 Preolent i sut все i gadu ymgyn assistance o te comfortably yng ng takiej raises i eas to see ac rwy'r anferwyr gyntaf wedi dwylo cyxxinationu. Fe oherwydd, yn hopesu'n cysylltu, gan sefi'r licor y mylwyd, ywhipoo i Mok Peachanc, ac yn teimlo ydw i ystod gyhoedd. Mae hyn yn cymaint ei subscribers periyddol yn Llereg. A actively sy'n cysylltu Meem Soupor原因 i pewnd yn ioor ar i ni'n gainsen tym cynedigion gydag yna. Felly, rwy'r cymdeithas digon i siaradau y thingol i'r prosesiau ym mŷ i'r ddal... Ie'r prosesiau i'r ddifrif, ond mae'n un ar falle'r ddifrif â'r ddifrif a'r ddifrif bach. Mae'r ddifrif mŷ i'r ddifrif am ddifrif i'r ddifrif i'r ddifrif i'r ddifrif i'r ddifrif i'r hwn a i'r ddifrif adrodded i'r ddifrif i'r ddifrif i'r ddifrif i'r ddifrif i'r ddifrif i'r ddifrif i'r Awakens, czyli gyda i siwr, esseilladau gyda siw mosfer, ann Romaarnt yn sy'n ddiddordeb Nicolau. I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member presents or objects, the committee immediately moves to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say not moved. Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote and voting in any division is by a show of hands. It is important that the members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of the bill, so we will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. It is unlikely that we will conclude stage 2 at today's meeting, in which case we will do so at our next meeting. I call amendment 176 in the name of Edward Mountain. Group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Edward Mountain will move amendment 176 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener, and I am pleased to be able to be here today to move the amendments. Before I do, convener, I would like to make a full declaration of my interests so that people are aware of these. I have attended the committee before, but I would like to reiterate them. First of all, I am a member of a family farming partnership and a joint owner in a wild fishery. Both of those require the controlling of some species of wildlife, including states, weasels, mink, rats, mice and foxes, and corvoids, including crows, rooks and jackdaws. I have been controlling and managing wildlife to manage environments for over 40 years. I use licence firearms and spring traps. I would also like to make it clear that I do not own any hillground. However, I have been involved for over 40 years in mule burn and burning to manage grassland and to manage farmland for gawls from invasive species such as gawls and broom. In the past, I have supervised mule burn and have contributed to mule burn consultations and management plans. I hope, convener, that is sufficient for the committee to understand that I have an interest. I would like to move amendments 176, amendments 5, 6 and 7. 176 is to allow the use of glue traps in certain environments. The point of doing this is to ensure that we can use them in educational catering and medical facilities. I have met the minister and I am grateful for the time the minister gave me to discuss this. I am unclear at the moment how she is going to progress this because I am not clear on what effect the internal market act will have on the banning of glue traps. On the basis that it may well continue, I am keen to see that glue traps still can be used in really tightly controlled circumstances. I have given you the areas of educational catering and medical facilities and it would be subject to having a glue trap licence. I think that is really important. That falls under amendment 5. Amendments 6 and 7 are to do with the glue trap licence, which is that it can only be issued to a pest controller engaged to preserve public health and safety, which I think is important. Some safeguards within the licence that I am suggesting that there is no other solution and the person must have done the course and it is time limited for how long that licence be given. There could be a fee charge for that licence by the Scottish Government who will be responsible for overseeing it. It seems to me that this is a sensible option to control and make sure that glue traps are only used where needed. I would just make the observation in catering establishment where often rats and mice get in. It is really important that we get rid of those rats and mice as soon as possible in the same way that we would want to get rid of those rats and mice if they were in our accommodation. The only way of ensuring that is to use a glue trap, because I know from personal experience that you can set snap traps for vermin creatures as rats and mice, but they can become trap shy and some of them are pretty clever. You can be clever as well by using chocolate and apple but it does not always attract them to the trap. Let me tell you that actually if you put a glue trap down in the right place you can actually get rid of them overnight and it gives you confidence that that animal has been removed. I do not see any reason why this would not be allowed, especially if the glue traps were set and checked within a set period. I think it is a humane way of doing it. I will be interested to see what the other amendments are. I think that Colin Smyth's amendment 106 clarifies that the amendment is regarding traps that restrain animals. Amendment 107 and 108 introduces a vicarious liability, which I do not believe is needed if we limit the control of where glue traps can be needed. I look forward to the debate and hearing the arguments on either side. Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 106 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 106 relates to the wording of the offence of using a glue trap in section 1 of the act. A glue trap, as we know, is intended as a restraining trap, as members know rats and mice and sometimes other non-targeted species to walk across the board and get stuck to the strong glue. They often remain there until the person who set the trap comes to kill them. They suffer terribly during this time, which is why the ban on the use of glue traps is necessary and something I welcome. This amendment only seeks to strengthen that ban, as taken in restraining can have different meanings and intention is to ban all use of glue traps. The aim of the amendment is to provide clarity on the definition of the offence and probe a potential loophole. The bill, as it stands, says that it is an offence to use a glue trap for the purpose of killing or taking, whereas the Welsh legislation prohibits the use, and I quote, of a glue trap for the purpose of killing or taking an animal and the use of a glue trap in any other way that is likely to catch an animal, which does seem more comprehensive than the proposed Scottish Bill definition. UK Parliament glue traps offence act 2022 also makes reference to catching and caught in their description of the offence. I hope that the minister and her responses are very clear in the Government's legal definition of taking and also outlines why the Scottish Government have chosen wording, which does seem different to both the Welsh and the UK acts. Amendment 107 would make it an offence to knowingly cause or permit another person to use a glue trap. On the main offence of using a glue trap, the explanatory notes accompanying the bill state, the offences do not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse for using or setting a glue trap. For example, it is not the intention to criminalise circumstances where a person is compelled to use a glue trap by a workforce superior. I think that that raises the question of who would be responsible in that scenario, and I think that it creates a potential loophole which this amendment seeks to close. In other words, could someone get round the ban by compelling someone else to use the trap? Causing or permitting offences are used in a wide variety of legislation to prevent individuals escaping sanctions when they have made or allowed another person to commit an offence. In fact, there is an example of such a provision at section 9 of this bill making an offence to cause or permit another person to make mureburn without a licence. It is unclear why such a provision is not included in the section on glue traps. Finally, my name amendment 108 is a consequential amendment to amendment 107. Any other members? Arrian Burgess. I would like to briefly put on record my sympathy for the intention behind Colin Smyth's amendments 107 and 108. Glue traps are inhumane and indiscriminate as a pest control tool, and I understand the concerns about unintended loopholes being created. I would like to know from the minister if there is any scope for further discussion on these amendments to take place ahead of stage 3. First to Edward Mountain's amendments, amendment 176 would allow for the use of glue traps by members of the public to control rats and mice and educational catering or medical premises. The Scottish Animal Welfare Committee published a report on glue traps, which concluded, and I quote, The animal welfare issues associated with the use of glue traps would justify an immediate and outright ban on their sale and use. Due to the way of evidence that glue traps are the least humane method of rodent control and do-cause unacceptable levels of suffering for the animals caught by them, continuing to allow their use was not considered to be a viable option. Over three quarters of respondents to a consultation also agreed that glue traps should be banned completely in Scotland. At stage 1, the committee stated, again I quote, It is clear to the committee that glue traps do cause suffering to vertebrate animals. The committee agrees therefore that members of the general public should be banned from using or purchasing glue traps. I also think that it is important to note that professional pest controllers fully support a ban on the use of glue traps by members of the public. Both UK and Welsh parliaments have already passed legislation, which makes it an offence for members of the public to use them for any purpose. I do not believe that we can ignore the way of evidence that glue traps lead to unacceptable levels of suffering, not just for rats and mice, but for other animals that are not the intended catch and that can also become trapped in them. I am not entirely sure why Mr Mountain has submitted this amendment in its current form, which does not really have any support from animal welfare experts or from the professionals or from the committee because it does allow for the public to use glue traps. I can understand the rationale for circumstances where glue traps could be used as the last option in the settings that he said, but this amendment still allows for members of the public. I hope, therefore, that he will not press this amendment and, if he does, encourage other members to vote against it. To amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7, I propose creating a licensing scheme for pest controllers to continue to use rodent glue traps and provide associated training requirements for applicants for the use of such traps. I note that this amendment seeks to apply the same sort of regime in Scotland that has been legislated for by the UK Government and largely in England. I spoke to the British Pest Controls Association in January and we discussed glue traps and I really welcomed that very constructive conversation that I had with them. They explained that the members rarely use glue traps but, when they do, it is to react quickly to an infestation in a high-risk area such as a hospital or food environment. It is worth noting that, of all the 14 local authorities pest control departments that we heard from, 11 already do not use glue traps at all to control rodents in any setting that they are responsible for. However, I am sympathetic to what the pest controllers had to say to me in that meeting because public health is an absolute priority. However, if we were to allow pest controllers to continue to use glue traps in any capacity, they would need to be very tightly regulated to make sure that no one gets a hold of one if they are not supposed to and that when they are used there are safeguards in place to reduce animal suffering. I am prepared to give that aspect further consideration. I understand why Edward Mountain has put forward those proposals. However, I do not think that Edward Mountain's proposed licensing scheme is workable as drafted. It does not limit who can undertake the approved training and who can apply for a licence other than a pest controller. There will be difficulties in ascertaining who is a pest controller as there is no standard occupational classification code for pest controllers. No qualifications or licences are needed to work in the pest control industry and there is no regulatory authority that oversees them. Those issues mean that it would be very difficult for retailers to restrict sales to only so-called professionals because thereby increasing the risk that members of the public would be able to continue to purchase and use glue traps. There are also no requirements to adhere to the standards set out by the training course and that could give rise to inconsistent deployment of glue traps. Those amendments fall far short of the reassurance that I need that the risks to animal welfare from using glue traps have been mitigated so I cannot support them. For all those reasons I encourage the committee members to vote against them. Amendment 106 specifies that the offence of using a glue trap to kill or take an animal includes restraining. In my view, with the greatest respect, this is an unnecessary amendment. Section 1 of the bill that is currently drafted makes it an offence to use a glue trap or kill or take any animal other than an invertebrate. I want to assure Colin Smyth that the ordinary meaning of take or taking as it is used in the bill would include restrain, so it is not necessary to change the wording. Restraining a rodent using a glue trap would be comparable to a live capture trap in the animal is considered to be taken from the wild and under the control of the person setting or laying the trap. If that would benefit from more clarification, I could arrange to update the explanatory notes that accompany the bill and set that out. On that basis I would ask Mr Smyth not to press amendment 106 and if he does I would encourage committee members to vote against it. Amendments 107 and 108 introduce the offence of knowingly causing or permitting the use of a glue trap. As the committee knows, I had initially wanted to include an offence for the sale of glue traps in the bill and it is still my intention to do that at stage 3. Work is continuing and has been taken forward to secure an exclusion to the UK Internal Market Act 2020. Therefore, I have not brought any of my amendments on glue traps at stage 2. Is that process to secure an exclusion is still on going? Having listened to Colin Smyth's reasons for including an offence of knowingly causing or permitting the use of a glue trap, this is something that I am unminded to include in the bill. He makes a good argument, which I understand. However, I would like to reflect on this a little bit further and make sure that it is appropriately drafted. I would ask Colin Smyth not to press his amendments today to allow me to consider that further, with a view to potentially bringing back a suitable redrafted amendment that we can work on at stage 3. Edward Mountain to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 176. Thank you, convener. I am encouraged in some ways by what I have heard this morning, but there are a few comments that I would like to make in response to the minister's answers. First of all, my amendment 176 is clear that it limits the use of a glue trap and it is subject to a licence. Therefore, it is not the general public that can get access to it. It is those people who are considered to be professionals and have completed the licence. There is a way of doing this and I am sure that the industry would work with the minister to ensure that there was a professional qualification that would allow that to be identified. I personally do not take the view of the minister that by banning glue traps it is the only way to limit sales. There are ways of limiting sales to professionals. I give the example, if I may minister, for the use of phos toxin. Phos toxin is a gas that can only be sold to those people who have qualified to use that gas and no one can sell it to them. That has to be a register in the place that sells them and the person who signs the register to allow the gas to be used or to be sold has to convince themselves that the person is properly qualified and has the equipment to do that. I would also make the point that I understand that there is concern about the glue traps being cruel but what we are talking about is invariably putting glue traps out at night for a short period and I would say that it is not appropriate. The other means are not appropriate to use in schools, hospitals or restaurants, i.e. no-one wants poison to be used in a restaurant. I certainly wouldn't want poison to be used in a restaurant and I certainly wouldn't want poison to be used in a hospital or a school. Traps putting them around, as I have explained, does not necessarily guarantee to catch the animal. I would just say on Colin Smyth's amendment 1A7 that I am not convinced that that is required for the simple reason that I don't believe that anyone is told to do something and ordered to do something. They fully understand the people who are using these traps and using these means fully understand what the law is and are not prepared to break the law even if they are instructed to do it. In summary, I don't believe 176 gives it a right to glue traps to be sold to the general public. I believe the licensing system does work and I think it is vital that we have the ability to use glue traps in schools, hospitals and restaurants. I am slightly caught between the two points here from whether the minister would be prepared to work on me with these amendments before stage 3, which would give me some indication that I could withdraw these amendments, bring them back at stage 3, hopefully with ministerial support. The minister did not convince me of that. If the minister would convince me now that she would do that, I would consider withdrawing them. I have made it clear that I am sympathetic to the argument that there may be some settings where we cannot have an infestation for which pest controllers might have to use these at a last resort. My difficulty at the moment is how would that work in practice? Given everything that I have said about pest controllers, I am not sure whether they are accredited to the title that you have to have a qualification for. All I can say to Mr Mountain is that I need to do a lot more thought on this with my officials and see what levers are available to us. I am still not wholly convinced that an outright ban is not the way to go. I also have a couple of moving parts here, because I still have not had any agreement from the UK Government about the Internal Market Act exemption. I have had several letters going back and forth. I have had a meeting that was cancelled very last minute to discuss this with UK Government ministers, so I have not had satisfaction there. There are quite a lot of balls up in the air on this, which is why I have not brought my amendments forward. If I had been able to bring my amendments forward, I would have obviously spoken to them. That is all that I can say on the matter. I understand why Edward Mountain has brought the amendment that he has. I just do not think that it is workable in practice given the licensing scheme that he outlines. I know that that is not doable, as written. On that basis, convener, I hope that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I am prepared to work with the minister to see if those amendments can be reviewed to make them more workable and more acceptable to the minister, so I am happy not to push amendment 176. The member has indicated that he wishes to withdraw the amendment. Does any member object? Amendment 106, the name of Colin Smyth, has already been debated with amendment 176. Colin Smyth, do you want to move or not move? I am grateful to the minister for the clarity on the definition of taking and the offer to include further information and explanatory notes. On that basis, I will not move the amendment. Amendment 4, the name of Edward Mountain, has already been debated with amendment 176. I have not moved on the basis of the earlier explanation that I gave. Amendment 107, the name of Colin Smyth, has already been debated with amendment 176. Colin Smyth, do you want to move or not move? I am grateful to the minister for the offer to work on the possible amendment on the issue at stage 3, so on that basis I will not press the amendment. Amendment 108, the name of Colin Smyth, has already been debated with amendment 176. Colin Smyth, do you want to move or not move? I do not move. The question is that section 1 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 5 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 176. Edward Mountain to move or not move? Not move for the reasons I gave earlier, minister. Thank you. The question is that section 2 be agreed, are we all agreed? I call amendment 6, the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 176. Edward Mountain to move or not move? I'm looking forward to fruitful discussions with the minister and therefore I'm not moving it. Thank you. I call amendment 7 in the name of Edward Mountain already debated with amendment 176. Edward Mountain to move or not move? Not move for the same reason. The question is at section 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 54 in the name of the minister group with amendments as shown in the groupings. The minister to move amendment 54 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. My amendment 54 introduces a comprehensive ban on the use of snares as recommended by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission. The amendment introduces an offence of using a snare or setting one in position to either kill or take any animal other than a wild bird. It will also be an offence to set a snare in a position where it's likely to cause bodily injury to any such animal coming into contact with it. There are, however, two very important exceptions set out in my provisions of which Colin Smyth seeks to remove in his amendments and I'll speak to that in a moment. As I said in the stage 1 debate, I believe that this Parliament can no longer ignore the weight of evidence that snares lead to unacceptable levels of suffering, not just for wild animals but for domestic animals which can become trapped in them. The decision to ban the use of snares is not one that has been taken lightly or quickly and my decision takes into account the wealth of evidence and the opinion that's been presented to the Parliament over the years on this matter. Unfortunately, even where snares are used in very strict accordance with the conditions set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, they remain by their nature indiscriminate and as such they pose an unacceptable risk to non-target species including other wildlife, including endangered ones and domestic species such as cats. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission found that the proportion of non-target species cotton snares is estimated to be 21 to 69 per cent. That is simply unacceptable. More humane methods of wildlife control such as shooting and trapping are available to land managers. Indeed, 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, where, for example, the lack of a suitable backstop can mean that shooting is not appropriate in certain circumstances. I recognise that control of predators is necessary in order to protect vulnerable species as well as livestock and agriculture and that land managers should be allowed to take action to effectively manage wildlife for those purposes. I am also aware that some have claimed that the removal of snaring as an option may reduce the ability of land managers to protect ground-nesting species of bird, in particular curlew, lapwing and other wader species of serious conservation concern. However, I remain confident that there are sufficient alternative methods of predator control that can be used. A number of land owners, managers and 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. That was the same view that was reached by the Welsh Parliament when they banned the use of snares in the Agriculture Wales Act 2023 in recognition of poor animal welfare outcomes. I am confident that a ban on the use of snares would not prevent anyone from undertaking necessary wildlife management. The public consultation that we did on snaring also showed that 70 per cent of respondents supported a complete ban on the use of all snares, including so-called humane cable restraints, so there is clearly widespread support for this in the general public. Snares are already banned in many European countries and land managers have adapted. We can ensure that we learn from that and provide advice and information for that would be helpful. Some have called for the ban of continued use of humane cable restraints under a licensing regime for the purpose of killing a taken animal. I have carefully considered this and the welfare impacts of such a scheme on both target and non-target species, alongside the need to provide for effective predator control. Can I finish my point? I may cover what you want to raise. In my view, humane cable restraints might be an incremental improvement on the traditional style of snare. They do not lead to a significant reduction in the adverse welfare outcomes experienced by animals caught by 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 like cats. Continuing to permit their use under licence for the purpose of catching foxes, a set-out in the proposal put to me by land managers would not suitably address those issues, which is why I have made the decision to introduce a ban on their use of all snares, including humane cable restraints. I want to talk about Colin Smyth's amendments, but I am happy if Ms Hamilton wants to interject. It was on a previous point, Minister. Thank you for taking the intervention. Obviously, you were talking about the ban on snares in Wales, but currently there is a challenge to the Welsh ministers on the ban of snares. I wondered if you thought that the same might happen in Scotland. Secondly, on the humane cable restraints that you mentioned there in terms of that ban, what impact has there been, impact assessment on biodiversity? Ms Hamilton mentioned a challenge. There is always the risk of a challenge in any legislation that is put through. People are free to challenge any aspect of legislation when it goes through. I will not comment on the situation in Wales from that respect, because that is for the Welsh Government to answer to their rationale for the decisions that they have taken. We have done a great deal of work on that. There has been a great deal of work not just in this session of Parliament, but over the last decade. It has come to the point where the weight of evidence around the impact that this is having on the welfare of wild animals has become something that we just cannot ignore. Hence, that is why I have decided to take forward a full ban on snares. I can point to evidence not just from the work that we have done for this bill, but throughout the year. We set up the Animal Welfare Commission in Scotland to do this kind of work on behalf of the Scottish public. They have very strongly recommended, and they were talking about animal welfare experts at the top of their profession across Scotland who have made this recommendation, which I personally cannot ignore. Can I continue on to my amendments in Colin Smyth's name? I think I have answered. Rachel, you will have the opportunity when I call for general views on the members. Turning to Colin Smyth's amendments, I understand why he has lodged those amendments, but I do not believe that they are necessary. The definition of a snare is simply, quote, a device for capturing small wild animals or birds, usually consisting of a string with a running noose. Cable restraints therefore already fall within the meaning of snare used in the bill. Should my amendment be passed, that will also set out in the explanatory notes that accompany the bill. Given that, I would ask Colin Smyth not to press 54A, C, F, H and I. Am amendments 54B, 54E and 54G, I am interested to hear why Colin Smyth has brought those amendments forward. I would like to give my reasons for why the legislation has been drafted in the way it has been. My amendment has been drafted to update the main snareing provisions in section 11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which relates to wild animals. That exception does not mean that anyone can use a snare on a wild bird. The Wildlife and Countryside Act already covers snareing and wild birds in section 5, which provides the offences of setting in position a snare likely to cause bodily injury to any wild bird, or using a snare for the purpose of killing or taking any wild bird, knowingly causing or permitting those offences. Those offences carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both. My amendment has therefore been drafted to avoid it conflicting with the existing provisions in section 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act that relate to wild birds. My concern about Colin Smyth's amendments to remove the references to wild birds in my amendment will result in a potential conflict with that act, and I am sure that that is not his intention. My amendment is 54d and 54j, turning now to that exception for snares that are operated by hand. It is important when bringing forward legislation that are no unintended consequences. There are a number of handheld devices, such as dog poles, graspers, which utilise a loop at the end. Those devices, while not snares in the traditional sense, would potentially fall within the wider meaning of snareing used in the bill. I am sure that the committee is familiar with the devices that are used by dog wardens, animal rescue charities such as the Scottish SPCA, wildlife rescue charities that we have throughout Scotland, to temporarily catch and restrain stray dogs and on occasion wild animals. While I am sure that none of us here today would immediately think of those types of devices in the traditional context of snareing, after very careful consideration, I came to the conclusion that in order to avoid the risk of inadvertently restricting the use of those very necessary devices, it was necessary to carve out an exception for them on the face of the bill. The bill is clear, however, that anyone who uses any type of snare, including a handheld snare, for the purpose of killing an animal, such as a fox, or uses it in a way that is likely to give rise to injury of such an animal, is guilty of an offence. A ban on the use of those devices, it seems to me, would severely hinder the ability of dog wardens and animal rescue charities to undertake their very important work. I would therefore ask Colin Smyth not to press amendments 54A to 54J, and I would be happy to meet them ahead of stage 3 to discuss the rationale for my approach further. I move amendment 54. Colin Smyth to move amendment 54A and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Can I first say that I very much welcome amendment 54, which the minister has clearly outlined? I think that there has been a long wait for this ban on snareing. In fact, it was one of the first member's debates that I held seven years ago, and I'm pleased that the Government has moved on this issue, and we're now following moves by the Welsh Government to introduce a ban in Scotland. However, the aim of my amendments is largely to probe some issues in relation to the wording of the Government's amendment. The minister has covered those so far, but I have a few more questions and points that I would like to raise. Last year, we saw, as the minister said, an attempt to rebrand some modified snares as humane cable restraints. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and Animal Welfare organisations have made it clear that there is no design alteration that can be made that makes snares humane, whatever names some people may wish to call them. It's important that all snares are included in the ban, and some snares have recently been called cable restraints by some of their users, so amendments 54, A, C, F, H make it clear that those so-called cable restraints would be banned. There was a similar situation in Wales prior to the snareing ban there, and the Welsh Government did include the words or other cable restraint in their ban for the avoidance of any doubt. I appreciate what the minister says that our definition of snares includes them, but I hope that we will keep discussing the issue as to whether there is wording within the explanatory notes, as the minister said, or later in the bill, just to absolutely ensure that that cautioning approach, followed by the Welsh Government, is adopted here in Scotland. I'm grateful that the minister placed her on record that interpretation at the moment from the Government. The ban on the use of snares, as I said, is long overdue, and it is important that we get it right, so any exclusion does have the potential to weaken that ban. Snares are not currently used, as the minister said, for wild birds in Scotland, and there is a prohibition on their use for birds at section 5 of the wildlife and countryside side. That raised the question of why it was felt necessary to place this specific exclusion of wild birds from the scope of amendment 54. My concern was, effectively, that that contradicted what was contained within section 5 of the wildlife and countryside side. I think that the minister has clarified that point in her comments earlier, so that's why amendments 54, B and G were brought forward to try to gain that understanding of the minister's thinking on that. As with my other amendments, in terms of 54 D and G, that would amend the Government's amendments 54 D and G, I'm trying to ensure that the snare and ban is as watertight as possible. Currently, the ban doesn't include a snare that is operated by hand. As far as I know, such a thing doesn't exist and I certainly don't want us to set off any attempt to invent one. The minister seems to be suggesting that she's trying to avoid inadvertently including something more benign, such as a grasper, I suppose, used by animal welfare officers to rescue, for example, a swan. I mean, I do question whether it's really necessary in legislation, as it does seem, in my view, implausible to mistake a grasper for a snare, and this exception is certainly not included in the Welsh legislation. I would welcome further discussions with the minister just to make sure that we are not, I suppose, taking forward something that does appear to be unnecessary in my view, but clearly the minister has a different view, and I would welcome those further discussions on that point. A number of members have indicated that they wish to contribute. Rachel Hamilton, Edward Mountain and then Ariane Burgess. Thank you, convener. I'm minded not to support amendment 54 in the name of the minister on the basis that we had a very credible proposal brought to the committee at stage 1 on humane cable restraint use. I think it's important to recognise that those devices, I know the minister knows that the devices are vital for those who are living and working in rural Scotland to protect species, not only livestock but also species that are under threat. I don't accept that the minister, despite recognising myself that significant animal welfare charities have done good work and carried out the impact on traditional use of snares, however, within the scope of the proposal around humane cable restraint, which is an international standard restraint, I don't believe that there has been the work that needs to be done to protect species. The committee has the full knowledge that we will be able to ensure that an impact assessment has been done and to understand the impact on the species that are under threat, such as the curlews and the lapwings. With regard to the legal challenge, we need to recognise, as a responsible committee, that this, if it does happen, would come at great expense to the taxpayer. I am slightly surprised that the minister, although it is a legal challenge and cannot get into the nuts and bolts of this, hasn't recognised that possibly. There is a legal challenge based on the ECHR-compliant essentiality of parts of banning snares. I listened to the evidence of the committee and I think Karen Adams' comments during the evidence stage were absent in a lot of ways, but let me be clear, to me cable restraints and staring is highly regulated in the legislation and it requires a great deal of formal training. That formal training has taken us away from where we were many years ago when I was younger and there were no restrictions on where you could place snares. In those days you could place them in places where animals could get hung up and where they could eventually end up inadvertently, in most cases, strangling themselves to death. That is not where we are now. What we have is a system where the snare is set in locations where that cannot happen and it holds the animal in place because the stop is on snares. It means that it cannot be strangled and if they are caught in the wrong place that stop will also work. It also gives you the ability to be discriminate about the animals that you kill because you can actually, once you've caught them and then before you dispatch them, you can release those non-target animals by cutting the snare in such a way that it allows the animal to move free. The fact that they all said that they require checking on a regular basis and it requires every snare to be identified and snare subject to inspection means that it is highly regulated. I understand why there are people who take issue with this but it is my opinion and my experience that properly set and managed snares hold an animal to allow its humane dispatch or release if it is not a target animal. There is no reason why non-target animals should result in being killed. I believe that most people who use snares, nearly all people I would say that use snares, take a huge responsibility in doing so and they want to make sure that the animals that they catch are actually not subject to suffering. I would make the comment to the minister that there are other ways of doing this, as you rightly say, with lamps. Those of us that have been out at night with lamps know that foxes become lamp shy and you only have to turn the lamp on and you can clear a massive area. Thermal sites do work but they are not always appropriate because you can't always see the backdrop and therefore shooting is not always the way to solve everything. Let's be honest, sometimes when you fire a gun you don't always kill what you want to kill and what we know about a snare is that you hold it and then you can dispatch it and it's done very quickly. I would also make the comment that the minister made, convener, about you could do all these things at night. I'm sure that Jim Fairlie will know that if you're protecting a lambing field and looking after lambs all through the day and through the night, you don't have time to spend all night chasing around after foxes that are trying to work their way in. So a snare there or a cable restraint gives you that ability. If I'm allowed to, convener, I will. I was just going to ask that given the fact that you cited me. I have never set a snare in my life during the lambing time. I leave that to people who are trained to do it. So to make that comparison, that's the sheep farmer who's going to set the snare at night. I think it's a bit disingenuous. Okay, I accept you've never set a snare in your life. I, as a farmer, have set snares in my life. I don't currently do it because I haven't done the course and because I'm in this place. So I mean a lot of farmers do do it, I think, is the point that I would make. And finally, I would just say on this, is please don't underestimate those people that take a responsibility for managing wildlife in the countryside. They are not barbarians. They are not people who want to cause suffering. They are people that want to get on with their job to do it most efficiently as possible and manage the environment. And I think taking this tool out of their box actually is the wrong move to make. Thank you, convener. Thank you. Thank you. The ban on snares illustrates the importance of this legislation. It will deliver real improvements in animal welfare. I'm convinced by the overwhelming evidence we heard from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and others during stage one, as well as over many years of campaigning by Scottish Greens and others that the harm caused by snares cannot be mitigated. An animal caught in a snare is injured and highly stressed, exposed to the elements and other predators denied food and water. Of course, snares are completely indiscriminant, as capable of trapping a protected species as they are a pet cat. A ban on snares is a mark of the high regard that this country has for its iconic wildlife, and I'm pleased to support amendment 54. Turning briefly to Colin Smy's amendments, while I have sympathy with the member's intentions, I'm concerned that those amendments 54A to J could, in practice, make it more difficult to implement the ban overcomplicating the definition of snare. I hope that the discussions can continue ahead of stage 3. Thank you. Any other members? Minister, to wind up on amendment 54. I just want to say a few words on human cable restraints. I looked at it very carefully. I had meetings with people who were proponents of the use of them. I had to say that I was not convinced that they were markedly different from traditional snares. For this reason, the time that an animal is left captured and restrained is traumatic for them mentally, exhausts them physically, stops them, they don't have any shelter, could be left for quite a number of hours until they are checked. They cannot drink, they cannot eat. If they have young, they will not be able to attend to their young because they are trapped. Up to 70 per cent of non-target species are trapped in them. The dispatch, as Mr Mount says, might be done quickly, but the lead-up to that dispatch can be many hours long. That is my main issue with us. So-called human restraints or traditional snares, there might not be the physical damage to the neck of the animal by a human cable restraint, but there is most certainly a great deal of animal welfare concerns associated with them. I have listened carefully to the debate. To Colin Smyth, in particular, sitting out his reasoning in particular, I want to assure the committee that I have played close attention to the evidence, what the consultations have told us, to what stakeholders have shared in terms of their experience and views, and to what Welsh Parliament did, as well as international experience. I believe that it has been a long time coming and there was a very high weight of evidence that snaring has to be banned. No, I am summing up. We are banning the use and snares of Scotland except in a very small number of ways that can be designed as aiding public safety, animal control and wider conservation and biodiversity objectives. I do not consider Colin Smyth's amendments necessary, but I have listened carefully to what he said. I just cannot support them. I do not think that they are necessary. I want to mention that the exemptions that I have in there could be talking about the ringing of birds for conservation reasons and for data collection reasons, such as the BTO might do, for example. Of course, I have mentioned animal welfare charities and animal rescue charities. I want a belt embraces approach that might not have been identified in the Welsh legislation, but it is important to have that in the face of the bill in case it has any unintended consequences. It really is a belt embraces approach. I would encourage members to support my amendment 54 and outlaw, once and for all, a practice that has no place in 21st century Scotland. I have listened carefully to what the minister said. There is clearly no difference in policy between myself and the minister. The question was still, I suppose, why she felt that it was not necessary to include other cable restraints in the legislation in the same way that the Welsh Government did. I take on board her clear view that the definition of stare in this bill covers other cable restraints on that basis. I will not press those amendments. I will make it easier for myself not to press all of them, if that is helpful, instead of going through them one at a time. I was not aware that I had an opportunity to wind up when I was not the first speaker, but I will certainly take that opportunity. I made reference to the fact that, in relation to the exclusions on a wild bird, it was primarily about researchers using traps. I am still not clear why there is not the clarity on snares for killing in that basis, because none of those researchers are killing those birds. I would certainly welcome further discussions with the minister. I will not press the amendments at this point, but I think that it is ensuring that, whether it is explanatory notes or further statements, we absolutely make it clear that that is certainly the case. I will not press those amendments, convener, at this point. That might avoid you going through them all individually. It may be a procedure reason why you have to do that, but at this point I am not going to press them. I just confirm that you do not intend to press 54A. The members indicated that they wished to withdraw the amendment. Does any member have an objection? No. Amendment 54F, in the name of Colin Smyth, is already debated with amendment 54. Colin Smyth to move or not moved? Not moved. Amendment 54G, in the name of Colin Smyth, is already debated with amendment 54. Colin Smyth to move or not moved? Not moved. Amendment 54H, in the name of Colin Smyth, is already debated with amendment 54. Colin Smyth to move or not moved? Not moved. Amendment 54I, in the name of Colin Smyth, is already debated with amendment 54. Colin Smyth to move or not move? Not moved. Amendment 54G, in the name of Colin Smyth, is already debated with amendment 54. Colin Smyth to move or not move? Not moved. Minister to press or withdraw amendment 54, the question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting amendment please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 7-4-2 against the amendment has therefore been agreed. I call amendment 53 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, grouped with amendment 75. Rachel Hamilton to move amendment 53 and speak to both amendments in the group. First, before I speak to my first amendments, can I thank the minister for setting some time aside to be able to speak through the amendments? I appreciate that. My amendments, convener, introduce and outline a clear set of principles of which licensing schemes can be based. A framework based on principles will help to provide clarity to all land managers, gamekeepers and other relevant bodies that are involved in this licensing scheme. I hope that we can agree that a licensing scheme should be only introduced where there is a legitimate need for one and another, so that those amendments ensure that we do not burden land managers and gamekeepers with unnecessary restrictions. The principles are to ensure that excessive pressure is not placed on natureScot licensing schemes, which are already, as we know, stretched with other legislation that they are delivering. Another important benefit that is gained through those principles, I believe, is that they ensure that there is no disproportionate cost for licence applications. To conclude, on this particular amendment, the benefit of introducing principles into the bill is that it will ensure that the licensing process is reviewed to ensure that the application process is as efficient as it can be. We all like efficiency, convener. Obtaining a hunting with dogs licence is a perfect example of the issues and challenges that have arisen when an application process is neither practical nor workable, which, to be frank, the ministers promised when that legislation was set in place. I don't think that anyone would disagree with Rachel. We don't want to see measures that are unnecessary, but I'm just keen to know how you feel you can adequately define concepts like excessive pressure and efficient in a way that works in this amendment. I think that it's very difficult to measure that, and the licence scheme within the hunting with dogs process has, as we know in this committee, various members have received emails and information around how burdensome that has been, but also how long it has taken in terms of the process and what information has to be provided to NatureScot and how many of those licences regardless of the individual's meeting the criteria has been turned down. The basis was around other bits of—the principles were based on other parts of legislation in terms of licensing framework that have already been gone through this Parliament, which I can list in terms of the framework for licencing based on principles such as section 4 of the Licencing Scotland Act 2005 and the Gambling Act 2005. Currently, the principles and high-level objectives are already there, and I hope that that would reassure Alasdor Allyn for that question. I'll speak to Rachael Hamilton's amendment 53 and 75, which seek to apply licensing principles to the wildlife, trap, grouse and mureburn licence in the bill. Setting out those principles in legislation is simply not necessary, because the licence authority will always be a public body, either the Scottish Government or have delegated to them as anticipated NatureScot. As public bodies, the Scottish Government and NatureScot must act reasonably and fairly in everything that they do, not just for the purposes of the three licensing schemes on the bill but in the general principles. Ensuring that there is a legitimate need for the scheme, all licences in the bill have been introduced to address a legitimate need, as is required for compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights, and the legitimate need of those licences to help with the prevention of cruelty to animals, the prevention of wildlife crime and the protection of the natural environment. The legitimate need for the licensing scheme already exists and, in fact, is the reason for the bill. I am convinced that the bill strikes a fair balance between those whose possessions are particularly affected and the wider public interest. A couple of things that I want to just say in relation to what Ms Harbeth says about the constant review of the application process, on the need for constantly reviewing the efficiency of the application process. Again, legislation for this is not necessary. The application process is already kept under review, with a view to improving the process for those involved. The licences in the bill will be dealt with using the existing licensing team and process. However, NatureScot is currently exploring whether there might be a need to expand the size of the team to meet any potential increased demand. That is an operational matter for them. They are also exploring the development of a new online licensing system for all the wildlife management licences that they currently issue, and NatureScot would be expected to review any such changes that might be required to change in the future. There must be a constant balance review of the application process. It would likely result in more frequent minor changes, which means that applicants might have to deal with a different form of process every time they apply. That would be onerous for applicants, and I am sure that that is not what Ms Hamilton intends. I would not support those amendments for the reasons that I have stated. I just do not think that they are necessary. Can I ask Rachael Hamilton to move amendment 53 and to wind up and press or withdraw the amendment? Can I make concluding remarks? Yes, absolutely. I am going to move amendment 53. Very interesting answer from the minister there regarding the existing licensing schemes that NatureScot are operating. I absolutely have no doubt that they operate in good faith, they are reasonable and they are fair. Obviously, that is legislation that has been brought forward in terms of hunting with dogs licences, and now the wildlife management and mirror burn bill that NatureScot are going to have further drain on their resource. I think that the minister will completely understand and recognise why I have brought forward amendment 53. I believe that her answer has actually answered why I did that, because she specifically said that there is consideration around an online licensing scheme and streamlining the licensing scheme, making more efficiencies and making it easier for people to apply for those licences, because it has not been easy and it has not been straightforward. We were promised that land managers would be given a workable and practical system, so I think that I am going to move amendment 53, minister, if you do not mind, but I also want to point out that, as I said to Alastair Allen earlier, it is precedent, it is not restrictive and it would not slow down an application, because there are additional examples to the ones that I gave to Alastair Allen, which include the provision in relation to the principles of the Good Food Act section 11, the Social Security Scotland Act 2018, section 1, the Victims and Witnesses Act 2014, section 1, and the Patient Commissioner for Scotland, section 3. I think that there is precedent, and so to say that this has not been done before, I am not reinventing the wheel, I am disappointed that the minister is not even willing to work with me. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will therefore be a division, those members supporting the amendment please raise your hand now, those members not supporting the amendment please raise your hand now, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 4, 2 against 7, no abstentions, the amendment has not been agreed. Amendment 177, in the name of Edward Mountain, grouped with amendments 178, 109, 55, 110, 57 and 58. Edward Mountain to move, amendment 177 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you very much convener and for clarity I will move amendment 177 now. Amendment 177 is to rectify what I perceive is an error, but I'm grateful if the minister wants to contradict me, I'm not sure that there are any legal traps for killing wild birds available in Scotland. I don't think there's a trap that allows you to do that, it is against the law to kill a bird in a trap and rightly so. So amendment 177 seeks to remove the word killing from traps for wild birds but wants to ensure that it's for killing, for restraining and killing for mammals. Talking to amendment 109 now Colin Smith is trying to include a section here that includes the trapping of all live mammals should be included within the licensing scheme. I'm not sure my wife who contrary to my better judgment believes in trapping mice alive and releasing them outside the house after they've been caught would welcome going on a licensing scheme or to apply for a tag or an identification to go on her trap. So I'm not sure that Colin Smith has thought this amendment through because it will affect more than just people who are using traps in the countryside and it also would mean that those people that are catching mice catching squirrels and rabbits and live rat traps which is not something I fully understand the principle behind would have to go on a cause and fit a tag to the trap. So I'm not entirely convinced that this is a sensible amendment but I look forward to hearing his arguments and for me then to be able to go home and convince my wife. As far as amendment 55 is concerned I think this is a highly important amendment and entirely appropriate and I'm glad that the minister has bought this. Amendments 57 and 58 from Rachel Hamilton appear to be again proportionate and sensible and I look forward to hearing the argument and again amendment 78 is something that appeals to me in that the government needs to be open, honest and transparent about how they come up with their decisions and I'm sure it will chime with the general public and therefore will gain the support of the committee convener. Thank you. Thank you. Colin Smith to speak to amendment 109 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much convener that the regulation of some traps of this bill will bring is a big improvement and something I very much welcome however it does as we know only include live capture bird traps and traps on the spring traps approval order. There are a variety of other traps commonly used in Scotland, some of those are completely unregulated, those used for moles and rats and mice and they can cause a great deal of suffering. I believe the government's approach is therefore inconsistent from an animal welfare point of view not to consider those traps. Amendment 109 in my name would add mammal cage traps used to take and then kill mammals to the list of traps that users must have a licence for. Animal welfare organisation has understandably been calling for a review of all traps, looking at both the reasons for their use and the welfare impact and I would support that review and be keen to hear from the minister on whether the issue of live traps will be kept under review. The policy memorandum for the bill says that the traps are referred to are not included because, and I quote, the activity does not pose a risk to raptors and in the majority such activities have no link to grouse moor management. Although those traps that I refer to do not pose a risk to raptors, they will have an impact on any animal trapped in them and bringing them under the trap licence scheme would ensure that best practice is followed to minimise that impact. Something isn't just cruel because it is linked to grouse moors. The Government recognises that with the comprehensive ban on snaring in the bill which isn't just linked to those moors. I've worded in my amendment in such a way that it specifies that these traps are for taking animals that is intended will be killed so researchers and welfare groups would not be affected and the good news for Edward Mountain is neither would his wife's action. Specifying for the purpose of destruction aims to exclude any trapping for welfare reasons that subsequently leads to humane destruction also. I hope that the minister will agree that that overcomes any objections on the basis of unintended consequences. Amendment 110 alters the wording of the requirement that trap users must try to avoid untargeted species being caught in traps. The wording currently reads that the person took all reasonable steps to prevent the killing taken or injury of any other animal other than an invertebrate not intended to be taken by the trap. My amendment would replace reasonable with practicable which sets a higher standard. One legal dictionary says that practicable means available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics. It's a common phrase in legislation. It has been suggested that this would mean someone having to stand by a trap 24 hours per day which frankly is simply not true. That does not meet the interpretation of practicable in law but it would mean that steps should be taken if it is possible to take them. Reasonable is a lesser test and could easily end up with an individual's view of what is reasonable and dominating. Given the high numbers of untargeted species that we know have been caught and suffered in traps up until now, I believe that we should be aiming to set a higher bar. I would be particularly interested to know why, given how common the phrase reasonably practicable is in the Scottish law, why the Government has chosen not to use that particular phrase and only used reasonable. Minister, to speak to amendment 55 and other amendments in this group. If I can speak first of all to my amendment 55, the issue of trap tampering was discussed at length during the stage 1 committee sessions and I listened to the evidence particularly from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and indeed I met the SGA and had a very constructive conversation with them and I listened to other stakeholders involved in land management about the extent to which trap tampering actually happens and the impact that that has on land managers and their ability to do their job but also their ability to carry out their local activities but also the consequences that might have for animal safety and welfare if a trap is tampered with. I understand their concerns if there's a vexatious complaint that they fear losing their licence or being prosecuted as well but this is not what the trap licence seeks to do. I don't want responsible users losing their licence unfairly or due to the unwarranted or irresponsible interference of others. During the evidence sessions, Mike Flynn of the Scottish SPCA also agreed with specific offence of interfering with a lawfully set trap and he stated that if it's lawfully set in any suffering it should be minimised but that is out with the setters control if that trap is tampered with. My amendment 55 makes it an offence to tamper with a trap to which the wildlife trap licence scheme applies so that it can no longer comply with the licence requirements or to disarm or destroy such a trap unless the person has a reasonable excuse to do so. It also adds the offence of knowingly causing or permitting another person to do so and I would encourage all members to vote for that. If I can then speak to the other amendments at 57 and 58, convener, can I just check? Yes, that's true. I think it's fair to say that amendments 57 and 58 aim to achieve the same purpose as the offence provided for in amendment 55. I therefore would ask Ms Hamilton not to press her amendments and if she does encourage the committee members to vote against them as 55 does exactly the same thing. If I can then move on to amendments 177 and 178, which seek to change the wildlife trap licence scheme to apply to traps used for the purpose of taking a wild bird or killing or taking a wild animal, and I do appreciate that Edward Mountain has brought these amendments forward to reflect the fact that currently there are no traps that can be legally used to kill wild birds, leaving section 12A, part 1, as it would, as things stand, would have no immediate effect, as there are no traps that can be used for the purpose of killing wild birds. The wellity review recommended that traps used to take wild birds were subject to greater regulation due to the strong links between the misuse of that activity and raptor persecution, and have also been very clear that the bill should be future-proofed so that 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 were ever allowed to be used to kill wild birds, they too should be subject to the licence scheme, so again it is future-proofing. 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. That would have the result that there would be a higher level of oversight for using traps to take wild birds when compared to using traps to kill them, and I think that that would be problematic, and so for those reasons I cannot support amendments 177 and 178 and encourage committee members to vote against them. Turning to Colin Smyth's amendments, amendment 109 adds traps used for the live capture of wild animals to the trap licence scheme if the animals are trapped with the intention of them later being killed. I understand why Colin Smyth has brought amendment 117 forward, and it seems a reasonable thing to include in the bill a set out in the policy memorandum. It was something that was considered when the bill was being developed and drafted. However, I came to the conclusion that there wasn't enough evidence to justify adding these types of traps to the licence scheme at this time, and the Wyrity Review did not recommend licensing of these traps. The intention of a wildlife trap licence scheme is to reduce the use of traps that illegally capture raptors. There's no evidence that people using traps for the capture of live animals have used them with that intent, nor do I think that those traps would be capable of capturing a raptor. I've had discussions with Nature Scotland stakeholders involved in wildlife management, and it's become clear to me that those traps are used by a number of different groups for a wide range of purposes, often unconnected with grousemure management, including conservation and research purposes. So I'm concerned that adding those traps to the licence scheme at this stage would potentially give rise to unintended consequences. However, I appreciate that circumstances can change and new evidence can come to light. I want to assure Colin Smith that that's why the bill contains powers to allow other types of traps such as those to be added to the licence scheme through regulations following consultation. It's also worth noting that the bill does not change the fact that anyone using one of those traps to take a protected animal will still require a species licence from Nature Scotland, and they would have to comply with the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006. I hope that what I've said satisfies Colin Smith that sufficient safeguards exist currently. We have powers in the bill to address any issue in the future that his amendment is there for unnecessary and could in fact have unintended consequences, so I'd ask him not to press amendment 109. However, if he does press that amendment, I encourage the committee members to vote against it. Amendment 110, convener? The bill offers a safeguard where there's a defence to the offence of catching an unintended animal if the trap user has taken all reasonable steps to prevent catching any unintended animals. That amendment changes the wording in that the defence from taking all reasonable steps to taking all practical steps, the defence was included to account for a situation where a person has complied with the requirements of the trap licence but they catch an animal unintentionally and this could not be foreseen. Perhaps they've loftily set a trap to catch a weasel, but they unintentionally catch a badger. In the majority of cases, what is reasonable will also be what is practicable. It would not be reasonable to ask someone to do something impracticable. I appreciate that it does sound a little bit convoluted but there is a substantive amount of case law on the reasonable test and that's why I've used the wording that I have. The word reasonable was also used in the bill to maintain consistency with the other provisions in the World Life and Countryside Act 1981. I think that it's important to do what we can to avoid unnecessary confusion. For that reason, I would ask Colin Smyth not to press this amendment and if he does, I encourage the committee members to vote against it. Rachael Hamilton to speak to amendment 57 and other amendments in the group. Thank you convener. I'm with very heartened that the minister had lodged amendment 55. It clearly means that we've both been listening carefully to some of the evidence around that and I 100% support her amendment which serves the same purpose as my amendment to make trap vandalism offence. I listened carefully to the minister when she spoke about Mike Flynn from the Scottish SPA who also supports a specific offence where the animal welfare implications of trap vandalism are in play and SLE also supports a specific offence whereby the penalties for trap vandalism should equal those for mis-setting a trap and I too met with the Scottish Gamekeepers Association who strongly support this amendment. On the basis that the minister has made the point that my amendment is very similar, I do accept that. I reluctantly will withdraw it convener but we haven't got to that point have we? Thank you. Any other members? I'd just like to comment and say that I'm fully supportive of amendment 55 which introduces a level playing field and rightly so. I'd like to comment on Colin Smith's amendment 109 which would see all live capture traps for mammals within the scope of the licensing scheme. I do have concerns that those traps are often integral to the control of invasive non-native species and a particular operation of squirrel traps and milk mink traps. The work that Gamekeepers carry out to manage the impact of those species in native wildlife may be significantly impacted as an unintended consequence of bringing those traps into scope. Any other comments? Just to support your remarks on Colin Smith's amendment 109, this does appear to be more of a probing amendment than a realistic attempt to amend the bill because live capture traps for mammals are not generally used in moreland management contexts and the consequences that have been described by the minister and by Edward Mountain and by others make it somewhat unworkable. I also think that the amendment is out of scope and inconsistent with the purpose of the bill and on 1 1 0 this amendment would render trap licensing scheme fundamentally unworkable in practice. Again the minister has covered this well but it bears repetition that trap licences are personal to individual operators whose circumstances will vary vastly. Some will be lone operators on small land holdings and others will be on large land holdings supporting large businesses. Likewise the nature, extent, need and purpose of trapping varies vastly depending on the land management activity being carried out, the scale of the land, its topography and so on and the effect of replacing practicable with reasonable would be to provide that trap licence holders must take all steps that are theoretically possible in order to prevent by-catch for example standing beside the trap for 24 hours a day. I know that Colin Smith dismissed that but that would certainly come within the scope of the definition as opposed to the steps that are reasonable having regard to the land, the resources and risk and so on. It is therefore essential that the reasonable steps test is retained as it allows NatureScot to assess our conduct in context and takes a flexible risk-based approach to regulation which is envisaged by the principles of better regulation. Thank you. Thank you. Edward Mountain to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 177. Thank you, convener, and I found the debate interesting. I'm slightly concerned that the minister has suggested that amendment 177 shouldn't be passed on the basis that it talks about something that's already illegal and that she's talking about the need for it not to be there or the need for what's in the bill to remain there is because it's future proofing. That would suggest that you are considering at some stage the ability to allow traps to kill birds. Now if that's the intention I'm desperately against it and therefore minister I'm sure that upon reflection you will think that 177 is a sensible amendment in the fact that it doesn't even mention the killing of birds with a trap therefore if there's no future proofing required. From the intention of including traps for birds it's not my intention it's about future proofing the bill should any modifications come about future traps that might exist so but I noticed that Edward Mountain did it with a little bit of a smile on his face when he suggested that it's not my intention at all. With fairness anyone who develops a trap for deployment in Scotland which has the ability or the aim of killing birds is actually breaking the law anyway so there's no point. Exactly my point. Convenor I'm sure you'd like me to go through the chair so that is entirely my point that it is not required in the bill therefore we should remove it. I'm somewhat less convinced by Colin Smith's amendment whilst my wife may be delighted that she continued to release mice rats and moles. If I get my hands on the trap I will not be releasing them so therefore the intention would be that they would be killed and therefore I would have to apply for a licence as would everyone else should they wish to use a live trap to hold the animal till it can be effectively dispatched if that is what they so wish. So I don't think amendment 109 in the name of Colin Smith or amendment 110 is helpful. I do reiterate that I think amendment 55 in the name of the minister is a useful addition to the act and I'm pleased that she's taken the time and trouble to listen to practitioners who face this on a daily basis and be under no illusion. It does happen on a daily basis and the cost can be phenomenal if somebody goes down a trap line and smashes each of the traps, legal traps, which can cost £40 plus each and if it's in relation to lasen traps which are built it can cost considerably more. So I'm very pleased that the minister's done that and I hear Rachel Hamilton's argument that the minister's amendment may cover what she's entitled to do. So just to confirm, convener, I would push amendment 177 because I don't think that part of the bill is required. Thank you. The question is that amendment 177 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is four to again seven. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 178 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 177, Edward Mountain to move or not move. The question is that amendment 178 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is four to again seven. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 109 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 177. Colin Smith, to move or not move. Thank you, convener. I note the minister's comments on why wider traps are not included. I would just reiterate the point that, like Snair and the Crow to associate with some traps, it doesn't just take place on gross mures and in relation to raptors, but I do note the comments on the insertion of 12A8 to the bill that does give ministers powers to amend the list of traps. I hope that the issue of other traps remains under review and I would be keen to discuss that with the minister ahead of stage 3, so at this point I won't move the amendment. Thank you. I call amendment 55 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 177. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 110 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 177. Colin Smith, to move or not move. I will certainly move the convener. I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for reading out almost word for word the briefing note from BSC. The reality is that standing next to a trap is absolutely not a reasonable interpretation of the word practical at all. Practical means, and I used a legal dictionary definition, available and capable of being done after taken into consideration, cost, existing technology and logistics. It would not be logistically possible to stand next to a trap 24-7. It is something that would not be expected, but it would mean that steps should be taken if it is possible to take them. As I have said previously, reasonable is a far lesser test, so I certainly will move the amendment. The question is that amendment 110 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. In the result of the vote is 4-1 against 8, the amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 78 in the name of Finlay Carson, group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Finlay Carson, to move amendment 78 and speak to all amendments in the group. The effect of the amendment is to require the Scottish ministers to publish the results of the consultation and give reasons for any decision reached. That covers my amendment 78, 80, 84, 93, 100, 103 and 105. The reason behind the amendment is the obligation on the Scottish ministers to consult with Scottish national heritage and other persons likely to be interested or affected is welcome. However, the subsection lacks any obligation on the Scottish ministers to report the outcome of the consultation with reasons for the decisions. The Scottish Government should make public the outcome of the consultation and the interests of transparency. I move the amendment in my name. Edward Mountain to speak to amendments 19 and other amendments in the group. I think I inadvertently convener for which I apologize, praised your amendments in the previous section when I was debating them, but my comments remain at stand that I think it's really important. This all discussions relating to consultation are made available and that if necessary, minutes of those meetings are made available so that people can see how those decisions have gone about. My amendments 19 and 41 are simple. It says that, before revising a code of practice, ministers must consult with Scottish natural heritage. I have to say, minister, I get confused whether they are Scottish natural heritage one day or NatureScot the next day, so you may wish to reflect on continuity with the previous bill where you referred to them as NatureScot. I'm sure your officials will do that. Any other person, they consider appropriate. My point on that is simply that I want to add in the word land managers. By that, I wanted to make it sufficiently widespread to include anyone who works and manages land. It could be people such as, for example, the RSPB who are land managers. It could be private owners. It could be charities and trusts. It could, indeed, be those people who are on the front line making it work, which would give you a better idea of whether the principle will work. I'm sure the minister will fire back on me on NatureScot and Scottish natural heritage. I look forward to that and thank you, convener, for allowing to speak to those amendments. Thank you. Any other members? Before I talk to your own amendments, I want to clarify that Scottish natural heritage is the term used in legislation. NatureScot is, effectively, a public-facing brand name. They are the same organisation. I understand that that can become a little confusing, but I refer to them as NatureScot. Finlay Carson's amendment 78, 80, 1993, 41, 103 and 105. I believe that, with the greatest respect, those are unnecessary. The bill contains a set of enabling powers to allow Scottish ministers to modify by statutory instrument, SSI, provisions relating to wildlife traps, section 1688, licences and mureburn. Such modifications are subject to the conditions set out in the bill, including the requirement to consult any changes made under those provisions that are already subject to the affirmative procedure. The policy note for any SSI laid in the Scottish Parliament contains a consultation section that outlines what kind of consultation has been conducted. The policy note also contains the reasons for bringing forward the SSI, and that will normally include the views of stakeholders. Therefore, I do not see any need to set out a requirement to publish any consultations undertaken in relation to the use of those enabling powers on the face of the bill, so I would therefore encourage the committee members to vote against those amendments. To amendments 84 and 100, I will likewise not be supporting them, they add the requirement to publish the results of consultation undertaken, whilst preparing, reviewing or revising the mureburn code or the code for section 16AA licences and give reasons for the decisions taken. It is standard practice for Scottish ministers to consult with interested parties in such matters, and we regularly share and publish consultation responses. Indeed, I set out in my letter to the committee last week when I provided an update on the development of mureburn and grouse mirror management codes interested parties have been consulted continually and been included in the process of developing the codes. I therefore see no reason to set such matters out in primary legislation and encourage the committee members to vote against those amendments also. To Edward Mountain's amendments 19 and 41, in relation to amendment 19, the provisions in the bill set out that when preparing, reviewing or revising the code of practice for grouse licences that Scottish ministers must consult any person they consider appropriate to do so. It is fair to say that land managers would fall into that category, so in my view, we do not specifically need to provide for this in the bill. Similarly to amendment 41, it is clear to me that land managers would likely be interested or affected by mureburn, so Scottish ministers would already be required to consult land managers when considering amending the dates for the mureburn season. However, I have listened to what Mr Mountain has said. Maybe I am about to give you some comfort in my next paragraph. Having listened to what Mr Mountain has said, I understand why he has brought forward these amendments and why he thinks that it would be helpful to have the requirement to consult with land managers set out more explicitly in the bill. I am therefore happy to support these amendments in principle. However, I would like to ensure that both amendments are framed in a way that is consistent with the existing language in the bill, and I would request that Mr Mountain does not press the amendments 1941 today but allows us to work on redrafted versions of that to be brought back to stage 3 and work together on them. A point of clarification. You talked about consultation that regularly takes place and that Scottish Government would normally publish the results of that consultation. Is that a commitment that you would do that going forward, regardless of those amendments? Obviously, since I have been a minister, I genuinely cannot think of any consultation that I have been involved in as minister where the results of that consultation have not been published. It is a substandard practice within Scottish Government that that does happen. I believe that it is incumbent on the minister, whoever that may be. We may have a commitment from the current minister, but it is currently at the discretion of the minister whether that consultation is carried out. Although I recognise that the minister in front of us today has written to the committee on the process of developing the statutory code of practice in other areas, I do not think that the Government should have any fear that that is put on the face of the bill. It is something that a verbal commitment from one minister may not be something that we would see in the future. There should be no concerns about putting that requirement on the face of the bill and I intend to press amendments 78. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is four against five. The amendment has not been agreed. It is my intention now to have a short comfort break so that we will suspend the meeting until 10.20. We will now return to consideration of stage 2 amendments. I call amendment 111 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, a group with amendments that are shown in the groupings. Rachel Hamilton, to move amendment 111 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I will move amendment 111 and speak to all the other amendments in that group. They centre on the premise of cost recovery for the various licensing schemes in this bill. Landowners and land managers have for hundreds of years been the champions of conservation in rural Scotland, whether it's a sporting estate or a family-run farm as my colleague Edward Mountain spoke of earlier. These conservation efforts have been conducted with experience and understanding that it is handed from generation to generation and the legal control of both pest and predatorial species has been undertaken at the expense of landowners or tenants and has served to preserve and recover and promote endangered and red-listed species. To date, these conservationists have never been paid for providing this service nor do they ask money for providing for these services. It is a service that they are willing to undertake as they have an appreciation of how important certain vulnerable species are to both their local and national habitats. Think about the benefits from the work that land managers already undertake. Without them, we're likely to lose our iconic capricaili and the work that's been done to recover Lapwing and Curlews, the numbers of which they are now will be nothing if these practices stop. We have an opportunity to support those who are out before light and back home to their families well after dark, but instead we seek to punish them by twisting the financial thumb screws at a time when they are being asked to positively contribute towards this nature and climate emergency. The expertise that some of the other operators have is frequently drawn upon by the likes of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, as well as organisations dedicated to promoting and protecting certain species. We simply cannot afford to lose the skill of these people and the equipment that they invest in. NatureScot recognises that the control of certain species is a public service and that they do not charge for wildlife management licences that directly benefit the public. To push for cost recovery now would likely ensure that individual conservationists and smaller farmers, tenants, farmers and projects that work on a shoestring are hit the hardest. The result will be the inability for them to afford to carry on that vital work. I hope that the minister will understand my argument that what they are doing is currently undertaken for free. Success in conservation involves national involvement. Small projects and land holdings with their combined efforts are key to the success, and my amendment will ensure that the key work continues to be unhindered. I call on John Mason to speak to amendment 1 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I think that this is quite straightforward, this group, with Rachel Hamilton going in one direction and myself in a different one. I think that myself and many others very much support the proposals of the Scottish Government set out in this bill. However, it is important also that NatureScot's wider conservation functions are not diminished in any way and that therefore the administration costs of trapping, grouse shooting and mureburn licences are covered in full by the applicant. NatureScot is taking on significant additional licensing functions and I think that I heard the minister saying that there might need new staff as part of this bill and we do not want to see that their resources for other work reduced because of this. Public finances are tight and if the public purse has to subsidise those licences it means less money for other important needs. I think that Rachel Hamilton slightly overstates the case using words like punish and thumb screws but the reality is that money is tight and a pound extra subsidising landowners means a pound less for the NHS. In the context of the climate and nature emergency we need a strong NatureScot. I understand that NatureScot does not presently charge for licensing functions that it administers however other organisations like the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency does already charge for most of their licensing functions. With regard to firearms licence administration via Police Scotland the public already bears the cost to a large extent of what is largely a private benefit. In this case the aim of the wildlife management and mureburn bill is explicitly about addressing the illegal persecution of raptors associated with grouse shooting and to improve trapping and mureburn practice to prevent damage to public interests. Grouse shooting is largely a private benefit linked to land ownership so it does feel inequitable to many that the public should have to cover the costs of such licences and especially when in the context of grouse shooting the legislation is designed to address long-standing illegal behaviours by some practitioners. This legislation is intended to act as a meaningful deterrent to illegal behaviours and bag practice in land management. If the licence applicant has to pay for the administration costs of the licensing service it can also be argued that they will have greater investment in the process and focus more on what they are asked to deliver, namely the licence conditions set by NatureScot for the receipt of a licence to operate trapping, grouse shooting and mureburn. I also gather that there is due to be a licensing review at some point and the minister referred to this when I asked her question in the chamber in December so it would be good to hear from the minister what her current thinking is on the subject of full cost recovery, the timescale of any review and whether she is minded to support charging for the specific licensing functions related to this bill. Any other members? I do have a comment that perhaps the minister can cover in her contribution. My question is just how worried to the financial memorandum, the cost of the memorandum, is the minister. For example, £50 for a trap licence, £100 for a grouse shoot licence and £250 for a mureburn licence, perhaps you can cover that in your contribution. I just want to speak to John Mason's amendments and I thank the member for raising the important issue. What I am aware of is that this is something that the committee heard evidence about at stage 1 but recognised that a species licensing review is already committed to as part of the bute house agreement and I agree with not pre-empting findings of that review. Rachel Hamilton's amendments 111, 112, 126, 127, 147, 148 remove the ability for the relevant authority to charge reasonable licence fees for any of the licences in the bill. As a couple of people have alluded to, particularly Ion Burgess, we have a bute house agreement commitment to review species licensing across the whole of wildlife licensing and this will include assessing the potential for cost recovery. Those amendments would prohibit that from taking place, so I cannot support them. I would encourage the committee not to support them. With regard to the financial memorandum, those are the initial estimates from NatureScot and they will be refined as the licensing is developed in the online system. However, as part of the review as well, they will be taken into account. I understand and appreciate the intent behind John Mason's amendments 1, 2 and 3 because, as I have said, cost recovery is something that we have committed to consider as part of the review. Can you give us any timescale for the review? I was just about to refer you, Mr Mason, and committee, to Ms Slater's letter to NatureScot and asking them to take forward that commitment to do the review species licensing. She has in her letter, which I am sure the committee has a copy of, if not we can make sure that they do. At the end of her letter, this is sent in January. I would like the report to be completed and ready for the external review within six months. I hope that it will be done at speed. I would imagine that that would be by June this year for the external review. I imagine that the committee will take an interest in that. We want to consider cost recovery across the whole range of species licensing, but it is also important to say that Ms Slater's letter also says that it is about the review of the wider species licensing system with a view to ensuring that the law is being applied correctly. It is not just about the cost recovery, but about how the licensing system is working more generally. I will finish my points and then I will be happy to. We have taken the approach in the bill to include provisions that allow for the relevant authority to charge a reasonable fee in the future following the outcome of the review. That approach would potentially allow for a holistic and coherent introduction of fees and charges across all relevant bill activities and, indeed, wider relevant licensing activities taken by Nature Scott. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 would, Mr Mason, potentially pre-empt and undermine the outcome of the review. I would ask Mr Mason not to press his amendments today, but I am sure that the minister who is taking forward the review or instructing the review to happen, who is commissioned and has commissioned it from Nature Scott, would be content to keep Mr Mason and the committee updated on the progress. I am happy to try to answer what Ms Hamilton would like to answer. It is quite a straightforward question. Is the minister keen for the Scottish Government to align with the cost proposals of the licences that are set out in the financial memorandum? The review will possibly supersede that, because we have to allow Nature Scott to undertake a full analysis of the cost recovery associated with all licences and see where that lands. Obviously, it has sight of what we have proposed in the financial memorandum of this bill, which it will take into account. Ms Slater is leading on that, but I think that we are all in agreement that the licences should be proportionate depending on the people applying for licences, and they are going to take all of that into account. Of course, the committee will be able to see the results of that review, as I said, within about six months. Minister, would you accept that £250 for an annual mureborn licence, which should be required by small crops and 10 farms, is probably disproportionate, especially when there may be a requirement for more than one licence for peatland and non-peatland? Do you accept that it is probably disproportionate at £250? Minister, you might have addressed the issue of what is the point of the numbers in the financial memorandum if you have not got a commitment to them. The answer to Mr Kerr's point is that the financial memorandum is an essential part of any bill that has been put forward. Indeed, it is an estimated based on the stage that we were at, but looking at the wider review, I think that we need to allow for that to conclude, asking me particular questions about the cost of a particular licence when I have just said that all the licence and fees and the cost recovery and indeed how the licence's work is going to be reviewed by NatureScot. If I were to say anything about a particular licence today, that would pre-empt the analysis that is going to be done by NatureScot, and I think that we have to allow them to get on with that work as instructed by the minister responsible. On the point of financial memorandum, I wonder if the minister would agree that those are estimates, and in some cases I have to say that they appear to be quite clear estimates in this bill, but in many other bills they are incredibly rough estimates. While it is a guideline in the financial memorandum, would she accept that it is certainly not fixed in stone? Exactly that. I said that the financial memorandum is an essential part of any bill, and they are always an estimate. Hopefully, the fact that we have provided those estimates in the financial memorandum will give NatureScot the ability to interrogate what we have proposed in this bill as part of their wider review on all licences that they issue. The idea that what appears in the financial memorandum is somehow a ballpark is a rough estimate. That is the root of so many of the issues that we seem to have had in Parliament in this session around costs. The idea that John Mason puts forward truly as a minister in the Government, you do not accept that those are just numbers that are thrown together. What is the rationale for the numbers that are in the financial memorandum? I do not believe that it is appropriate for you, minister, to disassociate yourself from the numbers that you have published. Mr Kerr might not think that it is inappropriate. We have arrived at an estimate for what suggestions should be for the costs associated with those licences. However, as I have said a few times now, we have to allow NatureScot to undertake the work that Ms Slater has asked them to do, which is going to be a review of the licences. I hope that the estimates that we have provided in our financial memorandum will be helpful to them in that respect. Rachael Hamilton, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 111. I will be pressing amendment 111, convener. There is so much information that was just shared from various colleagues around this grouping. I just want to pick up on a few points. First of all, it appears that John Mason is saying that rural stakeholders should fit the bill for a public service. When it is clear that there is a public benefit, he says that there is not, but in terms of the biodiversity gain, it is about a national conversation, it is national involvement and intervention to meet climate crisis targets. I just think that it seems that he also should not, with respect, castigate assertions that illegal behaviours have been related to rural stakeholders, which his comments clearly believe that operators all operate legally. I would like him to either apologise or make sure that those comments are extended. Will you accept that I did not say that there was no public benefit? You made it evident that you are bringing forward this amendment because there was not once where you said that rural stakeholders are bringing a clear public benefit in terms of biodiversity gain. That is how I interpreted what you said. Obviously, I do not know if you are trying to say that they do or that they do not. Beyond that, it is important that those who are operating legally within the actual law reflect that they are providing a public service. I also want to pick up on certain points that the minister made. The Bute House agreement is a political agreement. It is an agreement because the SNP did not get a majority in the last election and therefore had to bring on another party to ensure that they had a majority, particularly for independence votes. It seems as though—forgive me for making that point, because it is essential for me to make the point because the point is that you are now cataowing to another party who is not at the moment until I finish this point, if you do not mind, Mr Fairlie. The financial memorandum is an estimate and it is set out. Could we say that an animal licence at £250 was fair and proportionate? Or could we say that land managers have no idea, with a review in six months, what their likely costs are going to be? There is no certainty in terms of that future. However, to use rural stakeholders to bring forward a review to leapfrog the financial memorandum, bearing in mind that, yes, I understand that it is an estimate, I just think that it is just almost as if you are using people, not you, but the purpose of the bute house agreement is using people to force that. Should we be making the point that the NatureScot has had funding cuts, convener, and those funding cuts are you expecting, as the Scottish Government expecting, those cuts to be—that gap to be plugged by bringing forward those costs? There are so many questions here that I am so uncomfortable about. I hope that you appreciate it. By the stakeholders' own acceptance, the bill was brought forward as a result of raptor persecution, which has been on for decades. The fact that there are going to be consequential wildlife benefits of bringing in the bill does not necessitate the fact that the public purse should pay for it. I am not saying one way or the other where I am going to vote on this at this moment in time, but to sit here today, the member is almost trying to say that this is being brought forward as a result of the bute house agreement on the drive of the Greens. No, it is not, it has been brought forward because raptor persecution has been happening in this country for decades, and the landowners who were responsible or whose employees were responsible did not shut it down. I am afraid that I will be supporting the landowners and the rural workers more than most, but I am afraid that I will fundamentally disagree with you on this point. Thank you for Jim Fairlie for that intervention. The whole objective is to ensure that we get those people who are operating illegally, and that is the most important part of this bill. However, there is no connection between raptor persecution and grouse moors. There are other reasons for persecution, and those reasons would be predation, intergill predation, the habitat, et cetera. We can agree to disagree on that, but the point is that we are talking about cost recovery here. It is almost as if, in my mind, those who are operating legally are being persecuted, if I would like to use that word. The other thing that I feel very uncomfortable about is that, in terms of the impact or the benefit to the public purse, there has been no demonstration of that. Obviously, the biodiversity gain is in sight. You can go on to a grouse moor, and you can see the species that have been recovered. I went on to a farm which connected to a grouse moor. There were 15 bird species, and it was because of the management. I have made my point. I will wind up, but that is all that I have to say. Can I just confirm, Ms Hamilton, that you are intending to press the amendment? The question is that amendment 111 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain, and the result of the vote is two for, seven against, and the amendment has not been agreed. I now call amendment 56 in the name of the minister, group with amendments as shown in the groupings. I would like to point out that, if amendment 10 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 113 or 114 on the grounds of preemption. Thank you, convener. I will explain what it does. It inserts a requirement for any applications for wildlife trap licence. It must include evidence that the applicant has completed an approved training course. The bill currently provides that the licence and authority that I anticipate will be NatureScot has the ability to determine the information to be supplied alongside a wildlife trap licence application, which could include evidence training. However, having reflected on this issue, I think that it would be more transparent to have the requirement for evidence of training stated on the face of the bill. This will make it clear to all applicants that they are required to complete an approved training course and must provide proof of this when applying for a licence. Requiring the applicant to provide proof of relevant training when submitting an application will aid the relevant authority in determining if a licence should be granted, so I encourage members to vote for amendment 56. Convener, would you like me to speak to the other amendments in this group? Edward Mountain's amendments 10, 10b and 11 have the effect of requiring NatureScot to grant a licence if the applicant has completed the training or was born after 31 December 1983, 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 will be exempt from any requirement to undergo training. I would encourage the committee to reject those amendments. The wildlife trap training requirement is not about telling people how to do their job, but it is 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. Land managers have told me that they already undertake a lot of training, and I am conscious that there are many involved in grousemure and wildlife management with significant knowledge and expertise, and they seem to be pleased to evidence that. The purpose of the training requirement is to incorporate all that experience and learning, and making sure that everyone using wildlife traps has high standards across the board that they can evidence. In fact, I would like to quote from stage 1 deliberations Alex Hogg, the chairman of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, said that the SGR, and he said, up for doing the trap training and getting it right, whatever you decide on, we will comply with it. With regard to exemption based on age, I do not think that we can just assume that just because someone is over 40, that they will automatically have all the right skills. They may have been using the trap incorrectly, maybe for a number of years, or they might not be aware that their new legal requirements, for example, change to baffle size. The purpose of the training requirement is to ensure that high standards are maintained and are consistent through continuous professional development. The bill also requires that a person uses a trap in accordance with the approved training course, or that they will have committed an offence. By not requiring certain people to undergo training and refresher training, there is the potential that they may not have the knowledge to comply with the requirement to operate the trap in accordance with the approved training course, and it would be setting them up to fail. For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 10 and 11 and I encourage committee members to vote against them. Now to Rachael Hamilton's proposed amendment 10A. 10A would remove the requirement in amendment 10 that a trap user must be born on or before 31 December 1983. That would address concerns that I have about that amendment in relation to the age of an applicant. For that reason, I fully support amendment 10A as it would mitigate some of the issues that I had of amendment 10, and on that basis I would encourage committee members to support it. However, I will be clear that, even if the changes proposed by amendment 10A amendment 10 would still allow a wildlife trap licence to be issued to any applicant who has completed the training course and has used the type of trap and question in a professional capacity for the period of at least 10 years consecutively, regardless of their suitability. I cannot support amendment 10, so even if members are minded to vote for 10A, I still hope that they vote against amendment 10, as amended. Coming on to Colin Smyth's proposed amendment 113, places a condition that a trap licence cannot be issued if it is for the primary purpose of managing the number of wild birds available for sport shooting. Grouse shooting makes an important contribution to the rural economy and provides jobs in rural and island communities. This bill is not about stopping or outlawing this activity. Predator control is carried out in Scotland in a variety of different purposes, including on grouse mowers. I have concerns that limiting the use of traps on grouse mowers could have a detrimental effect on the ability of important rural businesses to undertake legitimate activities. I have been very clear that the bill is about ensuring that the management of grouse mowers and related activities are undertaken in an environmentally sustainable manner. It is not about banning sport shooting. However, I am clear that anyone who uses traps, whether on a grouse mower or elsewhere, must comply with the law and adhere to all of the conditions of their licence, and if they do not, nature school will have the power to take appropriate action. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 113. I encourage the committee to vote against it. Amendment 114 proposes to bring in a condition that the licensing authority can only grant a wildlife trap licence if the proposed use of a wildlife trap is justified by evidence of harm caused by the species intended to be killed or taken and that no other method that is non-lethal or has a lower animal welfare impact would be effective to reduce that harm. With all respect, amendment 113 misunderstands the purpose of the wildlife trap licence, which is to apply it to the individual, not the land or the purpose for which trapping is carried out. Individuals may trap a range of species for a variety of purposes and may do so professionally or not. The requirement to evidence harm and the other non-lethal methods are not effective would be onerous to administer and is likely to have wider unintended consequences as many farmers and crofters utilise traps for the reasons that we have discussed many times including today. As part of the Bute House agreement, we have committed, as I said, to reviewing the wider species licensing system, not just for the cost recovery reasons but also with a review to ensuring that lethal control is only licensed where the relevant conditions are demonstrably being met. As well as considering issues such as cost recovery, again, that review will be an opportunity to look at the whole system and how it operates as well, and it will ensure that welfare principles are part of the system. That review is the appropriate place to consider all of the issues relating to wildlife licensing. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 114 and I encourage committee members to vote against it. Amendment 115 requires that trap licenses specify the maximum number of traps for which the licence holder may be responsible at any one time and the location for where the traps may be used. As I have said, the wildlife trap licence applies to the person rather than the land in which it is to be used. Limiting the maximum number of traps and the locations that a person can use, the traps can result in issues for licence holders as many trap animals professionally and so could require to use traps in numerous locations and even nationwide. Also, as some trap users work on behalf of the states in multiple places, the effective amendment 115 would be to create an additional administrative burden should they change job as well as limit their ability to earn a living. Limiting the locations would also impede the use of the traps under licence, as target animals may move out of the licensed area and so a licensed holder would be unable to trap the target animal unless they applied to the relevant authority to have that licence updated by which time the animal could have moved again. This requirement for regular updating of the licence will also add unnecessary administrative burden for the relevant authority who would need to process the updated licence every time a trap is moved. In short, the requirements of this amendment would be unworkable in practice and are neither appropriate or proportionate and for those reasons I cannot support amendment 115 and encourage the committee to vote against it. Amendment 116 changes the wildlife trap training and licence to be renewed every five years. Professor Warrity in the review of Grouse Moors recommended that any operator dealing with the relevant category of trap, cage or spring should undergo refresher training at least once every 10 years. The Scottish Government has accepted Professor Warrity's recommendation and has heard no representations from stakeholders that it should be reduced. Edward Mountain MSP has raised concerns about proportionality of the wildlife trap training requirement and there are concerns that places an undue burden on the people who are already well trained. I do not necessarily agree with those concerns, however increasing the frequency of refresher training to every five years in my view goes too far. The period of 10 years set out in the bill is a maximum, so NatureScot can already choose to grant a licence for less than 10 years if they think that it would be appropriate in the circumstances of an individual licence application. I believe that this approach strikes the right balance between the licence and authority having the proper oversight of the scheme and maintaining animal welfare standards and not placing a necessary burden on rural workers. For those reasons I cannot support amendment 116 and I encourage the committee members to vote against it. Moving on to amendment 117, it requires that trap licence holders must maintain records and report annually on the number and species of all animals killed or taken in traps. I do not believe that amendment 117 is necessary, as the bill already allows NatureScot to add any conditions to a licence that they consider appropriate, which would include reporting requirements. That amendment would tie their hands, for example, if they wanted to receive those reports more or less frequently. For those reasons I cannot support amendment 117 and encourage the committee to vote against it. Amendment 118 would add the requirement that every wildlife trap licence is subject to the condition that the use of traps under the licence must be undertaken in the accordance with the highest possible standards of animal welfare. That amendment is also unnecessary, I believe, because those animal welfare standards will be embedded in the scheme as part of the trap training, and traps must be used in accordance with that training. For those reasons I cannot support amendment 118 and I encourage the committee members to vote against it. I move amendment 56. Nicolle Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 10 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener, and I'm pleased to be able to speak to these amendments. Just to go on amendment 10, I'm going to be careful when I say this and not add too many old stories about it, but I remember telling my grandmother how to do something when I was much younger, and she told me, don't teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. And that's the point of this amendment, because amendment 10 is in two parts. The first thing is in part one is to say that if somebody has a licence that the authority must grant them, sorry, have completed a training course, they must give them a licence. The second part, which is the one that seems to have caused a huge amount of consternation, now this is based on an amendment that came about in spraying legislation many years ago, I'm not sure that everyone here will remember it, and it was known as the grandfather rights as far as allowing people who have been practitioners of that to continue doing it without the requirement to sit on the course. Now it seems entirely reasonable and the reason why I set the figures so that members are aware that I thought a 40-year-old would probably be halfway through ish of their career, and if they'd done 10 years of practice, they would probably know what they're talking about. Now the minister, I'm afraid, misrepresented my point. It is the combination of the two, i.e. they have to be born before the 31st of December 1983, and they have to have been doing that course for 10 years, and it's really difficult. Everyone wants to send people on a course. I certainly remember when I left the army, I was sent on a DCS course, which was for deer control, a full day course, pretty expensive, pretty informative, and I was given a shooting test at the end. The person who ran the course had less experience of me in deer management because they'd been on the planet for less years than I'd been practicing deer management, so it made it quite difficult for me to understand the reasons for doing it. The shooting test, which was an interesting example of spending a day on the range, actually made it more complicated for me to pass that test to shoot a four-legged animal than it had been when I was in the army to pass my annual weapons test to shoot two-legged animals, and this is my point, is that we are taking people to one side and we are training them to do something, we are teaching them to suck eggs, and we are impinging on their knowledge and being rude to them. I mean, if I said to in this parliament, if I brought a legislation forward that every single member of this parliament would have to do a course to be a politician in this parliament, and it was a mandatory requirement, it may well be that somebody who'd been in this parliament, maybe even the first minister for a considerable amount of time, or even minister sitting at the table who'd been in a considerable amount of time with taught the basics about being a politician, that would not be right. That is why I bought this amendment, it is a simple amendment, and I think it's wrong for the minister to have said that just because you're born over, after the 31st of December, sorry, before the 31st of December 1983 that you get a licence, no you don't. You have to have been doing ten years experience, that's hands-on experience, that is experience with dirt under the fingernails from actual work, not dirt on the fingers from reading books, and I think it's a dangerous position when this parliament goes down the stage of teaching people how to suck eggs. Now amendment 11 on my behalf is one to allow the minister to vary that amendment if the amendment proves to be unsatisfactory, so it's a stop gap for the minister. Now I would have to say to the other amendments in the group, I will listen to why Rachel Hamilton with amendment 10 thinks it's appropriate to remove the age thing, I'll be interested to see that, and I think turning to the other amendments, amendment 113, I think it's a dangerous amendment to go through in the sense that we accept that wild birds are used for sporting purposes. Now Colin, I understand is against that, I respect his views on that, but it is a fact of life that it's allowed, and while it's allowed we must give people the legal tools to be able to carry out their job. Now you cannot stipulate how many traps will be needed, it is overbearing and I think that's why amendment 115 it doesn't work, and when it comes to amendment 116 I agree with the minister 10 years is sufficient, all you're going to do by making it five years for refresher courses is to spawn a whole industry about running tests and examinations. On amendment 117 convener, I have some sympathy with this if Mr Smith could tell me what the data is going to be useful, so if Mr Smith could tell me why he needs to know why every what number of rats is killed in a specific trap, in a specific place, and how that will be used to benefit the natural environment, then I think it might be something that I could consider, but until he does, I don't see the reason for it, because it will be another list of figures that disappear into the archives of NatureScot or Scottish Natural Heritage to never see the light of day again. The final one, 118, I've made it clear convener that I don't believe in teaching people how to suck eggs, do you honestly believe that people who use traps don't take their responsibility seriously and do you honestly believe that it's not done to the highest welfare standards? I've never met, as I've said before at this committee, people who go out there to create cruelty and barbaric in the way they do it, and frankly, when I do meet them, I hope they meet the full force of the law and I'll make sure and I'll take part in it in their conviction as well, but that doesn't summarise the people who are using traps and gamekeepers. I agree with Edward Mountain in terms of, I used to be an agronomist, so I'll register my interests now and I understand completely how spray operators were given grandfather rights before 1 December 1964, and that was important, that they had the ability to be able to do that without a certificate of competence. However, where I have slightly disagreed with the full extent of Edward Mountain's amendment 10, and that is why I've amended it with 10a, is that I've had engagement with young people who are young gamekeepers or land managers and they are possibly, in some circumstances, more experienced or more competent, but that doesn't mean to say that I am agist. The fact is that you have demonstrated over the years as being an MSP that you have significant experience and sometimes experience comes with age in terms of land management, so it wouldn't take away from the point that you're trying to make in this particular amendment. I do welcome the minister's reflection on 10a and that she does support what I'm trying to achieve here. We wouldn't want to discourage active management from young people, particularly those who are incredibly engaged in the profession and we need to bring people like that through the system, and that's what I'm trying to achieve here. Thank you. I call Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 113 in other amendments in this group. Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 113 is aimed at drawing attention to what is an inconvenient truth that the elephant in the room in this debate. The explanatory notes to the bill say that the Government wants to, in a quote, ensure that the management of grouse moors and related activities are undertaken in an environmentally sustainable and welfare conscious manner. But the reality is that the bill does allow for the continued killing of hundreds of thousands of foxes, stoats, weasels, crows and a huge number of non-targeted species such as hedgehogs and people's pets each year for one purpose and one purpose alone, so that there are an unnaturally high number of grouse to then kill for sport. Now, this amendment doesn't ban grouse. Well, I'll finish my point, because Edward Mountain's obviously spoke quite heavily on this amendment. I would like to, as the mover of the amendment, do the same, because the reality is that this amendment does not ban grouse shooting. It doesn't stop grouse shooting at all. It allows it to continue. But in those intensely driven grouse moors, by not allowing trapping for the sole purpose of killing one animal to protect another so that you can then shoot that animal for sport, the amendment would reduce the industrial wholesale killing of hundreds of thousands of animals. Now, there will be some who oppose this amendment because they support that level of killing—that circle of destruction, as it's known. Including, as we've heard, the minister that seems—from the minister that seems to be the SNP in Green Government and Edward Mountain has also said that he supports that. But let's be in no doubt that the public do not agree with those who do. Poland shows that three quarters are opposed to killing for the sole purpose of maximising the number of animals to then kill for sport. I think that, in a bill on grouse moor management, the question, where do MSPs stand on that issue, should be asked and people deserve to know their views. In relation to amendment 114, I've spoken many times in Parliament about the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control and those principles inform this amendment. This would require NatureScot to be satisfied that trap users had a legitimate, justifiable reason to use the trap and that they had considered alternatives. Such evidence should be routinely required in wildlife management decisions. Any killing or taking of wild animals should be justified by evidence that serious harm is being caused and that the method with the lowest animal welfare impact that would be effective should be chosen. That's a principle, I believe, that should be right through all our policies on wildlife management. Those requirements are drawn from those ethical principles. Currently, thousands of animals are killed on grouse moors and elsewhere routinely without any such checks and balances, including this clause that would be a step towards making that balance and ensuring that the animals that are trapped and killed are done so on an ethical basis. It would not ban the use of traps or it would not make it impossible to use traps, as some have falsely suggested. It would simply require that NatureScot is satisfied on the specification and the reason for the use. Amendment 115, like amendment 114, would require the use of traps to be planned and for a specific purpose avoiding indiscriminate killing. There should be a cap on the maximum number of traps any individual can use to ensure regular inspection and maintenance and to focus the trapping only on when and where it is needed. NatureScot should also know where the trap user plans to operate. I appreciate that the licence will be granted to an individual who may move around during the location of the licence, but that is not insurmountable. That information on location could be updated as necessary. Amendment 116 would make the maximum duration of a trap licence five years instead of 10 years. There have been understandable calls, as we will hear later, for the licence for grouse moors to be longer than the proposed one year. That is a reasonable call. Five years seems to be the growing consensus on that issue. I think that that makes sense when it comes to the length of time for a trap licence. A trap licence should not be granted for as long as 10 years. A great deal can change over such a long period, including the development of new trap technology. Trap users should be required to attend refresher training at least every five years to keep up to date with advances in trap design and animal welfare science, as well as modern protocols for ethical wildlife management. The minister says that she has not seen any stakeholder support that, but I am sure that she is aware that one kind RSPB and others are made clear for some time ahead of stage 2 that they very much support this amendment. Amendment 117 introduces a reporting requirement for trap users. That would provide a degree of accountability and transparency that is currently lacking. At the moment, it is completely unknown how many birds and animals are killed by trapping as there is no such reporting requirement. It is surely ethically questionable to have a system that allows the killing of thousands of animals every year in order, as I have said earlier, to provide more birds to be shot without even accounting for the numbers and species that die for this purpose. The amendment would allow authorities to gain the numbers of targeted and non-targeted animals being trapped and killed, which is surely important to allow a full understanding of species biodiversity. I thank the member for giving way on that point. I think that we are confusing several items here. As a farmer, for example, I use caged traps to catch corvoids that are actually in the grain store, trying to get into the grain store to eat the grain or getting in amongst the cattle feed. It is not to increase the number of bird shots, but to prevent damage to the grain, which would make it unfit for human consumption and the transmission of diseases to cattle. How would the information that I would submit on the number of birds that are being killed be helpful to anyone as far as the biodiversity of those species are concerned? The first answer to that, and I will come to a lot more detail on that. First of all, it would give us the numbers that are killed by particular traps. It would give us, for example, information on non-targeted animals that are being trapped and killed, which I think is an important consideration that we should be looking at. It would also be beneficial, in my view, to include the manner of death to shed light on how well traps are operating in the field, and I hope that that will become part of the licence conditions in due course. Newer designs of spring traps are apparently better at killing rather than injuring and are less likely to catch non-targeted species, but we do not know that for sure unless records are kept and reported on those traps, and that seems to me perfectly reasonable. Given that this information would already be collected, if we do not support this amendment, and I think that it is a legitimate question to ask, why would you not believe that this information should be reported? What do people have to hide from the information that is being made public? The committee has fairly asked, and I quote, what is your view on the suggestion, and it comes back to the earlier point, I mean, the suggestion that licensing should be supported by statutory reporting. In other words, if you set 100 traps, you have to say where those 100 traps are, what you have caught in them and how many animals are killed each year. Alex Hogg of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association said, and I quote, we would agree with that, and again it is about training. We do it with snaven at the moment so it could easily be done with trapping. It would provide feedback to the Government of NatureScot about what animals were being trapped and dispatched or whatever it goes on to say. The minister says that NatureScot can make it a condition of a licence, so it is clearly possible to do so. I think that it should be more than that, however. It should and it clearly can be done as a requirement. Finally, amendment 118. When giving evidence to the committee, Hugh Dygdon, the Scottish Government's head of wildlife and biodiversity units said that one of the Scottish Government's intentions for this bill was to, and I quote, improve animal welfare outcomes even when those traps are used lawfully, ensuring that the highest standards apply and that people operate into those high standards. I think that it is a basic principle and I agree with that, but it should be reflected on the face of the bill. I have concluded, but I am happy to take time to do it later. Does the member not agree that the fact that Edward Mountain is trying to get grandfather's rights, which, in his amendment, he actually does not say what the amendment actually says, has used the type of trap in question in a professional capacity? Just because you have used it in a professional capacity does not mean that it is the way you mean that you are using it right, that it has not been in a course. The fact that the minister is requiring people to go through this course gives you the satisfaction that, when those traps are set by people who are properly trained, then it is going to be done at the highest animal welfare standards. I do not know what that course is. I do not know if that is— Are you a practitioner? I think that the courses are absolutely important in a requirement, but we should put it in law that it is part of that training that people should be trained to use those outcomes in a way that maximises animal welfare. I think that that should be a requirement. I see no contradiction between training people and having that as a basic principle in the legislation. I want to let you listen to what you have to say, Mr Smith, but on 1, 1, 3, what is your party's position on supporting country sports? It sounds as though you do not support country sports, and this is about wrapped persecution on grassmores. What is your purpose of 1, 1, 3? Is it to unintentionally bring through the back door a ban? I mean that displays frankly an utterly astonishing misunderstanding of this amendment. There is no proposal within this amendment whatsoever to ban girl shooting. That will continue. What the amendment does, it puts on public record the view that you should not have a licence, not you should ban girl shooting. That will continue, and it will always continue under this amendment, but you should not have a licence to trap, to kill animals solely for the purpose of protecting another animal to then kill that animal for sport, given the fact that so many thousands of animals die as a result of that. That does not stop girl shooting whatsoever. It simply restricts the trapping for the sole purpose of frankly breeding more girls to then kill them as well. That circle of destruction we have talked about. Frankly, it can be a really misleading for people to imply that that means a ban on girl shooting. The bill does not deliver a ban on girl shooting and neither does the amendment. However, it simply places on record that if people want to support that circle of destruction, they should say so, and that should be something that we debate when it comes to the bill. With respect, convener. This is an opportunity for debate. You have the opportunity in a second. Thank you, Mrs Smith. I call on other members, and Arianna Burgess has indicated that she would like to make a contribution. Thanks, convener. I would like to put some brief comments on record about the amendments in this group. I support the minister's amendment 56. It is appropriate that applicants for a trap licence have evidence that they have completed appropriate training, and I listened closely to the minister's arguments in relation to amendments 10B and 10A. In turning to Colin Smith's amendments, I want to stress the importance of making sure that this legislation is passed before the end of the parliamentary year. I am concerned that amendment 113 jeopardises that by undermining what is designed to do, which is to implement the recommendations of the Warrity review. I take on board the Government's comments that amendments 114 and 115 tie into wider on-going work on ethical standards of wildlife management, and I hope that progress can be made in that route. I appreciate the intention of amendment 116 to shorten the time before trap operators require refresher training. I seek the minister's assurance that the 10 years proposed in the draft legislation is appropriate for maintaining high animal welfare standards. Likewise, I support the intention behind amendment 117. I think that data on the types of wildlife that are caught in traps would be very valuable to other land management work, but I agree that that does not need to be done in primary legislation. Amendment 118 underlines the vital importance of trap training programmes being of a high standard and placing animal welfare at their heart. I hope that the minister will be able to provide assurance that NatureScot will have the resources needed to assess training courses and approve only those of the highest standard. I just wanted to put on record that it is important that we all are able to debate, and it is not foolish or wrong to question or intervene on a member, particularly to get clarification around an amendment. That was my intention. Apologies to Colin Smyth if he believed that I was asking if his Labour Party was going to ban country sports, but it just seemed that that was the intention, but thank you for clarifying. Thank you. Stephen Kerr. Apologies to Colin Smyth who, after my last contribution, asserted that I was echoing views that had been presented on behalf of the sector, but in fact that is absolutely the case. I am unashamedly here to speak up for the people that work in the sector, a sector that makes a fantastic economic contribution to rural Scotland. In fact, it is a sustaining power behind the existence of many of the people that live in rural Scotland, so I am unapologetic about that, convener. I also think that, again, with all due respect to Colin Smyth, I completely respect his conscientious objection to all of the matters that we are discussing in relation to Grouse's shooting. Colin, as I think is well known, is a member of the League Against Cruel Sports. I am not sure whether Colin Smyth mentioned that in his earlier contributions, but that must indeed flavour the way that he views all of the aspects of this bill. It is absolutely in order for Rachael Hamilton to have asked the question that many people in rural Scotland seek in answer for whether or not those amendments and the way that they have been presented in relation to the bill are in fact the position of Scottish Labour in relation to rural Scotland and the lifestyle of the people of rural Scotland. At the end of listening to Colin Smyth's amendments, I think that it is not despite his protestations, it is not stretching the point to suggest that those amendments are all designed effectively through the back door to end Grouse's shooting, because those amendments make it practically impossible to conduct any form of Grouse war management. Take, for example, 113. The whole basis of this bill, Colin Smyth seeks to undermine the whole sector by talking about this amendment as a licence not to be issued in circumstances where it was about maintaining or increasing number of wild birds available to be shot for sport. That sport exists. It is legal in Scotland, and so any interjection of this amendment would be wholly designed to end Grouse's shooting. 114 is absolutely an attempt to wreck a whole sector. I mean, the question has to be asked whether or not Colin Smyth thinks that there should be any action taken against predators in a rural setting, because trapping is an essential conservation tool and is used in a number of land management contexts right across Scotland, including by the RSPB. I am sure that he had a briefing from the RSPB, but they use traps in places like Orkney, so that any inclusion of this amendment in the bill would make it impossible to attain a trap licence in practice. I am talking about 114 now. Not only would this make countless Scottish businesses unviable, but it would have a devastating effect on Scotland's wildlife at a time when we are tackling what can only be described as an urgent biodiversity crisis, which has only gotten worse over the last decade. On 115, the amendment 115 is just unworkable. It is fundamentally unworkable. The fact that the number and location of traps vary regularly would mean that it would be impossible for nature Scotland to administer the licensing scheme. Again, it is hard not to see this as either a misunderstanding of the whole sector and how it operates or as a wrecking measure. That would have a devastating impact on Scotland's environment and fragile rural economy. On 116, there is no discernible public benefit to be gained by reducing the licence duration to five years. That would be a strike against the very interests of practitioners and the regulator, frankly, whose capacity is already subject to scrutiny. On 117, I do not believe that Colin Smyth answered the questions that were raised by Edward Mountain in relation to what exactly those records would be used for. Everyone who spoke in favour of this amendment has said that it would be a good thing to do, but to what end they have not been able to properly address. I am more than happy to be intervened on to properly, for me to properly understand as well as to the people who are here that are going to vote in the committee what exactly would be gained by what would become a massive bureaucracy, a huge bureaucracy, to what end we already have vast sways of bureaucracy in Scotland and records are kept but never referred to or utilised. Finally, on 118, the amendment that Colin Smyth brought to 118, I feel that Edward Mountain summarised us well with his experience of the sector. It is more than mildly insulting to the people that work in the sector to ascribe to them an interest other than that of maintaining the highest stars of animal welfare. Nobody goes to work in the morning in order to inflict cruelty on wildlife. In fact, they spend their entire careers doing everything that they can to support Scotland's biodiversity. I will keep it very brief. I just want to reassure the committee that the approach that we are taking with the wildlife trap licence is one of balance. The WERITY review made very clear recommendations on that, taking into account the complexities of the need of wildlife management to address environmental impact and to ensure that we are safeguarding animal welfare. I want to particularly say to Mr Mountain that continuous professional development is a cornerstone of many sectors, such as nurses, teachers, social workers, offshore workers, who have to undergo refresher courses in many disciplines and, indeed, civil servants. I will make my point. I refer Mr Mountain to Scottish gatekeepers' stated view that they are happy to undertake those courses and evidence their considerable expertise and skills. The Scottish Government has accepted the recommendations of WERITY. I want to refer to what Arianne Burgess asked about the licence. The gap between training requirements is a maximum of 10 years. There is the ability in the nature of Scotland to state in the licence conditions that there may be needs to be training undertaken before that. I will also come back to the consultation response on the bill that shows that there is strong public support out there for our approach, with more than 77 per cent of respondent supporting. I do not consider Edward Mountain's or Colin Smith's amendments necessary or appropriate. I have listened to what they have said, but I cannot support them, but I will take Mr Mountain before I finish. I hear your arguments. We can agree to disagree, but for a point of clarity, because I am trying to rally in behind your amendment 56 for future debates, there is a line in it that causes my slight concern. It says applicants have completed a training course approved under section 12e in respect for the type of trap in question. So, is that a quill or a DOC trap, a ffend trap, a self set spring trap, a larson trap, a funnel trap, a cage trap, or will the trap licence cover all of those traps? Because surely if a gamekeeper or a mawler manager has to do a course for every single trap, they'll never be able to use them. They'll still be doing the courses, and when they've completed them, they'll be starting again on the next one. So, my expectation is that the person who wants a licence to operate traps is trained in the licensing of the traps that they want to operate, and it will be comprehensive. Now, I imagine, off the back of this, there will be a range of courses that will be accredited by the licence developer, NatureScot, and they will be looking at those courses as to what they actually offer, but it would be my expectation that you've listed a great deal of traps. If a person wants to operate all of those traps, then they have a working understanding and training associated with working those traps safely. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 1 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 111. John Mason, to move or not move? Not moved. Amendment 112, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 111. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 4-2 against 7. The amendment has not therefore been agreed. I call amendment 10 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 56. I remind members that, if amendment 10 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 113 and 114 for preemption purposes. Edward Mountain, to move or not move? Moved, convener. I call the amendment 10b in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 56. Edward Mountain, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 10b be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. I will ask the question again. The question is that amendment 10b be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 10a in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 56. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 10a be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Edward Mountain, to press or withdraw amendment 10, as amended. Not moved. The member has indicated that he wishes to withdraw. Has any member got an objection? No. I call amendment 113 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 56. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? I think that today we have seen on record the Supreme Green Government's support for that circle of destruction. That I think will be very much noted by many people, including the vast majority of the public who do not agree with him on that. I think that it is particularly disappointing that the Greens do not support the amendment on that there are a bizarre argument that it would delay the bill. It won't, the amendment is here today to be voted on and it won't result in any delays whatsoever. But I think that what is really disappointing is the false claims that this amendment in any way bans girl shooting. I am very clear that sports like that should continue and there is no requirement to claim that that will result in it being banned. It simply will reduce the number of animals killed for the sole purpose of protecting another animal to then be killed for sport. I think that if we are going to debate issues, we should debate the facts rather than making claims that simply are not true and maybe that reflects the weakness of the arguments. I won't move that amendment, but I will certainly continue to press this issue as this bill goes through Parliament. I call amendment 114, in the name of Colin Smyth, who has already debated with amendment 56. Colin Smyth, do you want to move or not move? I want to make one point, convener, when Stephen Kerr is entirely entitled to quote word for word briefings that has been given by organisations. But when the claims are wrong, they should be challenged. For example, on 114 he gave the example of Orkney and RSPB project. That project would continue under this amendment. The test that this amendment would set would not in any way affect that particular project. It is false to make that claim, and I think that it again shows the weakness of an argument when you try to effectively misquote the impact of a particular amendment. I won't press this amendment at this stage, convener, but I reserve the right to keep bringing forward this particular issue, because I think that it is an important one as this debate continues. I call amendment 115, in the name of Colin Smyth, who has already debated with amendment 56. Colin Smyth, do you want to move or not move? I do not move. I call amendment 116, in the name of Colin Smyth, who has already debated with amendment 56. Colin Smyth, do you want to move or not move? I do not move. So the question is that amendment 116 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. And those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is one, four, eight against and no abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 11, in the name of Edward Mountain, who has already debated with amendment 56. Edward Mountain, do you want to move or not move? And the question is, amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. And those members wishing to abstain. And the result of the vote is two, four, seven against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. And I call amendment 117, in the name of Colin Smyth, who has already debated with amendment 56. Colin Smyth, do you want to move or not move? Move, convener. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. And the result of the vote is four, one against eight. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 118, in the name of Colin Smyth, who has already debated with amendment 56. Colin Smyth, do you want to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. And those wishing to abstain. And the result of the vote is one, four, eight against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. It is probably before we move into the next section, which is quite lengthy. We will pause for a brief five-minute comfort break. We will resume consideration of stage 2 amendments. I call amendment 179, in the name of Edward Mountain, which is grouped with amendments that are showing in the groupings. At this point, I can point out that, if amendment 51 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 72. If amendment 158 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 159 for preemption reasons. Edward Mountain to move amendment 179 to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. When I saw this grouping, I got quite excited, because I think it meant that I could speak for as long as I want, because the grouping was so big. In fairness to the committee, I looked some shock horror even from the clerks at that comment. So maybe I won't do that. So what I'd like to do is speak to my particular amendments and then, as I get to close up at the end, I will make the comments on all of the amendments within the group. So 179, this is about adding a qualification within the legislation to ensure that the satisfaction, sorry, to be satisfied that a license shouldn't be granted, it's beyond reasonable doubt. And I think that's just a nice form of wording to make sure that it's not done on a whim. Sometimes we all are concerned that people who are responsible for issuing the license are the judge, jury and executioner when it comes to those licenses, and I don't think that's a happy place to be. Amendment 18, convener, allows the person should they be refused a license and they appeal it and go through the sheriff court that costs can be awarded to the person for fighting and challenging that license. That seems eminently fair if it is proved that the system has let the person down that they should get their costs back. Now I could, as I said, talk to all the amendments in the group. You will be pleased, convener, that I'm not going to, and I will sit back and take my opportunity at the end. Can you move the amendment please? Sorry, I thought I'd moved that on closing, but I will move the amendment in my name, convener. I apologise. I call the minister to speak to amendment 48 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. So I'll speak to my own amendments 48, 52, before turning to the others in group 8, if I may. Amendments 48, 49, 51 remove the provisions for the licensing authorities to suspend wildlife trap, grouse and mureburn licenses, despite not being satisfied that a relevant offence had taken place. Amendments 50 and 52 remove the definition of an official investigation because this is not needed anymore. I'm bringing forward those amendments because I have listened very carefully to the arguments made by those who have expressed very strongly held concerns about the potential misuse of these provisions, particularly in stage 1. I was never in any doubt that the licensing authority, most likely in Ayrshire Scot, would have operated these provisions carefully, responsibly in the sort of circumstances that I previously described, namely where they had been an incident of such a heinous nature that it would be inconceivable to allow business as usual while a police investigation was running its course. However, I am now happy to provide comfort to those who were worried about how the provisions might be applied by removing them completely from the bill. In doing so, I've been reassured that, in many cases, the police would be able to provide sufficient evidence and early stage of the investigation in serious cases, for example in relation to a 16w licence on whether the act in question was criminal in nature and whether it had occurred a location that connected it to the management of grouse, mure and question. That would allow NatureScot to satisfy themselves that a relevant offence has been committed. However, I would hope that the committee will support my amendments, not least because in the amendments 48 to 52 the committee called for these changes in the stage 1 report. Amendment 179, section 4 of the bill provides that the licensing authority can suspend or revoke a wildlife trap licence if it is satisfied with the civil burden of proof that is the balance of probabilities. That relevant offence has been committed. Edward Mountain's amendment 179 would raise the test applied for the licensing authority to beyond reasonable doubt, which is the criminal burden of proof. Historically, it's been very hard to demonstrate to the criminal burden of proof that a wildlife crime has taken place and a number of successful prosecutions remains low. The purpose of the licensing scheme is to ensure that a wildlife trapping is undertaken in accordance with the law and best 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, where there is strong evidence to suggest that the person operating under the trap licence has committed an offence. For those reasons, I can't support amendment 179 and encourage the committee members to vote against it. I turn to amendments 119, 119A, 135, 135A, 156, 157 and 157A. They seek to require the licensing authorities to set an estimated time period for any suspension of wildlife traps and the taking of gross and mureburn licences. They also stipulate that any suspension period must be reasonable. I understand the motivation behind the amendments. I am sure that, in practice, that NatureScot, as a licensing authority, would set a time period for suspension in most cases. However, that may not be possible, where the restoration of a suspended licence depends on some action by the licence holder. For example, where they are asked to do something to comply with a licence in requirement, the code of practice. In such circumstances, the licence will only be able to reinstated after the licence holder complies with the requirement, so I do not think that a time limit is at all workable here. It is also conceivable that NatureScot may wish to suspend a licence pending further information from the police. The further information could be germane to the length of the suspension period or whether to revoke a licence rather than suspend. In all of these cases, it is incumbent on NatureScot to act reasonably, and it is not necessary to require this in statute. For those reasons, I will not be supporting Rachel Hamilton's amendment that I have mentioned. I will not go through them all at 119A, 135A and 157A, because I just think that they would have the effect that the licence and authority must give notice of the exact duration of a licence suspension, and I do not think that that is possible. I ask Beatrice Wishart also not to move amendments 119, 135, 156 and 157, but, if she does, I would encourage members to vote against them and Rachel Hamilton's amendments 119A, 135A and 157A. Amendments 79 and 82 insert offences under section 19 to be included as relevant offences, which can be considered for suspending or revoking wildlife trap or taking of gross licences. The committee's stage 1 report recommended that we give consideration to the inclusion of those offences as relevant offences. The offences in section 19 of the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 are around the causing of unnecessary suffering to an animal and could apply to mistreatment of a trapped animal, for example, or the treatment of a call bird used in a crocage or larson trap. Therefore, I agree with Karen Adam that those should be relevant offences, and I am happy to support her amendments 79 and 82. Amendment 64 and 74, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, seek to set a time limit of 18 weeks for suspension of a gross licence and 8 weeks for a mureburn licence. I believe that those amendments would set an arbitrary limit on the suspension of licences. As mentioned earlier, it is conceivable that licences could be suspended pending completion of some action required by the licence holder, such as fulfilment of a licence and condition, or compliance with the code of practice. That arbitrary limit could result in the licence holder simply waiting out the time limit rather than comply with those conditions, and that would threaten to bring the whole licensing scheme into disrepute. It could also interfere with any police investigation and any criminal proceedings that would be undesirable, so I cannot support amendments 64 and 74 and encourage committee members to vote against them. Amendments 134 and 155, in the name of Stephen Kerr, would require that where the licensing authority is considering modifying, suspending or revoking a person's gross or mureburn licence, they must give written notice to that person and provide that person with a period of 14 days within which they can submit representations as regards the proposed modification, suspension or revocation. That would be in addition to the provision that is already contained within the draft bill for the relevant authority to give 14 days notice or such other period, as may be specified in the notice, before a modification, suspension or revocation of a licence may take effect. Cumulatively, that would mean that there would be a 28-day period between the licensing authority considering a licence, suspension or revocation and it coming into effect. I just think that this level of delay is unacceptable and unnecessary, so I do not support amendments 134 and 155 and encourage committee members to vote against them. Turn into amendment 65, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. That requires the licensing authority where it has decided to modify, suspend or revoke a person's gross licence to give the reasons for doing so. I think that this is reasonable and sensible. I am happy to support the principle here. I would like more time to consider the framing of the provision and I have had those conversations with Rachel Hamilton on this. I hope that it is acceptable to her to work with me and not press the amendment today, allowing us to come back with a revised amendment at stage 3. Amendment 66, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, replaces the 14-day notice period before modification, suspension or revocation of section 16w licence, can take effect until after the period for which an appeal can be made has elapsed. The effect of this amendment is that it increases the period from 14 days to 21 days before the modification, suspension or revocation can take effect. I do not see any justification for further increasing the period before suspension can take effect. In fact, I think that it would encourage appeals to be lodged even where they had little chance of success to simply secure the delay in suspension or revocation, so I cannot support that and I encourage other members to vote against it. Amendment 67, in my name, is a technical amendment. It clarifies that a licence holder whose section 16w licence is suspended to be treated as not having a section 16w licence for the duration of a suspension. The effect of this is to make it clear that if a licence holder continues to kill or take any type of bird in part 1b of schedule 2 during the suspension, it will have committed an offence. I hope that members will see the sounds on that and support it. Amendment 68, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, removes all of the offences except those under part 1 of the 1981 act from the list of relevant offences for which a 16w licence can be suspended or revoked. I believe that this amendment is based, however, on the mistaken assumption that the bill is solely about preventing raptor persecution and grouse moors. While that is true that preventing and dealing with raptor persecution has been the main driver for a Wetherty review and subsequently this bill, it is not the sole concern. The Wetherty review considered a range of issues around grouse moor management such as trapping and mure burn and there are provisions on these in the bill. It is also important to ensure that by dealing with one issue that we do not inadvertently create others by the minority who have no respect for wildlife. The bill gives effect on large part to the Wetherty review report and that considered the whole environmental impact of grouse moor management. That is why the wildlife management in mure burn Scotland bill was introduced. It enabled us to ensure that we protect against unwanted environmental impacts and harm to other birds and animals in case anyone is tempted to do so, whether it is for any reason or to better enable grouse shooting. It is important that the bill makes clear that licences can be suspended and revoked for the fences relating to other statutory protections for wildlife. I think that removing them from the bill would send the wrong message, so I cannot support amendment 68 and encourage members to vote against it. Continuing amendment 136, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, inserts a condition to provide that, where an appeal is made to the sheriff, they may, on the application of the appellant and, if satisfied on balance of convenience that it is appropriate to do so, recall the decision of the relevant authority pending determination of the appeal. I believe that amendment is unnecessary. Section 881A of the Courts Reform Scotland Act 2014 provides that a sheriff may, on the application of a party to any civil proceedings, which would include a summary application, to appeal a decision as regards grouse licensing makes such interim orders as the sheriff thinks fit in relation to the subject matter of the proceedings. I do not see that Rachel Hamilton's amendment adds anything to that, which is already in statute. This would include recalling the decision of the licensing authority if the sheriff thought it was appropriate. I think that that should be given that the sheriff should be able to act with discretion and unfettered by statutory limitations on the use of many powers at their disposal. The sheriff already has the ability to recall a grouse licence decision, so I do not think that amendment is not required. I do not support amendment 136 for that reason, and I encourage committee members to vote against it. Amendment 18, in the name of Edward Mountain, provides that where an appeal of the granting of a licence is made to the sheriff who subsequently directs it to the licensing authority to grant a licence, the sheriff must make an award of expenses to be paid by the relevant authority to the applicant. This amendment fetters the sheriff's discretion in that regard and would be inappropriate, especially when courts already have the power to award expenses should they deem it appropriate. However, the amendment would require that the courts must award expenses even if they do not deem it to be appropriate in the circumstances. For example, where the appellant, although successful, might have acted in bad faith, such as by delaying proceedings. I do not want to take any powers away from the sheriff in that regard. Those might be rare circumstances, but we all know that legislation has to anticipate even the most rare of circumstances. The normal practice of expenses following success should be the case for those appeals, however, that must remain a matter, I believe, for the court's discretion. I do not support amendment 18 and encourage committee members to vote against it. I come into Rachael Hamilton's amendments 1, 3, 7, 1, 7, 3, 1, 4, 0 and 1, 6, 2. They would require Scottish ministers to create a scheme whereby compensation would be paid to 16AA gross licence and Muirburn licence holders for any losses or costs arising from suspension of those licenses, irrespective of the circumstances of that suspension. Nature's Scott is a public body, must act reasonably. It cannot suspend a licence for spurious reasons. It can only do so if the licence holder has not complied with the conditions of the licence or if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a person managing the land has been licensed and has committed a relevant offence. I do not consider that it would be appropriate to pay compensation in those circumstances. Ultimately, it is right and proper that the power to determine any award of expenses, as I have said, sits with the courts. For that reason, I cannot support amendments 1, 3, 7, 1, 7, 3, 1, 4, 0, 1, 6, 2 and encourage committee members not to support them also. Continuing with Ms Hamilton's amendments 72 and 73, they insert a condition into the suspend, despite not being satisfied provisions, so that Nature's Scott cannot modify, suspend or revoke a Muirburn licence in those circumstances if the basis for doing so is an offence that relates to whether the land is peatland or not. I have already indicated in my amendments that the suspend despite not being satisfied provisions are going to be removed from the bill if my amendments go through, so that they remove the relevance of Ms Hamilton's amendments here. Should my amendments not be supported by the committee, I would not support those amendments in the name of Rachel Hamilton because the amendments would enable anyone who carried out unlawful Muirburn on peatland to claim ignorance of the fact that it was peatland and so avoid a potential licence suspension, so I hope that members would agree and vote against them also. Ms Hamilton's amendments 158 and 161 provide for the person to appeal to a sheriff against the decision of the licensing authority to refuse to grant a Muirburn licence to attach a condition to such a licence and to modify, suspend or revoke such a licence. The amendment also provides that where an appeal is made to the sheriff they may recall the decision of the relevant authority pending determination of the appeal and I have already noted that we believe that the courts already have that power. Amendment 158 will mean that any modification, suspension or revocation of a Muirburn licence could not take effect until after the period for which an appeal can be made has elapsed, so again this would increase the period from 14 days to 21 days after the notification of the modification, suspension or revocation has been given, so before the modification, suspension or revocation takes effect and during this time the Muirburn licence continues to be used. It is anticipated that the Muirburn licence scheme will be delegated to NatureScot and it is not standard across wildlife licensing to include a provision to appeal to a sheriff of any decisions that NatureScot makes. NatureScot has an internal appeal process after which any appeal would be by way of a judicial review or indeed an appeal to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. We have concluded that an appeal process involving the sheriff court in relation to grouse licences as a revocation of grouse Muir licence may have a wider impact on grouse Muir businesses, their employees and the surrounding community, so in short there are clear economic consequences which affect livelihoods from these circumstances that warrant the inclusion of a right of appeal to the sheriff court. However, Muirburn is a very different proposition. First, there are alternative measures of vegetation control available. Second, NatureScot already operates a licensing scheme for Muirburn out of season, so licensing all year round is an extension of an existing system rather than creating an entirely new one. There is no appeal to the sheriff for Muirburn licences under the existing framework. If a person wishes to dispute a decision that they would do so initially by making use of NatureScot's aforesaid internal appeals process, seeking a review of the decision and it would be hoped that at that point it would be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. However, if it wasn't resolved to everyone's satisfaction with the outcome of that process, it is the option of a judicial review or an appeal to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. For those reasons, I do not support those amendments and encourage committee members to vote against them. Finally, Ms Hamilton's amendment 159 increases the notice period that the relevant authority must give for any modification, suspension or revocation of a Muirburn licence from 14 days to 21 days, as with amendment 158. I see no justification for increasing this time period before a licence, suspension, revocation or modification can come into effect, so I do not support that amendment and encourage committee members to agree with me and vote against it. I thank the minister for her time when we met recently. My amendments 119, 135 and 157 relate to the suspension of licences for wildlife traps, grouse shooting and Muirburn respectively. Amendment 156 is a paving amendment to enable 157 to be inserted in the right place. For each licence, my amendments would insert that where a licence is suspended and notice is given of said suspension, then the notice must specify the estimated duration of the suspension. This estimated duration, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, must be reasonable. My reason for proposing amendment 156 is to give licence holders confidence that, should the licence be suspended, it will be provided with information as to how long the relevant authority estimates that the suspension will last. Providing that information can reduce administrative burden on the licensing authority. I thank you for giving way. On that point, just for information, you are talking here about estimates of the time necessary to complete all that. Given the variability of time associated with police and court investigations, is it possible always to give those estimates? I think I will come on to that because I do not think it is possible. That is why I am using the word estimates. Providing this information can reduce administrative burden on the licensing authority as a licence holder with a suspended licence will have an idea of the expected timescale. I recognise that investigations take time, that each is different and that it can be difficult to know exactly how long they take. I agree that stating a definitive timescale would be problematic. That is why I have chosen the word deliberately to ensure that the licensing authority would only be required to provide an estimate to enable that flexibility should circumstances change. Amendment 81, in the name of Jim Fairlie, would extend the length of a section 16AA licence from one to five years. The minister previously stated that there was no need to provide information about the length of suspension for those licences as the maximum length would be a year. If amendment 81 passes, that length has increased and therefore I think that it is now relevant to include a provision that requires the licensing authority to give information to licence holders about an estimated duration of a suspension. I note Rachel Hamilton's amendments to my amendments, which would remove the word estimate, therefore requiring the licensing authority to state the duration of a suspension. I consider that removing the word estimate changes the functions of those amendments by removing any flexibility. I have heard what the minister has said on my amendment, but I am inclined to move amendment 119, in my name. I call Rachel Hamilton to speak to amendment 119A and other amendments in the group. Thank you convener. Just on Beatrice Wishart's amendment 119, that will have the effect of compelling NatureScot to estimate the likely duration of licence suspension. Whilst we believe that that is a welcome step, it could be improved by adding the word estimate. I recognise that Beatrice has, with caution, noted that my amendment adding or subtracting removing the word estimate, she may not support it. The minister does not support it, but I think that it would compel NatureScot to be explicit about the duration of the licence suspension, because it cannot lock rural practitioners indefinitely out of a system, because that is just unfair. I think that it would provide both the regulator and the licence holder, so both parties legal certainty. There is no reason why NatureScot should not be explicit or specific, as Beatrice Wishart spoke earlier. As the threshold for imposing licence suspension and revocation is the same, and official investigations no longer have any role in shaping decision making around licence suspension. I would ask that she consider supporting my amendment on that basis. On amendment 64, I disagree with the minister. We heard evidence that the Scottish Government's intention is that licence suspension is a short-term penalty. However, there is no upper time limit on the period a licence suspension can be imposed. When the committee raised the issue with the minister as part of its stage 1 report, the minister responded in a letter on 29 November, stating that the bill that is currently drafted does not provide a maximum time limit for suspending a licence because there is no need to provide it. That is because the maximum duration for a section 16AA licence for the taking of bird is one year. Therefore, it follows that the maximum suspension period for such a licence could not be greater than one year. Given that the Scottish Government has committed to significantly extending the duration of the licence that is necessary to impose an upper limit on the period of licence suspension on the face of the bill, that will ensure that it is used as a short-term penalty to provide the Government's intention. Given that grouse shooting is a seasonal activity that takes place over 17 weeks over the year, I propose that 18 weeks would be a proportionate punishment to ensure that the maximum period of suspension does not exceed one grouse shooting season. I hope that the minister can understand the wording and the intention behind my amendment with that explanation. On this amendment 64, to further explain the amendment, when we discussed the amendment when we met, I know that you reminded to oppose on the basis that you would not want to tie the hands of Police Scotland or NatureScot in respect of the timescales involved in that official investigation. However, on reflection and considering what you said, this point is now redundant, as the minister has removed the initiation of an official investigation as being a trigger for licence suspension via your amendments 48 and 52. The trigger for licence suspension or revocation is now NatureScot being satisfied to the civil standard that a relevant fence has been committed by a relevant person on the land, not an establishment of an official investigation. In the minister's closing, it would be useful to understand where that gap is. It is a matter for the police to determine when and how information and evidence is shared with NatureScot so that they can make a determination about licence suspension or revocation, but simply the minister's own amendment removes that connection, which I'm describing, between the length of time it takes to conduct the investigation and the length of time a licence should be suspended for. It's therefore appropriate to introduce a maximum period of suspension, which reflects the short-term nature of the penalty expressed to the committee at stage one. On the amendment 65, I thank you for considering the framing of this. I will consider the framing of this. Again, we discussed this when we met previously. I am happy to bring back a revised amendment and I thank and welcome that the minister agrees that this amendment is sensible and reasonable. I'm sure that we can work together. I don't need to continue to describe that reason that I brought forward with that amendment, convener, because I will be withdrawing it. On 66, as is currently drafted, penalties can be imposed on licence holders before their right to appeal against a decision to an independent court of law has elapsed. The amendment provides that the penalty will not take effect until the time period for making an appeal has elapsed, which is 21 days from the decision. That ensures that the licence holder has the opportunity to take legal advice and, if necessary, appeal that decision. It should be for the sheriff to decide in their discretion as a truly independent decision maker, and if the penalty should have an effect pending termination of the appeal, if the licence holder decides not to appeal, the decision would take effect 21 days from the date of decision. Sorry, convener, it's quite descriptive that I met these amendments in this certain grouping, so bear with me. On 68, I'm disappointed that the minister has said that she will not support, but the motivation behind the licensing of grouse shooting is the illegal historic persecution of raptors on grouse malls in Scotland. That's what the bill's all about. The minister did say that the bill has gone wider in scope, but it follows that the illegal persecution of any raptor is the trigger for removing or suspending a licence to shoot grouse. Unfortunately, the scope of the relevant offences in the bill, as introduced, extends far beyond the defined issue of raptor persecution. The issue of offences under the protection of badges hunting with dogs act, section 1 of the wild mammals protection act and the part 3 of the conservation regulations is, I believe, disproportionate and inconsistent with the defined policy aim deterring illegal persecution of raptors on Scotland's grouse malls. That amendment removes offences that do not relate to raptor persecution, as you are aware, in a bid to make the legislation more targeted, proportionate and rationally connected to the policy aimed defined by ministers when it was introduced. On 1-3-5A, convener, in the name of Beatrice Wishup, it will have the effect of compelling nature of Scotland to estimate the likely duration of licence suspension. Again, while this is a welcome step, it could be improved by removing of the word estimated. As I have described before in the previous description, there is no reason why nature of Scotland should not be able to be explicit, and that would provide further clarity. On amendment 73, could you just bear with me, convener, because I just need to get my notes? I will go back to amendment 164. Amendment 164 is designed to deliver greater legal certainty in respect to the appeal provisions at section 16ab of the bill. The minister indicated in her evidence session on 28 June 2023 that a sheriff determining an appeal against a licence decision would have the power to recall on an interim basis decisions by NatureScot pending determination of appeals. As things stand, the bill does not expressly empower a sheriff to do so. While the minister assures me that the sheriff's general power to make interim orders in civil proceedings set out in section 88 of the courts reform Scotland Act 2014 includes the power to recall decisions by NatureScot, I believe that it would be better to include an express power to that effect on the face of the bill to ensure that the said power is put beyond any doubt and deliver legal certainty for licence holders. I would, of course, be content for amendment 136 to be revised and for us to work on that together and bring it back at stage 3 to ensure that there is no inconsistency or conflict between the express power proposed and general powers in section 88, as described before, including, for example, by providing that the express power to recall NatureScot's decision is without prejudice to the sheriff's general power to make interim orders under section 88 of the 2014 act and the test for using the express powers mirrors the test in section 88 of the 2014 act. That has been something that I have been working on getting advice on ministers, so, hopefully, you will understand that I feel strongly about that particular amendment and we can work on it together. On 73, the requirement of practitioners to determine whether or not the land is peatland or non-peatland before making mirror bend poses a significant challenge. The only way to determine the depth of peat accurately is in a given area is by using a peat probe and even then it's not practical to probe every square inch of a proposed burn site as we heard in evidence in this committee, so there's always a possibility that some pockets of a burn site may constitute a peat peatland and others non-peatland. The risk is exacerbated by the fact that the bedrock in Scotland undulates significantly and it follows that practitioners should not be criminalised when it comes to determining whether or not the land is peat or peat non-peatland. The fact is that there's no methodology and, again, we heard that in evidence and we cannot provide the means to say that that is definitive. On amendment 157A, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, it will have the effect of compelling NatureScot to estimate the likely duration of the licence suspension and, while this, again, is a welcome step, it could be improved by the removal of the word estimated. Again, I think that this would give clarity to both the regulator and the licence holder. On section 74, as it's been discussed in the context of 16AA licensing, there's no upper time limit on the period of mubern, licence suspension can be imposed and, given that it's an important land management tool for managing wildfire risks and conservation, it's really important that there is a proportionate upper time limit on those suspensions and I propose that that is eight weeks. I'm getting towards the end, colleagues, and thank you for your patience. On 158, as is currently drafted, the bill provides that NatureScot will act as prosecutor and judge in relation to its own mubern licensing decisions whereby they can only be challenged by way of judicial review of the court of session, which, as members know, will be very expensive and limited remedy, which does not allow the court to correct our decisions based on the facts, and this is wholly unsatisfactory. The requirement for decisions to deprive a person of their rights to be made on the basis of evidence that proves that they are linked to an unlawful act and to be able to appeal to decision to an independent judge goes to the heart of the rule of law. Land managers should have the right to appeal against licence refusal, modification, suspension or revocation to an independent court of law on the facts that they have in law, which is what this amendment goes to the heart of. The internal procedure, which the minister describes, is used by NatureScot under its frameworks for implementing restrictions in the context of general licences, has led to an erosion of trust in the regulator and that's by no way to play down what they do, but that could be an unintended consequence whereby it is perceived that they are effectively marking their own homework and again we heard evidence to suggest that that could be the case when it comes to reviewing their own licensing decisions which cannot then be appealed to a sheriff court on the merits and the right to be able to appeal a decision to an independent judge, as I said, goes to the heart of the rule of law. I think I may have finished that grouping and thank you for your patience, convener. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. I now call on Karen Adam to speak to amendments 79 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I welcome this opportunity to speak to my amendments 79 and 82. At stage 1 we received evidence from the RSPB that offences committed under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 be included as a relevant offence for the wildlife traps and grouse licensing schemes set up and they set out their rationale for that. The committee also encouraged the Scottish Government to look at this ahead of stage 2, and I'm grateful for the minister offering her support for these amendments today. Amendments 79 and 82 seek to achieve exactly this. They are already complex provisions, but my amendments simply seek to add to the list of legislation so that an offence committed under section 19 of the 2006 act is added to the list of offences to be considered in terms of revoking or suspending a licence. Section 19 of the 2006 act sets out that a person will have committed an offence if they are found to have caused a protected animal unnecessary suffering by an act that they knew would have or would have been likely to cause that animal to suffer. Amendment 79 adds an offence under section 19 of the 2006 act to this bill as a ground for revoking or suspending a wildlife trap licence and amendment 82 does the same for a grouse licence. My amendments make important additions to the bill to provide for greater protection for animals and wildlife, and I hope that members will support them. I'm going to limit my remarks to 1.3.4 and 1.5.5, which are my name. The minister in her remarks addressed my amendments by reference to the elements of the bill that talk about the 14-day notice that is given once a decision has been reached. That's what it says in the bill. What I'm proposing is that, in advance of a decision before deciding to refuse or modify a suspended revoke, the applicant gets 14 days prior notice of the proposed decision and gives them the opportunity to submit representations with respect to the proposed decision. I'm bringing forward both of those amendments, say, similar things, and it's basically an appeal to the idea of reasonableness, which is quite common in other licensing schemes, whereas an application, or there's going to be a change in status that's proposed, that the applicant is notified ahead of a decision. What the minister was referring to is the 14 days that follow a decision. Again, the whole basis of my amendments is to introduce an element that allows the applicant the opportunity to make representations in respect to a proposed decision. That's all I will say on it. Thank you. Any other members? Colin Smyth. Thank you very much, convener. I know that my name is next to amendment 79 as a supporter, which obviously adds section 19 of the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 to the list of offences for which a trapped licence can be suspended or revoked, as well as amendment 82, which has my name beside it, which does the same for section 1688 licences. Having tabled those amendments, I want to express my full support for them and the necessary protection, as the use of traps and other management can and often result in unnecessary suffering. There are provisions in the bill that will improve training and regulation of trapped operators, but it is vital that that is combined with a deterrent to the widespread non-adherence to the terms and conditions of general licences, allowing the live capture of wild birds and impactant on their welfare. Those amendments would do that, and I'm pleased that the Government and the Government are fully supporting them. I just want to make a call. I don't think that the ministers are going to wish to come back in, but I just wanted to make it clear that, whether the minister agreed that there was no longer any connection between the period of investigation and the period of suspension, given that the minister has amended out the investigation provisions. I'm not quite sure that I understand your question, convener. The link between the investigation provisions that you've amended out would now suggest that there's no connection between the period of investigation and the period of suspension. There's no link between the two. Is that correct? In my arguments, when I'm resisting that some of the amendments are put forward, what I don't want to do is tie the hands of any investigating authority. By putting in statute a time in which a suspension—a limit to a time of suspension, if that's what you mean—is the length of the investigation. There could be various parties involved in that, and I don't want to limit the scope of that unnecessarily. That might be something that we'll return to at the next stage. Any other members? No, I can ask Edward Mountain to wind up and press a withdrawal amendment 179. Thank you, convener, and in line with the way other members have approached this, I'm going to keep my comments very short, mainly on my amendments or ones that I think are truly important. As far as amendment 179 is concerned, I'm not sure I understand the reticence about making sure that this is a process that goes beyond criticism. I think that by adding beyond reasonable doubt, make sure that the process is beyond reasonable doubt rather than just on the opinion of one person. I have to say that I've been taken by the argument from the Deputy Convener Beatrice Wishart on amendment 119. I understand why she's added the word estimate, and I understand why Ms Hamilton may choose not to want it in there, but I suspect that, on balance, the best that can be achieved is an estimate, and I don't think anyone should be frightened of supporting that amendment and taking forward. I think that there's a clear argument for amendment 64 from Rachael Hamilton limiting the amount of time a licence may be suspended. Again, I support amendments from Stephen Kerr on the basis that they are really just adding a baseline to this so people can understand. I also think that Rachael Hamilton's amendment 66 is important, that no penalties are enforced before the appeal process is heard. When it comes to amendment 18, I've heard the minister's comments. I hear that it makes a statutory obligation on the share of two ward costs. I'm going to withdraw that amendment and rewrite it so you can prepare your arguments, Minister, for it to come back at section 3, which no doubt you would have anticipated and already coming. The other comment I would like to make, if I may, is just on the final bit, which is Rachael Hamilton's amendment 161 leading on to the following amendment. I am deeply concerned that the minister is suggesting that the only outcome for appeal is judicial review. Judicial review is hugely expensive. If that is once you've exhausted your ... Can I just finish, Minister? If once you've exhausted your appeal process with the person who's refused the licence and the organisation's refused the licence, if it's just judicial review, I'm concerned. I'm happy to give way to the minister. I'm fairly certain that I'm not saying that that's the only route for an appeal. There's an appeals process, obviously, within NatureScot, but you can go to the Public Services Ombudsman as well as you can for any public body to get them to investigate what's happened before you had to go to the step of judicial review. Okay, and I thank the minister for clarity on that. I have actually been involved in the appeal processes against NatureScot or Scottish Natural Heritage, not only as an individual, but representing constituents in the Parliament. The system and the reasons around it are fairly opaque, so I'm minded that if that is the way the minister goes. Yes, I would. Just to develop what the minister is saying, on this, you heard me describe why I brought forward this amendment and other similar amendments because I feel as though NatureScot would be marking their own homework. The minister seems to be content with the internal process in terms of reviewing a licensing decision. However, that then cannot be appealed by the sheriff court on its own merits, and so that is what concerns me specifically on this. I thank Ms Hamilton for clarifying that, and it is also what concerns me in the sense that, without going into the details of a case, too much but an appeal was lodged and it was heard by the same person who'd made a judgment on it, and that is inherently wrong. So, there is a suggestion here, which I'd like to work with the minister on, and maybe the minister could indicate whether it's possible, is to work on a system of including a level of independent arbitration when it comes to making a decision on the process. Certainly in the past when I was in a situation where SNH challenged me on something, they refused my appeal, but on arbitration their position was overturned. So arbitration gives the ability for an individual to do this at minimal cost without having to go to judicial review or the sheriff court. So I don't know if the minister is in a position to say whether she would entertain discussions on that, but it would help. I'll always entertain sensible discussions. I'm interested in what you say about a process of independent arbitration. It's possible that we could be asking for that to be looked at in terms of the review process as well, whether or not that is something that might be welcome, because I imagine that no public body wants to go to judicial review or be referred even to the Scottish public services ombudsman as well, so maybe that's an additional step, but certainly I'm interested in pursuing that further. I've got my officials to look at it, speak to people who might be involved, but we could maybe have a meeting ahead of stage 3 and see if it's something that could be workable. Okay, and convener, I'm grateful for the minister's intervention and clarifying the position, because I think that this may get round the concerns that have been mentioned by members at this committee. So just to clarify, convener, without talking any more, I am going to push amendment 179, but I am not going to push amendment 18 at this stage. I will bring it back at stage 3 once it's been amended to reflect the concerns of the minister, convener. Thank you, Mr Mountain. The question is that amendment 179 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting amendment 179, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting amendment 179, please raise your hand now. Those members who wish to abstain, please raise your hand. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against the amendment, therefore it's not been agreed. Amendment 48, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 179. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Amendment 119, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, is already debated with amendment 179. Beatrice Wishart, to move or not move? Amendment 119A, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that amendment 119 be agreed to. I need to ask you whether you wish to press or withdraw your amendment. Press. The question is that amendment 119 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting amendment 119, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting amendment 119, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 4 against 5. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. Amendment 79, in the name of Karen Adam, is already debated with amendment 179. Karen Adam, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 179 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting amendment 119, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting amendment 119, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 4 against 7. The amendment has therefore been agreed. At this point in proceedings, I am intending to suspend. Given the time that it may take to get through the next section, we have not got as far as are of light, but I do not think that it is a good idea to start talking to amendments and not really fully debate them. I am going to suspend the proceedings for today and formally close this meeting. Thank you.