Chamber and committees

You say that it must be “a live ambition”. If it were, what would be done differently?

Thanks very much for raising that point. Pam Gosal wishes to come in with a brief supplementary.

We will keep an eye out for that report.

I will bring in Marie McNair, and then we will go in a rural direction with questions from Brian Whittle. We also have a series of questions on regulations under the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022.

I hope that the witnesses will bear with us as we go over a bit more; we need your good attention and thoughts for a bit longer, as your evidence is helpful.

Before I bring in the next person, I ask for succinct answers, please, because we have gone over time quite considerably. We were hoping that this bit was going to be quick, so I ask colleagues to have a look at the questions that they want to ask and see whether any of those have already been answered sufficiently.

Jane Wood wants to come in.

I will now bring in Stephanie Callaghan, who is online.

This has been a constructive meeting. I thank our witnesses for joining us and for letting us ask questions on the regulations. It has been helpful to hear your sense of what the housing to 2040 strategy means and your understanding of what will be needed to deliver it.

We previously agreed to take the next three agenda items in private. As that was the final item on our agenda to be taken in public, I now close the public part of the meeting.

I put on the record my sympathy for the intention behind Colin Smyth’s amendments 107 and 108. Glue traps are inhumane and indiscriminate as a pest control tool, and I understand the concerns about unintended loopholes being created. However, I would like to know from the minister whether there is any scope for further discussion of the amendments ahead of stage 3.

I want to speak to John Mason’s amendments, and I thank him for raising an important issue. The committee heard evidence about it at stage 1, but I recognise that a species licensing review is already committed to as part of the Bute house agreement, and I agree with not pre-empting the findings of that review.

The ban on snares illustrates the importance of this legislation. It will deliver real improvements in animal welfare, and I am convinced by the overwhelming evidence that we heard from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and others at stage 1—and, indeed, by the campaigning that has been carried out over many years by Scottish Greens and others—that the harm caused by snares cannot be mitigated.

An animal caught in a snare is injured and highly stressed, exposed to the elements and other predators, and denied food and water. Of course, snares are completely indiscriminate. They are as capable of trapping a protected species as they are of trapping a pet cat. A ban on snares would be a mark of the high regard that this country has for its iconic wildlife, so I will be pleased to support amendment 54.

I will turn briefly to Colin Smyth’s amendments. Although I have sympathy with his intentions, I am concerned that amendments 54A to 54J could, in practice, make it more difficult to implement the ban by overcomplicating the definition of a snare. I hope that discussions on that can continue ahead of stage 3.