Jamie McGrigor’s speech in last Thursday’s Stage 1 Parliamentary debate on the Wildlife & Natural Environment Bill.

Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): I am delighted to sum up in this debate. It is vital that we get the bill right for those men and women who work in the hills and glens and keep them well managed, even when, as now, they are hindered by several feet of snowdrifts while we sit cosily in the chamber. They are straightforward, tough people—the very salt of Scotland's earth—and they deserve a fair deal.

The minister said that she had listened to many people from different walks of life. Well done to her for that, and well done also for recognising the importance of this sector of rural life. She has listened to people who do not often get heard and who do not get heard often enough.

I thank my friend John Scott and other members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, as well as the committee clerking team, for a thorough stage 1 report, which has informed today's debate. Much of the debate has focused on wildlife crime and, as John Scott set out, we believe—like Bill Wilson—that the argument has not been made convincingly that single witness evidence should apply on this issue. Rather, as Sheriff Drummond suggested when he gave evidence, the focus should be on the collection of solid evidence. Given that the evidence to the committee suggested that it was incredibly rare for someone to be prosecuted for an offence of egg stealing on the evidence of a single witness, it surely is illogical to extend single witness evidence to other wildlife crime. Such a move might even open up the door to frame-ups. Surely law is good only if it works to stop crime.

Likewise, the Scottish Conservatives have serious worries about the Government's intention to introduce vicarious liability at stage 2, because we again pay heed to the words of Sheriff Drummond, an expert on wildlife crime, who said:

"There are so many ways round it. Vicarious liability has been floated as some kind of answer. It is not an answer".—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 15 September 2010; c 3104.]

Much legislation already exists, and we should surely concentrate on achieving better enforcement of current laws before adding additional measures to the statute book. In other words, we should tighten up existing laws and ensure that they work against wildlife crime.

Snaring is another subject that many members have raised. I am well aware of the strong feelings about snaring—indeed, I, too, have strong feelings about it—and I welcome the committee's balanced conclusions on it. Its report states:

"the Committee also acknowledges that pest control is a vital part of land management and that, if properly regulated and managed, limited and appropriate use of snares should continue to be an option for land managers in Scotland."

As Bert Burnett of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association said this week, the majority of practitioners are already highly skilled, and they have welcomed the tightening of snaring regulations and demonstrated a clear willingness to meet modern expectations by signing up for detailed practical and written training in order to meet the highest welfare standards.To many of my constituents in the Highlands and Islands, snares remain a vital tool in controlling escalating fox numbers, which can do much damage to our populations of rare waders and ground-nesting birds as well as to valuable game birds, not to mention the lambs on numerous sheep farms throughout the Highlands. At this point, I suppose that I had better refer members to my agricultural interests in the register of members' interests.

On game management, we are happy to welcome the modernisation of game law and the abolition of game licences. The bill will also repeal the restriction on selling game at certain times of the year by amending section 4 of the Game Act 1831, which was aimed at stopping the killing of game birds and hares during closed seasons. Refrigeration now means that game that has been killed in the open season can be kept and sold throughout the year. I hope that the bill will open up more marketing opportunities for those who wish to sell Scottish game in restaurants and shops all year round.

The SRPBA is right to argue that any future changes to the list of game species must be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. I strongly support the committee's call for any proposed removals from the game species list to be subject to affirmative rather than negative procedure, which would mean that any proposals would be voted on.

More generally, I welcome the Government's and the committee's recognition that shooting and red deer stalking are of real economic importance to many areas of Scotland. That is especially so in the Highlands, where the income from country sports provides work for gamekeepers and numerous other jobs associated with them.

I want to put on record my support for the wildlife estates Scotland initiative, which I was pleased to see the minister launch at Colquhalzie in Perthshire on 23 November. Everyone involved in that initiative is to be commended. I know that those people will step up to the mark in showing to the public that our Scottish country estates are integral to protecting and preserving our natural environment. The pilot scheme will run in the Cairngorms national park area, and will doubtless be reviewed regularly. The scheme is not, as some have suggested, some sort of voluntary licensing scheme; it is a voluntary accreditation scheme in which the code of acceptable good practice that everybody should follow will be set out.

Finally, Bill Wilson referred to bees. He may know that the bees in many hives in Scotland stopped breeding in September because they knew that bad weather was coming. That shows that a bee is better than the BBC at weather forecasting.

The Scottish Conservatives are happy to support the general principles of the bill, and we welcome the fact that many of the concerns that existed, particularly relating to deer management, have been dealt with.