Seòmar agus comataidhean

I guess that, given the fact that the bill in which the issue is embedded is about the licensing of shooting estates, the issue that we are discussing would be an offence in the same way as any of the other things that we have mentioned in relation to the bill would be. That means that there would be an investigation and police involvement, and NatureScot could suspend someone’s licence if a wildlife crime had been committed. That is one of the reasons why I have not arrived at a final position on vicarious liability, because that might be a sufficient deterrent without involving it. Hugh Dignon might have views on that, but that is certainly my position at the moment.

As you have rightly pointed out, the SSPCA is a charity. It has not asked us for additional money to take these powers on, but you are also right to point out that charities such as the SSPCA are, like a lot of the third sector, finding things difficult at the moment. After all, it relies largely on donations.

One of the main reasons for the issues that the SSPCA is having with regard to rehoming animals and taking them into animal shelters is that the number of animals being dropped on its doorstep has increased. Because of the cost of living crisis, people are in a horrible situation and are having to make the decision to give up their pets. When I was at the SSPCA’s place in Balerno in July—it was not even wintertime—the people there were saying that they had been overwhelmed by the number of animals that distraught people were having to give up simply because they could not afford to feed themselves and their pets. That is even before people have to put the heating on, so I presume that the situation is going to get worse over the winter.

However, the SSPCA does not see these new duties and powers as extra work. It is already doing this work, but its hands have been tied as a result of not having powers with regard to animals that are found already dead in traps. The SSPCA does not really see that work as requiring additional resource. That said, though, your question leads me to highlight this important point about how difficult charities—and animal welfare charities, in particular—are finding things at the moment, and for a number of reasons, many of which are associated with the cost of living crisis.

There will be a myriad of reasons for the fact that there have not been any such charges. As I said, I have not settled on a position on a new offence with regard to vicarious liability, but I do know that no charges have been brought.

Well, that is the power of scrutiny, is it not? We are at stage 1. The committee has made some points to me. I have been thinking about them, and some of those issues will be taken into consideration in the passage of the bill. I went away from the meeting in June and considered the points that were put to me. I want people to have confidence in the licensing schemes and the arrangements involving NatureScot, and I have suggested the definition that I am most minded to bring forward.

One of the reasons why the crime number is something that I am quite favourable towards is that it is about giving comfort that the police retain primacy. I think that, in June, there was a suggestion that the police would not have primacy when it came to the investigation of wildlife cases. That is not the case. The crime number is a police procedural point that would indicate very strongly that the police have primacy.

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.