Chamber and committees

If a land manager wishes a licence for conservation reasons, amendment 143 would not impact on that whatsoever. That important point needs to be made.

I am not surprised that the Conservatives do not agree with the amendment, because they want to maximise the level of kill. I appreciate that, but I have to say that I am disappointed that the Greens and SNP seem to share that position. Despite the fact that I know that the minister has no—

Is Edward Mountain saying that the only way in which we can manage wildlife and our land is through killing animals? Is that his argument?

The regulation of some traps, which the bill will introduce, marks a big improvement, and I very much welcome it. However, as we know, that concerns only live-capture bird traps and traps covered by the Spring Traps Approval (Scotland) Order 2011, as amended. A variety of other traps are commonly used in Scotland, some of which are completely unregulated—those used for moles, rats and mice, which can cause a great deal of suffering. I therefore believe that the Government’s approach of not considering those traps is inconsistent from an animal welfare point of view.

Amendment 109, in my name, would add mammal cage traps, which are used to take and then kill mammals, to the list of traps for which users must have a licence. Animal welfare organisations have understandably been calling for a review of all traps, examining both the reasons for their use and their welfare impact. I would support such a review, and I would be keen to hear from the minister whether the issue of live traps will be kept under review.

The policy memorandum for the bill says that the traps that I have referred to are not included because

“the activity does not pose a risk to raptors, and in the majority, such activities have no link to grouse moor management.”

Although the traps that I have referred to do not pose a risk to raptors, they will have an impact on any animal trapped in them, and bringing them under the trap licence scheme would ensure that best practice is followed to minimise their impact. Something is not cruel just because it is linked to grouse moors. The Government recognises that with the comprehensive ban on snaring under the bill, which is not linked just to those moors.

I have worded my amendment 109 in such a way that it specifies that the traps concerned are for taking animals that are intended to be killed. Researchers and welfare groups would therefore not be affected, and the good news for Edward Mountain is that neither would his wife’s actions.

The aim of specifying

“for the purpose of destruction”

in the amendment is to exclude any trapping for welfare reasons that subsequently leads to humane destruction. I hope that the minister will agree that that overcomes any objections on the basis of unintended consequences.

Amendment 110 would alter the wording of the requirement for trap users to try to avoid untargeted species getting caught in traps. The current wording in the bill is:

“the person took all reasonable steps to prevent the killing, taking or injury of any other animal (other than an invertebrate) not intended to be taken by the trap.”

Amendment 110 would replace the word “reasonable” with “practicable”, which sets a higher standard. One legal dictionary says:

“Practicable means available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics”.

It is a common word in legislation. It has been suggested that it would mean someone having to stand by a trap 24 hours per day, but that is simply not true. That does not meet the interpretation of “practicable” in law. Using the word would mean, however, that steps should be taken if it is possible to take them. “Reasonable” is a lesser test and, if we use that, we could easily end up with an individual’s view of what is “reasonable” dominating. Given the high numbers of untargeted species that we know have been caught and have suffered in traps until now, I believe that we should aim to set a higher bar.

I am particularly interested to know why, given how common the phrase “reasonably practicable” is in Scots law, the Government has chosen not to use it but to use “reasonable” only.

Amendment 113 seeks to draw attention to an inconvenient truth and the elephant in the room in this debate. According to the explanatory notes to the bill, the Government wants to

“ensure that the management of grouse moors and related activities are undertaken in an environmentally sustainable and welfare conscious manner.”

However, the reality is that the bill allows for the continued killing of hundreds of thousands of foxes, stoats, weasels and crows and a huge number of non-target species, such as hedgehogs and people’s pets, each year for one purpose and one purpose alone: so that there is an unnaturally high number of grouse to kill for sport.

I will be giving you a lot more detail on this, but my first answer to your question is that it would give us the numbers that are being killed by particular traps. It would give us information on, for example, non-target animals that are being trapped and killed, which is an important consideration and something that we should be looking at. It would also, in my view, be beneficial to include the manner of death, in order to shed light on how well traps are operating in the field. I hope that that will become part of the licence conditions in due course.

Apparently, newer designs of spring traps are better at killing instead of injuring, and they are less likely to catch non-target species, but we will not know that for sure unless records on those traps are kept and reported on. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. I think it legitimate to ask those who do not support the amendment why they do not believe that that information, which would already be collected, should be reported. What do people have to hide who do not want this information made public?

Coming back to my earlier point, I note that, at committee, Jim Fairlie asked:

“What is your view on the suggestion that licensing should be supported by statutory reporting? In other words, if you set 100 traps, you have to say where those 100 traps are, what you have caught in them and how many animals are killed each year.”

In response, Alex Hogg of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association said:

“We would agree with that and, again, it is about training. We do it with snaring at the moment, so it could easily be done with trapping. It would provide feedback to the Government and NatureScot about what animals were being trapped and dispatched or whatever.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 14 June 2023; c 58.]

The minister says that NatureScot can make this a condition of a licence, so clearly it is possible to do this. However, it should be more than that; it should, and clearly can, be a requirement.

Finally, on amendment 118, Hugh Dignon, the head of the Scottish Government’s wildlife and biodiversity unit, said in evidence to the committee that one of the Scottish Government’s intentions with the bill was

“to improve animal welfare outcomes even when those traps are used lawfully ... ensuring that the highest standards apply and that people are operating to those high standards”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 31 May 2023; c 62.]

I agree that that should be the basic principle, but it should be reflected within the bill.

I very much welcome amendment 54, the purpose of which the minister has clearly outlined. There has been a long wait for a ban on snaring—in fact, it was the subject of one of the first members’ business debates that I held, seven years ago—and I am pleased that the Government has moved on the issue and, following moves by the Welsh Government, is now introducing a ban in Scotland. My amendments in this group, however, are aimed largely at probing some issues in relation to the wording of the Government’s amendment 54. The minister has already covered some of them, but I would like to raise a few more questions and points.

Last year, as the minister said, we saw an attempt to rebrand some modified snares as humane cable restraints. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and animal welfare organisations have made it clear that no design alteration can be made to make snares humane, whatever names some people might wish to call them. It is important, then, that all snares be included in the ban. Given that some have recently been called cable restraints by some users, I have lodged amendments 54A, 54C, 54F and 54H to make it clear that so-called cable restraints would be banned, too.

A similar situation arose in Wales prior to its snaring ban, as a result of which the Welsh Government included the words “or other cable restraint” in its ban for the avoidance of any doubt. I appreciate what the minister says about these things being covered in the definition of snares, but I hope that we will keep discussing whether there will be wording in the explanatory notes, as the minister has said, or later in the bill, to ensure that the precautionary approach taken by the Welsh Government is adopted in Scotland. However, I am grateful to the minister for placing on record that interpretation by the Government.

The ban on the use of snares is long overdue, and it is important that we get it right. Any exclusion has the potential to weaken it. The minister said that snares are not currently used for wild birds in Scotland, and she referred to a prohibition on the use of snares for birds under section 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That raises the question of why the specific exclusion of wild birds from the scope of amendment 54 was felt to be necessary, and I am concerned that it contradicts what is contained in section 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I know that the minister clarified the point in her earlier comments, and amendments 54B, 54E and 54G were lodged to try to gain an understanding of the minister's thinking on the issue.

As with my other amendments, I am, with amendments 54D and 54G, trying to ensure that the snaring ban is as watertight as possible. Currently, the ban does not include a snare that is operated by hand. As far as I know, such a thing does not exist, and I certainly do not want us to set off any attempt to invent one. The minister seems to be suggesting that she is trying to avoid inadvertently including something more benign, such as a grasper that is used by animal welfare officers to rescue a swan. I question whether it is necessary to cover that in legislation, as it seems implausible that a grasper would be mistaken for a snare. Such an exception is certainly not included in the Welsh legislation.

I would therefore welcome further discussions with the minister to ensure that we are not taking forward something that, in my view, is unnecessary. Clearly, though, the minister has a different view, and I would welcome further discussions on that point.

I move amendment 54A.

I am grateful to the minister for the offer to work on a possible amendment at stage 3 on the issue covered by amendment 107. On that basis, I will not move it.

Amendments 107 and 108 not moved.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2—Offence of purchasing glue trap

That is correct.

Amendment 54A, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 54B to 54J not moved.

I will certainly move amendment 110, convener. Although I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for reading out almost word for word the briefing from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the reality is that standing next to a trap is not a reasonable interpretation of the word “practicable”. According to a legal dictionary, “practicable” is defined as

“available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics”.

It would not be logistically possible to stand next to a trap 24/7, and it is not something that would be expected. What is meant by “practicable” is that steps should be taken, if it is possible to do so. As I have said before, the term “reasonable” represents a far lesser test.

I move amendment 110.

Courses are important and should be a requirement, but we should put it in law that, as part of that, people should be trained to ensure that the outcomes maximise animal welfare. As I have said, that should be a requirement. I see no contradiction between training people and having it as a basic principle in the legislation.