Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Will the minister give way?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Amendment 176, by agreement, withdrawn.

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.

I move amendment 176.

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—