 The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 3023 in the name of Colin Smith on ethical principles in wildlife management. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. As ever, I would invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on Colin Smith to open the debate for around seven minutes, Mrs Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is a privilege to lead this debate on the issue of ethical principles in wildlife management. I begin by thanking the very many members from across the chamber who signed my motion. I reflect something that I have been aware of since the day that I had the honour of being elected to this Parliament. There is a genuine interest and a real commitment to improving animal welfare that really does cut across party lines. That support from members from parties right across the chamber has led to a real meaningful change in recent years to improve the care and protection of animals from tougher penalties for animal and wildlife crime to the establishment of the Excellent Animal Welfare Commission. We have seen a greater scrutiny and interest in wildlife management, and I recognise the Government's commitment in this Parliament to closing the loopholes in the current hunting with dogs legislation and making progress in the licensing of grouse mures and reviewing snare in which I hope will lead to an outrind ban in their use. As the CAC League said in its briefing for this debate, trapping snare in its cruel is outdated. It has no place in modern wildlife management. It also highlights the fact that, while there has been much progress in animal welfare, there is much, much more still to do. Not least in our approach to wildlife management, which is too often ad hoc, can be illogical and often unscientific. Our attitudes to wild animals also differ significantly to domestic or farmed animals. Even among wild animals, protections vary from species to species, circumstance to circumstance, even though all animals are sentient. They like us to feel pain, they feel distress. There is some good practice when it comes to wildlife management, but there are also too many examples of appalling cruelty. In a modern, progressive society, we really do need a new, better approach. I said earlier that we have seen progress on animal welfare thanks to support in this Parliament, but that progress is also thanks to the many charities that give a voice to our fellow species who cannot speak for themselves. There are too many to name today, but we know those positive campaigns that really have delivered change. However, I want to highlight four organisations, one kind, the League Against Gross Sports and the other revived coalition partners, as well as the World Animal Welfare Committee and the UK Centre for Animal Welfare, which are leading the way and putting welfare at the heart of the debate on wildlife, examining how ethical reasoning can be applied to wildlife management and interventions. They recognise that there will always be wildlife management interventions that will mean harm to some animals. However, their work has highlighted the lack of a consistent approach to those interventions, the lack of a process that guides decisions around if, when and how those interventions take place to ensure that they are ethically led, evidence-based and prioritised animal welfare. However, such a framework exists, the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. The seven principles internationally recognised were developed by a panel of 20 experts convened in 2015 at the University of British Columbia. They are not intended to prohibit or prevent wildlife control, including lethal control, but they do aim to reduce unnecessary actions and therefore suffer and ensure that when controls are used, they are justifiable and acceptable. I would like to thank Colin Smyth for taking that intervention. We, Colin Smyth, do not recognise the fact that the Scottish Government has absolutely been out in front of making sure that wildlife crime and wildlife cruelty are kept to a very minimum. I very much recognise that progress, Mr Fillion. It is a point that I highlighted at the very beginning. However, there are still areas that we need to make further progress. What I hope to do today is to set out exactly how the Government can make progress by incorporating those ethical principles into the work every day, because it is something that I think is very difficult to argue with. The seven principles challenge decision makers to ask seven questions. Firstly, can the problem be mitigated by modifying human practice to prevent the need for control? For example, better refuge has been designed to reduce the supply of food in their towns for gulls or blocking potential entries to homes for mice as a first resort. Secondly, is there justification for the control? In other words, are there substantial harms being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems or other animals? Thirdly, is there a clear achievable outcome in how that will be monitored? A badger cow, for example, similar to the one in England, would not have met this principle given the lack of evidence that it actually had any impact on TB in cattle. The first principle asks, is the proposed method of control the one that carries the least animal welfare cost to the fewest animals? The Scottish Government has agreed a competency requirement for shooting deer, for example, but following that principle would logically extend that to other species. Fifthly, is the action socially acceptable? Sixthly, is the chosen control part of a proper systematic long-term plan? And finally, is the decision to control based on the situation or simply the negative characterisation of that particular type of animal? Presiding Officer, we are beginning to see international examples of putting such principles into practice. The animal kind accreditation programme of the British Columbia SPCA sets standards based on the principles, which wildlife and rodent control companies are signing up to there. Parts Canada, a federal government agency overseeing all land and marine parts, have adopted principles for its biodiversity programme. Crucially, Presiding Officer, there are real opportunities to do so here in Scotland. In 2014, NatureScot, then Scottish Natural Heritage, was the first of the UK's national nature agencies to adopt a wildlife position statement. It was forward-thinking at the time, but eight years on, there is a need to better align this position with modern definitions of animal welfare. I understand that NatureScot's position statement will be reviewed, and maybe the minister can confirm that today. What an opportunity, Presiding Officer, to incorporate those ethical principles in the work of NatureScot, placing up the heart of the Government's approach to wildlife management. We can, we should and we do need to go further. The Government should prioritise wildlife management projects or programmes and incentivise land managers who carry out the appropriate ethical assessments when deciding on any control methods. They should incorporate the ethical principles into non-statsary codes and guidance and into any species' licensing schemes. Ultimately, I believe that ethical principles should be incorporated into legislation, and if they need to be, I will bring forward a member's bill to do just that. Presiding Officer, Mahatma Gandhi once said that the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. However, it is not moral to still pepper a land with stink pits to lure animals to an excruciating death by snare in the name of wildlife management. It is not moral to allow grown men and women to continue to chase a fox to exhaustion in the name of wildlife management. It is not moral to purge thousands of wild animals and birds in a circle of destruction in the name of wildlife management perversely to protect other species so that we can then kill them for sport. We saw many glimmers of morality during the last Parliament with real progress on animal welfare. Fully incorporating the internationally recognised principles for ethical wildlife management would be world-leading. It really would show that moral progress that all of Scotland could be proud of. Thank you very much, Mr Sleith. Just a reminder, if members do make an intervention, they will need to repress their buttons. We have a bit of time in hand and I can recompense anybody who does take an intervention. With that, we move to the open debate. I call Christine Grahame to be followed by Rachel Hamilton for around four minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I congratulate the member and colleague on the cross-party group on animal welfare on securing this debate and the temperate speech that he has delivered. I am pleased to support the motion and endorse the principles expressed by Revive, which includes league against school sports, one kind, common wheel, raptor, Percy UK and Friends of the Earth. That is some coalition. Indeed, one kind gave a presentation on these principles recently to the cross-party group on animal welfare, which I chair. We do make clear distinctions between what may be labelled pests, domestic animals and pets, yet they have everything in common. They are sentient with distinctive means of communicating with their species and their predators, and their drive is to survive and to procreate and continue their species. We also therefore have much in common with them. Over the decades, our knowledge of the animals around us hidden in the woods, underground, in our fields and in our homes has grown as the media of television and film has exposed their lifestyles. Last night, watching Springwatch, I watched a bee, orzmia by colour, which lives alone, build a protective nest for its eggs in discarded snail shells. It then blocks the entrance with stones that it had carried there and finally upturns the shell so that the entrance is hidden. Now, how clever is that? Today, too, as I drove to the constituency from beneath the bonnet, twigs flew up and I realised that pigeons had returned to nest in my Acerdraamondi tree, building it in the same place each year just above my car and tossing unsuitable building material on to it. The mice, which run between the cottage walls in the winter, have migrated back under the shed and into the small dike. Mr Smokey, using all his ancient feline instincts and skills, keeps in that bay. I call that justified control. In the morning, before daylight, our resident blackbird wakes everyone and every roosting sparrow in the holy tree with his glorious song and the early lone gray squirrel raids the bird feeder. During the early months of Covid, we were put in our place, no cars in the streets, the fear of this possibly deadly virus. The wildlife around us soon reasserted themselves, taking over those deserted streets. That small living organism Covid bypassed them and went straight for us. We, as a species, are not invincible. Why say this? Because we are privileged to hold the fate of these insects, birds and animals in our hands and some of these hands lay snares, set traps, shoot, poison and do this sometimes to protect creatures bred solely for sport and sport usually for the other privileged. I cannot support that in principle. In practice, we have the poisoning of birds of prey hunting for food to survive and feed their young. We have animals horrifically trapped in snares, tearing at their own flesh to escape. Fox hunting continues. I turn to three principles. Justifying control for sport, I cannot see a justification of breeding animals just for sport. Prioritising animal welfare that causes the least harm to the least number of animals, snares, it does not. It is indiscriminate. Decisions to control wildlife should be based on the specifics of the situation, not negative labels that apply to the target species. For example, the culling of sea deer when their welfare is of concern. I can support that. Applying those principles are as much our interests as the highest species of the animals. We are only custodians of the wildlife around us. It is also in the interests of diverse, intriguing and essential wildlife that surrounds us every other day and which we often fail to see. I thank Colin Smyth for bringing forward this important debate. Wildlife management in Scotland is an important and often misunderstood practice that is important to land managers, food producers, farmers and crofters. Author Mary Collwell said that it is part of the predator paradox that we consider some creatures as predators but exclude others. Even this restrictive category is filled with subtle subdivisions. For example, badgers are lovable bumblers when they eat grubs but we are thrown into cognitive dissonance when they overturn a hedgehog and devour the soft underbelly. Most predator and prey issues cannot be reduced to A plus B equals C. They are much more complex than that but so too are the importance of conservationists and land managers exempt from this debate on ethical management. A group who carry out necessary wildlife management on a daily basis are the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. They are the largest Scottish centre for deer management and train gamekeepers to the highest standard of wildlife management to tackle the difficult job of managing deer, many whom are contracted by Forestry and Land Scotland, a Scottish Government, Cwango, to cope with the swathes of dense forestry being planted, particularly in Galloway, where planting has driven the catastrophic decline of the much-loved curlew, a bird which features strongly in Galloway's consciousness. Members might recall my motion highlighting the importance of endangered birds, notably the Cappacalee. Beautiful birds such as this need our help as they face decline without proper wildlife management strategies that work to protect the bird to manage its habitat and predators. That almost extinct species needs our support to survive. However, the Scottish Government must get on top of the species decline, with 531 habitats and 603 species in Scotland in poor conditions and needing improvement. You would think that following COP26 it would be a huge priority of the Scottish Government to address the decline of Scotland's wildlife, so birds such as the Cappacalee do not face further decline. Habitat rejuvenation is important, and that is why it is disappointing that the SNP have failed to meet their peatland restoration targets and therefore failed to restore habitats that peatlands provide. Much more must be done so that peatlands do not continue to decline. I agree that when wildlife management is needed it should be based on evidence carried out by trained and qualified people, such as the many of Scotland's gamekeepers who operate around the country, working long and difficult hours to ensure that our countryside is properly managed. A nine-year study by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust in Northumberland showed that where gamekeepers manage population of predators, populations of wading birds were three times more likely to successfully rear their young compared to when this was not happening. This shows the success of what highly regulated gamekeepers do on a daily basis and how their role provides a great conservation, environmental and economic role. I turn to the motion in itself. Collin's motion asks the Scottish Government to integrate ethical principles into the Scottish Government's strategic approach to wildlife management and its species licensing review. However, back in 2019, the shared approach to wildlife management brought together key organisations such as the RSPB, BASC and the Woodland Trust precisely to implement principles and act as an anchor for decision-making and action on the ground. That shared a robust approach offers a reference point when opinions differ, but it also explains that wildlife management means that we must look at the ways to contribute to it, as well as nature-based solutions. It would be worth highlighting at this point if Collin Smith would like to take an intervention on what his assessment of the current shared approach was given that it was supported by a broad range of rural and animal welfare and countryside organisations. I am happy to make an intervention and to take an intervention, but that is a good starting point. I think that we need to go further. We need to look at our wildlife practices to make sure that they have that ethical audit, if you like, and to set out the standards that we expect people to adhere to when it comes to a wildlife practice. The 2019 work was a good starting point, but we need to go a lot further and really embed those ethical principles, because when you look at those principles, it is very difficult to disagree with any of them. I thank Collin Smith for joining me in considering those shared approaches. I will get to the end, but I think that any changes in wildlife management must be consulted on. It is important that we bring together the people who are already practicing conservation management across Scotland. I stress the need for those people to be able to be part of that conversation and to provide that environmental, economic and conservation benefits to us all. I congratulate Collin Smith on securing this debate and the importance of places on animal welfare. We must ensure animal welfare in all settings, whether the animals are pets, domestic animals, we are for food, wild animals and even those animals that have become a problem. It is clear that where management and control is required, it must be carried out as humanely as possible, and we must do everything that we can to avoid distress for the animal. While doing that, we must also recognise that managing population numbers can also have an animal welfare role if you take, for example, managing deer numbers. There are a small number of landowners that avoid carrying out that work because it costs money to have it carried out appropriately. That has led to calls out of season and that practice is totally unacceptable. It has also happened on Government land and steps must be taken to ensure that it never happens again. There are no penalties for land managers who do not manage deer numbers to within the capacity of their land. A more controversial issue is the management of species that are introduced and then cause a problem. Mink released in the western isles from fire farms, wrecked havoc on wildlife and required to be trapped and dispatched. Regardless of the problems that they were causing, that needed to be done humanely. A similar exercise was carried out with hedgehogs due to them having no natural predators, their numbers increased impacting on local bird life. No thought was given to the impact when they were released. Therefore, I believe that much more research needs to be carried out when we look to reintroduce species to ensure that we do not create conflict and unintended consequences. If this work is not thorough, then issues arise and the goodwill of the community is lost or indeed the natural environment is damaged. Managing numbers when that happens is necessary work but again needs to be carried out humanely. While recognising it is often human intervention that has led to the problem in the first place, if those species were not released they would not be causing a problem and we must tighten legislation with regard to releasing non-native species into an area in order to make the public more aware of the issues that can arise. We need to take steps as well to prevent conflict arising in the first place and where conflict occurs we need to look at solutions and if we are to manage numbers we must make sure that that is done with the welfare of the animal at the forefront. Coming from the highlands, I am aware of the difficulties that a rogue fox can cause at lambing time, for instance. That causes distress to the flock and to the farmer or crofter. While I believe that rogue foxes must be dealt with, I also believe that that must be carried out as humanely as possible. I fail to understand how anyone can get pleasure out of hunting them down for sport and therefore I welcome the efforts to tighten the legislation and close loopholes and I hope that we can take the same approach in other areas of conflicts to make sure that our response is proportionate but does not cause any unnecessary suffering to animals. Thank you very much to say it Ms Grant and I call on Mark Ruskell who joins us remotely to be followed by Jim Fairlie for around four minutes Mr Ruskell. Thanks very much Deputy Presiding Officer and can I join other members in thanking Colin Smith for his real cross-party leadership on animal welfare at Holyrood and also joining his thanks to the animal welfare charities that we have in Scotland for their relentless work in this area. I think that these ethical principles really hold a mirror up to our relationship with the natural world. They highlight where wildlife management has moved on to a better footing but they also point to where traditional and often anti-scientific practices are unfortunately still the norm. They also reveal that the way we treat our domestic animals can be dramatically different to the way that we treat some wild animals, which are still sadly viewed as pests and vermin to be eradicated. The study from the League Against Tril Sports showing an estimated quarter of a million wild animals killed each year on sporting estates shows how far there is still to go. The estimates that half of these animals are non-target species such as hedgehogs or domestic cats show how cruel and indiscriminate practices such as snaring can be. We have seen in recent years numerous wildlife reviews led by eminent chairs, a poosty on wildlife crime and sentencing, wearity on driven grass, moors, bonomy on hunting with wild dogs, as well as the critical report from the deer working group that is now being acted on through the Green SNP agreement. Each of those reviews has moved a dial a little, but there is still a need for a consistent approach in relation to how we manage wildlife. The position statement on wildlife management from SNH in 2014 and then the later concordat that was signed was a really good first step. The SGA signed up to that as well, the gamekeepers, but eight years on we are all agreeing that there is a need for further reform. I very much welcome the debate on those principles and the fact that the framework has already been adopted by Parks Canada tells me that it can probably work here too. As Colin outlined, the seven principles are largely common sense. Take the first principle that we should look into the root causes of conflicts of wildlife. It is obvious that many of the problems that we have with gulls in towns are due to rubbish and food waste collection issues. The gulls are trying to tell us something about the need for a much more circular economy, but the mentality of seeing certain species as pests is very deep-seated and it does need challenged. I was saddened to hear calls from NFUS recently for lethal controls on protected white-tailed eagles. While sea eagles can scavenge for dead lambs, it is a small proportion of their diet, and it is quite clear from the research that incidents of eagles taking live lambs are rare and that better husbandry, including lambing taking place under shelter, would address the real causes of the quite horrific levels of black loss that we see in sheep farming. Many of the techniques to minimise that black loss are being trialled by farmers and crofters under the excellent seagull management scheme run by Nature Scott. It is delivering welfare benefits to sheep as well as eagles, but there is no need or justification for the culling of sea eagles and those who persecute them illegally are quite clearly criminals. The framework acknowledges that the culling of some species may in some circumstances be justified, but it rightly demands systematic plans with clear objectives to be considered, rather than habitual culling of animals such as foxes, which often result in populations just bouncing back again. Clear objectives are important, and I think that one kind in their briefing for this debate is right to point out that the badge of culling in England failed to meet its objectives curve, bovine and TB. The debate on the principles is very welcome and timely. I very much look forward to hearing from the minister later about how the Scottish Government can embed them further into policy, practice and, ultimately, the law. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Ruskell. I now call the final speaker in the open debate, Jim Fairlie, again, in around four minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would like to congratulate Colin Smyth on bringing this member's debate forward. I am very pleased to talk into tonight's debate on the ethical principles of wildlife management. It is clearly an emotive subject and can be extremely divisive with portalised views from both sides. My aim in speaking tonight is to hopefully add some balance on the basis that have been involved from both sides. As a youngster, my life was spent outside watching birds and animals with total fascination. I was a dog owner and I kept two loft full of racing pigeons. To me, they were thoroughbreds of the sky. With birds sometimes racing from France and covering over 500 miles in one day, they were an absolute passion of mine for years. For my neighbours, they were vermin that landed on their roofs and their washing that was hanging out in the line. One person's passion for pigeons was another person's burden on the washing line. As a young on-rhythmologist, I was absolutely fascinated by all other birds and it was why I became involved in farming in the first place. The majesty of birds of prey, especially the Peregrine Falcon, was one of those absolute fascinations that gripped me. The idea of seeing a Peregrine Falcon in real life was only a dream to a townie like me, but I still used to go out and seek them for many years but all to no avail. In that, there was also conflict that came from being a livestock keeper in the shape of racing pigeons. My love and fascination at wildlife, especially birds of prey, and the effects of a sparrowhawk attack on my racing birds. You can imagine the horror of seeing one of your most valued birds being pinned to the ground as a sparrowhawk starts stripping chunks of flesh off its back and the bird had flown from France for me on two occasions. It is one of those life lessons that sticks with you and starts the process of coming to terms with the understanding that not everything is as it seems at first. The lesson was well made as I then made my transition from being a townie to shepherd and sheep farming. Again, my appreciation and love was challenged when I witnessed various fairly horrendous attacks on livestock that were in my charge. Foxes, crows, gulls, ravens and seagulls are all absolutely beautiful intelligent animals, but wild animals play by nature's rules, which by and large are brutal. I take great exception to Mark Ruskell's insinuation that sheep farmers' black loss is somehow the sheep farmers' fault. I also take great exception to the point that he makes where he says that only injured or dead lambs are lifted by sea eagles. That is patently not the case. I have read the seven principles of ethical wildlife management and absolutely understand the desire to see human and animals coexisting in places where animals are under threat, but the Scottish Government has undoubtedly been at the forefront of wildlife protection while trying to find the balance that is absolutely required to allow farmers and conservationists to protect their respective charges. You have only got to look at the introduction of the sea eagles in the west and the conflicts that that still causes, as Mark Ruskell talked about, as does the illegal introduction on subsequent protection of the Eurasian beaver in my constituency. Those introductions require careful balanced management, and as situations develop, that management practice must be adapted. I am confident that the Government is always cognisant of those change in circumstances and as populations change, they monitor the impacts on local communities and local populations of wildlife activity. The Government, as I have said, has shown itself to be actively working to protect the beauty and diversity of Scotland's ecology, and I welcome that greatly, but I would gently remind everyone that there must be a proper balance for all those demands on our land. My search for all things wildlife have been satiated by my involvement in farming, especially hill farming. The elusive peregrine became a regular sighting. Buzzards are like sparrows in terms of sightings. Sea eagles were regularly passing through the ground I farmed, and I have witnessed red kites and hen harriers are plenty. All birds that you would not have seen 20 years ago now, there are huge far more numbers than what there ever was when I was growing up. What I have seen less and less of is golden plovers, lapwings, curlews, red shanks and oyster catchers. At the same time, I have seen an explosion in the number of ravens and other corvids. Their effect on the numbers of ground nesters has been absolutely devastating, and I think that it is disingenuous for NGOs to say that the two things are not related, because they absolutely are. I have witnessed it with my own eyes. Protection and balance are equally important, and I urge the Government to continue with the balanced approach that they are so far taking. I would like to begin by echoing the thanks to members of Parliament who have participated in tonight's debate and equally to Colin Smyth for bringing this motion forward on a very important issue. I have been very pleased to get the chance to listen to members' views and to have my opportunity to restate the Government's position, namely that we take the welfare of wild and other animals very seriously indeed. We have taken a number of steps in recent years to put our words into action to ensure the highest standards of animal and wildlife welfare in Scotland. We established the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission to provide independent advice, including on the welfare of sentient animals and wildlife. The commission has already looked at a number of really important areas, producing valuable reports, including on the use of glue traps, a statement on animal sentience and a response to dear working group recommendations, and we are taking much of that advice and translating it into action. Alongside our commitment to the highest standards of animal welfare, consideration must always be given to ensuring the protection of public health and of vital economic interests that would not be able to operate safely without effective and humane management of wildlife. That is the balance that has been spoken of to tonight in the chamber. It was with that need in mind that we committed in our 2019-2020 programme for government to develop a strategic approach to wildlife management, which has animal welfare at its core, while protecting public health and economic and conservation considerations. That commitment has been progressed through the development of NatureScot's shared approach to wildlife management, which was completed in 2019. It has been pointed out, I think, by Rachel Hamilton, that the shared approach that Concordat brought together a range of organisations across Scotland. In doing that, it sets out how it will work together to establish healthy and valued populations of wildlife. It describes the shared priorities and an overall willingness to co-operate. It was developed collectively and represents a wide variety of points of use, approaches and perspectives, including that of RSPB, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, the Woodland Trust, NFUS, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and BASC. That collaboration is not easily won, and it is very important. As well as representing consensus, the approach is also evidence-based and iterative, and it is capable of being updated as NatureScot continues to review the latest thinking and evidence, for example, on sentience and other animal welfare principles. The collaboration that went into it, as well as its ability to adapt as evidence does, are two very important points for the Government. Indeed, NatureScot is currently in the process of working with animal welfare organisations on how the ethical principles that we are discussing today can be integrated into the shared approach, and that is evidence, I think, of the iterative nature of it. I hope that that answers both Colin Smyth and Rachel Hamilton's questions about how the Government intend to embed the principles within our current framework. Yes, absolutely. Rachel Hamilton. Thank you, and I'm glad to hear you talking about the shared approach, minister. Does the minister agree that, as well as all the other organisations that she's mentioned just now, that other individuals who have a role in this should be brought in to ensure that there is a fair consultation process? I absolutely agree with that principle, and I've long taken the view that, as policies develop, which affects people's lives and their livelihoods, they ought to be engaged in the development thereof. That's something that I think that we can apply to this and across the pace in Government. Those issues, the development of the principles, as it pertains to the shared approach, were something that I was pleased to discuss with the Wild Animal Welfare Committee when I met them last week to discuss the principles. As well as seeking to understand how the ethical principles can support the Government's high-level approaches, we're also seeking to use them in quite a targeted and specific way. My officials have arranged a workshop for 14 June to explore how the ethical principles can be applied to deer management in Scotland, something that has been mentioned by a number of contributors this evening. We know that tackling the issue of deer numbers is one of the most pressing biodiversity challenges facing Scotland, and I'm looking forward to seeing how the ethical principles can be built into that. Members will also be aware that we made a commitment in our programme for government to conduct a general review of the species licensing systems under which much of wildlife management operates. That will be an opportunity to look at how the system operates through the lens of wildlife welfare but always bearing in mind the need to protect crops and livestock or to maintain, for example, aircraft safety, and all that requires control to do. The licensing of course of wildlife management is strictly governed by law, and it's important that we ensure that the law is being followed in the way that operations and managers carry it out. It will ensure that, in addition to existing statutory requirements, welfare principles are baked into the way that the system operates. I look forward to reporting to Parliament later in this term on progress in that regard. This work sits alongside a significant spread of wildlife and animal welfare work that the Government has and is developing. We recently brought forward the Animals and Wildlife Act 2020, which strengthened penalties across a range of wildlife crimes. Those tougher penalties should ensure that the minority of people who would casually abuse our wildlife will be held accountable with consequences that reflect the severity of their crime. We're also taking, as has been mentioned, the Hunting with Dogs Bill through the Parliament. The welfare of wildlife is at the heart of the bill, as we replace existing legislation, making the law clearer and closing loopholes, which will ensure that the practice of hunting and killing a mammal with a dog, which has been unlawful for 20 years, will no longer take place in Scotland. We're also taking action, yes, absolutely. Colin Smyth, does the minister believe that those ethical principles should be considered as part of the legislation that closing the loopholes goes through Parliament? On the minister and I have a different view on whether we should have a licensing scheme, but surely any licensing scheme should be subject to those ethical principles. I believe that there is a huge amount in what we're already doing, which is aligned with the ethical principles, and I'm interested in how what we bring forward can also align with them. That's something that I'll continue to consider as we bring each piece of work forward. I'm also taking action to put an end to the cruel and unlawful killing of raptors, which has continued to take place, particularly in and around Uplands. It's with that in mind that we will bring forward legislation in this parliamentary term to put in place a meaningful, effective and workable sanctions regime through a licensing scheme. I'm very short of time, but I'm happy to, if I can... I can give you the time back. Okay, that's great, thank you. It's just briefly, I don't want to put the minister on the spot, so I appreciate an answer perhaps later, but this is all very laudable, but policing is a huge issue because most of this takes place in far-fund places in the middle of the hills and woods where there's nobody about, and you know that, or the minister knows that possibly already, so can consideration be given to additional policing for wildlife crime? Minister. I thank Christine Grahame for a very important point, because, as she points out, much of these activities do take place beyond the eyes of our police and other enforcement authorities. I'm working with the police as we develop all of this to understand what they need to do their job effectively, and actually the hunting with dogs legislation, one of the points that we are seeking to ensure is that the law is much clearer, so that the police have an easier time in understanding when it's being breached. I am just to add to some of those other bits of work, Presiding Officer. We have committed to end the use of glue traps, a particularly cruel and harmful practice. I've committed to reviewing the use of snares and that beyond the statutory review. We already have the most robust legislation on snaring in the UK, but I'm undertaking a review that will consider whether it ought to be banned entirely. In all of those ways and more, I hope that it's clear that the Scottish Government has an on-going commitment to ensuring the highest possible animal welfare standards, including for our wildlife, while remaining at the forefront of matters like sentience. There is much that I agree with in the principles, and I'm committed to working with members across the chamber, with interested stakeholders, including all those charities that work so hard that Colin Smyth mentioned, as we understand how the principles can sit alongside our ambitious programme for work that the Government is taking forward to protect our animals and our wildlife.