Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener.

I am minded not to support amendment 54, in the name of the minister, on the basis that a very credible proposal on humane cable restraint use was brought to the committee at stage 1. It is important to recognise that such devices are vital for those living and working in rural Scotland to protect not only livestock but species that are under threat. Indeed, I know that the minister is aware of that.

I recognise that significant animal welfare charities have done good work, including work on the impact of the use of traditional snares, but, on the proposal for a humane cable restraint—which is an international standard restraint—I do not believe that the necessary work has been done to ensure that the committee has full knowledge of the matter. An impact assessment needs to be done to allow us to understand the impact on the species that are under threat, such as curlews and lapwings.

We, as a responsible committee, need to recognise that any legal challenge would come at great expense to the taxpayer. Moreover, if there were a legal challenge to banning snares, we would not be able to get into the nuts and bolts of it. I have to say that I am slightly surprised that the minister has not recognised the possibility of a legal challenge on the basis of the European convention on human rights.

Those aspects are very difficult to measure. As we know, various members have received emails and information about how burdensome the licence scheme in the hunting with dogs process has been, and we know how long the process has taken, what information has to be provided to NatureScot and how many of those licences have been turned down, regardless of the individuals meeting the criteria.

The principles were based on other parts of legislation relating to licensing frameworks that have already gone through the Parliament. I can list the licensing frameworks that the principles are based on. Those include the Gambling Act 2005 and section 4 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005. Currently, the principles and high-level objectives are already in those pieces of legislation.

I hope that that reassures Alasdair Allan.

I was heartened that the minister lodged amendment 55. That clearly means that we have both been listening carefully to some of the evidence on the issue. I support her amendment 100 per cent, as it serves the same purpose as my amendment 57—to make trap vandalism an offence.

I listened carefully to the minister when she spoke about Mike Flynn from the Scottish SPCA, who also supports a specific offence should the animal welfare implications of trap vandalism be in play. Scottish Land & Estates also supports a specific offence whereby the penalties for trap vandalism should equal those for mis-setting a trap. I, too, met the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, which strongly supports that amendment. I accept the minister’s point that my amendment is very similar, so I will reluctantly not move it, albeit that we have not yet got to that point.

In bringing forward the amendment, you did not once say that rural stakeholders are bringing a clear public benefit in relation to biodiversity gain. That is how I interpreted what you said, but, obviously, I do not know whether you are trying to say that they do or do not bring a public benefit. Beyond that, it is important that we reflect that those who are operating legally and within the law are providing a public service.

I also want to pick up on certain points that the minister made. The Bute house agreement is a political agreement that exists because the Scottish National Party did not get a majority in the most recent election and therefore had to bring on board another party to ensure that it had a majority, particularly for independence votes. Forgive me for making that point, but it is essential that I make it, because the SNP is now kowtowing to another party.

Can I intervene?

I want to put on record how important it is that we are all able to debate. It is not foolish or wrong to question another member or to intervene on them, particularly to get clarification on an amendment, which was my intention. I apologise to Colin Smyth if he believed that I was asking whether his Labour Party was going to ban country sports—it just seemed that that was the intention. I thank him for clarifying.

Thank you.

The minister gave a very interesting answer regarding the existing licensing schemes that NatureScot operates. I absolutely have no doubt that they are operated in good faith and that they are reasonable and fair. However, coming on top of the licensing that it has to do under the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023, the licensing in the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill will mean that NatureScot will face a further drain on its resources.

The minister will completely understand why I lodged amendment 53—in fact, her answer explained why I did do. She specifically said that consideration is being given to an online licensing scheme and to streamlining the existing licensing scheme to make it more efficient and easier for people to apply for licences. The process has not been easy and straightforward. We were promised that land managers would be given a workable and practical system.

As I said to Alasdair Allan, there is precedent for the inclusion of principles on which licensing schemes can be based. It is not a restrictive approach, and it would not slow down the application process. There are additional examples to the ones that I gave to Alasdair Allan. Principles are included in section 11 of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022, section 1 of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, section 1 of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 and section 3 of the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Act 2023. Therefore, there is precedent for what I seek to do. It is not true to say that it has not been done before; I am not reinventing the wheel.

I am disappointed that the minister is not even willing to work with me.

I press amendment 53.

My intervention was about a previous issue.

Will the minister take an intervention?