Seòmar agus comataidhean

That needs to come under part of another feasibility study. We need to start thinking outside the box and looking more towards rail. If the member meets CNER—I hope that he has done—and talks to the group about its future plans, he will know that we are talking about getting cars off the road and decarbonising. If we look towards electric rail for the future, that would be the best investment to make.

I am looking forward to the feasibility study that is due in spring 2024. It is eagerly anticipated, and I hope that it will play a crucial role in shaping our transport landscape.

The need for an integrated approach in transport that involves all modes, from ferries to rail, and that deeply engages with local communities cannot be overstated. The motion before us is about not just building tunnels or enhancing ferry services, but building a more connected, sustainable and inclusive Scotland. I know that our current Minister for Transport is dedicated to creating that Scotland, and I thank her for her communications and outreach with local projects in my constituency that I have raised with her.

As we consider the recommendations of the strategic transport projects review 2 as well as the aspirations of Shetland’s grass-roots tunnel action groups and initiatives such as the Campaign for North East Rail, we should remember that at the heart of those projects are the people whom they serve. Let us commit to a future in which every decision that is made is a step towards a safer, more prosperous and more connected Scotland for all.

I commend the Scottish Government for its approach to the bill. The engagement of the minister, Gillian Martin, with stakeholders throughout the bill process demonstrates a commitment to creating informed and balanced legislation. That process has been particularly well navigated in the sensitive field of animal welfare. I know how sincere the minister is in her dedication to the welfare of animals.

This type of legislation, which intertwines modern environmental needs with traditional practices, is challenging but vital for Scotland, which is a nation that has a deeply rooted love and respect for animals. As a long-standing advocate for animal welfare, I welcome the general principles of the bill. It is not a mere set of regulations but represents Scotland’s commitment to safeguarding the lives and wellbeing of animals, particularly our cherished birds of prey. The bill exemplifies our collective responsibility to protect and preserve the natural world, ensuring a harmonious and respectful coexistence with wildlife.

The issue of raptor persecution demands urgent attention. Despite stringent laws, the persecution of Scotland’s majestic birds of prey, including our golden eagles, hen harriers and peregrine falcons, remains a blight on our environmental record. The alarming findings of the Whitfield and Fielding report, alongside subsequent RSPB data, highlight the urgency of the situation.

As well as protecting wildlife, the bill makes a commitment to enhancing biodiversity and strengthening environmental stewardship, particularly in areas associated with driven grouse shooting. There has been substantial debate about the management of grouse moors, and the committee heard from witnesses who spoke about the economic importance of grouse shooting. It is imperative that that is conducted responsibly and sustainably. I noted during our evidence sessions that, contrary to some opinions, the bill seeks not to condemn the practice but to evolve it, making it more fitting for a modern and conscientious world. The aim is to ensure that grouse moor management can contribute positively to our biodiversity goals and our efforts to mitigate climate change.

One aspect of the bill is the prohibition of glue traps. The potential impact that a ban on glue traps might have on public health and on business was highlighted and noted during discussions with the British Pest Control Association. Although some pest controllers may employ those traps in line with strict guidelines to minimise suffering, enforcement and oversight are still matters of concern.

I acknowledge that some pest controllers who employ glue traps have strict policies to mitigate unnecessary and prolonged suffering, but I, along with many animal rights and veterinary organisations, still have serious and unresolved concerns about the enforcement and oversight of those policies. Instances of non-target species, including birds and domestic pets, being trapped and subjected to agony emphasise the need to outlaw those devices. I have heard horrific stories of animals chewing off their own limbs to escape traps. We cannot turn away from such agony, so I wholly welcome the Government’s plans to outlaw glue traps.

No. I want to make some progress.

In a similar vein, the Government’s plan to ban snares has been the subject of extensive discussion. I wish to bring a personal dimension to the issue. A couple of months ago, my beautiful wee ginger tabby cat, Tabitha, went missing. Over a week passed and I feared the worst. I was at the point of rehearsing how I would broach with the kids the subject of her possibly never returning. She had never been missing for that long, and it had been almost two weeks. While I was out at a surgery, my son texted me to say that she had returned, and he sent a shocking picture. She was so thin that her bones were protruding, and she looked in shock. He said that she was incredibly thirsty and hungry. The most distressing part was that the fur round her neck was missing. Her neck was not just bald—it was raw, with open sores. My family and I were heartbroken at her state. When she was examined, we were told that the wounds inflicted on Tabitha looked like those inflicted by snares, and that such a trap might explain her absence from home for so long.

I will never forget the suffering of my animal, but I stress that my pet is no more valuable or entitled to compassion than a wild animal just because she has a name and a human family. I hope that that incident illustrates the broader implications of such traps for pets and wildlife. I am delighted that the bill sends a clear message that the inhumane treatment of animals through the use of snares is intolerable in Scotland.

Alongside those actions, the bill also introduces a comprehensive licensing regime for muirburn. That practice, if unregulated, poses risks to our delicate peatlands and diverse wildlife populations. A new licensing system will ensure that muirburn can be conducted in a manner that prioritises environmental sustainability and safety.

The bill is testament to Scotland’s resolve to protect its natural heritage and it represents our commitment to future generations. It will ensure that Scotland is a place where wildlife thrives and our rural practices are in harmony with nature. By endorsing the general principles of the bill, we are taking a significant step towards a Scotland that is an exemplar in wildlife management and environmental stewardship.

Will the member take an intervention?

The member says that I did not say what would be a better solution. We know that there are alternatives, but perhaps it is because we are consistently using glue traps and not the alternatives that we cannot get a better bearing on that.

The climate credentials of the United Kingdom Government are in absolute tatters, and the only thing that the Labour Government-in-waiting seems capable of is flip-flopping and U-turns. How can Scotland work with the international community at COP28 to effect a positive outcome and show the world that our views and ambitions for the future of the planet are not represented by Westminster?

As the recent “Building a New Scotland” paper on migration demonstrates, the only realistic way to ensure that refugees and asylum seekers receive the support that they need from the day of their arrival is to have the full powers of an independent state. How transformational does the minister believe it would it be for asylum seekers to be granted the right to work in an independent Scotland?

Absolutely. That is why I took the time to meet the British Pest Control Association, away from the committee, to get absolute clarity on that. There are alternatives. They may cost a little more, but that is the issue here. We have to look at a way in which we can control pests in such areas that considers animal welfare as well.

That was helpful. Thank you.

I was going to ask about those difficult implications. Can you give us some examples?