Chamber and committees

In my view, although humane cable restraints might be an incremental improvement on the traditional style of snare, they do not lead to a significant reduction in the adverse welfare outcomes experienced by animals caught by those devices, nor would their use eliminate the issues around the capture of non-target species, including protected species such as badgers, mountain hares and domestic animals such as cats. Continuing to permit their use under licence for the purpose of catching foxes, as is set out in the proposal that was put to me by land managers, would not suitably address those issues, which is why I have decided to introduce a ban on the use of all snares, including humane cable restraints.

I want to talk about Colin Smyth’s amendments, but I am happy if Ms Hamilton wants to interject.

Convener, I would like to go on and discuss the amendments in Colin Smyth’s name, because I think that I have answered Rachael Hamilton’s points.

I understand why Colin Smyth has lodged his amendments, but, again, I do not believe that they are necessary. A snare is defined in the dictionary simply as

“A device for capturing small wild animals or birds, usually consisting of a string with a running noose”.

Cable restraints, therefore, already fall within the meaning of snare use in the bill. In addition, should my amendment 54 be agreed to, that aspect will be set out in the explanatory notes accompanying the bill. Given that, I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendments 54A, 54C, 54F, 54H and 54I.

I am interested in hearing why Colin Smyth has lodged amendments 54B, 54E and 54G. I will give my reasons for why the legislation has been drafted in the way that it has been. My amendment 54 has been drafted to update the main snaring provisions in section 11 of the 1981 act, which relates to wild animals. That exception does not mean, however, that anyone can use a snare on a wild bird. Section 5 of the 1981 act already covers snaring and wild birds, providing for the offences of setting

“in position”

a

“snare ... likely to cause bodily injury to any wild bird”,

using a snare

“for the purpose of killing or taking any wild bird”,

and “knowingly” causing or permitting those offences. Such offences carry a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.

My amendment has, therefore, been drafted to avoid its conflicting with the existing provisions in section 5 of the 1981 act relating to wild birds. My concern about Colin Smyth’s amendments seeking to remove the references to wild birds in my amendment 54 is that that would result in a potential conflict with the 1981 act, which I am sure is not his intention.

Amendments 54D and 54J relate to an exception for snares that are “operated by hand”. It is important, when legislation is brought forward, to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. There are a number of handheld devices, such as dog poles and graspers, that utilise a loop at the end. Although such devices are not snares in the traditional sense, they could fall within the wider meaning of snaring that is used in the bill.

I am sure that the committee is familiar with those devices, which are used by dog wardens, animal rescue charities such as the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and wildlife rescue charities throughout Scotland to temporarily catch and restrain, for example, stray dogs and, on occasion, wild animals. I am sure that none of us here would immediately think of those types of devices in the traditional context of snaring, but I concluded, after very careful consideration, that, to avoid the risk of inadvertently restricting the use of those very necessary devices, it was necessary to carve out an exception for them in the text of the bill.

The bill makes it clear, however, that anyone who uses any type of snare, including a handheld one, for the purpose of killing an animal such as a fox, or who uses it in a way that is likely to give rise to injury of such an animal is guilty of an offence. A ban on the use of those devices would, it seems, severely hinder the ability of dog wardens and animal rescue charities to undertake their very important work.

I therefore ask Colin Smyth not to move amendments 54A, 54B, 54C, 54D, 54E, 54F, 54G, 54H, 54I and 54J. I would be happy to meet him ahead of stage 3 to discuss further the rationale behind my approach.

I move amendment 54.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 53 and 75 seek to apply licensing principles to the wildlife trap, grouse and muirburn licences in the bill. Setting out those principles in legislation is simply not necessary, because the licensing authority will always be a public body—either the Scottish Government or, if that responsibility is delegated to it, as is anticipated, NatureScot. As public bodies, the Scottish Government and NatureScot must act reasonably and fairly in everything that they do, not just for the purposes of the three licensing schemes in the bill but in respect of general principles.

On ensuring that there is a legitimate need for the scheme, all the licences in the bill have been introduced to address a legitimate need, as is required for compliance with the European convention on human rights. The legitimate need for those licences is to help with the prevention of cruelty to animals, the prevention of wildlife crime and the protection of the natural environment. The legitimate need for the licensing scheme already exists and, in fact, is the reason for the bill. I am convinced that the bill strikes a fair balance in considering those whose possessions are particularly affected and the wider public interest.

I want to say a couple of things about what Ms Hamilton said about constant review of the application process. Legislation on the need for constantly reviewing the efficiency of the application process is not necessary. The application process is already kept under review, with a view to improving the process for those involved. The licences in the bill will be dealt with using the existing licensing team and process. However, NatureScot is exploring whether there might be a need to expand the size of the team to meet any potential increased demand. That is an operational matter for it. It is also exploring the development of a new online licensing system for all the wildlife management licences that it currently issues. NatureScot would be expected to review any such changes and what might be required to change in the future.

There must be a balance. A constant review of the application process would likely result in more frequent minor changes, which might mean that applicants would have to deal with a different form or process every time that they apply. That would be onerous for applicants, and I am sure that that is not what Ms Hamilton intends.

I do not support the amendments, for the reasons that I have stated. I simply do not think that they are necessary.

That is exactly my point.

I have listened to what Mr Mountain has said. I understand why he lodged the amendments and why he thinks that it would be helpful to have a requirement to consult land managers set out more explicitly in the bill. I am therefore happy to support his amendments in principle. However, I would like to ensure that both are framed in a way that is consistent with the existing language in the bill. I therefore request that Mr Mountain not press amendments 19 and 41 but allow us to work together on redrafted versions to be brought back at stage 3.

The review might supersede that. We have to allow NatureScot to undertake a full analysis of the cost recovery associated with all licences and see where that lands. Obviously, it has sight of what we proposed in the financial memorandum, which it will take into account. Ms Slater is leading on that. However, I think that we all agree that the licences should be proportionate and should depend on the people who are applying for them. All of that will be taken into account. The committee will, of course, be able to see the results of the review within about six months.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 111, 112, 126, 127, 147 and 148 would remove the relevant authority’s ability to charge reasonable licence fees for any of the licences in the bill. As a couple of members—particularly Ariane Burgess—have said, we have a Bute house agreement commitment to review species licensing throughout wildlife licensing. That will include assessing the potential for cost recovery. Rachael Hamilton’s amendments prohibit that, so I cannot support them and I encourage the committee not to support them.

With regard to the financial memorandum, those were the initial estimates from NatureScot. They will be refined as the licensing is developed in the online system, and they will also be taken into account as part of the review. I understand and appreciate the intent behind John Mason’s amendments 1, 2 and 3. As I have said, we have committed to considering cost recovery as part of the review, and we are actively—

I was just about to refer the committee to Ms Slater’s letter to NatureScot in which she asked it to take forward the commitment to do the species licensing review. I am sure that the committee has a copy of that letter—if not, we can make sure that it does. At the end of her letter, which was sent in January, she said that she would like the report to be completed and ready for external review within six months. It is going to be done at speed. I imagine that that will be by June this year, for external review, and that the committee will take an interest in that.

We want to consider cost recovery across the whole range of species licensing. It is important that Ms Slater’s letter also says that it is about review of the wider species licensing system with a view to ensuring that the law is being applied correctly. Therefore, it is not just about cost recovery; it is also about how the licence system is working more generally.

I will be happy to give way when I finish my points.

We have taken the approach of including provisions in the bill to allow the relevant authority to charge a reasonable fee in the future following the outcome of the review. That approach would allow for a holistic and coherent introduction of fees and charges across all relevant bill activities and, indeed, the wider relevant licensing activities undertaken by NatureScot.

Amendments 1, 2, and 3 could pre-empt and undermine the outcome of the review, so I ask Mr Mason not to move them. I am sure that the minister who commissioned the NatureScot review will be content to keep Mr Mason and other members of the committee updated on its progress.

I am happy to try to answer Ms Hamilton’s question.