the World Life Management and Murrburn Scotland Bill. I thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its scrutiny of the bill and everyone who gave evidence at stage 1. I want to assure everyone that I have paid close attention to all of that evidence and the committee's views and recommendations in their stage 1 report. This Parliament has a proud record of championing nature, wildlife and biodiversity. So, while we look forward to hearing members' views on how the bill can be improved and strengthened at stage 2, I hope that today we can all agree to support its general principles. I was the convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee in 2020 when the independent grouse-murr management group led by Professor Wherity presented its report on the environmental impact of grouse-murr management practices. That report made it clear to me and my then committee colleagues that previous measures that this Parliament had put in place to address raptor persecution were insufficient and that we needed to consider further regulation of activities traditionally associated with grouse-murr management, including murrburn, predator control and the use of medicated grit. Sadly, since the Wherity report was published, the issue of raptor persecution has not gone away. Even just last week I read reports of missing hen harriers and on Monday I am sure that everyone in the chamber will have read the same reports that I did that a satellite-tag golden eagle, Merrick, in the south of Scotland has come to harm according to Police Scotland and on Tuesday a peregrine falcon was found dead in an illegal trap in the Pentlands. I of course recognise the important contribution that grouse shooting makes to the rural economy. Grouse-murr's can be successfully managed in a way that doesn't negatively impact on the environment or biodiversity and the great many of them are acting responsibly. However, we need to end the blight of raptor persecution that takes place on the few estates that give the sector a bad name and to quote from the Wherity review, change the culture of grouse-murr management. The introduction of a licensing scheme for grouse is a proportionate measure to achieve these aims. It provides us with the means to take effective action against the destructive minority who continue to illegally target birds of prey while allowing law-abiding grouse-murr's to operate without undue interference. Can the minister give us evidence that the specific incidents that she is talking about are related to Grouse-murr's? In my response to the committee report, which Ms Hamilton will have sight of, I put an appendix in place, which outlined that detail that I do not have time to go through right now. I would also refer Ms Hamilton to the RSPB's report, which was published last week, which outlined that there have been 35 various raptor disappearances since 2017. It identified that quite a lot of the instances of where that had happened were on grouse-murr's, I am sad to say. The introduction of a licensing scheme for grouse is a proportionate measure. It provides us with the means to take effective action against the destructive minority who continue to illegally target birds of prey while allowing law-abiding grouse-murr's to operate without undue interference. I firmly believe that that is true. I thank the minister very much for giving way. I wonder if she could clarify, would the licensing scheme be self-financing so that it does not have to be subsidised by the general purse? There is a financial resolution that is going to be moved by the Deputy First Minister and Finance Secretary after this debate today. Money has been allocated to this £500,000 per annum, and a lot of that will be NatureScot that is administering the scheme, but of course there will be a small fee associated with the licence as well. I firmly believe that licensing is in the interests of the grouse-murr sector, and I have to have them regulated in the same way that shooting estates are across mainland Europe. Licences, I firmly believe, will be good for the public reputation of those estates, those many estates who hold licence and abide by the licence that has already taken intervention, including a statutory code of practice that will be developed in conjunction with stakeholders, which will allow us to build on the best practice that I know many grouse-murr managers are already undertaking. I will move on to Murburn. Murburn is a very complex issue, and research suggests that it can have both beneficial and adverse effects. The provisions in the bill are therefore designed to ensure that Murburn will always be undertaken with the necessary care and expertise. I know that everyone in this Parliament is aware of the essential roles that our peatlands play in capturing carbon and enhancing biodiversity. That is why the bill includes provisions to strictly limit the making of Murburn on peatland. However, the bill is not just about moorland management. We also have a very strong record in this Parliament of promoting the highest standards of animal welfare and legislating to ensure that all those standards are upheld. Accordingly, the bill addresses two key recommendations made by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission to ban the use of glue traps and snares. I believe that a glue trap ban is a good thing, but can I ask that the legislation is not aimed at the use of sticky gels that are designed to deter, but not to trap large birds such as urban gulls from buildings? I understand the members' interests in this area. As an Aberdonian, having lived in Tory myself in my younger days, I understand that Aberdein City Council has to have measures in place. The sticky gels that Mr Stewart refers to are not covered under the legislation. We are talking about the type of glue traps that permanently trap rodents or birds, and they will die as a result of struggling. The gel that Mr Stewart refers to makes it uncomfortable for seagulls to nest on roofs, so he has my assurances in that regard. I believe that Parliament can no longer ignore the weight of evidence that glue traps and snares lead to unacceptable levels of suffering, not just for wild animals but for domestic animals that can become trapped in them. I know from the response to our consultations that there is very strong support from members of the public for a comprehensive ban. I know that there are members here today who have long been pressing the Government to take this step. Indeed, quite a lot of parties actually had that in their manifestos for this Parliament. As previously indicated to the committee, I intend by way of amendments laws at stage 2 to introduce measures to extend the Scottish SPCA's existing powers to aid in the proper detection and prosecution of wildlife crime. However, I also acknowledge that some animals can and do cause serious issues if not appropriately controlled and managed, impacting on livelihoods, people's health and wellbeing. There is therefore a case for the continued use of humane traps as part of a responsible approach to pest control and for others to know that they should not be tampered with. I can therefore announce, Presiding Officer, that I intend to lay amendments to make it an offence to tamper with a trap, so there is absolutely no dubiety that criminal behaviour, whether it happens and by whom, will not be tolerated, particularly when such interference has the potential to cause unnecessary harm to animals. I will do that. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank Minister Giveway. Can you just clarify on the disturbance of traps? Does that include all traps, including live traps, live traps for birds, as well as spring traps that are all considered perfectly liable? Minister, I will lay the amendment in stage 2, but is the interference vandalism or anything that is damaging in a way to any legal traps? I have to say that the conversations that I have had with representatives of the gamekeepers were fundamental in me coming to this decision and the distress that causes them was palpable in those conversations. I commend them for the testimony that they gave me. The bill is just one of the elements of Scottish Government's ambitious programme to protect and restore our natural environment and improve animal welfare, but it is a vital element taken together. The measures in this bill will strengthen the protections for our wildlife, ensure that our grousmers are managed in a way that enhances by a diversity in the natural environment, improve the reputation of Scottish shooting estates and provide greater protection for our precious peatlands. I have had a long involvement in wildlife and animal health and welfare matters during my time in Parliament, so I am proud to be leading this bill on behalf of the Scottish Government and to be able to say that I moved the motion that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the wildlife management and Muirburn Scotland Bill. I invite members who are intending to participate in the debate to ensure that their request-to-speak buttons are pressed. I call Finlay Carson to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. As convener of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I am pleased to speak to the committee's report on the wildlife management in Muirburn Scotland Bill. I thank my committee colleagues for their diligent work in scrutinising the bill, and I also thank colleagues on the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their report and helpful conclusions and recommendations and the Finance and Public Administration Committee for responses that are sought on the financial memorandum. Over the course of her inquiry, many individuals and organisations have been given evidence in person or in response to her calls for views, and I wish to thank each and every one of them for their time and contribution. The Government states that the bill is intending to address raptor persecution and ensure that the management of grousmure and relative related activities are undertaken in a manner that is environmentally sustainable and animal welfare conscious. The bill contains a number of provisions to ban the use and purchase of glue traps, to introduce licensing schemes to use certain types of wildlife traps for the killing and taking of certain birds on grousmures and to make Muirburn and, in particular, to limit Muirburn on peatland in only a very limited circumstance. In addition, the Government has confirmed in its intention to amend the bill at stage 2 to ban the use of snares and to extend the powers of the Scottish SPCA to investigate wildlife crimes. The committee notes those intentions but there were a number of concerns raised by various stakeholders which we reflected in our report. The committee agreed to seek greater clarity from the Government in response to those concerns about certain provisions within the bill. I would like to thank the minister and our officials for their response to the report that we received yesterday, which picked up on a range of issues raised in our report. Turning to our report recommendations, section 1-3 creates the offences of using and purchasing glue traps. We heard in evidence that there are significant and on-going concerns regarding the animal welfare implications of the use of glue traps that can prolong suffering and trap non-target species. The committee agreed that all members of the public should be banned from using or purchasing glue traps. That said, the committee also heard evidence from pest control professionals that in settings where there is a high risk to public health such as schools and hospitals and where quick and effective rodent control is essential, glue traps will still be needed as a last resort method of rodent control. We heard conflicting evidence on whether there are currently available alternatives to glue traps that would serve as an effective solution to rodent problems in these high-risk settings. One witness claimed that the rat population in some Scottish cities is, I quote, almost at pandemic levels. So it is important that professionals have access to effective rodent control. The committee explored the option of a licensing scheme to permit the limited use of glue traps. The minister told us that this would not be workable as there was no accreditation scheme for pest control professionals, but the industry disagreed citing the existence of a licensing scheme for gull management. Our response to the minister provided more detailed information about why a licensing scheme would not be workable for the professional pest control industry. The minister also responded to her request for clarification about the available alternative forms of rodent control that we appropriate for high-risk settings, with her letter detailing the various rodent control methods that she believed would be as effective. Turning to the remainder of the bill, which is the three licensing schemes for the use of certain wildlife traps to kill or take red grouse and to make mureburn, there were two overarching issues raised by potential licence applicants and their evidence to us. I will set those out before I look at the three schemes in more detail. First, there was a concern that raptor persecution in Moorland given as a rationale for the proposed licence scheme is no longer as prevalent in Moorland as it was historically. There was therefore a call for any licensing scheme to be proportionate and workable. Second, there was a concern that a licence could be suspended by NatureScot in certain circumstances, despite natureScot not being satisfied that a relative offence had been committed. Potential licence holders expressed strong concerns that a minor breach of licence conditions or a vexatious complaint could result in the loss of a licence and, therefore, a loss of income and, worse scenario, a loss of jobs. The minister and NatureScot gave reassurances that a licence would not only be suspended in this way in serious circumstances but, in our report, we asked what safeguards could be added to the bill to reflect that reassurance. Turning now to each individual licensing scheme, the committee was content with the bill's proposal. I am grateful to Mr Carson for giving me—I wonder if the committee has given any consideration to what role it might perform if, in the event of this legislation passing, the committee could consider the operation of the licensing arrangements to provide wider and broader satisfaction or issues about how that is operating. I thank the member for that question. It was a serious consideration. We have seen what, in my view, is a failure of the work that NatureScot has done with the sector in regards to hunting with dogs. We did ask about how the committee could get involved, but there appears to be a limited opportunity for the committee to look at any proposed code of conduct, however, before it would actually come into practice. There were also concerns about the time from when that code of practice would come into practice when the licensing scheme actually came into force. We certainly had concerns on that. The committee was content with the bill's proposals for a licensing scheme for wildlife traps. The main issue that came up was the suggestion from stakeholders for the bill to include an offence for wild-trap vandalism. Vandalism of wildlife traps is reasonably common, and as well as the serious animal welfare risk, it can also prevent legal predation control and incur costs to replace or repair traps. The committee accepts the evidence that it heard that trap vandalism would be covered by existing offences and it would be difficult to obtain evidence to secure a conviction. Representatives from the land managers and SSPCA, however, were made aware that a specific offence of trap vandalism would be recognised because of animal welfare consequences. I welcome the minister's commitment to bringing forward amendments at stage 2 to create a specific crime. There were a number of other aspects of the licensing scheme for red-grouse shooting that we made recommendations on first. In response to strong concerns voiced by the industry, we recommended a longer licensing period than the proposed annual scheme, and I am pleased to note that the minister's agreement to that recommendation. The concern that I mentioned earlier relating to the fears that a licence could be suspended by nature's scot in certain circumstances, despite it not being satisfied that a relevant offence had been committed, was most strongly made regarding this licensing scheme. I note that the committee's request for a time limit for licence suspensions may have more relevance given the decision for a longer licensing scheme. We also note her commitment on behalf of her officials in nature's scot for consultation and engagement with industry ahead of her related guidance being drawn up, and I think that that touches on the point that John Swinney picked up on. Turning to part 2 of the bill, which would introduce a new licence scheme for making mureburn in Scotland and to apply more restrictions on making mureburn on ground with a peak depth greater than 40 centimetres, the committee recognised that mureburn has to date been subject to a limited statutory oversight and that the provisions of the bill lead from the gross mure management group's recommendations for increased regulatory control. The committee noted a complex, contested and inconclusive evidence that is currently available about the impact of mureburn on biodiversity, climate and wildfire. The committee heard evidence that a wide variety of practitioners made mureburn in a range of contexts, and so we urge the Government to ensure that any licensing scheme is workable and appropriate for all, particularly for crofters and other smaller practitioners, and that effective adaptive approach is taken for licensing on peatland as evidence base evolves. We agree with the proposal for putting the mureburn code in a statutory footing to ensure best practices followed. On the definition of peatland as land with a peak depth greater than 40 centimetres, a change from the current definition of 50 centimetres, the committee notes the Government's reasoning of achieving a balance between the views of the range of stakeholders that we heard from, bringing the manager of peatland under greater scrutiny. We heard concerns from stakeholders about the practical challenges of measuring peak depth, especially over a significant land area, and I welcome the minister's commitment that the guidance on methodology will be published in good time ahead of the licensing scheme coming into force to give clarity to stakeholders. Looking ahead to stage 2, the Government informed the committee about its intention to introduce amendments to the ban on the use of snares and to give additional powers to the SSPCA. In terms of ban on snaring, trap-operators have emphasised that more modern devices modified cable constraints do not have the same welfare implications and called for the continuous use of those to be permitted under licence. The issue became the focus of our evidence session with animal welfare organisations' view that those devices are, in their words, rebranded snares, and practitioners' view that predation control, especially in those areas where shooting is not practical or safe alternative, would be significant. The impact would be significant without their use. You do need to wind up, Mr Carson. Before I close, I have not touched on some of the amendments, but I would like to speak to the fact that our report did not include a view on the general principles. As members will know, the bill contains a number of provisions spanning a wide range of wildlife and land management issues. Given the lack of detail relating to various aspects of policy proposals, especially to the proposal to add significant additional powers for the SSPCA in snaring, which we still have not seen, we will not see until stage 2. I could not feel that I could agree to the general principles for a bill that we will actually see no certainty until after stage 2. It should be made earlier in your contribution, Mr Carson, because you are somewhat over time. If you could begin to conclude. I agree with the general principles, but overall it is not how the bill can affect these. The committee itself has not taken a view, but we have presented all the arguments and are considered conclusions recommendations to enable members to reach their own conclusions this afternoon. I congratulate the clerks in putting our stage 1 recommendation report together. I want to begin by explaining the significance of the broach that I am wearing. If you can see it, it is very beautiful. Iona McGregor, a talented young artist from Perthshire, designed it and made it for today's debate to represent the diversity of the land uses in Scotland's countryside sports, the grass feathers that represent the protection of rural livelihoods, the heather for biodiversity gain and tweed for upland sustainability. Today we debate all the issues of the bill that have the potential to change everything that the broach represents. We all agree that high standards of wildlife welfare should be paramount. We all agree with protecting the environment. The minister has highlighted the dreadful news of the recent disappearance of the golden eagle and the death of the peregrine falcon, which has seen unanimous condemnation across the board. In the case of the peregrine, clearly there is no link to a grousemole management, but it is important that we acknowledge that this is a live investigation and the police must be allowed to investigate on that run-its course. Again, we all want to reiterate that we absolutely condemn the persecution of raptors, and it is right that the bill tackles this issue, but we must acknowledge that it goes way beyond that objective. By going too far, this bill, I believe, has fallen short. The flagship recommendations of Professor Warrity's report was to introduce a licensing scheme on the premises that there was no improvement in the populations of three key species after five years from publication of his review in 2019. However, the Government has plowed on with introducing a licensing scheme without monitoring raptor populations and providing evidence. Ms Hamilton reflected on the evidence given by Professor Warrity and those who were involved in that, which said that they were content with the fact that we were continuing with a licensing scheme. Is there evidence to the committee? In my opinion, there has not been enough evidence to suggest that the incidents of raptor-pierce persecution are linked specifically to grousemoles, and I could rebut the evidence that the Minister provided to the committee where it discussed the Minister's response that talks about ranges that are occupied or not occupied by some species of raptors in Scotland. Those non-occupation ranges by raptors in some parts of Scotland does not automatically equal persecution. It could be a predatory aspect. It could be an environmental aspect. It could be other reasons such as food availability, habitat availability, and it is disingenuous to cast aspirations and create a licensing scheme and other parts of the legislation without a severe lack of evidence. A recent peer-reviewed study showed that the red-listed Eurasian curlew raised nearly four times more chicks on moorland managed for grousehooting compared to unmanaged moorland. In our committee session, Professor Ian Newton said that, in evidence to our committee, we have no interest in reducing the area of grousemoles. In reality, I am resigned to the fact that operating grousemoles will become a licensed activity because it sounds like the minister wants to plough on with that, but there must be some movement from the minister if she wants this to be, and I quote, practicable and workable. I thank the member for giving way, and I can certainly assent to what she says that we received some evidence that some species do thrive in grousemoor habitats. Will she accept that as an entirely separate question from the question of whether there is a minority of grousemoors who do not operate in a way that is tackling raptor persecution? Alasdair Allan will know that we heard evidence that raptor persecution is at a historic low, but we will not tackle illegal persecution of raptors through the lens of the bill, and it goes way beyond the scope of its intention. According to gamekeepers, there are a number of concerns. Licence holders could potentially lose their licence without the need to produce evidence of criminality or wrongdoing without, in the bill's term, NatureScot being satisfied of a relevant offence having been committed. This would expose operators to vexatious claims for those who are against country sports seeking to disrupt lawful activities through malice. I am pleased to acknowledge a specific amendment from the Government to deal with tampering of traps, and I thank Gillian Martin for that. Concerns have been raised that part of the bill would also be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in her closing, we would value the minister's categorical reassurance that this would not be the case. It would also require operators to renew licences annually, and this is inconsistent with the type of investment and long-term decision making associated with moral and management. The short-sighted provision would harm this vital socioeconomic element. In the minister's response to the committee's report, she addressed concerns about the potential duration of the suspension of a licence, given that this is not specified in the legislation. She claims that this is because the maximum duration of the section 16AA licence for taking the birds is one year, and therefore the maximum suspension period has been no more than one year. Yet, a couple of pages later, the minister agrees with the committee's recommendation to extend the licence period to three to five years. Given that I have said that I will look at the duration of the licence, it would follow that we would be looking at the duration of the suspension. Does she appreciate that I am taking time to look at the best duration for the licences? I have said that in the committee on various occasions. I appreciate the minister confirming her commitment to this, because it is very important at the moment that there are two conflicting statements. The minister must be clear about her intentions because it will affect the livelihoods of thousands of rural workers. By having an anti-rural rhetoric from members on the opposite benches, it means that there is a lack of confidence and trust from rural communities. When political rhetoric takes over precedent of evidence-based policy, we will get things wrong. This was a message that I heard loud and clear from a round table with academics on the agricultural bill this morning. We are debating today what the academics were saying, which is that they believe that the Scottish Government has abandoned the view of grassroots practitioners, which is demonstrating a blatant disregard for evidence and its potential consequences. The bill, like the Scottish Government's approach to rural-related matters, is disproportionate. It is disingenuous. It poses an existential threat to Scotland's rural estates and the very wildlife it aims to protect. Mureburn is a fine example of this in exemplifying this. I know that I am running out of time. Do I have a little bit of time to make up? I can give you a bit of time back for your intervention. I believe that the bill illogically focuses on the underground metric of peep depth to arbitrarily dictate how professional land managers can conduct overground activity. We know that Mureburn is an essential tool that allows land managers to nurture wildlife, to control the fuel load and reduce the risk of wildfire. We heard that point made very strongly by the Scottish Fire and Rescue groups. I want to close very briefly on the issue of snaring, the banning of which is expected to be included in the Government's approach to stage 2 of this bill. I think that it is important that we highlight the threat that this was opposed to the ability to protect vulnerable and endangered species and livestock. Just because other countries are doing it does not mean to say that they are not suffering from severe declines in population of ground nesting birds. To just conclude, Presiding Officer, because we have got a lot to get through. Other people have got to get a lot of stuff in here. This is a potential example of unworkable legislation that has been referenced by the Hunting with Dogs Act, where licences continue to be rejected with the lambing season round the corner. The bill is illogical, disproportionate, the bill will affect livelihoods, the bill ignores rural voices and the bill goes much wider than its attention. Before I address the debate, I would like to take a moment to put on record our sadness at the passing of Alasdair Darling. He was a public servant and served his country and his constituents. He will be missed by all of us. I would like to offer our condolences to Margaret Callum, Anna and the rest of his family. Presiding Officer, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank our clerks to the committee who helped to produce this report and indeed all those who came and provided evidence that is included in the report. We in the Scottish Labour Party support the general principles of the bill. The legislation draws from the Verity report on grouse moor management. I know that this was something that was passionately followed by Claudia Beamish, who was an MSP in this chamber and was instrumental in pushing through having the Verity committee set up. I was very pleased to see the report coming to fruition and I am sure that today we will be glad that the legislation is now coming forward. The committee was set up due to concerns about raptor persecution, and we are seeing that, as other members have said already this week, there is more persecution on-going, and that has to be investigated. However, we also need to put on record that this really bad and appalling practice is by a minority. They have been warned time and time again that action would be taken if they did not change their behaviour and their behaviour has not changed, and therefore we are forced to legislate in this area. However, at the same time as legislating in this area, we need to be very careful to balance legislation against jobs and rural economies that are dependent on some of those high-grouse moors for their livelihoods. I also just want to talk for a moment about the handling of the bill. It was very difficult to scrutinise a bill that came in different stages with decisions being made after the bill was actually put down and the committee were gathering evidence. I think that it is not a good practice when the Government lay a bill and then start amending it mid stage 1. I am very grateful for the grant that allowed me to state that one of the reasons in which we brought in the snaring consultation was because we were asked by stakeholders to do that, because a particular stakeholder wanted us to look at the issue of humane cable restraints, so that we undertook to do that, to give it time for a consultation on that in particular and to look at their issues that they wanted us to address in terms of a licensing scheme around that. I hope that that clarifies why that happened in that particular instance. I accept that, but I would also say that those stakeholders have been calling for those pieces of legislation for a lot longer than this bill came into fruition. The bill now ensures that Grouse Moores will be licensed and I appreciate the minister indicating that she agrees with the committee that those licenses should be for longer than one year. Given that the Government can, that those licenses can be suspended, there is no need to have one-year licenses. We took evidence from organisations and stakeholders who talked about maybe three to five-year licenses and possibly even longer, if those of right checks and balances in place, to make sure that they would be reviewed reasonably often. Obviously, the licenses can be suspended if there is bad practice and a raptor persecution happening or indeed any other illegal activity. However, we also have to bear in mind that the management of Grouse Moores does also have positive environmental and natural impacts. People talked about curlews, golden plovers and bird species that actually really flourish in Grouse Moores managed for Grouse. They enjoy the same habitats and that adds to their numbers. We need to be careful that we do not throw away the good with the bad. Turning to Muirburn, the science and knowledge really needs to be improved. Professor Warrity himself said that I emphasised that the science base underpinning a lot of moorland management is incredibly fragmented, contested and incomplete. While we took evidence, we were hearing about things like wildfires. Indeed, we were watching what was happening in Canich, where there was a major wildfire. Wildfires are worse where there is a large fuel load. At some point, when we were taking evidence, it suggested that Muirburn could be an essential part of moorland management. If we did not deal with a fuel load, we would have more wildfires that had a greater environmental impact. Obviously, burning on degraded peat would cause carbon release, but we also saw that burning on good quality wet peat remained largely unscathed. Licensing, I believe, will help to share that best practice, but the code of conduct and change needs to adapt with the science. We need to have the heart of the licensing, conserving, restoring the natural environment, while also enjoying the land management benefits that it brings. Many stakeholders talked about peat to depth and how it would be managed because you cannot measure every inch in detail of the land that you will carry Muirburn on. We need to make sure that there is a workable solution to how land is turned, whether it is peatland or moorland. There were also concerns about expertise. It was hoped that licensing of Muirburn would ensure that the practitioners were trained, but it also became clear during the Canock farm that there is a huge amount of expertise that is held by gamekeepers and that the fire and rescue service themselves made very clear that they could not have brought that fire under control without the help of neighbouring gamekeepers. We need to make sure that that expertise is protected and disseminated through all those who would practice Muirburn. There was also a discussion about the Muirburn season and how it needs to be adapted to keep up with climate change because of earlier nesting of birds because of climate change. All those regulations need to be kept in check, but more importantly, they need to follow the science. Presiding Officer, you indicated that you would give me some time back. You have six minutes. I have given you quite a bit of time back. I am more than for the intervention, so you need to conclude, Ms Grant. There are many other things then. I could turn to and speak about that. It is important in the bill, but just to put on record, we support the general principles of the bill and look forward to making it more workable at stage two. Thank you very much indeed, Ms Grant. Can I echo your comments about the sad passing of Alasdair Darlang, as well as the comments early in the day about the passing of our former colleague, Lord James Douglas Hamilton? I now call Beatrice Wishart, around six minutes. I am pleased to speak for the Scottish Liberal Democrats today on the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Scotland Bill at stage one. I extend my thanks like others have done to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee colleagues and the convener for their work at stage one, particularly thanks to the clerks for their work behind the scenes and on the stage one report. I would also like to thank all the individuals and organisations that provided briefings, attended committee evidence sessions and submitted evidence to the committee. Scottish Liberal Democrats are broadly supportive of the bill. The Scottish Government state the aim is to address raptor persecution by implementing the recommendations of the independent review of Grousemore management. To this end, the bill introduces a licensing scheme for the land used for shooting of red grouse. Most estates are run responsibly, but there is not sufficient evidence that the situation regarding raptor persecution overall has improved since the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act, so action is needed to ensure good practice. Where licence schemes are introduced, they cannot place undue burdens on those who have to apply but rather must be workable and proportionate to their aims. Scottish Liberal Democrats support licensing as a method to raise standards, but I would ask the Minister for Assurance that the licensing schemes in this bill will be pragmatic and focused on the stated aims. In the bill that is introduced, the licence for grouse shooting is only granted for one year. There was consensus from stakeholders that a longer licence period would be preferable. Scottish Land and Estates consider a year as inconsistent with the long-term investment and land management associated with more land management for grouse shooting. NatureScot stated that a three- to five-year licence would correspond with similar licensing schemes. I therefore welcome the minister's commitment to amend the bill to create a longer licence period. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank the member for giving way on that point. Just on the point of licensing and removing licences, if a licence is to be removed, do you think that it is important that the estate or the landowner knows how long that licence will be removed so that they can ensure that the people who rely on the ground, whether they are keepers or farmers, know that there is some security for them in the future? I thank the member for that question, and I think that clarity is key to this bill. Turning now to the other wildlife management aspects in the bill, I acknowledge the arguments for banning glue traps and snaring on animal welfare grounds. The minister has concluded that there will be a full ban on the use of snares and will not include a licensing scheme for any purpose, and she indicates that there are more humane alternative methods available. I have reflected on the evidence heard at the Ray Committee meeting on 8 November about humane cable restraints. Those involved in land management indicate that they are a necessary tool in the box where shooting is not possible and express concerns around the future viability of ground nesting birds. Accordingly, I am anxious about the potential impacts of a complete snaring ban on ground nesting birds. Although I am reassured that the RSPB do not use snares on their land, I would ask that the Scottish Government keep this change under tight review assessing the impact of the ban on ground nesting birds for the long term. I note with concern the evidence that the committee received regarding the lack of alternatives to glue traps and the potential impact on the ability of professional pest controllers to respond to rodent problems in high-risk settings such as hospitals and schools. I would draw the minister's attention to the committee's request for the Scottish Government to provide further information about alternative forms of rodent control appropriate for use in settings where there is enhanced public health risk. I also note the minister's response to the committee's point that the suggested two-year transition period will be set out on the face of the bill. While I agree that we need to stop using glue traps, due to the concerns raised about lack of alternatives in high-risk settings, I would ask the Scottish Government to consider delaying commencement of this section until credible alternative methods of pest control are available for these situations. The second part of the bill deals with extending licensing requirements for mureburn. I am persuaded on the balance of evidence that there is a risk of negative environmental consequence if heather moorland burns out of control, but that mureburn benefits heather moorland and biodiversity and is a vital part of wildlife prevention—something that we must acknowledge in terms of changing weather patterns. The licensing scheme for mureburn must therefore enable its use by train practitioners. I regret that there is discord around this bill and similar bills. Countryside stakeholders perceive bills addressing wildlife and land management could create a cumulative restrictive impact on those working and living in rural communities, but that is not about countryside management versus environmental protection. Rather than one or the other, we must have both for the future successes and viability of our rural areas. I believe that it is key that all stakeholders are able to voice their concerns and meaningfully engage with the policy that affects them. I also believe that, in terms of the implications for nature and people working and living in rural Scotland, that is essential. We now move to the open debate. I call first Karen Adam to be followed by Oliver Mundell around six minutes. Before I begin, I wish to commend the Scottish Government for its approach to this bill. The minister, Gillian Martin's engagement with stakeholders throughout this process demonstrates a commitment to creating informed and balanced legislation. It is particularly in a field that is as sensitive as animal welfare and a field that has been well navigated. I know in a personal level how sincere the minister is in her dedication to the welfare of animals. The type of legislation that intertwines modern environmental needs with traditional practices is challenging yet vital for Scotland, a nation that is deeply rooted in love and respect for animals. As a long-standing advocate for animal welfare, I welcome the general principles of this bill. It is not merely a set of regulations, it represents Scotland's commitment to safeguarding the lives and wellbeing of animals, particularly our cherished birds of prey. The bill exemplifies our collective responsibility to protect and preserve the natural world, ensuring that our coexistence with wildlife is harmonious and respectful. The issue of rapture persecution demands urgent attention. The persecution of Scotland's majestic birds of prey are golden eagles, hen harriers and peregrum falcons, despite stringent laws, remains a blight on our environmental record. The alarming findings of the Fielding and Whitfield report, alongside subsequent RSPB data, highlight the urgency of this situation. As well as protecting wildlife, the bill is a commitment to enhancing biodiversity and strengthening environmental stewardship, particularly in areas associated with driven grouse shooting. The management of grouse moors has been a topic of substantial debate, and we heard from witnesses regarding the economic importance of grouse shooting, but it is imperative that it is conducted responsibly and sustainably. Contrary to some opinions, and as far as I noted during our evidence sessions, this bill does not seek to condemn this practice but to evolve it and make it more fitting for a modern and conscientious world. The aim is to ensure that grouse moor management can positively contribute to our biodiversity goals and efforts to mitigate climate change. The prohibition of glue traps is an aspect of this legislation. During discussions with the British Pest Control Association, the potential impact of a ban on glue traps on public health and businesses was highlighted and noted. While some pest controllers may employ those traps under strict guidelines to minimise suffering, the enforcement and oversight still remain concerning. I acknowledge that some pest controllers employing glue traps have strict policies to mitigate against unnecessary and prolonged suffering, but I, along with many animal rights and veterinary organisations, still have serious and unresolved concerns about the enforcement and oversight of those policies. Instances of non-target species, including birds and domestic pets being trapped and subjected to agony, emphasise the need for outlawing those devices. I heard horrific stories of animals chewing off their own limbs to escape the trap. We cannot turn away from such agony and I wholly welcome the Government's plans to outlaw glue traps. I was just listening to Beatrice Wishart earlier talking about the potential of public health issues, especially in places such as hospitals and schools, because there is no real alternative in place. Is that a view that she shares? Do she have any concerns around hospitals, for example? Of course, absolutely. That is why I took the time to meet the British Pest Control Association away from committee, just to get absolute clarity on that. There are alternatives, and it may cost a little bit more, but that is the issue here. We have to look at a way in which we can help to prevent pest control in those areas and do it in a way that considers animal welfare. In a similar vein, the Government's plan to ban snares has been the subject of extensive discussion. I wish to bring a personal dimension to the issue. A couple of months ago, my beautiful wee ginger Tabycat, Tabitha, went missing. Over a week passed and I feared the worst, and I was at the point of rehearsing how I would broach the subject of her possibly never returning with the kids. She had never been missing for that long, and it had been almost two weeks. While I was at a surgery, my son texted me to say that she had returned, and he sent a shocking picture. She was so thin, her bones were protruding, and she looked in shock. He said that she was incredibly thirsty and hungry. The most distressing part of that was that the fire around her neck was missing, and it was not just bald, it was raw with open sores. My family and I were heartbroken at her state. Upon examination, we were told that the wounds inflicted upon Tabitha looked like those inflicted by snares, and that such a trap might explain her absence from home for so long. I will never forget the suffering of my animal, but I stress that my pet is no more valuable or entitled to more compassion than wild animals just because she has a name and a human family. I hope that the incident illustrates the broader implications of such traps on pets and wildlife, and I am delighted that the bill sends a clear message that the inhumane treatment of animals by the use of snares is intolerable in Scotland. Alongside those actions, the bill covers also introduces a comprehensive licensing regime for Muirburn. That practice, if unregulated, does pose risks to our delicate peatlands and diverse wildlife populations, and a new licensing system ensures that Muirburn can be conducted in a manner that prioritises environmental sustainability and safety. In conclusion, the bill is testament to Scotland's resolve to protect its natural heritage. It represents our commitment to future generations, ensuring that Scotland is a place where wildlife thrives and our rural practices are in harmony with nature. By endorsing the general principles of the bill, we are taking a significant step towards a Scotland that, as an exemplar in wildlife management and environmental stewardship. I now call Oliver Mundell to be followed by Kate Forbes. Oliver Mundell, around six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today, we again see an SNP green government not just turning its back on rural Scotland but attacking it, because make no mistake, that's what this bill is, another attack, dressed up in the cloak of so-called animal welfare without the evidence to back it up. Far from protecting the countryside, this SNP green government are overseeing its destruction. In the place of positive measures, all we get is ban after ban. It's all quite sad. This bill, once and for all, exposes the new reality, rather than listening to those who get their hands and their boots dirty looking after our natural environment. The SNP now takes its direction from extremists, and, if you don't believe me, you only need to look at the Green Party. It is welcomed into government with open arms. Those are the people who claim that they want to save the planet but who champion the wholesale industrialisation of our uplands, who seem wilfully oblivious to the impact that carpeting our uplands in Sickus Bruce in wind turbines actually has on nature and the habitats that many of our most vulnerable species rely on. I say to them, if you truly cared about raptor persecution, you might start asking why it's okay for them to be taken out by wind turbine blades. These are the people who claim to care about our moorlands but who want to see them diminished and even abandoned and see no problem enforcing those who do more for biodiversity than almost anyone else out of their jobs and off of the hills. Let's not kid ourselves because this is what this bill risks. Grandstanding in this Parliament on countryside issues you don't understand has real-world consequences but I guess if you never leave the central belt you wouldn't know that but the madness goes beyond that even with rats increasingly common in our urban communities in SNP Scotland concerns about tackling rodent infestations have been ignored. How hard would it have been to agree a rethink on the modest request from pest control representatives for a glue trap licence for professionals even as a measure of last resort? A similarly heavily handed approach and excessive measures are something peppered throughout the entire bill including vast and unnecessary delegated powers but they're not the only reason to smell a rat. It's clear there are some really nasty politics at play too. The countryside and people living in it are being used as a political football. Increasingly our way of life is demonised, false divisions are stoked up, fragile communities have never felt more abandoned and ignored. 25 years into this new Scottish Parliament life is worse for many living in rural Scotland and the very viability of their communities is increasingly coming into question. How can SNP MSPs representing rural communities go along with this? Do they really want more wildfires, rodent infestations, foxes wiping out ground nesting birds? Are gamekeepers and land managers endlessly tied up in bureaucracy and dealing with vexatious reports of wrongdoing instead of actually managing our landscapes, the landscapes they love and care about? Because that is what this bill means in reality. That is what lots of the evidence points to. No doubt those same colleagues would tell us not to worry and will justify their support for the bill this evening by saying it can be amended later. The problem is you cannot trust this Government or this Minister. In terms of the Government we've seen recently the reality of how the legislate now licensed later approach plays out following the recent changes to hunting with dogs. Political considerations put before the practicalities. Animals left to suffer, foxes out of control ahead of lambing season is just not right and not good enough and not what was promised. So how on earth can any weight be placed on the assurances we've been given in relation to this bill? We've also seen during stage one what listening to stakeholders really means for this Minister. Rural stakeholders were marched to the top of the hill only to be ignored by the Minister when she decided to go ahead and ban the use of snares and cable restraints without any licensing scheme for any purpose. This followed what seemed like a genuine request for a detailed proposal on a licensing scheme. But the game was given away by the Minister when she then rejected it just 24 hours after stakeholders gave evidence to this Parliament on the need for it. This would seem pretty discourteous and somewhat suggestive of predetermined thinking. However, what is most shocking is an FOI showed that the Minister did not undertake any detailed consideration of the evidence put to the committee before making that decision. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, this bill is just the latest in a long line of betrayals. SNP colleagues will no doubt help nod this bill through at decision time tonight, but we must not allow ourselves to become desensitised to what is happening. Thread by thread, the very fabric of rural Scotland is being unpicked. If we're not careful, it will be lost forever. Our country will be poorer for it. At some point, we have to say no more. Enough has to be enough. I cannot support the general principles of this deeply flawed and unevidence bill and nor could anyone who claims to stand up for rural Scotland. Thank you. I now call Kate Forbes to be followed by Colin Smith at around six minutes, Ms Forbes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I speak as somebody who has been elected by voters in rural Scotland to stand up for them. This summer, there were two massive wildfires in my constituency at Canich and in Daviet. It was reported at the time that the Canich wildfire might be one of the largest in the UK, and it certainly raged for days. Firefighters, local farm workers, forestry land workers and gamekeepers all turned out in force to combat the fire. Anybody who has seen images and video footage of the fire will be shocked as they see mile after mile of flames spread, fuelled by the density of bushes, heather and trees above ground that hadn't been tackled in a long time. The impact on the climate was catastrophic. Not only did it burn mile after mile of valuable peat, but it also emitted thousands of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. The smoke was reportedly visible from space. It destroyed habitats and biodiversity. Those fires are more devastating to our flora, our fauna and our net zero ambitions than any other activities on land. The committee on which I sit has supported the general principles of the bill, but what I want to unpack today is the importance. The committee did not take a position on the general principles. I heard Finlay Carson say in his comments that the committee had largely, so I apologise, I thought that was a quote. I generally support the general principles of the bill, but I also hope that the Government is able to respond to people's fears that the bill will reduce the tools available to combat wildfires and to commit to keeping this under constant review and to be willing to reconsider again some of the timescales and the requirements around Muirburn in order to ensure that we have all the tools that we need to respond to wildfires. In the weeks immediately after the wildfires that I have outlined, I arranged a wildfire summit. The warning from representatives, particularly in the fire service, was stark that we are likely to see such wildfires growing in intensity and magnitude, and we need every possible tool to control them. In the aftermath of the fire, I spoke to several local landowners, many of whom have thriving businesses.  In one situation, a brand new environmental low-carbon business, a state-of-the-art building, was under threat as the fire crept closer. I saw that business only a few weeks later and the ring of charcoal around it, but it was saved. It was saved because local gamekeepers turned up. Many had no personal or professional incentive to help—it was not their land or their livelihoods—but they turned up because they care. They care about the land, about biodiversity and about their neighbours. I attended a meeting that Kate Forbes was at about wildfires. One of the key aspects was that farmers create firebreaks, which is integral to protecting the biodiversity and protecting properties—exactly what she is talking about. The bill could remove the people doing that. I was going to come on it and unpack what is critical when it comes to the bill, because the bill still allows for mureburn to take place. The important point that I made earlier is that the Government is able to demonstrate that gamekeepers will still have the tools that they need. Gamekeepers are trained in mureburn. One landowner told me when I met them that, despite being sceptical perhaps about gamekeepers' practices in the past, they had been left in no doubt at all that it was gamekeepers' unique abilities that had saved them and had saved their business, because they had tried all other means of fighting the fire to no avail. I have taken quite a few, and I am keen to make three points that need to be articulated loud and clear by the Government. The first is that, to control fire, we cannot allow the fuel load to build up. We cannot allow trees, bushes and heather to build up in a way that allows wildfires to literally run wild, like we saw in Canary, because they are getting ever closer to people's homes and their businesses. There are other approaches that are recommended in the bill to reduce the fuel load, such as cutting. Of course, cutting leaves behind brush, which can then dry out and become tinder, so mureburn might be the only tool available to reduce the fuel load. Secondly, we must allow gamekeepers to continue to develop their experience and their expertise of carrying out mureburn. The very experience and expertise that many Highland communities will increasingly depend on when a wildfire breaks out. Lastly, I get that many people in the chamber will have varying views on estates and field sports. I am a long-standing champion of land reform and diverse use of our land, but I also care enormously about land managers, because they are integral to rural communities. Indeed, in one community that I visited just a matter of weeks ago, the local primary school is predominantly comprised of estate workers' children. Without them, the school closes. I do not want to see livelihoods threatened by a reduction investment when it comes to our rural communities. As I close, I know that this is stage 1 of the bill, but I want to say on the record—I know that some of them are in the gallery today—that we owe gamekeepers an enormous debt of gratitude. There are homes and businesses in my constituency that would have been burned to the ground had gamekeepers not turned out with the experience that they have. I think that we should work with them rather than against them. I know that the minister is committed to engaging with them, understanding and ensuring that the legislation and the guidance that follows it, particularly when it comes to licensing, should be cognisant of their views and of their practices in order to ensure that we are all safer with them being able to carry out their professional activities as they should be permitted to do. Colin Smyth, to be followed by Jim Fairlie around six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This bill has been a long time coming. It is eight years since reports by RSPB and then Scottish Natural Heritage showed that raptor persecution was often linked to driven grouse moors. It is seven years since this prompted the Scottish Government to commission the wearity review. It is four years since that independent review reported to Government with clear recommendations, including the leisden scheme for the shooting of grouse and that all moor burns should be subject to increased legal regulation. It is three years since the Government responded with a commitment to action. On many who believe that action does not go far enough that the killing of animals to protect another animal solely for the purpose of killing that animal for sport, the so-called circle of destruction as revived, describe it, is itself cruel. I have certainly been on record as saying that you cannot licence cruelty. However, I recognise that this bill is not about restricting grouse shooting. It is primarily a modest proposal to licence it, to regulate an inadequately regulated sector, although you would be forgiven for thinking that it was much more given some of the hysterical opposition to those modest proposals. Licensing is not a new thing. It is what natureScot do professionally and robustly on a daily basis for a variety of purposes. Law-abiding businesses have nothing to fear from licensing, and frankly, it is remarkable that, before now, we have never had a licensing scheme for grouse shooting. However, there are ways in which what is very much an unfinished bill can and should be strengthened. I welcome the Government's commitment to do so by firstly bringing an amendment at stage 2 to deliver a comprehensive ban on snares, and I congratulate those such as one kind who have championed this cause for many years. One of the first member's debates that I brought to this chamber was on ban on snares back in 2017. The Government opposed it then, and then on the many occasions I raised it, the wasted years, defending what is cruel, unnecessary and indiscriminate. Both snares and glue traps cause immeasurable suffering to animals caught in them, and their use cannot be justified. That is why the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has recommended that both are banned. It is why a comprehensive ban has just been introduced in Wales, and it is why a ban exists across much of Europe. Let's get on with it in Scotland and let's see through those attempts to rebrand snares as human or human cable restraints and any pretends that who sets a glue trap somehow makes it any less cruel. We should also strengthen the provisions in the bill in relation to traps, not just licensing them and requiring training, but making it a requirement to provide data on all trapped and killed animals. We should look to expand the traps, including the bill reviewing all types in Scotland to assess animal welfare impacts and the reasons for their use. We should ensure that licences are only granted, because there is a robust reason for their use. I am sorry that it is not to help rare grouse for shooting. That is a position that is backed by the public. Independent polling by Diffley Partnership for Revive showed that, although there was support for the use of traps for conservation and livestock protection, there was no support for its use in enhancing grouse numbers. I have spoken previously on the need to incorporate the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control into our policies on wildlife management. We could start by using those principles and assessing any licence for the use of traps. Any licensing scheme also needs to be properly resourced. At a time that we are always told when we raise issues in this Parliament that there is no money, the Government should be making the licensing scheme in this bill fully recoverable. NatureScot are experienced in running schemes, but the addition of trapping licensing and the licensing of grouse mirrors, as well as the burden of licensing brought in by the Hunting with Dogs Act, will need an expansion of licensing teams. That should be funded through the scheme itself. I also have a lot of sympathy for the arguments that licensing should be for a longer period than one year, a period that would be burdensome for applicants and NatureScot. Maybe a period of up to three years is more realistic with scope for appropriate review and updating in between. The short time I have, I also want to touch on the issue of Muirburn. Again, the proposal is unmodest. There are no plans for a ban even on peatland, but again the bill can be improved. If we are to support the principle of a Muirburn season, RSPB makes a powerful case for ending that season on 15 March to protect nesting birds, given that several species are breeding earlier than historically due to climate change. With the current suggested 15 April, the conclusion of the season overlapping with nesting by eagles, cullew and redgulls. I will give way on that. I have some information here about the nesting concerns that you are talking about. The golden plover definitely could be nesting by 15 April. You could have potentially stone chat nesting by 15 April, but they will not be nesting in the areas where Muirburn will be happening. Peregrins could be nesting earlier, but they are far more likely to be in crags where they are not likely to get Muirburn. However, the vast majority of the ground nesting birds that we are trying to protect will not properly start nesting down until April 30. Colin Smyth, I can give you the time back. There is also evidence to say that the date of 15 April for a conclusion of the season overlaps with nesting by eagles, cullew and redgulls. There is a discussion to be had about whether that date, given the fact that we know that a lot of birds are nesting earlier because of climate change, is the most appropriate debate. RSPB also makes a strong case for lowering the depth definition for peat to 30 centimetres in line with the UK peatland strategy and the code. There are many issues that I have not had time to touch on, and I look forward to contributing to discussions at stage 2 and stage 3 to hopefully improve a bill that still requires a lot of work. I also look forward to supporting the principles of the bill at decision time. The bill does, at long last, provide a tangible deterrent to the on-going problem of raptor persigusion. It will not solve it, but it does. The member is winding up, I am afraid. I would love to give way to Mr Carson. I am sure that it would be a supportive comment, but I do think that— I wonder whether I could take this opportunity to invite Mr Smyth to refer to his register of interest as a member of the League Against Cruel Sports. That is not the point of order, Mr Carson. It is up to members themselves to indicate any interest that they need to declare. Mr Smyth, if you could conclude, please. I am perfectly aware of the rules around voluntary interest, and maybe Mr Carson wants to go and read those rules himself when he actually makes comments like this. In conclusion, I think that the bill will provide accountability when it comes to land management practices such as Muirburn and Trapp. It will help us to begin to tackle the problem of raptor persigusion, and it will take a small step in the giant leap that we still need to make in improving animal welfare. Doon Fairleigh to be followed by Ari Amberg just around six minutes, Mr Fairleigh. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This bill is the latest iteration in response to the completely heinous and unacceptable practice of raptor persigusion in Scotland's countryside. Now, it has undoubtedly grown in scope since the very report, but that is no bad thing. As long as we get the balance right in protecting wildlife, helping to tackle climate change, creating biodiversity and meeting the needs of those hard-working men and women who are the bedrock of our rural population, the farmers, the shepherds, the cattlemen, the tractormen, the keepers, the estate workers and all the associated downstream sector workers. It is in that spirit that I am recognising those rural workers. I am delighted to wear this hand-crafted piece from my constituent, Oiona McGregor, who was previously mentioned by Rachel Hamlin, who lives in the Logiamond hills, the very same glen that I farmed before I came into this place. It is the support of all those workers that I am proud to wear today, because they are an essential component of our rural population. Helping to keep local schools, pubs, shops, garages and in winter rural roads open, they are also the fourth emergency service, as my colleague Kate Forbes just alluded to. Deep population in our rural communities is something that we should not only be discouraging but actively seeking to reverse. There is no doubt that areas of this bill are going to be contentious. In the stage 2 debate will undoubtedly be an exercise in negotiation and compromise, which I would encourage everyone in this chamber to have, because those negotiations and compromises will be with the people who are sitting in the gallery. I very much welcome the minister's plan to bring an amendment to end the trap tampering legislation that we talked about earlier on. I will be supporting the general principles of the bill without hesitation, and I look forward to stage 2 sessions in order to shape a bill so that it works in the spirit of what the bill is set out to do. Given the function of this bill and the general acceptance of the almost entire population of this country, climate change and biodiversity loss are not only a serious matter but, in fact, it is essential to manage. It is something that is very interesting to hear. Some of the outcry from people when they realise that what that means is that actions in their area are needed to tackle the issues, and all of a sudden the enthusiasm and the agreement that we need to get something done suddenly changes, and usually to the point where we need to agree to do something, but just not here. With that in mind, I am very heartened with the conversations with almost to a person, the farmers, land managers and keepers, who not only accept the challenges that we face in climate change and biodiversity loss, but they are looking to actively play their part in reversing the decline and delivering for nature. Delivering for the climate and, as importantly, delivering for the rural communities whose very existence relies on a viable, healthy working rural environment that we are all striving to deliver. As a boy, my fascination was a total preoccupation with birds, and in particular birds of prey with my favourite being the Peregrine Falcon. So I have to say that I was deeply miffed when Bob Doris was made the wildlife champion. The spring burn from Glasgow MSP, I have to say, was made the wildlife champion for the Peregrine Falcon. I questioned the validity of Bob Doris. I questioned the validity of bold Bob Doris getting in before to pinch my Peregrine Falcon from out in front to me, because, after all, Bob is a city boy, and I'm a tuctor. So surely it's only right that the country loon gets the majestic Peregrine Falcon to champion. But as I sat in my office here in the Parliament looking out of the window for inspiration, I was more and a bit surprised to witness a Peregrine Falcon flying over the buildings of our capital city and had to concede that Bob, the city boy, was absolutely entitled to his Peregrine when they were now in such rude health as to be hunting the city pigeons over our capital city.  I may have made light in this contribution of some of the serious issues that we really need to tackle and we seek to do in this bill, but I'm determined to work with all the stakeholders as we progress the bill through stage 2 at committee to try and find the right compromises in the same way as we did with the hunting with dogs bill so that they continue to represent our rural constituencies and tackle the issues. He's talking about compromises. He hasn't quite addressed some of the other issues in this bill. Which areas is he looking for the Government to make some compromises? There are numerous areas that are going to be decided through compromise, through conversation and through quiet negotiation with the stakeholders at hand, so there are many that might be getting through. However, we've had Finlay Carson, Rachel Hamilton and Oliver Mundell all say that the licensing scheme for hunting with dogs has been a disaster. I can tell you that the first licence has already been granted for hunting with dogs. It's happening here today, and the Atle and Bridalbon have got their licence, so Nature's Scott are working with the practitioners to make sure that they can make this work. However, I cannot mention the Peregrine Falcon through all of my iterations today without passing comment on the perpetrators of the absolutely heinous crime committed in the Pentlands this week, where an illegally set pole trap was used to catch and kill one of those magnificent birds. I do not have the words in me to express my disgust at the perpetrators. I hope that, in the fullness of time, they are caught and the full force of the law is brought to them. Thank you very much. I am Burgess to be followed by Stephen Kerr in six minutes, Ms Burgess. Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of attending the Revive Coalition's national conference. The event brought together a great number and a wide variety of people, many living and working in rural Scotland, to ask us to consider what land management practices best serve the needs of Scotland's people and natural world in this century and what changes can help us in the face of the nature and climate crises. Those are the very questions that the committee has been grappling with as we considered the core aspects of the bill. I wish to thank my fellow committee members, witnesses, stakeholders and the Parliament clerks who have supported us during stage 1. I want to be clear at the outset that I and the Scottish Green Party fully support the measures in the bill. For context, so to do the majority of people in Scotland, polling from Revive shows that the majority of Scots oppose the use of wildlife traps, and you are burned for the purpose of increasing grass numbers, and that six in 10 are opposed to grass shooting. Events just this week have been mentioned and further underlined how vital this legislation is. On Monday, Police Scotland announced that a young golden eagle, one of the success stories from the South of Scotland translocation programme, has been missing since the 18th of October, when it was last located in the Scottish Borders. The police statement says that, quote, officers believe that the bird has come to harm and are treating its disappearance as suspicious. Barely 24 hours later, another police appeal was issued about the peregun falcon that Jim Fairlie mentions, found dead in an illegally set pull trap just outside of Edinburgh. Our protected birds of prey are not safe under the current law. RSPB's latest bird crime report found that, in 2022, at least 64 per cent of the total incidence of raptor persecution across the UK were linked to land managed for pheasant, partridge and grouse shooting. That is the same evidential link that led the Scottish Government to consider legislative options back in the last Parliament. The grouse moral licensing provisions in this bill will set basic requirements for sporting businesses to comply with, guided by co-produced code of practice. That will ensure that the majority of businesses that currently follow the law can continue to operate above suspicion while raising the bar on those who persist in undertaking illegal management practices. I am particularly pleased that the Government has committed to bringing forward additional provisions at stage 2 to extend the Scottish SPCA's powers and to fully ban snares, while the committee as a whole could not reach a consensus view on the SNARE proposal. I am convinced by the overwhelming evidence that we heard from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and others that the very real harm caused by snares, whether of a traditional or more recent design, cannot be mitigated. This ban is warranted on the weight of the animal welfare impact alone. An animal caught in a snare is injured, highly stressed, exposed to the elements and other predators, denied food and water. Of course, snares are completely indiscriminate. A fox can be trapped, but so to have unintended species, including otters and even pets, as we heard already from my colleague Karen Adams. Conservation organisations spoke of the alternative approaches that they employ to protect important bird species from predation. A ban on snares is a mark of the high regard that this country has for its iconic wildlife. On the minister's plans to extend the Scottish SPCA's powers, again, I am in full support. We heard in evidence on several occasions of scenarios where the Scottish SPCA officer called to attend an injured animal caught in an illegally set trap, cannot investigate or seize appropriate evidence of illegal activity because the animal has died by the time they arrive. Their current powers do not cover that sort of situation, but the proposed extension of powers would allow evidence of wildlife crime in such circumstances to be gathered by inspectors. The change expands our ability to bring more of those perpetuating wildlife crimes to justice and protect the reputation of those businesses that do abide by the law. Turning to other aspects of the bill in my remaining time, I agree with the proposals to require those setting wildlife traps. Can you resume your seat a second, Ms Burgess? Mr Mountain, that falls well outside the courtesy and respect requirements that are on all members throughout the course of their business in the team. I apologise profusely if I have overset the mark. I would like to lodge an intervention. In the way that I have done, I am going to continue and also because I am concerned about time. Turning to the other aspects of the bill in my remaining time, I agree with the proposals to require those setting wildlife traps to register with NatureScot undergo training and display identification numbers on their traps. Last but not by no means least, the provision on licencing mureburn takes us a step further in responding to the climate emergency by protecting Scotland's peatlands and their vital role of locking up carbon emissions. We have heard debate about the extent of peatlands that should be included in the licence schemes that, with a depth of 50, 40 or 30 centimetres, yet there are many scientists who recognise that all peat is peat and that all of it merits protection. The proposals before us strike a balance of limiting what mureburn occurs and when, while allowing the Government to gather better data on why mureburn is practised by whom and by where. I will take an intervention from Finlay Carson. Thank you for giving way. Can you tell me where we heard any evidence of peat being damaged under controlled mureburn conditions? Thank you very much for that. As I said, from my perspective, peat is peat and we should be considering seriously whether we are burning anywhere. I will seek further discussion with the minister at stage 2 on the proposed dates for the mureburn season to ensure that burning activity does not interfere with the nesting bird season, which is occurring earlier each year due to climate change. To conclude, this Parliament must legislate for the Scotland of the Future, a future that will see us grappling with the consequences of climate and nature crises. The bill gives the Government the tools needed to better protect Scotland's wildlife and ensure that peatlands are restored and that our uplands are fit for the future. I am pleased to support the principles of the bill. Stephen Kerr, to be followed by Alasdair Allan in around six minutes. I am budgeted. It is quite wrong. We would legislate for the Scotland of the Present. We have to deal with the present realities. That is something that the members who are proposing and supporting this particular bill do not seem to have a grasp of. I would love to have heard from Karen Adam what the British Press Control Association said was a better way of controlling the rat population that is exponentially increasing in our cities, particularly in hospitals and other sensitive areas. The intervention was offered that she would say so, but she did not tell us what those would be. I would. I would be delighted to hear what those are. The member says that I did not say what would be a better solution. Perhaps there are alternatives, and we know that there are alternatives, but perhaps it is because we are consistently using the glue traps and not the alternatives that we cannot get better bearing on that. Stephen Kerr will show that Karen Adam said that she had met with the British Press Control Association outside of committee and they had told her that there were better methods even if they were slightly more expensive. That suggested that something very specific had been shared with Karen Adam. I think that it is something that should be shared with the whole chamber. I always enjoyed listening to Kate Forbes. I have to say that she is an excellent speaker in this chamber in whatever position she takes, but she gave a very political speech saying very little about the areas of the bill that I am sure, in her heart of heart, knows are absolutely not what rural Scotland wants to hear. Likewise, Jim Fairlie gave another very clever speech for Jim Fairlie, especially a wonderfully clever speech, saying absolutely nothing about the things that are in this bill that he will know the people in his constituency who work the land do not want, and I will always give way to Kate Forbes. Very good, because I appreciate that I did not let him intervene on me, so thank you so much. What I was trying to say in my remarks, and I will say it again, is that I think that the licensing scheme cannot be onerous. If it is onerous and overly bureaucratic, then we may not end up with the mirror burn that we need. There is an actual example of an area that I would like to see some compromise on. Stephen Kerr. Welcome, but of course there are many other things in this bill, and of course I will give way to Jim Fairlie, because I mentioned him and he is entitled to have he said. Jim Fairlie. Thank you very much to Mr Kerr for taking the intervention. I think that the point of the speech that I made today was to support the general principles of the bill, but talking about the fact that there is going to be an awful lot of negotiation that gets done, there are areas in this bill that will have to be looked at, but it will be done quietly, it will be done properly, and it will be done in a way without the booyah politics that seems to be going on in here. Stephen Kerr. Well, Jim Fairlie is in favour of the principles of the bill, but then he says that a lot of it will need to be changed. Therefore, I would suggest that, if that is the case, you cannot be in favour of the principles of the bill, you have to vote against the bill, but I am sure that that is not going to happen, because I have been around here for long enough to know that that is not how the SNP works. I have been listening with great interest to the debate this afternoon. One thing I picked up from the report was the tension between expert knowledge of scientists and local knowledge held by practitioners in the field. In my view, the comments that Jim Fairlie made were absolutely appropriate, in that there has to be discussion and there has to be consideration given by all sides. Of course there does, but if you say that you are in favour of the principles of the bill, and then you say that there is going to be a lot of compromising and a lot of discussion, a lot of it, because a lot of this bill is not what is needed by rural Scotland, and the members opposite who represent rural constituencies know that very well, and I am not sure that I am going to be allowed to take many more interventions. I am not going to be able to give you back all the time, Mr Kerr. As much as I love a good and proper debate, which sometimes we occasionally have in this chamber, the fact is that this bill shows, writ large, the blinkered and dogmatic thinking of this green-led SNP Government, because that is what it is. What it reveals is a Government that is unwilling to listen. We heard the story about how stakeholders came to my friend's committee, convener's committee, rural affairs, gave their evidence less than 24 hours later, without that evidence ever being considered, everything was overturned, and I would love to, can I? I would love to, can I? It is up to you, Mr Kerr. I can give you some of the time to think about it. Some of the time is fine. Mr Kerr would be forgiven for not realising, because he is not on the committee that the committee asked me to make a decision on snaring, when I gave evidence the week before, and I committed to giving them that decision, which happened the day after I think the evidence was given on snaring from the stakeholders. So it was the committee that asked for that. Stephen King I was advised that the minister would say exactly that. The reality is that there were many other issues that the minister has asked to come back to the committee and didn't abide by their timetable, so she could easily have said to the convener, who is one of the most reasonable people in this Parliament, by the way, that she wanted more time to consider the evidence, the evidence that had been presented the day before in that committee. However, this is a Government driven less by pragmatism—in fact, not at all by pragmatism—and completely driven by ideology, and it shows itself again today as caring nothing for the views of people who live and work in rural Scotland. The member's opposite, I think, knows that in their heart of hearts. This is a Government that is enthralled now to this ideology and is dangerous. Muirburn is an essential part of managing the countryside, but with the SNP Green Government's proposals that change to protect Scotland's peatlands, it is a perfect showcase of how prioritising optics over expertise leads to dangerous legislation. The idea that someone in Edinburgh knows better than people who have been stewards of our land for generations is actually downright offensive. Curiosity and rigorous fact-finding before making decisions used to be a prerequisite for entering public service, but this SNP Green Government is different. It will actually sit on any backbencher who dares to ask difficult questions, who dares to be curious but instead rewards blind loyalty. If members on the Government benches continue to refuse to heed the warnings and insights of those who truly understand the matters that are before this Parliament in this bill, all of Scotland will suffer the consequences, because this bill, like many others pushed by the SNP Green Government, falls shockingly short in substance and at the same time overreaches itself. In fact, it significantly elevates the risk of wild fires, a point made by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, who have warned that restricting mure-born locations could leave a larger fuel load unmanaged, heightening the risk of devastating wildfires that could harm peatlands. I have taken a lot of interventions and I know that the Presiding Officer has been very generous with me. There are many other things that I would like to have mentioned. I would like to have mentioned licensing. I would like to have mentioned the idea that we need to extend the powers of the SSPCA, which I do not support. There are many other issues, but the bottom line of my appeal to members on this side when we come to decision time, Presiding Officer, is that they vote according to what they know is right by their constituencies and not what they have been told by a chief whip. I now call Alasdair Allan, around six minutes. That, as others have pointed out, is a bill that deals with very disparate subjects, with its title attempts to deal with that fact honestly. A noble like that, of course, will ever please every interest group, but it does in this case do what it says on the legislative tin. More importantly, it is a genuine attempt to address several real concerns about animal welfare and biodiversity, while balancing those needs against the genuine interests of those who work in the countryside, in pest control and in other areas of the economy. With that in mind, as a member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I am happy to support the general principles of the bill and to recommend it to Parliament for further consideration. Incidentally, there is not a contradiction between supporting the general principles of the bill and recommending it for further consideration. I mention my own thanks to other members of the committee, to the committee clats and to the many individuals and organisations who have provided us with evidence, both in person and in writing. Collectively, they have allowed the committee to produce the stage 1 report that we are debating today. I am not going to get round every aspect of the bill in the time available, but a substantial part of the bill's scope deals with wildlife crime and, in particular, with the issue of raptor persecution, as the minister mentioned. Raptor persecution is, by its very nature, a crime largely committed without human witnesses. We received significant evidence that, as a consequence of that fact, the criminal standard of evidence that currently applies around raptor persecution cases is proving hard, indeed perhaps virtually impossible to meet. That is true even in situations where significant concerns exist about the activities on a particular land holding. In contrast with the rather fevered contribution that we have heard from Mr Mundell, in RSPB Scotland's evidence, it pointed to an overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed science, innumerable police investigations and a considerable amount of witness evidence proving that crimes against raptors are inextricably linked to grouse labour management. They highlighted a May 2023 study, which analysed data from over 140 satellite-tagged hen harriers, which revealed very low, in their words, very low survival rates and shows that mortality hazards due to illegal killing were higher for birds using upland areas managed for grouse shooting. The committee heard significant evidence that, while the vast majority of land managers, including, I should say, the vast majority of grouse moors, while they are working within the law, a licence scheme around grouse moor estates is a proportionate response to ensure that raptor persecution where it happens is being tackled. I am not going to speak, as I say, about everything in the bill and the time available, others I am sure will speak about snaring and other issues. However, I would briefly mention something about Muirburn, one of the other major subjects of the bill. The committee heard evidence from a variety of sectors including relevant to my own area crofting. The Scottish Crofting Federation raised its questions about how any new regulation would be designed and implemented with crofting in mind as well as estates. Whatever system we use, it will need clarity in terms of responsibility for applications for Muirburn on common grazings and how that might impact liability, so I am sure that we will return to those issues. On a completely different subject again, one of the more unlikely questions that the committee has had to take evidence on in the bill concerns, as others have alluded to, is the trapping of mice and rats and how welfare concerns can be reconciled with legitimate pest control practices, not least in the health and hospitality sectors. It is undeniable that glue traps pose significant animal welfare concerns. Their indiscriminate nature means that, as well as rodents, unintended targets such as small birds or other animals can also be trapped, and the committee also heard evidence of the inappropriate use of these traps by members of the public. There is a general agreement that those traps should not be available for the general public to purchase. The committee also heard, however, from the pest control industry about their preference for a licensing scheme to permit the continued use of glue traps in high-risk settings, as others have alluded to, where it may be difficult to find alternative solutions. While the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission told the committee that a couple more years should bring better solutions for those settings, it has recommended a fallback option for a fixed term, meaning a maximum of three years of very strict licensing schemes for pest controllers while those alternatives are being investigated. Incidentally, that is one area of the bill where it will be interesting to see whether the UK Internal Market Act will impose constraints on the ability of the Parliament's legislation to have practical effect. I appreciate that I have made this point before, but it is somewhat incredible that this place, which some members have disputatiously claimed to be the most evolved Parliament in the world, should require the blessing of the UK Government before it can effectively change the law on rat traps. However, there you go. As the report indicates, there are questions to which Parliament will have to return with further scrutiny and debate. That is what happens in stage 2 of legislation for those who do not seem to understand that. However, I am very happy to support the general principles of the bill and to recommend it to parliaments for their consideration. Thank you, Dr Allan. We now move to the closing speeches. Just to advise the chamber what time we had in hand has now been pretty much exhausted, so I am going to have to require members to stick to their time allocations. I call first Sarah Boyack up to six minutes, Ms Boyack. I first of all want to thank everyone on the committee, the clerks and all those who gave evidence on the wildlife management and new burn bill, because it is clearly a set of legislative proposals that have generated responses with a wide range of views, and it is also clear reading the committee report that there is still much more needing to be done on the topics addressed by the bill. Essentially, the bill is unfinished, and the committee and the Parliament will have to do a lot more work to make sure that it delivers on the ambitions set out by the minister in her opening remarks. However, it is also rare for me to see not just the detailed submissions from such a raft of stakeholders, but for the committee's recommendations to identify the range of areas where more work needs to be done before the bill is finalised. Today has been very useful in highlighting those debates. For me, the principle of humane wildlife control and land management enables rural businesses to be successful while at the same time supporting biodiversity is vital. However, we also need to join up some of the other debates that we are having in this chamber and address the challenge posed by climate change and extreme weather. That means a more joined-up approach in policy terms, but also in action to ensure that the management of our land is sustainable going forward, whether it is dealing with increased incidents of flooding or the impacts of droughts leading to more and more fires across land when it dries out or is degraded. I think that the comments by Kate Forbes were actually quite important in highlighting the impact of that. For me, what I take away is that we need to involve and support land managers to manage Moorlands and Peatlands, because that is critical if we are going to support rural jobs and livelihoods, but it is also important for the safety and the long-standing contribution that we can make in terms of climate change. There is also a key issue here in terms of resources that I am going to come back to. In relation to the key aspects of the bill, Scottish Labour very much supports the principles in terms of humane wildlife control and biodiversity, the proposals to ban glue traps, tackling raptor persecution and banning traditional snares, and the evidence that the committee got from animal welfare groups and nature conservation organisations have actually been powerful evidence on the need for legislation, but I thought the points made by Alasdair Allan about the period evidence highlighted by our SPB was important. I think that there is a key issue here about looking at the evidence and having more evidence carried out as this legislation is implemented and as the licensing regimes are developed and implemented because we need a lot more work done to make these ambitions successful. I think that that goes back to the point that I made about a joined-up approach to work with land managers and farmers to ensure that the implementation of the bill will work. If you look at the recommendations from the Grousmer management group and the research by the national wildlife crime route at RSPB Scotland, that all needs to feed into this legislation so that you have a pragmatic approach to the licensing that is being suggested and to make sure that that is managed as it is introduced. One of the things that I think is clear from looking at the evidence is that there is a major challenge in terms of resourcing its implementation. Our police are already under huge financial pressures, so it is important that there are new resources for new obligations that follow from this bill, whether it is the police or NatureScot. One issue to pick up while we can see merit to giving additional powers of investigation to SSPCA officers, Scottish Labour, we believe, having looked at the evidence that police have to retain the primacy over wildlife crime investigations and there were concerns raised by legal stakeholders which need to be addressed, so that again needs more investment in additional training, with protocols being developed that are transparent and do not undermine our criminal justice system. There have been quite a few discussions this afternoon about the licensing schemes being proposed. They need to be implemented successfully and it is important that they do not create unintended consequences. Again, we need to see them designed effectively. If there is a brief comment, yes? As the bill stands, NatureScot requires nothing more than an accusation of crime to suspend a licence and that will affect jobs and livelihoods. Does the member agree that it could also contraffin article 6 of the ECHR? I think that we need to look at the evidence that there is clear evidence of wrongdoing out there and it needs to be challenged, so standards need to be raised but it needs to be proper and effective enforcement. The points made about licensing in terms of not doing annual licensing rounds but making it longer, those are the kind of details that came out in the committee evidence that is important. I think that there is a lot of work to be done by the Scottish Government to ensure by the time that we get the bill through stage 3 that it has been effectively amended so that it will cover the areas of uncertainty highlighted by the committee. I think that the points made by Rhoda Grant in relation to Muirburn also need to be considered because we need that new regime to be effective. It needs a joined-up approach from stakeholders, Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, Land Managers and NatureScot, because we critically need well-managed Moorlands and Peatlands that do not just support biodiversity but also support rural jobs. That is the dialogue that has been in the chamber today that needs to keep going into the committee. Does not mean that we will get unanimous agreement on the bill, but we need to use stage 2 to improve the legislation so that we have monitoring, that we have reviewing of the licensing regimes—there is a commitment from ministers on that—to ensure that those regimes are proportionate and to address the points made by Colin Smyth that they are really important because they will actually make a difference in our communities, they will improve biodiversity, they will improve wildlife, they will stop the abusive wildlife that we are currently seeing and critically that those implementing those new regimes have the staff and the resources to make them effective. Scottish Labour will support this legislation this afternoon, but we have been listening to the comments made by a range of stakeholders. We support the ambitions, but in crafting amendments and thinking through how it will be implemented, we need to listen to the evidence that has been given to the committee and that has been discussed and flagged up in this chamber today. I reiterate my apology for my intemporate amendment to Arianne Burgess and would, of course, be prepared to give way to her if she wants to interrupt or make an intervention during my speech. I will declare that I have no registered interest in Moorland and Muirburn aspects of this bill. However, I do want to make it clear that I have an interest in what this bill aims to do, especially in relation to trapping. For many years, Presiding Officer, probably over 40, I have been involved in upland management. I have learned that achieving a balance is what is best for the environment. No-one wants a desert and this is often the consequence of over or indeed under management. Presiding Officer, I will admit to getting blood on my hands controlling and fighting Moorland fires, from culling deer, from creating habitats and defending them and from protecting lambs and ground-nesting birds from predation. I have got dirt under my fingernails and I have been covered in soot and I am proud of what I have done and I am proud of what I have achieved and I am proud of what I have achieved and led others to do. Some of this may seem unacceptable to those who seek to make changes in the way that we manage our country's size, but those are the people who have often become instant experts by reading bias briefings. Their hands are dirty from the ink on the paper of those briefings and the blood they have shed are from the paper cuts from turning the pages, not from working the countryside. They have never spent freezing nights out between cold, wet nights waiting for foxes that steal their lambs or spent days fighting fires. That is why those people in the countryside feel ignored and marginalised. Let me be clear, managing wildlife is grwling hard work and requires balance between giving life and ending life. Those in the countryside know that and accept it and I stand here somewhat disappointed in the arguments that I have heard during the evidence session, which have often been uninformed and based on arguments put forward by single-issue pressure groups who do not promote balance. Turning to the points that have been raised in the debate this afternoon on grassmore licensing, I do not believe that the minister is right that grassmore licensing will prevent illegal raptor persecution. I believe that illegal raptor persecution is a scourge, and I have always said that, but I do not think that licensing will make a difference. But I believe that because of the way that this bill is being forced through, it will come. But I believe that the minister is going to make this law. Sorry, I guess I will take an intervention. Keith Ford. Thank you to the member. I mean this in all sincerity. What would he suggest might end raptor persecution in terms of the Government considering what could be done further? Edward Mayne. A huge amount has been done on raptor persecution, which I will cover separately, the fact that there are any six incidents last year shows the huge decline that there should be. But there should be increased fines, in my opinion, and there should be increased policing. Going back to the point on grassmore licensing, I do believe that the minister needs to consider making the terms of a licence, or the length of a licence, much longer. I think that five years is the minimum amount of period, a huge amount of investment is incurred in the countryside. And I personally do not like NatureScot being the judge, jury and executioner. What I have seen of them in the past means that they are not always fair, and those that fall under their clutches and meet their disapproval often don't feel they've been treated fairly. Now I would be more convinced of supporting a form of licensing if I believe that NatureScot were taken out of the equation. I don't believe that I can though, because I don't believe that they are an honest broker. I am just interested in what the member is saying. Who then should be in charge of the licensing regime of Non-NatureScot? I thank the member for that intervention. What we do know is that in the European courts, that is never considered a good thing to have one person being responsible for issuing the licence, for regulating the licence and for prosecuting those people that don't do it. So I think that we need to find a new body. I don't know the answer. I would like to talk on wrapped persecution though, and I believe that we will hear, and many will have heard the RSPB saying that the six birds of death offences that were in 2023 were the tip of the iceberg. They perhaps were the tip of the iceberg and they were unacceptable, but let me be entirely clear from freedom of information requests that I have done on NatureScot. I am clear that in 2021 11 birds of prey were chopped up by wind turbine, and they were the tip of the iceberg. That included two golden eagles and a white tail sea eagle. That is unacceptable in the same way that it is unacceptable that people persecute raptors. Oliver Mundell was right when he brought that up. Now, when it comes to mule burn, I'm probably one of the few people, and I'll take an intervention from anyone who wants to make it, who's actually done a considerable amount of mule burn. There's 25 pages in the mule burn code. I think I know them pretty well, and it's a pretty good code. In fact, I've gone to arbitration over the mule burn code with NatureScot and won the arbitration because they didn't understand it as well as I did. And I think if the mule burn code is abided by, then it is the right thing to do. There is no doubt in my mind that burning bits of heather, which is on short peat, ie small peat, is probably the wrong thing to do because it's probably on the higher ground. Now, Presiding Officer, I am conscious that I'm running out of time, but I do just want to mention snaring before I go on. And that is the fact on snaring. What I haven't heard is a logical alternative. Let me be clear, placing live traps around the countryside does not really work. I believe that snaring does work, and if the snares are operated correctly and within the law, they should not cause suffering. Now, I hear Karen Adams' comment, and I'm deeply disturbed to know that that happened. My comment to you is that if it was a legal snare and had been operated within the guidance and the rules that people are trained to use, that could not have happened. So somebody must have done something wrong. When it comes to glue traps, I believe that the argument for banning glue traps is a bad one. I think the argument for banning it from public use is a good one. Therefore, I would like to see regulation to allow professionals to use it. I don't accept the Government's point of view that you can't challenge that professionally for the simple reason that you've done that on snaring. There are rules, and you have to pass, of course, to be allowed to snare. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, I cannot support this Bill, and neither could the committee, but I know that it will be forced through by a majority of urban MSPs. MSPs with the best intention that have never faced some of the issues that we are discussing. Muirburn is a vital tool in our armory in preventing wildfires, and there ain't much heather around Edward and Glasgow. Snaring might seem cruel, but is it more cruel for a fox or a badger eating the rear end of a sheet that's in the process of lambing? Is chopping up birds of prey and turbines as unacceptable as poisoning and shooting them? I believe it is. Therefore, Presiding Officer, I cannot support this Bill, because I don't believe that it supports the countryside and the environment that we should be supporting in this Parliament. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Mountain. I now call on the minister to wind up the debate up to eight minutes, Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As I close the debate, I want to thank all the stakeholders who have engaged with me and contributed to the development of the Bill, and indeed, obviously, they've given a lot of evidence around this. I'd also like to thank the members who have spoken in the debate today. They've been varied contributions, I've enjoyed some more than others, I have to say, but I'll continue to reflect on all the points that have been made and go through them, if I could. The convener mentioned in the glue traps speed of things about the dispensation for pest controllers around using glue traps. However, this is inherently problematic, and I have looked into this, because there's no actual accreditation. I have to point out to the other countries that have banned glue traps and, obviously, Wales has recently put that in place. However, other countries have had them banned for years, and I point to New Zealand, who actually did have some kind of licensing scheme in place, but have never awarded any of the licences for doing it, because, as somebody put in a report, there was a report written by pest controllers saying that they have moved on from them. They just haven't really been something that they have missed. He also mentioned the suspension of licences over vexatious complaints. I'm going to consider, and I have said to the committee, the wording around this in the bill and the clarity is needed on what an official investigation would mean. However, it is not true to say, as Rachel Hamilton did, that a licence will be suspended on the basis of an accusation. That is not true in any sphere of law at all. You need evidence, you need an investigation, so that's not true. I think that that kind of rhetoric around that is deeply worrying for people, I will, because I have mentioned her. Rachel Hamilton. There are two standards of proof in Scotland, and they are the civil and criminal burden of proof. This bill introduces a power to punish without proof, and that is categorically correct. I disagree with that point wholeheartedly. NatureScot will look at every case in its own merit, working closely with Police Scotland and reacting in step with the seriousness of the potential licence conditions that have been broken. I want to move on to talking about some of the other contributions. Rachel Hamilton mentioned the committee's evidence that it took, but she did not recognise that she had the privilege of having Professor Weryty's team talk about the benefits of a licence scheme. I also think that Alistair Allen's intervention was spot on. No one is saying that all grouse moors are host to illegal activities far from it. I hope that I have made it clear that I know that there are states in Scotland who are doing a great deal of excellent work in improving biodiversity. I have said on many occasions about the contributions that they give to rural life in Scotland, to tourism and to local economies. She mentioned human rights implications. Here at ECHR, implications have been carefully considered and informed by a need to strike a balance between the rights of individuals and the general public interests, as it always is. I point out that the Presiding Officer has also ruled that the Bill is ECHR compliant. I want to move on to talk to Rhoda Grant. I was pleased to hear of Labour's support of the Bill. You will have seen that I raised a smile when Claudia Beamish was mentioned. I genuinely wish that Claudia was in the chamber today with us, because she has long been a passionate campaigner for the measures that this Bill undertakes. I wish her well. I would say that Claudia Beamish would be one of the friends of mine from the last Parliament. We work together very well on the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. On what Rhoda Grant says about following the science around the Muirburn, and the Muirburn season in particular, I am following the science on that. It is something that I am actively considering. It was brought up by Ariane Burgess as well around the timing of the Muirburn season. Of course, things around climate change mean that that season could be changing when birds are nesting. That is something that I am actively looking at. Beatrice Wishart mentioned that the licensing scheme is being proportionate and workable. I have taken on board, very much so, the suggestion of a longer licensing duration. Of course, the duration of the suspension of licensing will depend on the decision about where we come to with regard to the lysis generation and a range of other factors around duration of investigations. I will work closely with NatureScot and the police wildlife crime units on that. On glue trap alternatives, I absolutely hear that there is flexibility into the commencement on that. There is nothing that says that there is actually no date and there is no duration specified on the Bill around that. Of course, I would draw Mish Wishart's attention to what has happened in New Zealand, as I have already mentioned. Karen Adam talked about the sustainability of gross shooting and its positive contribution to the natural environment when they are managed well. I absolutely agree with her. It goes back to my point that I believe that licensing will be a good thing for the whole sector. One crucial element that we really want to hear is, will you give serious consideration to bringing in proper legal safeguards against vexatious or third-party claims, which could result in a licence being suspended and the job losses and the income losses that might occur on the back of? Well, Mr Carson will refer him to my earlier comments when I was in front of the committee around that. Is there something that is going to be taken into consideration when the licensing scheme is developed with NatureScot working with Police Scotland, the wildlife crime unit as well on that? I mean, vexatious allegations happen in every area of justice. Every single area is for the police to determine whether or not something is without foundation and vexation. I'm ready to move on, convener. I just want to mention that Karen Adam also mentioned about the unintended species that snares can catch. It's not just cats. It's a horrible situation that our cats put in. My parents have had experience of that as well with their cats. It's also other protected species that are caught in those traps as well, including badgers, which has been mentioned very much in the written evidence that has come forward. I don't really want to dwell too much on all of our Mandel's contribution, not least because I felt that it was really personally attacking in a way that I had just found unpalatable for our Parliamentary. I reject his comments about central belt. I'm not from the central belt. I'm a rural MSP. Given stakeholders' time to put forward a proposal on human cable restraints, I want to say on the record again that ample time was given for those who wanted to propose a licensing scheme on human cable restraints, but unfortunately when it came in front of me I did not feel that it answered significant questions around what they were actually proposing would be the conditions of that licensing scheme. It did not meet the standard that I would expect in terms of what some of the arguments around the banning of them were, but I have to say as well this argument about me not having listened to evidence, not making a snap decision on that, my goodness. Can you not do better than that? For goodness' sakes, I had human cable restraints talk to me but the moment that I took the environment portfolio on, I have listened to all the evidence, I have looked to all the evidence and I have met stakeholders about that over a period of months. Kate Forbes rightly mentioned wildfires and again in her question yesterday to me about this in portfolio questions on the day before, she mentioned those gamekeepers that stopped the fires at Cannoch. I mentioned in response to Kate Forbes that of course when you are dealing with an emergency situation like that, you would not have to have a licence for Muirburn in order to put those firebreaks in place as well for those emergencies. I am really glad that Colin Smyth spoke today because he is interested in this area, it is very long standing. He said what a lot of people have said to me in this area is that licensing should not propose, should not worry anyone who is law abiding. They have nothing to fear, businesses have nothing to fear. I remember his debate on snares back in 2017. He criticised the Government for hesitating but I hope that he understands why we needed to take the robust evidence. Who do you believe? Mr Mundell, who says that I made a snap decision on this, or Colin Smyth, who says that we are dilly-dallying on it. I will wind up now. I want to thank everyone for their contributions. I am sorry to those who I have not had time to mention. That concludes the debate on the point of order, Rachel Hamilton. The minister, I am afraid, is being disingenuous regarding her consideration of the evidence that was given on humane cable restraints on 8 November and 9 November. The freedom of information request specifically states that she did not consider evidence. That is what my colleague Oliver Mundell stated in his contribution today. It is not a point of order. It is now on the record. That concludes the debate on wildlife management in Muirburn Scotland Bill at stage 1. It is time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of motion 1498, in the name of Gillian Martin, on a financial resolution for the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Scotland Bill. I invite the minister to move the motion. Thank you. The question on the motion will be put at decision time to which we now come. There are two questions as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion 1496, in the name of Gillian Martin, on wildlife management in Muirburn Scotland Bill at stage 1, be agreed? Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting platform.