 Good morning, and welcome to the 27th meeting of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee in 2023. We've received apologies from Beatrice Wishart, who is unable to attend due to another parliamentary engagement this morning, and I welcome back to the meeting Liam McArthur MSP, who will be substituting. I will also have Rhoda Grant and Jim Fairlie attending remotely. Before I begin, I can ask those members using electronic devices to please turn them to silent. The first item of business today is to decide whether to take items 3 and 4 in private. We are agreed. We now have an evidence session on the wildlife management and Muirburn Scotland Bill. I welcome to the meeting Gillian Martin, the minister for energy and environment, and her officials Hugh Dignan, the head of the wildlife management unit. Leah Fitzgerald, the team leader from the wildlife legislation team and Norman Munro. The Scottish Government solicitor. We have got 90 minutes scheduled for the session this morning, and I invite the minister to make an opening comment. I have a brief opening comment to make. Thank you for inviting me to give Febs more evidence on the bill today. I wrote to the committee in August, saying that I intend to bring forward amendments to ban the use of snares at stage 2 of the wildlife management and Muirburn Bill. I also intend to lodge amendments for a limited extension to the Scottish SPCA's current powers to investigate wildlife crime. Scotland has already got 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, including protected species such as badgers, are frequently caught, and I do not believe that further regulation would address these fundamental issues and that a ban on the use of snares is needed. However, I have only recently received proposals for a licensing regime from land management groups. I think that that came in on Monday night, and I have not had time to fully consider that proposal, but I will respond in due course. Regarding Scottish SPCA powers, my amendments will allow inspectors already investigating animal welfare offences using 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. Those are important, but they are also very emotive issues, 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 Scottish SPCA powers. I am going to kick off the question. That comes in four parts, and it is around what evidence that the Scottish Government has gathered as part of its decision making into the proposed snaring ban. What evidence do you have regarding the impact that snaring ban would have on animal welfare? Most immediately, you will know that there was a consultation that was put out, and I believe that the consultation results have been shared with the committee. That has been done, but there has been a long lead-up to this in evidence gathering. The Wildlife and Countryside Act requires every five years that there is a statutory review of snaring. We have set up a statutory review group that the Scottish Government is working with the Crown Office of Procurator Fiscal, Police Scotland, NatureScot, Advice for Scottish Agriculture. We would be looking at snaring on a regular basis, as I outlined, but we also requested that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission conduct a review of the welfare implications of snaring. I know that they have been in front of you in giving evidence—I do not know if they have given you any evidence so far on snaring, but I have heard some of their conclusions and recommendations from their report, where they were talking about the sentience of animals and the capability of experiencing pain and other very negative impacts, including psychological impacts, from snaring as well, and that non-target species, including some protected species, were routinely caught in snars as well and may suffer and may die. It would not just be the physical impact of the snarer but also the psychological distress that they were going through. Particularly when they are left for many hours caught in a snar where they could be exposed to other predator attacks, they are out in an exposed area and subject to weather, they do not have access to food, they could be away from their young, they could be young that is away from their mother, so all those impacts as well. The SAWC concluded that snars caused significant welfare harms to members of both target and non-target species and recommended that the sale of snars and their use by both public and industry be banned in Scotland on animal welfare grounds. We are not proposing to ban the sale but we are proposing to ban the use. The Wildlife and Courtesy Act 1981 already outlaws setting snares that would cause unnecessary suffering and it is also a fence to set the snare in a position in which it could cause harm to wild birds etc or non-target species. Why would another piece of legislation make that any different? I think that it is generally understood that where snares are used it is poachers and people who are intent on breaking the law that use them incorrectly, not gamekeepers who set out specifically to, for example, control predators. I understand that, you are right, the 1981 act does have a lot of conditions as part of it and they set out a statutory obligation for it to be reviewed the use of snares and how they are actually used and deployed. But even when those 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. The committee, I am sure, will have heard of cats often get caught, domestic cats get caught in them as well. The Animal Welfare Commission found that the proportion of non-target species is estimated to be between 21 to 69 per cent. That is something that you could have gamekeepers setting snares in accordance with the 1981 act, doing it according to the training that has been given, but they are still catching these. Given that the very nature of how these are set, they are left for the period of time, so that animal is suffering for quite a long time. We have updated the snares regulations multiple times since we have introduced the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act in 2011. You will remember that, when we were in the committee together, we took forward the Animal and Wildlife Penalties Protection and Powers Act, in which the snares regulations were part of that. However, we feel that none of those have been strong enough or have been able to fully address the issues of animal welfare that snares pose, no matter who sets them. When you have carried out your evidence finding, we know that snares now have to have a licence number on them. Have you done any research into how many licence snares are causing an issue and how many illegally trapped snares are causing an issue? Obviously, that is really important. If we have a sector that is deploying human control devices, are we finding that there is still a high incidence of them causing animal welfare issues? Are the instances that you talk about, the domestic cats or whatever, tend to be from snares that are being set illegally? I do not know how you could find that out. You have licence numbers on the snares. I know how many licences have been given, but I do not have a breakdown on where unintended species were caught with illegal snares. I do not have that breakdown in front of me, but I certainly do not have that breakdown in front of me. If we did have that information, and if that information is held, I can write to the committee with that, but that is a very specific and granular detail that I unfortunately do not have in front of me. I am going to press it a little bit more. If you are suggesting that there is evidence that there are widespread animal welfare issues through the use of snares, when someone makes a complaint about a snares and that is investigated—I presume that is what the evidence is based on—those snares will have licence numbers, which will indicate who owns that licence or whatever. My question is, when you are reporting a high level of animal welfare issues, is that a result of legally set licence snares or illegally set snares? You have asked the same question again for which I have already said that I do not have that granular detail. If we can find that granular detail, you have my assurance that I will write to the committee with that. It is quite important because it would give us an indication whether the current legislation within the act is actually working or whether people who are intent on breaking the law are continuing to do it. The thing is that multiple animal welfare agencies are in support of the banning of snares for animal welfare reasons, regardless of who sets them. The British Veterinary Association is one such body, a very respected body in terms of animal health and welfare. I believe that the committee supplied evidence for the consultation. Studies have been carried out at UK level as well. DEFA, for example, a very large study in 2010 has also informed a lot of our thinking, historically, about non-target species as well. I was actually on the predecessor committee that scrutinised and helped pass the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act 2011, where the licensing tags on snares were introduced. I think that the feeling at that stage was that this would give you visibility on the effect of snares that were being set legally and in accordance with the legislation, as opposed to those that the convener would suggest that would be set by poachers. If there is not this granular detail out, I have real concerns. I understand the BVA of which I am an honorary member and other organisations have long campaigned for the banning of snares. However, as a Parliament, as a committee, I think that we should be concerned about how effective any ban is likely to be if what we are doing is simply banning those legally set snares that are not causing the welfare problems but leaving poachers to continue snaring, which is what they will do. As you said, there is not a way and the Government is not proposing to ban the means of making snares, so I think that it is fairly safe to assume that those will continue. I think that if we do not have that granular detail on the snares legally set, as opposed to the legally set that are having an impact on animal welfare, I think that that goes to the very heart of what we are discussing here. I have got figures in front of me about the amount of convictions associated with it whatever, but that granular detail is not something that I have in front of me. With the greatest respect, if I had it, I would tell you that it does not mean to say that it does not exist, but we will have a look into that. We will report back to the committee. A brief supplementary on that for Rachael Hamilton? No, I do not have a supplementary on that. I wonder if you could say a little bit about what circumstances you think from the evidence that you have, that snaring is still used legally and the arguments that I put forward for it being used legally. You mentioned that you would like to see a ban on the use but not the sale of snares. I wonder if you could say a bit more about the reasoning on that. The snares are used in Scotland for the target species, for foxes. Obviously, they are predator rabbits and brown-hares, which are often viewed as being pests. Under the regulations from 1994, it is illegal to deliberately or recklessly capture, injure or kill a wild animal of a protection species such as a wild cat or a badger unless a licence has been granted by NatureScot. However, the use of snaring is quite low, because the main means that people who want to keep the volume of foxes, for example, down on their land because they are a predator, is shooting. The vast majority of control measures involve shooting. That is seen as a humane way of dealing with either animals that are considered pests or animals that are considered predators and can impact on the livelihood of farmers, for example. Your second question, Dr Allan, was about the sale. 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, particularly when we take into account that some of the people who have been in touch with me wanting to have a licence in the scheme are advocating the use of snares that are called humane cable restraints. Those are not things that are made, but they are professionally produced and they are bought as well. At the moment, our position is that we are going to ban the use. It is early days that we are interested to see what the committee recommends on that regard and whether or not they think that banning the sale of them would be something that they would usefully want to see. Just on that, you said that quite a lot of snares are home made. What is quite a lot? Well, the evidence is that a lot of snares are made rather than bought. What sort of, I presume, are those legal, home made snares at the moment? If they are used in accordance with the 1981 act and the way that that dictates how they are used, then yes. We are back down to the granularity of that again. Do we know roughly or do we have any indication how many of the professional practitioners use home made snares or use bought snares that have got licence tags on them? That is quite important as well when we try to work out where the animal welfare issues actually are. I think that we have established that I do not have that granular detail, but huge. You said quite a lot, so you must have an indication. I think that we are not saying that home made snares are not legal. Home made snares can be perfectly legal and they can be used in accordance with the law and used in accordance with the licence and have the identification number on them and so on. I think that the issue is that perfectly legal snares set in accordance with the law can still have an adverse welfare impact. That is why it is difficult to pick out the difference between an illegally set snare and the welfare impacts that might have and an illegally set snare and the welfare impacts that might have. That is where the difficulty comes in separating out those two pieces of data. Again, it is quite important when we hear statements like quite a lot, there must be figures out there to make that assumption. That is something else that we would quite like to hear before stage one. In terms of how many are made, I think that largely that is anecdote evidence when we have talked to people, land managers, gamekeepers, they have said, I just make them. I make them because it is an efficient way to do it, I know how to do it and I can make them in accordance with the law. We also know that there are snares on sale, so we assume that there is a mix of those in use. For us, the key thing has always been whether they are made or bought, whether they conform with the law. We do not have any evidence to say that there is significant non-compliance with the law in that respect. I am very concerned that we are making allegations against a certain group of people here. Looking at the evidence itself, there is evidence within the papers that we have today to say that poachers may use illegal snares. I think that it is very worrying because the SGA has been critical of people who use illegal snares. I think that it is concerning that we have a civil servant making such allegations without evidence to this committee. I do not think that that was a point of order. I think that that is more of an intervention and a comment on your opinion, but that is on the record now. Just to offer back what Hugh MacDonald has just said, the illegality is about how snares can be used in terms of not being used in accordance with the 1981 act. It is not illegal to make a snare. You cannot call a snare that has been made by somebody who knows what they are doing and has been making snares for decades. You cannot call that an illegal snare. There is one snare that is currently banned, which is self-locking snares. The sale of snares is banned, so you could call that kind of snare an illegal snare. You could say that there is illegal snareing activity because it is not in accordance with the 1981 act, but it is not illegal to make a homemade snare. Kate Forbes Thank you very much. That was not going to be my proper supplementary intervention, but I think that bringing all of that to a point is that there is quite extensive qualitative evidence. It has been really helpful to hear that qualitative evidence this morning and in our packs. Quantitative evidence has always been difficult. We will ask questions later on about enforcement, but it has notoriously been extremely difficult to enforce and therefore extremely difficult to gather that quantitative data. I would certainly be very grateful if the minister, when she is responding to the committee as promised in terms of some of that granular data, could provide perhaps a list of the quantitative data that you do collate, because I think that that would cut through some of the comments. I think that some of the points have been absolutely critical because an SGA member, a practitioner of many, many years, who cares immensely about animal welfare, biodiversity and so on and who is doing the right thing, does not want to get lumped, obviously, with those who are doing it, which is not what anybody is suggesting. However, I think that quantitative evidence might really help to cut through some of those comments. Perhaps then, if I do ask my supplementary—or my question, rather—was really about conservation and biodiversity. I think that all of us are unconscious that reaching at zero targets, we need to really improve our biodiversity. Unfortunately, that does require quite significant predator control. If the minister could comment on the evidence around, A, our approach to biodiversity, B, the role of predator control in that, and C, do you not think that some predator control can actually only be conducted through snaring, as some have suggested? I know that the committee has been looking and keen to ask questions about the possibility of research purposes for biodiversity reasons. We have obviously heard from major organisations who would carry out that kind of research and who are concerned with biodiversity, such as the Woodland Trust, RSPB and so on. They have said that they do not use snaring for predator control to protect, for example, ground-nesting birds of the nature that we know are under threat from the likes of foxes, like stealing their eggs or attacking their nesting sites. Conservation bodies such as RSPB and the Woodland Trust do not use snars and are actively advocating for the banning of snars. We are confident that there are other tools in the toolbox to manage the conservation aspects of what they are doing, and they are content that those methods are effective in doing so. That is quite compelling, particularly given that, for example, the people who care about ground-nesting birds and who are sort of statutory and set up and obliged to conserve native species of birds in Scotland are the RSPB and they own a significant amount of land in which they are trying to protect those species and they do not use snaring. They do not use snaring because there are other and more effective methods and because of the animal welfare concerns that they have about snaring. Just when we are on conservation by diversity, you will have asked the opinion of NatureScot on the impacts of this. Have NatureScot come back and said that banning snars would have a positive or negative impact on the preservation of ground-nesting birds? Are you taking evidence from NatureScot that the micelles on this? NatureScot is one of the reasons why we are bringing forward this amendment. NatureScot has not said that, given any opinion that suggests that snaring should be kept for biodiversity or conservation reasons. They have not commented whether it will have a negative or positive impact on predator control. That is a question for them. You are asking me for the opinion of NatureScot and I am not. Okay, so you have not received any advice from NatureScot on this part of the bill? Well yeah, we have spoken to NatureScot but, in regards to the specific and very focused question that you have just asked, have NatureScot said that this will improve biodiversity of banning snares? I do not have a sentence answer that NatureScot has given me because I have not posed that question directly to them. Perhaps you might want to. Thanks, convener. I am really delighted that you are seeking to mitigate any impacts on ground-nesting birds. The committee also heard concerns about the date of the mureburn season on bird breeding seasons. Under the date set in the draft bill, mureburn could take place up to 15 April, a time when breeding bird seasons have already begun, as those are shifting earlier each year due to the changing climate. Could you confirm that the spring end of the mureburn season will be set to either 15 or 31 March on a precautionary basis to take account of protecting birds from nest destruction? I was not expecting questions on mureburn. Absolutely. I do not think that that question is appropriate for this session. I can certainly follow up with Ms Burgess after that. I really am focused on snaring today, if you forgive me. I will follow up with a supplementary. We have left ahead in our order of things on animal welfare. I want to say thank you for what you have been saying. It is clear that animal welfare organisations, no matter the language that you use, say that cable restraints run the same risks to animal welfare as snares. When we have had evidence from Scottish Badgers and you have also mentioned others, how can we hold our heads up about Scotland's animal welfare standards if we allow these indiscriminate devices to be used? They cause devastating injuries and extreme stress to any animal from otters to badgers. As you have mentioned, pets, Minister, are you able to confirm for the record today that humane cable restraints are in fact the same as snares with the same potential risks to animal welfare? Can you also confirm the Government's intention to follow Wales in implementing a full ban? That is the amendment that we are putting forward as I have written to the committee that we are proposing an amendment that has the ban on snares. We would include those other devices that you reference in that. Snares, as far as we are concerned, would include what is called humane cable restraints. As it stands, I am going to caveat that because in fairness to the people who would like us to have a licensing scheme for the use of these incertain circumstances, I gave an assurance to them that I would look at their proposals for a licensing scheme. I got their proposals on Monday night and I will take the time to look at them. As it stands, we wrote to the committee and said that we would ban the use of snares because we have not been convinced so far that snares with modifications such as the dual swivels, the larger loops and the breakaway joints do not also have significant animal welfare implications, as I have mentioned. Animals caught in that sort of restraints might not exhibit the same physical damage that you would see on a more traditional snare, but, as I have said before, they are trapped for hours. They are still caught by the neck. It is not as tight as a traditional snare. They are stressed, they are exhausted, they cannot access food and water over that time. It could be many hours, they could be subject to extreme weather, they could be subject to other predator attacks, but the psychological distress that they undergo will have shock implications for them and they will suffer over that period of time. That effectively is why we have put forward the recommendation that we ban snares, which is about the animal welfare considerations of animals caught in snares, whether they are target species or not, but there are so many non-target species that are caught in snares. We would be caught in any type of, whether it is a humane cable restraint with the swivels or whatever, over a period of time. With the best will in the world, even the most professional and diligent operator of snares who are setting them over a large piece of land are not present within an hour or so of that happening. It could be many hours until they were able to release an animal that is a non-target species or humanely disposed of an animal that is a target species caught in a snare as well. It is not just me saying that the DEFRA study made reference to those as well. It demonstrated that a lot of the non-target species, the largest species such as badgers, were not able to break away from those humane cable restraints. They did that study in 2010. There is a criteria for rating traps. It is the agreement on the international humane trapping standards. There is a criteria for rating traps by species and method of use. Restraining traps such as snares are rated according to injuries indicative of poor welfare, and that includes any type of snare. That is what I keep on coming back to. I gave my assurance that I would look at the proposals that the Scottish Land and Estate have put forward for that licence scheme. It was only Monday night that that came through. I have given the assurance that I would look at that, but as it stands, we are aiming to ban the use of snares. Those would include those modified ones that are for sale only with the modifications that I have outlined. Just on that, we are in the unfortunate position that you are only bringing forward these amendments at stage 2. You will have limited time, as will the committee, to scrutinise that. You have said that you are going to look at the potential for licensing. When should we expect a response on that proposal? Will it be before we have to complete our stage 1 report and ultimately have the stage 1 debate? I do not like to ask you questions, but your stage 1 report has been drafted presumably in the next few weeks? Depending on whether we get the information from the Government on the position that they are taking. Can I give you an undertaking if you tell me when you are drafting the point of which you are actually deliberating over your stage 1 report that I will get that decision to you? The clerks will be in touch with me, but we know that we have a provisional date, the 29th of November, for the stage 1 debate. Obviously, before then, we need to complete our report for the Government after responding to that. You have my assurance that I will make a decision on whether or not it is a complete ban on snares or whether there is a licence scheme. You will have that information ahead of you making your deliberations on your stage 1 report. That is helpful. Just finally, on evidence, when it comes to the livelihoods in a rural economy, that is obviously a major concern. Can you tell us what research or evidence gathering you have undertaken to look at the work and practices of gamekeepers? Given the concern that potentially removing a snare is another tool out of the toolbox, which would lead to the increased need for shooting and understanding it in some circumstances, there are areas that are unsuitable regarding terrain and conditions for controlling predators in other ways. So, what engagement have you done? Since the day after—I think that I was given this portfolio mid June—the day after I appeared on the committee to give stage 1 evidence, I met with Scottish Land and the States, and I also agreed to give Scottish Land and the States and other stakeholders who were involved in land management, particularly on shooting and States, an opportunity to meet with me and have a round table specifically on the humane cable restraints. I have put the date here. That round table took place in St Andrew's house at the end of September. It lasted for a good 90 minutes in which they were able to put forward quite a lot of the detail of what you are talking about there. I have been in touch with them. I have been able to give them meetings whenever they have asked for them with me. Previous to that, I have just looked down here. We have a list of the ministerial meetings that I have had with the stakeholders with regard to the bill. I could forward that on to the committee if the convener would like. From my perspective, it was the 28th of June that I met with Scottish Land and the States. I met with RSPB on the 20th of July. I had a round table on humane cable restraints on the 26th of September, which included quite a lot of the stakeholders. I met with BASC on the 3rd of October. I met with NFUS on the 17th of October. I met with one kind on the 24th of October. I had a further meeting with RSPB on the 20th of September. I have made myself available to any group that wants to advocate one way or the other with regard to snares, whether it is the working practices for groups like RSPB or whether it is the working practices for gamekeepers or the working practices for anybody involved with the management of shooting estates. I hope that all those bodies will say that I have made myself available. I have watched the evidence that the committee has taken. I have watched it very thoroughly before the first appearance that I have had, and I have continued to engage with all those groups. However, my officials have been working with all those stakeholders for a long time. On the basis of what you have just said about looking at a licence scheme from the correspondence that we have received this morning from SLE, can I take it that the Scottish Government is not set on a full ban on snares? I gave a commitment to SLE and other partners off the back of the round table that they were advocating for the licence scheme in some situations for the use of humane cable restraints that I would. I offered them the opportunity to provide me with the detail of what they would want to see in a licence scheme. I only got that on Monday night. I think that it is incumbent on me having made that offer to them that I would look at what they were proposed to look at. I have not made my officials and I am still looking at it. It was 48 hours ago. Will the Government seek to carry out an impact assessment on humane cable restraints? Will there be any evidence to suggest that there is a difference between, for example, different types of trap use to inform the Government about how efficient or effective different types of trapping are? For example, between live trapping to a humane cable restraint and to the current Scottish compliance snare? There are a number of different impact assessments, which particular impact assessment would be? That is up to the Government to decide what an impact assessment would be. For example, from using the evidence that perhaps ground nesting birds may be affected by the use of different or proposed Government use of a humane cable restraint. Those have been covered already in terms of biodiversity and conservation. How many predators are being captured? How efficient are those possibilities to look at the comparison between each one? Let me go back to the fundamentals here of why. I completely take on board the convener's point about scrutiny. I have said that we are bringing forward amendments. Let us go back to the reason why we did not put a ban on snareing on the original draft. The reason why we did that is because of the work that Rachael Hamilton is asking us to do. We were approached by stakeholders who were advocating for us to look at humane cable restraints. Over the summer, we have been doing that. We have been working with them. We have been working with others. We have been taking advice. We have put out a consultation on that specifically. In good faith, I have not steamed ahead and said that we are not even going to look at that. It is a full ban, whatever. So what is this? In June to November, we have been doing everything associated with arriving on a final position on this. I made the offer of what you would like to see in a licensing scheme. That only came on one day. There is a great deal of work that Ms Hamilton has done in allowing the opportunity for stakeholders who are advocating for a particular type of snare to be used in a licensed way. I think that it is my job to listen to everyone and to make a balanced decision on the basis of the interaction with all stakeholders. Over the summer, that is what myself and my officials have been doing. I appreciate that it has put things back in terms of your scrutiny. If it had all been in the bill from the get-go, we would have set out our stall and said that we are going to ban snares. However, what we have done is that we have said to the stakeholders who have been advocating for human cable restraints that we would look at it and we would do all the work that you have suggested. That is what we have done. If you have already done that work, why is not that information available now if you were working on that throughout the summer, regardless of whether there is a licensed scheme proposal in front of you? For example, are live traps sufficient in terms of capture of predators? Is it possible to shoot from live traps in thick cover or challenging topography? Are live traps on a par with human cable restraints? Has there been a business regulatory impact assessment on jobs, livelihoods and the rest of it on ground-nesting birds? Let me come back to my initial point that I made in my statement is that we believe that regardless of proposals that have been put forward about licensing, which we need to dig into more and we need to have more time to consider. We believe that there are more humane methods of wildlife control such as shooting and trapping that are available to land managers as they are in other countries across Europe. The Welsh Government and the Welsh Parliament have made that decision as well. I am confident that a ban on the use of snares would not prevent anyone from undertaking necessary wildlife management. There are, as I have mentioned, other landowners involved in conservation who do not believe that snaring is necessary. The snares are already only used in very limited circumstances under the current legislation. They are not allowed to be used in situations in which they may attract or potentially unintended species to make it caught in them. We believe that that still happens, regardless of the professionalism of the individual who is setting that snare. That is my starting point for this. If we had not had the calls from SLE to look at human cable restraints, we would have put that in the bill and that would have been our starting point here. I would have dealt with all that in that initial evidence session, but we are taking the time to do all the work that is required around that. My starting point is that, again, I am not convinced at all that because of the animal welfare issues to do with any kind of snares that is something that we can continue with in Scotland and that there are other methods available that are used in other countries across Europe and are used successfully and that we may need to adapt and use those other methods. Just once again, you talk about very limited circumstances. Can you provide us with information that will give us a proper background on how many foxes are currently controlled using snares, how many are currently shot or controlled in other methods? If we have that data on that, I do not know how many foxes have been shot as a result of being caught in a snare and I do not know what record keeping would be involved in that. No, it is just that you said that snares were only used in very limited circumstances. Yes. They are only allowed to be used in very limited circumstances. They are only allowed to be used in certain circumstances by the law. The limited circumstances, but what I am trying to say is that it would be good for the committee to get an idea of how many foxes or other predators are currently controlled using snares, so it will give us a better idea of the impact of removing that tool in the box. Again, I think that you may be looking for data that the Government might not hold, because if snares are being set, they could be set and nothing could be in there, or if a fox could be found in there the next morning, it could be shot. I imagine that that would be kept as a log. The gamekeeper would keep a log for that, but who wants to come in? There is no requirement on anyone to report on shooting of foxes or snareing of foxes, so anything that we do involves us having to look proactively and it is difficult to get that sort of data. The number of licensed snare operators is quite small, I think that it is less than 2,000, so it is an indication that it is very much a minority way of controlling foxes as predators. Once again, rather than anecdotal comments, it would be good to get a better idea. The greatest of respect, are you asking that we should have put obligations on land managers to report on how many foxes they shoot as a result of using snares? No, no. All I am trying to do is clarify and put it in perspective. Your comment that there is very limited use of snares, I do not know what very limited is compared to how many are shot, how many are controlled in other ways, so it is for me to get a better understanding of what very limited is. Is it 5 per cent, 10 per cent? Obviously, Hugh MacDonald has just mentioned that it is less than 2,000. People who use snares. That is data that we do have. If there is any data beyond that and below that in the granular data that you are looking for, I will provide that to the committee, but I come back to what we have just both said. There is no way, because there is no recording mechanism and it is not incumbent legally on anybody to report what animal has been caught in a snare when what has been done with that animal. I am just going to come back to the point that you were talking about in terms of my apology. I am not feeling very great, so this might take a second or two. I have a limited use of snares. My understanding is that some of the states will not use them at all. Some of the states, the majority of the foxes will be taken by snares depending on topography and what have you. The potential for controlling foxes in particular, what other methods of control will areas where states struggle with shooting, what other methods of control will those types of estates or farms have to be able to help them to control predators? Also, have other European countries banned the use of snares? Do you know of other European countries that are banned the use of snares and how have they got over the use of not using snares? Thank you, Mr Fairlie, and I hope that you feel better soon. Sounds like that was a struggle. I hope that you feel better. I can outline the different types of predator control that will be available if snares are banned. The method of control that will be appropriate will depend on the number of factors, including the legal status of the predator, the topography of the land, the kind of lifestyle that is being protected, and Mr Fairlie is absolutely correct on that. The most used method at the moment is shooting. That is the predominant method of control for foxes in particular. Trapping is also available, including capture traps. Dogs can be used to flush foxes to guns for the protection of livestock, as per the Hunting with Dogs Act. Farmers and land managers can take other steps to protect their livestock, including a lot of the things that they do already, housing their livestock during vulnerable periods, using fences. That is the non-lethal control, using fences to protect their livestock, including electric fences, and diversionary feeding, if they have a particular issue with a particular predator. Those are things that are in the realms of the non-capture and non-lethal methods. However, the lethal methods that are used, the humane lethal methods that are used, are shooting. On the other countries—I have been given a list—I could not remember exactly every country, but the position in Europe is that they are banned in most EU countries, including Germany, big hunting nation. I think that probably next to Scotland, in terms of game shooting, Germany is probably second in that regard, so they have decided to ban them. A couple of them have not yet. Spain has not, France has not, but the majority of EU countries have banned snares. Of course, Mr Fairlie will be aware that our colleagues in the Welsh Parliament and Government have recently banned snares completely. Okay, thank you, minister. There are a couple of points that I just want to follow up with you there. The greater emphasis on non-lethal predator control, are you looking to see far more of that type of control being done going forward? To be honest, Mr Fairlie, that is really up to the land managers. I do not think that I am promoting any type of control over others. What I am effectively saying is that one method of control that is snaring, we are proposing to ban that. The dependent on what the land managers circumstances are, they may want to ramp up lethal control in terms of shooting, they may want to look at other non-lethal methods as well, they may want to use other types of traps. That is entirely up to the land managers, but the suite of available options is open to them. I understand that, in some cases, shooting is not always an option in some areas, but there are other traps available that they can use that do not have the same animal welfare impacts. Believe me, Mr Fairlie, there are groups out there that would like us to be looking at banning those types of traps, but we have said that we are looking at snares. We need to leave land managers with the tools to trap animals in other ways that have less animal welfare implications. For the moment, it is very much our proposal to ban snares, but to leave those other suite of methods available. It is not a case of me advocating non-lethal methods over lethal methods. Those are all methods that are available to land managers to make a decision on and to use. The point that I made right at the start was that there will be specific circumstances where shooting is not going to be possible, depending on the area. You mentioned hunting with dogs. I have had contact from the Atlant-Bredalban estates regarding the difficulties that they are having in getting a licence through NatureScot, and it is proving to be very tricky for them. The point that I would make is that, if we are going to see a ban on snares and we are going to be relying on shooting, we have to at least make sure that there are some methods of control for predators in particular areas, not across the country, and I accept that, but there are going to be very specific areas where it is going to be very difficult to control without a suite of methods. However, if we take snares away in particular areas, I would literally just come back and say that the potential to look at a licence in certain areas would be very helpful. Thank you, convener. Thank you. I am supplementary from Liam McArthur. Thank you. Just following on from Jim, and I send Jim my best wishes as well for a speedy recovery. Has the Government developed or built up any evidence on the effectiveness of some of those alternatives? Minister, you are absolutely right in terms of the suite of measures that have been used. That was certainly the evidence that we got at the time of the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act as well. Even then, the argument was made, as Jim has just made it there, that, in certain terrain, snaring was seen as the only effective viable option, in the sense of a last resort rather than a first resort. I was just wondering on the effectiveness. In my understanding, those live capture traps have been deployed and, in terms of their effectiveness in capturing foxes, that is debatable. As I said, I appreciate that it is a suite of measures, but I wonder whether your officials have built up an evidence case. I am going to bring in Huw, because Huw has obviously been working on the drafting, and the work that has been done around that before the bells even got to the point where it is at the moment. I think that it is the case that shooting is clearly the main option, which is induced now. We think that it will continue to be so. Live capture traps, I do not think that we are saying that those are really a viable way of controlling foxes in the countryside. They are used in an urban environment to catch foxes. Live capture traps are also used for other purposes, such as feral cats or capturing rabbits. For example, live capture traps are used in those circumstances, too, but we are not saying that those are really, for most people, a viable alternative to shooting or to snaring. For most people, it will be shooting. We accept that there are circumstances where shooting is not as effective as in other areas, but we have not come across anywhere where people say that there is nowhere that we can shoot here at all. We do understand that there are places where people may prefer to snare. It is more effective in terms of manpower to snare, but we are not really coming across anywhere where they say that we absolutely cannot shoot here at all. We are accepting that this will limit some people's options, but we are just weighing that against the welfare implication, so it is that sort of balance. That is very helpful. Just in terms of that shooting piece, I know that in relation to goose management, for example, and some of the issues that have been faced in places like Orkney, there has been an anxiety raised about the potential risk of having more people shooting across more types of ground. Has the Government done any analysis, risk assessment of what the potential risks there are and how those can be managed in terms of increasing the level of shooting? Mr MacArthur will know that the gun control regulations in Scotland are extremely tight in terms of who can get a licence to have a shotgun and what they have to do in order to secure it and to use it as well. Again, I might come back to the fact that the people who are undertaking this land management are professional people. I do not think that we are going to see an uptick in just slightly dual blogs. How about having a shotgun? In the sense that you have got a situation where this is being deployed more routinely because sneering is no longer an option, you are undertaking it potentially in terrain where it is not felt to be ideal and not that the skill set of those that are undertaking the activity is to be called into question at all. It is simply that the amount of shooting that has been carried out is higher than it is at the moment and I was wondering whether there has been a risk assessment carried out of that. The main thing that has been put to us in terms of the cohort of individuals and organisations that we would like to retain sneering has not really been about we will have to do more shooting and there is a risk associated with that. The argument that has been put to us has been that it will take more people to do this, from an economic point of view, from a business point of view. The argument that has been put to us has been that the main reason it has not really been a risk associated with more shooting has been that it will require more people to be out shooting foxes if we cannot go round the estate and set snares and then come back in whatever eight hours time, which is less labored intensive. A brief one. The minister very kindly said that you will share data and I think that it is just important that we put on record that obviously that needs to be reasonable data of what the Government right reasonably have. My question is of course with any change to the law there would be a requirement to monitor the effectiveness and so on and is the Government considering for example what kind of data it would collate and how it would monitor this because a number of the conversations are particular about predator control and to Jim Fairleys point around the well documented challenges and dangers of shooting in some circumstances. It is important that the committee is assured that the Government will monitor this with quantitative data. The monitoring aspect to my knowledge came up during the passing of the hunting with dog spell as well, but how are we going to monitor the effectiveness? It is a reasonable question. Obviously the Scottish Government will monitor the effectiveness of any legislation that puts forward and obviously committees can do post-legislab scrutiny on that and it is in the gift of the committee to do their scrutiny. The Government obviously and the agencies will monitor the effectiveness of what they are doing. We obviously in terms of things like the impact perhaps on biodiversity obviously we have routine trenches of work that is done with regard to that like the state of nature report for example nature scotter that they are tasked with monitoring biodiversity and species management as well and we've obviously the Scottish Government have got strong relationships with land managers as well and if this bill goes through and it passes then I will be continuing to have those conversations with all those stakeholders about the effectiveness of laws that the Parliament has put through and where there might be any issues that we might be able to look at in terms of. Jim Fairlie just brought one up with regard to the hunting with dogs bill about the licensing and certainly I'm going to take that away and Mr Fairlie I should have said to him before he went that he's welcome to write to me about that particular issue and in the same way the Government will continue to listen to people who are impacted by the legislation that we pass and in terms of data collection I guess it will be a case of it will be around the biodiversity piece as well but it will be those conversations that we're having with stakeholders over the piece of time in which that legislation is put in place thank you very brief supplementary Rachel Hamilton I just want to ask you again whether you believe live traps are effective because obviously the research group GWCT they did work on this over a number of years recently and they set traps across the states and there were no fox captured so do you believe after your many conversations with gamekeepers that the Government's proposals will remove some of the last tools in the box so you say my many conversations with the gamekeepers and the gamekeepers that I've spoken to have been advocating for the retention of of of snares and and have been making that point to me that the other traps available are not as effective as as snares so nobody is is saying there is a trapping method that is I mean that is as effective as snaring but the reason why we're bringing this is because the trapping method that is snaring has got significant animal welfare concerns attached to it we are not proposing the banning of snares for no reason we're not proposing the banning of snares to make life difficult for people to make life difficult for people that are working hard to manage their land we are proposing the banning of snares because over many many years there have been a great deal of evidence to suggest that snaring is inhumane and causes unnecessary animal suffering that is why we are proposing this I totally agree that I have to press on this convene I'm so sorry but if GWCT found that no fox had been trapped over a number of years in their work how will jobs be created surely jobs will be lost you said that jobs will be created nobody is saying that any kind of trap to the type you are alluding to is going to capture foxes what we're saying is that the majority of foxes are dealt with by shooting and that is available the traps are available for other species where they are more effective there is a range of options that are available to people that will if this goes through will not include snares for the reasons that I've outlined which are mainly animal welfare considerations okay but it just doesn't make sense to me because if predators can't be controlled jobs will be lost thank you I'm going to move on to a question from Alasdair Allan thank you convener I'd like to ask about the the concept of vicarious liability and whether it will apply to snaring offences under the proposed legislation and if so how vicarious liability um applies obviously when a person is said to not a person working for an organisation does something and it's not just them that's liable it's also the person who is supposed employs them it's usually applied in situations where the person who's held liable is the pair to control the actions of the person that's committed offence so you know for example if a gamekeeper were setting a trap maybe because the person who employs that game paper has asked them to do that so that's where vicarious liability the 2020 animal wildlife bill I mentioned already extended vicarious liability to include certain snaring offences including the setting of a self-locking snare that's the snare that is illegal so if there was vicarious liability involved in that positioning snares in such a way to cause unnecessary animal suffering so again the illegal use of a snare vicarious liability there and using snares to trap protected animals on purpose you know like badgers for example or otters so given that parliament has very recently added vicarious liability to those already illegal situations and offences I think it will be reasonable for it to remain in place for relevant new snaring offences in the bill I'm still considering though my final position on that whether or not the status quo is enough in this respect so I haven't actually arrived on a final position on vicarious liability with regard to any new new offences thank you can I ask about appreciate what you're saying minister about a final decision still to be made but on that that vicarious liability can I ask him what the likely consequences might be under the legislation so you know perhaps if someone on a farm or an estate uses a snare illegally might the what would the options be for consequences for instance whether it's in terms of support under agricultural payments or what would the likely consequences be if you went down that route well I guess that given that the bill in which this is embedded in is about the licensing of of shooting the states I mean that would be an offence in the same way that any of the other things that we've mentioned in the course of this bill that would mean that would be an investigation and there would be the police involvement and therefore that nature scott could could suspend the license if a crime has been committed a wildlife crime has been committed so that's actually one of the reasons why I haven't actually arrived on a final position on this because it that might be a sufficient deterrent actually without actually involving vicarious liability don't refuse get any other views on that but that's certainly my position at the moment and much more duck hand if you're referring to cross compliance issues I've just been put whether because when the example I gave is and I don't know how this relates to the present law how it relates to proposed new law but what might be the consequences for a land manager more generally would it be taken into consideration for agricultural payments and so on? Well yeah I'm not sure that we have an answer for that but I can certainly check with our agriculture colleagues and see what the rules are around payments and implications for vicarious liability offences and right back to you on that. Okay and finally can I ask about you mentioned the fact that most European countries have banned snares all together and I just wonder what you can say about the what you've learned from those examples whether it's on vicarious liability or anything else my understanding is that the UK is one of only six countries left in Europe which has even the option of snaring so what were the lessons that you learned from other places? Well I guess that I think that Scotland that we have a pride on our animal welfare you know regulations around animal welfare and we're a nation that cares very much about animal welfare so actually when it's put in terms like that Dr Allen that we're one of the only six countries that still have this we were actually lagging behind it probably has got to the point this has been such a debate for such a long time and we have actually not taken action on the complete banning of snares obviously we've had regulations in place we've had reviews on them whatever we've reached the point where I think that this is actually a situation where we need to be in line with most European neighbours again a lot of those nations big having big hunting economic sectors of hunting I mentioned Germany in particular you know places like the black forest whatever they have adapted they have banned snares and they have adapted to ramping up the other methods particularly shooting with regards to predators and actually in those countries they actually probably have more predators in particular when it comes we can learn from what they've done and actually I think that gives a little bit of comfort where these other nations that have significant economic activity associated with hunting and shooting have been able to do this and do it effectively. Thank you Canill. Just for a bit how many vicarious liability charges have been brought in regards to sneering offences? I don't think any have I don't think any have okay would that suggest that it's not actually practitioners and landowners that are committing sneer offences tend to be poachers? I don't know is there something I mean obviously the fact that there's not been any there were a myriad of reasons for that but I mean as I say I've not settled on a position with regards to these you know what would be a new offence with regard to vicarious liability but I do know that there hasn't been anything so far. Okay thank you we're now going to move on to another section I'm very conscious we're running over time but we're going to move on to questions on the additional powers for the SSPCA from Marianne Burgess. Thanks convener minister I'd be interested to hear what the scope of the Scottish SPCA new powers will be under the proposals and what evidence has satisfied you that this expansion will support the enforcement of wildlife crime? So can I come to the evidence that we had to do we felt we had to do something and I mentioned this I think in the previous evidence session about this situation which was certainly brought to my attention in the last session of parliament when we were looking at the wildlife bill 2020 where the SSPCA would say that they could basically be attending to a situation where there was a live animal caught in a legally set trap and they could deal with that situation and they could obviously report that to the fiscal or to the police but they could turn round and see more illegally set traps that had dead animals in them or had no animals in them whatever and they couldn't actually take them as evidence and report them to the police as well so basically if the animal was alive it was in there kind of like you know within their powers if the animal was already dead they couldn't do anything. Given that the SSPCA would be called to situations like that they might be called to situations like that ahead of the police being able to get there so what could effectively happen is that the SSPCA could have had the potential to present evidence for a case to be made to assist the police and the procurator fiscal but they couldn't given the powers so if I run through the actual because this is you know we've been looking at this over the summer and we've been speaking to a lot of stakeholders including the police on this and the SSPCA so the Scottish SSPCA let me just get this completely right the Scottish SP can lose the following powers to search for search or examine things if they suspect was reasonable cause that the evidence will be found on that thing seize and detain potential evidence or things which provide evidence of the participation or the commission of a relevant offence and that would be relevant offences would be those contained in part one of the wildlife and countryside act or the in this case the wildlife management and Muirburn act the Scottish SPC can only use these powers in situations in a land or non-domestic property where they are already responding to a case under their existing powers under the health and animal health and welfare act 2006 so they can't go looking for things they're responding to a case already but they're able to sort of like seize get the evidence and then they give that to the police as soon as possible and it is up to the police to decide whether or not this constitutes a crime and obviously the procurator Fiscal's office as well. Thank you. Move on to question from Jim Fairlie. Minister, the government set up a task force to look at the potential for the increased powers of the SSPC. I think the government rejected the increased partnership working recommendation so will this recommendation still be progressed alongside the government's proposals? So there will be partnership working Mr Fairlie. I think it's a case of the powers that I've just outlined are effectively to deal with that gap in evidence gathering that was problematic but over the course of discussing particularly with the police and the procurator Fiscal's office we have decided to limit those powers in the way that I've described but there will be partnership working between those three agencies. There already is partnership working between those three agencies. What's going to happen as a result of if the bill is passed that there will be protocols that will be put in place between the police and the SSPCA around how the new functions of those powers should be worked, what reporting mechanisms there would be, how they would work together effectively, the protocols across that and that will ensure that partnership working so it might not be exactly to the letter of what the task force said in terms of the partnership working that they were advocating for but there will still be an enhanced partnership working between the police, the procurator Fiscal and the SSPCA in line with the powers that I've outlined. If you recall there was quite some discussion regarding whether the actions of a SSPCA inspector under the proposed new powers would be defined as an official investigation or a relevant offence which could then trigger a suspension or a revocation of a licence when the main body, I'm trying to think the word, the nature of Scotland while we're weren't convinced that our offence had been committed. Can you update us on what your position is on that now and whether SSPCA could be classed as starting an official investigation? So I heard those concerns in June when I came to speak to you about what would constitute an investigation that might trigger action with regard to the licences and I think that some of those points were well made in terms of its incumbent upon this legislation to make it clear what is an investigation, what constitutes an investigation. Currently we're looking at a few things but currently I am minded to make that when something has a crime number. That was one of the options that we're looking at because I took very seriously those concerns that were made. What is an investigation? What point would nature Scotland need that clarity? I think that stakeholders need that clarity and I think that the legislation should have clarity in it as well. One of the options that I'm looking at that I'm leaning towards is an investigation that might trigger a suspension of a licence or whatever action from nature Scotland would have a crime number associated with it and that comes back to having confidence so that the SSPCA are assisting the police in terms of the evidence gathering but when it comes down to it an investigation would be a police investigation. Okay so in effect you're redefining what our understanding or what the bill suggests is an official investigation? Well that's the power of scrutiny isn't it? We're at stage one, the committee has made some points to me that I have been thinking about. A passage of a bill will take into consideration some of those issues. I went away from that meeting and it has been put to me and I want people to have confidence in the licensing schemes and arrangements with nature Scotland so I have made a suggestion of the definition that I am most minded to bring forward. Okay as a crime number not just that the police have to give up on a crime number if something is reported it is a crime number to suggest that proceedings or an investigation will be carried out or is it because if I get my bike stolen I'll get a crime number for insurance purposes but that doesn't mean to say that there's going to be an investigation or any determination by the police that a crime has been committed. So I am working to arrive at a definition that I'm happy with so I've just given you maybe a little bit more information and I maybe should at this stage because we haven't settled on on that but we will settle on something that will be a definition. I don't know whether Hugh wants to to come in. As I understand it convener there are some fairly rigorous standards that the police apply to deciding whether or not something is quotes crime as they would describe it and so if they need to decide whether it meets the circumstances that they're satisfied that a crime has been committed at that stage they give an incident a crime number. So for example if my bike has gone missing I get a crime number without the police doing anything. In those circumstances we'll be convinced the crime had occurred yes. One of the reasons that the crime number is something that I am quite favourable towards is because it's about again giving comfort that the police retain primacy. Because I think in June there was suggestion that the police wouldn't have primacy when it came to investigation of wildlife cases that's not the case and that's a police procedural point that would indicate very strongly that the police have primacy. Okay so have you any indication or this is maybe during your deliberations you've been interested to find out how many times the police have given crime numbers with crimes associated with the current wildlife crime which would give us an idea how that's actually effective. I'll add that to the list of data that you require. Because I'm sure it's not something that you have at your fingertips but there will be a record of how many crime numbers have been given out to the community. I'll add it to the list convener. That's helpful. Rachel Hamilton. Convener, I just want to reiterate that because the SSPCA do not have full criminal investigation powers they wouldn't be able to recommend to NHS Scott that a licence could be suspended. So forgive me if I don't want to give you the letter of everything that I haven't already decided on. We are deliberating on this. I think that Ms Hamilton you were one of the people that outlined your concerns about the definition of an investigation. Is it an SSPCA investigation? Is it a police investigation? I am more minded for it to be a police investigation because the whole point of giving the SSPCA extra powers was to make sure that evidence could be gathered in a timious way that would assist the police and would not have a situation where evidence was available to SSPCA but they could do nothing but walk away from it. That's the gap that we're filling here. I think that you're absolutely right because the police had said that there could be a tendency for the SSPCA to commence investigations and it's that sort of grey area around what would constitute a reason to suspend a licence. So I think that that's why we have to be absolutely clear so that's something that adds to right up there my priority list. I'm still concerned that we heard from the police that every call will automatically create a paper trail of some sort and everything's given a crime number. No, not everything will be given a crime number. It's not. I'm always regretting that I've given you the information of the thing that I'm most minded to because that's something that we're actively looking at but your questions are helpful in that regard so but I think the general thing that I would want to leave you with is I am taking the calls for a definition of an investigation very seriously and I want them to be clear. Just to get into the back of the police officer saying there is no such thing as an unofficial investigation and an investigation triggers a potential suspension, a crime number. What nobody is saying is as soon as something is being investigated, a licence is suspended. There has to be a sort of consideration and an analysis before that actually happens. So nothing's going to press that button then X will happen. Yeah, I guess it's who undertakes that investigation as well in line with who, whether it's nature or not. I think I've been clear that I would expect the police to be involved in an investigation that would have a consequence with regard to a licence. You mentioned just now the primacy of the police and investigations. I wonder what conversations the Scottish Government had with the police and with Crown Office about those issues. I think that there was mention of a proposed compromise around some of the reservations that had been expressed by them. I'm thinking particularly around things like powers of entry and so on. Yeah, so you'll notice there's been a slight shift in some of the proposals around this and that is because we have been having those conversations with the Police Scotland throughout this. I'll outline what they asked of us and what we've agreed to. The Scottish SPCA only utilised section 19 of the Wildland Countryside Act search powers when already on that land lawfully, so already using those search powers that are afforded to them as part of that act. Whilst already on that land, Scottish SPCA are responding to time critical circumstances only, where there's a significant risk of evidence being lost or compromised by waiting for the police to respond. Any evidence of wildlife crimes are provided to Police Scotland as soon as practically possible. Again, police have primacy over the fences in terms of the Wildland Countryside Act and as such will progress the investigation. However, in certain circumstances, if agreed by Police Scotland and Scottish SPCA, the Scottish SPCA may report subsequent places. That comes back to that protocol and partnership working, but there will be no powers of arrest, search of persons or the craving of a search warrant provided to the SSPCA. It's very much SSPCA assisting the police in a way that fills that gap that was an issue for so many years about evidence gathering. I would like to ask a question in regard to the SSPCA, if the Scottish Government has had any conversations with them in regard to what they might need for additional resources and training, for example, particularly for inspectors to receive required authorisations. I think that that will follow part of the protocol agreement that we have between Police Scotland and the SSPCA, where we are working on that protocol, and the training will come out of that protocol. SSPCA is absolutely comfortable with that and does not foresee much in the way of resource issues. I think that they are more concerned with the fact that they are ready, but they are almost wasting their resource in regard to wildlife crime, because they could be in a situation where they see evidence but they cannot do anything with it. They want to very much work with the police in filling that gap, but they are working with the police to put together that protocol agreement and the training that will be required of the officers who have those powers, because it will not be every officer, but it will be certain officers who undergo that training will come out of that protocol. Thank you, convener. Sorry, it just took me a moment to take myself off mute. You may tell us a bit more about what training will be given to make sure that cases do not fall, because the collection of evidence is crucial to court cases. I wonder what training will be given to make sure that the evidence is collected in a way that would stand up in a court case. If you were to speak to the SSPCA, and I think that it would be helpful for you to do so to talk about the training that they already get, because they already gather evidence for wildlife crime, but it is the nature of the evidence that they have been able to collect that has been the issue here. So, as you will know, the SSPCA gives evidence regularly in terms of anything that has been taken forward by the Procurator Fiscal in terms of anything involving animal welfare, animal cruelty, wildlife crime, a range of offences in which they supply evidence. The issue here is the evidence that they have not been allowed to collect. The training in that regard will be around the protocols that the police and the SSPCA work on to make sure that that evidence is gathered, as you rightly put it, professionally and correctly, in a way that does not compromise that. The protocols with regard to the reporting of that to the police and the channels of communication between the two bodies, so that is where the training is really going to lie. They are actually very well versed already in collecting evidence that is admissible in cases, and they have that relationship with the Procurator Fiscal and the police already in that regard. It is building on existing training, and it will also be specific officers that will be undergoing this training. It is not a case of rolling out this training to absolutely every single officer that they have within the SSPCA. There will be specific officers who will be identified and will be trained and will be involved as well in the setting up of those protocols and the partnership work that we have talked about. Just one more supplementary, if that is okay, convener. Are you convinced that they have the resources? In Caithness, SSPCA is pulling out of the area and not providing services for abandoned animals and the like, so they are closing their premises in Caithness. That makes me somewhat concerned about the resources that they have and whether you are clear that that will not impact on other services that they provide to the community as a charity. As you rightly point out, the SSPCA charity has not asked us for additional money to take those powers on. That is not something that they are asking for, but you rightly point out that charities such as the SSPCA are finding things difficult at the moment. A lot of the third sector is with regard to the fact that they rely on a large part on donations. One of the main reasons why they might have issues with the re-homing of animals and taking the animals into the animals is because of the increased amount of animals that are being dropped on their doorstep. We have a cost of living crisis, which means that it is a horrible situation where people are having to make decisions about giving up their pets. That was at the SSPCA place in Belerno in July. It is not even winter time at that point, and they were saying that they are overwhelmed by the amount of animals and pets that people are absolutely distraught having to give up because they cannot afford to feed themselves and their pet. That is before the issue of having to put the heating on in winter, so it is presumably going to get worse over winter. However, the SSPCA, with regard to those particular new duties and powers that they would have, does not really see it as going to mean extra work. They are already doing the work, but their hands have been tied as a result of the powers that they do not have with regard to animals that are found in traps that are already dead, so they do not really see that as requiring additional resource. However, you lead me to an important point about how difficult charities, animal welfare charities, in particular, are finding things at the moment for a number of reasons and a lot of them are associated with the cost of living crisis. Just following on from Bora Grant's point there, as she said, the SSPCA has closed the rehoming facility in Caithness. I think that there has been widespread conjecture about the financial situation that they are in. In Orkney, they have been without an SSPCA inspector for some time now, and I know from speaking to local vets that that has given rise to serious concerns about animal welfare issues. I appreciate what you are saying in terms of SSPCA insisting that there is not necessarily an additional resource requirement from coming as a result of those additional powers. However, I think that there is some anxiety that if we have a patchwork where in some areas there are inspectors well trained to be able to take on those additional powers but in other areas SSPCA has not been able to resource it. I think that that is likely to have an impact in terms of general public confidence in seeing SSPCA taking on those roles. In those discussions with SSPCA, have you been able to ascertain the extent to which they believe that, in that challenging financial environment, they are going to be able to meet the expectations that are placed upon them across the full gamut of animal welfare? I know the SSPCA well. Mike Flynn is somebody that I meet regularly in a range of animal welfare issues. He is the best person to ask whether they think that they can take this on. What has been put to me by Mr Flynn representing the SSPCA is that they have found it quite wasteful of their resource where they are called to something where there has been a live animal at the time that they have got their animals dead and then they have to walk away. They are saying that this is actually more efficient use of them in dealing with wildlife crime and assisting the police, particularly when they are at the scene first. Nobody is suggesting that the SSPCA is replacing the police in this regard, because the police will still be responding to wildlife crime calls as well. Often, the SSPCA is an agency that people will call to see an animal in distress before they think about phoning the police. It is a complementary provision. I will go back to what the SSPCA has said to us. They do not really see resource implications with regard to taking on these powers. Any MSP will tell you the more casework you do, the more you generate. The point that you make about better use of the existing resource is very well made, but I do not think that it is unreasonable to suggest that the more they go down the route, the more they do, the more they find that they could be doing. Therefore, the anxiety may be that there is a diversion away from some of the other work that they do in terms of animal welfare to focus more on this and whether that is something that you have discussed with the SSPCA. They have not put that to me that that is an issue. I have a brief supplementary on Rachael Hamilton and then a final question from Kate Forbes. In our papers, it states that the Scottish Government consultation threw up some issues around the extension of the powers of the SSPCA, which, as stated here in the evidence of its potential conflict between its campaigning position on issues such as snaring and the use of powers to investigate incidents associated with those issues and perceived lack of accountability for decisions made by charities and comparison to police forces. Do you share those concerns? No, I do not. I have been speaking to Police Scotland about this. My officials have been working closely and that is why we have arrived on the situation where the police are comfortable with the powers that they have asked us to outline, which I did in response to Arianne Burgess, and the limitations of those powers. However, the most important thing around that is the protocols that are going to be generated as a result of this enhanced partnership working, I should add, between the police and the SSPCA. They do not see that as an issue. The protocols will ensure that that is not an issue. I think that the SSPCA will want to make sure that their involvement in any kind of evidence gathering around wildlife crime is unimpeachable for the reasons that they would like to see their professionalism being recognised. Are you concerned that the protocols may not come to an agreement between the two parties? No, I am not concerned at all about that. What monitoring will you do to ensure that the concerns thrown up in the consultation? The same monitoring that I would do with anything that is in my portfolio around the legislation that I have taken through and how it is working on the ground. If it is an issue, that will be brought to my attention by either Police Scotland or the SSPCA. However, I do not foresee that. I feel confident that they are going to be able to work together. The police have put forward their views on what they would like to see, and we have agreed with them on the SSPCA. The minister will look at monitoring it by taking information from those who have the extended powers that are mocking around homework. Ms Hamilton, you have been a little bit narrow in what I am saying. Any legislation that goes through will continue your engagement with the stakeholders that it affects. I think that this might be the last question. I thank you for your evidence to date. It is to go back to my favourite subject, which is enforcement. In terms of the approach that you have outlined, clearly any legal change will only be as effective as the enforcement of that change. Do you see this proposal, as it is being worked out, having a meaningful impact on enforcement in light of how difficult it has been to date to monitor and enforce some of those things? Yes, I absolutely do. That is what struck me when that was put to us in 2019, when we were looking at the Animals on Wildlife Bill, when it came up in evidence about the limitations of the SSPCA to gather evidence that, when they could see evidence of wildlife crime having happened, but they had to walk away from it and they could not. There is also the potential for evidence to be compromised over a period of time. Obviously, they might have phoned the police that would say, listen, we have seen this but we cannot do anything with it, the police are going to have to get there. However, as you know, that would give time for that evidence to be removed or to be compromised by the weather. Ms Forbes' initial parter for question was, your favourite subject is enforcement. That is one of the reasons that wildlife crime still is such a scourge in rural Scotland because of the difficulty in gathering the evidence around wildlife crime. By plugging that gap, the SSPCA, who are there, called in any way, if someone phoned them and there was a live animal caught in a trap, they can now, with those news powers, seize the evidence of suspected other wildlife crime in that area, involving animals that have perished or other traps that have been laid that are illegally laid and they can help the police in getting wildlife crime prosecuted. My final comment is that it is so critical. I am sure that the minister might agree with that, not to penalise those practitioners who are already concerned about wildlife crimes but who also have a duty to biodiversity and to managing land well and effectively. I could not agree more because I think that there are people that are perpetrating wildlife crime that are tarring people who are acting completely responsible, care about the environment, care about wildlife, care about animal welfare and they are being tarred by or brushed by a very small amount of people. I would say that all of the legislation that we are proposing here, I hope that we will look back at it and think that this has been a good thing for the reputation of people who have actually been miscried in a lot of cases and been tarred with that rush. I think that that was a very good point. One very last technical question. With regard to the protocol that will have to be in place for the SSPC in Police Scotland, will that be in place and agreed prior to the bill going through stage 3? If a protocol cannot be agreed, the legislation will still come into force. What happens in that circumstance? As Mr Carson knows, in the same way that you do not tend to have codes of practice on the face of a bill, you would not have a working protocol between an arrangement between two bodies that were affected by the legislation in the face of a bill. They are working already together on that. Will that protocol be in the face of the bill? No. Hugh, you want to come in on that? I was just going to add that we do not necessarily need to commence the provisions until all the arrangements are in place, such as the protocol. That would be one option. That is helpful. At the moment, if we were to agree the bill, the SSPC always would get those additional powers, whether a protocol was in place or not. It is helpful that there may need to be an amendment to that to suggest that it would not be in acted or enforced until a agreed protocol was in place. I hope that that has been helpful. Obviously, I made the point that a protocol would not be in the face of the bill for scrutiny, but if the committee were minded to recommend something around that, we would certainly look at it. Thank you very much. I really appreciate that. We may follow up and get some more details on that in a follow-up letter, but we appreciate the time that you have taken this morning. That concludes the session. We now move into private session and I suspend for 10 minutes for a comfortable break.