Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 143 draws attention to another elephant in the room. As I explained when I spoke to amendment 113 on 7 February, the explanatory notes to the bill say that the Government wants to

“ensure that the management of grouse moors and related activities are undertaken in an environmentally sustainable and welfare conscious manner.”

Amendment 143 complements the environmental goals of the bill and speaks to the reasons why a muirburn licence should be given by NatureScot.

Although it may be accepted that muirburn can be a tool for land managers, it is environmentally and ethically indefensible for muirburn licences to be given for the sole purpose of maintaining and increasing moorland game only so that it can be shot. Some will oppose amendment 143 because they support maximising the amount of killing, but that is not the public’s view. Three quarters of Scots are opposed to muirburn for that purpose—solely so that grouse numbers can be maintained or increased for the grouse then to be killed for sport.

Amendment 143 will reduce unnecessary muirburn, but it will leave in flexibility for it to continue to be used when necessary. Put simply, if land managers want to obtain a licence to muirburn for genuine conservation reasons, the amendment in no way blocks that from happening.

I move amendment 143.

It is disappointing that the minister will not support the pretty modest proposal in amendment 120, particularly given the suggestion that the training would simply be reviewed by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which is an organisation that the Scottish Government itself set up for that type of purpose. The longer the bill is debated, the more the commitment that was given in evidence that a key aim of the bill is to improve “animal welfare outcomes”, even when traps are used lawfully, looks like rhetoric from Scottish Government officials rather than anything that is reflected in the bill.

However, I take on board what the minister said—that the issue that I have raised will be covered in the training. I would like to discuss that further with the minister before we get to stage 3, to outline exactly how that will be the case. Ideally, we could see some of the training before then or, at the very least, get more information about it. Therefore, I will not move amendment 120 at this stage but, subject to that discussion, I will consider bringing it back at stage 3.

Amendments 120 and 13 not moved.

Is Edward Mountain arguing that the only way to manage land and to protect a particular species against predators is by killing? The point of my amendments is that other forms of control should be considered before killing is used as a last resort, but Edward Mountain seems to be arguing that the only thing that we can do is kill.

Some time ago, in response to my members’ business debate on the ethical principles of wildlife management, the Government said that it would consider such an approach. Amendment 121 is a test of whether that was just the usual empty rhetoric that we have come to expect or is something that the Government is seriously considering.

Amendment 121 moved—[Colin Smyth].

Having lodged the same amendment as Kate Forbes, I express my support for the end date of the muirburn season being moved in the way that amendment 102 proposes. Ideally, the end date would be the one that is suggested in amendment 167, but, failing that, amendment 102 is a reasonable compromise. However, I do not support the start date of the season being moved as is set out in amendment 101, as I do not think that there are any justifiable reasons for that.

As we have heard, the current end date of 15 April for the burning season, as is proposed in the bill, overlaps with the breeding season of several bird species that often nest on moorland. A point was raised about the need for evidence on the issue. In its 2014 document “Bird Breeding Season Dates in Scotland”, NatureScot listed 18 species in Scotland whose breeding season overlaps the end date, and climate change is driving that number ever higher. We also heard about the evidence in the BTO’s report, “Nesting dates of Moorland Birds in the English, Welsh and Scottish Uplands”.

There is a strong case for having a mechanism for proper scrutiny by Parliament, outwith primary legislation, to amend the date as climate change continues to have an impact. However, the bill asks us to set a date, and I believe that the proposed date is too late. In Wales, the end date has been brought forward, from 15 April to 31 March, on the basis of current evidence of breeding seasons and climate change. At the very least, we should replicate that in Scotland.

I am happy to address that point. In previous amendments, for example, I proposed that we should not be trapping to minimise one species in order to maximise another species purely for the purpose of killing that other species. That circle of destruction has been debated time and again, and that is the point that is being made here.

I am not surprised that the Conservatives do not agree with amendment 143, but I am disappointed that the Greens seem to share that position. I am aware that the minister has no intention whatever of meeting me to discuss bringing back the amendment at stage 3, but I will not press it. The Government’s position on supporting muirburn purely to maintain and increase grouse to be shot for sport is very much now on record.

Amendment 143, by agreement, withdrawn.

If a land manager wishes a licence for conservation reasons, amendment 143 would not impact on that whatsoever. That important point needs to be made.

I am not surprised that the Conservatives do not agree with the amendment, because they want to maximise the level of kill. I appreciate that, but I have to say that I am disappointed that the Greens and SNP seem to share that position. Despite the fact that I know that the minister has no—

Is Edward Mountain saying that the only way in which we can manage wildlife and our land is through killing animals? Is that his argument?

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 move amendment 54A.

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 (Offences) 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.