Seòmar agus comataidhean

How can someone have a reasonable excuse for doing something that is banned?

Perhaps the factory cat that is there to keep the number of mice down is wandering about. Cats can get stuck in the traps. They are one example.

I am bringing them to a conclusion.

The point that I am making—which deserves to be re-emphasised—is that, until stage 3, there was no notion that we would have a backdoor system of regulation.

I am at a loss to understand why the Scottish Government—which seems to me not to be compromised but to be doing this as a matter of appeasement—will continue, if the bill passes, to introduce by the back door a licensing scheme against all the evidence that glue trapping is inhumane.

Wales introduced an outright ban that became effective on 17 October 2023. Why on earth the Scottish Government does not do the same, I do not understand. On that ban, the Welsh Rural Affairs Minister, Lesley Griffiths, said:

“This is a historic day for animal welfare. We strive for the very highest standards of animal welfare in Wales, and the use of snares and glue traps are incompatible with what we want to achieve.”

I wish that my Government took the same view of things.

I move amendment 38.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze. I would have voted no.

The arguments that I will make in support of amendment 38 apply equally to amendment 39. Of the other amendments in the group, my intention is to reference in detail only the Scottish Government’s amendment 11. I do not support licensing, but I will speak to that amendment specifically.

Amendment 38 would delete words in section 1(1), to make it read, “It is an offence for a person to use a glue trap for the purpose of killing or taking any animal other than an invertebrate.” It would be an outright ban on glue traps, except for use on invertebrates.

As far as I knew, until Tuesday of last week, that was the Government’s position. However, then up popped amendment 11 in the name of the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, Jim Fairlie. I welcome the minister to his position, but I will not make life easy for him.

Amendment 11 would insert after section 3:

“Authorisation for use, supply or possession of glue trap

(1) The Scottish Ministers may, by regulations, make a scheme for the authorisation of the use, supply or possession of glue traps (“the scheme”)—

(a) by specified persons,

(b) in specified circumstances.”

I will pre-empt the Government’s argument: it will continue to say that its policy position is a belief in an outright ban. However, I am interested in the law, which is fixed—and, in this case, would not be an outright ban, because, if amendment 11 is agreed to, there will be an opening, notwithstanding that it would be in very peculiar circumstances, for the Government to introduce a licensing scheme. In common parlance, it is not a ban. What is policy is distinct from what is legal.

To look at the Government’s history on the issue, its policy memorandum, which it put out when it was consulting and which was introduced with the bill on 21 March 2023, said specifically that the bill will

“Ban the use and purchase of glue traps”.

Relevant to sections 1 to 3, it says that those are

“devices used for a variety of purposes, primarily to control ground rodents ... glue traps work by placing them along areas where rats and mice are likely to frequent. Once the animal steps onto the board it is then firmly stuck to it and is unable to free itself. Once an animal is captured the intention is that the glue trap can be retrieved and the animal dispatched.”

The memorandum also details that

“There has been significant and ongoing concern regarding the welfare implications of the use of ... glue traps. They can result in prolonged suffering ... are indiscriminate in nature”

and can unintentionally trap non-target species.

I am not against the trapping and capturing of rodents; I am against the use of glue traps. That is a very specific complaint.

In response to concerns by animal welfare groups in petition PE1671 to the Scottish Parliament, which called for a ban on the sale and use of glue traps, the Government sought advice from the independent Scottish Animal Welfare Commission.

On 23 March 2021, the SAWC published a report that acknowledged that there are

“certain high-risk situations that clearly require effective and rapid pest control.”

It went on to say that the SAWC was

“not convinced that evidence exists supporting the view that glue traps are genuinely the only method of last resort”

and gave examples of other effective alternative methods.

The report acknowledged the animal welfare impacts of the use of glue traps. It concluded that

“there is no way that glue traps can be used without causing animal suffering”

and that they pose

“an undeniable risk of capture of non-target species.”

It further stated that its preferred recommendation was that

“animal welfare issues connected with the use of glue traps would justify an immediate outright ban on their sale and use.”

I highlight the words “outright ban.”

It is no wonder that I, and others, believed that the Scottish Government’s position was unequivocal: that there should be an outright ban on glue traps—no regulations in the future and no parking the issue for some other legislation. Indeed, that was reinforced by a string of answers to parliamentary questions. In the interest of time, I will only quote a few.

On 20 January 2022, Siobhian Brown, who is now a minister, asked an oral question on the ban and was told:

“we will introduce legislation to ban glue traps in this parliamentary term”—[Official Report, 20 January 2022; c 4.]

On 31 May 2022, Màiri McAllan said:

“we have committed to ending use of glue traps, which is a particularly cruel and harmful practice.”—[Official Report, 31 May 2022; c 92.]

In June 2022, in answer to a written question from Sandesh Gulhane, who had raised issues about health, Màiri McAllan replied:

“I set out our plans to introduce a ban on the sale and use of glue traps.”—[Written Answers, 10 June 2022; S6W-09084.]

In October 2022, Màiri McAllan made reference to work that was on-going on “banning glue traps”.

Throughout all that, in my foolishness, I thought that we were banning glue traps.

At stage 2, Edward Mountain—quite rightly—lodged amendments relating to a licensing scheme that he wanted to introduce in certain circumstances. There was a debate. Then, in response to what the minister said, he did not pursue the amendments and said that we would come back to them later. He said:

“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.”

He went on to say:

“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.”

Although I disagree with him, he was entitled to say that. The response from Gillian Martin, who was the Minister for Energy and the Environment at that time, was:

“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 of 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.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 7 February 2024; c 3, 5.]

This is an extremely important debate, and I share the concerns about substantive amendments being lodged—to any legislation—at the last minute. There are two key aspects to consider. First, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which is a completely independent body, has determined that glue traps cause extreme suffering and are inhumane. I am not opposed to rodent control, but I am opposed to this particular method of control.

Secondly, the minister said that there is a ban on glue traps. However, he went on to say that, should the amendment that was lodged at the last minute be agreed to, the Government can, by regulations, authorise their use in extreme circumstances. That would be done using the affirmative procedure, which is at least something. That is not a ban. The old teacher in me notes that the word “ban” comes from a middle English word that means “to banish”. We are not banishing the use of glue traps. We are qualifying and modifying their use by saying that, in certain circumstances, they will not be banished.

Finally, I say to Edward Mountain that my huge concern about regulation and licensing in any circumstance is that, as we saw from snaring, it very much depends on the personnel who are doing it. We know that glue traps will not always be regularly checked, as that was our experience with snaring. Therefore, the straightforward answer is simply to ban glue traps and to use alternative methods of pest control. I did not know that glue traps were being used in the Parliament—I am shocked by that.

I press amendment 38.

I congratulate my colleague on securing this debate. It is a privilege to speak in it and I welcome the young carers who are here today.

There are around 1 million young carers aged 17 or under in the UK, so, if we extrapolate that based on population numbers, that means that there are approximately 100,000 young carers in Scotland, which I am sure is an underestimate.

I apologise at this stage in the debate to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and to those in the gallery, for duplicating any points that have already been made, but they deserve to be repeated.

Who is a young carer? That is a tricky question, because many who look after siblings or adults in their family would not identify themselves as carers and some might wish to keep quiet about it, perhaps out of fear of interference from social work.

Young carers usually know who they are, but, for public consumption, a young carer is someone under 18 who helps to look after a friend or someone in their family who is ill, disabled or misuses drugs or alcohol. They can have emotional as well as practical caring responsibilities and the level of single-handed responsibility that is sometimes placed on young carers would be daunting even for an adult. They do cleaning, laundry, washing, food shopping, lifting and cooking. They offer financial and practical management by withdrawing cash and paying bills. They give intimate care such as washing, bathing and giving medication. They do sibling care, looking after a brother or sister, and so on. The condition of the person that they care for is often not obvious, so people do not think that the young person needs help.

I understand why young carers do not want to be different from their peers or to draw attention to their caring role. Understandably, they might want to keep their identity at school or college separate from their caring role. They might feel that they cannot discuss it with their friends or they might not have an opportunity to share their story. They are worried about bullying and, as I have said, that the family might be split up and that they themselves might be taken into care. They might want their caring to be kept secret because they are embarrassed.

Some young carers look after more than one person and they might also have health issues of their own. Some begin giving care at a very young age, while others can become carers overnight.

I was once a teacher and the role of the class teacher is important. I looked at the Carers Trust toolkit for young carers in education, which is a resource for identifying and supporting young carers. They can be distracted by, for example, checking their phone, not for trivial reasons but to check that the person they care for is okay. They can become quiet and withdrawn. They get no time to study at home, due to a hectic or chaotic home life and they can come back to school with their homework undone. Should the teacher be taking them to task, or should they be working out what is behind it? Carers feel pressured to remain in the caring role rather than progressing into further education, which is a division of their loyalties.

There is helpful guidance for teachers on the Carers Trust Scotland website. The most important thing is that teachers should be aware. They might notice a change in the behaviour of one of their pupils and ask themselves what lies behind it. There is also young carers awareness training for teachers, which is so important for helping practitioners, student teachers and probationers know what to look out for.

One key thing is to change the narrative. We should celebrate young carers and the valuable work that they do. It is a positive thing to be a young carer, but it is important to be recognised for that.

There is a duty for local authorities, although I do not have time to go into that. Both Midlothian and Borders councils have guidance for young carers on their websites.

I will finish with this: it is time that we all came together to make a change and to create a fair future for young carers. The young carers covenant, which I have read, will do exactly that. That is why I have signed it.

I asked about the efficacy of the 1991 act.

We are considering some of the consequences of the new law in England now. You mentioned 200 dogs, which were put down. That is, some 200 dogs in England were put down by their owners, and they get money from the Government to do that. What is the BVA’s position on that? What are vets’ positions on it? Vets do not like putting down healthy dogs.

I am interested in the committee’s questions. We have had to ask questions because the law itself is just a complete mess.

Minister, you talked about a loophole. I have taken on board what you said about the processes that were undertaken with the UK Government. Had there not been issues with so-called “dumping”—I put the term in quote marks because I do not like it—of XL bully-type dogs in Scotland, would you have proceeded to take a good look, as I have asked for frequently, at the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which I authored, to see whether it could be tightened up even more? I refer in particular—I hope that the committee is aware of this—to section 9 of the act, which is entitled “Dangerous or unresponsive dogs”. That section applies in the home; as you have rightly said, dog attacks also happen in the home. However, the order that has been made on the basis of the UK Government’s legislation will, if it is agreed to today, not apply in the home.

Section 9 of the 2010 act applies where an authorised officer takes the view that issuing a dog control notice would not be suitable. The case would have to go to court to let it decide whether the dog in question may or may not have to be put down or whether some other action should be taken. Section 9 also gives the owner the right of appeal, and it applies to any dog.

If there was any issue in Scotland with bully XLs, would it not have been suitable to use section 9 of the 2010 act, had your position not been that there were concerns about an excess of dogs coming up to Scotland?