Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill - use of snares and powers of Scottish SPCA inspectors: consultation analysis

Chapter 4 Powers of Scottish SPCA inspectors (Qs 5 – 7)

Overview

The consultation paper argues that there is a gap in the ability for Scottish SPCA inspectors to adequately respond to wildlife crime. It is therefore proposed that the use of snares or other types of cable restraints is prohibited.

Question 5

Do you agree with our proposal to provide Scottish SPCA inspectors who are acting under their existing powers under the 2006 Act, with additional powers to search, examine and seize evidence in connection with specific offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981? The specific offences are:

• section 1 (protection of wild birds, etc),
• section 5 (prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking birds),
• section 6 (sale, etc. of wild birds),
• section 7 (registration of certain captive birds),
• section 8, (protection of captive birds),
• section 9 (protection of certain wild animals and prevention of poaching),
• section 10A (protection of wild hares),
• section 11 (prohibition of certain methods of taking wild animals),
• section 11G (prevention of poaching: wild hares, rabbits, etc),
• section 11 (sale, possession, etc. of wild hares, rabbits, etc),
• section 12A (requirements for use of traps),
• section 12F (authorisation from landowners etc. to use traps),
• section 15A (possession of pesticides)

Responses to Question 5 by respondent type are set out in Table 7 below.

A majority – 71% of those who answered the question – agreed that there Scottish SPCA inspectors should be provided with additional powers to investigate offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. 27% disagreed with the proposals and 2% were unsure.

However, organisational respondents were more evenly divided with 50% agreeing, 46% disagreeing and 4% unsure. While a clear majority of ‘Animal welfare’, ‘Conservation’ and ‘Other’ respondents were in favour of the proposals, a majority of ‘Land management’ and ‘Sporting organisations’ opposed them.

Overall positions on Scottish SPCA powers

The analysis of comments across the section on Scottish SPCA powers suggests that many of those who commented took one of two overall positions. These were:

• That Scottish SPCA inspectors should be given further powers to investigate wildlife crimes.
• That wildlife crime should only be investigated by the police and Scottish SPCA inspectors should not be given further powers.

Role of enforcement agencies and resource allocation

Many respondents who agreed with the proposal to extend the powers of the Scottish SPCA to investigate certain wildlife offences acknowledged the limited resources that Police Scotland has to investigate wildlife crimes. Some stated that many wildlife crimes go either undetected or unprosecuted, and concluded that this scarcity of policing necessitates exploring alternative avenues to tackle wildlife crime effectively.

Many comments stated that the proposed extension of powers for Scottish SPCA inspectors could significantly enhance the investigation process, ensuring a more targeted and knowledgeable approach to wildlife crime enforcement.

Some respondents believed that granting additional powers to Scottish SPCA inspectors would act as a deterrent, dissuading potential offenders from committing wildlife crimes due to the increased likelihood of detection and prosecution. A few respondents believed that the additional resource of the Scottish SPCA to investigate wildlife crimes combined with the deterrent effect would reduce suffering to wild animals.

Many respondents who disagreed with the proposal to extend the powers of the Scottish SPCA to investigate certain wildlife offences emphasised that policing powers should be exclusive to government-sanctioned law enforcement bodies. Many of those respondents mentioned the trust they and the general public have in Police Scotland, and several advocated for additional funding and training for the Police Scotland instead of exploring alternative options.

Some respondents asserted that granting additional powers to the Scottish SPCA might jeopardise public trust and confidence in wildlife crime investigations. Some also argued that if police resources remained inadequate, and the Scottish SPCA is relied upon to enforce wildlife crime, it could lead the public to question how seriously the Scottish Government takes wildlife crime.

Several respondents disagreed with a charity, particularly one perceived as an animal rights organisation, being granted statutory powers. Some asserted that as the Scottish SPCA is fundamentally driven by charitable initiatives, it is unsuitable as a law enforcement authority. They argued that policing powers should be reserved for official law enforcement agencies, such as Police Scotland, and not extended to charitable organisations.

Some respondents who disagreed with proposals raised concern about the potential for confusion and overlapping jurisdiction if multiple agencies were involved in the investigation of wildlife crime. Those respondents worried that this could complicate cases and compromise the integrity of the legal process.

Safeguards and impartiality

Respondents agreeing with the proposals highlighted the necessity of comprehensive training for Scottish SPCA inspectors. This training was seen as essential not only for handling dangerous situations but also for effective evidence gathering. Collaboration between Scottish SPCA inspectors and law enforcement agencies, especially Police Scotland, was believed to be crucial for successful outcomes.

Some respondents also stressed the importance of using additional powers in a proportionate and fair manner. They emphasised that the proportional use of these powers would be paramount to maintaining public trust.

A few respondents who agreed with the proposals expressed concerns about the safety of Scottish SPCA inspectors, particularly in potentially dangerous situations involving armed individuals. They emphasised the importance of police support to ensure the inspectors' safety and the successful execution of their duties.

Several respondents who disagree with the proposals stated that they were concerned about the impartiality of Scottish SPCA inspectors due to their association with animal welfare causes, such as their campaign to ban the use of snares. A few respondents were apprehensive that future potential activist influences within the Scottish SPCA could lead to biased decision-making. Many of those respondents worried that potential conflicts and challenges could arise if the Scottish SPCA continues its advocacy efforts whilst engaging in law enforcement activities.

Some respondents raised concerns about the lack of vetting and oversight for the Scottish SPCA as an organisation and for its inspectors, believing that the charity is not able to responsibly handle law enforcement powers. A few respondents stated that unlike Police Scotland, the Scottish SPCA may not be subject to the same rigorous background checks, and ongoing oversight mechanisms that they considered are fundamental in maintaining the integrity and impartiality of law enforcement officers.

Without such stringent vetting processes and comprehensive oversight, some respondents feared that individuals granted powers within the Scottish SPCA may not meet the high standards of professionalism and neutrality expected in law enforcement, and in some cases, may abuse their power of investigation.

Expertise and collaboration

Many respondents who agreed with the proposal to extend the powers of the Scottish SPCA to investigate certain wildlife offences praised the specialised knowledge possessed by Scottish SPCA inspectors in wildlife and animal welfare matters. They highlighted that the Scottish SPCA already enforces the law relating to animal welfare, and viewed this expertise as a valuable asset, making Scottish SPCA inspectors well-suited for investigating wildlife crimes.

Many respondents who agreed with the proposals also advocated for closer collaboration between Scottish SPCA inspectors and the police, emphasising the benefits of joint efforts in tackling wildlife crime. Collaboration was also believed to be a means to share expertise and resources effectively.

Some respondents suggested extending legal powers to other agencies, such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. They believe this proposal would foster multi-agency collaboration and enhance overall efforts to protect the countryside.

Several respondents who disagreed with the proposal questioned the Scottish SPCA's ability to comply with regulations governing investigatory processes, such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Scottish Crime Recording Standards. They held doubts about the charity’s capacity to handle complex legal matters.

Some respondents expressed the view that Scottish SPCA inspectors are unfamiliar with rural lifestyles and do not comprehend the nuances of countryside activities such as wildlife management. They believed that decisions regarding wildlife crime should be made by those intimately familiar with rural living.

Some respondents voiced concern about unnecessary interference from what they viewed as an ‘external’ organisation that lacks understanding of rural challenges and the complexities of countryside activities, which would lead to Scottish SPCA inspectors having misplaced priorities when enforcing the law.

Taskforce Recommendation

A few respondents who disagreed with the proposals made reference to the advice provided by the independent taskforce established by the Scottish Government. They cited the taskforce’s conclusions, specifically emphasising the recommendation for enhanced partnership working as opposed to conferring new investigatory powers upon the Scottish SPCA.

Unsure respondents

Respondents who were unsure about the proposals expressed concerns regarding the impartiality of the Scottish SPCA inspectors and emphasised the need for safeguards to ensure fair investigations. Some were worried about setting a precedent that could grant powers to non-law enforcement agencies, leading to potential complications. Additionally, some respondents questioned the adequacy of training of Scottish SPCA inspectors and were uncertain about how they would collect evidence.

Question 6

Do you agree with our proposal to provide Scottish SPCA inspectors who are acting under their existing powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, with additional powers to search, examine and seize evidence in connection with specific offences under the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill. The specific offences are:

• Section 1 (offence of using a glue trap),
• Section 2 (offence of purchasing a glue trap).

A majority – 71% of those who answered the question – agreed that there Scottish SPCA inspectors should be provided with additional powers to investigate offences under sections 1 and 2 of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill. 26% disagreed with the proposals and 3% were unsure.

However, organisational respondents were evenly divided with 49% agreeing, 47% disagreeing and 4% unsure. While a clear majority of ‘Animal welfare’, ‘Conservation’ and ‘Other’ respondents were in favour of the proposals, a majority of ‘Land management’ and ‘Sporting organisations’ opposed them.

A large number the respondents who commented stated that their reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the proposals were the same as stated for Question five. In addition to the topics discussed at Question five, respondents also discussed the following:

Respondents who agreed with the proposal commented that glue traps cause animal suffering, and that the Scottish SPCA's expertise made it well-suited for enforcing offences relating to glue traps. Others viewed the extension of powers for Scottish SPCA inspectors as reasonable and crucial for ensuring compliance with animal welfare laws.

Some respondents who disagreed with proposals to allow Scottish SPCA inspectors to enforce offences relating to glue traps argued that glue traps provide a safe alternative to rodenticides, especially in dealing with rats, and their use should therefore not be prohibited.

Question 7

Do you agree with the limitations and conditions placed on these proposals set out below?

• these powers would only be given to a Scottish SPCA inspector appointed by the Scottish Ministers under section 49(2)(a) of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006;
• inspectors would be individually authorised by the Scottish Government and that Authorisations could be withdrawn at the discretion of the Scottish Government;
• all inspectors would be required to undertake specified training prior to being given authorisation to exercise the new powers.

Two thirds – 66% of those who answered the question – agreed with the limitations and conditions on the proposals. 22% disagreed with the limitations and conditions and 12% were unsure.

However, organisational respondents were more clearly divided with 78% agreeing, 15% disagreeing and 8% unsure.

Several respondents who agreed with the limitations and conditions placed on the proposed powers granted to Scottish SPCA inspectors commented that they disagreed with the extension of powers to inspectors, but if the proposals should be taken forward, the limitations and restrictions seemed appropriate and were important. Many of the respondents who disagreed with the proposals to place limits and restrictions on the powers commented that they did so because they disagreed with the extension of powers in the first place.

Training Requirements

Many respondents supported the proposal for training as a prerequisite for Scottish SPCA inspectors to exercise the proposed enhanced powers, regardless of whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposed restrictions. Many respondents also viewed training as a crucial element for inspectors to effectively carry out their duties. They argued that proper training was essential to equip inspectors with the knowledge and skills needed to handle animal welfare cases and to ensure competence in handling laws, evidence, and maintaining unbiased conduct. Some believed that this should be administered by Police Scotland.

Vetting and Impartiality

Many respondents who supported the proposed limitations advocated for thorough vetting processes, including background checks, to ensure inspectors can discharge their duties impartially. They argued that proper vetting procedures are essential to maintain public trust in the impartiality and professionalism of inspectors. While some respondents supported the idea of individual authorisations for inspectors, some voiced concern about the discretionary withdrawal of authorisations by the Scottish Government. Some believed that Scottish Government oversight is a necessary measure to prevent potential misconduct, while others expressed concerns about possible political influence or industry pressure affecting this process.

Several respondents who disagreed with the proposed limitations also expressed reservations about the involvement of the Scottish Government in authorising inspectors. Some believed that the Scottish SPCA, should internally regulate and authorise its own inspectors. Others voiced concern about potential political influence or biases affecting the authorisation process, stating that transparency and public visibility are crucial factors, and emphasising the need for a clear, open process, free from hidden agendas. These respondents advocated for the Scottish SPCA's independence in appointing and training its inspectors, believing this would ensure objectivity and avoid undue interference from external entities.

Respondents who were unsure about the proposals requested clarity on the criteria for withdrawing powers, suggesting that vague terms could create uncertainties and potential misuse of authority.

Transparency and Collaboration

Many respondents who supported the proposed limitations mentioned the importance of transparency, ongoing review, and collaboration between the Scottish SPCA and Police Scotland. Adequate resources, including a sufficient number of trained inspectors, were believed to be crucial factors to ensure the legitimacy and effectiveness of the proposed powers. Some mentioned that the public's confidence in these measures relied on the careful implementation of robust training programs and transparent vetting processes.

Disagreement with Restrictions

Some respondents who disagreed with the proposed limitations and restrictions argued for unrestricted powers for all Scottish SPCA inspectors, believing that any limitations could hinder their ability to respond promptly to incidents. They emphasised the importance of authorising all trained inspectors without delays from bureaucracy, allowing them to act swiftly in the interest of animal welfare.

Many respondents advocated the need for streamlined processes. They argued that bureaucratic procedures could delay investigations and enforcement efforts. Some respondents proposed a more straightforward approach, advocating for immediate authorisation upon completion of training, without unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.