Seòmar agus comataidhean

Can I just clarify something?

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.

Can I finish my points?

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 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.

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 am not quite sure that I understand your question, convener.

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.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the legislative consent memorandum to give effect in Scotland to the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill. The bill will make provision in relation to the welfare of animals, principally by prohibiting the export of livestock from Great Britain for slaughter and fattening for slaughter. The bill also repeals outdated legislation regarding the export of horses.

The Scottish Government proposes legislative consent to the bill in so far as it makes provision within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government commits to work with the other Administrations to seek the end of unnecessary long-distance transport of animals for fattening or slaughter outside the UK.

We are a little disappointed that key commitments previously made to improve protection for wildlife and animals in the promised Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill are not included, which would have delivered a package of joint welfare measures across GB. However, this stand-alone bill provides an opportunity to have consistent control over such exports and to assist enforcement agencies to ensure that such unnecessary movements no longer take place. Those measures have been called for by many of the main animal welfare organisations, and the Scottish Government very much supports their introduction.

The Scottish Government recognises, however, that for the measures in the bill to be successful, they should be introduced consistently across Great Britain. Consistent legislative measures across GB will also assist when it comes to interpretation and enforcement of new controls, and a co-ordinated, GB-wide approach to tackling issues that are covered by the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill is widely supported and welcomed by many key stakeholders.

Allowing the UK Parliament to legislate for all GB Administrations in this area is the most timely, efficient and effective way to achieve these important changes. However, I need to be absolutely clear that we will not implement anything that could jeopardise the livelihoods of our farmers and crofters who rely on being able to move livestock between their islands and the mainland. Should any attempt be made to introduce any such restrictions in this GB-wide bill, the Scottish Government would withdraw its consent and introduce our own legislation to limit the extent of application to export. I am sure that the committee would wish to support that approach.

However, I am assured that our position is understood and accepted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I do not anticipate there being any issues in the passage of the bill, nor any need to withdraw our consent. I am happy to take any questions that you might have.

We opted not to do that in this case, because it makes sense to have a GB-wide approach. We are content with everything that is in the bill as it stands, as it pretty much replicates what we would have wanted. However, we have the power, if we want to take our own statutory instrument forward, to create a separate scheme, but we do not see any reason to do that at this stage.