Chamber and committees

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.

The purpose of amendment 177 is to rectify what I perceive to be an error. If the minister wants to contradict me, I would be grateful to her for doing so, but I am not sure that there are any legal traps for killing wild birds available in Scotland. I do not think that there is a trap that allows you to do that. It is against the law to kill a bird in a trap, and rightly so. Amendment 177 seeks to remove the word “killing” in relation to the use of traps for wild birds, and amendment 178 seeks to ensure that “killing” applies in the context of the use of traps for mammals.

With amendment 109, Colin Smyth seeks to include in the bill a provision that would allow the trapping of all live mammals as part of the licensing scheme. I am not sure that my wife, who, contrary to my better judgment, believes in trapping mice alive and releasing them outside the house after they have been caught, would welcome having to be part of a licensing scheme or to apply for a tag or an identification to go on her trap. I am not sure that Colin Smyth has thought through his amendment, because it would affect more than just people who use traps in the countryside. It would also mean that people who use traps to catch live animals such as mice, squirrels, rabbits and even rats—I do not fully understand the principle behind live rat traps—would have to go on a course and fit a tag to their traps.

Therefore, I am not entirely convinced that amendment 109 is sensible, but I look forward to hearing Colin Smyth’s arguments and to my being able to go home and convince my wife.

Amendment 55 is highly important and entirely appropriate, and I am glad that the minister has lodged it.

Amendments 57 and 58, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, appear to be proportionate and sensible, and I look forward to hearing the arguments.

Amendment 78 appeals to me in that the Government needs to be open, honest and transparent about how it comes up with its decisions. I am sure that that will chime with the general public and that the amendment will therefore gain the support of the committee.

I move amendment 177.

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.

I will not move amendment 4 on the basis of my earlier explanation.

Amendment 4 not moved.