels for you but anyway we will crack on speaking to edward mountains amendments 18 to 13 14 15 and 16 the very review recommended that trap operators must be required by law to complete training on the relevant category of trap training requirements are common in other professions especially always relating to animal welfare and i know that the scottish gamekeepers association similar organisations organizations already undertake a lot of training and i absolutely welcome that i was pleased to hear that alec hog has indicated that the scottish gamekeepers association were happy with the training requirements outlined in the bill and i want to assure him and the association that we would want their expertise and knowledge to inform the development of training alongside other stakeholders however the amendments by edward mountain would create an unnecessary barrier for trap users and training operators amendments 13 14 and 15 would exclude much of the existing training that trap users already undertake as part of their wider professional development and in some cases would result in applicants being required to undertake licensed specific training over and above this for example these amendments would not allow the relevant authority likely to be nature scott to validate courses such as the hnd or h hnc or hnd in gamekeeping if they were to be if they were to incorporate training on the use of traps in their curriculum and developing the framework for training courses the scottish government and nature scott will work with stakeholders to ensure that if a fee is to be charged for training courses the cost is accessible and a consideration will be given to providing for exemptions in certain circumstances amendment 16 and 180 simply add an extra level of bureaucracy into the training course creation and approval process the licensing authority will be responsible for ensuring that any approved training courses cover the standards required by the bill and other pieces of legislation should they feel as necessary to do so they already have the power to consult with anyone they deem it appropriate as part of the training course designation process therefore not only are these amendments unnecessary they impose additional duties on practitioners and the licensed authority at a point when the training courses are required to be updated and lead to delays in the approval process that wouldn't be helpful to either licensed applicants or the licensed authority who would have to manage the additional ministry of burden created by these amendments so i can't support amendments 180 13 14 15 and 16 and i would encourage members to vote against them colonel smiths amendments 120 and 121 the intention of the bill is not to introduce purposes for which some wildlife traps may be used to ensure that wildlife traps that are used are operated in line with training and best practice the traps covered by the provisions in the bill are largely used by professionals such as keepers and land managers rather than for domestic use so i expect the training to be based around the existing conditions for the use of each trap each type of trap for example a set out in the spring traps approval order this means that a training should be easily completed for anyone currently undertaking leol trapping on this basis i don't think amendments 120 and 121 that colonel smith proposes are necessary as these aspects of trapping best practice will be included in the required training course if these amendments were pressed i'll encourage the committee to vote against them and to answer your specific question can be the spring trap specified in the license scheme are those specified in the spring trap approval order that order lists the traps compliant with a i hds and traps used for live capture birds are not required to be compliant thank you minister edwin mounted to wind up and presser withdrawal amendment 180 thank you very much and i'm disappointed to hear what the minister said in relation specifically to amendment 180 and 16 both of those he almost indicated that he was prepared to go on 180 in the sense that it would require consultation and he said consultation would take place so i'm unsure why he does not want to support amendment 180 180 and i'm unsure why he would not want to console support amendment 16 because that just asked for people who are using the traps to be included to in the design of the courses and the content of the courses i do understand why he is not able to support amendment 14 but i take heart in the fact that at amendment 14 he said that the cost of the course should be reasonable so i would be prepared to withdraw amendment 14 providing the minister would be prepared to discuss with me a form of wording that would enable the that to be reflected in the bill as far as amendment 13 i hear what the course the minister says but if amendment 14 is agreed or the minister is prepared to move on amendment 14 then i would be in a position to withdraw amendment 13 on the basis amendment 13 is to try and limit the overall cost i would take an intervention it's just going back to amendment 16 if you don't mind the obviously this is a very practical amendment which a lot the scosh government often co-design schemes with practitioners and i don't see i'm i'm you know very happy to support this amendment and i don't see why scosh government shouldn't consider that based on the experience and knowledge that practitioners have and i think the fact i agree with the member and i think the fact that the minister referred to alex hog who is the chairman of the sga a man with a huge experience in these things of these matters and has supported the courses that by including them in say the consultation and how the courses should be drawn up would seem to be logical so i that is why amendments 180 and 16 to me seem entirely relevant and convener i in summary if the minister i'm happy to let the minister in to give me some guidance on 13 or 15 but if not i'm going to push them all all um to to a vote community thank you no yeah minister are you yep yep no i'm happy to i'm happy to discuss further where Edward Mountain point 13 14 i thought you said 13 no 13 sorry sorry convener i'm sorry my apologies your year what i was saying that i understand that the number of days which is amendment 13 is difficult for the minister understand the amendment 15 which is again on the amount on the number of days are difficult but i do believe that amendment 14 which is a reason to do with reasonable cost is an area that i would like to examine with the minister to make sure that it's not too onerous and precludes people from taking part in the training courses okay i'm happy to discuss amendment 14 i apologize that was my mistake as far as amendment 16 requires nature scot to consult parties who are likely to be interested in the effect it's likely that nature scot may consult with relevant parties when creating and approving a training course however is the relevant licence authority they are chiefly responsible for ensuring that any approved training course covers the standards required by the bill and other pieces of legislation so therefore it has to give nature scot the um the discretion as to what that training course is going to be but absolutely in consultation with the practitioners as i've already stated thank you edw'r mountain to press withdraw amendment 180 our convener i press amendment 180 the question is that amendment 180 be agreed to are we all agreed we are not agreed there will be a division those members supporting the amendment please raise your hand now those members not supporting the amendment those members wishing to abstain and the result of the vote is four for five against the amendment therefore has not been agreed i call amendment 120 in the name of collin smith are already already debated with amendment 180 collin smith to move or not move it is disappointing that the minister won't support what i think is a a pretty modest proposal particularly given that the suggestion that the training would simply be reviewed by the scotish animal welfare commission which is an organisation the scotish government themselves set up for that type of purpose and i think to say the longer this bill is debated the more the commitment given in evidence that a key aim in the bill was to improve quote animal welfare outcomes even when traps are used lawfully it is looking increasingly like rhetoric from scotish government officials rather than anything that's reflected in the bill i do however take on board what the minister said that that the issue that i've raised will be covered in the training itself i would like to discuss that further with the minister before we get to stage three to outline exactly how that would be the case ideally we could see some of the training before then but if not at the very least to get more information on that so i won't at this stage move this amendment but obviously subject to that discussion consider bringing it back at stage three thank you mr smith um did any other member wish to move that amendment no the amendment has not been moved i call on amendment 130 a bigger pardon i call amendment 13 in the name of edward mountain already debated with amendment 180 edward mountain to move or not move not moved on the grounds the minister will discuss amendment 14 thank you thank you not moved i call amendment 121 in the name of collin smith already debated with amendment 180 collin smith to move or not move convener i will move amendment 121 sometime ago in response to my member's debate on ethical principles and wildlife management the government did say we consider such an approach well this is a test as to whether this is just the usual aim to rhetoric we've come to expect or is something the government are seriously considering so i will move the amendment at this stage thank you the question is that amendment 121 be agreed to are we all agreed we are not agreed there will be a division those members supporting the amendment please raise your hand now those opposed to the amendment those abstaining and the result of the vote is four one against eight the amendment therefore has not been agreed i call amendment 14 in the name of edward mountain already debated with amendment 180 edward mountain to move or not move not moving this amendment is for the reasons given earlier thank you i call amendment 15 in the name of edward mountain already debated with amendment 180 edward mountain to move or not move not move for the reasons given earlier thank you i call amendment 16 in the name of edward mountain already debated with amendment 180 edward mountain to move or not move due to its reasonable mis for including other people i will move that amendment the question A phais gdaeth dependendingr, kellid yn stallion beggarsat yn i ddweud. Llyniad E pinnedydgyn chwarae'n gwaith yn ei ddis fans. A ddiw i ni ddigwydd yn drefnog honno goesg cancer o rydw i ni. Dag mae'n ei ddiwlch am pawn ni ddig Award in British City. Daf hyn y chasu'n amdd சanddendys de because I'm going. Llyniad Eopard, roi nebl angholweddau i gael IMS F suggests and bydd a recall amendment 57 on the name of Rachel Hamilton, which was already debated with amendment 177, Rachel Hamilton, having dud up or not to find another amendment. The question is that, amendment 57 has to be agreed to, but are we all agreed to? We are not agreed to, but there will be a division. Those members supporting amendment 57 please raise your hand. Those who beautiful are not supporting amendment 57 are not within agreement. chipsw Courant. Mae'r gwrsfawr iawn droi ddoch i ddiweddangos i'r amendment yn hynny wedi'i bywyd i'r Fynllwy Carson. Mae'r Fynllwy Carson wedi ar ddigonol i'i amendment 78, ac yn hyn yn hynny'n ddigonol i'r amendment 80 yn iddo. Are we all agreed? Abertawn hwnnw, nid o'r ddifusio, wrth gwrs yn ei ddigonol i'r amendment, rwyf yn ddigonol i'r amendment Those wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 4-4-5 against. Amendment is therefore not being agreed. I call amendment 58 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 177. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 59 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 60, 69 and 70. Minister to move amendment 59 and speak to all amendments in the group. Okay, bear with me, convener, and sort my papers out here. Convener, thank you. These are technical amendments 59, 68, 69 and 70. They have no practical impact on the effect of the provisions of the bill. They simply correct grammar of provisions that have been amended by the bill to take account of the amendments. Amendment 59 and 60 remove error in its conjunctions in section 47 and amendment 69, 70 remove a similar one in section 75 of the bill. I encourage all committee members to vote for them and I move the amendment. Any other members? No. Minister to wind up? I'll move the amendment, convener. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 60 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 59. Minister to move formally. I move, convener. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Thank you. I now call amendment 61 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 17, 122, 123 and 124. The minister to move amendment 61 and speak to all amendments in this group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 61. Following stage 1, the then minister, Gillian Martin, received feedback from stakeholders asking for an exception to allow Faulkner to take red grouse without requiring a licence. Amendment 61 seeks to address those concerns. Having considered this amendment, I agree and support the amendment 61. With the purpose of introducing the licence scheme was to implement the recommendations of the verity review and the verity review focused on the management of grouse more and in particular raptor persecution associated with grouse shooting rather than a falconry. Without amendment 61, Faulkner would either need to apply for a licence or only way to hunt grouse by using the birds of prey on land already covered by a licence. Given that Faulkner's only take, Faulkner's only take a very small number of red grouse across Scotland each year, that seems unnecessarily burdensome. I ask the committee that they mirror this view and support this amendment. I should also add at this point that my daughter has bought me a birthday present of a day of falconry just in the interest of making sure that there's a declaration. Thank you. I call Edward Mountain to speak to amendments 17 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. The point of amendment 17 is to ensure that the bill complies with the grounds that it was set out for. This bill is effectively to deal with upland moorland management and grouse shooting, so the rationale between on amendments 17 is to remove other birds that are not part of upland moorland management or grouse shooting, which means to add any birds to the list of birds that are controlled by this act. Can't be done unless in the case of other game birds, unless they are at the level where they have reached a level of scarcity, i.e. are on the amber or red list. There is a very real reason for doing this is that the industry is extremely concerned that this legal pastime of game shooting, which I understand some people are not in favour of, will be added into this bill at a later date to make sure that it to try and ban it. I think if the minister is truly clear on the reasons for this bill, the minister will ensure that this amendment number 17 is supported so that we can see there is a clear rationale for adding additional birds to the schedule rather than just by whim. As far as amendment 61 is concerned, the amendment regarding the minister for birds of prey, I am extremely glad and thankful that the Government has listened to those people who use birds of prey for falconry. Again, it is a legitimate field sport and I have huge respect for those people that do it. In some cases I would add doing so ensures the survival of the diversity of those species by ensuring that there is a captive breeding programme, so I think that that is good news. I do hope that the minister will consider carefully my amendment 17. It does not want to frustrate the bill. It wants to make sure that it does what it says on the tin, mule and management and grouse shooting, not other shooting, which is perfectly recognised and acceptable form of sport in Scotland. Thank you, convener. I call Rachel Hamilton to speak to amendment 122 and other amendments in the group. As articulated by Edward Mountain, the bill should remain focused on the remit of red grouse shooting. Part 1B currently only includes red grouse. However, the bill empowers the Scottish ministers to add further birds to the section 16AA licensing regime if they think appropriate to do so via secondary legislation. The consultation preceding the bill did not signal an intention to regulate other species, so it is likely to come as a surprise that this broad enabling power to rural stakeholders without grouse interests who will see this change as could have a significant downstream consequence for the sector more broadly. The bill's policy memorandum says the purpose of the scheme is to address the ongoing issue of wildlife crime and in particular the persecution of raptors on managed grouse moulds, which the committee all agrees with. It will do this by enabling a licence to be modified, suspended or revoked, where there is robust evidence of raptor persecution or another relevant wildlife crime related to grouse mould management. What else would you like me to do, convener? To speak to any other amendments in that group, you wish to speak to them. That's it. I call Rhoda Grant to speak to amendments 124 and other amendments in that group. Thank you, convener. I speak to 124 and other amendments in the group. My amendment 124, along with many of the others that I have lodged, seeks to create greater scrutiny and consultation on actions flown from the bill. Much of the bill is enabling and it is important that secondary legislation flown from it is also scrutinised. Currently, the bill only lists red grouses requiring a section 16AA licence, however, in future, other birds can be added to the list. My amendment stipulates that the relevant committee of this Parliament must be consulted and given time to take evidence before reporting back to the Scottish Government on any additions. Therefore, thereafter, the Scottish Government can lay their legislation while explaining what consideration it has given to the committee report. I am really trying to create a superaffirmative procedure to provide greater scrutiny, and I believe that that is essential, given the increase of enabling legislation that comes to this Parliament. I believe that that will fulfil the Aims-Fedward Mountains amendment number 17 regarding consultation. However, I cannot support the rest of his amendments on that of Rachael Hamilton. That legislation needs to be future proof to allow amendment to the list of birds that can be taken under a section 16AA licence, however, my amendment ensures that such a change would be done with full scrutiny from the Parliament. I just wanted to speak in reference to some of the concerns that have been shared by stakeholders about the capacity of additional birds to be added without scrutiny. I had some good conversations with the minister recognising that concern and balancing that with the need for legislation to not be overly prescriptive and broad so that it can take into account changing circumstances. I suppose that it was just to put on the record while I cannot support Rhoda Grant's amendment specifically. It was just to put on record the concerns of stakeholders, and I know that the minister understands the breadth of that worry. Amendment 17, 122 and 123 are seeking to severely restrict the power to add other birds to the licensing scheme established by section 7 of the bill. As I am sure Edward Mountain is well aware, the power to add any bird species to only allow them to be taken under licence is not a mechanism to protect that species but to protect other wildlife that predates on that species. The licensing scheme in this bill needs to protect raptors and other wildlife, and therefore the regulation making power to add other bird species to the scheme needs to remain as it is. That ensures that if in future we have a robust evidence that wildlife crimes like raptor persecution are being committed to facilitate the managing of other bird species, we are able to regulate the management of those birds. For that reason, I encourage members to vote against those amendments. I hear what the minister says, but I think that you are sending a very dangerous message or an unconcerned message to those people who carry out field sports in Scotland. It is an industry that is approved by law and regulation, and they should have the confidence that that should be able to continue unless there is clear evidence that the species that they are hunting are actually subject to the fear of going extinct, which is why I put amber and red species to be only to be added. Do you not think that the Government, by saying what you are saying, is saying that everyone is not just about grasmol management, it is every single field sport that is in your sights? Excuse me. No, I am not. What I am saying is that there has to be the facility to be able to bring that licensing forward if there is clear evidence that wildlife crime is happening in a different type of shoot, which I do not need to explain to Edward Mountain that that is very possible and that it does happen. Minister, this is quite a significant enabling power, and obviously for the reasons that I gave earlier, this bill is about a licensing scheme to tackle raptor persecution on grasmol specifically. What, as Edward Mountain has said, this enabling power is doing is looking to the future to target the country sports such as released game birds. What would be the trigger for the enabling power and what would be the threshold of monitoring raptor persecution in other country sports? As I have just said, it would have to be a clear indication that a crime had taken place, but as we are not legislating in that area at this moment in time, it is merely giving the powers and those powers would have to be brought back. Then there are safeguards there for the industry to be able to make their own recommendations or to make their own defence if those powers have to be brought into force. I completely disagree, sorry minister, but that is your opinion, and I just think that it gives Scottish ministers wide-ranging and powerful enabling powers to do what they like in terms of adding to the list of the specific species in that circumstance, and that is why I do not support this enabling power. Amendment 124, we regard amendment 124 as Gillie Martin explained when she spoke to a number of other similar amendments during day 1 of this debate, these changes are not necessary. The amendment adds additional burden to the Scottish Parliament when there are already established procedures in place for changes through secondary legislation. It could lead to unnecessary delays in adding or removing birds from the list which could have consequences for the natural environment. Any amendment to add a new type of bird species to part 1B of the schedule 2 would be subject to affirmative procedure, and Parliament will have the opportunity to consider the instrument and draft to take evidence in the instrument and vote on it. That is the correct procedure for any such amending instruments. I ask the committee to support amendment 61 to allow Falkners to take red grouse without requiring a licence, and I also ask the committee to vote against the amendment. I am a little concerned that it is just the affirmative procedure for this, in that there will be people who need to be consulted. What reassurance can he give me that this will be widely consulted on before such an order would be put in front of the Parliament? As I have just said, there is an affirmative procedure that will bring it back to the Parliament to be able to make that consideration. I can also just add the power to add additional game birds to the 16A licence was considered by both this committee and the Delegated Powers Law and Reform Committee, who found that the powers acceptable and principle and content its subject to affirmative procedure. The Rain Committee notes and agrees with the DPRC's conclusion that the powers are acceptable and that the affirmative procedure is appropriate. The Scottish ministers would also be required to consult before adding any birds, so the committee actually agrees with the principles of this in previous sessions. Just for absolute clarity, because again I know that the minister fully understands some of the apprehension, but what I am hearing from the minister is that there would be an obligation on consultation, there would be a parliamentary procedure, so it would not just be the case of ministers making a decision in a dark room without engaging with stakeholders, which I think is the key in terms of offering assurance. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 17 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 61, Edward Mountain to move or not move. I feel forced to move this because I have received no reassurances from the Government nor is it laid down in legislation what the procedure would be for other birds to be laid down except for some words given today, so I press amendments, haven't you? At this point, to remind members to limit their comments to moving or not moving when I ask the question and try to make sure that they cover all the possibilities when the opportunity they have to speak when they are moving or speaking to the amendment. Can I double check that you are moving or not moving that amendment? I am point duly taking, convener, and I press amendment 17. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hand now. Those against. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 122 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 61, Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 122 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hand now. Those against. Those abstaining. The result is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 123 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 61, Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 123 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, those against. Those members wish to abstain. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 124 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 61. Rhoda Grant to move or not move. The question is that section 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 125 in the name of Stephen Kerr, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I remind members that amendments 81 and 63 are direct alternatives, as they can both be moved and decided on. The text of whichever is the last agreed is what will appear on the bill. I call on Jamie Halcro Johnston to move the amendment Stephen Kerr's name. That is amendment 125 and speak to all amendments in that group. I am delighted to be able to speak on behalf of these amendments and also to represent some of the reasons and concerns Stephen Kerr has with this and some of the other amendments in this group. 125 replaces the appropriateness test with a fit and proper person test in order to address widely held concerns about the lack of certainty arising from the appropriateness test by ensuring that license applications are granted unless the application is not an individual who is considered fit to hold a license as a matter of fact in law. The appropriateness test is likely to cause legal and operational uncertainty that could be damaging to rural Scotland. Appropriate is not defined in the bill. The only guidance given is that NatureScot, I quote, shall have regard to compliance with the code of practice. However, this is not the only factor that it can take into account. The code of practice which has yet to be developed will include best practice guidance on matters that have nothing to do with the policy objective of tackling raptor persecution. It is also concerning that NatureScot's assessment of appropriateness is not confined to identifiable and relevant individual, i.e. the applicant or land manager. Stephen Kerr was also concerned that it creates a two-tiered approach to decision making in which license applications could be refused on lower grounds than they can be suspended or revoked. That's logical. The effects of a license refusal, suspension or revocation are the same. The land cannot operate as a grouse more, meaning the right holders will suffer substantial losses in terms of capital and income, quality rural jobs and the accommodation tied to them will become redundant. Rural economies could suffer and so too will the privately funded land management that benefits red and amber listed species and mitigates wildfire risks. Put simply, it could create a system where rights are restricted by the back door in cases where NatureScot do not have sufficient evidence to justify a license suspension or revocation. So simply wait until the license expires and refuse to grant a new one on the basis of its discretionary interpretation of appropriateness. Amendments 128 and 129 are critical safeguards in the face of an increasingly overburdened regulator. NatureScot process some 5,000 licensing applications annually, meaning there is a tangible risk that section 16AA licences face undue delays in processing. Given the significant economic value associated with grouse shooting and the immediate significant consequences of not having a licence come 12 of August, we feel is vital that a safeguard be built into this licensing scheme that will safeguard against delays caused by an increasingly overburdened regulator. If I can briefly turn to other amendments. Amendment 130 in the name of Colin Smyth, the committee heard from the ministers officials that the primary purpose of the code of practice in this particular legislation is to enable the licensing authority to have regard to how much or otherwise an applicant has complied with it. It also heard that the code of practice will, like most codes of practice, have a range of recommendations. There will be things that you must absolutely comply with. That is legal requirements. There will be things that you really should comply with, and there will be things that are good practice. There will also be things that you must do all the time and there will be other things that you will not have to do. The requirement to have regard to the code of practice as reflected in the bill is laid is a common way of incorporating code of practice into primary legislation. It would require the licence holder to be aware of the code's provisions to keep that awareness up to date, taking into account any revisions that are made to it, and to consider how the code may be relevant to particular actions and activities on the land. This amendment has the effect of radically changing how the licensing scheme will operate by providing that licences must slavishly comply with every detail of still to be developed guidance, much of which will likely have nothing to do with raptor persecution. Otherwise, their licence may be refused, suspended or revoked. That is wholly disproportionate approach to regulation and removes the licensing scheme from any rational connection with its declared purpose in relation to raptor persecution, leaving the bill wide open to legal challenge. It also amendments 131 and also the name of Colin Smyth. It is impossible to understand the reasons behind the collection of this data and duty placed on the licence, the purpose of section 16 AA. Licensing is to tackle raptor persecution of raptors. It is not concerned with the number of grass shot or the legal management, other wild birds of animals under general licences. Reporting lawful activity has no deterrent effect at all and is therefore not connected to the aim. The proposed reporting requirements therefore have no rational connection to the policy aim and would disproportionately burden the licences for correspondingly little public gain. Information about the number of grass shot is commercially sensitive and if made publicly available could be detrimental to rights holders. Moreover, unagredated species data is not useful to the public, the regulator or policy makers. Credit control is undertaken in a number of other land management contexts such as farming. Singling out one sector for additional recording requirements would be disproportionate and inconsistent with the principle of a quality of treatment that underpins natural justice by which the Scottish Government banned. I move amendment 125 in the name of Stephen Kerr. Amendment 62 ensures that any licence conditions are reasonable and necessitates, in other words, the imposition of reasonable licence conditions only. Amendment 63 provides a 10-year licence that would ensure the greatest clarity for land managers and is most consistent with the type of investment and land management associated with Scotland's grouse malls. 10 years provides optimum certainty for investment, livelihoods and the wider supply chain and the economy and the rural economy is so important just now. 10-year licences would ensure that sustainable grouse small 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. Amendment 132, we know that more than management for grouse shooting is often managed for other purposes. Examples include hill farming, deer, peatland restoration and renewables. In light of the increasingly mixed use nature of grouse malls, 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, in my opinion, that a grouse mall operator suffers a sanction on the back of, for example, a person that rents the land and this simple amendment provides for that. The effect of this amendment is to make it clear that it is only the conduct of the person managing the land for the purpose of the licence, i.e. grouse mall management, and that can trigger licensing penalties. However, it cannot be right for the person managing the land for the purpose unrelated to the licence, for example, and agricultural tenants resulting in the licence being suspended despite the land management in question, having no tie to the licenced activity or to put it in another way, the management of the grouse mall. That is irrational, given the purpose of the licence scheme, is to tackle raptor persecution connected with grouse mall management. I now call Emma Harper to speak to amendment 81 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I'm pleased to move this amendment. Amendment number 81 increases the maximum period for which a grouse licence may be granted from one year to five years. That is an issue that has been brought up by many land managers and estate owners, including by land managers and estate owners in Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. I understand that it featured heavily in much of the evidence that this committee heard and considered at stage one. As is the case with many other businesses, grouse mall management is a long-term undertaking and it requires careful planning and upfront capital investment. Land managers, which my office has engaged with as recently as yesterday, have expressed concerns that an annual licence won't provide the certainty needed to undertake long-term financial and business planning for the management of grouse mallers. NatureScot also reassured the committee during their stage one evidence that it would prefer more flexibility on the licence duration. I quote, a licence duration of between three and five years sounds about right and sits more comfortably with other civil licensing schemes that we know work well. I also know that when giving evidence, as the then minister for this bill, Gillian Martin MSP, indicated at stage one that she was willing to consider a change to the duration of the licence. I know that some have called for a shift to 10-year licences, as we have just heard from Rachel Hamilton's amendment number 63, that that proposes to make that change, but that feels too long in terms of being able to assess any changes in circumstances, as has been indicated by RSPB Scotland. It is right for there to be a periodic review of licence holders, whatever the licence may be, and renewal allows that to happen. A maximum licence duration of five years seems to strike the right balance any longer than this could undermine the effectiveness of the licence scheme. A five-year licence will give land managers and estates the certainty they need to manage and invest in their businesses, while ensuring that the licence and authority retains enough oversight to make sure that everyone is adhering to statutory requirements and best practice. Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 130 in my name would make the code of practice introduced by the bill for land management under section 16A, a licence mandatory. The wording of my amendment, in particular the inclusion of the phrase relevant to the 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 will not apply to the land or management in question, which has previously been mentioned as a reason the code cannot be mandatory. The wording of the code could also easily set out the circumstances where each part of the code is relevant. Suggestions from Jamie Halcro Johnston—I have to say word from word from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation Scotland Land and Estates—brief and note that every aspect of the code must slavishly be followed in every single circumstances is simply untrue and is not reflected in the actual wording of the amendment. I have to say that such a claim maybe reflects the weakness of the arguments against the amendment. The fact is that a requirement only to have regard to a code of practice is not, in my view, strong enough. The question remains, when the code is relevant to the land being managed, how do we ensure that the code is followed? Under the current wording, you can't. Having regard will not ensure that the code is followed when it should be. My amendment will ensure that it is, importantly, when it is relevant to the management of the area of land in question. Again, in response to Jamie Halcro Johnston's comments on a judicial review, which I know also comes from the briefing note, every piece of legislation is open to judicial review, but just because you don't like having something in the law isn't grounds for a judicial review. I have to say my advice to Scotland Land and Estates and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, who are the only ones making this claim about a judicial review.  Amendment 131 would provide a degree of accountability that is currently lacking with regard to the number of birds and animals killed, both the game birds shot and the animals 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 being trapped and killed, which is surely important to allow a full understanding of species biodiversity as outlined in quite a lot of detail when I moved amendment 117. It is important to stress that this is a requirement to report to the relevant authority for consideration, not publishing public commercially sensitive information about an individual licence holder. I repeat the question that I asked when I moved amendment 117. If you do not agree with reporting this information, what is it that you are trying to hide? It has been raised with me that section 78B2 in practice means that a licence can be revoked due to wrongdoing by another person outwith the control of the licence holder, someone who is not contracted by them or indeed not an employee. For example, a farmer who is a tenant on land. The amendment intends to make it clear that a licence can only be suspended or revoked should the licence conditions be breached by the licence holder or by somebody in their employment or under their direction. I also support amendment 81, as it stands the bill, will make section 16A a licence holder reapply every year, which is not sustainable given a licence can be revoked. I believe that a five-year licence provides the best balance, and I believe that there was broad consensus around this. I have sympathy with amendment 125 on what it is adding, but I am really concerned about what it is removing and that it safeguards from the bill to adhere to the code of practice. I will leave my comments at that, convener. Thank you. Edward Mountain. Thank you very much, convener. I may, if I may, I would like to indulge the committee briefly on amendments 63, which is raised by my colleague Rachel Hamilton. The reason for asking for an extension of the time period from five to ten years is purely on the fact that it has a huge effect on whether a business is viable. I do not think that anyone really probably understands that just to buy anago cap without a sprayer on the back is going to probably cost you £35,000. Add on to that a land driver or a vehicle to get round the land that you are managing, add another £30,000 on to add on the traps and all the rest of the equipment that you will need to go on the training courses provided a house for the employee, you are probably looking at an investment department to just start up with one employee of north of £150,000 and every year the running cost for these places are exceptionally large. Now, the point of having a 10-year licence would be that it gave some surety and would give some security, most importantly, to the people that are employed there because there is a real fear, you know, that jobs are here today and may be gone tomorrow and a five-year licence could just bring that. Everyone knows and I'm sure Ms Forbes knows the fragility of the rural countryside and of jobs and gamekeepers on upland estates when it comes to management, so therefore protecting their jobs and giving the investor some surety I think is important, which is why it supports it going to 10 years. The other issue is I'm a slightly concerned convener with amendment 131 in the name of Colin Smith, which am I in the right section? I am in the right section, I think. Yes, yes, yes, I am. 131 in the name of Colin Smith, sorry, I thought I'd got myself confused there. Colin Smith wants to record every single animal that is killed or taken on the land which the licence relates to, so we're going to have a long list of rats and mice and every other kind of species that you can possibly want to record, Mr Smith. I'm not sure what benefit that will accrue at the end of the day. There might have been some way this amendment could have been supported if it was targeted at speeches that exclude rats and mice. It might have been important to include animals, which we want to keep track of their spread and those that are being killed, for example mink, which there is an encouragement to remove as they are an invasive species. So I would urge the committee to support amendment 63 in the name of Rachel Hamilton and not to support the amendment 131 in the name of Colin Smith. Thank you, convener. Amendment 125 in the name of Stephen Care requires that licensed authority must grant a licence if satisfied that the person is a fit and proper person having a garden, particularly to the applicants compliance with the code of practice made in accordance with section 16 AC. In the absence of a definition of a fit and proper person, it's not clear what this amendment will achieve. The policy intention made clear all along is that obtaining a section 16 AA license will not be a bureaucratic process. If the applicant produces the required information about the land that is subject to the licence and the licence and the authority has no reason to doubt their compliance with the code of practice, then there is generally no reason to think that a licence will not be granted. To put it another way, NatureScot will take into account compliance with the code of practice as a way of determining how a fit and proper an applicant is. However, NatureScot does need to have some discretion to deal with unusual cases. I fear that attempting to add a definition of fit and proper person and then assessing whether an applicant meets that definition adds a second test for those applicants and will create the potential for unintended consequences and loopholes. For those reasons, I would ask Stephen Care not to be pressing that amendment, and if he does, I would encourage members to vote against it. Amendment 128 in the name of Stephen Care provides that a section 16 AA licence will be deemed to have been granted where NatureScot has not processed the application within three months. Amendment 129 provides that the licence would have effect from the date that is deemed to have been granted, and I understand that there is anxiety about the possible time taken for a licence application processing. There are a number of factors that can affect the time that will take the process of licence, including how long it takes for the applicant to get back to NatureScot with additional information that they have requested. However, in fact, where the applicant has supplied all the required information, NatureScot aimed to process most applications within 30 days and will prioritise urgent applications, and it would urge them to do so. If the bill is passed, NatureScot will produce licensing guidance and collaboration with stakeholders that will set out clearly how a licence can be applied for, what information is needed to process the application and how it will be assessed and granted. At any event, the amendments are flawed in a few respects. First, the amendment does not recognise that the application process could be delayed by inadequate information being provided by the applicant or by NatureScot making inquiries or requiring further information about certain aspects. That could then lead to applications being granted automatically through the pass of your time, even where the application is flawed, inappropriate or in respect of which there is incomplete information. That would fundamentally undermine the policy and tension of introducing the licensing scheme, which I suspect might be the real purpose of the amendment in the first place. In relation to amendment 129, I would also note that, as drafted, the provision would have the effect of removing the maximum duration period for all section 16AA licences. For this reasons, I will not support these amendments and encourage members to vote against them. Amendment 62, Rachel Hamilton, amends section 165AA111, to specify that any conditions the relevant authority places on section 16AA licences must be reasonable. This amendment seems satisfactory to me and I am happy to support it. Amendment 81, Emma Harper, spoke to on behalf of myself and this is where it gets a bit weird. Amends the maximum period a gross licence can be granted from one to five years. Obviously, I have heard the arguments as to why one year is not satisfactory for a section 16AA licence duration. As lead minister for the bill, I agree that five years strikes the right balance between allowing businesses to plan ahead and keep to a minimum the process involved in licensing, with the need to nature Scotland to retain a degree of control over activity that is subject of the licence. I support amendment 81 and hope that members do too. Amendment 63, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, amends the maximum period a licence to grant it from one year to ten years. I have just said that I agree that the duration of a section 16A licence needs to be extended beyond a single year, but I think that ten years is too long and will not provide the degree of control and oversight that this bill aims to put in place. Therefore, I do not support this amendment and I hope that Rachel Hamilton will not press it. If she does, I encourage members to vote against it. Amendment 13, in the name of Colin Smyth. The effect of this amendment would be that a 16A licence holder would be required to comply with all aspects of the code that are relevant to the management of the land in question. This amendment would be unlikely to work with the code of practice that is being developed. Like other codes in this area, it is expected to contain elements that are legal requirements and absolutely must be complied with, alongside other elements that are highly recommended for all and also some that may represent very pressed practice, but might only be achievable by estates with significant resources. Compliance with the entirety of the code may vary according to the nature of the land and the management, its size and the resources available to the business. That flexibility seems reasonable and, in some cases, it will be necessary. Compliance with the code may also improve over time as estates put in place new elements of best practice as resources and skills are developed. The net result from the amendment therefore could be a code that represented a lowest common denominator rather than the highest of standards. NatureScot will, of course, be looking to move estates along that pathway to achieve the best standards and this can be reflected in regular dialogue about compliance. I think that that is a better approach and for that reason we will not be supporting this amendment and encourage committee members to vote against it. Amendment 131 from Colin Smyth also requires that a 16a licence holder to maintain records of the numbers and species of all wild mammals, birds and animals that are killed or taken on land to which the licence relates and report these to the relevant authority on an annual basis. I do not believe that this amendment is necessary nor proportionate. It is also not clear what purpose this would serve nor whose purpose it would serve and for some it might prove onerous and costly. It is simply not standard practice to include this kind of information as a mandatory condition and a licence. The bill is intended to set out the framework for licences so that guidance could be set out in consultation with stakeholders which allows the licence and scheme to be responsive and dynamic and that feels like a much better approach. For all those reasons I will not support amendment 131 and ask members to vote against it. Amendment 132 requires that only conduct of the licence holder or a person who is involved in the managing of the land for the purpose of killing or taking red grouse can be a basis upon which a licence may be suspended or revoked. This amendment would mean that if someone else working in the land, for example a shepherd, committed a relevant offence then that licence could not be suspended. The amendment would mean that where a person managing the land commits a relevant offence, for example a gamekeeper and a grouse estate, the licence holder could simply get rid of that gamekeeper and get to carry on using their licence, even if they had instructed the offence to be committed in the first place. I understand the concern here and I would certainly expect NatureScot to carefully consider a sort of evidence and take it into account when considering whether to suspend or revoke a licence. However, I am also very mindful of the need to avoid loopholes in this licence scheme. It is not hard to envisage how someone determined to persist with raptor persecution could take steps to cast suspicion on a person not employed directly in a grouse where either with or without their knowledge, simply in order to prevent any possible licence in sanction. For that reason I will not be supporting this amendment and encourage the members to vote against it. Amendment 133 in the name of Rhoda Grant provides that a grouse licence can only be suspended or revoked where a relevant offence has been committed by the licence holder or someone under the direction of the licence holder. Again, my concern here is that this creates a potential loophole. We know from past experience that there are some grouse moon managers that will persist with raptor persecution in the face of strong opposition from the public and their peers as well as law enforcement activity and it wouldn't be hard for a licence holder to argue that any offence committed was not under their direction. I therefore cannot support this amendment and encourage the committee members to vote against that as well. On that point, there is quite a lot of concern surrounding this in that people could break the law on the land pertaining to the licence without the knowledge agreement and it is to find the right balance. Can he give assurances that NatureScot would be reasonably convinced that an offence was carried out under the direction of the licence holder? You can obviously ignore things and turn a blind eye, which would leave you, I believe, guilty as well. However, where offences are carried out explicitly against the will of the landowner, they would not have their licence revoked. That is why there is a provision that offences must be revelant to the grouse moon management. It allows NatureScot to have the flexibility not to take action. They are not required to suspend a licence. They have the ability to do so if they are convinced that the crime has been committed in the manner that we have spoken about. If someone was suspected of committing an offence, if someone was suspected of committing an offence, would they not automatically get their licence suspended? No, NatureScot has the flexibility to be able to decide. How long does that take through an investigation? That will be up to NatureScot and the grouse moon manager to have that conversation. By not supporting Rhoda Grant's amendment, it means that the individual is under suspicion and then having to go through an investigation and have their licence suspended for an indefinite period of time. Therefore, they are under suspicion from the get-go. I understand the concern, but NatureScot has to have the flexibility to be able to suspend a licence or not. They do not have to suspend it. That is the most important point. It is not a requirement to suspend a licence. I call on Jamie Halcro Johnston to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 125. I think that highlighted some of the intentions behind the bill. It is harder to have as much confidence in how they will be practically implemented in the legislation. I will be pressing the amendment on Stephen Kerr's behalf. Perhaps there could be a future of further engagement with the minister and Mr Kerr on those areas. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hand now. Those against, please raise your hands now. Those abstaining. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 126, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 111. Rachel Hamilton, please raise your hand now. The question is that amendment 126 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 2, in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 111. Allister Allen, to move or not move. Mr Mason's indicator doesn't wish to move. I call amendment 127, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 111. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. There will be a division. Those for, please raise your hands now. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 128, in the name of Stephen Kerr, already debated with amendment 125. Jamie Halcro Johnston, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 128 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is three for, six against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 62, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 125. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 129, in the name of Stephen Kerr, already debated with amendment 125. Jamie Halcro Johnston, to move or not move. And the question is that amendment 129 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been approved. I call amendment 81, in the name of Jim Fairlie, already debated with amendment 125. I remind members that amendments 81 and 63 are direct alternatives. The text of whichever is the last agreed is what will appear in the bill. Emma Harper, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 63, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 125. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 130, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 125. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. And the question is that amendment 130 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is one for, eight against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 131, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 125. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 131 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, please raise your hand. Those against, those members abstaining. The result of the vote is one for, eight against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 132, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 125. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is three for, six against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 133, in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 125. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. I call amendment 49, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 179. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 64, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support, please raise your hand now. Those against, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 134, in the name of Stephen Kerr, already debated with amendment 179. Jamie Halcro Johnston, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support, please raise your hand now. Those against, those members abstaining. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 65, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Not moved on the basis that the minister is working with me. I call amendment 66, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support, please raise your hand now. Those members against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is four for, five against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 67, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 179. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 135, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 179. Beatrice Wishart, to move or not move. I call amendment 135A. Oh no, I beg your pardon. Okay, it wasn't moved. I call amendment 50, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 179. Minister, to formally move. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 68, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those against. Those members abstaring. The result of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 82, in the name of Karen Adam, already debated with amendment 179. Alistair Allan, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those against. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is seven for two against. The amendment has therefore been agreed. I call amendment 136, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those against. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 18, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 179. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those against. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 137, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 137 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those against. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 83, in the name of Jim Fairlie, grouped with amendments 138, 139 and 20. Emma Harper, to move amendment 83 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much again, convener. Again, I'm pleased to move this amendment. I know it was originally submitted by Jim Fairlie, who was sitting here just a couple of weeks ago. The bill currently provides that the Scottish ministers must prepare a code of practice relating to managing land to which a section 16AA gross licence relates. The code of practice was a recommendation of the Warrity review, and it is intended that it covers issues identified by Warrity, such as Medicaid grit. Within the bill section 16 AC 2 sets out examples of the type of guidance that might be included in the code of practice. At stage 1, a number of parties were concerned that there was no specific reference allowing Medicaid grit to be provided, raising concern that the silence might suggest that it was no longer legitimate. Amendment 83 adds the topic of Medicaid grit to the non-exhaustive list of those types of guidance and hopefully provides clarity and certainty on this matter. It has been specifically included as an amendment to the bill to make it transparent that the code would cover the use of Medicaid grit. Therefore, if a licence specifies that the Medicaid grit sections of the code must be complied with, then the failure to do so would be an offence under the bill, and so the licence would be able to be revoked or suspended on that ground. That is an important safeguard to ensure that the use of Medicaid grit is appropriate and meets good practice standards that are set out in the code. I move amendment 33 and encourage committee members to vote for it. I call Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 138 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Amendments 138 and 139 in my name relate to the code of practice for a section 16AA licence. In the clause outlining what the code may in particular provide guidance on, A is, and I quote, How land should be managed to reduce disturbance of and harm to any wild animal, wild bird or wild plant. That sounds positive, but B and C in the section contradict A, as they only refer to how wild birds and predators should be killed rather than managed. The current wording assumes that killing wild birds and predators should continue to be the default means of control, which is questionable ethically and ecologically. My amendment would clearly not prevent killing but require the reasonable consideration of whether, when and how, birds or predators should be killed rather than implying that they will be as a first resort. Robbie Kernahan said in oral evidence that the code of practice should drive up standards and Hugh Dignan said that one of the Scottish Government's intentions was to quote, improve animal welfare outcomes even when traps are used lawfully and ensuring that the highest standards apply and that people operate into those high standards. Those warm words are meaningless unless they are reflected in the bill. If the code of practice to drive up standards is intended, I would ask members and the minister to support those amendments. Thank you, and I call on Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 20 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I am pleased to speak to amendment 20. That is my amendment to make sure that Scottish natural heritage or NatureScot, whichever name they are trading under on the current date, should consult persons that it considers likely to be interested or affected by the code of practice, including land managers. I think that that is fair and reasonable, inclusive, something that this Government claims to be. I would be very surprised if the minister would be against this. I am somewhat surprised by amendment 83. I am surprised because I have to direct this to the person who moved to Emma Harper, that she does not know that the use of all medication on land is covered by vets prescriptions. In the old days, can I just make a little bit more ground and then I will do it? Originally, when medicated grit was used, we used something called pan cure, which was put on the medicated grit. It is now used flu bensinol, which actually requires a veterinary prescription to use. You cannot just buy this and put it out. I am happy to take an intervention now from Ms Harper. Absolutely. Thank you for taking an intervention. In my research since coming back to the committee, I am absolutely aware that we used to use fen bensinol and we now use flu bensinol. There are issues and concerns around when it is used, how it is used and potential resistance. I have learned about the way that the grits are used. It is to support the welfare of the red grouse in order to deal with this parasitic, strong-guile thread worm. I am interested in that because my background is a nurse working in healthcare. I am used to looking at issues around managing medication. I do not think that it is right that you suggest that because I do not work on a rural area that I might not have knowledge about medicated grit. For instance, we all know how to research. I am interested in looking at how we manage best practice, support the best welfare and monitor the way that medicated grit is used. I think that it is worth bringing this amendment forward because I spoke to the minister to gather some background information. I was reassured that the amendment that was originally proposed by Jim Fairlie was reasonable to propose. I certainly take that intervention from Ms Harper in the spirit that it was meant. I did not question her knowledge of what medicines do, but I suggested politely knowing full well that she did not raise the amendment that is a farmer and a land user, which may use medication on animals. You cannot just go and buy it from some supermarket or of the dark web. You cannot buy a ton of medicated grit off the dark web. You buy it with a vet's prescription. You buy it with the correct procedures in place. You cannot go and scatter it wherever you need because the veterinary person who gave the script for that grit has to assure themselves that it is being used in accordance with the script that is being given. If there is any doubt about the good practice of medicated grit and the using it, it can simply be found under the game and wildlife conservation trust use for medicated grit, which includes a 28-day withdrawal period. I am afraid I took quite a long intervention from you earlier, so I think I have explained that it just cannot be used or acquired without significantly controls. Yes, I would accept that it might be to say that medicated grit that could be used, but I do not think it should go any further than that. As far as amendments 138 and 139, I believe those amendments from Mr Smith are too restrictive and prescriptive in the way that they do. I do beg the question from Mr Smith is how the killing or taking of a wild bird should be carried out, prioritising methods with the least negative animal welfare impact is? Is that shooting them? Is that trapping animals, not obviously birds, because you can't shoot, sorry, you can't trap birds except in live traps, so you can't kill them? So, I mean, I do think we have an established way of trapping animals and an established way of killing birds, which in most cases is used with a shotgun or rifle. Now, I don't know how you make it more highly controlled than that.  So, I'm not sure how the amendment 138 helps, and as far as amendment 139, it does actually beg the question, how much do you want to micromanage the control of predators? I.e., do you want to suggest how you do it and when you do it? I.e., you can only put a trap in this ditch, in this box, as covered by the Springtrap legislation, and you can only do it at a certain time if you're on a particular moor or bit of ground, which is subject to a management plan. I just don't see how it works. So, I would take an intervention on that. Is anyone actually saying that the only way we can manage wildlife and manager land is through killing animals? Is that his argument? I didn't hear that. Is he actually arguing that the only way to manage land, for example, whether it's to protect a particular species against predators, the only way you can do that is by killing? Is that what he's arguing? The point in my amendments is that you should consider other forms of control before you use killing as a last resort, but he seems to be arguing that the only thing that he can do is kill. I thank Mr Smith for that intervention, but I would make the point that, in most cases, the reason why you are controlling that predator is to allow other species to flourish. I'm not sure if Mr Smith, by his amendment, is suggesting that you trap an animal and release it somewhere else, because I fear that to take an animal from one location to another location would require a licence. Are you suggesting licensing of the moving of predator species from one place to another? I'm not sure that's what the Minister would like to see, or is, in fact, entirely reasonable. On that note, convener, I'm happy to conclude my remarks. Thank you, Mr Smith. At this point, I want to indicate that there was a suggestion that we would try and finish this first session at 1 o'clock, but I'm minded to carry on until 1.45 at the latest, so what will continue to be a concern in the amendments at this time? I understand the time pressures. I have a committee meeting, which I need to prepare for, because I only got the committee meeting papers. I think that it was five to eight last night. I think that extending this now into this session will jeopardise my position as convener of another committee or to speak to my amendment, so I would ask respectfully that you may reconsider that, or just for shortening it by a bit. We intend to finish at 1.45, which should be before your committee reconvenes and also gives people time to prepare for the questions this afternoon, but I'm going to press on. We may finish before 1.45, but I was just to let everybody know that we indicated that we would expect to finish by 1, but the way we've made progress, I think that we need to try and push on a little bit, but I'll take on board your comments. Based on your time and your suggestion, we get to the section on mureburn licences purposes during that 45 minutes, no? No. It wouldn't be my intention if we are quick enough to actually go into the mureburn licences section of the bell. Jamie Halcro Johnston Thank you, convener. I'll be very quick then. It's just in relation and follow-up to Edward Mountain's comments and in relation to amendments 138 and 139, methods for taking your killing-wide words are legal and already adhere to the high standards of animal welfare. This amendment, these amendments risk sowing confusion and ambiguity for no discernable public benefit. Given the significant and immediate consequences of failing to comply with what will be a statutory code of practice, it follows that the contents must provide absolute legal certainty, leaving no room for confusion. Trapping infrastructure employed on grass mords is already complied with international agreement on humane trapping standards. Member, it has been clear all along that medical aid to grip was always going to be part of a code of practice, as this was one of the areas that was considered by the medical review and they recommended that the Scottish Government should publish a code of practice, which is now in train. There's always the intention of the Scottish Government to intention that guidance on the use of medical aid would be included in the code of practice as the Grousmer Management Bill has developed. I understand the intention based on the recommendations from Warrisee Minister. However, just in the context of the code of practice being related to disturbance of wild animals, wild birds and wild plants, I'm just wondering how that relates in adding medicated grit to the code of practice. Medicated grit was part of the things that were a review looked at. There are some people who would like us to remove medicated grit entirely. There's a very big campaign going on to do that, but we believe that the balance in making sure that Grousmers can function as Grousmers, having medicated grit in the code of practice, is helpful to all parties. How does it help disturbance of wild animals, wild birds and wild plants? Could you clarify your point, please? The code of practice is all about ensuring that those specific species are protected and not disturbed. I'm just wondering how adding it... The code of practice is to ensure good quality Grousmer management, and that will be part of that code of practice. It's therefore helpful to have made clear in the bill that I'm happy to support amendment 8c and encourage committee members to vote for it. Amendment 138 and 139 from Colin Smyth. I thank Colin for these amendments and understand the intentions behind them. However, I won't support them. As the previous minister set out in her letter to the committee on 18 January, NatureScot is taking an iterative, collaborative approach to the code of practice for Grousmer management, and a code working group comprising a range of stakeholders has already been established to develop the structure and content of that code. The code will include guidance on wildlife management that will set out statutory requirements that people undertaking wildlife management must comply with, as well as providing advice about best practice. I think it's important that they find their details about what is included in the code taken forward and informed by the Grousmer management code group, and that wide range of experience and voice within the group offers so that we can get a workable but also a robust code. Therefore, we need to give the code working group space to determine what in particular will be promoted as best practice, and we should not be too prescriptive about what we set out in the face of the bill. Therefore, I will not support this amendment and encourage members to vote against it. Amendment 20, from Edward Mountain, is an unnecessary amendment, as the bill has drafted, requires Scottish ministers to consult on the code of practice for Grousmer management. Should the Scottish ministers exercise their powers to delegate the preparation of the Grousmer management code of practice to NatureScot, NatureScot would then be required to adhere to any consultation requirements set out in the section of the bill. I therefore hope that this reassures Edward Mountain that he will not press his amendment if he does. I encourage members to vote against it. I will be really, really quick. I am pleased that the minister gave me the time to deal with this as it was originally his amendment, and I encourage members to vote for amendment 83. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 138, in the name of Colin Smyth,已 debated with, lockdown. Amendment 139, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with, amendment 19, in the name of Edward Mountain, is already about to be Voluntaryau rule. The question is amendment 19. The question is, does amendment 19 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. Those supporting amendments please raise your hand now. Those opposing amendment number number number number three are on Edward Mountain. I'll rerun the vote. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. We are not. There will be a division. Those supporting amendment number number number three are now. Those against amendments. Those abstaining. The result of the vote is 2, 4, 7 against the amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 84. In my name, Finlay Carson, already debated with amendment 78, to move or not move, I move. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those against the amendment, those abstaining. The result of the vote is 4, 4, 5 against the amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 20 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 83. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those against the amendment, those abstaining. The result of the vote is 3, 4, 6 against the amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 85 in the name of Jim Fairlie, grouped with amendments 85B, 85C and 87. Emma Harper, to move amendment 85 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 85 in the name of Jim Fairlie, who is now our minister. As the stage 1 report indicated, monitoring the reporting requirements must be balanced against any resources the Scottish Government and its agencies and the wider interest groups take to carry out the monitoring. In the previous minister's response to the stage 1 report, the minister stated that the Scottish Government is committed to an open and transparent approach to legislation and where additional reporting serves a useful purpose, the Scottish Government has said that it is happy to support it, which I welcome. Amendments 85, 86 and 87 require monitoring of section 16AE licences and the effect of those licences. Part of the reason for this bill is to address raptor persecution on land managed for grouse shooting and the section 16AE licencing provisions is how the Scottish Government want to do so. The word to review stated that the three raptor species populations were identified by a significantly impacted by criminal activities on some grouse moors. Three raptor species are the golden eagle of which there has been criminal investigations into persecution in my South Scotland region, henharrier and peregrine falcon. To assess the effectiveness of the bill in reducing raptor persecution on these raptor species, regular monitoring and surveillance of their populations is essential. I acknowledge the Scottish Government's commitment to doing so. When Gillian Martin was the minister, she stated that some monitoring of raptor populations is already undertaken by the Scottish Raptor Study Group, and my office has been in contact with them ahead of this consideration. I therefore strongly believe, based on the evidence that the committee has taken, that the requirements to undertake raptor population assessments is important. Given those important amendments regarding monitoring, I would welcome the minister's comments, and I leave it there, convener, ahead of minister's comments. I call on Rachael Hamilton to move amendment 85b and speak to all other amendments in this group. Thank you, convener, and I move amendment 85b in my name. In monitoring the effectiveness of section 16Aa licence, it is important that any summary in relation to relevant offensive is not speculative, so a conclusion is not formed by the basis of incomplete information. The reference to suspected offences is not an appropriate metric in that regard. Offences are either proven by way of conviction or not proven, and this amendment ensures that only proven offences are reflected in any summary report. 85c is a minor amendment that provides consistency in respect of language and phrasing used elsewhere in the bill. There really is an unusual situation where I must now address amendments as the lead minister for the bill, and I thank Emma Harper for speaking to all the previous lodged amendments on my behalf. In my new position as Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, I have received a great deal of advice on all of the amendments to the bill, combined with all of the evidence that I have heard from stakeholders at stage 1 as part of this committee. I have tried to use all of that new advice to better understand the bill and all of the concerns and issues that surround it. I originally lodged amendments 85, 86 and 87 for the reasons that Emma Harper has set out, and I think that those reasons still hold. However, this is an example of how my understanding has developed. I can see now that there are ways I can improve those amendments to make sure that we are getting the most out of any reporting requirements that we include in the bill. Reporting requirements must be weighed up to the balance of the value that they provide against the resources that they take to fulfil. That being said, the Scottish Government is committed to an open and transparent approach to legislation, and when additional reporting serves a useful purpose, then it should be supported. The bill has been introduced in part to address raptor persecution on land-managed ground shooting, and the section licensing provisions in the bill is the approach taken to do so. The three raptor species populations identified in the very review as significantly impacted, as Emma Harper has said, the Golden Eagle, Hen, Harry and Perrigan falcon. It has assessed the effectiveness of the bill on reducing raptor persecution on these species. Regular monitoring and surveillance of their populations will be essential. Some monitoring of this kind is already undertaken by the Scottish raptor study group, albeit at longer intervals than provided for in these amendments. I think that including a requirement to undertake an assessment of raptor populations is a reasonable suggestion. However, I would like to do what I think would be helpful is to discuss the requirements further with NatureScot and its relevant stakeholders to understand their ability to undertake the additional monitoring and reporting. I would also like to ensure that those amendments are framed in a way that is consistent with language used in the rest of the bill. I therefore request Emma Harper not to press 85, 86 and 87 today and allow me to have these discussions and bring back a better version of this at stage 3. Emma Harper to wind up on amendment 85. Thanks, convener. Based on what Mr Fairleys said, given that the Government would like time to ensure that the amendments are workable and doable within the current resources, I am happy not to press these amendments because I would be keen for the minister to work with NatureScotland and others to make sure that we have appropriate discussions and potentially bring back redrafted versions at stage 3. I am happy to not to press. Rachael Hamilton to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 85b. The question is that amendment 85b be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. Those supporting amendment, raise your hand now. Those against. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is too far, seven against, the amendment therefore has not been agreed. Emma Harper to press or withdraw amendment 85. The question is that amendment 85b be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, raise your hand now. Those against. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is too far, seven against, the amendment has not been agreed. Emma Harper to press or withdraw amendment 85. I call amendment 69, in the name of the minister. I already debated with amendment 59, minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 86, in the name of Jim Fairlie, I already debated with amendment 85. Emma Harper to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 173, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, I already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 173 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, raise your hand now. Those against the amendment. Those members wish to abstain. The result of the vote is too far, seven against, the amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 70, in the name of the minister. I already debated with amendment 59, minister to move formally. Moved. And the question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 140, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. I already debated with amendment 179, Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, raise your hand now. Those against, those members abstaining. The result of the vote is too far, seven against, the amendment therefore is not agreed. I call amendment 87, in the name of Jim Fairlie, I already debated with amendment 85. Emma Harper to move or not move? Not move. The question is that section 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 71, in the name of the minister, group with amendments 21, 141 and 142. The minister to move amendment 71 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 71. Gillian Martin's amendment 71 modifies the animal health and welfare Scotland act 2006 to confer additional powers on inspectors appointed by the Scottish ministers to investigate certain wildlife offences. I'm aware that the issue of giving additional powers to the SSPC inspectors has been debated in this Parliament on a number of occasions. That's why the Scottish Government decides to set up an independent task force to look further at this matter. After Kirsten listening to stakeholders developed the proposals, they were consulted on last year and 71 per cent of the respondents agreed with the proposals to extend the powers of the Scottish SPCA to investigate wildlife crime, but two thirds also agreed with proposals to place limitations and conditions on the extended powers of the SSP inspectors. Notwithstanding this level of support, I know that some have raised concerns about giving further powers to individuals and organisations, which are not part of the police service. On the other side of the argument, some would have liked the Government to go significantly further in terms of the new powers for the Scottish SPCA. Having listened carefully the evidence that has been presented to this committee, I believe that the provision set out in this amendment provides for a small extension of powers to deal with a gap in the arrangements for securing evidence of potential criminality strike the right balance. An example of those powers and use as the law currently stands, a Scottish SPCA inspector responding to a case of a live animal caught in an illegally set trap is not able to seize any other illegal traps in the immediate vicinity which do not contain live animals. He would also not have the power to search the area for evidence of other illegally set traps. If voted in, this amendment would mean that in these circumstances an inspector would have the power to seize the illegally set traps and search for evidence of other illegally set traps in the vicinity. They will then turn over their evidence to Police Scotland. The Police Scotland will retain primacy over investigation of wildlife crime cases, including the offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in this bill. The additional powers for inspectors will come with a number of safeguards and limitations. They can only be exercised when an inspector is already responding to a case under their existing powers. As is currently the case, each inspector will be appointed separately and individually by the Scottish Government. All inspectors will be required to undertake training prior to being given authorization to exercise the new powers and authorization can be withdrawn at any time at the discretion of the Scottish Government. Protocalls will be established when the SSPCA and Police Scotland to ensure an effective partnership working and to clearly set out the role of Scottish SSPCA within the limit of these powers and the SSPCA will not be given powers to stop and search people and they will also not have the powers to arrest people if suspected of committing a wildlife crime. The pro-calls for partnership working with the Scottish SSPCA will follow when using these new powers and will clearly set out how the new functions should work. This will include what report mechanisms will be in place and how the SSPCA National Wildlife Crime Unit, Police Scotland and Crown Office will work together effectively and what the individual roles and responsibilities of each party are. There was much discussion in the committee's sessions regarding the evidence around when the protocol would be established, as the minister well knows. Is there any indication when this protocol will be established? Obviously, it is important for us to understand what those protocols are. Obviously, there are long-standing concerns around giving the SSPCA powers. The investigation powers should be really with Police Scotland, so there was some consideration of concern around that. Okay, you have jumped in just a second too quickly. Further, those provisions will not be commenced until the protocols have been agreed by all relevant parties, including Scottish ministers. The extent to investigate the powers under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act and the Scottish SSPCA are only able to utilise their powers in relation to the investigation of cases involving live animals. That will remain the case with the new powers. If a situation were to arise, for example, where the respondent to a call relating to a live animal caught in a trap and then an arrival found that the animal had subsequently died, I would expect them to alert Police Scotland, who would then determine the appropriate course of action. I would also expect that situations such as this will be clearly covered by the protocols, which will set out how the Scottish SSPCA will operate using those new powers. Amendment 21, in the name of Edward Mountain, would remove section 8 of the Bill. Section 8 of the Bill is currently an enabling power that provides the Scottish ministers made by regulation, modify the 2006 act in order to add powers such as those that I have just described. The intention was always to seek to improve the provision by amendment at stage 2 and replace it with the provision that set out the detail and limits of the new powers on the face of the Bill, and that is what amendment 71 now does. If amendment 71 gets the support of the committee as it is voted in, then Edward Mountain's amendment 21 would immediately remove those new provisions. However, in the event that 71 is not voted in, I would think that it would be sensible to retain section 8 as it would enable the Scottish ministers to bring forward regulations to extend the Scottish powers of the SSPCA inspectors at a later stage should that be desirable. Those regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure, and so, if ever used, Parliament would have to get a say. I will therefore not be sporting Edward Mountain's amendment 21 and would urge committee members to vote against it. I think that the road of grants amendments that would require Scottish ministers to undertake a review of the effect of those new provisions are a helpful addition. I would hope that the requirements to undertake such a review would help to allay some of the concerns that were raised at stage 1 about how those new powers would be used. I therefore support those amendments in principle. However, I do think that the review period of one year as set out in the amendments would be an appropriate timescale. Amendment 141 requires the review to examine whether to exercise of those new powers as result in convictions. Given the time that it can take for an investigation to proceed through the criminal justice system, I think that a longer review period of three to five years would probably be more appropriate. More generally, there are also some minor issues with those amendments that I would like to work with the member to address. Therefore, I ask the road of grant not to press either amendment at this stage and I will consider them further to bring back a revised version at stage 3. On behalf of Gillian Martin, I move amendment 71 and I would encourage committee members to support it. Colin, Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 21 and other amendments in this group. Thank you very much, convener. Of course, the beauty of submitting an amendment early is the fact that it comes early on the sheet and you don't have sight of the minister's amendment, which happened just prior to the closing of when amendments could be lodged. So, we kind of agreed with ourselves at the outset that we wanted to remove section 8, but that's as far as it went. My amendment for removing section 8 was because I have very deep felt concerns that section 8, as amended, will give powers to people that have never had those powers before. I personally am a great believer in the respect that we should have to our police force and that it should be them that are implementing the law, not other people. I've always believed that. Therefore, I'm concerned that the powers that are going to be given to these inspectors actually give them more powers than a policeman has. There is no need for a search warrant. There is no need for corroboration. There is no specified training at this site and no specified warrant. So, how one can identify whether the person who turns up is trained and authorised is almost impossible to do. There is little or no training on pesticides, which means that that issue of collecting evidence on pesticides is difficult. The way that that is got round at the moment, as I'm sure the minister will know, is that when an inspection is carried out by the police, a member of the department, the cultural department, attends with the police to be able to identify and inform on pesticides. So, I have real concerns about this section because I don't think it clarifies all the issues that we need clarified. It removes powers and undermines the authority of the police, which I frankly am against, and gives powers to a third party, which I don't believe, in my opinion, minister, are qualified to do that and nor have the legal training to do so. I call on Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 141 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I'm really glad that the minister has heard concerns about this part of the bill. I clearly understand the frustration felt by SSPC officers who are called out because of animal welfare concerns and they see illegal activities and there's nothing at all they can do, but there are also concerns about empowering a third sector organisation to provide law enforcement. My amendments were put in place to make sure that this is looked at and we make sure that there are no unintended consequences, but I've heard what the minister said about looking at this for stage 3 and I'm pleased to do that and won't move those amendments because of that and look forward to those discussions. Thank you. I'm delighted to put on record my support for amendment 71, which will extend the SSPC powers to investigate wildlife crime. This is something Scottish Greens have long been calling for and that is why we included a timely review of the SSPC powers in the Bute House agreement. During stage 1, we heard evidence on several occasions of cases where an animal welfare officer is limited in what they can do to collect evidence of wildlife crime. The extension of SSPC powers expands our ability to bring more of those perpetuating wildlife crime to justice and protect the reputations of those businesses that do abide by the law. Thank you minister to wind up. I'm welcome to debate around this group and it's a big step for us to take and it's right, we consider it carefully. I do think that we've got the balance right and we have the checks and safeguards in place that will ensure the protocol between the SSPC and Police Scotland is right, so therefore I would think that we're in the right place with this one. Thank you. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those opposing the amendment. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is 742 against the amendment that has therefore been agreed. I call amendment 21 in the name of Edward Mountain already debated with amendment 71. Edward Mountain to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those against. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 141 in the name of Rhoda Grant already debated with amendment 71. Rhoda Grant to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 142 in the name of Rhoda Grant already debated with amendment 71. Rhoda Grant to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 75 in the name of Rachel Hamilton already debated with amendment 53. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment raise your hand now. Those against. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. At that point, we will suspend this consideration until 6 p.m. this evening.