Chamber and committees

The UK Government analysis suggests that the amount that would go on to a domestic bill would be 80p or £1.10 per year for the average household. You balance that—80p or £1.10 added on to a bill in a year—versus the potential for people to lose their jobs. I think that that seems to be a pretty fair balance.

I am always concerned about the effects on household bills. The UK Government’s review of electricity market arrangements and the reform of the energy markets in general are far more critical in relation to the worries that Mr Lumsden describes. Decoupling the price of gas and electricity would have more of an effect on household bills than anything that this particular instrument does.

No, I am happy to leave it as it is.

Motion agreed to.

The 100 per cent exemption will reduce eligible energy intensive industries’ electricity costs by between £5 per megawatt hour and £7 per megawatt hour. That will amount to quite a substantial sum if you think about the huge amount of fuel that is used by those particular industries. [Gillian Martin has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

We are following UK legislation. If we did not follow it, what might be the effect of that on Scottish energy intensive industries? I imagine—and Mr Lumsden would be the first to be critical of this—that they might look at a situation where there is a 100 per cent exemption in the rest of the UK but only an 85 per cent exemption in Scotland, and they might decide to relocate their operations. I imagine that Mr Lumsden would join me in being concerned about that. That is why we are agreeing to the UK legislation.

I never think that it is particularly fair when householders have to shoulder any kind of burden. I suggest that the review of the energy markets is far more critical in that regard. I look forward to Douglas Lumsden joining with me in asking for protections for consumers, particularly things such as a social tariff, which would mean that vulnerable consumers would be protected from any price increases. In my view, that would be far more effective and far fairer than 80p or £1.10 being added to a bill to save highly skilled manufacturing jobs in Scotland.

My amendment 54 seeks to introduce a comprehensive ban on the use of snares, as is recommended by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission. The amendment introduces an offence of using a snare or setting one in position either to kill or to take any animal other than a wild bird. It will also be an offence to set a snare in a position where it is likely to cause bodily injury to any such animal coming into contact with it. My provisions set out two very important exceptions, which Colin Smyth is seeking to remove in his amendments, and I will speak to that issue in a moment.

As I said in the stage 1 debate, I believe that the Parliament can no longer ignore the weight of evidence that snares lead to unacceptable levels of suffering, not just for wild animals but for domestic animals, which can become trapped in them. The decision to ban the use of snares has not been made lightly or quickly, and my decision takes into account the wealth of evidence and opinion that has been presented to the Parliament on the matter over the years.

Unfortunately, even where snares are used in very strict accordance with the conditions set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, they remain indiscriminate by their nature and, as such, they pose an unacceptable risk to non-target species, including other wildlife, endangered species and domestic species such as cats. According to the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, it is estimated that between 21 and 69 per cent of animals caught in snares are non-target species. That is simply unacceptable.

More humane methods of wildlife control such as shooting and trapping are available to land managers. Indeed, shooting foxes at night using lamps or thermal scopes remains the predominant method of fox control by a considerable margin. Moreover, alternatives such as live-capture traps are still available where, for example, the lack of a suitable backstop can mean that shooting is not appropriate in certain circumstances.

I recognise that control of predators is necessary to protect vulnerable species as well as livestock and agriculture and that land managers should be allowed to take action to effectively manage wildlife for those purposes. I am also aware that some people have claimed that the removal of snaring as an option might reduce the ability of land managers to protect ground-nesting species of bird, particularly curlew, lapwing and other wader species of serious conservation concern.

However, I remain confident that there are sufficient alternative methods of predator control, which a number of landowners, managers and organisations already use. Those include the RSPB, which has policies to prohibit the use of snares and believes that it is still able to undertake sufficient predator control to protect vulnerable species. The same view was reached by the Welsh Parliament when it banned the use of snares in the Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023, in recognition of poor animal welfare outcomes.

I am confident that a ban on the use of snares would not prevent anyone from undertaking necessary wildlife management. In our public consultation on snaring, 70 per cent of respondents supported a complete ban on the use of all snares, including so-called humane cable restraints. It is clear that there is widespread support for that among the general public. Snares are already banned in many European countries, and land managers have adapted. We can learn from that and provide advice and information where that is helpful.

Some have called for the ban on the continued use of humane cable restraints under a licensing regime for the purpose of killing and taking an animal. I have carefully considered that and the welfare impacts of such a scheme on target and non-target species, alongside the need to provide for effective predator control.

In my view, although humane cable restraints might be an incremental improvement on the traditional style of snare, they do not lead to a significant reduction in the adverse welfare outcomes experienced by animals caught by those devices, nor would their use eliminate the issues around the capture of non-target species, including protected species such as badgers, mountain hares and domestic animals such as cats. Continuing to permit their use under licence for the purpose of catching foxes, as is set out in the proposal that was put to me by land managers, would not suitably address those issues, which is why I have decided to introduce a ban on the use of all snares, including humane cable restraints.

I want to talk about Colin Smyth’s amendments, but I am happy if Ms Hamilton wants to interject.

Convener, I would like to go on and discuss the amendments in Colin Smyth’s name, because I think that I have answered Rachael Hamilton’s points.

I understand why Colin Smyth has lodged his amendments, but, again, I do not believe that they are necessary. A snare is defined in the dictionary simply as

“A device for capturing small wild animals or birds, usually consisting of a string with a running noose”.

Cable restraints, therefore, already fall within the meaning of snare use in the bill. In addition, should my amendment 54 be agreed to, that aspect will be set out in the explanatory notes accompanying the bill. Given that, I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendments 54A, 54C, 54F, 54H and 54I.

I am interested in hearing why Colin Smyth has lodged amendments 54B, 54E and 54G. I will give my reasons for why the legislation has been drafted in the way that it has been. My amendment 54 has been drafted to update the main snaring provisions in section 11 of the 1981 act, which relates to wild animals. That exception does not mean, however, that anyone can use a snare on a wild bird. Section 5 of the 1981 act already covers snaring and wild birds, providing for the offences of setting

“in position”

a

“snare ... likely to cause bodily injury to any wild bird”,

using a snare

“for the purpose of killing or taking any wild bird”,

and “knowingly” causing or permitting those offences. Such offences carry a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.

My amendment has, therefore, been drafted to avoid its conflicting with the existing provisions in section 5 of the 1981 act relating to wild birds. My concern about Colin Smyth’s amendments seeking to remove the references to wild birds in my amendment 54 is that that would result in a potential conflict with the 1981 act, which I am sure is not his intention.

Amendments 54D and 54J relate to an exception for snares that are “operated by hand”. It is important, when legislation is brought forward, to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. There are a number of handheld devices, such as dog poles and graspers, that utilise a loop at the end. Although such devices are not snares in the traditional sense, they could fall within the wider meaning of snaring that is used in the bill.

I am sure that the committee is familiar with those devices, which are used by dog wardens, animal rescue charities such as the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and wildlife rescue charities throughout Scotland to temporarily catch and restrain, for example, stray dogs and, on occasion, wild animals. I am sure that none of us here would immediately think of those types of devices in the traditional context of snaring, but I concluded, after very careful consideration, that, to avoid the risk of inadvertently restricting the use of those very necessary devices, it was necessary to carve out an exception for them in the text of the bill.

The bill makes it clear, however, that anyone who uses any type of snare, including a handheld one, for the purpose of killing an animal such as a fox, or who uses it in a way that is likely to give rise to injury of such an animal is guilty of an offence. A ban on the use of those devices would, it seems, severely hinder the ability of dog wardens and animal rescue charities to undertake their very important work.

I therefore ask Colin Smyth not to move amendments 54A, 54B, 54C, 54D, 54E, 54F, 54G, 54H, 54I and 54J. I would be happy to meet him ahead of stage 3 to discuss further the rationale behind my approach.

I move amendment 54.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 53 and 75 seek to apply licensing principles to the wildlife trap, grouse and muirburn licences in the bill. Setting out those principles in legislation is simply not necessary, because the licensing authority will always be a public body—either the Scottish Government or, if that responsibility is delegated to it, as is anticipated, NatureScot. As public bodies, the Scottish Government and NatureScot must act reasonably and fairly in everything that they do, not just for the purposes of the three licensing schemes in the bill but in respect of general principles.

On ensuring that there is a legitimate need for the scheme, all the licences in the bill have been introduced to address a legitimate need, as is required for compliance with the European convention on human rights. The legitimate need for those licences is to help with the prevention of cruelty to animals, the prevention of wildlife crime and the protection of the natural environment. The legitimate need for the licensing scheme already exists and, in fact, is the reason for the bill. I am convinced that the bill strikes a fair balance in considering those whose possessions are particularly affected and the wider public interest.

I want to say a couple of things about what Ms Hamilton said about constant review of the application process. Legislation on the need for constantly reviewing the efficiency of the application process is not necessary. The application process is already kept under review, with a view to improving the process for those involved. The licences in the bill will be dealt with using the existing licensing team and process. However, NatureScot is exploring whether there might be a need to expand the size of the team to meet any potential increased demand. That is an operational matter for it. It is also exploring the development of a new online licensing system for all the wildlife management licences that it currently issues. NatureScot would be expected to review any such changes and what might be required to change in the future.

There must be a balance. A constant review of the application process would likely result in more frequent minor changes, which might mean that applicants would have to deal with a different form or process every time that they apply. That would be onerous for applicants, and I am sure that that is not what Ms Hamilton intends.

I do not support the amendments, for the reasons that I have stated. I simply do not think that they are necessary.