Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to speak to John Mason’s amendments, and I thank him for raising an important issue. The committee heard evidence about it at stage 1, but I recognise that a species licensing review is already committed to as part of the Bute house agreement, and I agree with not pre-empting the findings of that review.

The ban on snares illustrates the importance of this legislation. It will deliver real improvements in animal welfare, and I am convinced by the overwhelming evidence that we heard from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and others at stage 1—and, indeed, by the campaigning that has been carried out over many years 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, and denied food and water. Of course, snares are completely indiscriminate. They are as capable of trapping a protected species as they are of trapping a pet cat. A ban on snares would be a mark of the high regard that this country has for its iconic wildlife, so I will be pleased to support amendment 54.

I will turn briefly to Colin Smyth’s amendments. Although I have sympathy with his intentions, I am concerned that amendments 54A to 54J could, in practice, make it more difficult to implement the ban by overcomplicating the definition of a snare. I hope that discussions on that can continue ahead of stage 3.

I would like to put on record some brief comments about the amendments in this group.

First, I support the minister’s amendment 56. It is appropriate that applicants for a trap licence have evidence that they have completed appropriate training. In that respect, I listened closely to the minister’s arguments in relation to amendments 10B and 10A.

On Colin Smyth’s amendments, I want to stress the importance of ensuring that the bill is passed before the end of the parliamentary year. I am concerned that amendment 113 jeopardises that by undermining what the bill is designed to do, which is to implement the recommendations of the Werritty 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 on that route.

I appreciate the intention behind amendment 116, which is 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 in 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 valuable in other land management work, but I agree that this sort of thing 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 of placing animal welfare at their heart. I hope that the minister will be able to provide assurance that NatureScot will have the resources to assess training courses and approve only those of the highest standard.

Before you move on to your next question, Stephanie, Mark Griffin has a brief supplementary.

I will now bring in Marie McNair, who joins us online.

Thank you for those questions. I will follow up on both of them.

On the funding commitment, you say there will be £41.3 million. I understand that it is demand led and I presume that the fund will increase as the demand increases. However, we heard that there is an estimated cost of £40 million to remediate just one building that we went to see. I am concerned about that number.

Great. I just wanted to make sure that we had a reality check on the scale of the finance that is needed.

On the previous question around the lack of qualified professionals, we heard in an evidence session that Glasgow Caledonian University has a course, which is the only course in Scotland, but it is due to come to an end. I would be quite concerned about that if we need to bring on more professionals.

We also heard that people are going to England because work is moving ahead more quickly there. How do we ensure that we have a sufficient pipeline of people who can take on this work? We have this emergency bill and we are taking evidence quickly so that it can move forward but, if we do not have the professionals, we will run into a problem.

The next agenda item is to consider four negative instruments. There is no requirement for the committee to make any recommendations on negative instruments.??Do any members have any comments on them?

As there are no comments, does the committee agree that we do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

Under agenda item 2, we will take evidence on the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill from the Minister for Housing, Paul McLennan, who is joined in the room by Scottish Government officials Kate Hall, director, and Rachel Sunderland, deputy director, from the cladding remediation directorate; and Micheila West, from the legal directorate.

I welcome our witnesses to the meeting and invite the minister to make a short opening statement, after which I will turn to questions from members.

We know from what we have heard from owners and residents that one of the key challenges for them is the difficulty that they face in obtaining insurance and in selling or remortgaging their property. It is not clear from the evidence that we have heard that an approach that involves responding to the challenges of cladding alone, and not responding to the wider fire safety issues, will precipitate a change in the situation. What are your thoughts on that?