Chamber and committees

We have spoken to NatureScot, but you are asking a very specific and focused question about whether NatureScot has said that banning the use of snares would improve biodiversity. I do not have a one-sentence answer for that, because I have not posed that question directly to NatureScot. Perhaps you might want to do that.

You talk about my many conversations with gamekeepers. The gamekeepers I have spoken to have advocated for the retention of snares and have made the point that the other traps that are available are not as effective as snares. Nobody is saying that there is a trapping method that is as effective as snaring, but the reason why we are introducing a ban is that snaring has significant animal welfare concerns attached to it. We are not proposing the banning of snares for no reason or to make life difficult for people who are working hard to manage their land. We are proposing it because, over many years, there has been a great deal of evidence to suggest that snaring is inhumane and causes unnecessary animal suffering.

Ms Hamilton, nobody is saying that any trap of the type that you are alluding to is going to capture foxes; we are saying that the majority of foxes that are killed are dealt with by shooting. That method is available. Traps are available for other species where they are more effective. A range of options is available to people, which, if the ban goes through, will not include snares for the reasons that I have outlined, which are mainly animal welfare considerations.

Thank you for inviting me to give more evidence on the bill. I wrote to the committee in August, saying that I intend to introduce amendments at stage 2 of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill to ban the use of snares. I also intend to lodge amendments for a limited extension to the current powers of the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to investigate wildlife crime. Scotland already has 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 are frequently caught, including protected species such as badgers. I do not believe that further regulation would address those fundamental issues, and I believe that a ban on the use of snares is needed. I have, however, only very recently received proposals from land management groups for a licensing regime. I think that that came in on Monday night—I have not had time to consider that proposal fully but will respond in due course.

Regarding the SSPCA’s powers, my amendments will allow inspectors who are already investigating animal welfare offences to use 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. These are important issues but they are also very emotive 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 the SSPCA’s powers.

Thank you, Mr Fairlie. I hope that you feel better soon. It sounded like that was a struggle.

I can outline the different types of predator control that will be available if snares are banned. The appropriate method of control depends on a number of factors, including the legal status of the predator, the topography of the land and the kind of livestock that is being protected. Mr Fairlie was absolutely correct about that.

The method most used at the moment is shooting, including at night—that is the predominant method for controlling foxes in particular. Trapping is also available, including live-capture traps. Dogs can be used to flush foxes to guns for the protection of livestock, as per the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023.

Farmers and land managers can take other steps to protect their livestock, including a lot of the things that they do already, such as housing their livestock during vulnerable periods; using fences, including electric ones, to protect their livestock; and diversionary feeding if they have an issue with a particular predator. Those are the non-capture and non-lethal methods; the humane lethal method that is used is shooting.

Mr Fairlie asked what other countries do. I cannot remember exactly what happens in every country, but I have been given a helpful list. In Europe, snares are banned in most European Union countries; indeed, Germany, which is a big hunting nation—it is probably second only to Scotland for game shooting—has banned snaring. A couple of countries including Spain and France have not yet banned snares, but the majority of EU countries have. Of course, Mr Fairlie will also be aware that our colleagues in the Welsh Parliament and Government recently banned snares completely.

I appreciate that Ms Hamilton wants to hammer home points that have already been made, but I am not entirely sure what I can usefully add to what I have already said. It is right to point out that the code of practice already exists, as do the powers to amend it under the 2006 act.

There is one thing to say about members’ bills. I know that a few people around this table have introduced members’ bills in the past; I certainly did when I was a back bencher. A member’s bill can raise awareness of an issue and can have a campaign associated with it. It can shine a light on an issue that a member feels lacks awareness in society. I applaud members who do that, and this is one such case.

I have heard the evidence that the awareness of the code of practice is low. I imagine that the general public has a low awareness of quite a lot of codes of practice that have resulted from legislation. They would have to go to a Government website. However, it is about the campaigns that happen off the back of those codes of practice, which I have alluded to.

Although we might not have a lot of people logging on to look at the 2009 code of practice, we have the awareness that has emanated from that as a result of the public campaigns that I mentioned, which involve the Scottish Government working with the SSPCA. The “Where’s mum?” campaign, the yearly campaigns that we are all aware of about buying puppies at Christmas time and the “Adopt, don’t shop” campaigns all emanate from that code of practice.

I understand that people’s awareness of the letter of the code of practice as it is written is probably not high. Let us face it—we are talking about the general public, who do not spend their time on Government websites. However, there is an awareness out there—very much so—of the importance of seeing puppies with their mother, of looking to adopt adult dogs rather than puppies and of what people need to consider ahead of taking a dog into their home if it is to fit in with their lifestyle. As I said, there is also more awareness of health conditions that are associated with dogs. That general awareness has come from campaigning that probably stemmed from the existing code of practice.

I can go through some of the things that we are already doing. For some time, we have had campaigns, and we have been working with other agencies on campaigns, particularly the one that highlighted the need for prospective buyers to see pups with their mother. The tagline was “Where’s mum?”

The Scottish Government is doing other work in partnership with the United Kingdom Government and border agencies. I will run through some of those things. We have been part of a puppy trade working group led by the SSPCA, which has encouraged the sharing of intelligence between enforcement agencies across the UK about illegal breeding and import and trade of puppies. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is also part of that group, and we have been able to reclaim significant amounts of tax and undeclared income from puppy breeders and dealers.

That work has also enabled us to identify some of the people involved. It is a very lucrative business. It involves organised crime and the sort of people who are involved in other lucrative criminal enterprises. Of course, the product here is puppies. As we know—we have heard heartbreaking stories about it—a lot of those puppies do not live very long, and families are absolutely devastated and have no recourse. We do not know where those puppies come from. The buyers would not even know where those puppies were bred.

Therefore, there is all that work as well as the campaigns that we have been jointly involved in with the SSPCA. Members will know that those campaigns come to the Parliament every year. We have particular campaigns around Christmas time to highlight the fact that buying a puppy at Christmas is not the best idea and to shine a light on the “Adopt, don’t shop” message, on which we work with the SSPCA. As we saw during the Covid lockdowns, a lot of people took on puppies but realised that the lifestyles that they went back to after Covid were not in line with caring for a dog. The shelters are chock-full of dogs that need homes.

Those are the aspects that we have concentrated on but, as I said, Christine Grahame’s bill wants to shine a light on other areas of advice and campaigning that could reasonably help people to make informed choices about buying a puppy.

What is in front of us right now is Ms Grahame’s bill, which intends to introduce a new code of practice. It is up to the committee to decide whether to get behind Ms Grahame’s ideas about having a new code of practice based on what is outlined in her draft bill, propose amendments to what is outlined in her draft bill, or take a different view on the revision of the existing code of practice. It is in the committee’s gift to make that recommendation.

It is not a belief; it is a statement of fact—it could be revised.