Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are due to consider the request that the member has made to the SPCB at our next meeting, on Thursday 18 April, and we will update him as soon as we can. The SPCB noted the support that was expressed during the recent members’ business debate and will take that into consideration.

I agree that it would be good for the shop to stock alcohol-free options. Our retail manager regularly checks the market for such products, and did so most recently at the start of this year. Unfortunately, we have so far been unable to find a product that could be branded and would meet our requirements for low-minimum-quantity ordering. We will keep checking, however, and update the member if we are successful.

I advise the member that the difficulty is that branded items—from tartan scarves to malt whisky—that are designed for us and available nowhere else remain popular with customers. We know that our alcohol products are popular because of the Parliament’s branding and uniqueness. Our whisky range is currently supplied under contract by the Own Label Company, which is based in Edinburgh. Unfortunately, it does not yet have alcohol-free drinks in its product portfolio, but we continue to investigate the matter.

I thank Murdo Fraser for his questions, which I am delighted to answer.

The position on whether we keep the portrait of the late Queen will be considered by the SPCB in due course, when we consider the new commissioning of a portrait of King Charles.

I thank Murdo Fraser for his question. The SPCB is happy to consider suggestions for new commissions. We have asked parliamentary officials to explore options with a view to providing advice and recommendations to the SPCB in due course. We will keep you fully informed of those decisions, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I am bringing them to a conclusion.

The point that I am making—which deserves to be re-emphasised—is that, until stage 3, there was no notion that we would have a backdoor system of regulation.

I am at a loss to understand why the Scottish Government—which seems to me not to be compromised but to be doing this as a matter of appeasement—will continue, if the bill passes, to introduce by the back door a licensing scheme against all the evidence that glue trapping is inhumane.

Wales introduced an outright ban that became effective on 17 October 2023. Why on earth the Scottish Government does not do the same, I do not understand. On that ban, the Welsh Rural Affairs Minister, Lesley Griffiths, said:

“This is a historic day for animal welfare. We strive for the very highest standards of animal welfare in Wales, and the use of snares and glue traps are incompatible with what we want to achieve.”

I wish that my Government took the same view of things.

I move amendment 38.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze. I would have voted no.

The arguments that I will make in support of amendment 38 apply equally to amendment 39. Of the other amendments in the group, my intention is to reference in detail only the Scottish Government’s amendment 11. I do not support licensing, but I will speak to that amendment specifically.

Amendment 38 would delete words in section 1(1), to make it read, “It is an offence for a person to use a glue trap for the purpose of killing or taking any animal other than an invertebrate.” It would be an outright ban on glue traps, except for use on invertebrates.

As far as I knew, until Tuesday of last week, that was the Government’s position. However, then up popped amendment 11 in the name of the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, Jim Fairlie. I welcome the minister to his position, but I will not make life easy for him.

Amendment 11 would insert after section 3:

“Authorisation for use, supply or possession of glue trap

(1) The Scottish Ministers may, by regulations, make a scheme for the authorisation of the use, supply or possession of glue traps (“the scheme”)—

(a) by specified persons,

(b) in specified circumstances.”

I will pre-empt the Government’s argument: it will continue to say that its policy position is a belief in an outright ban. However, I am interested in the law, which is fixed—and, in this case, would not be an outright ban, because, if amendment 11 is agreed to, there will be an opening, notwithstanding that it would be in very peculiar circumstances, for the Government to introduce a licensing scheme. In common parlance, it is not a ban. What is policy is distinct from what is legal.

To look at the Government’s history on the issue, its policy memorandum, which it put out when it was consulting and which was introduced with the bill on 21 March 2023, said specifically that the bill will

“Ban the use and purchase of glue traps”.

Relevant to sections 1 to 3, it says that those are

“devices used for a variety of purposes, primarily to control ground rodents ... glue traps work by placing them along areas where rats and mice are likely to frequent. Once the animal steps onto the board it is then firmly stuck to it and is unable to free itself. Once an animal is captured the intention is that the glue trap can be retrieved and the animal dispatched.”

The memorandum also details that

“There has been significant and ongoing concern regarding the welfare implications of the use of ... glue traps. They can result in prolonged suffering ... are indiscriminate in nature”

and can unintentionally trap non-target species.

I am not against the trapping and capturing of rodents; I am against the use of glue traps. That is a very specific complaint.

In response to concerns by animal welfare groups in petition PE1671 to the Scottish Parliament, which called for a ban on the sale and use of glue traps, the Government sought advice from the independent Scottish Animal Welfare Commission.

On 23 March 2021, the SAWC published a report that acknowledged that there are

“certain high-risk situations that clearly require effective and rapid pest control.”

It went on to say that the SAWC was

“not convinced that evidence exists supporting the view that glue traps are genuinely the only method of last resort”

and gave examples of other effective alternative methods.

The report acknowledged the animal welfare impacts of the use of glue traps. It concluded that

“there is no way that glue traps can be used without causing animal suffering”

and that they pose

“an undeniable risk of capture of non-target species.”

It further stated that its preferred recommendation was that

“animal welfare issues connected with the use of glue traps would justify an immediate outright ban on their sale and use.”

I highlight the words “outright ban.”

It is no wonder that I, and others, believed that the Scottish Government’s position was unequivocal: that there should be an outright ban on glue traps—no regulations in the future and no parking the issue for some other legislation. Indeed, that was reinforced by a string of answers to parliamentary questions. In the interest of time, I will only quote a few.

On 20 January 2022, Siobhian Brown, who is now a minister, asked an oral question on the ban and was told:

“we will introduce legislation to ban glue traps in this parliamentary term”—[Official Report, 20 January 2022; c 4.]

On 31 May 2022, Màiri McAllan said:

“we have committed to ending use of glue traps, which is a particularly cruel and harmful practice.”—[Official Report, 31 May 2022; c 92.]

In June 2022, in answer to a written question from Sandesh Gulhane, who had raised issues about health, Màiri McAllan replied:

“I set out our plans to introduce a ban on the sale and use of glue traps.”—[Written Answers, 10 June 2022; S6W-09084.]

In October 2022, Màiri McAllan made reference to work that was on-going on “banning glue traps”.

Throughout all that, in my foolishness, I thought that we were banning glue traps.

At stage 2, Edward Mountain—quite rightly—lodged amendments relating to a licensing scheme that he wanted to introduce in certain circumstances. There was a debate. Then, in response to what the minister said, he did not pursue the amendments and said that we would come back to them later. He said:

“However, it is especially important in relation to food. The only way of ensuring that is to use a glue trap. I know from personal experience that you can set snap traps for vermin such as rats and mice, but they can become trap shy, and some of them are pretty clever.”

He went on to say:

“I do not see any reason why that should not be allowed, especially if the glue traps are set and checked within a set period. I think that that is a humane way of doing it.”

Although I disagree with him, he was entitled to say that. The response from Gillian Martin, who was the Minister for Energy and the Environment at that time, was:

“Edward Mountain’s amendment 176 would allow members of the public to use glue traps to control rats and mice in educational, catering or medical premises. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission published a report on glue traps that concluded that

‘animal welfare issues connected with the use of glue traps would justify an immediate outright ban on their sale and use.’

Because of the weight of evidence that glue traps are the least humane method of rodent control and that they cause unacceptable levels of suffering to the animals that are caught by them, continuing to allow their use was not considered to be a viable option. More than three quarters of respondents to our consultation also agreed that glue traps should be banned completely in Scotland.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 7 February 2024; c 3, 5.]

This is an extremely important debate, and I share the concerns about substantive amendments being lodged—to any legislation—at the last minute. There are two key aspects to consider. First, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which is a completely independent body, has determined that glue traps cause extreme suffering and are inhumane. I am not opposed to rodent control, but I am opposed to this particular method of control.

Secondly, the minister said that there is a ban on glue traps. However, he went on to say that, should the amendment that was lodged at the last minute be agreed to, the Government can, by regulations, authorise their use in extreme circumstances. That would be done using the affirmative procedure, which is at least something. That is not a ban. The old teacher in me notes that the word “ban” comes from a middle English word that means “to banish”. We are not banishing the use of glue traps. We are qualifying and modifying their use by saying that, in certain circumstances, they will not be banished.

Finally, I say to Edward Mountain that my huge concern about regulation and licensing in any circumstance is that, as we saw from snaring, it very much depends on the personnel who are doing it. We know that glue traps will not always be regularly checked, as that was our experience with snaring. Therefore, the straightforward answer is simply to ban glue traps and to use alternative methods of pest control. I did not know that glue traps were being used in the Parliament—I am shocked by that.

I press amendment 38.

I confirm to the minister that I fully support an outright ban on snaring.