Chamber and committees

Having lodged the same amendment as Kate Forbes, I express my support for the end date of the muirburn season being moved in the way that amendment 102 proposes. Ideally, the end date would be the one that is suggested in amendment 167, but, failing that, amendment 102 is a reasonable compromise. However, I do not support the start date of the season being moved as is set out in amendment 101, as I do not think that there are any justifiable reasons for that.

As we have heard, the current end date of 15 April for the burning season, as is proposed in the bill, overlaps with the breeding season of several bird species that often nest on moorland. A point was raised about the need for evidence on the issue. In its 2014 document “Bird Breeding Season Dates in Scotland”, NatureScot listed 18 species in Scotland whose breeding season overlaps the end date, and climate change is driving that number ever higher. We also heard about the evidence in the BTO’s report, “Nesting dates of Moorland Birds in the English, Welsh and Scottish Uplands”.

There is a strong case for having a mechanism for proper scrutiny by Parliament, outwith primary legislation, to amend the date as climate change continues to have an impact. However, the bill asks us to set a date, and I believe that the proposed date is too late. In Wales, the end date has been brought forward, from 15 April to 31 March, on the basis of current evidence of breeding seasons and climate change. At the very least, we should replicate that in Scotland.

I am happy to address that point. In previous amendments, for example, I proposed that we should not be trapping to minimise one species in order to maximise another species purely for the purpose of killing that other species. That circle of destruction has been debated time and again, and that is the point that is being made here.

I am not surprised that the Conservatives do not agree with amendment 143, but I am disappointed that the Greens seem to share that position. I am aware that the minister has no intention whatever of meeting me to discuss bringing back the amendment at stage 3, but I will not press it. The Government’s position on supporting muirburn purely to maintain and increase grouse to be shot for sport is very much now on record.

Amendment 143, by agreement, withdrawn.

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?

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.

Amendment 106 relates to the wording of the offence of using a glue trap in section 1 of the bill. A glue trap, as we know, is intended as a restraining trap. As members know, rats and mice and sometimes other non-targeted species walk across the boards and get stuck to the strong glue. They often remain there until the person who set the trap comes to kill them. They suffer terribly during that time, which is why the ban on the use of glue traps is necessary and something that I welcome.

Amendment 106 seeks to strengthen the ban, as “taking” and “restraining” can have different meanings and the intention is to ban all use of glue traps. The aim of the amendment is to clarify the definition of the offence and probe a potential loophole. As it stands, the bill says that it is an offence

“to use a glue trap for the purpose of killing or taking”

whereas the Welsh legislation prohibits

“the use of a glue trap for the purpose of killing or taking an animal, and use of a glue trap in any other way that is likely to catch an animal”,

which seems more comprehensive than the proposed Scottish bill definition.

The UK Parliament’s Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 also uses the terms “catching” and “caught” in its description of the offence.

I hope that the minister’s response is clear on the Government’s legal definition of “taking” and that it also outlines why the Scottish Government has chosen wording that is different from that used in the Welsh and UK acts.

Amendment 107 would make it an offence to knowingly cause or permit another person to use a glue trap. On the main offence of using a glue trap, the explanatory notes accompanying the bill state:

“The offences do not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse for using or setting a glue trap. For example, it is not the intention to criminalise circumstances where a person is compelled to use a glue trap by a workplace superior.”

That raises the question of who would be responsible in that scenario, and it creates a potential loophole that amendment 107 seeks to close. In other words, could someone get around the ban by compelling someone else to use the trap? Causing or permitting offences are used in a wide variety of legislation to prevent individuals escaping sanctions when they have made or allowed another person to commit an offence. In fact, there is an example of such a provision in section 9 of the bill, which makes it an offence to cause or permit another person to make muirburn without a licence. It is unclear why such a provision is not included in the section on glue traps.

Amendment 108 is consequential to amendment 107.

I am grateful to the minister for her clarity on the definition of “taking” and for the offer to include further information in the explanatory notes. On that basis, I will not move amendment 106.

Amendment 106 not moved.

I note the minister’s comments on why wider types of traps have not been included, but I reiterate that, as with snaring, the cruelty that is associated with some traps happens not only on grouse moors or in relation to raptors. However, I note the comments about insertion of new section 12A(8) into the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which gives ministers powers to amend the list of traps, and I hope that the issue of other traps remains under review. Indeed, I would be keen to discuss that with the minister ahead of stage 3. At this point, though, I will not move amendment 109.

Amendment 109 not moved.

Amendment 55 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.

I will finish my point, as Edward Mountain has spoken to the amendment quite a bit. As the author of the amendment, I would like to do the same.

The reality is that amendment 113 would not ban grouse shooting. It would not stop grouse shooting at all; it would allow it to continue. However, in relation to intensely driven grouse moors, by not allowing trapping for the sole purpose of killing one animal to protect another so that that animal can be shot for sport, the amendment would reduce the industrial, wholesale killing of hundreds of thousands of animals.

Some will oppose the amendment because they support that level of killing—that “circle of destruction”, as it is known—including, as we have heard from the minister, the SNP and Green Government, it seems. Edward Mountain has also said that he supports it. However, let us be in no doubt that the public do not agree with those who support it. Polling shows that three quarters are opposed to killing for the sole purpose of maximising the number of animals to kill for sport. With a bill on grouse moor management, the question of where MSPs stand on that issue should be asked, and people deserve to know their views.

On amendment 114, I have spoken many times in Parliament about the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. Those principles inform amendment 114, which would require NatureScot to be satisfied that trap users had a legitimate and justifiable reason to use the trap and that they had considered alternatives. Such evidence should be routinely required in wildlife management decisions. Any killing or taking of wild animals should be justified by evidence that serious harm is being caused, and the method with the lowest animal welfare impact that would be effective should be chosen. I believe that that principle should apply in all our policies on wildlife management.

The requirements are drawn from those ethical principles. Currently, thousands of animals are routinely killed on grouse moors and elsewhere without any such checks and balances. Including that provision would be a step towards reaching that balance and ensuring that animals are trapped and killed on an ethical basis. The amendment would not ban the use of traps or make it impossible to use them, as some have falsely suggested; it would simply require NatureScot to be satisfied with the specification and the reason for the use.

Like amendment 114, amendment 115 would require the use of traps to be planned and to be for a specific purpose, to avoid indiscriminate killing. There should be a cap on the maximum number of traps that any individual can use in order to ensure regular inspection and maintenance and to focus the trapping on when and where it is needed. NatureScot should also know where the trap user plans to operate. I appreciate that a licence will be granted to an individual who may move around during the duration of the licence, but that is not insurmountable. The information on location could be updated as necessary.

Amendment 116 would make the maximum duration of a trap licence five years instead of 10 years. As we will hear later, there have been understandable calls for the licence for grouse moors to be longer than the proposed one year. I think that that is a reasonable call. There seems to be a growing consensus on five years. I think that that makes sense when it comes to the length of time for a trap licence. A trap licence should not be granted for as long as 10 years. A great deal can change over such a long period of time, including the development of new trap technology. Trap users should be required to attend refresher training at least every five years to keep up to date with advances in trap design and animal welfare science as well as modern protocols for ethical wildlife management. The minister says that she has not seen any stakeholder supporting that. However, I am sure that she is aware that OneKind, RSPB and others have made it clear for some time ahead of stage 2 that they very much support the amendment.

Amendment 117 would introduce a reporting requirement for trap users. That would provide a degree of accountability and transparency that is currently lacking. Currently, the numbers of birds and animals that are killed by trapping are completely unknown, as there is no such reporting requirement. It is surely ethically questionable to have a system that allows the killing of thousands of animals every year in order, as I said earlier, to provide more birds to be shot without even accounting for the numbers and species that die for that purpose. This amendment would allow authorities to gauge the numbers of target and non-target animals being trapped and killed, which is surely important to allow a full understanding of species biodiversity.

I have concluded my remarks, but I am happy to take an intervention.