Chamber and committees

Again, that will be for NatureScot to determine, but I would say that that would probably form part of the licence application—that it would confirm that the person applying had had training.

I am just having a look at my notes, which refer to

“Substantial compliance with the Muirburn Code”.

The muirburn code will set out whether training is required. I suspect that such a requirement will be part of the code.

My notes also refer to

“Mandatory training for staff directly involved in setting and managing fires”

and

“Keeping a record ... of each operation.”

Therefore, we have already set out that intention. We would expect to see the code include that and to give more detail. We might even expect the code to say what the accredited training should be. It was good to hear the representatives of gamekeepers who were before you saying that they accepted the idea of training and that proving competence in that area is absolutely something that they sign up to.

I cannot say anything more than I have said already. I take those concerns seriously. As Beatrice Wishart alluded to, we need to have robust processes and procedures, including appeals procedures, and we need to have additional bodies—as we do—to which someone can go if they are not content.

If you mean having a specific offence of tampering with traps that does not already exist, at the moment, we are satisfied that there are already offences that would be committed if people were tampering with traps. I am just having a look—one offence is vandalism under the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, and it can also be prosecuted as malicious mischief.

I have watched all the committee’s evidence sessions, and some people made the point that an additional specific offence could include an element of cruelty or causing distress to the animal. If somebody is tampering with a trap, that has the potential to prolong the suffering of the animal. I am open to suggestions, but there might be existing legislation that could be triggered. For example, off the top of my head, as Finlay Carson will remember, we have the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020, which includes penalties for certain offences against animals. We can look at that.

Members are at liberty to come forward with suggestions. There could be other existing legislation that might be capable of being used in that manner, or there might be new offences. I have an issue in relation to cases in which somebody tampers with a trap, probably because they are—as has been suggested; not by me but by the people whom you have heard from—activists in animal rights or are against the operation of grouse moors and want to get a prosecution in a vexatious way.

I am not convinced that people would really want to do what you are suggesting in a way that would prolong the suffering of animals, because that is probably not their modus operandi or where they are coming from, from a philosophical point of view. From what I have heard, what they are most likely to be doing when they interfere or tamper with traps is disabling them to ensure that they do not trap—by, for example, taking off doors or hinges, smashing them up or whatever they might do so that traps are not operational.

I listened to what Alex Hogg, for example, said about being very frightened by the traps having identification numbers on them and people using them, perhaps, to point the finger at somebody else. That defence is available to the people operating the trap, and the police tend not to criminalise people if there is sufficient evidence that somebody is setting them up.

In answer to the question, I say that I am, on one hand, open to suggestions and, on the other, I am wondering what the reality is with regard to trap tampering and whether it comes from a place of causing additional suffering to an animal. It seems to me that that might not be the case.

I will bring in Hugh Dignon on this in a moment. I have heard this being talked about, and my initial thought is that I am not convinced that fines are the way to go. Sometimes, fines can be the price for not doing something. People might say, “We don’t have to do that. It is just a small fine,” or whatever.

The Government?

That is a serious consideration. I need to be satisfied that it has the resources to do what we are asking it to do. I alluded to the fact that, so far, it has felt comfortable and able not to charge for some services, and I wondered whether a small charge would help. I do not know—I need to have that conversation with NatureScot. Ms Hamilton will understand that, in the past week, I would have loved to have sat down with NatureScot to talk about the scheme in detail, but I absolutely have to do that between now and stage 2.

Hugh Dignon has just told me that a review will look at that. That needs to be done. Whenever we look at giving more work to an agency, we need to look at how it will be funded, but Hugh has just notified me that there is a review.

I would just point to the appeals process and everything that I have said so far about that. Again, I am open to discussions. I need to think about what you have said and reflect on it.

So, you are not talking about a report that was produced—okay, I understand you.

Okay—sorry. It would have been helpful to have known which report you were referring to.

Obviously, officials have been working hard on the matter. We made the announcement two days ago now, I think, and up until we did so, we were liaising with Police Scotland on the issue quite comprehensively. The position that we have arrived at aims to close the potential loophole that could be used to get rid of evidence, due to the time lag. That is particularly the case when SSPCA officers have seen something but they cannot do anything about it—they cannot gather evidence. Something could happen in the intervening period, if there was a lag before the police could get there. Indeed, we could be talking about quite a long period, as there could be weather issues or geographical implications.

Hugh Dignon mentioned suspicion of crime. There have been issues with the ability to recover evidence to support any kind of investigation, which is why we have arrived at our position with regard to the powers that the SSPCA should have. We hope and think that those powers will assist the police, but there is absolutely no doubt that the police have primacy. We will continue to liaise with the police on how the measure will work on the ground. If the police have concerns or feel that a particular officer from the SSPCA is not acting within that remit, I have, as I have said, the power as minister to take away that licence.

Hugh Dignon wants to give some detail on the exact thrust of the comments with regard to the report. In my view, however, if the police raise any issues about SSPCA officers acting in a way that hinders an investigation in any way, I have the ability to act and to investigate that myself.

I do not know whether Hugh wants to come in on that.