Seòmar agus comataidhean

This will be interesting.

My question has been asked, convener.

How many rats are you trying to catch if you are putting down thousands? I am sorry—I am not trying to be facetious; I am trying to get a picture in my head of what this looks like.

What is the difference between having glue traps and break-back traps in exactly the same numbers?

Is it predation across the board, from mammals and particularly corvids? Corvids are particularly good at finding eggs.

Would that also not require NatureScot to be able to go out and measure the depth of peat?

I am possibly misunderstanding.

Given that the licensing scheme has the potential for an investigation and suspension of the licence, does the fine element of it make it a lot harder to retrieve any money? Would there be more cost in trying to get the burden of proof to a level where a fine could be imposed?

You talk about reporting “without good reason”, but the reason would be—I have had this conversation with various welfare organisations—to understand how many animals are killed annually, in particular to increase grouse numbers. That is the challenge that would come back to you. How do you answer that? That is not a trick question.

I am keen to explore a wee bit further the range of relevant offences. The bill identifies relevant offences under part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, part III of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994, section 1 of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 and the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023. Given that your review looked specifically at raptor persecution, do you believe that the inclusion of all those things in the bill is proportionate?