Chamber and committees

Convener, with the greatest respect, are you saying that we should have put obligations on land managers to report how many foxes they shoot as a result of using snares? We did not do that.

I will talk about the evidence that meant that we felt that we had to do something. I think that I mentioned that in the previous evidence session.

The issue was brought to my attention in the previous parliamentary session, when we were considering what became the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020. The SSPCA said that it could attend a situation in which a live animal was caught in an illegally set trap, deal with that situation and report it to the procurator fiscal or the police but that, despite the fact that it could see more illegally set traps that had dead animals or no animals in them, it could not take those traps as evidence and report them to the police. Basically, if the animal in the trap was alive, it was within the SSPCA’s powers to act, but, if the animal was already dead, it could not do anything.

The SSPCA could be called to such situations ahead of the police being able to get there. So, in effect, it had the potential to present evidence for a case to be made in order to assist the police and the procurator fiscal but, given its powers, it could not act. We looked at this issue over the summer and we have spoken to a lot of stakeholders, including the police and the SSPCA.

The SSPCA will be able to—let me get this right—use the powers to

“search for, search or examine things if they suspect with reasonable cause that evidence will be found in or on that thing”

and

“seize and detain potential evidence or things”

that provide evidence of the participation in or commission of a relevant offence. Relevant offences are offences that are set out in part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or, in this case, in the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill. The Scottish SPCA can use those powers only in situations on land or non-domestic property in which it is already responding to a case under its existing powers under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. Therefore, the SSPCA cannot go looking for things. If it is already responding to a case, it will be able to seize evidence and give it to the police as soon as possible. It will then be up to the police and the procurator fiscal’s office to decide whether what has been done constitutes a crime.

Yes, I absolutely do. In about 2019, when we were taking evidence on the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill, the limitation on the SSPCA’s ability to gather evidence was put to us. I was struck by the fact that, when the SSPCA could see evidence of wildlife crime having happened, it had to walk away from that and could not do anything about it.

There is also the potential for evidence to be compromised over a period of time. An SSPCA inspector might phone the police and say that they have seen something but they cannot do anything with it, so the police will need to get there. As you know, however, that allows time for the evidence to be removed or compromised by the weather. Ms Forbes said that her favourite subject is enforcement. One of the reasons why wildlife crime is still such a scourge in rural Scotland is the difficulty in gathering evidence on it.

It is a matter of plugging the gap. The SSPCA will be called in anyway if someone phones because a live animal has been caught in a trap. Under the proposed new powers, SSPCA inspectors will be able to seize evidence of suspected other wildlife crime in the area involving animals that have perished or other traps that have been illegally laid, and they can help the police to get wildlife crime prosecuted.

I was not expecting questions about muirburn.

As I have written to the committee to say, we are proposing an amendment that includes a ban on snares, and we would include the other devices that you referenced in that. As far as we are concerned, the definition of snares includes what are called humane cable restraints. However, I must caveat that because, in order to be fair to the people who would like us to have a licensing scheme for the use of snares in certain circumstances, I have given them an assurance that I would consider their proposals for a licensing scheme. I got their proposals on Monday night and I will take time to look at them.

As it stands, though, we wrote to the committee to say that we would ban the use of snares because we have not been convinced so far that snares, even with modifications such as dual swivels, larger loops and breakaway joints, do not have significant animal welfare implications. Animals caught in such restraints might not exhibit the same physical damage as you would see from a more traditional snare, but, as I have said before, they are trapped for hours; they are still caught by the neck, although not as tightly as they would be with a traditional snare; they are stressed and exhausted; they cannot access food and water over that time; they could be subject to extreme weather; they could be subject to other predator attacks; the psychological distress that they undergo will have shock implications for them; and they will suffer over that period of time. That is why we have made the recommendation to ban snares.

The issue is about the welfare considerations for animals caught in these snares, whether they are target species or not—many non-target species are caught in snares, and they would be caught in any type of snare, whether it was a humane cable restraint with swivels or whatever. With the best will in the world, even the most professional and diligent operator of those snares may not be present within an hour or so of that happening, because the snares are set over a large piece of land, so it could be many hours until they are able to release an animal that is a member of a non-target species or humanely dispose of an animal that is a target species.

Those are not just my views. The DEFRA study that was carried out in 2010 made reference to those snares as well. It demonstrated that a lot of the non-target species—the larger species such as badgers—were not able to break away from those humane cable restraints. Under the agreement on international humane trapping standards, which sets out criteria for rating traps by species and method of use, restraining traps such as snares are rated according to injuries that are indicative of poor welfare—that includes any type of snare. That is what I keep coming back to.

As I said, I gave my assurance that I would look at the proposals that Scottish Land & Estates put forward for a licence scheme, and it was only on Monday night that those proposals came through. However, as it stands, we are aiming to ban the use of snares, including the ones that are for sale with the modifications that I have outlined.

A great deal of work is being done, Ms Hamilton, to allow stakeholders the opportunity to advocate for a particular type of snare still being used in a licensed way. It is my job to listen to everyone and to make a balanced decision on the basis of interaction with all stakeholders. That is what my officials and I have been doing over the summer. I appreciate that it has put your scrutiny back, but instead of having everything in the bill from the get-go and setting out our stall by saying, “We’re going to ban snares,” we have said to stakeholders who have been advocating for humane cable restraints that we would look at that and do all the work that you have suggested. That is what we have done.

The main thing that has been put to us by the cohort of individuals and organisations that would like to retain snaring has not been about their having to do more shooting and the risk associated with that. The argument that has been put to us is that shooting will take more people, so it comes from an economic or business point of view. That is the main reason why they want to retain snaring. It is not about a risk associated with more shooting; it is that it will require more people to be out shooting foxes if they cannot go round the estate and set snares and then go back in eight hours’ time or whatever, which is less labour intensive.

I will bring in Hugh Dignon, because he has been working on the drafting of the proposed amendments and he did some work on that area before the bill was as it is at the moment.

I do not think that any such charges have been brought.

In Scotland, we are proud of our regulations on animal welfare, and we are a nation that cares very much about animal welfare. So, when you point out that we are one of only six countries that still have snares, it is clear that we are lagging behind. There has been a debate about the issue for a long time and we have not taken action on the complete banning of snares, although we have obviously had regulations in place and we have had reviews of them.

We have reached the point at which we need to be in line with most European neighbours. A lot of those nations have big economic sectors around hunting. I mentioned Germany, in particular, and regions such as the Black Forest have adapted to banning snares by ramping up the other methods of predator control, particularly shooting. It is worth remembering that those countries probably have more predators, but we can learn from what they have done, which I think gives us a bit of comfort. Other nations that have significant economic activity associated with hunting and shooting have been able to adapt to the use of other methods effectively.