Thank you. The next question is from Douglas Lumsden.

Christine Grahame will know that people who set glue traps do not leave them open to the elements. They are covered to ensure that cats and other domestic animals do not go in them. That is the sort of logical thing that we would do.

The amendments that I have lodged at stage 2 and stage 3 have been about bringing in a licensing scheme that would allow people to use glue traps in specific circumstances—when there is no other way of controlling rats and mice in environments such as schools and catering and medical premises. I do not believe that the minister’s recommendations, which came at the very last moment, are the right way to go; I think that my licensing scheme is the right way to go. I will leave it to Parliament to decide.

However, when the minister reflects on the matter after today, he might think that it would have been more inclusive to talk to members before lodging last-minute amendments on subjects that have not even been discussed at stages 1 and 2.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I think that I have heard it all now. We are going to future proof a bill to make it illegal to do something that is illegal now, in case it becomes legal in the future. That was the minister’s argument on amendments 46 and 47. Well, goodness me, that is future proofing. In fact, it is double future proofing—it is future proofing future proofing. I do not see the logic of it.

The argument that I laid out is simple: amendments 46 and 47 say that it is illegal to use a trap to kill a wild bird at the moment, so why do we need to say in the bill that we are going to make it illegal? Surely that is the law already.

I absolutely understand that there is a requirement for training. I accept the minister’s point, and I hope that he heard what I said: organisations have said that they would be up for training because they were told that if they did not do the training, they would not have the ability to set the traps. It is a slightly “arm up behind your back” principle. I am saying that, if somebody has done something for a considerable period of time, they should be allowed to get on with it without being taught how to do it by somebody who has read about it in a book.

I have given the Government the ability, in amendment 50, to set down what should be in the training course and to ensure that it is sensible. I am surprised at the minister; I thought that he would accept that the “beyond reasonable doubt” approach is actually about fixing the legislation to make an offence more than hearsay and more than an allegation—more than somebody just waving a finger and saying, “I think you did that, so therefore you can’t do this.” I have included that wording in my amendment because I think that it would protect people.

The minister should be aware—as I am sure he is and would be prepared to admit outside the chamber—that this issue is quite contentious outside the Parliament. There are a lot of people who go out in the countryside and wave their finger and accuse people of doing things that they have not done because it suits their story to do so.

Will the member take an intervention?

I thank the member for giving way. Twice this afternoon I have heard non-target species being mentioned. In the environments that we are talking about—inside buildings—what are the non-target species that could be caught, apart from rats and mice?

Well, there we go. The minister is still not listening. I was talking about following parliamentary procedure and talking to people who have lodged amendments. My amendments might well not have been required if the Government had lodged its amendments and discussed them with sufficient time to allow me to seek to withdraw my amendments or to change them. However, that was not to happen.

I have heard a lot of talk this afternoon about why glue traps should not be used, and I heard that at stages 1 and 2. My point is that my amendments are very straightforward. They would allow use of glue traps in very specific circumstances—that is, in educational, catering and medical premises. There is a reason behind that, which is that the last thing that we want to use in a hospital is poison, the last thing that we want littered around hospitals is traps, and the last thing that we want to see in schools is poisoned animals lying there having been killed by poison having been laid or traps having been set. That is not what we want.

If it is set properly, a glue trap could be removed at the beginning of the day and at the end of the day to ensure that there is no evidence of what had happened and there is no chance of children or patients coming into contact with poison.

I find it quite bizarre that members have spoken at some length about banning glue traps when, in the basement of the Parliament, glue traps have been used to get rid of the mice infestation down there. That is quite odd, is it not? It is odd that we should be talking about banning glue traps at the same time as we are using them.

We have heard from Mr Smyth about non-target species. I am not sure what non-target species inside buildings would be, apart from target-species mice and rats. I am not sure what other mammals or animals are running around in buildings apart from mice and rats.

I do not support a ban on snaring and I never said that I did. I want an effective licensing scheme, and I think that the licensing scheme that was brought in by this Government is pretty effective. However, I would support tightening it up if it meant that we could keep snaring.

I point out to Mr Smyth, as I did to the minister and other members in the committee at stage 2, that I do not know how we expect those people who manage wildlife in the countryside to be able to do other things if they are chasing foxes around, trying to remove them from areas where they are not wanted and can damage wildlife, including ground-nesting birds. They cannot do that 24/7—they cannot be out every hour of every day trying to control foxes. They have to be able to do other things, which is why there should be a trapping system.

I know that the organisations that are involved in the management of wildlife are quite happy with a more tightened-up licensing scheme, and I am disappointed that the Government has not considered that. The Government has listened to some organisations that have used pretty dubious propaganda images and pretty dubious information to support their case to ban snaring, and that is not justified. That is why I seek to remove the ban on snaring from the bill.

I will speak to my amendment 45 first and then to the other amendments.

My amendment seeks to remove the ban on snaring from the bill. I know that it is the Government’s proposal to ban snaring in the bill, but it introduced the ban only at stage 2 and I wish that it had been part of the bill as introduced.

I want to stop the ban on snaring for the simple reason that I am not sure that there are other effective ways of controlling rabbits and foxes. I want to be entirely clear with everyone that snaring other animals is completely outlawed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which completely bans the use of snares for anything but rabbits and foxes. That is further supported by the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, which makes it an offence to trap deer. No other mammals can be trapped.

The Snares (Scotland) Order 2010 sent out a message to those using snares that their activities would be controlled and seriously curtailed until they carried out the required training. I want to talk about that required training, because it is absolutely vital. In the old days, there was no requirement for snares to have any form of swivel or check on them to stop them from strangling the animal. Snares now have a swivel and a check on them, which means that animals cannot be strangled; they can only be held. That is really important, and the message sometimes gets lost in the information that is put out.

In fact, I saw tweets that were sent out in the past few days, by organisations that I thought better of, showing pictures of animals hanging from fences in snares. That cannot happen if people follow the law. A snare cannot be set within the close confines of a fence, and it cannot be set in such a way that it would cause the animal to be strangled by being hung up. The point of a snare is to hold and restrain an animal.

Before anyone sets a snare, they have to go on a quite lengthy course, to make sure that they are trained properly. The snares that are then used must display a snare or trap number, which Police Scotland gives to the person using the snare. The trap number and Police Scotland’s phone number have to be recorded on the trap so that, if someone comes across it and it is illegally set, they can report it to Police Scotland, which can then follow it up.

Anyone who sets snares has to keep a record, and record keeping is quite onerous. The record has to have the location of every snare set, every position in which it has been set, every set of snares that has been set within the past two years, the date on which each snare was set, and when each snare was unset and removed. By the way, a snare cannot be left unset in position—it must be removed. All that has to be recorded with a global positioning system reference and a reference on a map, so that anyone can identify the area. There are also complete guides about how to set snares.

I know that some people find it difficult to understand why snares have to be set, but if we remove snares, there are no other ways for controlling foxes and rabbits. Live traps can be used for rabbits, but foxes are going to be shot. I have yet to see any reliable way of catching a fox in a live trap. It just does not seem to work; they seem to understand that the trap is there.

What should have happened here is that, before the bill was introduced, the Government should have proposed a proper licensing scheme that would have allowed snares to continue, subject to licensing. I would like such a scheme to come about, which is why I want section 3A to be removed from the bill, as that would allow the Government to go back and consider a licensing scheme. We want to limit the ability of people to control foxes, especially next to urban conurbations. Do we want rifles being used closer and closer to urban conurbations, or do we want traps to be used to hold the animals so that they can be humanely destroyed if they are, in fact, the species that is being targeted?

I have listened to the debate with interest. I say to Mr Ruskell, who made comments about whether we on this side of the chamber believe that the SSPCA does a good job, that I have no doubt that it does. I see its officers at the mart and looking at farmers, and I have respect for the way in which they go about their duty. In most cases, they take a gentle and non-accusatory approach, and they try to find a solution. That is not what the SSPCA is being asked to do here. The circumstances would be very different and the SSPCA would be put on the front line, which I think is dangerous and could bring it into conflict.

Am I surprised that the minister does not believe that SSPCA officers need to go on a course? Not really. Everyone else has to, but not the SSPCA, because it is already trained. The fact that keepers and land managers have been on courses seems to matter nowt. I will remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests that shows that I am part of a family farming partnership—[Interruption.]

I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but I could not hear.

The minister is not in favour of a register that can be openly interrogated by the public and that would allow people to see what is being offered as far as licences are concerned—there’s a surprise. Truthfully, I am at a loss, Presiding Officer, to understand why the Government is not prepared to embrace that proposal. Rather, it has said that there will be nothing today but that there might be something tomorrow.

I press amendment 93.