Seòmar agus comataidhean

Gillian Martin’s amendment 71 modifies the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 to confer additional powers on inspectors appointed by the Scottish ministers to investigate certain wildlife offences.

I am aware that the issue of giving additional powers to the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals inspectors has been debated in the Parliament on a number of occasions. That is why the Scottish Government decided to set up an independent task force to look further at the matter and, after listening carefully to stakeholders, developed the proposals. The proposals were consulted on last year, and 71 per cent of the respondents agreed with the proposal to extend the powers of the Scottish SPCA to investigate wildlife crime, but two thirds also agreed with proposals to place limitations and conditions on the extended powers of the Scottish SPCA inspectors.

Notwithstanding that level of support, I know that some people have raised concerns about giving further powers to individuals and organisations that are not part of the police service. On the other side of the argument, some would have liked the Government to go significantly further on new powers for the Scottish SPCA. Having listened carefully to the evidence that has been presented to the committee, I believe that the provisions set out in amendment 71, which provide for a small extension of powers to deal with a gap in the arrangements for securing evidence of potential criminality, strike the right balance.

I will give an example of the powers in use. As the law currently stands, a Scottish SPCA inspector responding to the case of a live animal caught in an illegally set trap is not able to seize any other illegal traps in the immediate vicinity that do not contain live animals. They would also not have the power to search the area for evidence of other illegally set traps. If the amendment was agreed to, it would mean that, in those circumstances, an inspector would have the power to seize the illegally set traps and search for evidence of other illegally set traps in the vicinity. They would then turn over their evidence to Police Scotland, which would retain primacy over the investigation of wildlife crime cases including offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and this bill.

The additional powers for inspectors will come with a number of safeguards and limitations. They can be exercised only when an inspector is already responding to a case under their existing powers. As is currently the case, each inspector will be appointed separately and individually by the Scottish Government. All inspectors will be required to undertake training prior to being given authorisation to exercise the new powers. Authorisation can be withdrawn at any time at the discretion of the Scottish Government. Protocols will be established between the SSPCA and Police Scotland to ensure effective partnership working and to set out clearly the role of the SSPCA within the limit of those powers. The SSPCA will not be given powers to stop and search people, and it will also not have the powers to arrest people who are suspected of committing a wildlife crime.

The protocols for partnership working that the SSPCA will follow when using the new powers will clearly set out how the new functions should work. That will include what reporting mechanisms will be in place, how the SSPCA, the National Wildlife Crime Unit, Police Scotland and the Crown Office will work together effectively, and what the individual roles and responsibilities of each party are.

You have jumped in just a second too quickly. I was about to say that those provisions will not be commenced until the protocols have been agreed by all relevant parties, including Scottish ministers.

On the extent of investigatory powers, under the Animal Health and Welfare Act (Scotland) 2006, the SSPCA can utilise its powers only in relation to the investigation of cases that involve live animals. That will remain the case with the new powers. If a situation were to arise in which, for example, it responded to a call relating to a live animal caught in a trap and then, on arrival, found that the animal had subsequently died, I would expect the SSPCA to alert Police Scotland, which would then determine the appropriate course of action. I would also expect such situations to be clearly covered by the protocols that will set out how the SSPCA will operate using those new powers.

Amendment 21, in the name of Edward Mountain, would remove section 8 of the bill. Section 8 is currently an enabling power that provides that the Scottish ministers may, by regulation, modify the 2006 act to add powers such as those that I have just described. The intention was always to seek to remove that provision by amendment at stage 2 and replace it with a provision that sets out in the bill the detail and limits of the new powers, which is what amendment 71 now does.

If amendment 71 gets the support of the committee and is agreed to, Edward Mountain’s amendment 21 would immediately remove the new provisions. However, in the event that amendment 71 is not agreed to, it would be sensible to retain section 8 as it would enable the Scottish ministers to lay regulations to extend the powers of SSPCA inspectors at a later stage, should that be desirable. Those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so if they are ever to be used, Parliament would have a say. I will therefore not support Edward Mountain’s amendment 21, and I urge committee members to vote against it.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments, which would require the Scottish ministers to undertake a review of the effect of those new provisions, are a helpful addition. I hope that the requirement to undertake such a review would help to allay some of the concerns that were raised at stage 1 about how the new powers will be used. I therefore support those amendments in principle; however, I do not think that the review period of one year, as set out in the amendments, is an appropriate timescale.

Amendment 141 would require the review to examine whether the “exercise of” those new powers “has resulted in convictions”. Given the time that it can take for an investigation to proceed through the criminal justice system, a longer review period of three to five years would probably be more appropriate.

More generally, there are also some minor issues with the amendments, and I would like to work with the member to address them. I therefore ask Rhoda Grant not to move either amendment at this stage, and I will consider them further with a view to bringing a revised version at stage 3.

I move amendment 71, and I encourage committee members to support it.

Amendments 17, 122 and 123 seek to severely restrict the power to add other birds to the licensing scheme that will be established by section 7. As, I am sure, Edward Mountain is well aware, the power to add a bird species to allow it to be taken only under licence is not a mechanism to protect that species but a mechanism to protect other wildlife that predates on it. The licensing scheme needs to protect raptors and other wildlife, so the regulation-making power to add other bird species to the scheme needs to remain as it is. That will ensure that if, in the future, we have robust evidence that wildlife crimes such as raptor persecution are being committed to facilitate the management of other bird species, we will be able to regulate the management of those birds. For that reason, I encourage members to vote against those amendments.

No. I am saying that there has to be a facility to bring forward licensing if there is clear evidence that wildlife crime is happening in a different type of shoot. I do not need to explain to Edward Mountain that that is very possible, and it does happen.

I give the absolute commitment that we can meet to talk about the issue and see what we can bring back at stage 3.

I appreciate the intention of amendments 90 and 94, and I am sympathetic to ensuring that the bill works for not only grouse moor managers but crofters and farmers, while protecting our valuable peatlands. Crofting delivers real benefits: it sustains agricultural activity, supports the rural economy, enhances wildlife and the natural environment, and supports people to stay, live and work in our rural and island communities. The Scottish Government supports crofting and is committed to enabling more people to live in or near a croft and to work their land. It is not the intention of the bill to interfere with that. Potentially, the effect of amendments 90 and 94 is already covered by the purposes for muirburn on peatland that are in the bill. I therefore ask Alasdair Allan not to move his amendments.

Let me just finish my point, please.

I ask the committee to support amendment 61, to allow falconers to take red grouse without requiring a licence, and I ask the committee to vote against amendment 124.

It is important to remember the purpose of having a muirburn season, which is to ensure that muirburn is carried out only when the risk of damage to economic, social and environmental interests is at a minimum. There are different permitted reasons for carrying out muirburn, depending on whether it is on peatland and whether it is carried out during the prescribed season.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 183 and 184 would extend the period for which a muirburn licence can be granted until 30 April. They would also allow licences to be granted for additional purposes between 1 and 30 April. As we have heard from Kate Forbes, we have very good reason to bring forward the start of the close season to protect ground-nesting birds. Therefore, to accept an amendment that would push that season back to the end of April, albeit in limited circumstances, would not be appropriate or good practice. I do not believe that we have been provided with any evidence to support the changes to the dates or the purposes for which muirburn can be undertaken that are proposed by Rachael Hamilton in her amendments.

However, I understand that the science around muirburn is constantly evolving, and that the impacts of climate change mean that we may need to adapt our approach in the future. That is why section 16(3) of the bill gives the Scottish ministers a power to amend the muirburn season if they think it

“necessary or expedient to do so”

for the purpose of

“conserving, restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment”,

preventing the risk of wildfires or in relation to climate change.

Because the power is subject to the affirmative procedure, Parliament will have an enhanced scrutiny role, and there is a requirement to consult those who are likely to be interested in or affected by the making of muirburn, which will ensure that the power is used proportionately. For those reasons, I will not support amendments 183 and 184, and I encourage committee members to vote against them.

I turn to Edward Mountain’s amendments. Amendment 39 would also allow the muirburn season to

“be extended to 30 April”,

in this case

“with the permission of the landowner.”

That would seem to delegate the authority to the landowner rather than to ministers or to NatureScot, which I find rather strange. For the same reasons that I gave in relation to Rachael Hamilton’s amendments on extending the muirburn season, I cannot support amendment 39, and I encourage the committee to vote against it—[Interruption.] I ask members to allow me to finish these points.

Amendments 25 and 26 seek to change the muirburn licence provisions so that a licence can be granted for muirburn outside

“the muirburn season only for the purposes of ... conserving, restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment ... research, or ... public safety.”

However, I think that those amendments have been lodged as the result of a misunderstanding of the bill. Section 11(2) sets out the only purposes for which muirburn can be licensed during the open season, so an out-of-season licence would be available for any purposes that are not explicitly mentioned in section 11(2).

The bill already allows a licence for out-of-season muirburn to be granted on non-peatland for the purposes of

“conserving, restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment ... preventing, or reducing the risk of, wildfires causing harm to people or damage to property”

or “research”.

Mr Mountain’s amendments therefore duplicate provisions for research and conserving, restoring, managing or enhancing the natural environment on non-peatland for out-of-season muirburn. Examples of that might be to create a suitable seedbed at the appropriate time of year for the natural regeneration of nearby native woodland or to research the effects of muirburn on dry heath in early September.

With regard to public safety, that was previously included in the Hill Farming Act 1946 as a reason for which an out-of-season muirburn licence could be granted. However, in creating the new muirburn provisions for the bill, we took the view that “public safety” is a very wide term that could be interpreted in many different ways, so the narrower provision for

“preventing, or reducing ... wildfires causing harm to people or damage to property”

was introduced.

No.

Thank you.

The code of practice is about ensuring good-quality grouse moor management and medicated grit will be part of that code of practice.

It is helpful to have that intention made clear in the bill, so I am happy to support amendment 83 and encourage committee members to vote for it.

I thank Colin Smyth for amendments 138 and 139. I understand the intentions behind them. However, I will not support them.

As the previous minister set out in her letter to the committee on 18 January, NatureScot is taking an iterative, collaborative approach to developing the code of practice for grouse moor management. A code working group that comprises a range of stakeholders has already been established to develop the structure and content of that code. The code will include guidance on wildlife management that will set out statutory requirements with which people who are undertaking wildlife management must comply, as well as providing advice about best practice.

It is important that the finer details of what is included in the code are informed by the wide range of experience and voices that the grouse moor management code group offers so that we can get a workable but robust code. We need to give the code working group space to determine what will be promoted as best practice and we should not be too prescriptive about what we set out in the bill. Therefore, I will not support amendments 138 and 139, and I encourage members to vote against them.

Amendment 20 from Edward Mountain is unnecessary, as the bill as drafted requires the Scottish ministers to consult on the code of practice for grouse moor management. Should the Scottish ministers exercise their powers to delegate the preparation of the grouse moor management code of practice to NatureScot, NatureScot would then be required to adhere to any consultation requirements set out in section 7 of the bill. I hope that that reassures Edward Mountain and that he will not move his amendment. If he does, I encourage members to vote against it.