Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Official Report 426KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Snares (Training) (Scotland) (No 2) Order 2012 (SSI 2012/161)

---

European Fisheries Fund (Grants) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2012 (SSI 2012/166)

Welcome to the 16th meeting in 2012 of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. Members, the public and witnesses should turn off their mobile phones and BlackBerrys, as leaving them in flight mode or on silent will affect the broadcasting system.

We have apologies from Dennis Robertson, who is late, and Graeme Dey, for whom Nigel Don is acting as a substitute.

Under agenda item 1, we must consider two instruments that are subject to negative procedure. Members should note that no motion to annul has been received in relation to either instrument. Do members have any comments?

On the instrument on snaring, I seek clarification on the guidelines for training. We are told that there will be a multiple choice questionnaire: I believe that anyone who has done the training course since 2010 will be allowed to continue without doing the new course. I point out, with the greatest of respect to the organisations that are involved in the training courses, that concerns have been raised by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, so can we ask for clarification of the guidelines?

My understanding is that the SSPCA was involved in putting the training courses together. It has been asked for its views and has expressed no concerns about the order.

The papers that accompany the order set forth in quite a detailed way the areas of competence that will need to be shown. They also clearly say that there will, in addition to the multiple-choice questionnaire, be a practical assessment. Therefore, I feel quite confident that the various bodies that are involved will pursue the matter properly, in accordance with requirements.

I was contacted by the SSPCA, which had concerns earlier in the process. I thought that it might be useful that I request that the committee have sight of the guidelines for the sake of reassurance.

All of us received copies of remarks by the League Against Cruel Sports. Is that a separate matter?

That is separate from the SSPCA.

It is entirely possible to get a copy of the guidelines to you; there is no reason why they cannot be provided. At the moment, however, we have the job of deciding whether to agree to the instrument. No motion to annul it has been lodged. We can certainly write to the cabinet secretary for clarification of the matters that you raise, if members agree.

I would not want to delay implementation of the instrument, and there is no motion to annul. I think that it is fair to seek, post facto, any paper that we wish.

I have not received any representation from the SSPCA. I have received a document from the League Against Cruel Sports, but it seems that it wants to reopen a debate that was decided on by Parliament in 2011, when the legislation was passed. It seems to disagree with that legislation and so has sought to reopen the debate, but I do not think that that would be appropriate.

Further, in its paper, it has set out no evidence for its concerns but has simply said that its views are based on “our belief”. In the circumstances, I would be keen to fire ahead with the instrument. Obviously, we can seek further written clarification.

The two courses of action are not incompatible.

I have not suggested that there should be any delay; I am simply saying that I would appreciate clarification of the guidelines in relation to animal welfare issues that have been raised with me. That is all.

Do members agree to ask the clerks to construct a letter on our behalf asking about the issues that have been raised? We can consult on the detail of the letter.

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree to make no recommendations on the two instruments?

Members indicated agreement.