Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to develop the discussion following what the minister has said. You heard me describe why I lodged amendment 161 and similar amendments: I feel that NatureScot would be marking its own homework. The minister seems to be content with the internal process for reviewing a licensing decision, but such decisions could not be appealed at the sheriff court on their own merits. That is what specifically concerns me.

My intervention was about a previous issue.

Will the minister take an intervention?

Those aspects are very difficult to measure. As we know, various members have received emails and information about how burdensome the licence scheme in the hunting with dogs process has been, and we know how long the process has taken, what information has to be provided to NatureScot and how many of those licences have been turned down, regardless of the individuals meeting the criteria.

The principles were based on other parts of legislation relating to licensing frameworks that have already gone through the Parliament. I can list the licensing frameworks that the principles are based on. Those include the Gambling Act 2005 and section 4 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005. Currently, the principles and high-level objectives are already in those pieces of legislation.

I hope that that reassures Alasdair Allan.

I was heartened that the minister lodged amendment 55. That clearly means that we have both been listening carefully to some of the evidence on the issue. I support her amendment 100 per cent, as it serves the same purpose as my amendment 57—to make trap vandalism an offence.

I listened carefully to the minister when she spoke about Mike Flynn from the Scottish SPCA, who also supports a specific offence should the animal welfare implications of trap vandalism be in play. Scottish Land & Estates also supports a specific offence whereby the penalties for trap vandalism should equal those for mis-setting a trap. I, too, met the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, which strongly supports that amendment. I accept the minister’s point that my amendment is very similar, so I will reluctantly not move it, albeit that we have not yet got to that point.

In bringing forward the amendment, you did not once say that rural stakeholders are bringing a clear public benefit in relation to biodiversity gain. That is how I interpreted what you said, but, obviously, I do not know whether you are trying to say that they do or do not bring a public benefit. Beyond that, it is important that we reflect that those who are operating legally and within the law 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 that exists because the Scottish National Party did not get a majority in the most recent election and therefore had to bring on board another party to ensure that it had a majority, particularly for independence votes. Forgive me for making that point, but it is essential that I make it, because the SNP is now kowtowing to another party.

Can I intervene?

I want to put on record how important it is that we are all able to debate. It is not foolish or wrong to question another member or to intervene on them, particularly to get clarification on an amendment, which was my intention. I apologise to Colin Smyth if he believed that I was asking whether his Labour Party was going to ban country sports—it just seemed that that was the intention. I thank him for clarifying.

Will the minister take an intervention?

It is on a previous point, minister. Thank you for taking the intervention.

You talked about the ban on snares in Wales, but the fact is that Welsh ministers are currently facing a challenge to that. Do you think that the same might happen in Scotland? Secondly, in relation to the ban on humane cable restraints that you mentioned, what biodiversity impact assessment has been done?