Chamber and committees

We are not aware of any specific welfare problems associated with greyhound racing in Scotland and have no reason to believe that the self-regulation of the greyhound racing industry is less than satisfactory.

In Scotland, all dogs, including greyhounds, used in racing are fully protected under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. Section 24 of the Act requires those responsible for animals to take appropriate steps to ensure that the needs of these animals are met. These needs include the provision of a suitable environment and to be protected from suffering, injury or disease. The provisions of this Act apply when greyhounds are racing, at the racetrack, during transport to and from the racetrack and when the greyhounds are in their home environment.

The Scottish Government have now received the comments from the wider PAW Scotland partnership on the legislation, regulation and guidance on the use of snares in Scotland.

The recommendations from the PAW legislation, regulation and guidance sub group on the use of snares will be published on the Scottish Government website shortly.

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-26152 on 14 August 2009. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

There is no Scottish Government funding stream available that provides directly for such repair and maintenance, with the exception of the grant given annually by Historic Scotland to the War Memorials Trust to assist in the care of memorials to Scotland''s war dead, famous or not.

However, there are several avenues open to those who wish to see particular graves better cared for, and I have asked Historic Scotland to write directly to Ms Murray setting these options out in more detail.

A list of all organisations consulted was published with the draft code and can be accessed on the Scottish Government web site as follows:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/02/06141322/2.

The proposed new offence on driving deer recklessly referred to in the consultation on the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill would include the use of aircraft to drive deer recklessly.

Should this proposal be progressed and receive Parliamentary approval, it is anticipated that procurators fiscal would still be able to bring prosecutions under section 19 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 without a restoration notice being issued beforehand, depending on the circumstances of each case. In addition, if a third party was responsible for the damage of a Site of Special Scientific Interest then, unless they were in a position to carry out restoration works, prosecution for intentional or reckless damage to the protected natural features would remain the only option available.

Failure to comply with such a restoration notice would be a criminal offence for which the relevant person or persons could be prosecuted. In that scenario, it would be a matter for the procurator fiscal to decide whether to also prosecute for intentional or reckless damage of the SSSI''s features, and it should be noted that a successful prosecution for this could result in the court issuing a Restoration Order under Section 40 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.

It is normal procedure for Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) to first seek a land manager''s voluntary cooperation to deliver the restoration of damaged features of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).

If a land manager does not restore such features voluntarily then the only option available at present is prosecution and, if the land manager is found guilty, for the courts to impose a restoration order. This can be a lengthy and uncertain process involving significant effort on the parts of the state prosecution service, the accused and their defence. It is also highly adversarial and likely to affect SNH''s future working relationship with land managers in delivering the conservation of the natural features of SSSIs.

If the proposal is progressed and receives parliamentary approval, the facility of issuing a restoration notice would be an intermediate enforcement option which could, in many cases, be a more appropriate means of securing the restoration of illegally damaged natural features when voluntary restoration was not forthcoming.

The Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill Consultation Document does not intend to suggest that a person found guilty of wilfully injuring, taking or attempting to kill a badger could have done so unknowingly. The consultation document proposes a new offence of knowingly causing or permitting another person to injure, take or attempt to kill a badger.