Where do I start? The debate has been heated, but I do not think that anyone in the chamber would sanction or approve any shape or form of wildlife persecution: it is just not on. I have made the point on numerous occasions that it needs to stop. A selfish and stupid few carry it out. I am happy to put that on the record.

I thought that I was going to enjoy talking about a subject that has taken up a huge period of my life. I have enjoyed engaging with the committee and with some of the groups that sought to change activities that I have been involved in during my life. Most of those engagements have been good natured, although we have agreed to disagree. I hope that, as we progress, dialogue can continue on an open and frank basis.

The bill’s progress has been unusual; a new section was added at stage 2, which I always think is not good for a parliamentary procedure. We have, unfortunately, had a change of ministers, although I understand the reason for that. We heard a minister arguing against his own amendments at stage 2, which I found quite odd. When he was challenged about it the other day in the chamber, the minister said that since becoming a minister, his eyes had been opened and he is aware of more figures. It is a pity that that was not the case during stage 2.

I will talk only briefly about glue traps, because I understand that my time is short. At stage 3, we saw an about-turn on glue traps. It has been a bit of a rollercoaster ride. I am disappointed, in some respects, that we are where we are with glue traps. I hope that the minister will bear it in mind that there are plenty of places where it is not appropriate to use rodenticides—certainly their use is not appropriate in schools, hospitals and restaurants. We do not want dead rats and mice lying around. People who have smelled them when they have been under floorboards could have been put off more than just their dinner. Glue traps are something that we should consider.

I am disappointed in respect of snaring. I make no bones about the fact that removing snaring as a tool is regressive and will end up bringing firearms closer to conurbations. That is bad news. It will also make it very difficult to control rabbits. For example, in one particular patch that I managed, in one year alone we had to kill 12,000 rabbits to maintain and look after designated habitats.

As far as trapping generally is concerned, there are bits of the bill with which I am unhappy. I welcome the Government’s point about damage to traps. That was helpful, and I hope that the Government will ensure that it follows through on that.

I remain deeply concerned in relation to muirburn. Everyone thinks that muirburn is done to promote grouse shooting, but it is absolutely not done purely for grouse shooting. As Kate Forbes said during stage 2, muirburn is vital for protecting communities and making sure that there is not a heavy fuel load within and close to habitation.

Muirburn is also about managing the vegetation on a hill, and not just for grouse. Other species need long rank heather to nest in—hen harriers prefer to nest on burn edges where there is longer heather. However, to allow them to do well on the moor, they need prey species, such as grouse or other birds that benefit from shorter heather. Eagles also probably benefit from shorter vegetation that hares can go in.

I urge the minister to monitor carefully the effects of muirburn on all wildlife—it is not just about grouse—and, if necessary, to come back with amendments at a later stage to make it easier to carry out muirburn to benefit management of our high hills.

To conclude, I say that I found one thing amusing in the debate—the justification for making something that was already illegal, illegal, in case anyone illegally makes it legal in the future. That was the argument that the minister put in relation to making traps for killing birds illegal.