Chamber and committees

Most immediately, you will know that a consultation was launched. I believe that the consultation results have been shared with the committee. There has been a long lead-up to this from the point of view of evidence gathering. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 requires there to be a statutory review of snaring every five years. We have set up a statutory review group, and the Scottish Government is working with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Police Scotland, NatureScot and Science & Advice for Scottish Agriculture. We will be looking at snaring on a regular basis, as I have outlined.

We also requested that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission conduct a review of the welfare implications of snaring. I know that SAWC has given evidence to the committee. I do not know whether it has given you any evidence so far on snaring, but I have here some of the conclusions and recommendations from its report. It talks about the sentience of animals and the capacity of animals to experience pain and other negative impacts from snaring, including psychological impacts. It said that non-target species, including some protected species, were routinely caught in snares, and suffer and may die. Animals go through not only the physical impact of the snare but the psychological distress, particularly when they are left for many hours caught in a snare, where they could be exposed to other predator attacks and are out in an exposed area and subject to the weather. They do not have access to food, they could be away from their young or they could be young animals that are away from their mother. There are all those impacts, too.

SAWC concluded that snares cause significant welfare harms to members of target and non-target species and recommended that the sale of snares and their use by the public and industry be banned in Scotland on animal welfare grounds. We are not proposing to ban the sale of snares but we propose to ban their use.

I think that you are looking for data that the Government might not hold. If a snare has been set, there might be nothing in it, or a fox might be found in it the next morning and then shot. I imagine that the gamekeeper would keep a log of that.

To be honest, that is up to land managers. I am not promoting any type of control over the others. Effectively, what I am saying is that we propose to ban one method of control: snaring.

Depending on their circumstances, land managers might want to ramp up lethal controls such as shooting or might look at other non-lethal methods, or they might want to use other types of traps. That is entirely up to them; a suite of available options is open to them.

It has been pointed out to me that, in some cases, shooting is not always an option, and I understand that, but other traps can be used that do not have the same animal welfare impacts. Believe me, Mr Fairlie, there are groups out there that would like us to consider banning those traps, too, but we have said that we will consider only snares. We need to leave land managers the tools to trap animals in other ways that have fewer animal welfare implications.

For the moment, we propose to ban snares and leave the other suite of methods available. It is not the case that I am advocating non-lethal methods over lethal ones; all the methods are available to land managers, who can make the decision whether to use them.

I guess that, given the fact that the bill in which the issue is embedded is about the licensing of shooting estates, the issue that we are discussing would be an offence in the same way as any of the other things that we have mentioned in relation to the bill would be. That means that there would be an investigation and police involvement, and NatureScot could suspend someone’s licence if a wildlife crime had been committed. That is one of the reasons why I have not arrived at a final position on vicarious liability, because that might be a sufficient deterrent without involving it. Hugh Dignon might have views on that, but that is certainly my position at the moment.

As you have rightly pointed out, the SSPCA is a charity. It has not asked us for additional money to take these powers on, but you are also right to point out that charities such as the SSPCA are, like a lot of the third sector, finding things difficult at the moment. After all, it relies largely on donations.

One of the main reasons for the issues that the SSPCA is having with regard to rehoming animals and taking them into animal shelters is that the number of animals being dropped on its doorstep has increased. Because of the cost of living crisis, people are in a horrible situation and are having to make the decision to give up their pets. When I was at the SSPCA’s place in Balerno in July—it was not even wintertime—the people there were saying that they had been overwhelmed by the number of animals that distraught people were having to give up simply because they could not afford to feed themselves and their pets. That is even before people have to put the heating on, so I presume that the situation is going to get worse over the winter.

However, the SSPCA does not see these new duties and powers as extra work. It is already doing this work, but its hands have been tied as a result of not having powers with regard to animals that are found already dead in traps. The SSPCA does not really see that work as requiring additional resource. That said, though, your question leads me to highlight this important point about how difficult charities—and animal welfare charities, in particular—are finding things at the moment, and for a number of reasons, many of which are associated with the cost of living crisis.

There will be a myriad of reasons for the fact that there have not been any such charges. As I said, I have not settled on a position on a new offence with regard to vicarious liability, but I do know that no charges have been brought.

Well, that is the power of scrutiny, is it not? We are at stage 1. The committee has made some points to me. I have been thinking about them, and some of those issues will be taken into consideration in the passage of the bill. I went away from the meeting in June and considered the points that were put to me. I want people to have confidence in the licensing schemes and the arrangements involving NatureScot, and I have suggested the definition that I am most minded to bring forward.

One of the reasons why the crime number is something that I am quite favourable towards is that it is about giving comfort that the police retain primacy. I think that, in June, there was a suggestion that the police would not have primacy when it came to the investigation of wildlife cases. That is not the case. The crime number is a police procedural point that would indicate very strongly that the police have primacy.

Not everything will be given a crime number.

Yes. You will notice that there has been a slight shift in some of the proposals around that. That is because we have been having conversations with Police Scotland throughout. I will outline what was asked of us and what we have agreed to.

The SSPCA utilises search powers under section 19 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 only when it is already on land lawfully—when it is already using the search powers that are afforded to it under that act. When the SSPCA is already on the land, it will respond to time-critical circumstances only when there is significant risk of evidence being lost or compromised through waiting for the police to respond. Any evidence of wildlife crimes is provided to Police Scotland as soon as is practically possible.

The police have primacy over offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and, as such, will progress an investigation. However, in certain circumstances, if it is agreed by Police Scotland and the SSPCA, the SSPCA may report subsequent issues. That goes back to the protocols and partnership working. There will be no powers of arrest or search of persons or the craving of a search warrant provided to the SSPCA. It is very much about the SSPCA assisting the police in a way that fills the gap around evidence gathering, which was an issue for many years.