 We will now proceed with the division on amendment 38 in the name of Christine Grahame, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. I call Pauline McNeal for a point of order. The presiding officer of the app wasn't working, but I would have voted yes. I call Voisal Chowdry for a point of order. My app was not working as well, but I would have voted yes. I will ensure that it is recorded. I call Ross McAll for a point of order. I would have voted no. The result of the vote on amendment 38 in the name of Christine Grahame is, yes, 18, no, 94. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 39 in the name of Christine Grahame. Already debated with amendment 38, Christine Grahame, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 39 in the name of Christine Grahame is, yes, 18, no, 94. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 40 in the name of Colin Smyth. Already debated with amendment 38, Colin Smyth, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed. I will go back on this occasion, but let me make it abundantly clear. If members do not make it clear what their voting intention is, we shall move on. I will once more ask the question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore there will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, I've McKee. Thank you, Mr McKee. We'll ensure that's recorded. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm not sure if my app did, in fact, connect. I would have voted yes. I can confirm your vote was recorded, Miss Bailey. The result of the vote on amendment number 40 in the name of Colin Smyth is, yes, 83. No, 30. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 1, in the name of the minister, already debated, with amendment 30. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 41, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 38. Edward Mountain, to move or not move? Moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, there will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. I'm afraid my app would not connect and therefore I didn't manage to vote no. Thank you, Miss Bailey. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 41 in the name of Edward Mountain is, yes, 30. No, 83. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment number 2, in the name of the minister, already debated, with amendment 38. Minister, to move. And the question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 3, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 38. Minister, to move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 42, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 38. Edward Mountain, to move or not move? As it appears, we're not going to have licences not moved. Thank you. We move on, and I call amendment 4, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 38. Minister, to move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 5, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 38. Minister, to move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 6, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 38. Minister, to move. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 43, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 38. Edward Mountain, to move or not move? Not moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I call amendment 44, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 38. Edward Mountain, to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. And now, I call amendments 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, all in the name of the minister, and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 7 to 11 on block. Moved on block, Presiding Officer. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendment 7 to 11? No member objects. Therefore, the question is that amendment 7 to 11 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We move on to group number 2, which is entitled Snaring Prohibition, and I call amendment 12, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 45 and 37. I invite the minister to move amendment 12 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I will speak to my amendments in this group, and then I will respond to Edward Mountain's amendment after he and other members have spoken. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the use of snares on wild birds is prohibited, unless under licence from NatureScot. As was set out when the provisions demand snaring were debated during stage 2, bird wringles were sometimes used at a special type of snare to temporarily catch a bird so that it can attach a ring or satellite tag to it. When undertaking such activities, the wringers do not leave the site, and as soon as the bird is caught, it gets a ring on or a tag and is then immediately released. The wringing and tagging of birds have been undertaken in Scotland for decades, and it prides us with vital data about the population and conservation status of our birds. The snaring provision brought in at stage 2 was designed to allow these essential activities to continue. However, during the debate concerns were raised about whether provisions in the bill as drafted would still allow the potential for snares to be licensed to use on wild birds for purposes other than wringing and tagging. In practice, NatureScot would not issue a license to use a snare to catch a wild bird for the purposes of capturing and killing it. However, having reflected further in questions raised during stage 2, I think that a further amendment is required to remove any doubt or ambiguity about the purposes for which snares can be used. My amendment 12 therefore amends the Wildlife and Countryside Act to make it clear that a license can only be granted to allow the use of snares on wild birds for research, wringing, conservation and reintroduction. For those reasons, I support amendment 12 and encourage members to vote for it. My amendment 37 simply updates the long title of the bill so that it accurately describes the provisions in the bill. I move amendments 12 and 37. I now call Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 45 on other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I will speak to my amendment first and then speak to the other amendments. First of all, my amendment seeks to remove the banning of snaring from this bill. I know that it has been a Government proposal to ban snaring in this bill, but they only introduced it at stage 2. I wish it had been part of the original bill when it had been put forward. My reasons for wishing to stop the ban of snaring is for the simple reason that I'm not sure there are other effective ways of controlling rabbits and foxes. I want to be entirely clear with everyone that snaring other animals is completely our Lord. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, it completely bans the use of snares for anything but rabbits and foxes. That's further supported by the Dears Scotland Act 1996, where it's an offence to trap deer. There are no animals or the mammals that can be trapped. There was a snares Scotland order in 2010, which sent out a message to those practicing the use of snares that their activities would be controlled and seriously curtailed until they carried out their required training. I want to talk about that required training, because I think that's absolutely vital. In the old days, there was no requirement for snares to have any form of swivel on them or to have any form of check on them to stop the snares strangling an animal. They do have both a swivel and a check on them now, which means that animals can't be strangled, they can only be held. I think that's really important. It's a message that sometimes gets lost in the information that's put out. In fact, I saw some of the tweets that were going out over the last few days from some organisations who I thought better of showing pictures of animals hanging from fences that have been put there in snares. Well, that can't happen if people are following the law. You cannot set a snare within the closed confines of a fence, and you cannot do it in such a way that it would cause the animal to be strangled by being hung up. The point of a snare is to hold it and to restrain it. Now, as we set a snare, you have to go on a course, and the course is quite lengthy, and there's a reason for that, and that's to make sure that the people are trained properly, and that you have to then, on the snares that you use, display a snare or a trap number, which is offered, which is given to you by Police Scotland, and has to be recorded on it, your number and the number of Police Scotland. So people, if they come across your trap and it's illegally set, can report you to Police Scotland, and Police Scotland can then follow it up. Now, anyone who sets snares has to currently have a record, and record keeping is quite onerous. There has to be a location of every snare set in every single position that has been set, and every set of snare set within the last two years, and on the date that each snare was set, and when it was unset and removed. By the way, you can't leave a snare unset in position, you have to remove it. That has to be recorded by GPS reference and a reference on a map, capable for anyone to identify the area. Now, there are then complete guides about how you can set snares. Now, I know that some people find it difficult to understand why snares have to be set, but there are no other ways, if we remove this, for the controlling of foxes and rabbits. Except for, in case of rabbits, where you could have live catch traps, but in the form of foxes, it's going to be for them to be shot. You cannot rely, and I've yet to see any reliable way of catching a fox in a live trap. It just doesn't seem to work, and they seem to understand it's there. So what I believe should have happened here is that there should have been a proper licensing scheme, which was put forward to the Government prior to this Bill coming forward, to allow snares to continue subject to licensing. I would like that still to come about, which is why I want this section removed at this stage within the Bill to allow the Government to go back and consider the licensing scheme. The one thing we don't want to do is to limit the ability of people to control foxes, especially next to urban conurbations. Do we want rifles being used closer and closer to urban conurbations, or do we want traps to be used to hold the animals so that they can be destroyed, humanely destroyed, if they are, in fact, the species that is being targeted? I will take him into consideration. If I were to be sceptical that Edward Mountain wants not to ban or not to remove completely the ban on snares, his argument is that he wants it to be licensed, but he supports a ban, but why does he not bring amendments forward at this stage for a licensing scheme instead of bringing an amendment that is clearly designed to wreck that ban on snares, something that, frankly, is long overdue being outlawed? Edward Mayne Thank you, Mr Smith. I never said that I don't support a ban on snares. I do want a licensing scheme, an effective licensing scheme. I think we've got a pretty effective licensing scheme which was brought in by this Government. I think it is pretty effective, but I would support tightening that up if it meant that we could keep snaring. I would also point out to Mr Smith and, as I pointed out to the Minister and to other people in the committee at stage 2, that I don't know what we expect those people who are in the countryside managing wildlife to do if it's not to chase around trying to remove foxes from areas where they're not wanted and can damage wildlife, including ground nesting birds. They can't do that 24-7. They can't be out every day, every hour of every day trying to control foxes. They've got to be able to do other things, which is why I believe there should be a trapping system. I know that the organisations that are involved in the management of wildlife are quite happy with a more tightened up licensing scheme. I'm disappointed that the Government hasn't considered that. What they've seen and what they've listened to is some organisations which, I have to say, have used pretty dubious propaganda images and pretty dubious information to support their case to ban snaring, something which I don't think is justified, and that's why I seek to remove the ban of snaring from this bill. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Mountain. I now call Iam Burgess briefly. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is an important day for improving animal welfare in Scotland, and I'm very pleased that the ban on snares was included in the bill at stage 2. The Parliament is sending a message that such an inhumane and indiscriminate tool has no place in wildlife management and that the welfare of all wildlife species is taken seriously. I want to thank campaigners and animal welfare stakeholders who have worked tirelessly for this ban alongside Scottish green colleagues past and present. It is disappointing that members on the Conservative benches are seeking to undo this progress. All committee members agreed in our stage 1 report that traditional snares should be banned. Amendment 45 from Edward Mountain would overturn that entirely. I support the minister's amendments in this group, which address some concerns that stakeholders raised following stage 2. Thank you, and Christine Grahame. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Just to confirm to the minister that I fully support an outright ban on snares. Stage 2, the Rural Affairs Committee voted into this bill amendments to ban the use of snares in Scotland. Edward Mountain's amendment 45 seeks to remove those amendments and put us right back to where we started. The decision to ban the use of snares is not one that has been taken lightly, but indeed there are many including those who use them that are surprised that their use has not been banned already before now. It takes into account a wealth of evidence and opinion that has been presented to the Parliament over the years on this very matter, and I believe that the Parliament no longer can no longer ignore the weight of that evidence showing that snares lead to unacceptable levels of suffering for any animal caught by them. Even where snares are used in strict accordance with the conditions set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, they remain by their nature indiscriminate. As such, they also pose unacceptable risk to non-target species, including endangered wild animals and domestic animals such as cats, which can all be caught in them. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission found that the proportion of non-target species caught in snares is estimated to be between 21 and 69 per cent, and that is simply unacceptable. It is for those reasons that the ban on snares was voted in at stage 2 and why it will remain in the Bill at stage 3. I know firsthand that controller predators is necessary in order to protect livestock and agriculture, as well as vulnerable species, and that land managers must be allowed to take action effectively to manage wildlife for those purposes. I am also aware that some have claimed that the removal of the snares as an option may reduce the ability of land managers to protect ground-nesting birds, in particular curlew, lapwing and other wider species of serious conservation concern. I am confident that there are sufficient alternative methods of predator control that can and will be used. Perhaps the minister would suggest to us where biodiversity needs to be protected and circumstances at foxes cannot be shot, how they may be controlled, and explain what it was about the proposed licensing scheme that the ministers did not support. Minister. What we did not support about the licensing scheme was the overwhelming weight of evidence that the public simply will not accept them anymore and therefore they are going to be banned if this bill passes. A number of conservation organisations, including the RSPB, already do so. They have policies prohibiting the use of snares and believe that they are still able to undertake sufficient predator control to protect vulnerable species. This was the same view that was reached by the Welsh Parliament when they banned the use of snares in the Agriculture Wales Act last year. I am confident that a ban on the use of snares would not prevent anyone from undertaking necessary wildlife management. Snares are already banned in many other European countries and land managers have adapted. We can ensure we learn from that and provide advice and information where that would be helpful. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 45 and encourage all members to not to support that either. In my view, while humane cable straints might be an incremental improvement on the traditional style of snares, they do not lead to a significant reduction in the adverse welfare outcomes experienced by animals caught in those devices. Nor would their use eliminate the issues around the capture of non-target species, including protected species such as badgers, mountain hares and domestic animals such as cats. The public consultation on snares also showed that 70 per cent of respondents supported a complete ban on the use of all snares, including humane cable restraints, so that there is clearly widespread support for that. Minister, I do not agree that humane cable restraints offer a unique management system to control predators. Where the absence of being able to use a gun to control or shoot a predator is absent, humane cable restraints could have actually been useful. The vast majority, I think, is over 70 per cent of foxes that are still controlled by shooting and night shooting, as we know it. There are more humane methods of wildlife control available such as shooting and trapping that are available to land managers. Indeed, as I have just said, shooting foxes at night using lamps or thermal scopes remains the predominant method of fox control by a considerable margin. Alternatives such as live capture traps are also still available and they have been shown to work better in urban areas. I do not accept that, where, for example, the lack of a suitable backdrop can mean that shooting is not inappropriate in certain circumstances. I am convinced that keepers will find better live trap captures because necessity is the mother of invention. The question is whether amendment 12 will be agreed. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes. That is the vote closed. Point of order, Bill Kidd. My system seems to have stopped working, but I would have voted yes. The result of the vote on amendment 12 in the name of Jim Fairlie is yes, 82, no, 30. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 45 in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 12, Mr Mountain, to move or not move. I am not going to move it, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Mountain. We move to group 3, Wildlife Traps. I call amendment 46 in the name of Edward Mountain, group with amendments as shown in the groupings. I would point out at this stage that, if amendment 48 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 49 due to a preemption. Edward Mountain, to move amendment 46 and speak to all the other amendments in the group. Mr Mountain. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would like to speak to my amendments in the group first. 46 and 47 are technical amendments to try and help the Government to understand that it is illegal to kill a bird while bird by trapping it, which is why I want to amend the legislation to stop that bit being in there. You cannot do it, so why are they suggesting that you can? I am trying to be helpful, to be interested to see whether the Minister thinks that is the case. Amendment 48 is an amendment as far as grandfather's rights, as they are called. I suppose we should say that grandparents' rights. It is all about not teaching your granny to suck eggs, I think, is what I was told when I was younger, is that if you have been around for a bit and you understand what you are doing, you do not make them go and do a cause to do it. So what I was suggested at stage 2 amendment was that somebody who was over 40 years old and had been doing trapping for 10 years, there was no requirement for them to be sent on a cause to learn how to do it. I have to say that I find it somewhat odd having spent 12 years in the army being taught how to fire a rifle, that I was made to come back and carry out a shooting test to see if I was capable of shooting a deer. It seemed that what I was allowed to shoot in the army I was considered proficient at, but not deer. So my amendment is to try and stop that happening and what I've done is I've taken into account that the Government don't like the fact that you don't have to go on a cause to do everything nowadays and suggested that when you reach the age of 50, not 40, and you've been doing the activity for 10 years and you can prove it as part of your employment, that you don't need to go off and do a cause to learn how to do it, which will probably be held by a person of about 22, 23 years old who's been authorised to do it. Now, I would also say that the Government, when I suggested this at the last amendment, said, oh well, the organisations are quite happy to do it. Well, yes, some of the organisations were because they were told if they didn't go off and do a cause, they weren't going to be given this right. So it was a slightly disingenuous thing to say that they were happy to do it. And I think I've seen that some of the organisations don't support my amendments, organisations such as Bask. That doesn't surprise me because they'd be the people running the courses and why would they cut off an income stream from themselves by allowing people who've got experience to carry on doing what they're doing. The amendment 50 in my name is about allowing the Government to oversee training courses and to make sure that the content is correct, and that seems sensible to me. And it also means that a trapping licence—sorry, amendment 51 means that a trapping licence cannot be withheld from anyone on a matter of hearsay. It must be beyond reasonable doubt. Those are what my amendments say. They seem to me to be perfectly reasonable, unless you have an interest in making everyone do a cause to do everything and you don't accept that some people know more about what they're doing having done it for a considerable amount of time than those that haven't. The other amendments in this group I think are interesting. I think that I'll be interested here what the members say before commenting on them. So I'll maybe leave it at that, Presiding Officer, and sum up at the end. I move the amendments in my name. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Mountain. Rachel Hamilton to speak to amendment 49 and other amendments in the group. Miss Hamilton. Thank you Presiding Officer. I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to my amendments and the other amendments in the group. It's worth stating from the outset that I do consider the use of wildlife traps to be critical for conservation, and I commend the excellent work of land managers, especially gamekeepers who already operate these traps to a highly professional standard. It's no accident that land that is actively managed using wildlife traps such as Scotland's grousemalls often boasts extremely significant populations of red and amber-listed ground nesting birds, and they include curlew, lapwing and golden plover. I've seen it for myself some of the other species that I saw when I went out on a grousemall were the windchat, medu pipit, various corvids, redleg, partridge, heron, snipe, oyster catcher and others. It's a decisive contribution to combating biodiversity loss that ought to be celebrated and recognised. Turning first to my own amendments 49 and 52 in this group, these amendments are minor technical amendments that will improve the operational effectiveness of the trap licensing scheme for both prospective licence holders and NatureScot. Amendment 49 creates a rebuttable presumption in favour of granting licences, and this will in no way detract from the discretion of NatureScot to refuse licences if it does so not consider that it is appropriate to do so. The wording reflects sentiments that have been trailed extensively by ministers and officials, and we have been repeatedly assured that starting point in respect of this new licensing scheme is that licences will be granted. Changing the word from May to must puts beyond doubt that expectation, and I'm doing so provides prospective licence applicants and stakeholders with greater certainty. Amendment 52 would compel NatureScot to specify reasons for modifying, suspending or revoking licences. One of my foremost criticisms of the bill is that it empowers NatureScot to modify licences at any time. I do not think that it is proportionate or reasonable to empower an accountable public body to act with impunity in relation to licence and modification, particularly when the livelihoods of land managers are dependent on having a personal licence to use wildlife traps. At the very least, NatureScot should be compelled to provide reasons for modifying someone's licences. Thankfully, thresholds that need to be crossed in relation to licence suspension and revocation are considerably higher, but I still think that it's important that reasons for such actions are prescribed. This amendment ensures that this will be the case, and I hope that others in the chamber today will support those amendments. The only other amendment in this group that I wish to speak to is amendment 53, in the name of Colin Smyth. I simply do not think that it is our place to decide or prescribe what content should eventually feature in the training courses for using wildlife traps. As far as I'm concerned, that is a matter for NatureScot and training organisations. For that reason, I would encourage members to vote against amendment 53. I now call on Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 53 and the other amendments in the group. The sentence of wild animal mammals and birds is recognised across the scientific community, and amendment 53 is a minor amendment that simply states that NatureScot should consider including independent animal welfare expertise when determining the content of the trap training courses. I recognise that sentence. I know that some groups such as the Gamekeepers Association argue that that is not necessary because animal welfare is considered when specific traps are approved for legal use. At best, that ignores the fact that different traps, legally approved, can have different impacts on the welfare of animals, and information on that should be part of any training. It is also a fact that legal traps' design and use has not kept up with animal welfare science. In the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission's letter to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on 10 November 2023, it noted that the agreement on international humane trapping standards has and a quote, relatively low animal welfare performance thresholds of killing trap acceptance and do not reflect state-of-the-art trapping technology. While methods of killing farmed and companion animals, or those used in research, are tightly specified and regulated aiming for a humane death that is as near instantaneous as possible, legislation on trapping and killing wild animals has some catching up to do. Animal welfare expertise and trap training would not change the poor standards in legal traps, but it would be a very small first step forward by ensuring that trap users were at least aware of how to minimise the harm caused as best they can with the traps that are permitted. The implementation of the amendment would be straightforward with an independent vet and adviser, an independent academic or the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission being asked to review the animal welfare aspects of course content. I simply disagree with Rachael Hamilton that this is prescriptive. It is simply asked for that independent verification of any training that is prepared by NatureScot. I am supportive of amendment 13 in the name of the minister, but I cannot support amendment 48 in the name of Edward Mountain, particularly the rather bizarre inclusion of a birthday excluding people from training based on a certain age. That completely ignores the fact that trap users and manufacturers should be continually striving to reduce the negative impact on animals, taking account of the fact that technology can and does change, therefore so should the training as the years go on. I also cannot support amendments 49 and 51 that put unreasonable requirements on NatureScot, including requiring a criminal standard of proof for licensing, which is unlike any other licensing scheme. Clearly, like many of the amendments from Edward Mountain and Rachael Hamilton, amendments 49 and 51 are simply designed to water down the bill. However, there are some of the amendments from both that we will support, such as amendment 46, 52 and 54. Like my amendment 53, those are minor changes to the bill, but they are reasonable and they will improve the bill. Thank you, Mr Smith. I now call on the minister to speak to amendment 13 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 46 and 47 seek to change the wildlife trap licensing scheme to apply to traps for the purpose of taking a wild bird or killing or taking wild animal. I appreciate Edward Mountain's brought forward those amendments as he did at stage 2 to reflect the fact that currently there are no traps that can be legally used to kill wild birds. Leaving section 12A1 as it is would have no immediate effect as there are no traps that can be used for the purposes of killing wild birds. The editor of view recommended that traps used to take wild birds be subject to greater regulation due to the strong links between the misuse of that activity and raptor persecution. It has also been clear that the bill should be future proofed, so we have enabling powers to amend the types of traps to which the licence applies by secondary legislation. I think that it would stand to reason that if any traps are ever allowed to be used to kill wild birds, then they too should be subject to this licensing scheme. Edward Mountain's amendments would mean, however, that if in the future a trap should be devised that could legally be used to kill wild birds, then a licence would not be required to kill them only to take them. With the result there that there would be a higher level of oversight for using traps to take wild birds when compared to using traps to kill them. I think that that would be problematic and so for those reasons I can't support amendments 46 and 47 and I'll encourage members to vote against them. I'm surprised that Edward Mountain brought forward amendments 48 and 50 because they have the effect of requiring NatureScot to grant a wildlife trap licence if the applicant has completed the training or was born after 31 December in 1973 and has used the type of trap in question professionally for at least a decade. If an applicant meets the age and professional experience criteria, they would be exempt from any requirement to undergo training. I would encourage members to reject those amendments. The wildlife trap training requirement is not just about telling people how to do their jobs. It's about recognising that the use of wildlife traps requires an appropriate level of skill and training and if we want to avoid any adverse welfare outcomes in the future. The requirement in the bill that wildlife trap users should undergo appropriate training has been largely supported by stakeholders. Over the course of the passage of the bill through Parliament, land managers have said that they already undertake a lot of training and I'm conscious that there are many involved in gross moor and wildlife management with significant knowledge and experience. The purpose of training requirement is to incorporate all that experience and learning and make sure that everyone using wildlife traps has the highest standards across the board. When he gave evidence during stage 1, Alex Hogg, the chairman of the Scottish Game Cavers Association, stated that we are up for doing trap training and getting it right. Whatever you decide on, we will comply with it, which kind of contradicts what Edward Mountain was saying. With regard to the exemption based on age, I don't think that we can just assume that, because someone is over the age of 50, they will automatically have the right skills. They might have been using a trap incorrectly for that impact higher period of time or they might not be aware that there are new legal requirements such as a change to a baffle size. The purpose of the training requirement is to ensure that high standards are maintained and are consistent through the continuous professional development. The bill also requires that a person use a trap in accordance with the approved training course or they will have committed an offence. By not requiring certain people to undergo training and are fresher training, there is a potential that it may not have the knowledge to comply with the requirements to operate the trap in question in accordance with the approved training course. It would potentially be setting them up to fail. For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 48 and 50 and I will encourage members to vote against them. Rachael Hamilton's amendment 49 would require that NatureScot as the license and authority must grant a wildlife trap if the applicant has completed the approved training and NatureScot has satisfied it is appropriate to do so. While I understand the reasons for this amendment, I am sympathetic to it. I have concerns about the unintended consequence that this amendment may introduce. It is impossible to predict every circumstance that could arise in relation to an application for a licence. As such, I believe that it is important that NatureScot has some discretion when considering whether or not to grant a licence, and that it is especially important when we consider that a wildlife trap licence will be valid for 10 years. Although there are an essential component of wildlife management traps, if not used appropriately, it can have significant negative implications for wildlife, animal welfare and biodiversity. I fear that by setting it out in the face of the world that NatureScot must grant a wildlife trap licence, this amendment risks creating the expectation that gaining such a licence is simply a tick box exercise. Although I appreciate that, that is not the intention of the amendment, I remain concerned that it could remove an element of discretion that NatureScot must have to assess the various factors. Yes, I will. Rachael Hamilton For taking the intervention. Obviously, NatureScot are an experienced and knowledgeable organisation. However, can the minister set out what the criteria of the discretion that NatureScot has to grant a licence or not? NatureScot are the licensing authority and it will be up to them with the input from practitioners as to what that is going to look like. For the reasons that I have just said, I cannot support amendment 49 and encourage members to vote against it. Section 4 of the bill provides that the licensing authority can suspend or revoke a wildlife trap licence if it is satisfied to the civil burden of proof. That is the balance of probabilities that a relevant offence has been committed. Edward Mountain's amendment 51 would raise that test applied by the licensing authority to beyond reasonable doubt, which is the criminal burden of proof. Historically, it has been very hard to demonstrate to the criminal burden of proof that a wildlife crime has taken place and the number of successful prosecutions, when the rate remains low. The purpose of the licensing scheme is to ensure that wildlife trapping is undertaken in accordance with the law and best possible practice, with due consideration of all the possible consequences. I believe that Edward Mountain's amendment if passed would weaken the licensing scheme and reduce the ability of the licensing authority to take the necessary and appropriate action when there is strong evidence to suggest that a person operating under the trap licence has committed an offence. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 51 and I encourage members to vote against it. Turning to amendment 52, as a public body, I would always expect NatureScot to give their reasons for any decision they make to modify, suspend or revoke a licence. I am therefore happy to support Rachael Hamilton's amendment 52 and I would encourage members to vote for that. I do not believe that amendment 53 from Colin Smyth is necessary, as the existing provisions in the bill allow NatureScot the flexibility to include independently validated guidance on the animal welfare impact of each type of trap in the training requirements. I expect the training to be based around the existing conditions for the use of each type of trap, for example a set out in the spring trap's approval order. Those aspects of trapping best practice will include the required training courses, therefore I cannot support amendment 53 and I encourage members to vote against it. My amendment 13 enables Scottish ministers to require that if a training provider charges a fee for the training course, then that fee must be reasonable. Concerns were raised during stage 1 and 2 of the bill that the requirement to undertake an approved wildlife trap training course must not place an undue burden on trap operators. A set out during stage 2 debate in developing the framework for training courses, the Scottish Government and NatureScot will work with stakeholders to ensure that if a fee is to be charged for training courses, the cost is accessible and consideration will be given to providing for exemptions in certain circumstances. However, having listened to members' concerns, I am happy to set this out clearly in the face of the bill and I encourage members to vote for amendment 13. Amendment 54 requires that, before determining any wildlife trap training requirements, NatureScot must consult persons that they consider likely to be interested in or affected by wildlife trap licensing, including land managers. In practice, it is likely that NatureScot may wish to consult with relevant parties when creating and approving the training courses. However, as the relevant licensing authority, they are chiefly responsible for ensuring that any approved training courses cover the standards that are required by the bill and other pieces of legislation. That amendment simply brings an additional level of bureaucracy into the training course creation and approval process, and it will create delays and additional administrative burden at the point when any of the training courses are required to be updated. I cannot support amendment 54, and I encourage members to vote against it. I would like to briefly make comment on amendment 53 in the name of Colin Smyth, as we have heard this amendment seeks to include independently validated guidance on animal welfare impacts of each wildlife trap. I feel this to be an unnecessary amendment, and while Mr Smyth may be skilled in many areas of policy, he is, as far as I am aware, not an expert in such matters, telling accredited trainers, training providers what should and should not be included in their syllabus. I am not an expert on training, but does Finlay Carson not accept that other people are experts on this type of information, such as the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, and why is he opposed to them being able to consider what that training is? I do not think that I am opposed to an oversight, but I think that that would be far more credible and appropriate if it came from NatureScot. I must also state that it is not in the interest of operators in any way, shape or form, for practitioners and professionals on their field, not to ensure that their traps are working efficiently, and they strive to ensure that the highest standard of animal welfare is maintained at all times. I do believe that this amendment is unnecessary and, as we have heard previously, prescriptive, in my view, should not be supported. Thank you, and I call on Edward Mountain to wind up presser withdrawal amendment 46. Mr Mountain. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think I've heard it all now. What we're going to do is we're going to future-proof a bill to make it legal to do something which is illegal now in case it becomes legal in the future. That was the Minister's argument on amendments 46 and 47. Well, goodness me, that is future-proofing. It's double future-proofing. It's future-proofing, future-proofing. I don't see the logic of it, Minister. But the arguments I laid out are simple, the amendments 46 and 47 say that it's illegal to use a trapped killer wild bird at the moment. So why do we need to say in the bill that we're going to make it illegal? Surely that's the law already. Now, I also understand that there is a requirement for training. I absolutely understand that. And I accept the point that the Minister made, and I think if the Minister had heard what I'd said, the organisation said yes, they'd be up for training because they were told that if they didn't do the training, they wouldn't have the ability to do that. It's a slightly up-arm, up-behind-your-back principle. What I'm saying is that if somebody has done something for a considerable period of time, that they should be allowed to get on without being taught how to do it by somebody who's read about it in a book. I've given the Government the ability and amendment 50 to set what the training course should be in the training course and to make sure it's sensible. And I'm surprised that the Minister, I thought the Minister would accept that Beyond Reasonable Doubt was actually fixing this to make it more than hearsay, more than an allegation, more than somebody just waving a finger and saying, I think you did that, so therefore you can't do this. That's why I put that in, because I think it protects people. And the Minister should be aware, as I'm sure he is, and would be prepared to admit outside this chamber, is quite a contentious issue this outside the Parliament. And there are a lot of people who go out there and go out in the countryside and wave their finger and accuse people of doing things which they haven't done because it suits their story to do it. Now I believe that amendments 49 and 52, I will take an intervention from the Minister. Edward Mountain has just made an accusation about people going out and doing stuff in the countryside that is going to be detrimental to those who set traps, which is why at stage 2 there was an amendment put in to create a new offence of a legal tampering of traps. Did he not accept that that was the right way to go? Edward Mountain, I absolutely do. And with the Minister making that very point that protecting people who do things legally, I can't understand why he wouldn't go with the Beyond Reasonable Doubt bit. The two seem to be linked together as far as I can see. Colin Smith's amendment 53. I can understand why Colin might feel that's necessary, but if you look at the traps that are designed, and I'm sure Colin Smith knows them all, like the Mark 6 fenn trap and the Doc 150 trap, they've actually been designed for a specific purpose, and that's to kill the animal that they catch as quickly as possible. No one goes out and designs traps to cause unnecessary suffering. So actually designing a trap, getting it to the market, getting people to use it, getting people to have confidence in it would suggest that the trap does exactly what it does on the tin. Amendment 13 in front of the Minister, I agree with that. And I didn't mention my amendment 54 at the outset because to me it seems so reasonable that you would include land managers in the whole issue of consulting and drawing up the plans, but it appears to the Minister that land managers shouldn't be included, which is why he wants to drop the amendment. Presiding Officer, I move the amendments. Thank you. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members who cast their votes now. And the vote is closed. Point of order, Michael Marra. You'll need to put the card in, Mr Marra. You'll need to put your card in and not pretend you're Richard Leonard. And my app did try to connect. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Marra. I'll make sure that is recorded. And the result of the vote on amendment 46 in the name of Edward Mountain is yes, 46. No, 66. There were no abstentions. That amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 47 in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 46. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members who cast their votes now. And the vote is now closed. And the result of the vote on amendment 47 in the name of Edward Mountain is yes, 47. No, 66. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 48 in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 46 and I remind members that if amendment 48 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 49. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. There will be another division and members who cast their votes now. And the vote is now closed. And the result of the vote on amendment 48 in the name of Edward Mountain is yes, 29. No, 84. There were no abstentions. That amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 49 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 46. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members who cast their votes now. And the vote is now closed. Point of order, Paul Sweeney. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Sweeney. I'll make sure that vote is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 49 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 30. No, 84. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 50 in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 46. Edward Mountain to move or not move. I call amendment 51 in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated along with amendment 46. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Moved. Question is that amendment 51 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members who cast their votes now. And the vote is now closed. Clare Adamson, for a point of order, although I can advise you, Ms Adamson, that your vote was recorded. That's fine, Presiding Officer. I have that message now too. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Adamson. The result of the vote on amendment 51 in the name of Edward Mountain is yes, 30. No, 83. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 52 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 46. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. Question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members who cast their votes now. And the vote is now closed. And the result of the vote on amendment 53 in the name of Colin Smith is yes, 17. No, 95. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 13 in the name of the Minister. Already debated with amendment 46. Minister, to formally move. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is agreed. I call amendment 54 in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 46. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members who cast their votes now. And the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 54 in the name of Edward Mountain is yes at 54. No, 61. Sorry. Yes, 51. No, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move to group 4, section 16, AA licences offence. I call amendment 55 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Group with amendments 56, 57, 58, 14, 59, 60 and 62. Rachel Hamilton to move amendment 55 and speak to all the other amendments in the group. Ms Hamilton. I move the amendments in my name, Presiding Officer, whilst everybody else goes off for a nice cup of tea. My amendments in this section are about one thing, proportionality. Ministers are on the record as stating that the primary focus of a section 16 AA licence is to tackle the issue of raptor persecution in relation to grouse maws in Scotland. And we do not accept that licensing is needed given that successive wildlife crime reports have demonstrated a substantive and meaningful decline in raptor persecution over the years. However, if we accept the premise for licensing for a moment, it would be right that it would apply to land over which red grouse are taken or killed. This reflects the evidence and reviews which have ultimately led to ministers to believe that there is no correlation between grouse maws and raptor persecution. There is no evidence to suggest that such a relationship exists between the shooting of other game birds and raptor persecution. The amendments in my name 55, 56, 58, 59, 60 and 62 ensure that the remit of section 16 AA licensing is confined to red grouse for reasons best known to them. Ministers have given themselves enabling powers to add other game birds to the licensing scheme. The argument appears to be predicated on the fact that red grouse might be replaced by other game birds. There is no credible evidence to support that supposition. The notion that red grouse, a wild game bird native to Scotland, could be replaced by reared and released game birds is nonsensical. Notwithstanding the fact that heavenmoreland habitat is unlikely to be suitable for such birds, ministers do not seem to get it that shooting red grouse specifically is what in part motivates landowners to invest in moreland management alongside the tangible benefits it delivers for threatening the threatened biodiversity that they are trying to ensure that they increase. Red grouse are wild, the experience of sustainability harvesting them for the food chain is like no other and it is why international visitors spend money on this significant or significant amounts of money to come to Scotland to experience this particular country sport. To suggest that this could be replaced by released red leg partridge or pheasant, which by comparison are widely accessible game birds, is really just nonsense. I cannot think of any circumstance where it would be reasonable or proportionate for ministers to add other game birds to section 16a, a licensing regime. The focus of the scheme is raptor persecution, as I said, in relation to grouse mores and it should start and stop there. It is not in the good spirit of good law making to go beyond what is required to address the policy aim, which in this case has been tightly defined with reference to grouse mores. On that basis, I would encourage Members to support my amendments. Turning to other amendments in the group, I would ask Members to support amendment 14 in the name of Rhoda Grant in the event my own amendment fails, and it would at least guarantee some meaningful scrutiny in the event that ministers decide to add other game birds to the scheme. I now call Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 57 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The reason why I have lodged amendment 57 is to try and help the Government. This bill is meant to be about grouse mores licensing. I suppose what we should be looking for it to do is doing what it says on the tin. My amendment to the bill is to ensure that it does just do what it says on the tin and that birds cannot be added to the schedule of birds that are protected by this bill, game birds anyway, unless they are on the amber or red list, i.e. they are in significant danger of gain extinct. Now, what the Government has done is just by putting a schedule in there of grouse, they can just add whatever other species they want to. That sends the wrong message out. This bill is about grouse mores licensing. If this bill is about licensing all form of field sports in Scotland, then it should say that, but I don't believe that's what was consulted on, and I don't believe that that is what people are expecting the bill to do. Now, I think my amendment is simple and straightforward. It is easily quantifiable, and there is an accepted way of getting onto the amber and red list, which allows the Government to ensure that any species that need protection are actually protected. Rachel Hamilton's amendment goes somewhat further, and I commend her for doing that, and I would support those amendments if my amendment was not likely to find favour. I call on the Government by submitting this amendment. If you mean what you say and you're going to do what you say, stick by what you've said you're going to do in the bill, not by adding other species. The way to do that is to ensure that they can't be added unless it's for conservation reasons. I call Rosa Grant to speak to amendment 14 and other amendments in the group. My amendment 14 seeks to create greater scrutiny and consultation on the secondary legislation and activities flowing from the bill. Much of the bill is enabling, and therefore it's important that any secondary legislation comes under scrutiny. Currently, the bill only lists red grouses, requiring a section 16AA licence. However, in the future, other birds can be added to the list. My amendment stipulates that the relevant committee of the Parliament must be consulted and given time to take evidence before reporting back to the Scottish Government on any additions of birds to the schedule. Thereafter, the Scottish Government can lay their legislation while also explaining what consideration they give to the committee report. I'm trying to create a superaffirmative procedure to provide greater scrutiny and I believe that's essential given the increase in enabling legislation that comes to this Parliament from the Scottish Government. I've laid similar amendments in different sections of this bill in order to provide for that scrutiny. The legislation needs to be future-proofed and therefore it is right to allow the amendment of the list of birds that can be taken under a section 16A licence, but that cannot simply happen without consultation. I proposed a similar amendment at stage 2, but listened carefully to the concerns of the minister who suggested that 120 days was too long to lay a draft order before the Parliament and that might unduly delay the process. The amendment therefore cuts that time in half to 60 days, although a shorter period of time allows for greater scrutiny than currently proposed in the bill. Rachael Hamilton's amendment seeks to ensure that no other bird can be added. Edward Mountain's amendment suggests that only birds on the UK birds of conservation concern on the red or amber list can be added. Surely a bird that is categorised on the red or amber list should not be hunted at all, so therefore I cannot support either of their amendments. I thought that the member had finished and I'd missed my opportunity. I thank the member for giving away. I think that my amendment says that game birds should not be added. It's not just any birds, it's just birds that are recognised under the game act. I think that it's 1832 as amended, which can't be added to that list unless they are of high conservation standard. Will the member not be able to support it on that basis? No, because if they were on the red or amber list, that meant that they were endangered, so therefore I cannot accept that an endangered bird, albeit a game bird, should be hunted at all. I close my remarks with that. Edward Mountain's amendment 57 seeks to severely restrict or outright remove the power to add other bird species to the licence and scheme established by section 7 of the bill. As I'm sure Edward Mountain is well aware, the power to add any other species to only allow them to be taken under licence is not a mechanism to protect that species, but to protect other wildlife that predates on that species. Rachel Hamilton's amendment is going even further by removing the powers of the Scottish ministers to add other species or birds to the licence and scheme. The scheme in this bill needs to protect raptors and other wildlife, and therefore the regulation making power to add other bird species to the licence scheme needs to remain as it is. I want to be clear though that these powers would only be used if we have robust evidence that wildlife crimes like raptor persecution are being committed to facilitate managing other game bird species. In those circumstances I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to regulate the management of those birds. When Rachel Hamilton and Edward Mountain brought forward those amendments at stage 2, the majority of the rural affairs and islands committee members voted against them, and I would encourage all members to vote against them again today. Rhoda Grant's amendment 14 adds unnecessary additional burden on the Scottish Parliament when there are already established procedures in place for changes throughout secondary legislation. Any regulations to add a new type of bird species to part 1b of schedule 2 would be subject to the affirmative procedure, under which the convention is that the instrument is laid and drafted with the Parliament for 54 days. That is the correct procedure for any such amending instruments and will give Parliament sufficient opportunity to consider the instrument and draft, take evidence in the instrument and then vote on it. Both the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee agreed with this approach at their stage 1 reports. If passed this amendment could lead to unnecessary delays in adding or removing birds from the list which could have consequences for the natural environment. I have listened very carefully to what Rhoda Grant said today and during stage 2 when she brought forward a similar amendment. However, I do not believe that she has made a compelling case to support any future use of those enabling powers should be subject to greater scrutiny or why the standard parliamentary process for considering an SSI would not be sufficient. Rhoda Grant, the minister is quibbling over six days if I am correct, and the only difference is that the minister talks about a convention of laying the order before Parliament. I am talking about putting that down in law. There is not a huge difference, but at least it would future proof this legislation. We have rehearsed these arguments time and again, and there is already a system that is there in place to allow the Parliament to do its job, so therefore I will not be supporting this amendment. I would encourage members not to support that either. There is one last point that I would like to make, Presiding Officer. Rachael Hamilton mentioned the fact that it is ludicrous to think of partages being released in a hill setting. From my personal experience, I have seen thousands of partages being released on a grousemure for exactly this reason to make sure that they were shooting in that area. There is a collective responsibility for the sector or practitioners here. If an operator tries to get around a licence refusal that has been refused for the legitimate reasons, they in fact jeopardise the entire sector, because new legislation will be nationwide, so there is an even greater imperative for the industry to work together to ensure best practice and that this does not happen. I call on Rachael Hamilton to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 55. We are very privileged to represent our constituents, especially those who represent rural areas that include parts of areas that will be significantly impacted by certain areas of this legislation. It is important that we recognise that, to give ministers enabling power, that goes way beyond the policy intent of the Warrity report, which the Government accepted, is really not acceptable. I do not accept Jim Fairlie's arguments for not accepting my amendments. The focus of the bill and the scheme is raptor persecution in relation to the management of grousemores, and the Government seems to have veered dramatically away from that intention. For the very reason that I have already identified—yes? I thank Rachael Hamilton for taking that in dimension. Does the member not agree that, in circumstances wherever the raptor persecution is taking place, whether it is on grousemores or whether it is in a pheasant chute, if raptor persecution is taking place, it is right that the Government has the ability to be able to take that licence away from them? Rachael Hamilton? The Government is giving themselves enabling powers to add game birds. Game birds, as Jim Fairlie knows, through his own experience of land management—he says a lot of times in the committee that he was a farmer as well, an upland farmer—he knows the areas, and he knows that game birds could never replace. He knows that game birds such as pheasant would never be on a grousemore. Those birds are reared—they are not wild, they are reared and released. Therefore, Jim Fairlie has absolutely no idea, even though he says he does, about why this enabling power is relevant at all. I did not think we would get to this point where the Minister is chunking away on the sideline, thinking that he believes what my amendment is related to. That is about raptor persecution on grousemores. That is not about giving Ministers enabling powers to add other species to that list. On that note, I will close. Is Ms Hamilton pressing or withdrawing amendment 55? The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. The Parliament has not agreed, and there will be a division. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Joe FitzPatrick. Is Mr FitzPatrick's microphone? I would like to vote no. The result of the vote on amendment 55, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 29, no, 76. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 56, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 55. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament has not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Christine Grahame. It's frozen, so I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Grahame. Your vote will be recorded. Point of order, Joe FitzPatrick. I would like to vote no. Thank you, Mr FitzPatrick. Your vote will be recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 56, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 30, no, 84. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 57, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 55. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Mountain. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament has not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Rachel Hamilton. I couldn't connect. I've devoted yes. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. Your vote will be recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 57, in the name of Edward Mountain, is yes, 30, no, 84. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 58, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, ready to debate with amendment 55. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 58, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 30, no, 84. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 14, in the name of Rhoda Grant, ready to debate with amendment 55. Rhoda Grant to move or not move. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. I wasn't able to connect, so I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Robinson. Your vote will be recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 14, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is yes, 52, no, 62. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 59, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, ready to debate with amendment 55. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 59, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 29, no, 84. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 60, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, ready to debate with amendment 55. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 60, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 30, no, 84. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I advise members that we will now have a short comfort break of five minutes duration.