Chamber and committees

Minister, I am sure that you will accept that things happen at a different pace across Scotland. As a farmer, you will know, for example, that grass will grow quicker in Perthshire than it will in the Highlands. That affects all wildlife, as far as seasons go, because things may take longer when it is colder and darker for longer. That is why I am asking for allowance to be made for geographical variance across Scotland. To treat Scotland as being all the same seems to me to be somewhat strange if we are trying to control management and put it on a level at which we get the best possible outcome for each environment.

I am not seeking a meeting—I seem to be the only member who has not had, or has not been offered, a meeting with you, minister. Will you accept, nevertheless, that there is variance across Scotland and that it would be worth considering geographical variance to take into account latitude and conditions?

With the committee’s indulgence, I will comment briefly on Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 63. The reason for asking for the time period to be extended from five years to 10 years is purely that the period will have a huge effect on whether a business is viable. I do not think that anyone really understands that buying just an Argocat, without a sprayer on the back, is probably going to cost you £35,000. Buying a Land Rover or another vehicle to get round the land that you are managing will add another £30,000. When you add on the costs of the traps and the rest of the equipment that you will need, the cost of going on the training courses and the cost of providing a house for the employee, you are probably looking at an investment—just to start up with one employee—of north of £150,000, and the yearly running costs for these places are exceptionally high.

The point of having a 10-year licence is that it would give some surety and security, most importantly to the people who are employed there. There is a real fear that jobs that are here today may be gone tomorrow, and a five-year licence could bring that about. Everyone knows—I am sure that Ms Forbes knows this—the fragility of the rural countryside and of jobs for gamekeepers on upland estates when it comes to management. Protecting their jobs and giving investors some surety is therefore important, which is why I support the period being changed to 10 years.

I am slightly concerned about Colin Smyth’s amendment 131. He wants every single animal that is killed or taken on the land to which the licence relates to be recorded. We would have long lists of rats and mice and every other species that we could possibly record, and I am not sure what benefit would accrue from that at the end of the day. There might have been a way in which the amendment could be supported if it was targeted at species excluding rats and mice. It might have been important to include animals whose spread we want to keep track of that are being killed. An example is mink, which there is encouragement to remove as they are an invasive species.

I urge the committee to support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 63 and not to support Colin Smyth’s amendment 131.

I feel forced to move amendment 17, because I have received no reassurances from the Government; nor is it laid down in legislation what the procedure would be for other birds, notwithstanding some words that were given today. I therefore press amendment 17.

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

Amendment 4 not moved.

I will not move amendment 5 for the reasons that I gave earlier.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Section 2 agreed to.

After section 2

I accept that you have never set a snare in your life—

As a farmer, I have set snares, but I do not currently do so, because I have not done the course—

—and because I am in this place. My point is that a lot of farmers do it.

Finally, please do not underestimate those people who take responsibility for managing wildlife in the countryside. They are not barbarians, and they do not want to cause suffering. They just want to get on with their job in the most efficient way possible and manage the environment, and I think that it is wrong to take this tool out of their box.

Convener, I am sure that you would like me to go through the chair.

I have found the debate interesting. I am slightly concerned that the minister has suggested that amendment 177 should not be agreed to on the basis that it talks about something that is already illegal and that she is talking about the need for what is in the bill to remain there because of future proofing. That seems to suggest that the minister will consider at some stage allowing traps to kill birds. If that is the intention, I am desperately against it. Therefore, I am sure that, on reflection, the minister will think that amendment 177 is sensible, because it does not even mention the killing of birds with a trap, so no future proofing is required.