���˿���

There is definitely scope for us to get more people on to buses. I think that your question alludes to how many people we can get on. We are going to encourage as many people as we possibly can.

The young persons scheme has been hugely successful from a number of points of view. It is allowing young people to take jobs that they would not have been able to do without the scheme. I heard about a young girl who lives in my constituency who is travelling to Edinburgh to work in a job in the arts that she would not have been able to do without the scheme. Young people are able to go to education facilities that they would not normally have been able to attend.

More important for me is that they can see family—because families are spread all over the country now. Young people are able to jump on a bus to go and see their grandparents. To me, that is absolutely fantastic, and it encourages use of public transport.

We want to make sure, as much as we possibly can, that more people get the opportunity to use buses. That is the benefit of the scheme. To answer your crystal ball question, I do not know what the figure will top out at. The more people the better, is what I would say.

We will probably follow up in writing, because I am aware that we are going off topic. Officials are at an early stage of developing a new commitment to asylum seekers, but we will write to the committee with further details on that.

This is one of the problems with being a new minister: you have just told me something that I did not know. If you can leave that with me, we will come back to you. Yes, I will be happy to come and meet your constituents.

Gary McIntyre will highlight something for me.

As I have just said, under the affirmative procedure, an order can be brought to the Parliament for consideration.

The power to add additional game birds to a section 16AA licence was considered by both this committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which found the powers

“acceptable in principle”

and was

“content that it is subject to the affirmative procedure.”

The RAI Committee said:

“The Committee notes, and agrees with, the DPLRC’s conclusion that the ... powers ... are acceptable and that the affirmative procedure would be appropriate.”

The Scottish ministers would also be required to consult before adding any birds. This committee agreed to the principles of section 7 in previous sessions.

Now, this really is an unusual situation, as I must now address amendments as the lead minister for the bill and, first of all, thank Emma Harper for speaking on my behalf to the amendments that I lodged previously.

In my new position as Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, I have received a great deal of advice on the amendments to the bill, and, as a member of this committee, I heard all the evidence from stakeholders at stage 1. I have tried to use the new advice to better understand the bill and all the concerns and issues that surround it.

I originally lodged amendments 85, 86 and 87 for the reasons that Emma Harper has set out. I think that those reasons still hold. However—and this is an example of how my understanding has developed—I can now see ways of improving the amendments to ensure that we get the most out of any reporting requirements that we include in the bill.

Monitoring and reporting requirements must be weighed up to balance the value that they provide against the resources that they take to fulfil. That said, the Scottish Government is committed to an open and transparent approach to legislation, and, where additional reporting serves a useful purpose, it should be supported.

The bill has been introduced in part to address raptor persecution on land managed for grouse shooting, and the section in the bill on licensing provisions is the approach that we have taken to do that. The three raptor species populations identified in the Werritty review—the golden eagle, the hen harrier and the peregrine falcon—are significantly impacted, as Emma Harper has said. To assess the effectiveness of the bill in reducing raptor persecution on those species, regular monitoring and surveillance of their populations will be essential. Some monitoring of that kind is already undertaken by the Scottish Raptor Study Group, albeit at longer intervals than is provided for in the amendments.

Including a requirement to undertake an assessment of raptor populations is a reasonable suggestion. However, what I would like to do, and what I think would be helpful, is to discuss the requirements further with NatureScot and relevant stakeholders to understand their ability to undertake the additional monitoring and reporting. I would also like to ensure that the amendments are framed in a way that is consistent with the language used in the rest of the bill. I therefore request that Emma Harper not press amendment 85 or move amendments 86 and 87 and that she allow me to have those discussions and to bring back better versions of the amendments at stage 3.

I welcome the debate on this group. The proposed step is a big one for us to take, and it is right that we should consider it carefully. I think that we have struck the right balance, and that the necessary checks and safeguards are in place to ensure that the protocol between the SSPCA and Police Scotland is right. Therefore, I think that we are in the right place on this issue.

I am happy to discuss amendment 14, and I apologise—that was my mistake.

Amendment 16 requires NatureScot to consult persons who are likely to be interested in and affected by the courses. It is likely that NatureScot may consult relevant parties in creating and approving a training course. However, as the relevant licensing authority, it is chiefly responsible for ensuring that any approved training course covers the standards that are required by the bill and other pieces of legislation. Therefore, it has to be given discretion on what the training course will be, but absolutely in consultation with the practitioners, as I have already stated.

Please bear with me, convener, as I sort out my papers.

Amendments 59, 60, 69 and 70 are technical amendments that have no practical impact or effect on the provisions of the bill. They simply correct the grammar of provisions that have been amended by the bill to take account of those amendments.

Amendments 59 and 60 remove erroneous conjunctions in section 4(7), and amendments 69 and 70 remove a similar error in section 7(5). I encourage all committee members to vote for the amendments.

I move amendment 59.

Amendment 59 agreed to.

Amendment 60 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—Killing and taking of certain birds permitted only on land with section 16AA licence

I will take it.