Chamber and committees

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.

I know that the committee has been looking at and is keen to ask questions about the possibility of research for biodiversity reasons. We have heard from major organisations that carry out that sort of research and are concerned about biodiversity. Bodies such as the Woodland Trust, and particularly the RSPB, own quite a lot of land in Scotland and have said that they do not use snaring for predator control to protect ground-nesting birds of the type that we know are under threat from foxes that might steal their eggs or attack their nest sites.

Conservation bodies such as the RSPB and the Woodland Trust, which do not use snares and are actively advocating for a ban on their use, are confident that there are other tools that can be used to manage the conservation aspect of their work and are content that those methods are effective. I find it quite compelling that the organisation that cares about ground-nesting birds and was set up with an obligation to conserve Scotland’s native bird species—RSPB Scotland—owns a significant amount of land that it uses to protect those species but does not use snaring. It does not use snaring because there are other, more effective, methods and because of animal welfare concerns.

I can give you a commitment today. Convener, I do not like to ask you questions, but I presume that your stage 1 report will be drafted in the next few weeks.

I understand that. You are right. The 1981 act contains a lot of conditions and sets out a statutory obligation for the use and deployment of snares to be reviewed. However, even when snares are used in strict accordance with the 1981 act, they pose a high risk to non-target species, including other wildlife and domestic animals. I am sure that the committee will have heard that domestic cats often get caught in snares. SAWC found in its study that the proportion of non-target species caught in snares is estimated to be between 21 and 69 per cent. Gamekeepers could set snares in accordance with the 1981 act and do so according to the training that has been given, but they will still catch non-target species. Further, the way in which snares are set means that they are left for a period of time, so an animal is suffering for quite a long time.

We have updated the snaring regulations multiple times since they were introduced. You will remember the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011, and we were both on the committee when we considered the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020, which contained snaring regulations. The Government feels that none of those provisions has been strong enough or has been able to fully address the animal welfare issues that snaring poses, no matter who sets the snares.

I have figures in front of me about things such as the amount of convictions associated with the issue, but I do not have that granular detail. With the greatest respect, if I had it I would tell you. That does not mean that it does not exist. We will have a look into that and will report back to the committee.

Quite a lot of snares can be made from materials that are not necessarily bought. I understand that there is an argument for banning the sale as well, particularly when we take into account that some of the people who have been in touch with me wanting to have a licensing scheme are advocating the use of snares that they call humane cable restraints. Those are not snares that people make; they are professionally produced and they are bought.

At the moment, our position is that we will ban the use of snares, but it is early days. I will be interested to see what the committee recommends in that regard and whether it thinks that banning the sale of snares is something that it would usefully want to see.

The evidence is that a lot of snares are made rather than bought.

We have spoken to NatureScot, but you are asking a very specific and focused question about whether NatureScot has said that banning the use of snares would improve biodiversity. I do not have a one-sentence answer for that, because I have not posed that question directly to NatureScot. Perhaps you might want to do that.

You talk about my many conversations with gamekeepers. The gamekeepers I have spoken to have advocated for the retention of snares and have made the point that the other traps that are available are not as effective as snares. Nobody is saying that there is a trapping method that is as effective as snaring, but the reason why we are introducing a ban is that snaring has significant animal welfare concerns attached to it. We are not proposing the banning of snares for no reason or to make life difficult for people who are working hard to manage their land. We are proposing it because, over many years, there has been a great deal of evidence to suggest that snaring is inhumane and causes unnecessary animal suffering.