Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 31, 2022

Official Report 919KB pdf

---

Ethical Principles in Wildlife Management

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-03023 in the name of Colin Smyth on ethical principles in wildlife management. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. As ever, I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible, and I call on Colin Smyth to open the debate.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes reports that thousands of animals and birds are taken and killed in wildlife management operations every year, including in the South Scotland region; considers that these are sentient beings that are capable of experiencing pain and suffering; notes the view that Scotland should lead the way in sustainable and humane interaction with the wild animals in the environment; notes the belief that wildlife management should be governed by ethical principles, such as the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control, which recommend that efforts to control wildlife should, wherever possible: alter the human practices that cause human-wildlife conflict and develop a culture of coexistence, be justified by evidence that significant harms are being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and/or other animals, have measurable outcome-based objectives that are clear, achievable, monitored, and adaptive, minimise animal welfare harms and be confined to the fewest number of animals, be informed by community values as well as scientific, technical, and practical information, be integrated into plans for systematic long-term management, and be based on the specifics of the situation rather than negative labels such as “pest” or “overabundant”, and notes the view that there are opportunities to integrate ethical principles into the Scottish Government’s strategic approach to wildlife management and its species licensing review.

17:17  

It is a privilege to lead this debate on the issue of ethical principles in wildlife management, and I begin by thanking the many members from across the chamber who signed my motion. That reflects something that I have been aware of since the day that I had the honour of being elected to this Parliament, which is that there is a genuine interest and a real commitment to improving animal welfare that cuts across party lines. That support from members from parties across the chamber has brought about a meaningful change in recent years that has led to the improvement in the care and protection of animals, from tougher penalties for animal and wildlife crime to the establishment of the excellent Animal Welfare Commission. We have seen a greater scrutiny and interest in wildlife management, and I recognise the Government’s commitment in this session to closing the loopholes in the current hunting with dogs legislation and to making progress on the licensing of grouse moors and a review of snaring, which I hope will lead to an outright ban on the use of snares. As the League Against Cruel Sports says in its briefing for this debate, trapping and snaring is cruel, it is outdated and it has no place in modern wildlife management.

Although there has been much progress in animal welfare, there is much more still to do, not least in relation to our approach to wildlife management, which is too often ad hoc and can be illogical and, often, unscientific. Our attitudes to wild animals also differ significantly to our attitudes to domestic or farmed animals. Even among wild animals, protections vary from species to species and circumstance to circumstance, even though all animals are sentient—they, like us, feel pain; they feel distress.

There is some good practice when it comes to wildlife management but there are also too many examples of appalling cruelty. As a modern, progressive society we need a new, better approach.

I said that we have seen progress on animal welfare thanks to support in this Parliament, but that progress is also thanks to the many charities that give a voice to our fellow species, which cannot speak for themselves. There are too many to name today but we know those positive campaigns that really have delivered change. However, I want to highlight four organisations that are leading the way in putting welfare at the heart of the debate on wildlife and examining how ethical reasoning can be applied to wildlife management and interventions: OneKind, the League Against Cruel Sports and the other Revive coalition partners, as well as the Wild Animal Welfare Committee and the United Kingdom centre for animal welfare. They recognise that there will always be wildlife management interventions that will mean harm to some animals, however their work has highlighted the lack of a consistent approach to those interventions and the lack of a process that guides decisions around if, when and how those interventions take place to ensure that they are ethically led, evidence based and prioritise animal welfare.

However, such a framework does exist—the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. The seven internationally recognised principles were developed by a panel of 20 experts that was convened in 2015 at the University of British Columbia. They are not intended to prohibit or prevent wildlife control, including lethal control, but they aim to reduce unnecessary actions and, therefore, suffering, and ensure that, when controls are used, they are justifiable and acceptable.

Does Colin Smyth recognise that the Scottish Government has absolutely been out in front of making sure that wildlife crime and wildlife cruelty are kept to a very minimum?

I very much recognise that progress, and it is a point that I highlighted at the very beginning of my speech, but there are still areas that I think we need to make further progress on. What I hope to do today is set out exactly how the Government can made progress by incorporating those ethical principles into its work every day, because that is something that I think is difficult to argue with.

The seven principles challenge decision makers to ask seven questions. First, can the problem be mitigated by modifying human practice to prevent the need for control by, for example, having better refuse bin design to reduce the supply of food in our towns for gulls or by blocking potential entries to homes for mice as a first resort? Secondly, is there justification for the control? In other words, are there substantial harms being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems or other animals? Thirdly, is there a clear, achievable outcome, and how will that be monitored? A badger cull, for example, similar to the one in England, would not have met this principle, given the lack of evidence that it actually had any impact on tuberculosis in cattle. Fourthly, is the proposed method of control the one that carries the least animal welfare cost to the fewest animals? The Scottish Government has agreed a competency requirement for shooting deer, for example, but following the fourth principle would logically extend that to other species. Fifthly, is the action socially acceptable? Sixthly, is the chosen control part of a proper, systematic, long-term plan? Finally, is the decision to control based on the situation or simply the negative characterisation of that particular type of animal?

We are beginning to see international examples of putting such principles into practice. The AnimalKind accreditation programme of the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals sets standards based on the principles, which wildlife and rodent control companies there are signing up to. Parks Canada, a federal Government agency overseeing all the land and marine parks, has adopted the principles for its biodiversity programme.

Crucially, there are real opportunities to do something similar in Scotland. In 2014, NatureScot—then known as Scottish Natural Heritage—was the first of the UK’s national nature agencies to adopt a wildlife position statement. It was forward thinking at the time but, eight years on, there is a need to better align that position with modern definitions of animal welfare. I understand that NatureScot’s position statement will be reviewed, and perhaps the minister can confirm that today. What an opportunity to incorporate those ethical principles in the work of NatureScot, placing it at the heart of the Government’s approach to wildlife management.

We can, we should and we need to go further. The Government should prioritise wildlife management projects or programmes and incentivise land managers who carry out the appropriate ethical assessments when deciding on any control methods. They should incorporate the ethical principles into non-statutory codes and guidance and into any species licensing schemes. Ultimately, I believe that ethical principles should be incorporated into legislation and, if need be, I will bring forward a member’s bill to do just that.

Mahatma Gandhi once said:

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

It is not moral to pepper our land with stink pits to lure animals to an excruciating death by snare in the name of wildlife management; it is not moral to allow grown men and women to continue to chase a fox to exhaustion in the name of wildlife management; and it is not moral to purge thousands of wild animals and birds in a circle of destruction in the name of wildlife management, perversely to protect other species so we can then kill them for sport.

We saw many glimmers of morality during the previous session of Parliament, with real progress on animal welfare. Fully incorporating the internationally recognised principles for ethical wildlife management would be world leading—it really would show that moral progress that all of Scotland could be proud of.

Just a reminder: if members make an intervention and still want to speak later, they will need to press their button again.

We have a bit of time in hand and I can recompense anybody who takes an intervention.

17:25  

I congratulate the member, who is my colleague on the cross-party group on animal welfare, on securing this debate and on the temperate speech that he delivered. I am pleased to support the motion and to endorse the principles that have been expressed by Revive, a group that includes the League Against Cruel Sports, OneKind, Common Weal, Raptor Persecution UK and Friends of the Earth—that is some coalition. Indeed, OneKind gave a presentation on those principles recently to the cross-party group on animal welfare, which I chair.

We make clear distinctions between what may be labelled pests, domestic animals and pets, yet they have everything in common. They are sentient, with distinctive means of communicating with their species and their predators, and their drive is to survive, to procreate and continue their species. We also, therefore, have also much in common with them.

Over the decades, our knowledge of the animals around us—hidden in our woods, underground, in our fields and in our homes—has grown as the media of television and film has exposed their lifestyles. Last night, watching “Springwatch”, I saw a bee, Osmia bicolor, which lives alone and builds a protective nest for its eggs in discarded snail shells. It then blocks the entrance with stones that it has carried there and, finally, upturns the shell so that the entrance is hidden. How clever is that?

Today, as I drove through the constituency, twigs flew up from beneath the bonnet and I realised that the pigeons had returned to nest in my Acer Drummondii tree—they build their nest in the same place each year, just above my car, and toss unsuitable building material on to it. The mice, which run between the cottage walls in the winter, have migrated back under the shed and into the small dyke. Mr Smokey, using all his ancient feline instincts and skills, keeps them at bay—now, that is what I call justified control. In the morning, before daylight, our resident blackbird wakes everyone—and every roosting sparrow in the holly tree—with his glorious song, and the early lone grey squirrel raids the bird feeder.

During the early months of Covid, we were put in our place. As a result of the fear of that possibly deadly virus, there were no cars on the streets and the wildlife around us soon reasserted itself, taking over those deserted streets. That small living organism, Covid, bypassed them and went straight for us. We, as a species, are not invincible. Why say this? Because we are privileged to hold the fate of these insects, birds and animals in our hands, and some of these hands lay snares, set traps, shoot and poison—and, sometimes, they do that to protect creatures that are bred solely for sport, usually for the other privileged.

I cannot support that in principle. In practice, we have the poisoning of birds of prey that are hunting for food to survive and feed their young; we have animals that are horrifically trapped in snares, tearing at their own flesh to escape; and fox hunting continues.

I turn to three of the principles that have been mentioned. First, is there a justification for control? I cannot see a justification for breeding animals just for sport. Secondly, does the method of control prioritise animal welfare and cause the least harm to the least number of animals? The use of snares does not do that; it is indiscriminate. Thirdly, is the decision to control based on the situation or simply the negative characterisation of the target species? That applies to, for example, the culling of deer when their welfare is a concern, so I can support that.

Applying those principles is in our interests. As the highest species of animal, we are only custodians of the wildlife around us. It is also in the interests of the diverse, intriguing and essential variety of wildlife that surrounds us every day, and which we often fail to see.

17:29  

I thank Colin Smyth for bringing forward this important debate. Wildlife management in Scotland is an important and often misunderstood practice that is important to land managers, food producers, farmers and crofters.

Author Mary Colwell said that:

“It is part of the predator paradox that we consider some creatures as predators but exclude others; and even this restricted category is filled with subtle subdivisions. For example, badgers are lovable bumblers when they eat grubs, but we are thrown into cognitive dissonance when they overturn a hedgehog and devour the soft underbelly.”

Most predator and prey issues cannot be reduced to A plus B equals C, they are much more complex than that, as are the important roles of conservationists and land managers, who are exempt from this debate on ethical management.

The Scottish Gamekeepers Association represents those who carry out necessary wildlife management daily. It is the largest Scottish centre for deer management and trains gamekeepers to the highest standard of wildlife management to tackle the difficult job of managing deer. Many of those gamekeepers are contracted by Forestry and Land Scotland, a Scottish Government quango, to cope with the swathes of dense forestry being planted, particularly in Galloway, where planting has driven the catastrophic decline of the much-loved curlew, a bird that features strongly in Galloway’s consciousness.

Members might recall my motion highlighting the importance of endangered birds, notably the capercaillie. Beautiful birds such as that need our help as they face decline without proper wildlife management strategies that work to protect the bird and to manage its habitat and predators. That almost extinct species needs our support to survive. However, the Scottish Government must get on top of the decline of the species, with 531 habitats and 603 species in Scotland in poor conditions and needing improvement. We would think that, following the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—it would be a huge priority of the Scottish Government to address the decline of Scotland’s wildlife so that birds such as the capercaillie do not face further decline. Habitat rejuvenation is important, and that is why it is disappointing that the Scottish National Party has failed to meet its peatland restoration targets and, therefore, has failed to restore habitats that peatlands provide. Much more must be done so that peatlands do not continue to decline.

I agree that, when wildlife management is needed, it should be based on evidence that is gathered by trained and qualified people, such as many of Scotland’s gamekeepers who operate around the country, working long and difficult hours to ensure that our countryside is properly managed. A nine-year study by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust in Northumberland showed that, where gamekeepers manage populations of predators, populations of wading birds were three times more likely to successfully rear their young compared to when that was not happening. That shows the success of what highly regulated gamekeepers do daily and how they play a great conservation, environmental and economic role.

Colin Smyth’s motion asks the Scottish Government to integrate ethical principles into the Scottish Government’s strategic approach to wildlife management and its species-licensing review. However, in 2019, the shared approach to wildlife management brought together key organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Woodland Trust precisely to implement principles and act as an anchor for decision making and action on the ground. That shared and robust approach offers a reference point when opinions differ but also explains that wildlife management means that we must look at the ways to contribute to it as well as at nature-based solutions.

It would be worth highlighting at this point, if Colin Smyth would like to make an intervention, what his assessment is of the current shared approach, given that it was supported by a broad range of rural, animal welfare and countryside organisations.

I am happy to make an intervention. I think that it is a good starting point but that we need to go further. We need to look at our wildlife practices to ensure that they have that ethical audit, as it were, and we also need to set out the standards that we expect people to adhere to with regard to our wildlife practice. The 2019 work was a good starting point, but we need to go a lot further and embed those ethical principles, because, when you look at those principles, it is difficult to disagree with any of them.

Please begin to wind up.

I thank Colin Smyth for joining me in considering those shared approaches.

I think that any changes in wildlife management must be consulted on. It is important that we bring together the people who are already practising conservation management across Scotland, and I stress the need for those people to be able to be part of that conversation and to provide those environmental, economic and conservation benefits to us all.

17:35  

I congratulate Colin Smyth on securing this debate and welcome the importance that it places on animal welfare.

We must ensure animal welfare in all settings, whether the animals are pets, domestic animals reared for food, wild animals or even those animals that have become a problem. It is clear that, where management and control is required, it must be carried out as humanely as possible, and we must do everything that we can to avoid distress for the animal. While doing that, we must also recognise that managing population numbers can also have an animal welfare role. With regard to managing deer numbers, for example, a small number of landowners avoid carrying out that work because it costs money to have it carried out appropriately. That has then led to culls out of season, which is a practice that is totally unacceptable. It has also happened on Government land and steps must be taken to ensure that it does not happen again. There are no penalties for land managers who do not manage deer numbers to within the capacity of their land.

A more controversial issue is the management of species that are introduced and then cause a problem. Mink, released in the Western Isles from fur farms, wreaked havoc on wildlife and required to be trapped and dispatched. However, regardless of the problems that they were causing, that needed to be done humanely. A similar exercise was carried out with hedgehogs, as, due to them having no natural predators, their number increased and impacted on the local bird life. No thought was given to that impact when they were released.

Therefore, I believe that much more research needs to be carried out when we look to reintroduce species, so that we do not create conflict and unintended consequences. If that work is not thorough, issues arise and the goodwill of the community is lost or, indeed, the natural environment is damaged. Managing numbers when that happens is necessary work but, again, needs to be carried out humanely, while recognising it is often human intervention that has led to the problem in the first place: if those species were not released, they would not be causing a problem. We must tighten legislation with regard to releasing non-native species into an area in order to make the public more aware of the issues that can arise.

We also need to take steps to prevent conflict arising in the first place. Where conflict occurs, we need to look at solutions, and, if we are to manage numbers, we must make sure that that is done with the welfare of the animal at the forefront.

Coming from the Highlands, I am aware of the difficulties that a rogue fox can cause at lambing time, for instance. That causes distress to the flock and also to the farmer or crofter. Although I believe that rogue foxes must be dealt with, I also believe that that must be carried out as humanely as possible. I fail to understand how anyone can get pleasure out of hunting foxes down for sport. Therefore, I welcome efforts to tighten the legislation and close loopholes, and I hope that we can take the same approach in other areas of conflict to make sure that our response is proportionate but does not cause any unnecessary suffering to animals.

17:38  

I join other members in thanking Colin Smyth for his cross-party leadership on animal welfare at Holyrood, and also join him in thanking our animal welfare charities for their relentless work in this area.

I think that the ethical principles that we are discussing hold a mirror up to our relationship with the natural world. They highlight where wildlife management has moved on to a better footing but they also point to where traditional and often anti-scientific practices are unfortunately still the norm. They also reveal that the way that we treat our domestic animals can be dramatically different to the way that we treat some wild animals that are still, sadly, viewed as pests and vermin to be eradicated. The study from the League Against Cruel Sports, showing an estimated 250,000 wild animals killed each year on sporting estates, demonstrates how far there is still to go. The estimates that half of those animals are non-target species, such as hedgehogs or domestic cats, shows how cruel and indiscriminate practices such as snaring can be.

In recent years, we have seen numerous wildlife reviews led by eminent chairs—Poustie on wildlife crime and sentencing; Werritty on driven grouse moors; Bonomy on hunting with wild dogs—as well the critical report from the deer working group that is now being acted on through the Green-SNP agreement. Each of those reviews has moved the dial a little, but there is still a need for a consistent approach in relation to how we manage wildlife.

The position statement on wildlife management from Scottish Natural Heritage in 2014 and the later concordat that was signed were a really good first step. The SGA signed up to that concordat, as well, but, eight years on, I think that we are all agreed that there is a need for further reform. I welcome the debate on the principles, and the fact that the framework has already been adopted by Parks Canada tells me that it can probably work here too.

As Colin Smyth outlined, the seven principles are largely common sense. Take the first principle that we should look into the root causes of conflict of wildlife. It is obvious that, for example, many of the problems that we have gulls in town are due to rubbish and food waste collection issues. The gulls are really trying to tell us something about the need for a much more circular economy. The mentality of seeing certain species as pests is deep-seated and needs challenge. I was saddened to hear calls from the National Farmers Union Scotland recently for lethal controls on protected white-tailed eagles.

Although sea eagles can scavenge for dead lambs, it is a small proportion of their diet, and it is quite clear from the research that incidents of eagles taking live lambs are rare and that better husbandry, including lambing taking place under shelter, would address the real causes of the quite horrific levels of black loss that we see in sheep farming. Of course, many of the techniques to minimise that black loss are being trialled by farmers and crofters under the excellent sea eagle management scheme that is run by NatureScot, which is delivering welfare benefits to sheep as well as eagles. However, there is no need or justification for the culling of sea eagles, and those who persecute them illegally are quite clearly criminals.

The framework acknowledges that the culling of some species might, in some circumstances, be justified but it rightly demands systematic plans with clear objectives to be considered rather than the habitual culling of animals such as foxes that often results in populations just bouncing back again. Clear objectives are important and I think that OneKind is right to point out in its briefing for this debate that the badger cull in England failed to meet its objectives to curb bovine tuberculosis.

The debate on these principles is welcome and timely, and I very much look forward to hearing from the minister later about how the Scottish Government can embed them further into policy, practice and, ultimately, the law.

17:43  

I congratulate Colin Smyth on securing this debate on ethical principles in wildlife management, which I am pleased to participate in. It is an emotive subject that can be extremely divisive, with polarised views on both sides.

My aim in speaking tonight is to, I hope, add some balance, on the basis that I have been involved on both sides. As a youngster, my life was spent outside watching birds and animals with total fascination. I was a dog owner and I kept two lofts full of racing pigeons. To me, those birds were thoroughbreds of the sky, sometimes racing from France and covering more than 500 miles in one day. They were an absolute passion of mine for years. However, for my neighbours, they were vermin that landed on their roofs and their dirtied their washing that was hanging out to dry. One person’s passion for pigeons was another person’s burden on the washing line.

As a young ornithologist, I was absolutely fascinated by all other birds. That was why I became involved in farming in the first place. The majesty of birds of prey, especially the peregrine falcon, was one of those absolute fascinations that gripped me. The idea of seeing a peregrine falcon in real life was only a dream to a townie like me, but I still used to go out and seek them for many years—all to no avail.

However, in among all of that there was also conflict that came from being a keeper of livestock, in the shape of racing pigeons, as well as being someone with a love of and fascination with wildlife, especially birds of prey. Think of the effects of a sparrowhawk attack on my racing birds. Members can imagine my horror on seeing one my most valued birds—the bird had flown from France for me on two occasions—being pinned to the ground as a sparrowhawk started to strip chunks of flesh off its back. It is one of those life lessons that sticks with a person and starts the process of coming to terms with the understanding that not everything is as it seems at first.

The lesson was well made, as I then made my transition from being a townie to shepherding and sheep farming. Again, my appreciation and love was challenged when I witnessed various fairly horrendous attacks on livestock that were in my charge. Foxes, crows, gulls, ravens and sea eagles are all absolutely beautiful and intelligent animals but they are also wild animals who play by nature’s rules, which by and large are brutal. I have to say, I take great exception to Mark Ruskell’s insinuation that a sheep farmer’s black loss is somehow the sheep farmer’s fault. I also take great exception to his assertion that only injured or dead lambs are lifted by sea eagles—that is patently not the case.

I have read the seven principles of ethical wildlife management and absolutely understand the desire to see human and animals co-existing in places where animals are under threat. The Scottish Government has undoubtedly been at the forefront of wildlife protection while trying to find the balance that is absolutely required to allow farmers and conservationists to protect their respective charges.

We only have to look at the introduction of the sea eagles in the west and the conflicts that that still causes, which Mark Ruskell talked about, or the illegal introduction and subsequent protection of the Eurasian beaver in my constituency to see the issues that can arise. Those introductions require careful, balanced management and, as situations develop, that management practice must be adapted. I am confident that the Government always takes cognisance of those changes in circumstances and, as populations change, monitors the impacts on local communities and local populations of wildlife activity.

As I have said, the Government has shown itself to be actively working to protect the beauty and diversity of Scotland’s ecology, and I welcome that greatly, but I gently remind everyone that there must be a proper balance for all of those demands on our land.

My search for all things to do with wildlife has been satiated by my involvement in farming, especially hill farming. The elusive peregrine became a regular sighting, buzzards are like sparrows in terms of sightings, sea eagles were regularly passing through the area that I farmed and I have witnessed red kite and hen harriers aplenty. Those are all birds that we would not have seen 20 years ago, but now there are far more numbers than there ever were when I was growing up.

What I have seen fewer and fewer of are golden plovers, lapwings, curlews, red shanks and oystercatchers. At the same time, I have seen an explosion in the number of ravens and other corvids. Their effect on the numbers of ground nesters has been absolutely devastating, and I think that it is disingenuous for non-governmental organisations to say that the two things are not related, because they absolutely are—I have witnessed it with my own eyes.

Protection and balance are equally important, and I urge the Government to continue with the balanced approach that it has so far taken.

17:47  

I begin by echoing thanks to members who have participated in tonight’s debate, and to Colin Smyth for lodging the motion on an important issue. I am pleased to have had the chance to listen to members’ views and to have my opportunity to restate the Government’s position—namely, that we take very seriously the welfare of wild and other animals.

We have taken a number of steps in recent years to turn our words into action in order to ensure the highest standards of animal and wildlife welfare. We established the Scottish animal welfare commission to provide independent advice, including on the welfare of sentient animals and wildlife. The commission has already looked at a number of important areas and has produced valuable reports—including on use of glue traps—a statement on animal sentience and a response to the deer working group’s recommendations. We are translating much of that advice into action.

However, alongside our commitment to the highest standards of animal welfare, consideration must always be given to ensuring the protection of public health and of vital economic interests, which would not be able to operate safely without effective and humane management of wildlife. That is the balance that members have spoken of tonight.

It was with that need in mind that in our 2019-2020 programme for government we committed to developing a strategic approach to wildlife management with animal welfare at its core, that would also protect public health and economic and conservation considerations.

That commitment has been progressed through the development of NatureScot’s shared approach to wildlife management, which was completed in 2019. It has been pointed out—I think by Rachael Hamilton—that the shared approach concordat brought together a range of organisations from across Scotland. The concordat sets out how they will work together to establish healthy and valued populations of wildlife. It describes the shared priorities and the overall willingness to co-operate. It was developed collectively and represents a wide variety of points of view, approaches and perspectives, including that of the RSPB Scotland, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, the Woodland Trust, NFU Scotland, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. That collaboration has not been easily won and is very important.

As well as representing consensus, the approach is also evidence-based, it is iterative and it is capable of being updated as NatureScot continues to review the latest thinking and evidence—for example, on sentience and other animal welfare principles. That collaboration and the ability to adapt as evidence appears are two very important points for the Government to note. Indeed, NatureScot is currently working with animal welfare organisations on how the ethical principles that we are discussing today can be integrated in the shared approach. That is evidence, I think, of its iterative nature.

I hope that that answers Colin Smyth’s and Rachael Hamilton’s questions about how the Government intends to embed the principles within our current framework.

Thank you. I am glad to hear the minister talking about the shared approach.

Does the minister agree that as well as all the organisations that she has just mentioned, individuals who have roles in the matter should be brought in to ensure that there is a fair consultation process?

I absolutely agree with that, in principle. I have long held the view that as policies develop, people whose lives and livelihoods they affect ought to be engaged in that development. That is something that we can apply to this subject and across the piece in the Government. Development of principles that pertain to the shared approach was something that I was pleased to discuss with the Wild Animal Welfare Committee when I met it last week.

As well as seeking to understand how ethical principles can support the Government’s high-level approaches, we are also seeking to use them in a quite targeted and specific way. My officials have arranged a workshop for 14 June to explore how the ethical principles can be applied to deer management in Scotland, which has been mentioned by a number of members. We know that tackling deer numbers is one of the most pressing biodiversity challenges that face Scotland. I am looking forward to seeing how the ethical principles can be built into that.

Members will also be aware that we made a commitment in our programme for government to conduct a general review of the species licensing system, under which much wildlife management operates. That will be an opportunity to look at how the system operates through the lens of wildlife welfare, but always bearing in mind the need to protect crops and livestock or to maintain, for example, aircraft safety, all of which require controls.

Licensing of wildlife management is strictly governed by law, so it is important that we ensure that the law is being followed in how operations are managed. The review will ensure that in addition to the existing statutory requirements, welfare principles are baked in to how the system operates. I look forward to reporting to Parliament on progress on that later in this session.

The review sits alongside a significant spread of wildlife and animal welfare work that the Government is doing and is developing. The recent Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 has strengthened penalties across a range of wildlife crimes. Those tougher penalties should ensure that the minority of people who casually abuse our wildlife will be held accountable, with consequences that reflect the severity of the crime.

We are also—as has been mentioned—currently taking the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill through Parliament. The welfare of wildlife is at the heart of that bill. We are replacing existing legislation and are making the law clearer and closing loopholes. That will ensure that the practice of hunting and killing a mammal with a dog—which has been unlawful for 20 years—will no longer take place in Scotland.

Does the minister believe that the ethical principles should be considered as that bill, which will close loopholes, goes through Parliament? I know that the minister and I have different views on whether we should have a licensing scheme, but surely a licensing scheme should be subject to the ethical principles?

I believe that a huge amount of what we are already doing is aligned with the ethical principles. I am interested to know how what we do can also align with them. I will continue to consider that for each piece of work.

I am also taking action to put an end to the cruel and unlawful killing of raptors, which has continued to take place, particularly in and around uplands. It is with that in mind that we will introduce legislation in the current session to put in place a meaningful, effective and workable sanctions regime through a licensing—

Will the minister take an intervention?

I am very short of time but I am happy to do so, if I can.

I can give you the time back, minister.

The question is brief, and I do not want to put the minister on the spot, so I would appreciate getting an answer later. What is happening is all very laudable, but policing is a huge problem because most of the activity takes place in far-flung places in the hills and woods, where there is nobody about. The minister knows that already. Can consideration be given to additional policing for wildlife crime?

I thank Christine Grahame for that important question. As she pointed out, much of the activity takes place away from the eyes of our police and other enforcement authorities. I am working with the police as we develop policy in order to understand what the police need in order to do their job effectively. In the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill we are seeking to ensure that the law is much clearer so that the police can more easily understand when it is being breached.

In addition to those bits of work, we have committed to ending use of glue traps, which is a particularly cruel and harmful practice. We are committed to reviewing the use of snares and to going beyond the remit of the statutory review. We already have the most robust legislation on snaring in the UK, but I am undertaking a review that will consider whether it ought to be banned entirely.

From all that work—and more—I hope that it is clear that the Scottish Government has an ongoing commitment to ensuring the highest possible animal welfare standards, including for our wildlife, while remaining at the forefront in terms of matters including sentience.

There is much that I agree with in the principles. I am committed to working with members across the chamber and with interested stakeholders—including all the charities that work so hard, as Colin Smyth mentioned—so that we understand how the principles can sit alongside the ambitious programme of work that the Government is taking forward to protect our animals and our wildlife.

Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate.

Meeting closed at 17:57.