Chamber and committees

Today is a first for me, for three reasons. First, I have attended three committee meetings today, which is unusual. Secondly, I have heard the minister speak against his own amendment; I never heard of that before. Thirdly, I will speak at length about a subject in the hope of enabling one of the committee members to attend the meeting to vote against my amendments. Those three things are new to me.

My reason for lodging amendment 181 is to ensure that muirburn licences are for muirburn on moorland. It is unclear to me from the legislation that a muirburn licence does not extend beyond moorland.

My definition of “moorland” is heather, which is in the dictionary definition for “muirburn”, and I want to make sure that it does not extend to gorse, broom and grassland. That is why I have lodged amendment 182, which attempts to define what moorland is not: it is not improved grassland or land suitable for arable cropping beyond permanent grassland. All of those are burnt regularly by people, as I am sure that Alasdair Allan will know, to improve and protect grassland and to stop the invasion of species such as broom and gorse. However, they are burnt not only for those reasons but to remove and control pests such as leatherjackets—cranefly larvae—which can destroy grassland very easily. To my mind, the best option for controlling those, in most cases in which they have damaged and killed off grassland, is to burn that grassland rather than spray it. It is an organic way of controlling such species.

Those are the reasons for my two amendments—to define what muirburn is and where it is—and I am interested in hearing the minister’s comments and in seeing whether he has a more eloquent way of describing it.

I move amendment 181.

I think that you have missed your opportunity, minister. Unless you are going to tell me that you will accept that amendment, I am probably not going to let you in—[Interruption.] Okay—that is even more predictable. That is hugely disappointing, convener—

Amendment 14.

Convener, I am very glad that I gave way to the minister to allow him to agree, albeit partially, with something that I have said.

No. Technically, managing reseeding on grasslands could fall within the bill’s definition of muirburn. I believe that grassland management is truly important and it is really important for crofters to have that ability, but technically it could fall within the bill’s definition of muirburn, so there could be a problem with Dr Allan’s amendment. Although I support it and would like it to be agreed to, I hope that the minister, if my concerns are right, will work with him to ensure that crofters are given the ability to carry out management of grassland, which is so important to their practices.

I find Rhoda Grant’s amendment 149 interesting. I listened to her arguments and I am swayed by the amendment, so I will be interested to see how the committee votes on it.

On the ground that there will be further engagement, I am happy not to press the amendment. I am also happy not to move any of the other amendments. I know that you cannot deal with them en bloc, convener, but I am giving you notice of that now, to save the committee’s time and on the understanding that I can further debate the matter with the minister later.

Amendment 22, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 9 agreed to.

Section 10—Application for muirburn licence

I am pleased to speak to my amendment 20, which seeks to ensure that Scottish Natural Heritage, or NatureScot—whichever name it is trading under on the given date—should

“consult such persons as it considers likely to be interested in or affected by the code of practice, including land managers.”

I think that that is fair, reasonable and inclusive—which the Scottish Government claims to be, so I would be very surprised if the minister were against the amendment.

I am somewhat surprised by amendment 83. I must put it to the person who has moved it, Emma Harper, that she does not know that the use of all medication on land is covered by vets’ prescriptions.

I am sorry—I did not hear that.

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.

I have listened to the evidence that the committee has taken, and I think that Karen Adam’s comments during our evidence taking were apposite in a lot of ways. However—let me be clear—the use of cable restraints and snaring is highly regulated in legislation, and it requires a great deal of formal training. That training has taken us away from where we were many years ago, when I was younger and there were no restrictions on where you could place snares. In those days, you could place them where animals could get hung up and where they could end up—inadvertently, in most cases—strangling themselves to death.

That is not where we are now. Now, snares are set in locations where that cannot happen; they hold the animal in place, and, because of the stops, the animal cannot be strangled. The stops also work if the animal is caught in the wrong place.

The snares that we have now also give you the ability to discriminate with regard to the animals that you kill. Once you have caught the animals, you can, before you dispatch those that you want to dispatch, release the non-target animals by cutting the snare to free them. The fact that snares are also required to be regularly checked and that every snare must be identified and subject to inspection means that the activity is highly regulated.

I understand why people take issue with this, but it is my opinion and my experience that properly set and managed snares hold the animal to allow its humane dispatch—or its release, if it is not a target animal. There is no reason why non-target animals should end up being killed. I believe that most—in fact, nearly all—people who use snares know that they are taking on a huge responsibility, and they want to ensure that the animals that they catch are not subjected to suffering.

As the minister has rightly said, there are other ways of doing this. For example, those of us who have been out at night with lamps know that foxes become lamp shy, and you can clear a massive area just by turning on the lamp. Thermal sights work, but they are not always appropriate, because you cannot always see the backdrop. Shooting does not always solve everything. Let us be honest: when you fire a gun, you do not always kill what you want to kill. We know that, with snares, you can hold the animal and dispatch it very quickly.

As for the minister’s comment that all of those things can be done at night, I am sure that Jim Fairlie knows that, if you are protecting a lambing field and looking after lambs all day and all night, you do not have the time to spend all night chasing foxes that are trying to work their way in. A snare or cable restraint gives you that ability.