 Maen nhw hwn yn ddweud hynny i gyhoeddwyaethol i gychwyncrw dealeriaeth, sy'n gyardeith ers am dwybronmarydd i gweithio maemig f AdministrAll中国seid. Yn hyn am a bleib danced o ein wokch y de remed o kurf yn Mur rodd anhgrifedd o anghof hyn ac e'w cif Nu o wen i unrhyw llawer, iawn i ddevw yw Col Noune Smith e'w hanfroffu. Buwysiwn i ni yn caid i chi fwyl iawn iddynt o gyfoes y cy enghreif próng. Felly, mae gyhoeddwyaith datgu F Ughziexig 5.已twyr yw'r dweudio yn mwy defnyddio'n pickledwch i'r swyddog dros y dweudio a'r cydymiannwys ar y ddiddordeb chi'n meddwl i Gwelch yn y gyfrannol gwrsgol. Felly, rwy'n credu i gael Cymru Gwelch i mewn i'r meddwl i gyfrannol gyda mi'n cyffredinol i'r ffair, ac yn yw'r rhaid hollwch i'r ddweudio cyflogol yn snarenau. Felly, rwy'n credu i'n credu i'r ddiddordeb chi i'r ddiddordeb rydw i i meddwl i Gwelch a Fnifeys Pcha wawr, for its assistance and providing information, I requested to assist with today's debate. As Members will be aware, snares are thin wire nooses set to trap animals around the net, usually foxes and rabbits. The legal snares aim to tighten as the captured animal struggles, but relax when the animal stops pull-in. It is intended to hold the animal alive until the snare operator returns to kill it, usually by shooting or release if the snare has has caught the right the wrong target creature. Although their purpose is to immobilise target animals, the reality is often very different. Most snares cause extreme suffering to animals and can often lead to a painful lingering death. They are also indiscriminate. The aim may aim to catch a fox or a rabbit, but they are just as capable of catching cats, dogs, badgers, otters, deer, hares and livestock who often suffer terrible injuries or are killed. Today's debate allows us all to ask the question, is there a place for such indiscriminate cruelty in Scotland in 2017? Six years since this Parliament last debated use of snares, it was during the passage of the World Life and Natural Environment Scotland Act 2011. At that time, Parliament regrettably, in my view, chose not to ban snares but instead introduced a new regulatory regime. It was also agreed that this regime would be reviewed before the end of 2016 and every five years thereafter. That first review of snaring, carried out by Scottish Natural Heritage, on behalf of the Scottish Government, was published in March. It was a review that has rightly been described by the League Against Cross Sports as a missed opportunity and by one kind as destined to fail. The review group set themselves three aims to assess the efficiency of the legislation, to review snare training and assess the effectiveness and compliance with the administrative procedure for obtaining snaring ID and, thirdly, to consider any evidence of outstanding animal welfare implications in relation to snaring and whether those are sufficiently addressed through the provision under section 11 of the World Life and Countryside Act as amended. It is clear that the review failed to meet the first and third of those objectives. If we look first at the very brief section in the review on animal welfare, it actually states that it is not within the scope of the review to assess whether the degree of suffering is acceptable. The legislation agreed in 2011 was supposed to be about improving animal welfare, so surely any meaningful review of that legislation needed to ask the fundamental question in modern Scotland, is that practice under this so-called new regime cruel or not? The lack of any proper focus on animal welfare issues is probably just not surprising, given that in carrying out the review, there was no meaningful consultation with NGOs who actually have experience of animal welfare issues and extensive field work on the matter. The focus of the review on the number of offences as the measure of efficiency ignored the documented evidence available on animal suffering and completely missed the point that snaring still causes suffering to target animals caught in these barbaric tracks but which do not merit the term an offence. The focus on offences was also ineffective because the review group did not have access to numbers of snaring crimes recorded by legacy local police forces or even Police Scotland, as they could not be provided in a suitable format. It is little wonder that the report acknowledged and I quote, that it is important to note that the sample size is too small to perform statistically significant analysis of the incident, SPR, prosecution and conviction date. The consequence was a report that failed to look at all the available evidence and proposed only a very small number of recommendations, including tweak and snare designs. I have no objection to any of those recommendations but they simply do not go far enough. Indeed, as part of the review process, a technical assessment group was set up in parallel with the review group. That technical assessment group made 26 suggestions yet the overwhelming majority were completely ignored in the final report of the review group, with no explanation or reference to them in the body of the report itself. Not surprisingly, prior to the publication deadline of SNH's review, one kind in League Scotland worked together to commission their own report into snaring in Scotland entitled Cruel and Indiscriminate, Why Scotland Must Become Snare Free. That report concluded, and I quote, that snares inflict unacceptable suffering on thousands of wild and domestic animals in Scotland every year. Continuing to permit the use of these cruel and indiscriminate traps flies in the face of modern concerns about animal welfare, conservation and the wider environment. Unacceptable suffering, cruel and indiscriminate. It is astonishing that in Scotland today we still allow devices that cause such suffering in such an indiscriminate way to be used in the name of control. I can give members countless examples in the south of Scotland alone that demonstrate the appalling harm that snaring causes to animals. In June last year, a pet cat returned home to her family in Ayrshire with a snare caught around her neck and front leg. The cat suffered atrocious injuries, which the vet believed were caused from chewing herself free from the snare. The vet also informed the family that had the cat being caught around the neck alone she would have most certainly died. There was a recent case of a family jack Russell which became trapped in a snare in Borg near Cacubria, which was set close to a path used by walkers. Despite the snare being free running with a stop on it, it did not have an ID tag rendering it illegal, a common issue. Cymnuck in 2015, a brown-haired leveret was born while her mother was trapped in a legal untagged snare. In this case, the mother had already died, and despite expert care, the baby here was also later to die. Late last year, in the lead houses estate in my south Scotland region, one kind responded to a complaint from a member of the public about a fox being caught in a snare. Unfortunately, the responding unit was unable to find the fox, and in returning to the site the next day found it with horrific injuries piled on top of a stink pit. An issue that I know Christine Grahame will speak about later in the debate. However, let me read a brief description of what the member of staff who found the fox described. It looks like the snare killed the fox by causing that massive wound. There were gobbets of flesh in the grass and blood and fur. The fox's eye was bulging out so much that it must have been due to being strangled by the snare. Just last week at a farm in Dumfries and Galloway, a badly decomposed snare badger was discovered, despite the police responding quickly to the discovery that no charges are being progressed. Protected species such as badgers, otters alongside domestic animals are regularly caught in snares. In fact, the Snare Watch website indicates a non-target capture rate that is consistently between 60 and 70 per cent. Despite tightening legislation around snaring, non-target catch continues to be an issue that stands in direct conflict with our conservation objectives here in Scotland. What is the alternative? We do not have to look too far from the report itself to see the alternatives to snaring. SNH does not employ snaring on any of the land that it owns or manages directly, including its 36 reserves. In 2010, the head of policy stated, we think that other methods are effective enough for our purposes and we are concerned about the possibility of buy-catch. Other methods such as cage traps, exclusion fences, habitat management and even novel deterrents such as lamas are being used to guard livestock from predators and they have all been shown to be effective alternatives to cruel and indiscriminate snares. I believe that the time has come for this Parliament to be bold and courageous and do what is right for animals in Scotland. We see the Conservatives in England singing the praises of fox hunting yet again. When it comes to animal welfare, we all have to ask ourselves in this Parliament who's side are we on. I believe passionately in a band on snaring. I know that many members share that view. More importantly, so does the vast majority of the public in pole after pole. They know that they simply cannot regulate cruelty. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary today to acknowledge that the review carried out by Scottish natural heritage did not go far enough and ask SNH to revisit the report to ensure that it fully meets its objectives and to go further and commit to consulting the public on the outcome of that report, including gaining their views on an outright ban on this outdated, cruel and indiscriminate practice. When I move to the open debate, speeches have no more than four minutes please. Christine Grahame to be followed by Finlay Carson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I make my apologies in advance to members that, as you know, Deputy Presiding Officer, I can't say after my own speech as I have almost immediately to chair the meeting of committee conveners. I congratulate Colin Smyth on securing this debate, who, like me, is a fully paid up member of the cross-party group on animal welfare. Pertunately, animal welfare was a very issue not considered in the review of the snaring legislation carried out by SNH and highlighted by one kind and the League Against Cruel Sports. I have been and still am wholly opposed to snaring, notwithstanding legislation and regulations introduced to police it. I was here and took part in the stage 3 debate on the Wildlife and Natural Environment Scotland Bill in 2011, and I said the following in support of an amendment to prohibit snaring. I speak not just with my heart but with my head, which is no bad combination. I said to the minister that I fully acknowledge that pest control is a necessity of life. I have a longstanding opposition to snaring and it is not the result of blind prejudice. Indeed, I recently chaired a debate that the cross-party group on one welfare held when we had the gamekeepers and land managers on one side and the animal welfare group such as one kind and the SSPCA on the other. The debate was straightforward and it was held in a very civilised and informed manner. The result was 13 each, no white hats, no black hats. The SSPCA in particular showed respect to the gamekeepers. It made it plain that much intelligence on animal cruelty and unauthorised pest control is brought to it that it is already referred to. I am not yet convinced that the stops and the regulations that have been brought in will prevent those instances. Regulation and licensing is better than what we have, but it is not enough. Let us look at reporting and policing. How would a member of the public who came upon a dead or dying animal in a snare know whether the snare was licensed? They would not know. I think that the Parliament will accept that people with no scruples will lay illegal snares or even legal snares and not check them or set them properly. In a previous debate, I asked who would go out in the various valleys in the pouring rain to check snares. Will everybody go out within 24 hours to check a snare? I doubt it. For me, simplicity in law and enforcement are key tests. I therefore asked members to consider whether they accept that cruel, slow deaths will still occur, notwithstanding regulation and reviews. The simplest, cleanest and most enforceable thing to do is to ban snaring, no ifs or buts. End of quote. That was six years ago. Nothing has since persuaded me that enforcement indeed of temperance of the law is satisfactory. I conclude by making reference, as my colleague Colin Smyth has to motion, I have lodge called stink pits stink, which has already within hours secured cross-party support for debate. That is closely tied up into the issue of snares, as those open pits, comprised of decomposing carcasses of deer, rabbit, fox, even an occasional domestic cat, are used to lure animals into snares that encircle the pits. That practice and the use of snares would and does turn the stomach of over three quarters of the Scottish population. Let's start with a ban on snares, then we can tackle a ban on stink pits. Finlay Carson, followed by James Kelly. Fox and Rabbit Control in Scotland is necessary to ensure that damage to crops, livestock, trees, game and other wildlife in their habitats can be reduced to acceptable levels to maintain Scotland's often fragile and unique rural biodiversity. A range of methods are used by gamekeepers, farmers and other custodians of the countryside and snaring is one of the vital tools to achieve those ends. So why is snaring required? Scotland's diverse countryside landscape means that a range of different methods are required to control the populations and numbers of species such as foxes and rabbits. It's a little out of date, but back in 2010 it was estimated that Britain's 40 million rabbits cost more than £260 million a year and damaged to crops, businesses and infrastructure, not to mention the impact on our natural environment, which all of us can see when we walk in the countryside. In my constituency of Galloway and Western Feasts, fox control is a crucial part of countryside management, whether that is to protect a particularly vulnerable species such as lapwings and curlew, or to prevent predation of lambs and free range and domestic poultry. Other control methods such as shooting can be impractical in areas, particularly in the spring and summer, because of vegetation coinciding with the time when foxes can do the most damage. We need to conduct this debate on the basis of fact in terms of requirements to control the number of species in our countryside. Snaring, often the information is that the vast majority of snaring results in live capture, not injury. I think that one point of clarification that may be useful in this debate is that stares are not used to kill. Snares are a live capture device used by gamekeepers and farmers designed to catch a fox or rabbit without injury until it dispatch you mainly. We know that those injuries are rare. Biologists have been using snares for decades as an efficient way to catch foxes and badgers alive in order to affect radio tags to study their ecology. After release, tagged animals show no abnormal behaviour surviving normally and breeding normally. When it comes to domestic pets, an operator operating under the guidelines should not set traps near homes. In a study by the game and wildlife conservation trust, it was found that less than 1 per cent of snare-caught foxes were injured as a result of capture. That equates to about 95 foxes per year, and to put that into perspective, the mammal society estimated that 100,000 foxes are killed by cars each year. Less than 1 per cent of badgers, the badger population are caught in snares, and most or all of those animals are released uninjured. What is the law currently? Under the wildlife and natural environment Scotland Act 2011, snare legislation must be reviewed every five years, and the Scottish Conservatives welcome the additional level that this security brings. There is now a significant amount of legislation regarding snare use, including the Nature Conservation Scotland Act 2004, the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2006, the Snares Scotland Order 2010 and the Snares Training Scotland Order 2015. All that means is that snareing is now heavily regulated to ensure that it is conducted in an increasingly humane way, and that is absolutely right. The law states that snares must be checked at least every day at intervals of no more than 24 hours and that they must not be self-locking. Anyone wishing to operate snares in Scotland must be correctly trained to do so. I believe that we currently have around 1,500 individuals in Scotland accredited to use snares. That means that anyone putting out snares understands how to properly set them to ensure least injury to the animal and to best avoid unintentional capture of non-target species. In conclusion, I condemn wildlife crime of any kind and snareing which breaks the law, which of course should be invested fully by the police. Many of the examples that Mr Smith cited were indeed described as illegal snareing. Perhaps we should look at the policing a bit more. My Scottish Conservatives colleagues and I support the regulations that I have outlined, but we would not welcome an outright ban on snareing. When used appropriately, snareing remains an effective and humane form of fox and rabbit control, particularly in places where alternative methods are not effective, such as areas of high vegetation or rough terrain, that is crucial to avoiding damage to Scotland's crops, livestock trees, wildlife and habitats. I call James Kelly to be followed by Alison Johnstone. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the work that my colleague Colin Smith has done on this important issue of snareing and also in securing the member's debate, not only in the work that Colin has done in the Parliament but in the campaigning that he has done on this important issue in the region. I think that the importance of the issue is highlighted by the opposing contributions that we have had across the chamber but also by the number of responses that MSPs have had on the issue via email. I was a member of the Parliament at the time when the issue was debated back in 2011. I remember that at that time there was an extensive email campaign. I think that that is because people feel very strongly about the animal welfare issues that play here. I remember from the previous debate that there were quite strong feelings on it. I recall Christine Grahame's speech and it seemed at that time that the Parliament kind of erd on the side of caution. I think that the reason that the issue has come back up again is that people find it absolutely barbaric, the practice of snareing and particularly the number of animals that become entrapped in snares. Colin Smith has described that the appalling injuries that they have and sometimes the appalling way that they die. I do not think that that can be acceptable in a humane society. The Scottish National Heritage report was charged with addressing some of the issues and looking again at the issue. It seems in reading the report and listening to members' contributions that it does not seem to have addressed the fundamental issue, which is the debate here as to whether a ban on snareing, an all-out ban on snareing should be introduced. I certainly accept that pest control is required, but I agree with Colin Smith and Christine Grahame that snareing itself is a barbaric practice and one that I do not think should be allowed to continue. I think that the report that has been produced needs to be revisited. I would be interested to hear the minister's view on this and summing up. I think that what that would allow us to do is to have a proper debate and discussion on the issue of snareing. If SNH looked again at the report, it concentrated on the issues of animal welfare, how to protect animal stocks and whether an all-out ban on snareing could be effective and could be legally enforced. That allows us not only to continue this debate but to bring more evidence forward in relation to the debate. I am sure that if that evidence is brought forward robustly, it will reinforce the views of Colin Smith, Christine Grahame and others. I hope that Parliament can again look at the issue of an all-out ban on snareing. Alison Johnstone, followed by Ruth Maguire. I thank Colin Smith for securing today's debate and for his well-argued and compelling speech. I am grateful to all animal welfare organisations that have helped to brief us for today, in particular, One Kind and the League Against Cruel Sports, for their work over many years leading the campaign for an outright ban on snareing. It is inhumane, it is indiscriminate, it is non-selective and their briefing today makes difficult and disturbing reading. I have always supported calls for a ban, as snareing is a cruel and ineffective method of predator control that indiscriminately captures, maims and kills all manner of animal life, including family pets, and there are many effective alternatives. During the passage of the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act 2011, Greens argued that the Scottish Government's chosen option of regulation, rather than a ban, we argued against that. We are firmly of the view that Scotland needs a complete ban on the manufacturer, sale or possession of all snares, and other countries have introduced a ban. Switzerland has a complete ban on all snares. Next snares are banned in 10 member states. A 2005 report of the UK Government's independent working group on snareing highlighted the difficulty in reducing the proportion of non-target animals caught in fox snares, even to around 40 per cent, as has been borne out by evidence since. One kind runs the snarewatch.org website. Our members of the public can report findings of animals trapped in snares and raise concerns about possible misuse or other issues. If the first 127 reports received, 72 concerned the snaring of family pets. A quarter of animals reported caught were protected species, 25 badgers and four otters, and just 19 of the animals discovered were the supposed target species. In 2016, I called for the Scottish Government to conduct a review of the laws that governs snareing in Scotland, hoping to see a robust evidence-based review, including consideration of the welfare of animals. The report from Scottish Natural Heritage, highlighted in the motion for debate this afternoon, recommended that the Scottish Government consider how a code of practice on snareing can be better enforced through legislation. However, as has been discussed, the review did not consider the option of a ban. It is a missed opportunity, and it has failed to improve animal welfare. No systematic attempt was made to evaluate the impacts of snareing on the welfare of target or non-target animals. The review reaches the welcome conclusion, however, that snareing of mountain hares causes unnecessary suffering, and as such, SNH will no longer issue licences to allow that. The report says that concerns have been raised with SNH over the welfare impacts of snareing hares to the effect that it is difficult to advise on a method of snareing that does not cause unnecessary suffering, that they cannot be used effectively as a killing trap because animals take too long to die and are not as effective as a restraining means because there is too high risk of killing or injury. The lack of any apparent means or guidance to avoid this means that SNH will not be minded to issue licences unless the contrary can be evidenced. If snareing causes unnecessary suffering to mountain hares, where is the evidence that other animals experience snareing differently? I would be grateful to hear the cabinet secretary confirm whether the welfare impacts of snareing foxes and rabbits has also been evaluated, and if so, has their suffering been deemed necessary or will this practice to be banned? If we are serious about animal welfare, rather than maintaining outdated and inhumane traditions, we need to do more, to do better than merely regulating methods as crude and barbaric as snareing. Let's move on to an outright ban. Snare and sink pits are often found in close proximity. Many people in Scotland will be horrified to learn that sink pits are legal and accessed. If they have even been seen in our national parks, that is not an image of Scotland that we can be proud of. I believe that we in the Scottish Parliament have a responsibility to show leadership on this issue, particularly while the most backward-looking UK Government demonstrates such cruelty, such callous and cowardly disregard for animal welfare at Westminster, and Scottish ministers must rethink their position on this and bring about a snare-free Scotland without further delay. I appreciate that there are loud and powerful voices in the countryside lobby, but today I speak on behalf of those whose prime concern is animal welfare and preventing cruelty. For my constituents who have contacted me on the matter, and for myself, there is simply no way to reconcile animal welfare with snareing. The Snare-Free Scotland report by One Kind and the League Against Cruel Sports sets out horrifying examples of the agonising pain and deaths experienced by animals trapped in snares, including non-target species such as Scottish wildcats, mountain hares, badgers, hedgehogs, deer, otters and even family pets, as we have heard. The inherent and unavoidable cruelty of snareing is just as clear too, if less explicitly so, in the code of practice for snare users, which accompanies the current legislation. In the section on dealing with injured non-target animals accidentally caught in snares, it is advised that wild animals are often capable of surviving significant injuries, although they may suffer prolonged pain in the process. Elsewhere, snare users are given chillingly dispassionate instructions on how to dispatch, i.e. kill, that is the various species target and non-target. When discussing the situation with regard to mountain hares, as has been mentioned, the SNH review appears to accept that snares are indefensible in terms of animal welfare, stating that it is difficult to advise on a method of snareing that does not cause unnecessary suffering. Going on to explain that they cannot be used effectively as a killing trap because the animals take too long to die and are not effective as restraining means because there is too high a risk of killing or injury. Snares are indiscriminate and cruel, resulting in agonising suffering and death for both those animals that they intend to trap and those that are trapped unintentionally. It is clear that, to accept snares, we must also be prepared to accept the grotesque and indiscriminate suffering and death of animals, target and non-target. No amount of enhanced regulation or subsequent reviews can change that. Some things are just wrong. In preparing for this debate, I concluded that there is simply no way to use snares without causing unacceptable and intolerable agony in suffering for animals. No amount of enhanced regulation can change that. Tinkering around the edges is not enough. For that reason, I share the disappointment that is expressed in the motion of animal welfare organisations that the SNH review did not even consider the option of an outright ban. Rather, the review appears to somewhat sidestep the animal welfare and suffering aspect of snareing, stating that the primary objective of the changes to snareing legislation was to better assure that practices were not causing unnecessary suffering. It is not within the scope of the review to assess whether that degree of suffering is acceptable. It may not have been within the scope of the review to address the question, but for me personally and for the scores of constituents who have contacted me on this issue, the suffering caused by snares is absolutely unacceptable and it is unnecessary. Presiding Officer, as Theresa May plans to ignore the 84 per cent of the public who are against the cruel and barbaric practice of fox hunting and bring it back, it is clear that we here in Scotland also have a power of work to do for standing up for animal welfare here. The last of the open speakers, Jamie Greene. We all know that there has been much controversy around the issue of snareing, and I think that it is really important that any action that we take as a Parliament is well considered and takes into the views and concerns of all. I would like to start with the fundamental question of why there is a need for snareing at all, and I approached this debate with a very open mind. I read the briefing of some of the various groups that may have been mentioned today, but I also spoke to farmers and rural experts. Scotland indeed has a diverse rural biodiversity, and no-one can deny that there is a need for fox and rabbit controls in many parts of Scotland. I think that that is something that we do agree on. In particular, we should be aware that crop damage can have a real devastating financial impact on our farmers and, indeed, our wider agricultural communities, with costs stretching into the hundreds of millions of pounds. That is a very significant price to pay by not controlling wildlife populations, especially at a time when farmers' budgets are considerably squeezed. Farmers tell me that crops are being destroyed and livestock is being lost. I would like to quote from Jonathan Hall, who is head of rural policy for the NFUS, who said that, and I quote, the hill farming view on snareing is that there remains a vital tool in protecting livestock, particularly lambs around lambing time from fox predation. I have heard from Johnny Hall on a number of occasions on a number of rural issues, and I value his knowledge and expertise. Of course, we should acknowledge that many do have concerns over the impact that snareing has on animals. We have all received many letters about this. Colin Smyth's motion notes that a number of non-target animals such as deer, otters, badgers, herrs and even household pets can fall into snares, and he is right to note this. Those cases sadden me. I think that we should work to minimise those instances by ensuring that strict compliance with existing regulation exists and suitable recourses available to those who break the rules. We should play our part in reducing the impact of non-target animals, but I think that an outright ban could be damaging to Scotland's rural economy. Rather than ban, we should be working to improve the current system, and that is why the SNH review made practical recommendations, which have been welcomed by many in the rural community. The majority of animals caught are able to be released, moved or killed humanely. I would prefer that that was 100 per cent, so we need to work towards that. I would like to point towards existing legislation such as the Nature Conservation Act, the Animal Health and Welfare Act and the Snare's Order to name just a few. There are rules in place to ensure that snareing should be done in a humane manner. All snares must be checked at least once every 24 hours, and those who own and operate snares are licensed and trained to do so properly. That is around 1,500 people in Scotland, I believe. Legislation also states that snareing legislation must be reviewed every five years, and I welcome that. That ensures that legislation is up to date, open to scrutiny and takes into account all views concerned. However, I want to be also clear that I do not support illegal snareing, which breaches the rules that have been set in place. When these incidents occur, they should be investigated and the full weight of the law should be applied. Any violations of that I take very seriously. I am a big believer that there should be constant improvements to farming practice. I have never met a cruel farmer, so if snareing is so indiscriminate, I think that the farming community has a duty to develop better alternatives. However, until those widespread practical alternatives are available, then we must improve what we have. I welcome that debate and I thank Colin Smyth for bringing it forward to the Parliament. It is a passionate but very important issue to discuss. My view, after listening to the evidence of local farmers in my region, lead me to conclude that, at the moment, snareing is an important method of capturing animals, but one that requires strict policing and, indeed, regular scrutiny by this Parliament. I now call Roseanna Cunningham to respond to this debate. Around seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been a short debate, but it is important, nevertheless. I say at the outset that I understand very well why so many members here and why so many members of the public are opposed to snareing. It has always been a difficult and emotive issue. Colin Smyth referred to harrowing descriptions of animals caught in snares, particularly in illegal and badly set snares, and I will come back to that in the course of my remarks. It is fair to say that nobody really actively likes snareing, but it is something that we believe remains a necessary part of the land managers toolbox. In picking up some of the points that were made in the debate, I hope that I can justify to members why we believe that it remains a necessary option that we need to retain for effective predator and pest control. Is snareing needed? It is said that, sometimes, it has been said here that snareing and other forms of predator control are unnecessary and foxes only have a relatively low impact on agriculture, and it is true that, on average, fox predation in most cases is well below 5 per cent of lambs, piglets or poultry. Despite the low average losses, it is important to remember that those occur against a backdrop of widespread fox control on site or on neighbouring land. Without some form of fox control, average losses would very likely be considerably higher. Snares also remains an important tool in dealing with losses to agriculture caused by rabbits. Based on rabbit population estimates made in the mid-2000s, the annual cost to agriculture in Scotland is approximately £59 million. That is every single year. Damage is mainly caused by grazing of grass and cereal crops as well as to horticultural crops and forestry. That is a big economic impact. Shooting is not always practicable or an effective alternative. It is often not possible to get clear or safe lines of sight in which to use a rifle. The risk is that more animals will be wounded rather than killed outright, an unacceptable animal welfare outcome, which would no doubt then itself become a target for many of those who, at bottom, probably do not like to see any animal killed. The truth is that I do not suppose any of us do. A number of members have referred to the snaring review of Colin Smith, Christine Graham and Ruth Maguire. It was carried out within the parameters laid down by the 2011 legislation. It confirmed that the legislative changes made to snaring in 2011 have reduced the number of reported incidents of snaring-related offences and the administration procedure is working satisfactorily. It also recommended several changes that would further refine and codify snaring practices and components. I have already asked SNH to take forward work to revise the code of practice in line with the recommendations. The Scottish technical assessment group made up of key stakeholders, which contributed to the SNH review, will also consider the recommendations in the report. The snaring review did consider animal welfare. Colin Smith, in reference to the technical review group, she will acknowledge that most of their recommendations were completely ignored in the final review group's report. Does she not think that, given that and also the fact that the SNH report ignored a lot of the evidence that is out there in relation to animal welfare? At the very least, the cabinet secretary has asked SNH to review its report and look in more detail at some of the animal welfare issues that have been raised by members today. It is only one page in the report, but it is an issue that surely deserves a lot more detail than that every five years. I have indicated that the review was already looking at animal welfare. The technical assessment group is one that will consider, as will SNH, a number of aspects of that. I will ensure that that does happen. Parliament did, as a number of members say, explicitly considered and rejected outright and out-of-snaring ban in 2011, when we looked at amendments to the wildlife and natural environment bill. Instead, we changed legislation to improve animal welfare outcomes. Part of that package of changes was a commitment to review how well those intended improvements were working in practice. That, of course, is the review that we have just carried out. The review found that compliance with the new snaring regulations appears to be high, judged by the number of snaring offences that are reporting to the pfF. Members have referred to specific incidents of bad practice, but we have reduced and will continue to reduce the numbers of those incidents by carefully thought through and implemented technical changes. Many of the worst incidents that we see and hear about involve illegally set snares. Banning snaring will not prevent those who are operating outside the law from continuing to do so. With regard to non-target species that is raised by a number of members, it is incumbent on land managers to reduce the risk by the use of good fuel, craft and training. In other words, good snare operators should be setting their snares in locations and in such a way that they are most likely to catch only the target species. Technical improvements will continue to contribute to that. Alison Johnstone raised the issue of snaring of hares. There is currently a lack of specific guidance on snaring of hares, and I am instructing the technical assessment group as a priority to consider how those welfare issues could be addressed before deciding on whether legislation requires to be brought forward. Given those welfare concerns and the fact that snaring operators may also be open to the risk of committing offences in relation to the use of snares for hares, I will ask SNH to set up a meeting with key stakeholders with the aim of putting in place a voluntary moratorium on the use of snares to control brown hares until we have definite advice from the technical assessment group. Christine Grahame specifically raised the issue of stink pits, and I know that she has a motion in this regard. I do appreciate that it is a sensitive issue. I am also asking the technical assessment group to look at the use of stink pits as part of their consideration of the snaring recommendations, but I need to say that, regardless of where a snare is set, whether it be in a stink pit or somewhere else, it is the responsibility of the snaring operator to take into consideration where they set snares avoiding locations that are likely to contain non-target species. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of snaring, but the position of the Government has always been that we need to control pests and predators to protect livestock and to ensure that fragile hill farms are able to survive. Sometimes snaring is the least bad option. Our approach has been to seek to improve animal welfare standards through training, technical improvements and monitoring and record keeping. In this approach, we have led the way in the UK. Our support for snaring as a technique is not unconditional. If a review showed that there was a lack of compliance with the law, we would of course be prepared to look again at whether snaring should be retained, but that is not the situation in which we currently find ourselves.