Snaring
The next item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on snaring. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions.
As members are no doubt aware, during the passage of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, the Environment and Rural Development Committee carefully examined snaring. The committee concluded that although there was room for improvement, the need remained for predator control in the countryside and the other options that were available to land managers were not necessarily better for animal welfare.
Nonetheless, at stage 3, the then minister, Allan Wilson, announced a full public consultation on snaring. A clear majority of the 243 responses that were received by February 2007 were in favour of a complete ban, although a breakdown of views shows that individuals were mostly in favour of a ban whereas organisations—particularly countryside organisations—remained supportive of snaring in some form.
Since then, both sides of the argument have run several campaigns. I have no doubt that it is an extreme case but, in the past few weeks, my office has received more than 4,850 e-mails and cards from people who seek a ban. A very much smaller number of messages have supported the continuation of snaring.
In recent months, I have been heavily engaged with the subject. I have discussed snaring with representatives of many organisations and been on several fact-finding visits. I greatly respect and empathise with those who campaign for a complete ban on snaring. We should—justly—be proud that Scotland has some of the strongest wildlife protection legislation in the world. It is important that we continue to maintain the highest standards and that everything that is done in the countryside—including everything that is done to control pests and predators—is consistent with those high standards.
However, no responsible politician can ignore the fact that some argue equally passionately that snaring is a regrettable but essential tool for high-quality land management in Scotland. Such people also have a keen interest in and concern for wildlife, and their view that snaring plays a key role in maintaining the iconic Scottish landscape of heather-clad hillsides that are alive with a rich diversity of species cannot be set aside lightly.
Those people base their argument on the three pillars of shooting, biodiversity and agricultural imperatives. First, they contend that effective predator control is essential to maintain the shooting for which Scotland is world famous—whether upland grouse moors or lowland pheasant shoots. Shooting also provides considerable economic benefit to rural areas, where jobs and income can be scarce. For example, a 2006 study calculated that shooting is worth £240 million each year to the Scottish economy. It generates approximately 1.75 million visitor nights, most of which take place during the autumn and winter months when other visitors are thin on the ground. The shooting sector pays 58,000 workers, which is the equivalent of 11,000 full-time jobs. The sport also provides the equivalent of 2,000 full-time conservation jobs and spends £43 million a year on improving habitat and wildlife management.
Secondly, those who are in favour of snaring assert that control of predators, and foxes in particular, is a key factor in maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. A Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust field experiment showed that predator control increased the breeding stock of the wild grey partridge by 42 per cent. Without such control, stocks declined in most years. Among others, national park staff at Loch Lomond and the Cairngorms have made it clear that if snaring were not available to them as a means of predator control, they fear that they would be unable to meet their statutory objectives on maintaining biodiversity.
Shooting and biodiversity are linked. It is no accident that managed moorland contains many more species of ground-nesting birds such as lapwing, golden plover and curlew than does unmanaged land. The key factor is that predators such as foxes are controlled. That is essential for innovations such as the new Langholm moor project, among whose partners are Scottish Natural Heritage, RSPB Scotland and the Buccleuch Estates.
Of course, we must accept that farmers throughout Scotland depend heavily on efficient predator control to protect their animals. Lambs are the best-known target, but other free-range stock, such as poultry and pigs, is also at risk. Many farmers and crofters occasionally need to protect crops from the extensive damage that rabbits can do, and snaring is a tool in that protection.
However, we must all accept that alternatives to snaring exist. Shooting disposes of more than 70 per cent of the foxes that are killed each year, but clean and efficient shooting that does not leave wounded animals is very dependent on the shooter's skill and the lie of the land. It is not suitable in every area or case. Other predator control methods such as trapping in cages, hunting with hounds, poisoning and gassing, are illegal, ineffective or dangerous to the operator and often to a wider range of wildlife.
The welfare implications of snaring are a matter of debate and concern. It is to be regretted that no scientific study on the welfare issues associated with snaring has ever been carried out, but it is clear that badly set snares and snares that are set close to urban environments or in the wrong place and are not regularly checked have the potential to injure wildlife and domestic animals, which they sometimes do. I have no doubt that it is those sorts of snares that are regularly—and rightly—brought to the attention of bodies such as the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Those who set such snares are wildlife criminals. That said, scientists who wish to catch animals for radio-tagging experiments use snares without causing any apparent harm. Members will wish to note that the British Veterinary Association's ethics and welfare group recently stated:
"in some circumstances snaring might be the least inhumane method where control is necessary".
That conclusion was also reached in 2005 by the independent working group on snares.
The key issue that I have had to consider in weighing all the evidence is whether the protection of our unique biodiversity, the management of our successful shooting industries and the safeguarding of our key agricultural production could be undertaken without the option of using snares. That is, I have had to consider whether those things could be undertaken in a more humane and appropriate way, taking into account cost effectiveness and actual results on the ground. If they could, snaring might well be able to be dispensed with; if they could not, snaring would—regrettably—have to remain within the range of tools that are necessary for good land management in Scotland.
At the end of a lengthy discussion and reflection process, I have reached the conclusion that snaring is still necessary in some circumstances. However, it is also clear to me that we can and must do better in eliminating bad practice. Bad practice—sometimes criminally bad practice—is responsible for some of the dreadful cases that animal rights organisations have brought forward.
Members of the public are rightly concerned about what happens to the wildlife that is part of our heritage, and they need to be absolutely confident that where snaring is necessary, there is no room for any doubt about what is allowed; that the practice is undertaken by competent and responsible individuals; that we have outlawed any practices that do not match up to welfare standards; and that we are vigorously enforcing the law. Accordingly, I intend to introduce a package of regulations and primary legislation where necessary that will aim to make fundamental changes to the practice of snaring in Scotland.
My officials and I have discussed the changes with industry representatives—landowners, managers, gamekeepers and representatives of sporting interests—and I hope that they will command widespread support. I would like to have the co-operation of welfare organisations and other organisations such as Advocates for Animals and the League Against Cruel Sports, but unfortunately those organisations told me as recently as last Friday that they are not prepared to countenance any alternative to a total ban. [Applause.] I regret that approach, but assure them that the door remains open to them and to those members who have just applauded if they are willing to work with the Government to introduce the best possible practice.
The package that we intend to introduce will make a significant difference to animal welfare. We will require the compulsory fitting of crimped safety stops to prevent nooses from closing too far and inflicting damage. That should, arguably, have been done long ago, and it has, on its own, the potential to bring about a huge improvement in the welfare of animals that are restrained by snares. We will also require the compulsory fitting of identification tags on snares, which will allow the authorities to identify their owners, but will not allow identification by casual passers-by. We will specify that the action of a snare must be checked before it is set, and we will make it clear that any snare that is not staked in place must be fixed with an anchor that cannot be dragged away. We will prohibit the setting of snares on posts, over watercourses, on planks and on fences, as such setting can cause unnecessary suffering, and we will specify that areas in which snaring is taking place should be clearly marked with signs. I believe that such measures can be introduced by means of regulations under section 11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
When the opportunity arises to introduce primary legislation, we will also consider how we might create a new offence of tampering with a lawfully set snare. Such an offence is required for good governance and because tampering with snares even for the best of reasons can sometimes—perhaps unwittingly—make their effects more deadly and cruel. We will also give legal status to a new land management industry accreditation scheme. The aim will be that, within a fixed period, everyone who sets snares will require to have received training in best practice and the law. Eventually, no one without such training will be allowed to set a snare.
We will also put in place arrangements to assist with technical developments in the use of snares, and those developments will be reported back to ministers with the aim of incorporating them into best practice.
By implementing this package of measures, Scotland will have established the best possible practice in ensuring animal welfare while allowing effective land management and all the economic and conservation benefits that accrue from it to continue. We will also send to those wildlife cowboys and criminals who use snares illegally and indiscriminately a clear signal that they will be vigorously pursued and punished. This statement charts a new way forward. I hope that it will command the support of the whole chamber.
The minister will now take questions on the issues that are raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I express our great disappointment that he has not listened to the overwhelming majority of those who responded in favour of a ban on snaring, not just in the representations that he has received, but in the previous consultation by the Scottish Executive and in the public campaign to end the unnecessary suffering of animals that, as the minister well knows, are not restricted to wildlife that is intended to be caught by snares. Government is about tough choices, and on this occasion we believe that the minister has not risen to the challenge.
I make it clear to the minister that we do not believe that his statement will end the debate. How can he possibly believe that his proposals for an incredibly complex, very detailed set of provisions can work? He has not given us a timetable for implementation; he has made virtually no reference to the alternative approaches that are used by some land managers; he admits that he has no plans to consider the animal welfare implications of the continued use of snaring throughout Scotland; and, crucially, he has left us with a total lack of clarity on enforcement.
That, unfortunately, has the nature of a question that was asked before the member heard the statement. It is absolutely clear what we are proposing. We are proposing a set of changes that are not only clear, but will be effective. We hope that they will command the respect and the attention of those who work in the countryside.
I very much respect—I regret that the same attitude is not being shown towards me from the Labour benches—the position that is taken by those who oppose the use of snares. However, after much consideration, I think that this is the best way forward. If Labour members had wanted to ban the use of snares, they had eight long years in administration in which to do so—but they did not. They did not do so because, as the Opposition spokesperson has indicated, it is a hard decision that requires much consideration.
The package of measures that we propose will be effective, will improve and assist biodiversity, will protect jobs and will improve animal welfare. In my book, those are three things that should be welcomed by every member in the chamber, not resisted in the petty, point-scoring way that we have just heard.
I thank the minister for providing an advance copy of his statement and I declare my interest as a farmer.
This is an issue that, understandably, raises strong emotions. Although there is a divergence of opinion across the chamber about how best to approach the matter, I am certain that each of us is committed to the aims of protecting the biodiversity of Scotland and improving animal welfare standards. To that end, there is a need to strike a balance between legislation and the needs of the wider rural community and the economy. In his statement, the minister has demonstrated a keen awareness of that requirement.
I have three questions for the minister. First, he will be aware that Advocates for Animals and the League Against Cruel Sports have a legal opinion that argues that the continuation of snaring is contrary to the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994. Any legislation that is passed by the Parliament must be compliant with those regulations. Can the minister assure us that the proposals that he has outlined are compliant with those regulations and tell us whether the Government has sought specific legal advice on that point?
Secondly, the minister will be aware of the concerns about the capture of non-target species in snares. Although that accounts for only a small number of the animals that are caught, it is still something that we should work hard to avoid. Can he give an assurance that his proposals will lead to a reduction in indiscriminate trapping?
Thirdly, if he has not already done so, will the minister consider whether it is possible to create a forum for all interested parties to come together and engage with ministers in a dialogue on these issues, to inform and further develop best practice in this area?
I will answer the member's questions briefly. First, best practice in snaring will ensure that the number of animals from non-target species that are snared is kept to a minimum. The independent working group on snaring that was established in England, which reported in 2005, noted that 100 times more badgers were killed on the roads than by snares. There are huge dangers to animals apart from snaring, but our proposals will reduce very dramatically the number of animals from non-target species that are snared, as good practice does.
Secondly, we want to work with the industry and everyone else involved, including the animal welfare organisations—if they will work with us—to get best practice. Yet again I invite all organisations to work with us; we will set up the arrangements for that to happen.
Thirdly, my position on the legal opinion that was mentioned is exactly the same as that of the previous Administration. The present arrangements are legal, and the arrangements that we propose will also be legal.
The Liberal Democrats, too, take the view that everything that is done to control pests and predators must be consistent with the highest possible standards of animal welfare. In particular, we are mindful of the view of the British Veterinary Association ethics and welfare group that, where control is necessary, snaring may be the least inhumane method in some circumstances. We agree with the minister's decision not to ban snaring, but to enhance the regulations to ensure that best practice is achieved.
My two questions focus on the details of the regulations that the minister proposes. First, how do his new proposals for greater regulation differ from the code of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation? Secondly, he will be aware of the industry's certificated training courses, which are supported and financed by local authorities and, in my constituency, by the Cairngorms National Park Authority. How does he envisage those programmes fitting in with the measures that he has announced today?
I welcome and am grateful for the member's support. I will answer his questions directly. The codes of practice of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation are all very well, and some of them are helpful, but our proposals will bring together a range of measures in one set of regulations. There is a difference between regulations and codes. The regulations will be binding and will be legally enforceable. They are also more varied than the existing codes. For example, compulsory fitting of ID tags has been a controversial issue, as there is fear that it might be misused. With dialogue, we will be able to persuade the industry to support the measure.
I am considering a range of accredited training. I want to ensure that we have the best training courses possible and that we move as quickly as is feasible to a situation in which no one who is involved in setting a snare has not been through a rigorous training course that deals not only with best practice but also with the law, so that there is no dubiety. I will examine all courses and ensure that the best of them are available in Scotland.
We move to back-bench questions. I ask members to keep their questions relatively brief.
The minister said that the best people to set snares are people who are competent and responsible and have training in best practice. Mike Rumbles also touched on that point. What will the minister do to ensure that there is upskilling and that people's training is properly recognised and controlled?
One of the big problems in certain areas of activity and work in the countryside is that many people believe that they have the competence to do things when plainly they do not. I was horrified to see that, in a recent case in the Borders, someone who described themselves as a gamekeeper had no qualifications or experience. I want those who undertake a variety of actions in the countryside to know what they are doing and have the skills to do it. That means professionalisation—for example, helping gamekeepers to become more professional. I know that they are keen on that, because I have discussed the issue with gamekeepers on a number of occasions. I want to ensure that, as a result of the courses that we are able to provide, no one will be able in a court of law to describe themselves as a gamekeeper without being able to prove that they are competent in that task.
The minister spoke about consultation. Will he confirm again that the vast majority—more than 70 per cent—of responses to the Scottish Executive consultation were in favour of a complete ban on snares? Will he further confirm that his office received 5,000 responses, mainly from throughout the UK, the vast majority of which supported a total ban; that there is significant cross-party support in this Parliament for my motion, which proposes a total ban; that there is a media campaign for a total ban; and that the United Kingdom is one of only five European member states that has not enforced a total ban?
Is the minister aware that the vast majority of young people, of whom there are many in the public gallery this afternoon, abhor this cruel and inhumane practice? Can he tell us exactly what the purpose of consultation is if he does not listen to one word of what the people say? Is it not the case that the minister was just not big enough to take the tough decision and, when push came to shove, turned a deaf ear to the people of Scotland in favour of a minority lobby?
I want to be as reasonable as I can be in responding to Irene Oldfather. It is sometimes difficult, but I will do my very best. It is almost impossible, actually, rather than difficult.
Irene Oldfather's point about European member states is a chimera. The people who argue that ours is one of the few countries that still permits snaring do not look at the wider issue of traps and snares as used in other European countries and realise that traps and snares are specific to landscape and habitat. It is clear that there will be different regulations in different countries. The important unifying point is whether the law takes animal welfare into consideration as strongly as it can. I depart from those whom I respect greatly in the animal lobby when they say that anybody who holds a different view cannot believe in animal welfare. The arguments that I make today are designed to improve that situation. There should be respect for that and for those who argue for it with me.
As regards the consultation, I received postcards and 5,000 e-mails that blocked up my inbox in such a way that unblocking it required professional attention. Despite listening to—[Interruption.] Ms Oldfather is not listening; she is shouting. Had I done the easy thing, I would have lain down under an enormous campaign. I have listened to everybody and I hope that this afternoon I have presented a set of proposals that are designed to meet the objections from all sides. [Interruption.] As usual, Opposition members are shouting "No!" They are the no-sayers of Scottish politics and the no-sayers of the Scottish countryside. I wish that they would listen to the arguments for jobs and the economy in Scotland. I wish that they would also listen to the arguments for biodiversity. If they did, their attitude would be more reasonable and command greater respect in Scotland.
I have genuine concerns about snaring and thank the minister for meeting me and others to explain the matter to us and to listen to our concerns. The minister mentioned in his statement that he has looked at the types of snares that are used and his decision that all snares must have safety stops and identification tags. Will he explain the evidence that made him reach that decision and what difference the measures will make?
There is absolutely no doubt that unstopped snares should not be used. Given that the previous Government had a chance to do something about them, I am surprised that it never made such a proposal. I am glad that we are doing something about them at last.
ID tags are more controversial. Certain people in the countryside fear that they could be misused, but it is important that we ensure that those who have set snares are identifiable. It is also important that there are notices to say that snaring is taking place, so that people are alerted to it. Those two measures, allowing only snares with safety stops and the other measures will make a considerable difference to animal welfare and ensuring that snares do the job that they are meant to do.
The minister will be aware that the independent working group on snares identified a long list of adverse welfare impacts on snared animals. They ranged from thirst and hunger to amputations. Does the minister believe that the technical amendments that he has proposed today will make any significant difference to animals' suffering as compared with an outright ban?
I very much hope that they will. The independent working group on snares noted that this activity has a variety of animal welfare impacts ranging from the very mild to the very severe and, as I said in my statement, the lack of good scientific research on this matter inhibits the debate. It is a matter of regret that Ms Oldfather is still shaking her head—no one can deny that a lack of scientific evidence will inhibit any debate.
In such circumstances, we have to move as quickly as we can to the best possible situation. I believe that this complex package of measures—they are the very best ones I could have picked and they have been set out in an easily understandable form—will produce major improvements. As I have said, we will educate people on these matters.
I am grateful for Mr Stewart's reasonable approach. Of course, I have had to—[Interruption.] It is a great pity that one cannot have a rational debate in this chamber without interruption—and, as ever, Ms Brankin is the obstacle.
If Mr Stewart continued to demonstrate his belief in an absolute ban in a way that illustrated the various problems and if further scientific evidence came forward, any rational person would return to the issue. However, I believe that these proposals represent an important step forward.
As we have less than four minutes for the four other members who wish to ask questions, brevity will be greatly valued.
I am glad that the minister recognises the importance of managing the land for environmental benefit. It was interesting to learn in The Sunday Times that an announcement would be made on the tightening up of regulations with regard to snares.
Can we have a question, please.
The minister mentioned that requirements will include the signage of snares and the use of ID tags, not for the public identification of snare owners but for local authorities' knowledge. How exactly will he ensure that the identities of newly licensed snarers will be kept safe and private?
It is very much our intention to ensure that identities are kept safe and private, and we will take all reasonable steps to do so. Mr Scott asked about working with the industry and others—including, I hope, animal welfare bodies. With them, we will closely consider this issue to ensure that that situation is maintained.
It is a matter of deep regret that the Government has not chosen to ban snaring. Can we gain any comfort from the proposed arrangements? How does the minister propose to set a baseline for and monitor the success of these proposals—if indeed they prove to be successful?
Among other things, I intend to draw today's statement to the attention of those who are undertaking the present thematic review of wildlife crime and to build into the review the requirements that will exist, to ensure that our proposed changes are effective and effectively implemented. I am also very happy to discuss with the industry and, indeed, the member any other means of overseeing these proposals to ensure that we can quantify them.
One problem with introducing a total ban that has been suggested and that goes against the grain of the member's comments is that such a move would drive snaring further into illegality and further underground, which would make the situation worse rather than better. I worry about that.
As the minister is aware, not all of those who represent and live in rural areas support snaring. I am implacably opposed to it and consider it to be an indiscriminate and inhumane activity. It is certainly not a party-political issue.
The minister referred to bad practice. Given that there are only two full-time wildlife crime officers in Scotland, one in Grampian and the other in Lothian and Borders, how does he intend to police the snaring that he will permit? Moreover, will he review the operation of the legislation that will be introduced to ensure that the chamber can fully debate its effectiveness?
As I have indicated, I will draw this statement to the attention of the team that is undertaking the thematic review. I will also draw its attention to Christine Grahame's question, to ensure that the intention is to make resources adequate to the task.
The minister has given the impression that snaring is essential for effective predator control and he has implied that land managers fully support this approach. As he might be aware, that is not the case. Indeed, some land managers maintain effective predator control without the need for snaring. Will the minister provide more detail on how much consideration has been given to alternative methods, including research on non-lethal methods? What steps will he take to ensure that land managers share and promote to others best practice on such methods?
Claire Baker makes an important point. There was nothing in my statement that said that snaring is compulsory. Land managers who choose not to use snaring will choose not to use snaring. I am happy to listen to the member's suggestion on the exchanging of information on non-lethal practices, which many land managers would welcome, but I cannot take the further step of saying that no land manager should be allowed to use snaring. Land managers who use non-lethal methods, which are often more intensive and more expensive than snaring, have my support.