Rural Affairs and Islands Committee – 7 February 2024

Good morning, and welcome to the fourth meeting in  2024 of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee.   I remind all those members who are using  electronic devices to please turn them to silent. Our business this morning is consideration of the  Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill at stage 2.   I welcome to the meeting Gillian Martin,  Minister for Energy and the Environment,   and her supporting officials. I also welcome  Colin Smyth and Edward Mountain. I believe   that John Mason and Stephen Kerr will be  joining us later to speak to their amendments. Before we begin, I will briefly explain—if it is  possible to do such a thing—the stage 2 procedure   for members and the public. There will be one  debate on each group of amendments.

I will call   the member who lodged the first amendment in  that group to speak to and move that amendment   and to speak to all the other amendments in the  group. I will then call any other members who   have lodged amendments in that group. Members  who have not lodged amendments in the group but   who wish to speak should catch my attention.  If the minister has not already spoken on the   group of amendments, I will then invite her to  contribute to the debate. The debate on the group   will be concluded by me inviting the member who  moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on each group, I will check  whether the member who moved the first amendment   in the group wishes to press it to a vote or  to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead,   I will put the question on that amendment. If a  member wishes to withdraw their amendment after   it has been moved, they must seek the agreement  of other members to do so.

If any member objects,   the committee will immediately move to the  vote on the amendment. If a member does not   want to move their amendment when called,  they should say, “Not moved.” Please note   that any other member present may move the  amendment. If no one moves the amendment,   I will immediately call the next  amendment on the marshalled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote.  Voting in any division is by show of hands. It is   important that members keep their hands clearly  raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally  that it has considered and agreed to each section   of the bill, so I will put a question on  each section at the appropriate point.

It is unlikely that we will conclude stage 2 at   today’s meeting. If we do not, we  will do so at our next meeting. Amendment 176, in the name of  Edward Mountain, is grouped   with amendments 106, 4, 107, 108 and 5 to 7. I am pleased to be here to speak to my amendments.  Before I do so, I will make a full declaration   of my interests, so that people are aware of  them. I have attended the committee before,   but I would like to reiterate my interests. I am a  member of a family farming partnership and a joint   owner of a wild fishery. Both roles require  the controlling of some species of wildlife,   including stoats, weasels, mink, rats, mice,  foxes and corvids, including crows, rooks and   jackdaws.

I have been controlling and managing  wildlife to manage environments for more than 40   years. I use licensed firearms and spring traps.  I make it clear that I do not own any hill ground,   but I have been involved for more than 40 years  in muirburn and burning to manage grassland   and farmland and protect it from invasive  species such as gorse and broom. In the past,   I have supervised muirburn and have contributed  to muirburn consultations and management plans.   I hope that what I have said is sufficient for the  committee to understand that I have an interest. I will speak to amendments 176 and 5 to 7. The  point of amendment 176 is to allow the use of   glue traps in certain environments—educational,  catering and medical facilities. I have met the   minister to discuss the issue, and I am  grateful for the time that she gave me. I   am unclear about how she is going to progress  things, because I am not clear on what effect   the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 could  have on the banning of glue traps, but, on the   basis that the ban might well continue, I am keen  for glue traps to continue to be able to be used   in tightly controlled circumstances—in, as I said,  educational, catering and medical facilities.

Amendment 5 sets out that the use of such  traps would be subject to having a glue   trap licence. That is really important.  Amendments 6 and 7 set out that a glue   trap licence can be issued only to  a pest controller who is engaged in “preserving public health or public safety”. That is also important. I have suggested some safeguards in relation  to the licence. A licence should not be granted   unless there is no other solution, and the person  must have taken a course. The licence would also   be time limited. A fee for the licence could be  charged by the Scottish Government, which would be   responsible for overseeing the licensing scheme.  It seems to me that what I have proposed is   a sensible option to ensure that glue  traps are used only when they are needed. Rats and mice often get into catering  establishments, and it is really important   that we get rid of them as soon as possible,  in the same way as we would want to get rid of   them if they were in our accommodation. However,  it is especially important in relation to food.   The only way of ensuring that is to use a glue  trap.

I know from personal experience that you   can set snap traps for vermin such as rats and  mice, but they can become trap shy, and some of   them are pretty clever. You can be clever, too,  by using chocolate and apples, but that does not   always attract them to the trap. However,  if you put a glue trap in the right place,   you can get rid of them overnight, and that gives  you confidence that the animals have been removed.

I do not see any reason why that should  not be allowed, especially if the glue   traps are set and checked within a set period.  I think that that is a humane way of doing it. Amendment 106 clarifies that  the amendment is about traps   that restrain animals. Amendments 107  and 108 introduce vicarious liability,   which I do not believe is needed if we  limit the control of where glue traps   can be used. I look forward to the debate  and hearing the arguments on either side. I am interested in hearing about  the other amendments in the group. Amendment 106 relates to the wording  of the offence of using a glue trap in   section 1 of the bill.

A glue trap, as we know, is  intended as a restraining trap. As members know,   rats and mice and sometimes other  non-targeted species walk across the   boards and get stuck to the strong glue.  They often remain there until the person   who set the trap comes to kill them.  They suffer terribly during that time,   which is why the ban on the use of glue traps  is necessary and something that I welcome. Amendment 106 seeks to strengthen the  ban, as “taking” and “restraining” can   have different meanings and the intention  is to ban all use of glue traps. The aim   of the amendment is to clarify the  definition of the offence and probe   a potential loophole. As it stands,  the bill says that it is an offence “to use a glue trap for the  purpose of killing or taking” whereas the Welsh legislation prohibits “the use of a glue trap for the  purpose of killing or taking an animal,   and use of a glue trap in any other  way that is likely to catch an animal”, which seems more comprehensive than  the proposed Scottish bill definition.

The UK Parliament’s Glue Traps Act 2022 also uses   the terms “catching” and “caught”  in its description of the offence. I hope that the minister’s response  is clear on the Government’s legal   definition of “taking” and that it also  outlines why the Scottish Government has   chosen wording that is different from  that used in the Welsh and UK acts. Amendment 107 would make it an offence  to knowingly cause or permit another   person to use a glue trap. On the  main offence of using a glue trap,   the explanatory notes accompanying the bill state: “The offences do not apply if the person has  a reasonable excuse for using or setting a   glue trap.

For example, it is not the  intention to criminalise circumstances   where a person is compelled to use a  glue trap by a workplace superior.” That raises the question of who would be  responsible in that scenario, and it creates   a potential loophole that amendment 107 seeks to  close. In other words, could someone get around   the ban by compelling someone else to use the  trap? Causing or permitting offences are used in a   wide variety of legislation to prevent individuals  escaping sanctions when they have made or allowed   another person to commit an offence. In fact,  there is an example of such a provision in section   9 of the bill, which makes it an offence to cause  or permit another person to make muirburn without   a licence. It is unclear why such a provision  is not included in the section on glue traps.

Amendment 108 is consequential to amendment 107. I put on the record my sympathy for the intention  behind Colin Smyth’s amendments 107 and 108. Glue   traps are inhumane and indiscriminate  as a pest control tool, and I understand   the concerns about unintended loopholes being  created. However, I would like to know from the   minister whether there is any scope for further  discussion of the amendments ahead of stage 3. Edward Mountain’s amendment 176 would allow  members of the public to use glue traps to   control rats and mice in educational,  catering or medical premises. The   Scottish Animal Welfare Commission published  a report on glue traps that concluded that “animal welfare issues connected with the use of   glue traps would justify an immediate  outright ban on their sale and use.” Because the weight of evidence that glue traps are  the least humane method of rodent control and that   they cause unacceptable levels of suffering to  the animals that are caught by them, continuing to   allow their use was not considered to be a viable  option.

More than three quarters of respondents   to our consultation also agreed that glue  traps should be banned completely in Scotland. In its stage 1 report, the committee stated: “It is clear to the Committee that glue traps  do cause suffering to vertebrate animals.” It went on: “The Committee agrees, therefore, that members of the general public should be  banned from using or purchasing glue traps.” It is also important to note that professional  pest controllers fully support a ban on the use   of glue traps by members of the public.  Both the UK and Welsh Parliaments have   already passed legislation that makes it  an offence for members of the public to   use them for any purpose.

I do not believe  that we can ignore the weight of evidence   that glue traps lead to unacceptable levels  of suffering, not just for rats and mice but   for other animals that are not the intended  catch but can also become trapped in them. I am not entirely sure why Mr Mountain  has submitted the amendment in its current   form, as it does not really have any support  from animal welfare experts or professionals,   or from the committee, because it would allow  the public to use glue traps. I understand the   rationale for setting out circumstances  in which glue traps can be used as a last   option in the settings that he described.  Nevertheless, the amendment would still   allow members of the public to have access to  such traps. I hope, therefore, that he will   not press the amendment. If he does, I would  encourage other members to vote against it. Amendments 4 to 7 propose the creation of a  licensing scheme to allow pest controllers   to continue to use rodent glue traps and  provide for associated training requirements   on applicants for the use of such traps.  I note that the amendments seek to apply   the same sort of regime in Scotland for which the  UK Government has legislated largely in England.

I spoke to the British Pest Control Association  in January, when we discussed glue traps,   and I welcomed the constructive conversation that  I had with its representatives. They explained   that the association’s members rarely  use glue traps but that, when they do,   it is in order to react quickly to an  infestation in a high-risk area such   as a hospital or food environment. It  is worth noting that 11 of the 14 local   authority pest control departments from  which the committee heard already do not   use glue traps at all to control rodents in  any setting for which they are responsible. I am sympathetic to what the pest controllers  had to say to me in that meeting, because public   health is an absolute priority. However, if  we were to allow pest controllers to continue   to use glue traps in any capacity, that would  need to be very tightly regulated in order to   ensure that no one got hold of such  a trap if they were not supposed to,   and that, when the traps were used, there  were safeguards in place to reduce animal   suffering.

I am prepared to give  that aspect further consideration. I understand why Edward Mountain has put forward  those proposals; however, I do not think that his   proposed licensing scheme is workable as it is  currently drafted. Amendment 6 would not limit   who could undertake the approved training or  who could apply for a licence other than “a   pest controller”. There would be difficulties  in ascertaining who is a pest controller,   as there is no standard occupational  classification code for pest controllers,   no qualifications or licensing are needed  to work in the pest control industry,   and there is no regulatory  authority that oversees them. Those issues mean that it would be very  difficult for retailers to restrict sales   to so-called professionals, thereby increasing  the risk that members of the public would be   able to continue to purchase and use  glue traps.

In addition, there are   no requirements to adhere to the  standards that are set out in the   training course. That could give rise to  the inconsistent deployment of glue traps. Those amendments fall far short of providing  the reassurance that I need that the risks to   animal welfare from using glue traps have  been mitigated, so I cannot support them.   For all those reasons, I encourage the  committee members to vote against them. I turn to Colin Smyth’s amendments. Amendment 106  specifies that the offence of using a glue trap to   kill or take an animal includes “restraining”.  In my view, with the greatest respect,   the amendment is unnecessary. Section 1  of the bill as currently drafted makes it “an offence … to use a glue trap” to kill or take “any animal other than an invertebrate.” I assure Colin Smyth that the ordinary meaning  of “take”, or “taking” as the bill states, would   include “restrain”, so it is not necessary to  change the wording.

Restraining a rodent using   a glue trap would be comparable to using a live  capture trap in that the animal is considered to   be taken from the wild and is under the control  of the person who is setting or laying the   trap. If that aspect would benefit from more  clarification, I could arrange to update the   explanatory notes that accompany the bill in order  to set that out. On that basis, I ask Mr Smyth not   to move amendment 106. If he does so, I would  encourage committee members to vote against it. Amendments 107 and 108 would introduce the  offence of knowingly causing or permitting   the use of a glue trap. As the committee knows,  I had initially wanted to include in the bill an   offence regarding the sale of glue traps,  and it is still my intention to do so at   stage 3.

However, as work is continuing to be  taken forward to secure an exclusion to the   UK Internal Market Act 2020, I have not lodged  any of my amendments on glue traps at stage 2. Having listened to Colin Smyth’s reasons for  including an offence of knowingly causing or   permitting the use of a glue trap, I am minded  to include that in the bill. He makes a good   argument, and I understand it. However, I  would like to reflect on the matter a bit   further and make sure that the provision is  appropriately drafted. I therefore ask Colin   Smyth not to move his amendments today so that  I can consider the matter further with a view   to potentially lodging at stage 3 a suitably  redrafted amendment, which we can work on. I call Edward Mountain to wind up   and indicate whether he wishes to  press or withdraw amendment 176. In some ways, I am actually encouraged  by what I have heard this morning,   but I would still like to make a few comments  in response to what the minister has said.

First of all, amendment 176, in my name, clearly   limits the use of glue traps and makes  them subject to a licence. As a result,   the general public could not get access to them;  instead, those who could get access would be   considered to be professionals and would have  completed the course to get the licence. There   is a way of doing that, and I am sure that  the industry would work with the minister   to ensure that a professional qualification was  in place that would allow that to be identified.

I do not share the minister’s view that banning  glue traps is the only way of limiting sales.   There are other ways of limiting sales to  professionals, and in that respect I would   highlight the example of phostoxin, a gas that  can be sold only to those who are qualified to   use it. In fact, no one can sell it to them. The  place where they get it must have a register,   and the person who signs that register to allow  the gas to be used or sold must be convinced   that the person who wants it is properly  qualified and has the necessary equipment. I understand the concern about glue traps  being cruel, but invariably what we are   talking about here is putting traps out for a  short period at night. I would also suggest that   other means are not appropriate for use in,  say, schools, hospitals or restaurants. Indeed,   no one would want poison to be used  in a restaurant—I certainly would not   want that, and I would not want it to be used in  hospitals or schools either. Moreover, as I have   explained, traps in themselves do not necessarily  guarantee that the animal will be caught.

I am not convinced that amendment 107,  in the name of Colin Smyth, is required,   for the simple reason that I do not  believe that anyone will be told or   ordered to do this sort of thing. The people  who use these traps and other means fully   understand the law and will not be prepared  to break it, even if instructed to do so. In summary, I do not believe that amendment  176 gives the right for glue traps to be   sold to the general public. I believe  that the licensing system does work,   and it is vital that we have the ability to use  glue traps in schools, hospitals and restaurants. That said, I am slightly caught between two  points. If the minister were prepared to work   with me on these amendments before stage  3, that would give me some indication that   I could withdraw or not move them and then  bring them back at the next stage, hopefully   with ministerial support. However, she did not  convince me that that was going to happen. If she   were to do so now, I would consider  withdrawing and not moving my amendments.

Would you like to comment, minister? I think that I have made it clear that I  am sympathetic to the argument that there   might be some settings where we cannot have an  infestation and where pest controllers might   have to use these traps as a last resort. At the  moment, though, I find it difficult to see how   that would work in practice, given  everything that I have said about   pest controllers not being an accredited  title for which you need a qualification. All I can say to Mr Mountain, then, is  that I need to give this an awful lot   more thought with my officials and see  what levers are available to us. I am   still not wholly convinced that an  outright ban is not the way to go.

There are a couple of moving parts here,  too. I have still not had any agreement   from the United Kingdom Government on the  exemption under the United Kingdom Internal   Market Act 2020. Several letters have gone  back and forth, and a meeting to discuss   the matter with UK Government ministers was  cancelled at the very last minute, so I have   not had satisfaction there.

There are a lot of  balls up in the air in relation to this matter,   which is why I have not lodged my proposed  amendments here. If I had been able to lodge   them, I could have spoken to them. That is  all that I can really say on the matter. I understand why Edward Mountain  has lodged his amendments,   but I do not think that his proposals are  workable in practice, given the licensing   scheme that he outlines. His proposals are not  doable, given how the amendments are written. On that basis, with the hope that there  is light at the end of the tunnel,   I am prepared to work with the  minister to see if my amendments   can be reviewed to make them more  workable and more acceptable to her. I am grateful to the minister for her  clarity on the definition of “taking”   and for the offer to include further  information in the explanatory notes.   On that basis, I will not move amendment 106.

I will not move amendment 4 on the  basis of my earlier explanation. Amendment 4 not moved. I am grateful to the minister for the  offer to work on a possible amendment at   stage 3 on the issue covered by amendment  107. On that basis, I will not move it. I will not move amendment 5 for  the reasons that I gave earlier. I am looking forward to fruitful discussions with   the minister. Therefore, I am  not moving amendments 6 or 7.

Amendment 54, in the name of  the minister, is grouped with   amendments 54A, 54B, 54C, 54D,  54E, 54F, 54G, 54H, 54I and 54J. My amendment 54 seeks to introduce a comprehensive  ban on the use of snares, as is recommended by the   Scottish Animal Welfare Commission. The amendment  introduces an offence of using a snare or setting   one in position either to kill or to take any  animal other than a wild bird. It will also be   an offence to set a snare in a position where  it is likely to cause bodily injury to any such   animal coming into contact with it. My provisions  set out two very important exceptions, which Colin   Smyth is seeking to remove in his amendments,  and I will speak to that issue in a moment. As I said in the stage 1 debate, I believe that  the Parliament can no longer ignore the weight   of evidence that snares lead to unacceptable  levels of suffering, not just for wild animals   but for domestic animals, which can become  trapped in them. The decision to ban the use   of snares has not been made lightly or quickly,  and my decision takes into account the wealth   of evidence and opinion that has been presented  to the Parliament on the matter over the years.

Unfortunately, even where snares are used in  very strict accordance with the conditions set   out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,  they remain indiscriminate by their nature and,   as such, they pose an unacceptable risk to  non-target species, including other wildlife,   endangered species and domestic species such  as cats. According to the Scottish Animal   Welfare Commission, it is estimated  that between 21 and 69 per cent   of animals caught in snares are non-target  species. That is simply unacceptable. More humane methods of wildlife control  such as shooting and trapping are available   to land managers. Indeed, shooting foxes at  night using lamps or thermal scopes remains   the predominant method of fox control by a  considerable margin. Moreover, alternatives   such as live-capture traps are still  available where, for example, the lack   of a suitable backstop can mean that shooting  is not appropriate in certain circumstances.

I recognise that control of predators is necessary  to protect vulnerable species as well as livestock   and agriculture and that land managers should  be allowed to take action to effectively manage   wildlife for those purposes. I am also aware  that some people have claimed that the removal   of snaring as an option might reduce the ability  of land managers to protect ground-nesting species   of bird, particularly curlew, lapwing and other  wader species of serious conservation concern. However, I remain confident that there are  sufficient alternative methods of predator   control, which a number of landowners,  managers and organisations already use.   Those include the RSPB, which has policies to  prohibit the use of snares and believes that   it is still able to undertake sufficient  predator control to protect vulnerable   species.

The same view was reached by  the Welsh Parliament when it banned the   use of snares in the Agriculture Act 2023, in  recognition of poor animal welfare outcomes. I am confident that a ban on the use  of snares would not prevent anyone from   undertaking necessary wildlife management.  In our public consultation on snaring,   70 per cent of respondents supported a complete  ban on the use of all snares, including so-called   humane cable restraints. It is clear that  there is widespread support for that among   the general public. Snares are already banned in  many European countries, and land managers have   adapted. We can learn from that and provide  advice and information where that is helpful. Some have called for the ban on the continued  use of humane cable restraints under a   licensing regime for the purpose of killing and  taking an animal. I have carefully considered   that and the welfare impacts of such a  scheme on target and non-target species,   alongside the need to provide  for effective predator control.

Will the minister take an intervention? Can I finish my points? Yes—sorry. I thought that you had not heard me. You never know; perhaps I will  cover what it is you want to raise,   so let me get to the end of my rationale for this. My intervention was about a previous issue. In my view, although humane cable restraints  might be an incremental improvement on the   traditional style of snare, they do not  lead to a significant reduction in the   adverse welfare outcomes experienced  by animals caught by those devices,   nor would their use eliminate the issues  around the capture of non-target species,   including protected species such as badgers,  mountain hares and domestic animals such as cats.   Continuing to permit their use under licence for  the purpose of catching foxes, as is set out in   the proposal that was put to me by land managers,  would not suitably address those issues, which is   why I have decided to introduce a ban on the use  of all snares, including humane cable restraints.

I want to talk about Colin Smyth’s amendments,  but I am happy if Ms Hamilton wants to interject. It is on a previous point, minister.  Thank you for taking the intervention. You talked about the ban on snares in Wales,   but the fact is that Welsh ministers are currently  facing a challenge to that. Do you think that the   same might happen in Scotland? Secondly, in  relation to the ban on humane cable restraints   that you mentioned, what biodiversity  impact assessment has been done? Ms Hamilton mentioned a challenge,  but there is always the risk of a   challenge to any legislation that goes  through a Parliament.

People are free   to challenge any aspect of legislation. I  will not comment on the situation in Wales,   as it is for the Welsh Government to answer  questions on the rationale for its own decisions. We have done a great deal of work on the matter.  Indeed, a great deal of work has been done not   just in this parliamentary session but over  the past decade. The weight of evidence of the   impact that snares are having on the welfare  of wild animals has become something that we   cannot ignore, which is why I have decided  to take forward a full ban on snares. I point   to evidence from the work that we have done not  just on the bill but throughout the year. Indeed,   we set up the Scottish Animal Welfare  Commission to do that type of work on   behalf of the Scottish public, and it has  made a very strong recommendation on this   matter. That recommendation comes from animal  welfare experts across Scotland who are at   the top of their profession, and  I personally cannot ignore it.

Can I get clarification specifically on that? Convener, I would like to go on  and discuss the amendments in   Colin Smyth’s name, because I think that  I have answered Rachael Hamilton’s points. Yes. Rachael, you will have an opportunity to come  in when I call for general views from members. Thank you, convener. I understand why Colin Smyth has  lodged his amendments, but, again,   I do not believe that they are necessary. A  snare is defined in the dictionary simply as “A device for capturing  small wild animals or birds,   usually consisting of a  string with a running noose”.

Cable restraints, therefore, already fall within  the meaning of snare use in the bill. In addition,   should my amendment 54 be  agreed to, that aspect will   be set out in the explanatory notes  accompanying the bill. Given that,   I ask Colin Smyth not to move  amendments 54A, 54C, 54F, 54H and 54I. I am interested in hearing why Colin  Smyth has lodged amendments 54B,   54E and 54G. I will give my reasons for why the  legislation has been drafted in the way that it   has been. My amendment 54 has been drafted  to update the main snaring provisions in   section 11 of the 1981 act, which relates  to wild animals. That exception does not   mean, however, that anyone can use a snare on  a wild bird. Section 5 of the 1981 act already   covers snaring and wild birds, providing  for the offences of setting “in position” a “snare …

Likely to cause  bodily injury to any wild bird”, using a snare “for the purpose of killing  or taking any wild bird”, and “knowingly” causing or permitting  those offences. Such offences carry   a maximum penalty of five years’  imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. My amendment has, therefore, been drafted  to avoid its conflicting with the existing   provisions in section 5 of the 1981 act relating  to wild birds. My concern about Colin Smyth’s   amendments seeking to remove the references to  wild birds in my amendment 54 is that that would   result in a potential conflict with the 1981  act, which I am sure is not his intention. Amendments 54D and 54J relate to an exception  for snares that are “operated by hand”. It is   important, when legislation is brought  forward, to ensure that there are no   unintended consequences. There are a number of  handheld devices, such as dog poles and graspers,   that utilise a loop at the end. Although such  devices are not snares in the traditional   sense, they could fall within the wider  meaning of snaring that is used in the bill. I am sure that the committee is familiar with  those devices, which are used by dog wardens,   animal rescue charities such as the Scottish  Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals   and wildlife rescue charities throughout Scotland  to temporarily catch and restrain, for example,   stray dogs and, on occasion, wild animals.

I am  sure that none of us here would immediately think   of those types of devices in the traditional  context of snaring, but I concluded, after very   careful consideration, that, to avoid the risk  of inadvertently restricting the use of those   very necessary devices, it was necessary to carve  out an exception for them in the text of the bill. The bill makes it clear, however, that  anyone who uses any type of snare,   including a handheld one, for the purpose  of killing an animal such as a fox,   or who uses it in a way that is likely to give  rise to injury of such an animal is guilty of   an offence.

A ban on the use of those devices  would, it seems, severely hinder the ability of   dog wardens and animal rescue charities  to undertake their very important work. I therefore ask Colin Smyth  not to move amendments 54A,   54B, 54C, 54D, 54E, 54F, 54G, 54H, 54I  and 54J. I would be happy to meet him   ahead of stage 3 to discuss further  the rationale behind my approach.

I very much welcome amendment 54, the purpose of  which the minister has clearly outlined. There   has been a long wait for a ban on snaring—in  fact, it was the subject of one of the first   members’ business debates that I held, seven  years ago—and I am pleased that the Government   has moved on the issue and, following moves  by the Welsh Government, is now introducing   a ban in Scotland. My amendments in this group,  however, are aimed largely at probing some issues   in relation to the wording of the Government’s  amendment 54. The minister has already covered   some of them, but I would like to  raise a few more questions and points. Last year, as the minister said, we saw an attempt  to rebrand some modified snares as humane cable   restraints.

The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission  and animal welfare organisations have made it   clear that no design alteration can be made to  make snares humane, whatever names some people   might wish to call them. It is important, then,  that all snares be included in the ban. Given that   some have recently been called cable restraints  by some users, I have lodged amendments 54A, 54C,   54F and 54H to make it clear that so-called  cable restraints would be banned, too. A similar situation arose in Wales prior to  its snaring ban, as a result of which the   Welsh Government included the words “or other  cable restraint” in its ban for the avoidance   of any doubt. I appreciate what the minister  says about these things being covered in the   definition of snares, but I hope that we will  keep discussing whether there will be wording   in the explanatory notes, as the minister has  said, or later in the bill, to ensure that the   precautionary approach taken by the Welsh  Government is adopted in Scotland. However,   I am grateful to the minister for placing on  record that interpretation by the Government. The ban on the use of snares is long overdue,   and it is important that we get it  right.

Any exclusion has the potential   to weaken it. The minister said that snares are  not currently used for wild birds in Scotland,   and she referred to a prohibition on the use  of snares for birds under section 5 of the   Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That raises  the question of why the specific exclusion of   wild birds from the scope of amendment 54 was  felt to be necessary, and I am concerned that   it contradicts what is contained in section  5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I   know that the minister clarified the point in her  earlier comments, and amendments 54B, 54E and 54G   were lodged to try to gain an understanding  of the minister's thinking on the issue. As with my other amendments, I am, with amendments  54D and 54G, trying to ensure that the snaring ban   is as watertight as possible. Currently, the  ban does not include a snare that is operated   by hand. As far as I know, such a thing does not  exist, and I certainly do not want us to set off   any attempt to invent one. The minister seems  to be suggesting that she is trying to avoid   inadvertently including something more benign,  such as a grasper that is used by animal welfare   officers to rescue a swan.

I question whether  it is necessary to cover that in legislation,   as it seems implausible that a  grasper would be mistaken for a   snare. Such an exception is certainly  not included in the Welsh legislation. I would therefore welcome further discussions  with the minister to ensure that we are   not taking forward something that, in my  view, is unnecessary. Clearly, though, the   minister has a different view, and I would  welcome further discussions on that point.

I am minded not to support amendment  54, in the name of the minister,   on the basis that a very credible proposal  on humane cable restraint use was brought to   the committee at stage 1. It is important  to recognise that such devices are vital   for those living and working in rural  Scotland to protect not only livestock   but species that are under threat. Indeed,  I know that the minister is aware of that. I recognise that significant animal  welfare charities have done good work,   including work on the impact of the use of  traditional snares, but, on the proposal   for a humane cable restraint—which is an  international standard restraint—I do not   believe that the necessary work has been  done to ensure that the committee has full   knowledge of the matter. An impact assessment  needs to be done to allow us to understand the   impact on the species that are under  threat, such as curlews and lapwings.

We, as a responsible committee, need to  recognise that any legal challenge would   come at great expense to the taxpayer. Moreover,  if there were a legal challenge to banning snares,   we would not be able to get into the nuts  and bolts of it. I have to say that I am   slightly surprised that the minister  has not recognised the possibility of   a legal challenge on the basis of the  European convention on human rights. I have listened to the evidence that the  committee has taken, and I think that Karen   Adam’s comments during our evidence taking  were apposite in a lot of ways. However—let   me be clear—the use of cable restraints and  snaring is highly regulated in legislation,   and it requires a great deal of formal  training. That training has taken us   away from where we were many years ago, when  I was younger and there were no restrictions   on where you could place snares. In those days,  you could place them where animals could get hung   up and where they could end up—inadvertently,  in most cases—strangling themselves to death. That is not where we are now. Now, snares are  set in locations where that cannot happen;   they hold the animal in place,  and, because of the stops,   the animal cannot be strangled.

The stops also  work if the animal is caught in the wrong place. The snares that we have now also give you the  ability to discriminate with regard to the   animals that you kill. Once you have caught  the animals, you can, before you dispatch   those that you want to dispatch, release the  non-target animals by cutting the snare to   free them. The fact that snares are also required  to be regularly checked and that every snare   must be identified and subject to inspection  means that the activity is highly regulated. I understand why people take issue with this,  but it is my opinion and my experience that   properly set and managed snares hold the animal  to allow its humane dispatch—or its release,   if it is not a target animal.

There  is no reason why non-target animals   should end up being killed. I believe  that most—in fact, nearly all—people   who use snares know that they are  taking on a huge responsibility,   and they want to ensure that the animals that  they catch are not subjected to suffering. As the minister has rightly said, there  are other ways of doing this. For example,   those of us who have been out at night  with lamps know that foxes become lamp shy,   and you can clear a massive area just by  turning on the lamp. Thermal sights work,   but they are not always appropriate, because you  cannot always see the backdrop. Shooting does not   always solve everything. Let us be honest: when  you fire a gun, you do not always kill what you   want to kill. We know that, with snares, you can  hold the animal and dispatch it very quickly. As for the minister’s comment that all  of those things can be done at night,   I am sure that Jim Fairlie knows that, if you  are protecting a lambing field and looking   after lambs all day and all night, you do not  have the time to spend all night chasing foxes   that are trying to work their way in.

A snare  or cable restraint gives you that ability. Given that Edward Mountain has mentioned me, I  should point out that I have never in my life set   a snare during lambing time. I leave that  to people who are trained to do it. It is   therefore a bit disingenuous to make a comparison  involving a sheep farmer setting snares at night. I accept that you have never  set a snare in your life— Certainly not at lambing time.

As a farmer, I have set snares,  but I do not currently do so,   because I have not done the course— Precisely. —and because I am in this place. My  point is that a lot of farmers do it. Finally, please do not underestimate those  people who take responsibility for managing   wildlife in the countryside. They are not  barbarians, and they do not want to cause   suffering. They just want to get on with their  job in the most efficient way possible and   manage the environment, and I think that it  is wrong to take this tool out of their box. The ban on snares illustrates the  importance of this legislation. It   will deliver real improvements in  animal welfare, and I am convinced   by the overwhelming evidence that we heard  from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission   and others at stage 1—and, indeed, by the  campaigning that has been carried out over   many years by Scottish Greens and others—that  the harm caused by snares cannot be mitigated.

An animal caught in a snare is  injured and highly stressed,   exposed to the elements and other predators,  and denied food and water. Of course,   snares are completely indiscriminate. They are  as capable of trapping a protected species as   they are of trapping a pet cat. A ban on snares  would be a mark of the high regard that this   country has for its iconic wildlife, so I  will be pleased to support amendment 54.

I will turn briefly to Colin Smyth’s amendments.  Although I have sympathy with his intentions,   I am concerned that amendments  54A to 54J could, in practice,   make it more difficult to implement the  ban by overcomplicating the definition   of a snare. I hope that discussions  on that can continue ahead of stage 3. I call the minister to wind up on amendment 54. I will say a few words about humane cable  restraints. I looked at those carefully, and I met   people who were proponents of their use. However,  I was not convinced that they were markedly   different from traditional snares, for the  following reason. The time for which an animal is   left captured and restrained is traumatic for them  mentally and it exhausts them physically. They do   not have any shelter and could be left for quite  a number of hours until the restraint is checked.   They cannot drink or eat. If they have young, they  will not be able to attend to them, because they   are trapped. Up to 70 per cent of animals that  are trapped in such restraints are non-target   species. As Mr Mountain said, the dispatch might  be done quickly, but the lead-up to it might   be many hours long.

That is my main issue  with cable restraints. A so-called humane   restraint might not cause physical damage to  an animal’s neck in the way that a traditional   snare does, but a great deal of animal welfare  concerns are most certainly associated with them. I have listened carefully to the debate, and  in particular to Colin Smyth setting out his   reasoning. I assure the committee that I have  paid close attention to the evidence, to what   the consultations have told us, to the experiences  and views that stakeholders have shared with us,   and to what the Welsh Parliament did, as well as  to international experience. It has been a long   time coming, but I believe that the great weight  of evidence shows that snaring must be banned. Will the minister take an intervention? No. I am summing up. We are banning the use of snares in Scotland  except in a very small number of ways, which are   designed to aid public safety, animal control and  wider conservation and biodiversity objectives.

I listened carefully to what Colin Smyth said,   but I cannot support his amendments, because  I do not think that they are necessary. I want to mention the exceptions that  I have noted. One could be the use   of devices for the ringing of birds for  conservation or data collection reasons,   as the British Trust for Ornithology might  do, for example. I also mentioned the animal   welfare and animal rescue charities that might use  certain devices. I want to have a belt-and-braces   approach. That aspect might not have been  identified in the Welsh legislation, but   it is important to have exceptions in the bill,  in case the ban has any unintended consequences.

I encourage members to support  my amendment 54 and to outlaw,   once and for all, a practice that has  no place in 21st century Scotland. I call Colin Smyth to wind up and  to press or withdraw amendment 54A. I listened carefully to what the minister  said. There is clearly no difference in   policy between us. The question was why she  felt that it was not necessary to include   other cable restraints in the legislation  in the same way as the Welsh Government   did in its act. I take on board her clear  view that the definition of snaring in the   bill very much covers other cable restraints. On  that basis, I will not press my amendment 54A. On the other amendments in my name, instead of  going through them one at a time, it might make   it easier for you, convener, if I say now that I  do not intend to move them, if that is helpful. I was not aware that I would have an  opportunity to wind up, given that I had   not lodged the lead amendment in this group, but  I will certainly take the opportunity to do so.

The minister referred to the fact that the  exceptions relating to wild birds are primarily   about researchers using traps. However, I  am still not sure why there is no clarity   on snares for killing on that basis, because  none of those researchers is killing birds. I would welcome further discussions with the  minister. I will not move the relevant amendments   at this stage, but I want to ensure that, whether  it is in explanatory notes or further statements,   we absolutely make it clear that  the exceptions are for researchers. On that basis, I will not press or move my  amendments at this stage.

That might avoid   the need for you to go through them all  individually, convener, although there may   be a procedural reason why you have to do that. Can you just confirm that you do  not intend to press amendment 54A? That is correct. The question is, that amendment  54 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is:  For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0. Amendment 53, in the name of Rachael  Hamilton, is grouped with amendment 75. Before I speak to my amendments,   I thank the minister for setting aside time  to speak about them with me—I appreciate that. My amendments 53 and 75 would introduce  and outline a clear set of principles on   which licensing schemes could be based. A  framework based on principles would help to   provide clarity to all land managers,  gamekeepers and other relevant bodies   that are involved in the licensing  scheme.

I hope that we can agree that “a licensing scheme should only be introduced  where there is a legitimate need for one”. The amendments would ensure that we do not burden   land managers and gamekeepers  with unnecessary restrictions. Another principle is that a licensing scheme  should not put “excessive pressure” on NatureScot,   which, as we know, is already stretched with  other legislation that it is delivering on.   Another important benefit that would  be gained through the principles   is that they would ensure that there was no  “disproportionate cost” for licence applications.

Another benefit of introducing the principles  in the bill is that they would ensure that   the licensing process were reviewed to ensure  that the application process is as efficient   as it can be—and we all like efficiency.  The issues with obtaining a hunting with   dogs licence are a perfect example of the  challenges that arise when an application   process is neither practical nor workable, even  though, to be frank, ministers promised that   that process would be both of those things when  the legislation on that licence was put in place. I do not think that anyone would disagree with  Rachael Hamilton. We do not want to put in place   measures that are unnecessary. However, I am keen  to know how concepts such as “excessive pressure”   and “efficient”, which appear in the amendment,  can be adequately defined in a way that works.

Those aspects are very difficult to measure. As  we know, various members have received emails   and information about how burdensome the licence  scheme in the hunting with dogs process has been,   and we know how long the process has taken,   what information has to be provided  to NatureScot and how many of those   licences have been turned down, regardless  of the individuals meeting the criteria. The principles were based on other  parts of legislation relating to   licensing frameworks that have already  gone through the Parliament. I can   list the licensing frameworks that the  principles are based on. Those include   the Gambling Act 2005 and section 4  of the Licensing Act 2005. Currently,   the principles and high-level objectives  are already in those pieces of legislation. I hope that that reassures Alasdair Allan. Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 53 and 75 seek to  apply licensing principles to the wildlife trap,   grouse and muirburn licences in the bill.  Setting out those principles in legislation   is simply not necessary, because the licensing  authority will always be a public body—either   the Scottish Government or, if that  responsibility is delegated to it,   as is anticipated, NatureScot.

As public bodies,  the Scottish Government and NatureScot must act   reasonably and fairly in everything that  they do, not just for the purposes of the   three licensing schemes in the bill  but in respect of general principles. On ensuring that there is a legitimate need for  the scheme, all the licences in the bill have   been introduced to address a legitimate need,  as is required for compliance with the European   convention on human rights. The legitimate need  for those licences is to help with the prevention   of cruelty to animals, the prevention of  wildlife crime and the protection of the   natural environment. The legitimate need for the  licensing scheme already exists and, in fact,   is the reason for the bill. I am convinced that  the bill strikes a fair balance in considering   those whose possessions are particularly  affected and the wider public interest. I want to say a couple of things about what  Ms Hamilton said about constant review of   the application process.

Legislation on the  need for constantly reviewing the efficiency   of the application process is not necessary. The  application process is already kept under review,   with a view to improving the process for those  involved. The licences in the bill will be dealt   with using the existing licensing team and  process. However, NatureScot is exploring   whether there might be a need to expand the  size of the team to meet any potential increased   demand. That is an operational matter for it. It  is also exploring the development of a new online   licensing system for all the wildlife management  licences that it currently issues. NatureScot   would be expected to review any such changes and  what might be required to change in the future. There must be a balance. A constant review of  the application process would likely result   in more frequent minor changes, which  might mean that applicants would have   to deal with a different form or process  every time that they apply. That would   be onerous for applicants, and I am sure  that that is not what Ms Hamilton intends.

I do not support the amendments, for the reasons   that I have stated. I simply do  not think that they are necessary. May I make some concluding remarks, convener? Absolutely. Thank you. The minister gave a very interesting answer  regarding the existing licensing schemes that   NatureScot operates. I absolutely have no doubt  that they are operated in good faith and that they   are reasonable and fair. However, coming on top of  the licensing that it has to do under the Hunting   with Dogs Act 2023, the licensing in  the Wildlife Management and Muirburn   Bill will mean that NatureScot will  face a further drain on its resources. The minister will completely understand why  I lodged amendment 53—in fact, her answer   explained why I did do. She specifically said  that consideration is being given to an online   licensing scheme and to streamlining the existing  licensing scheme to make it more efficient and   easier for people to apply for licences. The  process has not been easy and straightforward.   We were promised that land managers would  be given a workable and practical system.

As I said to Alasdair Allan, there is  precedent for the inclusion of principles   on which licensing schemes can be based. It is not  a restrictive approach, and it would not slow down   the application process. There are additional  examples to the ones that I gave to Alasdair   Allan. Principles are included in section 11 of  the Good Food Nation Act 2022, section 1 of the   Social Security Act 2018, section 1 of the Victims  and Witnesses Act 2014 and section 3 of the   Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Act  2023. Therefore, there is precedent for what I   seek to do.

It is not true to say that it has not  been done before; I am not reinventing the wheel. I am disappointed that the minister  is not even willing to work with me. The question is, that amendment  53 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is:  For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. Amendment 177, in the name of  Edward Mountain, is grouped   with amendments 178, 109, 55, 110, 57 and 58. The purpose of amendment 177 is to rectify what I  perceive to be an error. If the minister wants to   contradict me, I would be grateful to her for  doing so, but I am not sure that there are any   legal traps for killing wild birds available in  Scotland.

I do not think that there is a trap that   allows you to do that. It is against the law to  kill a bird in a trap, and rightly so. Amendment   177 seeks to remove the word “killing” in relation  to the use of traps for wild birds, and amendment   178 seeks to ensure that “killing” applies in  the context of the use of traps for mammals. With amendment 109, Colin Smyth seeks to  include in the bill a provision that would   allow the trapping of all live mammals as part of  the licensing scheme. I am not sure that my wife,   who, contrary to my better judgment, believes in  trapping mice alive and releasing them outside   the house after they have been caught, would  welcome having to be part of a licensing scheme   or to apply for a tag or an identification to go  on her trap.

I am not sure that Colin Smyth has   thought through his amendment, because it would  affect more than just people who use traps in   the countryside. It would also mean that people  who use traps to catch live animals such as mice,   squirrels, rabbits and even rats—I  do not fully understand the principle   behind live rat traps—would have to go  on a course and fit a tag to their traps. Therefore, I am not entirely convinced that  amendment 109 is sensible, but I look forward   to hearing Colin Smyth’s arguments and to my  being able to go home and convince my wife. Amendment 55 is highly important  and entirely appropriate,   and I am glad that the minister has lodged it. Amendments 57 and 58, in the  name of Rachael Hamilton,   appear to be proportionate and sensible,  and I look forward to hearing the arguments. Amendment 78 appeals to me in that  the Government needs to be open,   honest and transparent about how it comes up with  its decisions.

I am sure that that will chime with   the general public and that the amendment will  therefore gain the support of the committee. The regulation of some traps, which the bill  will introduce, marks a big improvement, and I   very much welcome it. However, as we know, that  concerns only live-capture bird traps and traps   covered by the Spring Traps Approval Order 2011,  as amended. A variety of other traps are commonly   used in Scotland, some of which are completely  unregulated—those used for moles, rats and mice,   which can cause a great deal of suffering.  I therefore believe that the Government’s   approach of not considering those traps is  inconsistent from an animal welfare point of view.

Amendment 109, in my name, would add mammal  cage traps, which are used to take and then   kill mammals, to the list of traps for  which users must have a licence. Animal   welfare organisations have understandably  been calling for a review of all traps,   examining both the reasons for their use and their  welfare impact. I would support such a review, and   I would be keen to hear from the minister whether  the issue of live traps will be kept under review. The policy memorandum for the bill says that the   traps that I have referred  to are not included because “the activity does not pose a risk  to raptors, and in the majority,   such activities have no link  to grouse moor management.” Although the traps that I have referred  to do not pose a risk to raptors,   they will have an impact on any animal  trapped in them, and bringing them under   the trap licence scheme would ensure that best  practice is followed to minimise their impact.   Something is not cruel just because it is linked  to grouse moors.

The Government recognises that   with the comprehensive ban on snaring under the  bill, which is not linked just to those moors. I have worded my amendment 109 in such a way  that it specifies that the traps concerned are   for taking animals that are intended to be killed.  Researchers and welfare groups would therefore not   be affected, and the good news for Edward  Mountain is that neither would his wife’s actions. The aim of specifying “for the purpose of destruction” in the amendment is to exclude any  trapping for welfare reasons that   subsequently leads to humane destruction.  I hope that the minister will agree that   that overcomes any objections on the  basis of unintended consequences. Amendment 110 would alter the wording of  the requirement for trap users to try to   avoid untargeted species getting caught in  traps.

The current wording in the bill is: “the person took all reasonable  steps to prevent the killing,   taking or injury of any other animal  not intended to be taken by the trap.” Amendment 110 would replace the word  “reasonable” with “practicable”,   which sets a higher standard.  One legal dictionary says: “Practicable means available  and capable of being done   after taking into consideration cost,  existing technology, and logistics”. It is a common word in legislation. It has  been suggested that it would mean someone   having to stand by a trap 24 hours per day,  but that is simply not true.

That does not   meet the interpretation of “practicable” in  law. Using the word would mean, however, that   steps should be taken if it is possible to  take them. “Reasonable” is a lesser test   and, if we use that, we could easily end  up with an individual’s view of what is   “reasonable” dominating. Given the high numbers  of untargeted species that we know have been   caught and have suffered in traps until now, I  believe that we should aim to set a higher bar. I am particularly interested to know why, given  how common the phrase “reasonably practicable”   is in Scots law, the Government has chosen  not to use it but to use “reasonable” only.

I will speak first to my amendment 55. The issue  of trap tampering was discussed at length during   the committee’s stage 1 evidence sessions. I  listened to the evidence, particularly from the   Scottish Gamekeepers Association. Indeed, I met  representatives of the SGA and had a constructive   conversation with them. I listened to other  stakeholders involved in land management, too. I note the extent to which trap tampering happens  and the impact that it has on land managers’   ability to do their job—to carry out their lawful  activities. There might also be consequences for   animal safety and welfare if a trap is tampered  with. I understand the concerns of land managers   about vexatious complaints and the fear of  losing their licence or being prosecuted,   but that is not what the trap licence seeks to  do. I do not want responsible users to lose their   licence unfairly or due to the unwarranted  or irresponsible interference of others.

During the evidence sessions, Mike  Flynn of the Scottish SPCA agreed   that there should be a specific offence of  interfering with a lawfully set trap. He stated: “If it is lawfully set, any  suffering should be minimised,   but that is outwith the setter’s  control if the trap is tampered with.”— My amendment 55 would make it an offence to  tamper with a trap to which the wildlife trap   licence scheme applies so that it no longer  complies with the licence requirements,   or to disarm or destroy such a trap unless the  person has a reasonable excuse for doing so.   It also adds the offence of knowingly  causing or permitting another person   to tamper with, disarm or destroy such a trap.

I  encourage all members to vote for amendment 55. It is fair to say that amendments 57 and 58 aim to  achieve the same purpose as the offence provided   for in amendment 55. Therefore, I ask Ms Hamilton  not to move her amendments. If she does move them,   I encourage committee members to vote against  them, as amendment 55 does exactly the same thing. Amendments 177 and 178 seek to change the  wildlife trap licence scheme to apply to   traps that are used for the purpose of taking a  wild bird or killing or taking a wild animal. I   appreciate that Edward Mountain has lodged  those amendments to reflect the fact that,   currently, no traps can be legally used to  kill wild birds. Leaving proposed new section   12A of the 1981 act as it is  would have no immediate effect,   as there are no traps that can be used  for the purpose of killing wild birds.

The Werritty review recommended that traps that  are used to take wild birds be subject to greater   regulation due to the strong links between the  misuse of that activity and raptor persecution.   I have also made it clear that the bill should be  future proofed so that we have enabling powers to   amend the types of traps to which the licence  applies by secondary legislation. It would   stand to reason that, if any traps were ever  allowed to be used to kill wild birds, they,   too, should be subject to the licence  scheme. Again, it is future proofing. Edward Mountain’s amendments would mean that if,  in future, a trap should be devised that could   legally be used to kill wild birds, a licence  would not be required to kill them, only to take   them. That would have the result that there would  be a higher level of oversight for using traps to   take wild birds than for using traps to kill them,  which would be problematic.

For those reasons,   I cannot support amendments 177 and 178 and I  encourage committee members to vote against them. Colin Smyth’s amendment 109 would add traps  that are used for the live capture of wild   animals to the trap licence scheme if the  animals are trapped with the intention   of their later being killed. I understand  why Colin Smyth has lodged the amendment,   and it seems reasonable to include in the  bill. As is set out in the policy memorandum,   the measure was considered when the  bill was developed and drafted. However,   I came to the conclusion that there was not  enough evidence to justify adding such traps   to the licensing scheme at this time, and the  Werritty review did not recommend their licensing.

The intention of a wildlife trap licence  scheme is to reduce the use of traps that   illegally capture raptors. There is no evidence  that people using traps for the capture of live   animals have used them with that intent, nor  do I think that such traps would be capable of   capturing a raptor. I have had discussions with  NatureScot and stakeholders who are involved in   wildlife management, and it has become clear  to me that those traps are used by a number   of different groups for a wide range of  purposes that are often unconnected with   grouse moor management, including  conservation and research purposes. Therefore, I am concerned that  adding such traps to the licensing   scheme at this stage could give rise  to unintended consequences. However,   I appreciate that circumstances can change  and that new evidence can come to light. I   assure Colin Smyth that that is why the bill  contains powers to allow other types of traps,   such as the ones used for the capture of live  animals, to be added to the licensing scheme   through regulations following consultation.

It is  also worth noting that the bill does not change   the fact that anyone using such a trap to take  a protected animal will still require a species   licence from NatureScot and would have to comply  with the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2006. I hope that what I have said satisfies  Colin Smyth that sufficient safeguards   exist currently. We have powers in the bill  to address any issue in the future. Therefore,   his amendment 109 is unnecessary and could, in  fact, have unintended consequences. I ask him   not to move it. However, if he does move it, I  encourage committee members to vote against it. I turn to amendment 110. The bill offers  the safeguard of a defence to the offence   of catching an unintended animal if  the trap user has taken “all reasonable   steps” to prevent the catching of any unintended  animals. Amendment 110 would change the wording   in that defence from “all reasonable  steps” to “all practicable steps”. The defence was included to account  for a situation in which a person   has complied with the requirements of  the trap licence but catches an animal   unintentionally, when doing so could not  have been foreseen—for example, if they had   lawfully set a trap to catch a weasel  but unintentionally caught a badger.

In the majority of cases, what is reasonable  will also be what is practicable. It would   not be reasonable to ask someone to do  something impracticable. I appreciate   that that sounds a little convoluted, but  there is a substantive amount of case law   on the reasonableness test. That is why  I have used the wording that I have used. Further, the word “reasonable” was used  in the bill to maintain consistency with   provisions in the Wildlife and Countryside  Act 1981. It is important to do what we can   to avoid unnecessary confusion. For that  reason, I ask Colin Smyth not to move   amendment 110. If he does so, I encourage  committee members to vote against it. I was heartened that the minister lodged amendment  55. That clearly means that we have both been   listening carefully to some of the evidence on  the issue. I support her amendment 100 per cent,   as it serves the same purpose as my amendment  57—to make trap vandalism an offence. I listened carefully to the minister when she  spoke about Mike Flynn from the Scottish SPCA, who   also supports a specific offence should the animal  welfare implications of trap vandalism be in play.   Scottish Land & Estates also supports a specific  offence whereby the penalties for trap vandalism   should equal those for mis-setting a trap.

I,  too, met the Scottish Gamekeepers Association,   which strongly supports that amendment. I accept  the minister’s point that my amendment is very   similar, so I will reluctantly not move it,  albeit that we have not yet got to that point. I fully support amendment 55, which  rightly introduces a level playing field. Colin Smyth’s amendment 109  would bring all live-capture   traps for mammals within the scope of the  licensing scheme. I have concerns that,   often, those traps are integral to the  control of invasive non-native species.   I note, in particular, the operation of  squirrel traps and mink traps. The work   that gamekeepers carry out to manage the  impact of those species on native wildlife   might be significantly impacted as an unintended  consequence of bringing those traps into scope. I support the convener’s remarks on Colin Smyth’s  amendment 109, which appears to be more of a   probing amendment than a realistic attempt to  amend the bill. Live-capture traps for mammals   are not generally used in moorland management  contexts, and the consequences that have been   described by the minister, Edward Mountain and  others make the amendment somewhat unworkable.   I also think that the amendment is out of scope  and inconsistent with the purpose of the bill.

Amendment 110 would render the trap licensing  scheme fundamentally unworkable in practice.   Again, the minister has covered this well, but  it bears repetition: trap licences are personal   to individual operators, whose circumstances will  vary vastly. Some will be lone operators on small   landholdings and others will be on large  landholdings, supporting large businesses.   Likewise, the nature, extent, need and purpose  of trapping varies vastly, depending on the land   management activity that is being carried out,  the scale of the land, its topography and so on. The effect of replacing “reasonable” with  “practicable” would be to provide that trap   licence holders would have to take all steps that  were theoretically possible to prevent bycatch,   such as standing beside the trap for 24 hours  a day—I know that Colin Smyth dismissed that,   but it would certainly come within  the scope of the definition—as opposed   to the steps that are reasonable,  such as having regard to the land,   its resources and risk.

It is therefore essential  that the reasonable steps test be retained,   as it allows NatureScot to assess conduct in  context and takes the flexible and risk-based   approach to regulation that is envisaged  by the principles of better regulation. I have found the debate interesting. I am  slightly concerned that the minister has   suggested that amendment 177 should not be agreed  to on the basis that it talks about something   that is already illegal and that she is talking  about the need for what is in the bill to remain   there because of future proofing.

That seems to  suggest that the minister will consider at some   stage allowing traps to kill birds. If that is the  intention, I am desperately against it. Therefore,   I am sure that, on reflection, the minister will  think that amendment 177 is sensible, because   it does not even mention the killing of birds  with a trap, so no future proofing is required. I confirm that including traps for  birds is not my intention. It is   about future proofing the bill should any  modifications come about for future traps   that might exist. I noticed that Edward  Mountain had a little bit of a smile on   his face when he suggested that.  That is not my intention at all. In fairness, anyone who develops  a trap for deployment in Scotland   that can kill or that aims to kill birds is  breaking the law anyway.

There is no point— That is exactly my point. Convener, I am sure that you would  like me to go through the chair. Thank you. My point is entirely that it is not required  in the bill, so we should remove it. I am somewhat less convinced by Colin  Smyth’s amendment 109. My wife might   be delighted that she will continue to be  able to release mice, rats and moles, but,   if I get my hands on the trap, I will not  be releasing them.

The intention would be   that they would be killed, so I would have to  apply for a licence, as would everyone else,   should they wish to use a live trap to hold an  animal until it can be effectively dispatched.   I do not think that amendments 109 or 110,  in the name of Colin Smyth, are helpful. I reiterate that amendment 55,  in the name of the minister,   is a useful addition to the bill. I am  pleased that she has taken the time and   trouble to listen to practitioners who face such  vandalism on a daily basis. Be under no illusion:   it happens on a daily basis. The cost can be  phenomenal if somebody goes down a trap line   and smashes each of the legal traps, which  can cost £40 plus each, and Larsen traps,   which are built, can cost considerably more.

I am  very pleased that the minister has done that. I   hear Rachael Hamilton’s argument that amendment 55  might cover what her amendment 57 intended to do. I confirm that I will press amendment 177,   because I do not think that that  part of the bill is required. The question is, that amendment  177 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is:  For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment  178 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is:  For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. Amendment 109, in the name of Colin Smyth,  has already been debated with amendment 177. I note the minister’s comments on why wider  types of traps have not been included, but I   reiterate that, as with snaring, the  cruelty that is associated with some   traps happens not only on grouse moors  or in relation to raptors. However,   I note the comments about insertion  of new section 12A into the   Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which gives  ministers powers to amend the list of traps,   and I hope that the issue of other traps remains  under review.

Indeed, I would be keen to discuss   that with the minister ahead of stage 3. At this  point, though, I will not move amendment 109. Amendment 110, in the name of Colin Smyth,  has already been debated with amendment 177. I will certainly move amendment 110, convener.  Although I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for reading   out almost word for word the briefing from the  British Association for Shooting and Conservation,   the reality is that standing next to a trap  is not a reasonable interpretation of the   word “practicable”. According to a legal  dictionary, “practicable” is defined as “available and capable of being done  after taking into consideration cost,   existing technology, and logistics”. It would not be logistically possible to stand  next to a trap 24/7, and it is not something that   would be expected.

What is meant by “practicable”  is that steps should be taken, if it is possible   to do so. As I have said before, the term  “reasonable” represents a far lesser test. The question is, that amendment  110 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is:  For 1, Against 8, Abstentions 0. Amendment 78, in the name of Finlay  Carson, is grouped with amendments,   80, 19, 84, 93, 100, 41, 103 and 105. Amendment 78 seeks to require Scottish  ministers to publish the results of the   consultation to be carried out under section  12 and to give reasons for any decision that   is reached.

That applies not only to amendment 78  but to amendments 80, 84, 93, 100, 103 and 105. I have lodged the amendments because, although  the obligation on “the Scottish Ministers” to “consult Scottish Natural Heritage and such   persons as they consider likely  to be interested in or affected” is welcome, there is an obligation on  Scottish ministers to report the outcome   of the consultation along with their reasons  for their decisions. The Scottish Government   should make public the consultation’s  outcome in the interests of transparency. Convener, I think that I inadvertently—I  apologise for this—praised your amendments   in the debate on the previous group, but  my comments stand. I think it is really   important that all discussions relating to the  consultation—and, if necessary, the minutes of   meetings—be made available so that people  can see how decisions have come about. Amendments 19 and 41 are simple. The bill says: “Before … revising a code of practice the   Scottish Ministers must consult  … Scottish Natural Heritage”. I have to say, minister, that I get confused  about this. Is the organisation Scottish Natural   Heritage one day and NatureScot the next? You  might wish to reflect on the need for continuity   with previous legislation, as a result of  which the organisation is now referred to   as NatureScot—I am sure that  your officials will do so.

I also note that Scottish  ministers also have to consult “any other person they consider appropriate.” I would like to amend that simply by adding  the phrase “land managers”, which would make   the consultation sufficiently widespread to  include anyone who works on and manages land.   RSPB Scotland, for example, is a land manager. The  phrase would also cover private owners, charities   and trusts. Indeed, it could also include people  on the front line, who are making all of this   work. That would give you a better idea  of whether the principle itself works. I am sure that the minister is going  to fire back at me on the Scottish   Natural Heritage and NatureScot  point. I look forward to that,   and I thank the convener for allowing  me to speak to the amendments. Before I speak to your amendments, convener,  I clarify that “Scottish Natural Heritage”   is the term that is used in legislation,  whereas “NatureScot” is the organisation’s   public-facing brand name. They are names  for the same organisation. I understand   that that can become a little confusing, but  I consistently refer to it as NatureScot.

With the greatest respect, I believe that  Finlay Carson’s amendments 78, 80, 19,   93, 41, 103 and 105 are unnecessary. The  bill contains a set of enabling powers to   allow Scottish ministers to modify,  by Scottish statutory instrument,   provisions relating to wildlife traps, section  16AA licences and muirburn. Such modifications   are subject to the conditions that are set out in  the bill, including the requirement to consult.   Any changes that are made under those provisions  are already subject to the affirmative procedure. The policy note for SSIs that are laid  in the Scottish Parliament contains a   consultation section that outlines the form  of consultation that has been conducted.   The policy note also contains the  reasons for introducing the SSI,   which will normally include the views of  stakeholders. I therefore do not see any need   to set out in the bill a requirement to publish  consultations that are undertaken in relation to   use of the enabling powers. I encourage  members to vote against the amendments. Likewise, I will not support amendments 84 and  100. They would add the requirement to publish   the results of consultation  undertaken while preparing,   reviewing or revising the muirburn code,  or the code for section 16AA licences,   and to give reasons for the  decisions that had been taken.

It is standard practice for Scottish ministers  to consult interested parties on such matters,   and we regularly share and publish consultation  responses. As I set out in my letter to the   committee last week, when I provided an  update on the development of muirburn and   grouse moor management codes, interested parties  have been consulted continually and have been   included in the process of developing the codes.  I therefore see no reason to set such matters   out in primary legislation.

I encourage  members to vote against the amendments. I turn to Edward Mountain’s amendments 19 and   41. On amendment 19, the provisions in  the bill set out that when preparing,   reviewing or revising the code of practice for  grouse licences, Scottish ministers must consult “any other person they consider appropriate”. It is fair to say that land managers  would fall into that category, so,   in my view, we do not need to provide  for that specifically in the bill. Similarly, on amendment 41, it is clear  to me that land managers are likely to be   interested in or affected by muirburn, so  Scottish ministers would already be required   to consult them when considering amending  the dates for the muirburn season. However,   I have listened to what Mr Mountain has said— Will the minister give way? I might be about to give you some comfort in my   next paragraph.

Perhaps I could get  to the end of that, and then I will— I am sorry. Yes. I have listened to what Mr Mountain has said.  I understand why he lodged the amendments and   why he thinks that it would be helpful to have  a requirement to consult land managers set out   more explicitly in the bill. I am therefore happy  to support his amendments in principle. However,   I would like to ensure that both are framed  in a way that is consistent with the existing   language in the bill. I therefore request that  Mr Mountain not press amendments 19 and 41 but   allow us to work together on redrafted  versions to be brought back at stage 3. I would like clarification. You talked about  consultation that takes place regularly and   said that the Scottish Government would  normally publish the results of such   consultation.

Are you committing to doing that  in the future, regardless of those amendments? I genuinely cannot think of any  consultation that I have been   involved in, in the time since I have been  a minister, whose results have not been   published. Such publication is standard  practice in the Scottish Government. I will wind up. I believe that such a  decision is one for the incumbent minister,   whoever that might be. We might have a  commitment from the current minister,   but it will be within the minister of the  time’s discretion whether consultation   is carried out. I recognise that the minister  who is here today has written to the committee   about the process and development of the  statutory code of practice in other areas. However, I do not think that the  Government should have any fear   of the provision being included in  the bill. A verbal commitment from   one minister might not be something that  we would get from another in the future,   so there should be no concerns about  putting that requirement in the bill.

I intend to press amendment 78. The question is, that amendment  78 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is:  For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0. It is my intention that members  will now have a short comfort   break. I suspend the meeting until 10:20. We return to stage 2 consideration  of amendments. Amendment 111,   in the name of Rachael Hamilton, is grouped with  amendments 1, 112, 126, 2, 127, 147, 3 and 148. Amendment 111 and the other amendments in the  group centre on the premise of cost recovery   for the various licensing schemes in the  bill. For hundreds of years, landowners   and land managers have been the champions of  conservation in rural Scotland. Whether it is   a sporting estate or a family-run farm, which  my colleague Edward Mountain spoke of earlier,   those conservation efforts have  been conducted with the experience   and understanding that is handed  down from generation to generation. The legal control of pest and predatorial  species has been undertaken at the expense of   landowners or tenants and has served to preserve,  recover and promote endangered and red-listed   species. To date, those conservationists have  never been paid for providing that service,   nor do they ask for money for providing it.

It is  a service that they are willing to undertake, as   they have an appreciation of how important certain  vulnerable species are to their local and national   habitats. Members should think about the benefits  of the work that land managers already undertake.   Without them, we are likely to lose our iconic  capercaillie. Work has also been done to recover   the numbers of lapwings and curlews, and that  work will come to nothing if those practices stop. We have an opportunity to support those who  are out before light and who get back home   to their families well after dark; instead, we  seek to punish them by twisting the financial   thumbscrews at a time when they are being asked  to contribute positively towards addressing the   nature and climate emergencies.

The  expertise of some of the operators   is frequently drawn on by the likes of  the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service,   as well as by organisations that are dedicated  to promoting and protecting certain species. We   simply cannot afford to lose the skill of those  people and the equipment that they invest in. Finally, NatureScot recognises that the control  of certain species is a public service and it does   not charge for wildlife management licences  that directly benefit the public. To push   for cost recovery now would likely ensure that  individual conservationists, smaller farmers,   tenant farmers and projects that work on a  shoestring are hardest hit. As a result, they will   be unable to afford to carry on that vital  work. I hope that the minister will understand   my argument that they are currently undertaking  that work for free. Success in conservation needs   national involvement, and the combined efforts  of small projects and landholdings are key to   that success.

Amendment 111 would ensure  that that key work continues unhindered. This group is quite straightforward,   with Rachael Hamilton going in one  direction and me going in another. I and many others support the proposals that  the Scottish Government has set out in the   bill. However, it is important that NatureScot’s  wider conservation functions are not diminished   in any way and that the administration costs of  trapping, grouse shooting and muirburn licences   are covered in full by applicants. NatureScot  is taking on significant additional licensing   functions as part of the bill, and I think that I  heard the minister say that NatureScot might need   new staff as a result. We do not want NatureScot’s  resources for other work to be reduced because of   that. Public finances are tight, and if the  public purse has to subsidise those licences,   it means less money for other important  needs. Rachael Hamilton slightly overstates   the case when she uses words such as “punish” and  “thumbscrews”, but the reality is that money is   tight, and £1 extra for subsidising landowners  means £1 less for the national health service.

In the context of the climate and nature  emergency, we need a strong NatureScot. I   understand that NatureScot does not  charge for the licensing functions   that it administers. However, other organisations,   such as the Scottish Environment Protection  Agency, already charge for most of their   licensing functions. With regard to firearms  licence administration, via Police Scotland,   the public already bears the cost, to a large  extent, of what is largely a private benefit. In this case, the aim of the Wildlife Management  and Muirburn Bill is explicitly about addressing   the illegal persecution of raptors that is  associated with grouse shooting and to improve   trapping and muirburn practice to prevent damage  to public interests. Grouse shooting is largely   a private benefit linked to land ownership, so it  feels inequitable to many that the public should   have to cover the costs of such licences,  especially when, in the context of grouse   shooting, the legislation is designed to address  the long-standing illegal behaviours of some   practitioners.

The legislation is intended to act  as a meaningful deterrent to illegal behaviours   and bad practice in land management. If the  licence applicant has to pay the administration   costs of the licensing service, it could also be  argued that they will have greater investment in   the process and will focus more on what they are  asked to deliver—namely, the licence conditions   set by NatureScot for the receipt of a licence to  operate trapping, grouse shooting and muirburn. I gather that there is due to be a licensing  review at some point.

The minister referred   to that when I asked her a question in the  chamber in December. It would be good to hear   from the minister what her current thinking  is on the subject of full cost recovery,   the timescale of any review and  whether she is minded to support   charging for the specific licensing  functions that are related to the bill. I have a question that the minister  can perhaps cover in her response. How   wedded is she to the costs in the financial  memorandum? For example, it is £50 for   a trap licence, £100 for a grouse shoot  licence and £250 for a muirburn licence. I want to speak to John Mason’s amendments,   and I thank him for raising an important issue.  The committee heard evidence about it at stage 1,   but I recognise that a species licensing  review is already committed to as part of   the Bute house agreement, and I agree with  not pre-empting the findings of that review.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 111, 112, 126,  127, 147 and 148 would remove the relevant   authority’s ability to charge reasonable  licence fees for any of the licences in   the bill. As a couple of members—particularly  Ariane Burgess—have said, we have a Bute house   agreement commitment to review species licensing  throughout wildlife licensing. That will include   assessing the potential for cost recovery.  Rachael Hamilton’s amendments prohibit that,   so I cannot support them and I encourage  the committee not to support them. With regard to the financial memorandum,  those were the initial estimates from   NatureScot. They will be refined as  the licensing is developed in the   online system, and they will also be taken into  account as part of the review. I understand and   appreciate the intent behind John Mason’s  amendments 1, 2 and 3. As I have said,   we have committed to considering cost recovery  as part of the review, and we are actively— Can you give us the timescale for the review? I was just about to refer the committee to  Ms Slater’s letter to NatureScot in which   she asked it to take forward the commitment to do  the species licensing review.

I am sure that the   committee has a copy of that letter—if not, we can  make sure that it does. At the end of her letter,   which was sent in January, she said that she would  like the report to be completed and ready for   external review within six months. It is going to  be done at speed. I imagine that that will be by   June this year, for external review, and that  the committee will take an interest in that. We want to consider cost recovery across  the whole range of species licensing. It is   important that Ms Slater’s letter also says that  it is about review of the wider species licensing   system with a view to ensuring that the law is  being applied correctly.

Therefore, it is not   just about cost recovery; it is also about how  the licence system is working more generally. Will the minister take an intervention? I will be happy to give way  when I finish my points. We have taken the approach of including provisions  in the bill to allow the relevant authority to   charge a reasonable fee in the future following  the outcome of the review. That approach would   allow for a holistic and coherent introduction  of fees and charges across all relevant bill   activities and, indeed, the wider relevant  licensing activities undertaken by NatureScot. Amendments 1, 2, and 3 could pre-empt  and undermine the outcome of the review,   so I ask Mr Mason not to move them. I am sure  that the minister who commissioned the NatureScot   review will be content to keep Mr Mason and other  members of the committee updated on its progress. I am happy to try to answer  Ms Hamilton’s question. My question is quite straightforward. Are you  keen on the Scottish Government aligning with   the licence cost proposals that are  set out in the financial memorandum? The review might supersede that.

We have to allow  NatureScot to undertake a full analysis of the   cost recovery associated with all licences and see  where that lands. Obviously, it has sight of what   we proposed in the financial memorandum, which  it will take into account. Ms Slater is leading   on that. However, I think that we all agree that  the licences should be proportionate and should   depend on the people who are applying for them.  All of that will be taken into account. The   committee will, of course, be able to see the  results of the review within about six months. Do you accept that £250 for  an annual muirburn licence,   which would be required by small crofts and tenant  farms, is probably disproportionate, especially   when there might be a requirement for more  than one licence for peatland and non-peatland? What is the point of the numbers  in the financial memorandum if   you do not have a commitment to them?  Perhaps you might address that issue.

A financial memorandum is essential for any bill  that has been introduced. The estimates were based   on the stage that we were at. However, we  need to allow the wider review to conclude. On the questions about the cost of a particular  licence, I have just said that all the licensing   fees, the cost recovery and how the licences  work will be reviewed by NatureScot.

If I were   to say anything about a particular licence today,  that would pre-empt the analysis that NatureScot   will do. We have to allow it to get on with that  work, as instructed by the minister responsible. Does the minister agree that the figures in the  financial memorandum are estimates? In some cases,   they appear to be quite clear  estimates in relation to the   bill that we are discussing, but the estimates  relating to many other bills are incredibly rough.   Does she accept that a guideline in the financial  memorandum is certainly not fixed in stone? Exactly. As I said, the financial memorandum is  an essential part of any bill and it is always   an estimate. I hope that the fact that  we have provided those estimates in the   financial memorandum will give NatureScot  the ability to interrogate what we have   proposed in the bill as part of its wider  review of all the licences that it issues. The idea that John Mason puts forward—that what  appears in the financial memorandum is somehow a   ballpark figure or a rough estimate—is the root  of many of the issues around cost that we seem   to have had in Parliament in this parliamentary  session.

Surely, as a Government minister, you   do not accept that those numbers are just thrown  together. What is the rationale for the numbers   in the financial memorandum? I do not believe  that it is appropriate for you, a minister,   to disassociate yourself from the  numbers that you have published. Mr Kerr might not think that it is  appropriate. We have arrived at an   estimate of the costs associated with the  licences but, as I have said a few times now,   we have to allow NatureScot to undertake  the work that Ms Slater has asked it to do,   which is a review of the licences. I  hope that the estimates that we have   provided in our financial memorandum  will be helpful in that respect. I call Rachael Hamilton to wind up  and press or withdraw amendment 111.

Various colleagues have just shared  a lot of information around this   grouping of amendments, and I  want to pick up on a few points. First, it appears that John Mason is saying  that rural stakeholders should foot the bill   for a public service, although it is clear  that there is a public benefit. He says   that there is not a public benefit but, with  regard to the biodiversity gain, it is about   a national conversation and national involvement  and intervention to meet climate crisis targets. Secondly, with respect, he should not cast  aspersions that illegal behaviours have been   related to rural stakeholders and imply that  he believes that not all operators operate   legally.

I would like him to either apologise  or make sure that those comments are extended. Would Ms Hamilton accept that I did not  say that there was no public benefit? In bringing forward the amendment, you did not  once say that rural stakeholders are bringing a   clear public benefit in relation to biodiversity  gain. That is how I interpreted what you said,   but, obviously, I do not know whether  you are trying to say that they do or   do not bring a public benefit.

Beyond  that, it is important that we reflect   that those who are operating legally and  within the law are providing a public service. I also want to pick up on certain points that  the minister made. The Bute house agreement is   a political agreement that exists because the  Scottish National Party did not get a majority   in the most recent election and therefore had to  bring on board another party to ensure that it had   a majority, particularly for independence  votes. Forgive me for making that point,   but it is essential that I make it, because  the SNP is now kowtowing to another party. Will the member give way? Not until I finish my point,  if you do not mind, Mr Fairlie. The financial memorandum sets out an estimate.  Could we say that an annual muirburn licence   at £250 is fair and proportionate, or could we say  that, with a review in six months, land managers   have no idea what their likely costs will be?  There is no certainty about that in the future. I think that you—well, not you, minister, but  the Bute house agreement—are almost using rural   stakeholders to force the issue  and to bring forward a review and   leapfrog the financial memorandum, although I  do understand that the figure is an estimate.

I also highlight the NatureScot cuts. Should we  make the point that NatureScot has had funding   cuts? Is the Scottish Government expecting the  gaps to be plugged by making those cuts? This   raises so many uncomfortable questions  for me, and I hope that you appreciate— Will the member give way? Yes. Stakeholders themselves have accepted that the  bill was introduced as a result of the raptor   persecution that has been going on for decades.  The fact that the bill will have consequential   wildlife benefits does not necessitate  its being paid for from the public purse. I am not saying how I am going to vote on this  at this moment in time, but the member is almost   trying to say that the bill was introduced  as a result of the Bute house agreement,   with the Greens driving it. It was not; it was  introduced because raptor persecution has been   happening in this country for decades, and the  landowners who were responsible—or, at least,   their employees—did not shut it down.

I support  landowners and rural workers more than most,   but I am afraid to say that, on this  point, I fundamentally disagree with you. I thank Jim Fairlie for that  intervention. Of course,   the whole objective is to get those people who  are operating illegally—that is the most important   part of the bill—but there is no connection  between raptor persecution and grouse moors. Well, I would disagree, as would the evidence. There are other reasons for persecution—intraguild  predation, the habitat, et cetera. We can agree to   disagree on that, but what we are talking  about here is cost recovery. To my mind,   it is almost as if those who are operating legally  are being persecuted, if I can use that word.

I am also uncomfortable about the fact that  there has been no demonstration of the benefit   to the public purse. The biodiversity gain is  in sight—you only need to go on to a grouse   moor to see the species that have recovered.  Indeed, I was on a farm that was connected   to a grouse moor, and there were 15 bird  species just because of the management. I have made my point, so I will finish  up. That is all that I have to say. Can I confirm, Ms Hamilton, that  you intend to press amendment 111? Yes. The question is, that amendment  111 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division The result of the division is:  For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. Amendment 56, in the name of the minister,  is grouped with amendments 10, 10B, 10A,   113 to 116, 11, 117 and 118. I point  out that, if amendment 10 is agreed to,   I cannot call amendments 113 and  114, on the ground of pre-emption.

Amendment 56 inserts a requirement for any  application for a wildlife trap licence to   include evidence that the applicant has  completed an approved training course. The bill currently provides that the licensing  authority, which I expect to be NatureScot,   has the ability to determine what  information is to be supplied alongside   a wildlife trap licence application, which  could include evidence of training. However,   having reflected on the issue, I think that  it would be more transparent to have the   requirement for evidence of training stated  in the bill, as that would make it clear to   all applicants that they are required to  complete an approved training course and   to provide proof of that when applying for a  licence.

Requiring the applicant to provide   proof of relevant training when they submit their  application will aid the relevant authority in   determining whether a licence should be granted.  I encourage members to vote for my amendment 56. Edwards Mountain’s amendments 10, 10B and 11  would have the effect of requiring NatureScot   to grant a licence if the applicant had  completed the training or was born after   31 December 1983 and had used the type  of trap in question professionally for   at least a decade. If an applicant met the  age and professional experience criteria,   they would be exempt from any requirement to  undergo training. I encourage the committee   to reject those amendments. The wildlife trap  training requirement is not about telling people   how to do their job; it is about recognising that  the use of wildlife traps requires an appropriate   level of skill and training if we want to avoid  any adverse welfare outcomes in the future. The requirement in the bill that wildlife trap  users should undergo appropriate training has   been largely supported by stakeholders.  Land managers have told me that they   already undertake a lot of training, and I am  conscious that there are many people involved   in grouse moor and wildlife management who  have significant knowledge and expertise—and   they seem to be pleased to evidence it.  The purpose of the training requirement   is to incorporate all that experience  and learning, ensuring that everyone   using wildlife traps has high standards  across the board, which they can evidence.

I will quote from the committee’s  stage 1 evidence. Alex Hogg,   chairman of the Scottish Gamekeepers  Association, said that the SGA was “up for doing the trap training and getting   it right. Whatever you decide  on, we will comply with it”.— Regarding the exemption based on age, I do not  think that we can assume that someone, just   because they are over 40, will automatically  have all the right skills. They may have been   using the trap incorrectly for a number  of years, or they might not be aware that   there are new legal requirements, such as a  change in the baffle size.

The purpose of the   training requirement is to ensure that high  standards are maintained and are consistent   through continuous professional development.  The bill requires a person to use a trap in   accordance with the approved training course. If  they do not, they will have committed an offence. By not requiring certain people to undergo  training and refresher training, there is the   potential that they may not have the knowledge to  comply with the requirement to operate the trap in   question in accordance with the approved training  course. That would be setting them up to fail. For those reasons, I cannot  support amendments 10 and 11,   and I encourage committee  members to vote against them.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 10A would remove  the requirement in amendment 10 that a trap   user must be born on or before 31 December  1983. That would address concerns that I   have about amendment 10 in relation to  the age of an applicant. For that reason,   I fully support amendment 10A, as it would  mitigate some of the issues that I have with   amendment 10. On that basis, I would encourage  committee members to support amendment 10A. I will be clear, however: even with  the changes contained in amendment 10A,   amendment 10 would still allow a wildlife  trap licence to be issued to any applicant   who has completed the training course and  has used the type of trap in question in   a professional capacity for a period of at  least 10 years consecutively, regardless of   their suitability.

I therefore cannot support  amendment 10. Even if members are minded to   vote for amendment 10A, I would still hope that  they will vote against amendment 10 as amended. Colin Smyth’s amendment 113 would impose a  condition that a trap licence could not be issued   if it was for the primary purpose of managing  the number of wild birds that are available   for sport shooting. Grouse shooting makes an  important contribution to the rural economy and   provides jobs in rural and island communities.  The bill is not about stopping or outlawing   that activity.

Predator control is carried  out in Scotland for a variety of purposes,   including on grouse moors. I have concerns  that limiting the use of traps on grouse   moors could have a detrimental effect on  the ability of important rural businesses   to undertake legitimate activities. I have  made it very clear that the bill is about   the management of grouse moors and ensuring  that related activities are undertaken in an   environmentally sustainable manner; it  is not about banning sports shooting. However, I am clear that anyone who uses  traps, whether on a grouse moor or elsewhere,   must comply with the law and adhere to all the  conditions of their licence. If they do not,   NatureScot has the power to take  appropriate action. For those reasons,   I cannot support amendment 113, and I  encourage the committee to vote against it. Colin Smyth’s amendment 114 proposes to introduce  a condition that the licensing authority can grant   a wildlife trap licence only if the proposed  use of a wildlife trap is justified by evidence   of harm caused by the species intended to be  killed or taken, and if no other method that   is non-lethal or has a lower animal welfare impact  would be effective in reducing that harm.

With all   respect, amendment 114 misunderstands the purpose  of the wildlife trap licence, which is to apply it   to the individual, not to the land or the purpose  for which trapping is carried out. Individuals may   trap a range of species for a variety of purposes,  and they may do so professionally or not. The   requirement to evidence harm and to show that  other non-lethal methods are not effective would   be onerous to administer, and it is likely to have  wider unintended consequences, as many farmers and   crofters utilise traps for reasons that we  have discussed many times, including today. As part of the Bute house agreement, we have  committed to reviewing the wider species licensing   system, not just for cost recovery reasons but  with a view to ensuring that lethal control is   licensed only where the relevant conditions are  demonstrably being met.

As well as considering   issues such as cost recovery, the review will  provide an opportunity to examine the whole   system and how it operates. It will also ensure  that welfare principles are part of the system.   That review is the appropriate place to consider  all issues relating to wildlife licensing. For   those reasons, I cannot support amendment 114 and  I encourage committee members to vote against it. Amendment 115 requires that trap licences specify  the maximum number of traps for which the licence   holder may be responsible at any one time and the  location where the traps may be used. As I have   already said, the wildlife trap licence applies  to the person rather than the land on which it is   to be used. Limiting the maximum number of traps  and the locations where a person can use their   traps could result in issues for licence holders,  as many of them trap animals professionally and   could require to use traps in numerous locations,  even nationwide. As some trap users work on behalf   of estates in multiple places, the effect of  amendment 115 would be to create an additional   administrative burden should they change job, as  well as limiting their ability to earn a living.

Limiting the locations would impede  the use of the traps under the licence,   as target animals may move out of the licensed  area, so a licence holder would be unable to   trap the target animal unless they applied  to the relevant authority to have the licence   updated—by which time the animal could have  moved again. That requirement for regular   updating of the licence would add an unnecessary  administrative burden for the relevant authority,   which would need to process the updated  licence every time that a trap was moved.

In short, the requirements of amendment  115 would be unworkable in practice.   They are neither appropriate nor  proportionate. For those reasons,   I cannot support amendment 115 and I  encourage the committee to vote against it. Under amendment 116, the wildlife trap  training and licence would have to be   renewed every five years. In his review of  grouse moors, Professor Werritty recommended “That any operator dealing with  the relevant category of trap   should undergo refresher training  at least once every ten years.” The Scottish Government has accepted Professor  Werritty’s recommendation and has heard no   representations from stakeholders that  that time interval should be reduced. Edward Mountain has raised concerns about  the proportionality of the wildlife trap   training requirement. There are concerns that it  places an undue burden on people who are already   well trained. I do not necessarily  agree with those concerns. However,   increasing the frequency of refresher training  to every five years goes too far, in my view.   The period of 10 years that is set out in the  bill is a maximum, so NatureScot can already   choose to grant a licence for less than 10 years  if it thinks it appropriate in the circumstances   of an individual licence application.

I believe  that that approach strikes the right balance   between the licensing authority having proper  oversight of the scheme and maintaining animal   welfare standards and not placing an unnecessary  burden on rural workers. For those reasons,   I cannot support amendment 116 and I encourage  committee members to vote against it. Amendment 117 would require trap licence holders  to maintain records and report annually on the   number and species of all animals killed or  taken in traps. I do not believe the amendment   to be necessary, as the bill already allows  NatureScot to add any conditions to a licence   that it considers appropriate, which would include  reporting requirements. Amendment 117 would tie   NatureScot’s hands if, for example, it wanted  to receive reports more or less frequently.   For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 117  and I encourage the committee to vote against it.

Amendment 118 would add the requirement that  every wildlife trap licence be subject to   the condition that the use of traps under the  licence must be undertaken in accordance with   the highest possible standards of animal welfare.  I believe that the amendment is also unnecessary,   because those animal welfare standards will  be embedded in the scheme as part of the trap   training, and traps must be used in accordance  with that training. For those reasons I cannot   support amendment 118 and I encourage  committee members to vote against it. I am pleased to speak to the amendments  in my name. I will be careful when I speak   to the issues and will not add too many old  stories in respect of them. I remember that,   when I was much younger, I told my grandmother  how to do something. She replied, “Don’t teach   your grandmother to suck eggs.”  That is the point of amendment 10. Amendment 10 is in two parts. The first says  that, if someone has completed a training course,   the authority must give them a licence.  The second part seems to have caused a   huge amount of consternation.

It is based on an  amendment that came about in spraying legislation   many years ago. I am not sure that members here  will remember it. It conferred what were known   as grandfather rights in that people who had  been practitioners of spraying were allowed to   continue without a requirement that they sit  a training course on it. That seems entirely   reasonable. For members’ information, I set  the figures in the way that I did because I   thought that a 40-year-old would probably  be around halfway through their career,   and if they had done 10 years of practice they  would probably know what they were talking about.

I am afraid that the minister misrepresented  my point. It is about having a combination   of the two factors. The requirement  is that people must have been born   before 31 December 1983 and have been  practising the use of traps for 10 years. It is a difficult situation, because everyone  wants to send people on a course. I certainly   remember that, when I left the Army, I was  sent on a deer stalking certificate course,   for the purpose of deer control. It was a full-day  course. It was pretty expensive but pretty   informative, and I was given a shooting test at  the end. I know that the person who ran the course   had less experience in deer management than I  had, because they had been on the planet for fewer   years than I had been practising that skill.

That  made it difficult for me to understand the reasons   for my having to do the course. The shooting test,  which involved spending an interesting day on   the range, was more complicated for me to pass,  and so to qualify to shoot four-legged animals,   than my annual weapons test in the Army, which  had allowed me to shoot two-legged animals. This is my point: we are taking people to one  side for training but we are really teaching   them to suck eggs. We are impinging on  their knowledge and being rude to them.   If I were to introduce a bill that  required every single member of the   Parliament to complete a course in order to  be a politician here, someone who had been   here for a considerable time—perhaps even the  First Minister, or the minister sitting at the   table—would have to be taught the basics of  being a politician. That would not be right. That is why I lodged amendment 10, which is a  simple amendment. I think that it is wrong for the   minister to have said that, under my amendment,  someone who was born before 31 December 1983 would   obtain a licence. No, they would not.

They would  also have to have 10 years’ hands-on experience,   with dirt under their fingernails from actual  work—not dirt on their fingers from reading   books. It is dangerous for the Parliament to get  to the stage of teaching people to suck eggs. Amendment 11, in my name, would allow the minister  to vary the provision on evidence if it proved   to be unsatisfactory. It would  be a stopgap for the minister. As for the other amendments in the group, I  will listen with interest to Rachael Hamilton’s   comments on amendment 10 and why she thinks  it appropriate to remove the age requirement. I also think that it would be dangerous to  put amendment 113 through. We accept that   wild birds are used for sporting purposes.

I  understand that Colin Smyth is against that,   and I respect his views on the matter, but it  is a fact of life that such activity is allowed,   and while that is the case, we must give  people the legal tools to carry out their job. You cannot stipulate the number of traps that  will be needed, as that would just be overbearing.   That is why I think that amendment 115  does not work. As for amendment 116,   I agree with the minister that 10 years is  sufficient for refresher courses. All you will   do if you make the period five years is spawn  a whole industry to run tests and examinations. I would have some sympathy with amendment 117  if Mr Smyth could tell me what the number in   question would be used for.

If he can tell me  why he needs to know, say, the number of rats   that have been killed in a specific trap in a  specific place and how that information would   be used to benefit the natural environment, I  might be able to consider the amendment. Until he   does so, though, I do not see the reason for it,  because it would just result in another list of   figures that would disappear into the archives of  NatureScot, never to see the light of day again. Finally, I turn to amendment 118. I have already  made it clear that I do not believe in teaching   people how to suck eggs. Does the member honestly  believe that people who use traps do not take   their responsibility seriously? Does he honestly  believe that that sort of thing is not done to   the highest welfare standards? As I have said to  the committee before, I have never met people who   go out there just to be cruel and barbaric in how  they do these things.

Frankly, if I ever do meet   them, I hope that they feel the full force of  the law, and I will make sure that I take part   in their conviction. However, it does not sum up  the people who use traps—gamekeepers and so on. I agree with Edward Mountain. I should  declare an interest as someone who used   to be an agronomist. I completely understand why   sprayer operators born before the end  of December 1964 were given grandfather   rights. It was important that they were able to  do that work without a certificate of competence.

However, I slightly disagree with the full  extent of Edward Mountain’s amendment 10,   which is why I seek to amend it with  amendment 10A. Having engaged with   young gamekeepers and land managers, I think that,   in some circumstances, they are possibly more  experienced or competent. That does not mean   that I am ageist. Mr Mountain has demonstrated his  significant experience over his years as an MSP,   and it is sometimes the case that experience  comes with age with regard to land management.   I therefore do not want to take away from the  point that he is trying to make in amendment 10.

I welcome the minister’s reflections on  amendment 10A and her support for what   I am trying to achieve. We do not want to  discourage active management by young people,   particularly those who are incredibly engaged  in the profession. We need to bring such people   into the system, and that is what I am  trying to achieve through the amendment. Amendment 113 seeks to draw attention to an  inconvenient truth and the elephant in the room   in this debate.

According to the explanatory  notes to the bill, the Government wants to “ensure that the management of grouse moors  and related activities are undertaken in an   environmentally sustainable  and welfare conscious manner.” However, the reality is that the bill allows for  the continued killing of hundreds of thousands of   foxes, stoats, weasels and crows and  a huge number of non-target species,   such as hedgehogs and people’s pets, each  year for one purpose and one purpose alone:   so that there is an unnaturally high  number of grouse to kill for sport. Will Colin Smyth give way on that point? I will finish my point, as Edward Mountain  has spoken to the amendment quite a bit.   As the author of the amendment,  I would like to do the same. The reality is that amendment 113  would not ban grouse shooting.

It   would not stop grouse shooting at all;  it would allow it to continue. However,   in relation to intensely driven grouse moors,  by not allowing trapping for the sole purpose   of killing one animal to protect another so  that that animal can be shot for sport, the   amendment would reduce the industrial, wholesale  killing of hundreds of thousands of animals. Some will oppose the amendment because they  support that level of killing—that “circle   of destruction”, as it is known—including, as  we have heard from the minister, the SNP and   Green Government, it seems.

Edward Mountain  has also said that he supports it. However,   let us be in no doubt that the public do not  agree with those who support it. Polling shows   that three quarters are opposed to killing  for the sole purpose of maximising the number   of animals to kill for sport. With a bill on  grouse moor management, the question of where   MSPs stand on that issue should be asked,  and people deserve to know their views. On amendment 114, I have spoken many times in  Parliament about the international consensus   principles for ethical wildlife control.  Those principles inform amendment 114, which   would require NatureScot to be satisfied that  trap users had a legitimate and justifiable   reason to use the trap and that they had  considered alternatives.

Such evidence   should be routinely required in wildlife  management decisions. Any killing or   taking of wild animals should be justified by  evidence that serious harm is being caused,   and the method with the lowest animal welfare  impact that would be effective should be chosen.   I believe that that principle should apply  in all our policies on wildlife management. The requirements are drawn from  those ethical principles. Currently,   thousands of animals are routinely killed on  grouse moors and elsewhere without any such   checks and balances. Including that provision  would be a step towards reaching that balance   and ensuring that animals are trapped and killed  on an ethical basis.

The amendment would not ban   the use of traps or make it impossible to  use them, as some have falsely suggested;   it would simply require NatureScot to be satisfied  with the specification and the reason for the use. Like amendment 114, amendment 115 would require  the use of traps to be planned and to be for   a specific purpose, to avoid indiscriminate  killing. There should be a cap on the maximum   number of traps that any individual can  use in order to ensure regular inspection   and maintenance and to focus the trapping  on when and where it is needed.

NatureScot   should also know where the trap user plans  to operate. I appreciate that a licence will   be granted to an individual who may move  around during the duration of the licence,   but that is not insurmountable. The information  on location could be updated as necessary. Amendment 116 would make the maximum duration  of a trap licence five years instead of 10   years. As we will hear later, there have been  understandable calls for the licence for grouse   moors to be longer than the proposed one year.  I think that that is a reasonable call. There   seems to be a growing consensus on five years.  I think that that makes sense when it comes to   the length of time for a trap licence. A trap  licence should not be granted for as long as 10   years. A great deal can change over such a long  period of time, including the development of new   trap technology. Trap users should be required  to attend refresher training at least every five   years to keep up to date with advances in  trap design and animal welfare science as   well as modern protocols for ethical wildlife  management.

The minister says that she has not   seen any stakeholder supporting that. However, I  am sure that she is aware that OneKind, RSPB and   others have made it clear for some time ahead of  stage 2 that they very much support the amendment. Amendment 117 would introduce a reporting  requirement for trap users. That would provide   a degree of accountability and transparency that  is currently lacking. Currently, the numbers of   birds and animals that are killed by trapping are  completely unknown, as there is no such reporting   requirement. It is surely ethically questionable  to have a system that allows the killing of   thousands of animals every year in order, as  I said earlier, to provide more birds to be   shot without even accounting for the numbers and  species that die for that purpose. This amendment   would allow authorities to gauge the numbers of  target and non-target animals being trapped and   killed, which is surely important to allow a  full understanding of species biodiversity. I think that we are confusing several items here.  As a farmer, I used cage traps to catch crows   that were trying to get into the grain store to  eat the grain or that were getting in among the   cattle feed.

It is not about increasing the number  of birds that are shot but about preventing damage   to the grain that would make it unfit for  human consumption, as well as preventing the   transmission of disease to cattle. How would the  information that I would submit on the number of   birds being killed be helpful to anyone with  regard to the biodiversity of those species? I will be giving you a lot more detail on this,  but my first answer to your question is that it   would give us the numbers that are being  killed by particular traps. It would give   us information on, for example, non-target  animals that are being trapped and killed,   which is an important consideration and something  that we should be looking at. It would also,   in my view, be beneficial to include the manner   of death, in order to shed light on  how well traps are operating in the   field.

I hope that that will become part  of the licence conditions in due course. Apparently, newer designs of spring traps  are better at killing instead of injuring,   and they are less likely to catch non-target  species, but we will not know that for sure   unless records on those traps are kept and  reported on. That seems perfectly reasonable to   me. I think it legitimate to ask those who do  not support the amendment why they do not believe   that that information, which  would already be collected,   should be reported. What do people have to hide  who do not want this information made public? Coming back to my earlier point, I note  that, at committee, Jim Fairlie asked: “What is your view on the suggestion that  licensing should be supported by statutory   reporting? In other words, if you set 100 traps,  you have to say where those 100 traps are,   what you have caught in them and how  many animals are killed each year.” In response, Alex Hogg of the  Scottish Gamekeepers Association said: “We would agree with that and, again, it is about  training.

We do it with snaring at the moment,   so it could easily be done with trapping. It  would provide feedback to the Government and   NatureScot about what animals were being  trapped and dispatched or whatever.”— The minister says that NatureScot can make this a  condition of a licence, so clearly it is possible   to do this. However, it should be more than that;  it should, and clearly can, be a requirement. Finally, on amendment 118, Hugh Dignon,   the head of the Scottish Government’s  wildlife and biodiversity unit,   said in evidence to the committee that one of the  Scottish Government’s intentions with the bill was “to improve animal welfare outcomes even when  those traps are used lawfully … ensuring that   the highest standards apply and that people  are operating to those high standards”.— I agree that that should be the basic principle,  but it should be reflected within the bill.

Will the member give way? I have concluded my remarks, but I  am happy to take an intervention. Does the member not agree that Edward Mountain  is trying to get grandfather rights through his   amendment, even if it does not actually say  that? The amendment refers to someone who “has used the type of trap in  question in a professional capacity”. The fact that someone has used a trap  “in a professional capacity” does not   mean that they have used it correctly. They  might not have been on a course. The fact   that the minister is requiring people  to go on this course should satisfy you   that these traps will be set by properly  trained people and, therefore, that the   activity will be carried out to the  highest animal welfare standards. I do not know what that course is— Are you a practitioner? Courses are important and should be a requirement,  but we should put it in law that, as part of that,   people should be trained to ensure that the  outcomes maximise animal welfare. As I have said,   that should be a requirement.  I see no contradiction between   training people and having it as a  basic principle in the legislation.

Can I intervene? I have finished, but you can. I just wanted to hear what you  had to say. On amendment 113,   what is your party’s position on support for  country sports? It sounds as though you do   not support that sort of activity. This is about  raptor persecution on grouse moors. What, then, is   the purpose behind amendment 113? Is it to  unintentionally bring in a ban by the back door? That displays an utterly astonishing  misunderstanding of amendment 113. There   is no proposal whatsoever in the amendment to  ban grouse shooting. The amendment would put on   public record the view that someone should not  have a licence to trap and kill animals solely   for the purpose of protecting another animal  in order to then kill that animal for sport.   Many thousands of animals die as a result of  that. That does not stop grouse shooting; it   simply restricts trapping for the sole purpose of  breeding more grouse in order to then kill them,   too. It is really misleading to imply that  that means a ban on grouse shooting. The   bill does not deliver a ban on grouse shooting  and neither does the amendment.

The amendment   simply places on record that, if people  want to support that circle of destruction,   they should say so. That should be something  that we debate when it comes to the bill. With respect, this is an opportunity for debate. You will have the opportunity  to contribute in a second. I would like to put on record some brief  comments about the amendments in this group. First, I support the minister’s amendment  56. It is appropriate that applicants for   a trap licence have evidence that they  have completed appropriate training. In   that respect, I listened closely to the minister’s  arguments in relation to amendments 10B and 10A. On Colin Smyth’s amendments, I want  to stress the importance of ensuring   that the bill is passed before the  end of the parliamentary year. I am   concerned that amendment 113 jeopardises that  by undermining what the bill is designed to do,   which is to implement the recommendations  of the Werritty review.

I take on board   the Government’s comments that amendments  114 and 115 tie into wider on-going work   on ethical standards of wildlife management, and  I hope that progress can be made on that route. I appreciate the intention behind amendment  116, which is to shorten the time before trap   operators require refresher training. I seek the  minister’s assurance that the 10 years proposed   in the draft legislation is appropriate in  maintaining high animal welfare standards. Likewise, I support the intention behind  amendment 117.

I think that data on the types   of wildlife that are caught in traps would  be valuable in other land management work,   but I agree that this sort of thing does  not need to be done in primary legislation. Amendment 118 underlines the vital importance  of trap training programmes being of a high   standard and of placing animal welfare  at their heart. I hope that the minister   will be able to provide assurance that  NatureScot will have the resources to   assess training courses and approve  only those of the highest standard. I want to put on record how important  it is that we are all able to debate.   It is not foolish or wrong to question  another member or to intervene on them,   particularly to get clarification on  an amendment, which was my intention.   I apologise to Colin Smyth if he believed that  I was asking whether his Labour Party was going   to ban country sports—it just seemed that that  was the intention.

I thank him for clarifying. I, too, apologise to Colin Smyth. After my  previous contribution, he asserted that I was   echoing views that had been presented on behalf  of the sector—and that is absolutely the case.   I am unashamedly here to speak up for the people  who work in the sector, which makes a fantastic   economic contribution to rural Scotland. In  fact, the sector is a sustaining power behind   the existence of many of the people who live in  rural Scotland, and I am unapologetic about that.

I completely respect Colin Smyth’s conscientious  objection to all of the matters that we are   discussing in relation to grouse shooting. As  I think is well known, Colin Smyth is a member   of the League Against Cruel Sports. I am not  sure whether he mentioned that in his earlier   contributions, but that must flavour the way in  which he views all aspects of the bill. Moreover,   it is absolutely in order for Rachael  Hamilton to ask the question that many   people in rural Scotland will seek  an answer to, which is whether the   amendments in question and the way in which  they have been presented are, in fact,   the position of Scottish Labour on rural Scotland  and the lifestyle of the people of rural Scotland. Having listened to what has been said about  Colin Smyth’s amendments, I think that,   despite his protestations, it is not  stretching the point to suggest that   they are all, in effect, designed to end grouse  shooting by the back door. I say that because   the amendments make it practically impossible  to conduct any form of grouse moor management.

Let us look at amendment 113, for example, by  which Colin Smyth is seeking to undermine the   whole sector. The amendment seeks to amend  provisions on the granting and content of   licences by requiring that licences not be  issued in circumstances where they would be used “to maintain or increase the number of  wild birds available to be shot for sport”. That sport exists and is legal in Scotland,  so the amendment is wholly designed to end   grouse shooting.

Therefore, amendment 113 is  absolutely an attempt to wreck a whole sector. On amendment 114, the question has to be asked  whether Colin Smyth thinks that any action should   be taken against predators in a rural setting.  Trapping is an essential conservation tool that   is used in a number of land management contexts  right across Scotland, including by the RSPB. I   am sure that Colin Smyth has had a briefing from  the RSPB—it uses traps in places such as Orkney.

Amendment 114 would make it impossible  in practice to attain a trap licence. Not   only would that make countless Scottish  businesses unviable, but it would have a   devastating effect on Scotland’s wildlife at  a time when we are tackling what can only be   described as an urgent biodiversity crisis  that has got worse over the past decade. Amendment 115 is fundamentally unworkable. The  number and location of traps vary regularly,   which would make it impossible for NatureScot to  administer the licensing scheme. It is hard not   to see that either as a misunderstanding of the  whole sector and how it operates or as a wrecking   measure. It would have a devastating impact on  Scotland’s environment and fragile rural economy. On amendment 116, there is no discernible  public benefit to be gained by reducing the   licence duration to five years. That would be  a strike against the interests of practitioners   and, frankly, the regulator, the capacity  of which is already subject to scrutiny. On amendment 117, I do not believe that Colin  Smyth answered the questions that were raised by   Edward Mountain about exactly what the records  in question would be used for.

Everyone who   spoke in favour of the amendment said that it  would be a good thing to do, but to what end?   They have not been able to properly address that  question. I am more than happy to be intervened on   so that I and the rest of the committee members  who have to vote on the amendments can properly   understand exactly what would be gained by what  would become a massive bureaucracy. We already   have vast swathes of bureaucracy in Scotland, with  records kept but never referred to or utilised. On amendment 118, Edward Mountain summarised  the issue well when he talked about his   experience of the sector. It is more than mildly  insulting to the people who work in the sector   to ascribe to them an interest other than that  of maintaining the highest standards of animal   welfare. Nobody goes to work in the morning  to inflict cruelty on wildlife. In fact,   they spend their entire careers doing everything  that they can to support Scotland’s biodiversity. I will keep it brief. I want to reassure the  committee that we are taking a balanced approach   to the wildlife trap licence. The Werritty  review made very clear recommendations in   that respect, taking into account the  complexities of the need for wildlife   management to address environmental impact and to  ensure that we are safeguarding animal welfare.

I say to Mr Mountain, in particular,  that continuous professional development   is a cornerstone of many sectors. For example,  nurses, teachers, social workers and offshore   workers have to undergo refresher courses  in many disciplines, as do civil servants. Will the minister give way? I want to make my point first. I  refer Mr Mountain to the Scottish   Gamekeepers Association’s stated view  that its members are happy to undertake   such courses and to evidence their  considerable expertise and skills.   The Scottish Government has accepted the  Werritty recommendations in that respect. On Ariane Burgess’s point about the  gap between training requirements,   I would say that 10 years would be a  maximum.

NatureScot has the ability   to state in the licence conditions that  training needs to be undertaken before that. Consultation responses to the bill showed  strong public support for our approach,   with more than 77 per cent of  respondents supporting it. I do   not consider Edward Mountain’s or  Colin Smyth’s amendments necessary   or appropriate. I have listened to what  they have said, but I cannot support them. I hear your arguments, and we can agree  to disagree, but I am looking for clarity,   because I am trying to rally behind  your amendment 56 for future debates.   There is a line in it that is cause  for slight concern.

It talks about “the applicant” completing “a training course approved under section 12E  in respect of the type of trap in question”. Does that mean a quail or a DOC trap, a Fenn  trap, a self-set spring trap, a Larsen trap,   a funnel trap or a cage trap, or will  the trap licence cover all of them? If   a gamekeeper or a moorland manager has  to do a course for every single trap,   they will never be able to use them,  because they will still be doing the   courses.

Once they have completed them, they  will have to start again on the next one. My expectation is that the person  who wants a licence to operate traps   will be trained as part of the licensing  of the traps that they want to operate and   that the training will be comprehensive.  I imagine that, off the back of this,   a range of courses will be accredited  by the licence developer, NatureScot,   which will be looking at what those courses  offer.

You have listed a great number of   traps, and it is my expectation that, if  a person wants to operate all those traps,   they should have a working understanding  of and training in how to work them safely. The question is, that amendment  112 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is:  For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. I call amendment 10, in the name of  Edward Mountain. I remind members that,   if amendment 10 is agreed to, I cannot call  amendments 113 and 114 due to pre-emption.

Amendment 113, in the name of Colin Smyth,  has already been debated with amendment 56. Today, we have seen the SNP-Green Government  place on record its support for a circle of   destruction. That will be very much noted by many  people, including the vast majority of the public,   who do not agree with them. It is particularly  disappointing that the Greens do not support the   amendment and make the rather bizarre argument  that it would delay the bill—it would not. The   amendment is here to be voted on today and  would not result in any delay whatsoever. What is really disappointing is the false  claim that the amendment would in any way   ban grouse shooting. I am very clear that such  sports should continue, so there is no need to   claim that the amendment would result in their  being banned; it would simply reduce the number   of animals being killed for the sole purpose of  protecting another animal that will then itself be   killed for sport.

If we are going to debate  issues, we should debate the facts instead of   making claims that simply are not true, which  might reflect the weakness of the argument. I will not move amendment 113, but  I will certainly continue to press   the issue as the bill goes through Parliament. Amendment 114, in the name of Colin Smyth,  has already been debated with amendment 56. I have one point to make. Stephen Kerr is entirely  entitled to quote, word for word, from briefings   that he has been given, but those claims should  be challenged when they are wrong. For example,   when discussing amendment 114,  he gave the example of the RSPB   project in Orkney. The amendment would allow that  project to continue, because the test that the   amendment would set would in no way affect it. It  is false to make that claim, and the weakness of   the argument is shown by the way in which he has  effectively misquoted the impact of amendment 114. I will not press amendment 114 at this  stage, but again I reserve the right to   keep raising this particular issue as the  debate continues, because it is important. The question is, that amendment  116 be agreed to.

Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is:  For 1, Against 8, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment  11 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is:  For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment  117 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is:  For 1, Against 8, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment  118 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is:  For 1, Against 8, Abstentions 0. Before we move on to the next  group, which is quite lengthy,   we will pause for a five-minute comfort break. We will resume consideration of  stage 2 amendments. Amendment 179,   in the name of Edward Mountain, is grouped  with amendments 48, 119, 119A, 79, 49, 64, 134,   65 to 67, 135, 135A, 50, 68, 82, 136, 18, 137,  173, 140, 51, 72, 73, 155 to 157, 157A, 74, 158,   159, 52, 161, 162.

I point out that, if amendment  51 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 72 and   that, if amendment 158 is agreed to, I cannot  call amendment 159, for pre-emption reasons. When I saw the grouping, I got quite excited,  because I thought that I could speak for as   long as I wanted, because the grouping was so  big. However, in fairness to the committee,   I got some looks of shock and  horror, even from the clerks,   at that comment, so maybe I will not do  that. I will speak to my amendments and,   as I get to close, I will comment on  all of the amendments in the group. Amendment 179 is about adding a qualification  to the legislation to ensure that the relevant   authority should be satisfied beyond reasonable  doubt that a licence should not be granted.

That   is just a nice form of wording to make sure that  it is not decided on a whim. We are all concerned   that, sometimes, the people who are responsible  for issuing the licences are the judge, jury and   executioner when it comes to those licences, and  I do not think that that is a happy place to be. Amendment 18 would allow the person, should  they be refused a licence, to appeal it through   the sheriff’s court, so that costs could be  awarded to them. That seems eminently fair if   it is proved that the system has let the person  down and that they should get their costs back. Convener, as I said, I could talk to all  the amendments in the group. You will be   pleased that I am not going to. I will sit  back and take my opportunity at the end. Could you move the amendment, please? I am sorry. I thought that  I had moved it in closing. I will speak to amendments 48 to 52 before  turning to the others in group 8.

Amendments 48,   49 and 51 remove the provisions for the  licensing authorities to suspend wildlife trap,   grouse and muirburn licences despite not  being satisfied that a relevant offence   has taken place. Amendments 50 and 52 remove  the definition of an official investigation,   because that is not needed any more. I lodged those amendments because I had listened  very carefully to the arguments that were made   by those who expressed—in particular, at  stage 1—very strongly held concerns about   the potential misuse of those provisions. I was  never in any doubt that the licensing authority,   most likely NatureScot, would have operated  those provisions carefully and responsibly in the   circumstances that I previously described—namely,  when there had been an incident of such a heinous   nature that it would be inconceivable to allow  business as usual while a police investigation   ran its course.

However, I am now happy to  provide comfort to those who were worried   about how the provisions might be applied,  by removing them completely from the bill. I have been reassured that, in many  cases, the police would be able to   provide sufficient evidence at an early stage of  the investigation in serious cases—for example,   in relation to a licence under the  proposed new section 16AA of the Wildlife   and Countryside Act 1981—on whether the act in  question was criminal in nature and whether it   had occurred at a location that connected it to  the management of the grouse moor in question.   That would allow NatureScot to satisfy itself  that a relevant offence had been committed. I hope that the committee will support  my amendments, not least because,   in its stage 1 report, it called for the  changes proposed in amendments 48 to 52. Section 4 of the bill provides that the licensing  authority can suspend or revoke a wildlife trap   licence if it is satisfied to the civil burden of  proof—the balance of probabilities—that a relevant   offence has been committed.

Edward Mountain’s  amendment 179 would raise the test that was   applied by the licensing authority to “beyond  reasonable doubt”, which is the criminal burden   of proof. Historically, it has been very hard  to demonstrate to the criminal burden of proof   that a wildlife crime has taken place, and the  number of successful prosecutions remains low. The purpose of the licensing scheme  is to ensure that wildlife trapping is   undertaken in accordance with the law and  best practice, and with due consideration   of all the possible consequences. If passed,  Edward Mountain’s amendment 179 would weaken   the licensing scheme and reduce the ability of  the licensing authority to take the necessary   and appropriate action in cases in which  there was strong evidence to suggest that   the person operating under the trap licence  had committed an offence. For those reasons,   I cannot support amendment 179, and I  encourage committee members to vote against it. Amendments 119, 119A, 135, 135A, 156, 157 and  157A seek to require the licensing authority to   set an estimated time period for any suspension of  licences for wildlife traps, the taking of grouse,   or muirburn.

They also stipulate that any  suspension period must be “reasonable”. I   understand the motivation behind the amendments,  and I am sure that, in practice, NatureScot, as   the licensing authority, would set a time period  for suspension in most cases. However, that may   not be possible if the restoration of a suspended  licence depends on some action by the licence   holder. For example, if a person is asked to do  something to comply with a licensing requirement,   the code of practice states that the licence can  be reinstated only after the licence holder has   complied with that requirement. A time limit  is not at all workable in such circumstances. It is also conceivable that NatureScot  may wish to suspend a licence pending   further information from the police.

Such further  information could be germane to the length of the   suspension period or to the decision whether  to revoke a licence rather than suspend it. In all those cases, it is incumbent on NatureScot  to act reasonably, and it is not necessary to   require that in statute. For those reasons, I do  not support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 119A,   135A and 157A, which would have the effect  that the licensing authority must give notice   of the exact duration of the suspension of a  licence.

I do not think that that is possible. I ask Beatrice Wishart not to move amendments  119, 135, 156 and 157. If she does so, I encourage   members to vote against them, as well as against  Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 119A, 135A and 157A. Amendments 79 and 82 would cause offences  under section 19 of the Animal Health and   Welfare Act 2006 to be included as relevant  to the consideration of the suspension or   revocation of licences for wildlife trapping or  the taking of grouse. The committee’s stage 1   report recommended that we give consideration  to the inclusion of those offences as relevant   offences.

The offences in section 19 of the  2006 act concern the causing of unnecessary   suffering to an animal. They could apply to the  mistreatment of a trapped animal, for example,   or the treatment of a call bird used in a crow  cage or Larsen trap. I therefore agree with Karen   Adam that those should be relevant offences, and  I am happy to support her amendments 79 and 82. Amendments 64 and 74, in the name of Rachael  Hamilton, seek to set a time limit of 18 weeks   for the suspension of a grouse licence and eight  weeks for the suspension of a muirburn licence.   I believe that those amendments would set an  arbitrary limit on the suspension of licences.   As was mentioned earlier, it is conceivable that  licences could be suspended pending completion   of some action required by the licence holder,  such as the fulfilment of a licensing condition   or compliance with the code of practice.

An  arbitrary limit of that sort could result in   the licence holder simply waiting out the time  rather than complying with the conditions. That   would threaten to bring the whole licensing scheme  into disrepute. It could also interfere with any   police investigation or criminal proceedings,  which would be undesirable. I therefore cannot   support amendments 64 and 74, and I encourage  committee members to vote against them. Amendments 134 and 155, in the name of Stephen  Kerr, would require that, when the licensing   authority is considering modifying, suspending or  revoking a person’s grouse or muirburn licence,   it must give written notice to that person and  provide the person a period of 14 days within   which they can submit representations  regarding the proposed modification,   suspension or revocation.

That would be in  addition to the provision already contained   in the bill for the relevant authority to give  notice of 14 days or “such other period” as may   be specified in the notice before a modification,  suspension or revocation of a licence could   take effect. Cumulatively, that would mean  that there would be a 28-day period between   the licensing authority considering a licence  suspension or revocation and that action coming   into effect. I think that that level of  delay is unacceptable and unnecessary,   so I do not support amendments 134 and 155, and I  encourage committee members to vote against them. Amendment 65, in the name of Rachael Hamilton,  requires the licensing authority, when it has   decided to modify, suspend or revoke a person’s  grouse licence, to give the reasons for doing so.   I think that that is reasonable and sensible, and  I am happy to support the principle here, although   I would like more time to consider the framing  of the provision.

I have had conversations with   Rachael Hamilton on the matter, and I hope that  it is acceptable to her to work with me and not   press amendment 65 today, allowing us to come back  with an amendment with revised wording at stage 3. Amendment 66, also in the name of Rachael  Hamilton, would replace the 14-day notice   period before the modification, suspension or  revocation of a section 16AA licence could take   effect with the period in which an appeal could be  made. The effect of the amendment would be that it   would increase the period before a modification,  suspension or revocation could take effect from 14   days to 21 days.

I do not see any justification  for further increasing the period before   suspension can take effect. In fact, I think  that that would encourage appeals to be lodged   even when they had little chance of success,  simply to secure a delay in the suspension or   revocation. I cannot support that, and I encourage  committee members to vote against amendment 66. Amendment 67, in my name, is a technical  amendment. It clarifies that a licence   holder whose section 16AA licence is suspended  is to be treated as not having a section 16AA   licence for the duration of the suspension.  The effect of that is to make it clear that,   if the licence holder continues to kill or  take any type of bird included in part IB   of schedule 2 to the 1981 act during the  suspension, they will have committed an   offence. I hope that members see the sense in  that measure and will support amendment 67.

Amendment 68, in the name of Rachael Hamilton,  would remove all of the offences except those   under part I of the 1981 act from the list  of relevant offences for which a section 16AA   grouse licence can be suspended or revoked.  I believe that the amendment is based on the   mistaken assumption that the bill is solely  about preventing raptor persecution on grouse   moors. While it is true that preventing  and dealing with raptor persecution was   the main driver for the Werritty review  and, subsequently, the bill, that is not   the sole concern.

The Werritty review considered  a range of issues around grouse moor management,   such as trapping and muirburn, and there  are provisions on those matters in the bill. It is also important to ensure  that, by dealing with one issue,   we do not inadvertently create other issues  that are caused by the minority who have no   respect for wildlife. The Wildlife Management  and Muirburn Bill gives effect, in large part,   to the recommendations of the Werritty review,  which considered the whole environmental impact   of grouse moor management. The bill enables  us to protect against unwanted environmental   impacts and harm to other birds and animals, in  case anyone is tempted to cause such things for   any reason or to better enable grouse shooting.  It is important that the bill makes it clear   that licences can be suspended and revoked for  offences relating to other statutory protections   for wildlife.

Removing such provisions  from the bill would send the wrong message,   so I cannot support amendment 68 and I  encourage members to vote against it. Amendment 136, in the name of Rachael Hamilton,  would insert a condition to provide that,   when an appeal is made to the sheriff, the  sheriff may, on the application of the appellant   and if they are satisfied on the balance of  convenience that it is appropriate to do so,   recall the decision of the relevant  authority pending determination of   the appeal. I believe that amendment 136  is unnecessary and would not add anything   to what is already in statute. Section 88  of the Courts Reform Act 2014 provides that “A sheriff may, on the application  of a party to any civil proceedings”— which would include a summary application   to appeal a decision as regards  the licensing of grouse shooting— “make— such interim order as the sheriff thinks fit in relation to …

The subject  matter of the proceedings”. That would include recalling the decision  of the licensing authority if the sheriff   thought that that was appropriate. I  think that that is as it should be,   given that sheriffs should be able to act  with discretion, unfettered by statutory   limitations on the use of many powers at  their disposal. The sheriff already has the   ability to recall a grouse licence decision, so  amendment 136 is not required. For that reason,   I do not support the amendment and encourage  committee members to vote against it. Amendment 18, in the name of Edward Mountain,  provides that, when an appeal of the granting   of a licence is made to the sheriff and they  subsequently direct it to the licensing authority   to grant a licence, the sheriff must make an  award of expenses to be paid by the relevant   authority to the applicant. The amendment fetters  the sheriff’s discretion in that regard and would   be inappropriate, especially when courts already  have the power to award expenses should they deem   that appropriate. However, amendment 18 would  require that the courts must award expenses   even if they did not deem it to be appropriate in  the circumstances—for example, when the appellant,   although successful, might have acted in bad  faith, such as by delaying proceedings.

I do   not want to take any powers away from the sheriff  in that regard. Those might be rare circumstances,   but we all know that legislation has  to anticipate even the most rare of   circumstances. The normal practice of expenses  following success should be the case for those   appeals, but I believe that that must remain  a matter for the court’s discretion. I do   not support amendment 18 and encourage  committee members to vote against it. Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 137, 173, 140  and 162 would require the Scottish ministers   to create a scheme whereby compensation would be  paid to section 16AA licence holders and muirburn   licence holders for any losses or costs arising  from suspension of those licences irrespective of   the circumstances of the suspension.

NatureScot  is a public body and must act reasonably. It   cannot suspend a licence for spurious reasons.  It can suspend a licence only if the licence   holder has not complied with the conditions  of the licence or if NatureScot is satisfied,   on the balance of probabilities, that the  person managing the land that has been   licensed has committed a relevant offence. I do  not consider that it would be appropriate to pay   compensation in those circumstances. Ultimately,  it is right and proper that, as I have said, the   power to determine any award of expenses sits  with the courts. For that reason, I cannot   support amendments 137, 173, 140 and 162, and I  encourage committee members not to support them. Ms Hamilton’s amendments 72 and 73 would  insert a condition into the “suspend despite   not being satisfied” provisions in the  bill so that NatureScot could not modify,   suspend or revoke a muirburn licence in those  circumstances if the basis for doing so was   an offence that related to whether the  land was peatland.

As I have indicated,   my amendments propose that the “suspend despite  not being satisfied” provisions be removed from   the bill. If those amendments were agreed to,  amendments 72 and 73 would not be relevant. In   the event that my amendments were not supported  by the committee, I would not support amendments   72 and 73, because they would enable anyone  who carried out unlawful muirburn on peatland   to claim ignorance of the fact that it was  peatland and thus avoid a potential licence   suspension. I hope that members agree and that  they will vote against amendments 72 and 73. Amendment 161 provides for a person to  appeal to a sheriff against a decision   of the licensing authority to refuse to grant  a muirburn licence, to attach a condition to   such a licence or to modify, suspend or revoke  such a licence.

It also provides that, when an   appeal is made to the sheriff, they may recall  the decision of the relevant authority, pending   determination of the appeal. As I have noted, we  believe that the courts already have such a power. Amendment 158 would mean that any modification,  suspension or revocation of a muirburn licence   could not take effect until after the period for  which an appeal can be made had elapsed. That   would increase the period before a modification,  suspension or revocation can take effect from 14   days to 21 days after notification  of the modification, suspension or   revocation has been given.

During that time,  the muirburn licence could continue to be used. It is anticipated that the muirburn licence  scheme will be delegated to NatureScot. It is   not standard across wildlife licensing to include  a provision to appeal to a sheriff against any   decisions by NatureScot. NatureScot has an  internal appeals process, after which any   appeal would be by way of judicial review or an  appeal to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. We have included an appeals process involving  the sheriff court in relation to grouse licences,   as the revocation of a grouse licence may  have a wider impact on grouse moor businesses,   their employees and the surrounding community. In  short, there would be clear economic consequences   in such circumstances, which would affect  livelihoods, why is why inclusion of a   right of appeal to the sheriff court is warranted. However, muirburn is a very  different proposition. First,   there are alternative vegetation control measures  available. Secondly, NatureScot already operates   a licensing regime for muirburn out of season, so  an all-year-round licensing system represents an   extension of an existing system rather  than the creation of an entirely new one.

Under the existing framework, there  is no provision for appeal to a   sheriff in relation to muirburn licences. If a  person wished to dispute a decision, they would do   so initially by using NatureScot’s aforementioned  internal appeals process to seek a review of the   decision. At that point, the issue would, we hope,  be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. However,   if the person was still not satisfied with the  outcome of that process, they would have the   option of seeking a judicial review or making an  appeal to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. For those reasons, I do not support  amendments 158 and 161 and I encourage   committee members to vote against them.

Ms Hamilton’s amendment 159 seeks to  increase the notice period that the   relevant authority must give for any modification,   suspension or revocation of a muirburn licence  from 14 days to 21 days. As with amendment 158,   I see no justification for increasing the  time period before a licence suspension,   revocation or modification can come  into effect. Therefore, I do not   support amendment 159, and I encourage committee  members to agree with me and vote against it. I will speak only to the amendments in my name. I   thank the minister for giving  her time to meet me recently. My amendments 119, 135 and 157 relate to the  suspension of licences for wildlife traps,   grouse shooting and muirburn,  respectively. Amendment 156 is a   paving amendment that would enable amendment  157 to be inserted in the right place.

For each licence, my amendments would insert  provision that, when a licence is suspended   and notice is given of the said suspension, the  notice must specify the estimated duration of   the suspension. That estimated duration must be  reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances   of the case. The purpose of amendment 157  is to give licence holders confidence that,   should their licence be suspended, they  will be provided with information as   to how long the relevant authority  estimates that that suspension will   last. Providing that information could reduce the  administrative burden on the licensing authority. On that point, you are talking about  estimates of the time necessary to   complete the process. Given the  variability of time associated   with police and court investigations,  is it possible to give those estimates? I will come on to that. I do  not think that it is possible,   which is why I am using the word “estimated”. Okay. Providing that information can reduce the  administrative burden on the licensing authority,   as a licence holder with a suspended licence  will have an idea of the expected timescale.   I recognise that investigations take time, that  each is different and that it can be difficult   to know exactly how long they will take.

I  agree that stating a definitive timescale   would be problematic. That is why I have  deliberately chosen the word “estimated”,   to ensure that the licensing authority would  be required to provide only an estimate,   as that would enable flexibility  should circumstances change. Amendment 81, in the name of Jim Fairlie,  would extend the length of a section 16AA   licence from one to five years. The minister  previously stated that there was no need to   provide information about the length of suspension  for those licences, as the maximum length would   be a year. If amendment 81 was agreed to,  that length would be increased. Therefore,   I think that it is now relevant to include  a provision that requires the licensing   authority to give information to licence holders  about the estimated duration of a suspension. I note Rachael Hamilton’s  amendments to my amendments,   which would remove the word “estimated”  and therefore require the licensing   authority to state the duration of a  suspension. I consider that removing   the word “estimated” would change the function  of the amendments by removing any flexibility.

I heard what the minister  had to say on my amendments,   but I am inclined to move amendment 119. Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 119 would have the  effect of compelling NatureScot to estimate the   likely duration of licence suspension. Although  we believe that that would be a welcome step,   the amendment could be improved by removing the  word “estimated”. I recognise that Beatrice has,   with caution, noted my amendment subtracting  or removing the word “estimated” but might not   support it.

The minister does not support the  amendment, but I think that it would compel   NatureScot to be explicit about the duration  of the licence suspension—you could not lock   rural practitioners indefinitely out of a  system, because that would just be unfair. The amendment would provide both parties,  the regulator and the licence holder,   with legal certainty. There is no reason why  NatureScot should not be explicit or specific,   as Beatrice Wishart said, as the threshold for  imposing licence suspension and revocation is   the same and official investigations no longer  have any role in shaping decision making around   licence suspension. On that basis, I ask that  the member consider supporting my amendment 119A.

On amendment 64, I disagree with the  minister. We heard evidence that the   Scottish Government’s intention is for licence  suspension to be a short-term penalty. However,   there is no upper time limit on the  period for which a licence suspension   can be imposed. When the committee raised that  issue with the minister in its stage 1 report,   the minister responded, in a  letter on 29 November, stating: “The Bill, as currently drafted, does not  provide a maximum time limit for suspending   a licence because there is no need to provide  this. This is because the maximum duration for   a section 16AA licence for the taking of  birds is one year. Therefore, it follows   that the maximum suspension period for such a  licence could not be greater than one year.” Given that the Scottish Government has  committed to significantly extending   the duration of the licence, it is  necessary to impose an upper limit   on the period of licence suspension in the  bill. That will ensure that suspension is   used as a short-term penalty to  meet the Government’s intention.

Given that grouse shooting is a seasonal activity  that takes place over 17 weeks in the year,   I propose that 18 weeks would be a proportionate  punishment to ensure that the maximum period of   suspension does not exceed one grouse shooting  season. I hope that, with that explanation, the   minister can understand the wording of,  and the intention behind, my amendment. To further explain amendment 64, when I met  the minister, she was minded to oppose it on   the basis that she would not want to tie  the hands of Police Scotland or NatureScot   in respect of the timescales involved in the  official investigation. However, on reflection   and considering what the minister said, that  point is now redundant, as she intends to remove   the initiation of an official investigation as a  trigger for licence suspension via her amendments   48 and 52. The trigger for licence suspension  or revocation is now NatureScot being satisfied,   to the civil standard of proof, that  a relevant offence has been committed   by a relevant person on the land, not the  establishment of an official investigation.   It would be useful to get an understanding of  that gap from the minister’s closing comments.

It is for the police to determine when and  how information and evidence are shared with   NatureScot so that it can make a determination  about licence suspension or revocation. However,   the minister’s amendment removes the connection  that I am describing between the length of   time that it takes to conduct the investigation  and the length of time for which a licence should   be suspended. It is therefore appropriate to  introduce a maximum period of suspension, which   reflects the short-term nature of the penalty,  as was expressed to the committee at stage 1.

I thank the minister for considering the  framing of amendment 65. I will consider   her points. Again, we discussed that amendment  when we met. I am happy to bring back a revised   amendment. I welcome the fact that the  minister agrees that the amendment is   sensible and reasonable. I am sure that we  can work together on it. I do not need to   continue to describe my reason for lodging  amendment 65, because I will not move it. On amendment 66, the bill as drafted provides  for penalties to be imposed on licence holders   before their right to appeal against a decision  to an independent court of law has elapsed.

The   amendment provides that the penalty will not take  effect until the period for making an appeal—21   days from the decision—has elapsed. That would  ensure that the licence holder had the opportunity   to take legal advice and, if necessary, appeal the  decision. It should be for the sheriff to decide,   with their discretion, as a truly independent  decision maker, whether the penalty should take   effect, pending determination of the appeal.  If the licence holder decided not to appeal,   the decision would take effect 21  days from the date of the decision. I am sorry, convener, but I am having to be quite   descriptive about the amendments  in this group, so bear with me. I am disappointed that the minister said that she  will not support amendment 68, but the motivation   behind the licensing of grouse shooting is the  historical illegal persecution of raptors on   grouse moors in Scotland—that is what the bill  is all about. The minister said that the bill   has become wider in scope, but it follows that the  illegal persecution of any raptor is the trigger   for removing or suspending a licence to shoot  grouse. Unfortunately, the scope of the relevant   offences in the bill, as introduced, extends far  beyond the defined issue of raptor persecution.

The issue of a relevant offence meaning  an offence under the Protection of Badgers   Act 1992, the Hunting with Dogs Act 2023,  section 1 of the Wild Mammals Act 1996 and   part 3 of the Conservation Regulations 1994 is,  I believe, disproportionate and inconsistent with   the defined policy aim of deterring illegal  persecution of raptors on Scotland’s grouse   moors. Amendment 68 would remove offences  that do not relate to raptor persecution,   in a bid to make the legislation more  targeted, proportionate and rationally   connected to the policy aims that were defined  by ministers when the bill was introduced. Amendment 135, in the name of Beatrice Wishart,  would have the effect of compelling NatureScot   to estimate the likely duration of a licence  suspension. Although that is a welcome step,   it could be improved by removing the  word “estimated”. As I described before,   there is no reason why NatureScot cannot be  explicit, which would provide further clarity. Amendment 136 is designed to deliver greater legal  certainty in respect of the appeal provisions   in proposed section 16AB of the 1981 act.

In the  evidence session on 28 June 2023, the minister   indicated that a sheriff determining an appeal  against a licensing decision would have the power   to recall, on an interim basis, decisions by  NatureScot pending determination of appeals. As   things stand, the bill does not expressly empower  a sheriff to do so. Although the minister assures   me that the sheriff’s general power to make  interim orders in civil proceedings, as set out in   section 88 of the Courts Reform Act 2014, includes  the power to recall decisions by NatureScot,   I believe that it would be better to include an  express power to that effect in the bill to ensure   that the said power is put beyond any doubt,  to deliver legal certainty for licence holders.

I would be content for amendment 136 to be  revised and for the minister and I to work   on that together to bring it back at stage 3, to  ensure that there is no inconsistency or conflict   between the express power proposed and the general  powers in section 88 of the 2014 act. That could   be done, for example, by providing that the  express power to recall NatureScot’s decision   is without prejudice to the sheriff’s general  power to make interim orders under section 88,   and that the test for using the express  powers mirrors the test in section 88. I   have been working and getting advice on that,  minister, so I hope that you understand that I   feel strongly about that particular amendment  and I hope that we can work on it together. On amendment 73, the requirement of practitioners  to determine whether the land is peatland or   non-peatland before making muirburn poses  a significant challenge. The only way to   determine the depth of peat accurately in a given  area is by using a peat probe and, even then,   it is not practical to probe every square inch  of a proposed burn site, as we heard in evidence   in this committee.

There is always a possibility  that some pockets of a burn site might constitute   peatland and others non-peatland. The risk is  exacerbated by the fact that the bedrock in   Scotland undulates significantly, and it follows  that practitioners should not be criminalised   when it comes to determining whether the land is  peat or non-peatland. There is no methodology,   as we heard in evidence, so we cannot provide  the means to be definitive in that regard. Amendment 157, in the name of Beatrice Wishart,  would have the effect of compelling NatureScot   to estimate the likely duration of a licence  suspension. Although that is a welcome step,   it could be improved by the removal  of the word “estimated”.

Again,   that would provide clarity for the  regulator and the licence holder. Amendment 74, which has been discussed  in the context of proposed section 16AA   licensing, would address the lack of time  limit on the period for which a muirburn   licence suspension can be imposed. Given that  muirburn is an important land management tool   for managing wildfire risks and conservation, it  is really important that there is a proportionate   time limit on those suspensions, and  I propose that that be eight weeks. I am getting towards the end,  colleagues—thank you for your patience. On amendment 158, the bill as drafted  provides that NatureScot will act as   prosecutor and judge in relation to  its own muirburn licensing decisions,   such that they can be challenged only by way of  judicial review in the Court of Session, which,   as members know, provides a limited remedy  and is very expensive. Judicial review does   not allow the court to correct bad decisions based  on the facts, which is wholly unsatisfactory. The   requirement for decisions to deprive a person of  their rights to be made on the basis of evidence   that proves that they are linked to an unlawful  act, and the ability to appeal the decision to   an independent judge, go to the heart of the  rule of law.

Land managers should have the   right to appeal against licence refusal,  modification, suspension or revocation to   an independent court of law on the facts, and  this amendment would go to the heart of that. The internal procedure used by NatureScot under  its frameworks for implementing restrictions   in the context of general licences, which the  minister has described, has led to an erosion   of trust in the regulator. That is in no way  to play down what it does, but an unintended   consequence could be that it is perceived to be  effectively marking its own homework. We heard   evidence that suggested that that could be the  case when it comes to reviewing its own licensing   decisions, which cannot be appealed to a sheriff  court on their merits. As I have said, the right   to be able to appeal a decision to an independent  judge goes to the heart of the rule of law. Thank you for your patience, convener. I welcome the opportunity to  speak to my amendments 79 and 82. At stage 1, we received evidence from the  RSPB that offences committed under the   Animal Health and Welfare Act 2006 should be  included as relevant offences with regard to   the wildlife traps and grouse licensing schemes  that are set up.

The RSPB set out its rationale   for that, and the committee encouraged the  Scottish Government to look at that ahead of   stage 2. I am grateful to the minister for  offering her support for the amendments. Amendments 79 and 82 seek to achieve exactly  that. The provisions are already complex,   but my amendments simply seek to add  to the list of legislation so that an   offence that is committed under section 19 of  the 2006 act is added to the list of offences   to be considered in respect of revoking or  suspending a licence. Section 19 of the 2006   act sets out that a person will have committed  an offence if they are found to have caused a   “protected animal unnecessary suffering” by  an act that they knew would have caused, or   would have been likely to cause, that animal to  suffer. Amendment 79 would add to the bill an   offence under section 19 of the 2006 act  as a ground for revoking or suspending a   wildlife trap licence, and amendment 82  would do the same for a grouse licence.

My amendments would make important  additions to the bill to provide   greater protection for animals and wildlife,  and I hope that members will support them. I will limit my remarks to  my amendments 134 and 155. The minister addressed my amendments by  referring to the elements of the bill   that deal with the 14-day notice that is given  once a decision has been reached. I am proposing   that the applicant should get 14 days’ prior  notice in advance of a proposed decision to   refuse, modify, suspend or revoke a licence.  That would give them the opportunity to submit   representations on the proposed decision. The  amendments say similar things. They are basically   an appeal to the idea of reasonableness, which  is quite common in other licensing schemes.

If   there is a proposed change in status, the  applicant should be notified ahead of the   decision. The minister referred to the 14 days  that follow a decision. The basis of my amendments   is to allow the applicant the opportunity to  make representations on a proposed decision. My name is next to amendment 79 as a supporter.  That amendment would add offences under section 19   of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2006 to the  list of offences for which a trap licence can be   suspended or revoked. Amendment 82, which also has  my name beside it, would do the same for section   16AA licences. I express my full support for those  amendments and the necessary protection, as the   use of traps and other management measures can,  and often does, result in unnecessary suffering. There are provisions in the bill that will improve  the training and regulation of trap operators,   but it is vital that those are combined with  a deterrent to the widespread non-adherence   to the terms and conditions of general  licences, with regard to allowing the   live capture of wild birds and the impact on  their welfare.

The amendments would do that,   and I am pleased that the  Government fully supports them. Minister, I do not think that you will  wish to come back in, but I want to clarify   whether you agree that there is no longer any  connection between the period of investigation   and the period of suspension, given that you  have amended the investigation provisions. I am not quite sure that I  understand your question, convener.

The investigation provisions that  you have amended now suggest that   there is no connection between  the period of investigation and   the period of suspension—there is no  link between the two. Is that correct? I am resisting some of the amendments that have  been lodged because I do not want to tie the hands   of any investigating authority by putting into  statute a limit to the time of suspension, if that   is what you mean. Basically, the length of the  investigation is the length of the investigation.   Various parties could be involved in it, and I  do not want to limit its scope unnecessarily. We might return to that at the next  stage. As there are no other comments,   Edward Mountain will wind up and indicate whether  he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 179.

In line with the approach of other  members, I will keep my comments   short and speak only to my amendments and  to those that I think are truly important. As far as amendment 179 is concerned, I am not  sure that I understand the reticence about making   sure that the process is beyond criticism. By  adding “beyond reasonable doubt”, we make sure   that the process is beyond reasonable doubt rather  than just dependent on the opinion of one person. I have been taken by Beatrice Wishart’s  argument on amendment 119.

I understand   why she wants to add the word “estimated”, and  I also understand why Ms Hamilton might not want   it to be included. However, I suspect that, on  balance, the best that can be achieved is an   estimate. I do not think that anyone should  be frightened of supporting amendment 119. There is a clear argument for amendment  64, in the name of Rachael Hamilton,   on limiting the amount of time for  which a licence can be suspended.

I   support Stephen Kerr’s amendments on the  basis that they would add a baseline to   that, so that people could understand. Rachael  Hamilton’s amendment 66, which would mean that   no penalties would be enforced before the  appeal process was heard, is also important. I have heard the minister’s comments  that amendment 18 would put a statutory   obligation on the sheriff to award  costs. I will not move that amendment   but I will rewrite it so that you can  prepare your arguments for when it comes   back at stage 3, minister—I do not doubt  that you will have anticipated that coming. On Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 161 and 162, I am  deeply concerned that the minister is suggesting   that the only outcome after an appeal is judicial  review.

Judicial review is hugely expensive. Can I just clarify something? Can I just finish, minister? Once the appeals process had been exhausted with  the person or the organisation that had refused   the licence, I would be concerned if  the only outcome was judicial review. I am happy to give way to the minister. I am fairly certain that I did not say that  that is the only route for an appeal. There   is an appeals process within NatureScot, but  you can also ask the SPSO to investigate what   has happened, as you can do for any public  body, before you go to judicial review. I thank the minister for clarifying  that. I have been involved in appeal   processes against NatureScot  or Scottish Natural Heritage,   not only as an individual but through representing  constituents in the Parliament.

The system and   the reasons around it are fairly opaque, so  if that is the way that the minister goes— Will you take an intervention? Yes, I will. I want to develop the discussion  following what the minister has   said. You heard me describe why I lodged  amendment 161 and similar amendments:   I feel that NatureScot would be marking  its own homework. The minister seems to be   content with the internal process for reviewing a  licensing decision, but such decisions could not   be appealed at the sheriff court on their own  merits. That is what specifically concerns me. I thank Ms Hamilton for clarifying that.  It is what concerns me, too.

I will not   go too much into the details of a specific  case, but I know of an appeal that was lodged   that was heard by the same person who had made  a judgment on it, which is inherently wrong. I would like to work with the minister on one  suggestion. Perhaps she could indicate whether   it would be possible to work on a system that  includes a level of independent arbitration   when it comes to making a decision on  the process. Certainly, in the past,   when SNH challenged me on something, it  refused my appeal, but, in arbitration,   its position was overturned. Arbitration gives  individuals the ability to do that at minimal   cost, without having to go to judicial review  or the sheriff court.

I do not know whether the   minister is in a position to say whether  she would entertain discussions on that. I will always entertain sensible discussions,  and I am interested in what you say about a   process of independent arbitration. It  is possible that we could ask for that   to be looked at for the review process to see  whether that might be welcome. I imagine that   no public body wants to go to judicial review  or be referred to the Scottish Public Services   Ombudsman. That might be an additional  step, and I am interested in pursuing   the matter further. I will ask my officials  to look at it and speak to people who might   be involved. We could also have a meeting ahead  of stage 3 to see whether it could be workable. I am grateful to the minister  for clarifying the position,   because that might get around the concerns  that members of the committee have raised. Just to clarify, without talking any  more, I will press amendment 179,   but I will not move amendment 18 at this  stage. I will bring it back at stage 3,   once it has been amended to  address the minister’s concerns.

The question is, that amendment  179 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is:  For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment  119 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is:  For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment  79 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division is:  For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0. At this point in the proceedings,   I intend to close the meeting, given the  time that it might take to get through   the next group of amendments. We have not got  as far as I would have liked, but it is not a   good idea to start talking to amendments  without being able to fully debate them.
.

As found on YouTube