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 looking forward to fruitful discussions with the minister. Therefore, I am not moving amendments 6 or 7.

Amendments 6 and 7 not moved.

Section 3 agreed to.

After section 3

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.