Chamber and committees

Ms Hamilton, nobody is saying that any trap of the type that you are alluding to is going to capture foxes; we are saying that the majority of foxes that are killed are dealt with by shooting. That method is available. Traps are available for other species where they are more effective. A range of options is available to people, which, if the ban goes through, will not include snares for the reasons that I have outlined, which are mainly animal welfare considerations.

Thank you for inviting me to give more evidence on the bill. I wrote to the committee in August, saying that I intend to introduce amendments at stage 2 of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill to ban the use of snares. I also intend to lodge amendments for a limited extension to the current powers of the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to investigate wildlife crime. Scotland already has strict rules governing the use of snares. However, I cannot ignore the weight of evidence that snares can and do lead to high levels of suffering. Their indiscriminate nature also means that non-target animals are frequently caught, including protected species such as badgers. I do not believe that further regulation would address those fundamental issues, and I believe that a ban on the use of snares is needed. I have, however, only very recently received proposals from land management groups for a licensing regime. I think that that came in on Monday night—I have not had time to consider that proposal fully but will respond in due course.

Regarding the SSPCA’s powers, my amendments will allow inspectors who are already investigating animal welfare offences to use their existing powers to seize and secure any evidence of related wildlife crimes. That will aid the detection of offences by allowing evidence to be gathered without delay.

To be clear, Police Scotland will retain primacy over the investigation of all wildlife offences. These are important issues but they are also very emotive and I have not made those decisions lightly. I have listened closely to stakeholders and have carefully considered all available evidence, including the independent reviews of snaring and the SSPCA’s powers.

Thank you, Mr Fairlie. I hope that you feel better soon. It sounded like that was a struggle.

I can outline the different types of predator control that will be available if snares are banned. The appropriate method of control depends on a number of factors, including the legal status of the predator, the topography of the land and the kind of livestock that is being protected. Mr Fairlie was absolutely correct about that.

The method most used at the moment is shooting, including at night—that is the predominant method for controlling foxes in particular. Trapping is also available, including live-capture traps. Dogs can be used to flush foxes to guns for the protection of livestock, as per the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023.

Farmers and land managers can take other steps to protect their livestock, including a lot of the things that they do already, such as housing their livestock during vulnerable periods; using fences, including electric ones, to protect their livestock; and diversionary feeding if they have an issue with a particular predator. Those are the non-capture and non-lethal methods; the humane lethal method that is used is shooting.

Mr Fairlie asked what other countries do. I cannot remember exactly what happens in every country, but I have been given a helpful list. In Europe, snares are banned in most European Union countries; indeed, Germany, which is a big hunting nation—it is probably second only to Scotland for game shooting—has banned snaring. A couple of countries including Spain and France have not yet banned snares, but the majority of EU countries have. Of course, Mr Fairlie will also be aware that our colleagues in the Welsh Parliament and Government recently banned snares completely.

I think that I was given this portfolio in mid-June. The day after I appeared before the committee to give stage 1 evidence, I met with Scottish Land & Estates and agreed to give it and other stakeholders that are involved in land management, particularly on shooting estates, an opportunity to have a round-table meeting with me, specifically on humane cable restraints. That round-table meeting took place in St Andrews house at the end of September. It lasted for a good hour to 90 minutes, during which time stakeholders were able to put forward quite a lot of detail with regard to what you are talking about. I have been in touch with those stakeholders and I have been able to have meetings with them whenever they have asked for them.

On engagement prior to that, I have a list of the ministerial meetings with stakeholders on the bill and I can forward that to the committee, if the convener would like that. I met with Scottish Land & Estates on 28 June and with RSPB on 20 July. I had a round-table meeting on humane cable restraints on 26 September, which included quite a lot of stakeholders. I met with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation on 3 October, NFU Scotland on 17 October and OneKind on 24 October, and I had a further meeting with RSPB Scotland on 20 September. I have made myself available to any group that wants to advocate one way or the other with regard to snares and working practices for groups such as RSPB Scotland, gamekeepers or anybody involved with the management of shooting estates.

I hope that all those bodies would say that I have made myself available. I have watched the evidence that this committee has taken—I watched it very thoroughly before my first appearance at the committee—and I have continued to engage with all those groups. However, well before I was given this appointment, in June, my officials were working on the bill and with all those stakeholders.

I gave a commitment to SLE and other partners off the back of the round-table meeting, at which they were advocating for a licensing scheme and the use of humane cable restraints in some situations. I offered them the opportunity to provide me with the detail of what they would want to see in a licensing scheme. I got that detail only on Monday night—48 hours ago. Given that I made the offer to them to look at what they proposed, it is incumbent on me to do so, and I and my officials are still looking at it.

I could not agree more. There are people who are acting completely responsibly and who care about the environment, wildlife and animal welfare who are being tarred with the same brush as the very small number of people perpetrating wildlife crime. I hope that we will look back on all the legislation that we are proposing and say that it has been a good thing for the reputation of people who have been maligned in many cases and tarred with that brush. It is a very good point.

That is a fair point. We could, of course, amend the existing code of practice, which would not require any legislation. I have heard animal welfare organisations say, in the committee and outwith it, that they would not want two codes of practice. I see their point, which I have some sympathy with.

At the same time, Ms Grahame’s bill could shine an additional spotlight on the issues. Such organisations have said that advice for those who are adopting or buying dogs would help in getting the messages across to the public. Having a parliamentary bill to focus on that would provide that spotlight and allow dog purchasers to buy with confidence.

I have not yet mentioned the issues with adopting dogs from other countries. Good practice guidance on that is not in the current code of practice. It is up to the committee to decide whether legislation is required, but my view is that a bill could shine a spotlight.

Yes, we absolutely are. I have alluded to certain areas in which there could usefully be more updated advice, particularly on the health issues associated with some breeds. The Kennel Club has been lobbying the UK and Scottish Governments on that, highlighting some of the health issues that are associated with dogs that are particularly fashionable at the time—they are on Instagram, influencers have them, and so on. We might smile, but they are influencers for a reason. People might rush into buying a dog and find out a year down the line that the dog is seriously ill or has issues that mean that they have to pay an absolute fortune, month on month, for medication to keep the dog healthy, which they had not factored into their household budget.

With regard to the code of practice outlined in Ms Grahame’s bill, I said in my opening statement that there are some areas in the bill that we would like to be amended, and we think that this particular provision is quite prescriptive at the moment. I believe that, where a code of practice is associated with legislation, the work on such a code should be done through consultation once the bill is passed. After all, you might well get views from a large range of stakeholders on what should be in it. As a result, I would not want a prescriptive provision in primary legislation tying us to a definitive code of practice, given that such a code might usefully cover other areas.

Gosh! I am not entirely sure that I can answer that question. I have been responsible for animal welfare since June, by which point Ms Grahame’s bill was well under way. I also know that a lot of members have raised dog ownership issues and that there have been other bills, petitions et cetera on the subject.

We have really just been concentrating on the campaigns that I have mentioned and which come off the back of our partnership work with organisations. We help to promote and fund such campaigns, and there is also what might be called the rolling work that we do on highlighting issues around dog ownership. We think that that has been reasonably successful in raising public awareness.

As has been said, the code of practice has not been revised. Given that it came off the back of a piece of legislation in 2006 and was not enacted until 2009, I agree that it is time for a refresh. It is possible that, if Ms Grahame had not introduced the bill, we might have been looking at doing that work.

Dr Allan, you have hit upon my issue with prescribing what should be in that code of practice. We would like to see amendments made to that provision. If we are too prescriptive about what is in a code of practice that is in a bill, we need secondary legislation to amend it as things change and go forward.

As I have said in my responses to other members, things do change. Trends change in dog ownership, breeding standards change, and different types of dogs with different issues come on the market. We see that all the time. People who are involved in the less-than-professional aspect of puppy breeding are clever and able to do things to avoid detection. They are fleet of foot in any aspect of duping the public into thinking that they are responsible breeders. Therefore, notwithstanding that we have not revised the 2009 code, which is an issue for us to discuss, having a prescriptive code of practice in the bill would make it harder to change, because it would have to go through Parliament as secondary legislation.