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 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.

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?

I am pleased to speak to the amendments in my name. I will be careful when I speak to the issues and will not add too many old stories in respect of them. I remember that, when I was much younger, I told my grandmother how to do something. She replied, “Don’t teach your grandmother to suck eggs.” That is the point of amendment 10.

Amendment 10 is in two parts. The first says that, if someone has completed a training course, the authority must give them a licence. The second part seems to have caused a huge amount of consternation. It is based on an amendment that came about in spraying legislation many years ago. I am not sure that members here will remember it. It conferred what were known as grandfather rights in that people who had been practitioners of spraying were allowed to continue without a requirement that they sit a training course on it. That seems entirely reasonable. For members’ information, I set the figures in the way that I did because I thought that a 40-year-old would probably be around halfway through their career, and if they had done 10 years of practice they would probably know what they were talking about.

I am afraid that the minister misrepresented my point. It is about having a combination of the two factors. The requirement is that people must have been born before 31 December 1983 and have been practising the use of traps for 10 years.

It is a difficult situation, because everyone wants to send people on a course. I certainly remember that, when I left the Army, I was sent on a deer stalking certificate course, for the purpose of deer control. It was a full-day course. It was pretty expensive but pretty informative, and I was given a shooting test at the end. I know that the person who ran the course had less experience in deer management than I had, because they had been on the planet for fewer years than I had been practising that skill. That made it difficult for me to understand the reasons for my having to do the course. The shooting test, which involved spending an interesting day on the range, was more complicated for me to pass, and so to qualify to shoot four-legged animals, than my annual weapons test in the Army, which had allowed me to shoot two-legged animals.

This is my point: we are taking people to one side for training but we are really teaching them to suck eggs. We are impinging on their knowledge and being rude to them. If I were to introduce a bill that required every single member of the Parliament to complete a course in order to be a politician here, someone who had been here for a considerable time—perhaps even the First Minister, or the minister sitting at the table—would have to be taught the basics of being a politician. That would not be right.

That is why I lodged amendment 10, which is a simple amendment. I think that it is wrong for the minister to have said that, under my amendment, someone who was born before 31 December 1983 would obtain a licence. No, they would not. They would also have to have 10 years’ hands-on experience, with dirt under their fingernails from actual work—not dirt on their fingers from reading books. It is dangerous for the Parliament to get to the stage of teaching people to suck eggs.

Amendment 11, in my name, would allow the minister to vary the provision on evidence if it proved to be unsatisfactory. It would be a stopgap for the minister.

As for the other amendments in the group, I will listen with interest to Rachael Hamilton’s comments on amendment 10 and why she thinks it appropriate to remove the age requirement.

I also think that it would be dangerous to put amendment 113 through. We accept that wild birds are used for sporting purposes. I understand that Colin Smyth is against that, and I respect his views on the matter, but it is a fact of life that such activity is allowed, and while that is the case, we must give people the legal tools to carry out their job.

You cannot stipulate the number of traps that will be needed, as that would just be overbearing. That is why I think that amendment 115 does not work. As for amendment 116, I agree with the minister that 10 years is sufficient for refresher courses. All you will do if you make the period five years is spawn a whole industry to run tests and examinations.

I would have some sympathy with amendment 117 if Mr Smyth could tell me what the number in question would be used for. If he can tell me why he needs to know, say, the number of rats that have been killed in a specific trap in a specific place and how that information would be used to benefit the natural environment, I might be able to consider the amendment. Until he does so, though, I do not see the reason for it, because it would just result in another list of figures that would disappear into the archives of NatureScot, never to see the light of day again.

Finally, I turn to amendment 118. I have already made it clear that I do not believe in teaching people how to suck eggs. Does the member honestly believe that people who use traps do not take their responsibility seriously? Does he honestly believe that that sort of thing is not done to the highest welfare standards? As I have said to the committee before, I have never met people who go out there just to be cruel and barbaric in how they do these things. Frankly, if I ever do meet them, I hope that they feel the full force of the law, and I will make sure that I take part in their conviction. However, it does not sum up the people who use traps—gamekeepers and so on.

Will the minister give way?