Chamber and committees

I do not know what that course is—

That displays an utterly astonishing misunderstanding of amendment 113. There is no proposal whatsoever in the amendment to ban grouse shooting. The amendment would put on public record the view that someone should not have a licence to trap and kill animals solely for the purpose of protecting another animal in order to then kill that animal for sport. Many thousands of animals die as a result of that. That does not stop grouse shooting; it simply restricts trapping for the sole purpose of breeding more grouse in order to then kill them, too. It is really misleading to imply that that means a ban on grouse shooting. The bill does not deliver a ban on grouse shooting and neither does the amendment. The amendment simply places on record that, if people want to support that circle of destruction, they should say so. That should be something that we debate when it comes to the bill.

Today, we have seen the SNP-Green Government place on record its support for a circle of destruction. That will be very much noted by many people, including the vast majority of the public, who do not agree with them. It is particularly disappointing that the Greens do not support the amendment and make the rather bizarre argument that it would delay the bill—it would not. The amendment is here to be voted on today and would not result in any delay whatsoever.

What is really disappointing is the false claim that the amendment would in any way ban grouse shooting. I am very clear that such sports should continue, so there is no need to claim that the amendment would result in their being banned; it would simply reduce the number of animals being killed for the sole purpose of protecting another animal that will then itself be killed for sport. If we are going to debate issues, we should debate the facts instead of making claims that simply are not true, which might reflect the weakness of the argument.

I will not move amendment 113, but I will certainly continue to press the issue as the bill goes through Parliament.

Amendment 113 not moved.

My name is next to amendment 79 as a supporter. That amendment would add offences under section 19 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 to the list of offences for which a trap licence can be suspended or revoked. Amendment 82, which also has my name beside it, would do the same for section 16AA licences. I express my full support for those amendments and the necessary protection, as the use of traps and other management measures can, and often does, result in unnecessary suffering.

There are provisions in the bill that will improve the training and regulation of trap operators, but it is vital that those are combined with a deterrent to the widespread non-adherence to the terms and conditions of general licences, with regard to allowing the live capture of wild birds and the impact on their welfare. The amendments would do that, and I am pleased that the Government fully supports them.

I listened carefully to what the minister said. There is clearly no difference in policy between us. The question was why she felt that it was not necessary to include other cable restraints in the legislation in the same way as the Welsh Government did in its act. I take on board her clear view that the definition of snaring in the bill very much covers other cable restraints. On that basis, I will not press my amendment 54A.

On the other amendments in my name, instead of going through them one at a time, it might make it easier for you, convener, if I say now that I do not intend to move them, if that is helpful.

I was not aware that I would have an opportunity to wind up, given that I had not lodged the lead amendment in this group, but I will certainly take the opportunity to do so.

The minister referred to the fact that the exceptions relating to wild birds are primarily about researchers using traps. However, I am still not sure why there is no clarity on snares for killing on that basis, because none of those researchers is killing birds.

I would welcome further discussions with the minister. I will not move the relevant amendments at this stage, but I want to ensure that, whether it is in explanatory notes or further statements, we absolutely make it clear that the exceptions are for researchers.

On that basis, I will not press or move my amendments at this stage. That might avoid the need for you to go through them all individually, convener, although there may be a procedural reason why you have to do that.

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.

I have finished, but you can.

I have one point to make. Stephen Kerr is entirely entitled to quote, word for word, from briefings that he has been given, but those claims should be challenged when they are wrong. For example, when discussing amendment 114, he gave the example of the RSPB project in Orkney. The amendment would allow that project to continue, because the test that the amendment would set would in no way affect it. It is false to make that claim, and the weakness of the argument is shown by the way in which he has effectively misquoted the impact of amendment 114.

I will not press amendment 114 at this stage, but again I reserve the right to keep raising this particular issue as the debate continues, because it is important.

Amendment 114 not moved.

Amendment 115 not moved.

Amendment 116 moved—[Colin Smyth].