Chamber and committees

That has been discussed, but we have not put anything in the bill and I do not know whether we want to put it into the bill. I must say sorry to Beatrice Wishart, because I missed that part of her question. We might need to leave that to NatureScot.

This stems from the Werritty review. We looked at some of the things that it flagged up as being other offences that are an issue. It covered the taking of wild birds and wild animals, and the protection of badgers is also in there.

I am aware that not all the offences are relevant in every situation, but Professor Werritty’s review gave support for the list of legislation that is included in section 16AA. The bill includes a power to amend the list through secondary legislation. I want to be clear that the commission of an offence under the listed legislation does not automatically require the licensing authority to suspend or revoke a licence; it might elect not to do so.

I hope that that gives a bit of comfort.

Are you talking about tampering with traps?

Yes, we did. It is fair to point out that we looked at how other countries are dealing with such traps, as well. The United Kingdom Government had considered a licence scheme for particular incidences of pest controllers saying that glue traps are necessary—in healthcare settings or food production settings, for example.

There are a number of reasons why we have come to our position. First, we feel that there are sufficient alternatives to glue traps to deal successfully with rodents—there are snap traps, live box traps and electric traps. We obviously liaise with pest controllers and have looked at what pest controllers are doing throughout the country. Some of the big names in pest control, including Rentokil, have opted not to use glue traps because of animal welfare concerns.

We also reached out to find out about pest control in all local authorities. Of the 14 local authorities that responded, 11 said that they would never use glue traps, two stated that they do not provide a pest control service and only one said that it had used them in the past, although very rarely.

We therefore looked at other models in which glue traps have been banned completely; for example, the Republic of Ireland has banned them completely. The committee will note that, last night, the Senedd in Wales voted to ban the sale and use of glue traps completely, as well. We think that that is the right way to go. Those traps are inhumane.

The committee has had a witness before it who made the point that glue traps are sometimes necessary. We will have a period in which pest controllers can adjust and find alternative methods that they are, perhaps, not already trained in or might need to source. We will bring in directives on that by regulation, to allow the pest control sector to adapt.

I guess that the convener has effectively answered your question, Mr Fairlie. I have written a letter to Trudy Harrison, who is my opposite number in the UK Government, setting out our plans and highlighting the fact that we will need—well, we might need this but I think that we will need it—an exemption from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to ban the sale of those traps. It is too early to have had a response from Ms Harrison. I know what ministerial inboxes are like and the length of time that it takes to respond, so I was not expecting a reply from Ms Harrison by this point. I would expect a reply by stage 2, because by then we will have an idea of what we can do and what we might have to amend in the bill.

Now that the Senedd has passed the ban on glue traps, I will be reaching out to my Welsh counterparts to ask what they did around the exemption from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, because it could be that they are a lot further ahead. I imagine that they might not have pressed ahead if they did not have that exemption, but I would need to reach out to them. That will be quite helpful.

Certainly, it is still our intention to ban the sale of the traps. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask for an exemption. We will see what Ms Harrison comes back with, but I think that I will also be liaising with my Welsh counterparts on the matter.

It could be a visit to the licence holder to speak to them and give advice on how to do things in future. It could be a letter to alert the licence holder that NatureScot is aware of what has happened, ask them to rectify the situation and say that it will follow that up. That is the approach that I would prefer, and I get the impression from NatureScot that that is also its preferred approach.

I am doing that tomorrow.

Professor Werritty highlighted some concerns. I say up front that the vast majority of estates that have grouse shooting on their moors act in a satisfactory way. To be honest, the few that have not acted in a satisfactory way are giving those other estates a bad name and a bad reputation, which is completely undeserved.

It is in the interests of those responsible land managers and estate owners that the whole sector has a licensing scheme behind it, because when their good practice can be recognised, their licences will be renewed. There will be no problems with their licences being suspended if they act in a satisfactory way. That is notwithstanding the concerns that I heard about vexatious claims and so on, but it might just bring those other estates up to the standard that we expect when working in their natural environment.

I do not have the disaggregated data in front of me, Mr Carson.

I get that not everybody in this room or across the Parliament agrees with our licensing proposals, but we always said that, if we did not feel that progress was significant enough—