Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is absolutely vital that we get UK Government ministers to come to the committee to answer the questions that we continue to raise with the Scottish Government. We can get no answers to those questions, because the Scottish Government cannot get answers from the UK Government.

Have we specifically written to the minister to ask her to attend our committee, given the number of areas where there is crossover between policies?

One of the responses was from the owner of a pest control business, who said that they had concerns about banning the use of glue traps in food-designated areas. Was that considered?

Was the issue the burden of proof?

If somebody dumped a dead sparrowhawk right in the middle of a grouse moor and then, quite by chance, found it and reported it, that would be a vexatious action by somebody who was deliberately targeting the grouse moor.

How will the Government respond to concerns from land managers that tampering with legally set traps could mean that individuals are vulnerable to prosecution? Is there current evidence that that is a significant issue in relation to legally set traps?

Can the committee have clarification of what that is and how it could be acted on?

The convener has asked a chunk of the questions that I was going to pursue. However, there is quite a bit in the next line of questioning, which is on the basis for licence suspension and revocation, and procedural safeguards.

I want to get on the record the fact that relevant offences are those set out in 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. What is the justification for the different relevant offences that are listed in the bill in relation to potential suspension or revocation of the section 16AA licences? In particular, why are those not related to raptor persecution included, and what evidence is there linking those offences to grouse moors?

Given the point that the convener made about vexatious claims and actions by people who have a distinct distrust and dislike of grouse moors, does it seem fair to add a sanction to grouse moors that does not apply to other rural businesses?

Thank you.