Chamber and committees

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.

I am sorry. Yes.

I think that we are confusing several items here. As a farmer, I used cage traps to catch crows that were trying to get into the grain store to eat the grain or that were getting in among the cattle feed. It is not about increasing the number of birds that are shot but about preventing damage to the grain that would make it unfit for human consumption, as well as preventing the transmission of disease to cattle. How would the information that I would submit on the number of birds being killed be helpful to anyone with regard to the biodiversity of those species?

I am sorry. I thought that I had moved it in closing.

I move amendment 179.

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.

In fairness, anyone who develops a trap for deployment in Scotland that can kill or that aims to kill birds is breaking the law anyway. There is no point—

Convener, I think that I inadvertently—I apologise for this—praised your amendments in the debate on the previous group, but my comments stand. I think it is really important that all discussions relating to the consultation—and, if necessary, the minutes of meetings—be made available so that people can see how decisions have come about.

Amendments 19 and 41 are simple. The bill says:

“Before ... revising a code of practice the Scottish Ministers must consult ... Scottish Natural Heritage”.

I have to say, minister, that I get confused about this. Is the organisation Scottish Natural Heritage one day and NatureScot the next? You might wish to reflect on the need for continuity with previous legislation, as a result of which the organisation is now referred to as NatureScot—I am sure that your officials will do so.

I also note that Scottish ministers also have to consult

“any other person they consider appropriate.”

I would like to amend that simply by adding the phrase “land managers”, which would make the consultation sufficiently widespread to include anyone who works on and manages land. RSPB Scotland, for example, is a land manager. The phrase would also cover private owners, charities and trusts. Indeed, it could also include people on the front line, who are making all of this work. That would give you a better idea of whether the principle itself works.

I am sure that the minister is going to fire back at me on the Scottish Natural Heritage and NatureScot point. I look forward to that, and I thank the convener for allowing me to speak to the amendments.

Will Colin Smyth give way on that point?