Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have finished, but you can.

I have one point to make. Stephen Kerr is entirely entitled to quote, word for word, from briefings that he has been given, but those claims should be challenged when they are wrong. For example, when discussing amendment 114, he gave the example of the RSPB project in Orkney. The amendment would allow that project to continue, because the test that the amendment would set would in no way affect it. It is false to make that claim, and the weakness of the argument is shown by the way in which he has effectively misquoted the impact of amendment 114.

I will not press amendment 114 at this stage, but again I reserve the right to keep raising this particular issue as the debate continues, because it is important.

Amendment 114 not moved.

Amendment 115 not moved.

Amendment 116 moved—[Colin Smyth].

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.

I am grateful to the minister for her clarity on the definition of “taking” and for the offer to include further information in the explanatory notes. On that basis, I will not move amendment 106.

Amendment 106 not moved.

I note the minister’s comments on why wider types of traps have not been included, but I reiterate that, as with snaring, the cruelty that is associated with some traps happens not only on grouse moors or in relation to raptors. However, I note the comments about insertion of new section 12A(8) into the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which gives ministers powers to amend the list of traps, and I hope that the issue of other traps remains under review. Indeed, I would be keen to discuss that with the minister ahead of stage 3. At this point, though, I will not move amendment 109.

Amendment 109 not moved.

Amendment 55 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.

I will finish my point, as Edward Mountain has spoken to the amendment quite a bit. As the author of the amendment, I would like to do the same.

The reality is that amendment 113 would not ban grouse shooting. It would not stop grouse shooting at all; it would allow it to continue. However, in relation to intensely driven grouse moors, by not allowing trapping for the sole purpose of killing one animal to protect another so that that animal can be shot for sport, the amendment would reduce the industrial, wholesale killing of hundreds of thousands of animals.

Some will oppose the amendment because they support that level of killing—that “circle of destruction”, as it is known—including, as we have heard from the minister, the SNP and Green Government, it seems. Edward Mountain has also said that he supports it. However, let us be in no doubt that the public do not agree with those who support it. Polling shows that three quarters are opposed to killing for the sole purpose of maximising the number of animals to kill for sport. With a bill on grouse moor management, the question of where MSPs stand on that issue should be asked, and people deserve to know their views.

On amendment 114, I have spoken many times in Parliament about the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. Those principles inform amendment 114, which would require NatureScot to be satisfied that trap users had a legitimate and justifiable reason to use the trap and that they had considered alternatives. Such evidence should be routinely required in wildlife management decisions. Any killing or taking of wild animals should be justified by evidence that serious harm is being caused, and the method with the lowest animal welfare impact that would be effective should be chosen. I believe that that principle should apply in all our policies on wildlife management.

The requirements are drawn from those ethical principles. Currently, thousands of animals are routinely killed on grouse moors and elsewhere without any such checks and balances. Including that provision would be a step towards reaching that balance and ensuring that animals are trapped and killed on an ethical basis. The amendment would not ban the use of traps or make it impossible to use them, as some have falsely suggested; it would simply require NatureScot to be satisfied with the specification and the reason for the use.

Like amendment 114, amendment 115 would require the use of traps to be planned and to be for a specific purpose, to avoid indiscriminate killing. There should be a cap on the maximum number of traps that any individual can use in order to ensure regular inspection and maintenance and to focus the trapping on when and where it is needed. NatureScot should also know where the trap user plans to operate. I appreciate that a licence will be granted to an individual who may move around during the duration of the licence, but that is not insurmountable. The information on location could be updated as necessary.

Amendment 116 would make the maximum duration of a trap licence five years instead of 10 years. As we will hear later, there have been understandable calls for the licence for grouse moors to be longer than the proposed one year. I think that that is a reasonable call. There seems to be a growing consensus on five years. I think that that makes sense when it comes to the length of time for a trap licence. A trap licence should not be granted for as long as 10 years. A great deal can change over such a long period of time, including the development of new trap technology. Trap users should be required to attend refresher training at least every five years to keep up to date with advances in trap design and animal welfare science as well as modern protocols for ethical wildlife management. The minister says that she has not seen any stakeholder supporting that. However, I am sure that she is aware that OneKind, RSPB and others have made it clear for some time ahead of stage 2 that they very much support the amendment.

Amendment 117 would introduce a reporting requirement for trap users. That would provide a degree of accountability and transparency that is currently lacking. Currently, the numbers of birds and animals that are killed by trapping are completely unknown, as there is no such reporting requirement. It is surely ethically questionable to have a system that allows the killing of thousands of animals every year in order, as I said earlier, to provide more birds to be shot without even accounting for the numbers and species that die for that purpose. This amendment would allow authorities to gauge the numbers of target and non-target animals being trapped and killed, which is surely important to allow a full understanding of species biodiversity.

I have concluded my remarks, but I am happy to take an intervention.

I do not know what that course is—

That displays an utterly astonishing misunderstanding of amendment 113. There is no proposal whatsoever in the amendment to ban grouse shooting. The amendment would put on public record the view that someone should not have a licence to trap and kill animals solely for the purpose of protecting another animal in order to then kill that animal for sport. Many thousands of animals die as a result of that. That does not stop grouse shooting; it simply restricts trapping for the sole purpose of breeding more grouse in order to then kill them, too. It is really misleading to imply that that means a ban on grouse shooting. The bill does not deliver a ban on grouse shooting and neither does the amendment. The amendment simply places on record that, if people want to support that circle of destruction, they should say so. That should be something that we debate when it comes to the bill.

Today, we have seen the SNP-Green Government place on record its support for a circle of destruction. That will be very much noted by many people, including the vast majority of the public, who do not agree with them. It is particularly disappointing that the Greens do not support the amendment and make the rather bizarre argument that it would delay the bill—it would not. The amendment is here to be voted on today and would not result in any delay whatsoever.

What is really disappointing is the false claim that the amendment would in any way ban grouse shooting. I am very clear that such sports should continue, so there is no need to claim that the amendment would result in their being banned; it would simply reduce the number of animals being killed for the sole purpose of protecting another animal that will then itself be killed for sport. If we are going to debate issues, we should debate the facts instead of making claims that simply are not true, which might reflect the weakness of the argument.

I will not move amendment 113, but I will certainly continue to press the issue as the bill goes through Parliament.

Amendment 113 not moved.