the powers that you've got are a compromise? Where would you like to see them go further? I'm not sure what the Government's meaning by a compromise from their side. I think that the original intention, which was first suggested by Mr Peter Peacock MSP back in 2010, was to grant us powers under section 19 of the Wildlife and Country Side Act, which covers a multitude of things. It's now been narrowed down to extending the powers that we've currently got under the 2006 act. If an animal is live at the time, we go there, which our inspectors do, because it's the public that call us. It would extend what we could do at that point. Police Scotland still has the primacy in all things there. The protocol ultimately is the fiscal decision on whether anything goes to court and the fiscal is the expert in ensuring that all evidence is gathered lawfully, there's substantial evidence there to take it forward or the fiscal will just not carry it forward. In practice, if you were called under the existing powers of the 2006 act to an animal caught live in a live trap, if it died when you arrived, would the new powers allow you to then carry an investigation into a suspected wildlife crime? For that individual animal there. Funny you mentioned that because it's not that long ago, the animal was alive in a snare and died while our inspector was standing over it, just because, again, they struggled, they tried to get away. That was the ultimate cause of death there. If you look up and there's other traps there, we've got to leave the scene, get Police Scotland, which is not always available immediately. I have to put my hand on my heart. We could not do our job on a day-to-day basis. I'm talking about the whole remit of everything that we do without Police Scotland, with service, because it's very good, but, like all services, they're getting tired. They've got far more demands on their time than we ever have. Alasdair Allan. I appreciate, Mike, that you've touched on some of this and others have touched on it as well. I also appreciate that there is no law or legal framework for you to operate within yet, but just for people looking into this, they understand what option 2 is and compromises. Can somebody just say whether they have an understanding or a shared understanding of who does what under that option? Police or SSPCA or anyone who wants to? At the moment, our inspectors are authorised under the 2006 act, which is where an animal is alive and under the control of a man, so they're there. It does not stop us investigating wildlife and countryside offences, and, as I said previously, ultimately anything we do in 99 times out of 100, we're working in conjunction with the Police Scotland anyway, but ultimately the report goes to the fiscal and it's a fiscal that's got the ultimate decision. That will not change, regardless of protocol, as to whether the report eventually goes to the fiscal from Police Scotland or the Scottish SPC. It's the fiscal that has the ultimate decision, and there have been instances, and I've mentioned it before, where we've masturbated, where it was actually the police that suggested, because of the time and the expertise that we've got on it, we actually finalised the reports that went to the fiscal, and I've never heard any concern or complaints of that. The only additional thing that I was going to add is that what this really gives is that it gives the SSPCA the powers to collect and preserve evidence, which they currently don't have if that animal is dead when they arrive on site, and that seems a sensible extension of the current situation. That is backed up by training in terms of how to gather that evidence, how to preserve that evidence. That's the step that they get. I think that we can't lose sight of the huge importance and significance of those LHDs of an investigation. We just need to bear that in mind. We could have an incident at the start, so it appears to be relatively simple. Items are seized, but it could develop into a very big police investigation, a very big police inquiry involving numerous people, and it could involve numerous areas. Ultimately, the bottom line is that a case could fall, a case could be taken no further because of a misstep at the very early stages of investigation, for example, when evidence is seized when a loathe is identified. I totally appreciate certainly Mike's point. Police Scotland may not always be able to respond immediately then and there. However, we just need to bear in mind the importance of those very early stages of investigation. It's not something that we can talk about, as if it's not hugely important. Sorry, Mike. Just to concur with what David McLean has said, to be fair, the evidence required to meet a criminal standard doesn't matter if it's a domestic animal, what or a wildlife animal, the evidence requirements are the same. You've got to have your locus, your evidence of an accused. That's what I was saying in the last session. There's a lot of things that are genuinely wildlife crime. An animal is there, it's suffered illegally. You never find an accused person, you can never prove an accused person, so it never gets to the fiscal because you've got no evidence to actually say it's an individual that is responsible. The risk of gathering evidence at any stage is the same regardless of what type of animal is involved. David McLean, come back in. It comes down to the frequency with which we use these powers and things. For things like, police officers are obviously, I would say, I suggest experts in identifying opportunities, evidential opportunities. There may be other considerations, there could be forensic considerations, for example, that may not be immediately obvious to someone who's not maybe got that investigative mind to the same extent. So I think it's just making sure, I think, key to this, if the powers are afforded to the SSPCA, I think training and making sure a reasonable standard is met will be absolutely key, training will be absolutely key to this, to make sure, you know, a standard is being held. I've got, I think, Rachel, then Jim. It's just some clarity on what happens if the protocols cannot be agreed between Police Scotland and SSPCA. In that circumstance, will the powers be extended to the SSPCA? I'll maybe go to Ian. Is that the right person? Ian, I think if you're more or less touched on that. I know, I want to be clear on that, though. I think that, first and foremost, the protocols are primarily going to be between the police and the SSPCA and determine the way in which they work. Ultimately, our standards of evidence remain the same whoever reports the evidence to us, and so in general terms, as long as the standards of evidence are met, we don't really mind who gathers that evidence. But I think our point of view is that there is an increased risk when offences are investigated by specialist reporting agencies compared to the police, and I think it needs to be acknowledged that there is a difference in the level of training and experience of criminal investigation between the police and specialist reporting agencies, and that risk can come into the way in which evidence is gathered, the admissibility of evidence and ultimately whether there is sufficient evidence for us to prosecute. I think that there needs to be an acknowledgement of those risks, but our position is that if certain safeguards are in place and our main safeguards, I think that we are in support of a protocol between the SSPCA and the police, the main safeguards that we would primarily be in favour of are an enhanced level of training for SSPCA inspectors, particularly with a view to the standards that are required in order for them to get approved by Scottish ministers to become an inspector. More generally, another safeguard that we would be looking for is some kind of increased accountability for SSPCA in the form of additional formal procedures to enable independent scrutiny of the SSPCA, and I think that one purpose that would serve was to enhance public confidence and faith in the investigation of wildlife offences.  If that sounds complicated, it will make sense. You are talking about the level of training and the inquiring mind that you would need to do that kind of investigation. You clearly know what that looks like and what that feels like. Mike, with all due respect to what Ian said, there is a different level of inspection or gathering of evidence at the very early stages. What level of training would you get through Police Scotland and, as importantly, how would you pay for it? I understand that all the funding that you get is through charitable donations. First of all, is that correct? If it is correct, how would you pay for that level of training? Yes, we are entirely a charity. We get no central or local government money. My understanding, other than time, is that there has been no indication about a cost. If there is a cost, if we were to pay to go on a training course and it is not just being trained by Police Scotland, we would have to look at that. Up to now, it would be any training that we had acquired on that aspect would come from Police Scotland or the Crown Office, if that was relevant with the garden evidence. I have to go back to my point, and I am going to bring in the banshire patent aspect again. It is the same complexities. The big thing from my point of view, where the police are concerned, is the early notification of anything that we are doing. If it impinges on anything else that the police are doing, they could inform us in the coming back. Where that comes into place at the moment is if we have enough evidence to report a mark to the fiscal, we have to raise a Scottish criminal records number to go with the case to the fiscal. As soon as we apply for that number, the police are alerted that we have an interest in this person. At that point, if it is a firearms issue or the police have a serious concern about anything, we get contacted on, not regular, but occasionally by the serious and organised crime squads saying, what is your interest in this person and then we will pass our information. I am assuming, and I would hope that this protocol would lead to the fact that, and it was myself that individually suggested it, that the police are aware of what we are doing at an earlier stage. If there is any concern that there could be a crossover in any other form of criminality, then the police can address that aspect. I hope that that makes sense to everybody, that it makes sense to me. The other thing that came to light during the review process was around the question of evidence and the standards for evidence. What came from the Crown Office representative through that process is that, whether it is Police Scotland or SSPCA, if issues have been raised about the standards of evidence gathering, that has been taken on board and together they have worked to improve that. Again, in that partnership sense, there is a continuous improvement that can be taken. I do not imagine that, under scenario 2, that that would be any different. If there was an issue about the standard of evidence, it would be addressed by the SSPCA in the same way that it has in the past or in the same way that issues have been raised about Police Scotland evidence. For a protocol, ideally, we would be looking for notification before, during or immediately after the execution of those new powers so that we could make an assessment of any work that we have on going, whether we want to drop everything and come and be involved or we can have a follow-up discussion in a meeting. After that, we have to decide where we are going to go and what direction we are going to go. Is it something that the SSPCA could report to the fiscal? That communication would be absolutely key again before, during or immediately after. We would be looking for that to be quite time-scaling writing. Just to add our thanks to Professor Davies for conducting the review in a really rigorous way, in terms of our expectations for training, if that is going to come to fruition, our expectation would be, and it is set out in paragraph 26 of Professor Davies' review, but we would hope that anybody involved in investigating wildlife crime would complete the wildlife crime officer two-day induction course and, along with the investigator training course, which is a one-week-long training course and repeated twice a year, and indeed more advanced training for those that are perhaps exercising additional powers, whether that is relevant, I do not know. The salient point here is that those two training courses, which ultimately underpin the investigation of wildlife crime in Scotland, our expectation would be that SSPCA inspectors, who are charged and granted these additional powers, prior to that happening, would have to complete those exact requisite courses. DS Lynn summarises the de-confliction issue around it when you have two organisations using similar powers, the notifications before, during or after. I think that the during and after is a really good governance process, so if you have powers and you take every reasonable step to notify Police Scotland, that shows good governance. The only thing I would put out there for stakeholders to consider is, before notifications, we have had issues previously in England and Wales with pre-notifications technically becoming an agent of the police, and that is now the right time to discuss that. If you are all getting powers that are to be used reactively, the pre-notification, we have to have the open discussion around where does that sit, because it is going to be de-conflicted. It was me that suggested that, if anything involved this, we would call 101 before we even enter, because half the problem that we have had is that we do call for police assistance, and there is nobody available immediately. It was my suggestion that, before 101, here is what I am doing, I am going in here, and that goes to the mainframe police, it goes to the relevant bit, if they want to turn up at the exact same time, brilliant, but if not, at least they know about it and they have got the contact number now to deal with it after. One thing to bear in mind is that that approach works if there is an anticipation that you are going to come across certain evidence that falls under a wildlife offence, but one of the issues is the SSPC attending not in anticipation of finding such evidence, and what happens then when, essentially in exercising your 2006 powers under an animal health and welfare issue, you stumble across wildlife evidence and then our concern is that, in that moment, everything is in place for the evidence to be gathered lawfully and properly, so I think that that is the issue when evidence is stumbled across, we would be interested to see how that would work. Bring it back in, Kevin. It's a cool working point of view, that would be you're out there, you're doing your job, you come across something that you need, your additional powers, good governance would be, do you want 101 as you do, you have a Get Police Scotland interest or you don't, and if you don't, then you can fall back on your new additional powers and that provides your governance process. Absolutely. To apply to who you raised earlier, Ross, they're just out there trying to find stuff. We've already informed the police that this is the land that we're going on to and the reason why, which 99 times 800 is because of a complaint that we've received from a member of the public, that's information that we tend to be dealing on. What I'm going to do, I'm going to jump questions so members, please don't get in a panic that I'm missing out questions, but I think it's probably appropriate to go to the question that Rhoda Grant was going to ask on resources and training, because I think it ties in with the conversation that we're having at the moment, Rhoda. Thank you, convener. For Mike, I wonder if you are going to need more, we've talked about training, but more trained officers to carry out this role. Do you see that role expanding with the new powers? And also, what are the resourcing impacts of all of this? I know that your closing offices in Caithness, in my constituency, I don't suppose we're the only ones having SSPC offices closed. Have you the resources to take on this work? This is all based on the fact that we're already there dealing with it. The issues of the offices, it's not offices, it was our kennels in Balmore and Ayr have closed, but that's part of our community engagement model, which is a totally separate arm of the Scottish SSPC, and it's a 10-year vision for us to improve the service that we've got for pet owners and the public. The inspectorate side, this all came about because we're already there dealing with the member of the public's concern, and we can deal with the immediate animal that's there, but we're not allowed to do anything surrounding that area. So there's no plan on increasing our resource when we're going to put in an extra 20 inspectors, and it'll not be all inspectors that will end up being trained and doing the proper training. So there's no additional resource, there should be no additional cost to us, and in a way it might actually save us money because we're there, then we've got to go and involve the police at the moment, wait until they're available, and then we've got to go back. A lot of the things that we could have done, we could have just done there in the first visit, obviously part of the protocol and all that stuff. So there's no additional resource getting put into place by the Scottish SPC for not going to be employing more inspectors to deal with the fact that we've got this slaggy extension to the 2006 site. David Lins indicated to come in and then I'll come to Ian Bathill. Just for regards to Police Scotland's training, so we do indeed run two wildlife training courses, a two-day introductory course and a five-day more advanced investigators course. It would need to be a decision made executive level, really, as to whether SSPCA could sit in on those training courses, and that wouldn't be for me to say today, or commit to today. But, I mean, the five-day course, for example, there are probably some inputs, or there are some inputs that wouldn't really be suitable for the SSPCA to be present for, with regards to covert policing methods and things like that. So it's certainly not necessarily just a given that we could incorporate the SSPC into our current training model, we may need to divide some sort of new system, and again that would need that kind of executive support, so that might not be quite as straightforward as maybe it seems at the moment. In relation to resourcing, I think it's important to note that the role of a reporting agency extends well beyond the initial seizure of evidence. Now, the agency that ultimately reports the case to us is responsible for that case moving forward in terms of providing the evidence to us, providing the report. Our preference would be for any offences involving a wildlife charge to be reported by Police Scotland, but, I suppose, if the bill was to allow the SSPCA to report wildlife offenses to us, we would want some assurances that they are effectively resourced to do the follow-up work after that point. So our requirements is that we require an agency to report cases to us timeously, to submit all evidence to us effectively and properly, and then to make potential further inquiries throughout the life of the cases we require it. So I think that we would need some assurances from the SSPCA that they are effectively resourced to do that on-going work if they were to report those additional offences to us. Just look at the badger cases that we've put in. That involves post mort-on's venues statements, third-party statements, but we're already doing that, and if we weren't, your department would be the first to tell us. Briefly, convener, thank you for bringing me in. Professor Davies's review again kind of gives, I suppose, makes a point of references to kind of what sort of number of wildlife crime instances are generally reported each day, citing Police Scotland data. So there's around 5,000 incidents reviewed daily by Police Scotland of which five, on average of five, are suspected to be wildlife crime instances. So I suppose just to give, I suppose, the committee a flavour of, I suppose, the sort of the demand that could be expected. We would probably also like some reassurances that that would be something that the Scottish SSPCA could actually could handle in terms of their resourcing. Okay, thank you. Susan. Thank you, and thank you, Ross, for elevating me to Professor Mizz will do for the record. So, yeah, I think there is an important kind of piece which Ross has also highlighted there, which is the education piece with the public, which is again a kind of function of the partnership against wildlife crime as to what a wildlife crime actually is, so that the right things are being reported through 101 or the other kind of reporting measures to be followed up as well, and that helps limit the scope in terms of the amount of resource which gets drawn into things that are not actually a wildlife crime. Okay, thank you. I'm going to move on a question from Karen Adam. Thank you. I think my question has been extensively answered through a lot of supplementaries, but just to drill into maybe some of the detail of that that we haven't heard, really talking about a point on official investigation and what that actually means has been a bit of a bona contention. It's raised some concerns with stakeholders, and at what point would an official investigation be launched? I think the concerns have came from the fact that, you know, a licence could be suspended at that point, so just throwing that out, what do we actually mean by official investigation? Part of the protocol should state that only Police Scotland can notify NatureScot of information that they could then suspend, whether it's a general licence or a licence under the Grousmer Management legislation that's going through just now. I think it's key that it's only Police Scotland that can trigger that process from NatureScot. I don't think that that should fall under the SSPCA, personally, from Police Scotland's perspective. We don't think that that response really should fall under the SSPCA, so that will be very important from our perspective, certainly. Process, it would be the information passed to the Police to then assess it and then advise NatureScot if that was relevant. Just in terms of an official investigation, it entirely depends on what you consider an official investigation to be really as to when that starts, because, as I said in a previous session, as soon as someone makes contact with the Police, an incident is raised, so some could consider that to be an investigation commencing because there will have to be some sort of fall-up with that. Some may consider an investigation to start when a witness statement, the first witness statement from a complainer or a witness is taken, so it's really quite subjective. There's no definitive answer really as to when an official investigation starts. It just depends on what you consider to be an official investigation really. I think that that's where the problem lies, is that the legislation states an official investigation, and last week the minister suggested that that would be on the production of a crime number, so there's still some gray areas over that. I'll bring in Ross Ewing on that. Thanks, convener. The establishment of an official investigation as being the basis for license suspension in our view is completely inadequate. We don't think it's potentially legally sound either. Obviously, reference was made last week to the allocation of a crime reference number being the basis on which a license could be suspended, and I'll quote here from the Scottish Government's own recording and counting rules published in October 2023, which gives a bit of insight as to when a crime reference number is allocated, so it says on page 8, in the main, incidents reported to the police as crimes will result in a corresponding crime report being created. The inference that we've taken from that is that genuinely it's in the case of an allegation sometimes does result in a crime number being allocated. That is really no difference to where we started from with regards to the establishment of an official investigation, and in our view does not provide sufficient legal safeguards to prospective licence holders that actually they couldn't be the subject of a vexatious allegation or something to that effect, so we would strongly robustly go against the proposal that was floated by the minister last week. We do not think it's inadequate in any way, shape or form. Kevin Carly. Thank you. There's a number of issues at play there because people have got the right to report a crime. People can report things and quite often they're at conflict. As far as an investigation goes, I've always been personally really clear and it's at the point that you suspect something, and that's a really good point of measurement that when you suspect that a crime has happened to your investigation stats, there are lots of administrative activities that can take place before you reach that point of suspicion. There may be the foundations to get into that point. That's probably something for discussion as we look at MOUs potentially around it all but being really clear the investigation stat at the point of a suspicion of a crime because if you're just investigating somebody and you don't suspect them, that's not right. This is certainly something that has caused the committee quite a few concerns. The minister last week said that we are looking at a few options, but I'm currently minded to make that when something has a crime number. Can I have the views again, Kevin Carly and David, on that? If you ring the control room and report something, it will naturally go to an incident number, so you get issued an incident number.  There's actually no metrics in there, I've actually lost it drunk because that's a general incident number or has somebody stolen it because that's a crime number. Having a number doesn't always accurately reflect the report that sits behind it. That's a process issue and that's something that's current within policing that probably wouldn't be remedied, but at the point that you suspect a crime it goes from a general incident to a crime report. David? It's hard to say when would be the best benchmark for an official investigation and obviously I know the minister had said when a crime reference number is raised and that that could well be, you know, that's certainly an option. I think we've all, there are issues we could potentially raise a crime report though, but after some investigation is established there is indeed no crime, so a crime report can be no crime as the terminology we use in the police at which point a crime report is then basically written off, so there are added complications with that as well. It doesn't seem like there's going to be an ideal time at which to declare an official investigation. I think no matter when it's chosen there's going to be, you know, an element, a potential element of debate around it. Okay, I've got Mike Ross and then I think Susan. Yeah, convener, from our point of view, as Kevin said, it's when you've got a suspicion because a lot of the jobs that we get, we turn up and you go right, there's nothing here, there's no crime involved, whatever. We don't issue crime numbers obviously. In the scenario that's getting in place to it, the nearest we would get to it is if we've applied for a Scottish general record number because we've got sufficient evidence to report to the fiscal, that would be the closest that would be for us because we don't have that crime classification. But once again, for clarity, when someone phones up and says of suspicion that something is taking part, does that trigger a crime number and is that sufficient to then potentially lead to NatureScot suspending or evoking a licence? I think that's the context that we're in. Sorry, I forgot. Kevin, are you coming in and then Ross? There's more information provided in the document that I just quoted, so it gives some kind of information as to when a crime number would generally be reported. So if someone is able to provide an approximate date or date range of the alleged offence, an approximate locus, or if a modus operandi can be established, then that would generally result in a crime number being afforded. I think that the point that we'd make on this is that the wildlife management and mureburn bill for the licensing schemes for grouse shooting, mureburn and the first certain wildlife traps has got a provision that says that a licence can be suspended or revoked so long as the regulator is satisfied to the civil burden of proof that's on the balance of probabilities that our relevant offence has been committed. Surely that is sufficient to achieve the policy aim. What we're talking about is a reduction in the burden of proof that is required to be able to suspend someone's licence. We've gone away from the criminal burden of proof. We're talking about the civil burden of proof now. NatureScot would have the capacity as long as they were satisfied to the civil burden to suspend or revoke somebody's licence because of a relevant individual who has committed a relevant crime. I would really hope that that would be sufficient and addresses the policy aim. I do not see a circumstance where a suspension, where the regulator isn't satisfied of a relevant offence having been committed, being warranted in any circumstance. I just want to set that out. That document that I referenced in the first instance could potentially be quite instructive for the committee's deliberations. Thank you, convener. This isn't an issue in terms of detail that we looked at as part of the review process. It was more about the direction of travel. I think that it is something that the different options will need to be explored as part of the protocols that are put in place. My thoughts at the moment are that we have nothing like enough information to inform the committee on whether we're supportive of that measure, given that there's no detail on the ground and from what we hear that there appears to be a lot that needs to be on the face of the bill. One thing that jumped side to me is that if an SSPCA officer was to question someone who may be a suspect, do they need to be cautioned? If they're cautioned, does that then add more weight to being an official investigation, which could then lead to NatureScot suspending a licence? That's a concern, Ian. Legally speaking, there are different definitions of suspicion. There is a level of suspicion that requires—well, that leads to a police officer's SSPCA attending at an address, but then there is a different—a legal definition of when suspicion crystallises that requires someone to be cautioned and advised of their rights. I think that any wording would need to be very detailed and very prescriptive, because general terms like suspicion carry different meanings to different organisations. I think that we need to be cautious for that. Just going back on that, a sure SSPCA would then have to have training on to which point cautioning somebody would be appropriate, because we've heard from Mike that the police can't always respond in a timely manner to some wildlife crimes. How would that work in practice? That's the exact scenario, like the badger bait, in case what we're talking about. The concern has been raised with you, so you've got your suspicion. You go there and verify that what's being claimed is true. You can identify that to the accused, and that's when you've got to caution some. As soon as we think that you must be cautioned, you've got to be given your rights. So we already do that. It is widely a common pitfall for any reporting agency that this legal definition of when suspicion crystallises, and there are plenty of cases reported to us where there may be admissions made by an accused person, where we consider that they should have been cautioned before that point, and that is at a risk, and again, the mitigation of that risk comes from sufficient training to make sure that it's done properly. Can I, at this point, bring in Ian Thompson from RSPB? We often hear about raptors being found on the roadside and whatever. What's your involvement in this, and how do you think SSPCA powers could lead to more? I've worked on the front line of wildlife crime investigation in Scotland for coming on for 17 years. As an RSPB employee, we don't have any powers. I'm just a member of a public, and members of the public have been mentioned a few times in this session. As a member of the public who occasionally receives reports from other members of the public, or occasionally me or my team comes across potential evidence of wildlife crime, we regularly report those incidents to Police Scotland under current circumstances if an animal is dead, or if we receive a report that an animal is suffering, then our first port of call would be to the SSPCA, because our primary objective is to have that animal treated or euthanised. One of the key things that we've found over many, many years working in this is the importance of partnership working. SSPCA, in our view, brings considerable added value to wildlife crime investigations, often because they have a resource that Police Scotland doesn't necessarily have. In my view, with regard to police officers who are experienced in investigating wildlife crime cases, at the moment there are probably about a dozen who are regularly doing wildlife crime investigations and taking to the level of reporting them to the Procurator Fiscal in the whole of Scotland. I think that the increased powers offered by the proposals increase the potential that wildlife criminals will be detected and potentially prosecuted. I think that that has a significant deterrent value above and beyond everything else that has been said today. Just to add, I suppose, an alternative view on this, one of the things that we've got real concerns about is the ability of the Scottish SSPCA to operate under a clear presumption of innocence, and that was obviously something that was alluded to in Susan Davies' report. As part of our research before this session today, I consulted with 129 land managers to find out how many of them had trust and confidence in the Scottish SSPCA being able to investigate wildlife crime in an impartial and unbiased way. We surveyed 129 people in total, and the people who said no to having trust and confidence in the Scottish SSPCA was 97 per cent and only 1 per cent said yes. I want to highlight that there is that concern about the presumption of innocence, and that needs to really be there and established within these protocols. It's really, really important that we have that, and I just wanted to put that on the record. Some of the conversations here are as if we're thinking of the SSPCA as an organisation that's coming to this completely new, that has never dealt with evidence, with reporting cases to Procurator Fiscal. I don't have a copy in front of me, but the Scottish Government's annual wildlife crime report details the number of cases the SSPCA hasn't been involved in, and there are more qualified people around the table than I am to see how many cases are reported to the Crown Office every year. However, the SSPCA is not new at doing this, so it is dealing with investigations into criminals, including some who are committing wildlife offences. I think that that's an important point to make. David Lyon, please feel free to correct me if anyone has a different take on it, from the minister's evidence and from reading over the proposal. It sounds like this is meant to supplement Police Scotland and assist Police Scotland, and I think that overall aim is to provide that evidence to Police Scotland for us to then take it further. I think that that's where it becomes slightly different from Ian's point. The SSPCA is not doing something from start to finish potentially with this. It is going to do the initial work and then potentially pass it to us, I think, is the intention. We are then relying on the integrity of that work for our further investigations. As I said earlier on, that's just where it becomes more complicated, because any potential missteps at that point could then have an impact on the wider police investigation, by which point some recent investigations have picked up speed. They've grown hugely. It started out as a relatively minor incident, and it can turn into an incident where you've got numerous accused persons, and it's a massive case. That's where it becomes slightly different. It's not just the SSPCA that are going to be dealing with something from start to finish, so any kind of misstep would be there to deal with the potential of wider implications in terms of our following investigations and inquiries. I think that the only other point that I would add at this is that the decision to prosecute is, of course, not sitting with the SSPCA or Police Scotland. It's sitting with a crown office, and that's the ultimate control in this on the basis of the standard of the evidence and the quality of that that is presented. I think that one thing to highlight is that, ultimately, if we're talking about the SSPCA's impartiality and presumption of innocence, that comes down to an assessment of its credibility and reliability. That assessment is ordinarily carried out at the end at a trial by the decision maker, whether that's a sheriff or a jury. Our test is to assess if there's sufficient evidence and then apply the public interest test. I think that it was suggested in Susan's report that the impartiality test for SSPCA might happen at the public interest assessment from our point of view. Every case comes down to its own facts and circumstances, but I would suggest that, in general terms, that wouldn't be unlikely that we would not take proceedings on a case because it has been investigated by the SSPCA and there is wider concerns about their impartiality or things like that. In general terms, it would get through our public interest test, and then it's ultimately a matter for the decision maker at the trial. There is a reasonable anticipation that the defence in a case would found upon that point and would robustly question SSPC officers on that point, and I think that that's something to be anticipated that could affect the outcome of cases. That's probably a proper point to bring. Rachel Hamilton has got further questions on the protocol that needs to exist between the Scottish SSPCA and Police Scotland. First of all, I just wanted to say that we won't see this protocol as part of this bill. I think that everybody does understand that, and I've got concerns about the extension of the SSPCA powers if the provisions are granted in the bill. We haven't seen those protocols. Will the SSPCA be able to use those extended powers without a protocol? That's sort of my first point, but the protocol itself, we want to understand what will be in the protocol and what will be part of the agreed standards. It has been touched on slightly, but who is the best person to speak to? In the report, what we set out was that the issues around the training, the standard of evidence that has to be gathered, the trigger points for notifying the police as well, all those things that have been touched on this morning would need to be picked up within the protocol. I think that, in terms of that sort of investigation power that would be extended to the SSPCA if it was granted, it's very much given to an individual inspector, and so there is a review process which goes in place as well. If someone is found not to be conforming to the protocol, then that power can be removed from that individual. It's not an organisational consent as such, it's more to the individual. Again, I think that that just needs to be very clearly set out as another safeguard in the process. If the protocol includes the training, the training involves some of the training that would need to be done by the SSPCA to take an investigation further. What would be the unintended consequences if the SSP were given those powers to investigate without the police? That's the current situation because crucial aspects of an investigation are currently out of their reach and the police Scotland have actually been slightly concerned about that. If a protocol was set, would that be covered by the review of the individual? Perhaps they were overreaching or not carrying out their functions in the standard that was expected. What are the unintended consequences of that going undetected? Ultimately, they are going to have to follow a set of protocols. They are going to have to gather and preserve evidence in a certain way and they are going to, through the agreement with the police, have the discussion about how that needs to be presented and handed over. I think that it's been alluded to earlier on today as well that there has to be timescales around that, too. There is already exceptionally good partnership working between Police Scotland and the SSPCA and others within the wider partnership for wildlife crime. Those are an extension of some protocols that are already in place under the powers that Mike Nees' team already has under the animal welfare act. There are a huge number of unintended consequences. I think that the safeguard of giving an individual that right to follow up on the evidence and having the ability to withdraw that, if issues are raised by Police Scotland and are considered under the protocol, then you've got the safeguards in place. There are not too many unintended consequences there. David, on the parts that were highlighted by Police Scotland in previous evidence around their concerns, do you have any concerns about how robust the protocols will be and how the standards in the training and everything else will be met by your partnership agreement? Ultimately, we won't be able to agree to a protocol unless we feel it's suitable. It meets its purpose, ultimately, as of online. I don't think that to say that we would be concerned about the protocol. We couldn't agree to a protocol unless everyone was happy with its contents. For me, as I said before, the key part is really quite basic communication. Notification will be absolutely key for Police Scotland. I don't mean always possible because the SSPCA will be on land under existing powers, but we want to know before, during or immediately after those powers are exercised. We can then make decisions based on where the inquiry is going to go, where the investigation is going to go, what needs to be done, what has been done. That will be absolutely key. That will probably be the key part of the protocol as far as I'm concerned. I know that all those other things are crucial as well. However, if we are cited on something, we can then make decisions. Without that communication, in theory—with an increase in powers like this—the SSPCA could be on land under existing powers, see a wildlife crime as specified in the list in the proposal, seize evidence, deal with it entirely and report to the fiscal, with any police involvement whatsoever. In theory, minus things like a police interview, obviously, but an official kind of police suspect interview. In theory, that could happen, so communication is absolutely key. That notification is really important because there could be unintended consequences with that. I don't think that the purpose of the proposal is to afford the SSPCA that much power to be able to run with a full investigation and start to finish, but that's potentially the power that will be given if the agreement to ourselves isn't very, very clear. Jim Fairlie. Thanks, convener. I'm going to ask this question to yourself, Susan and Mike and David, a very straightforward question. Susan, you just said that there is a very good working relationship between Police Scotland and the SSPCA at the moment, so what is the need for the extra power? The need for the extra power is quite simply that if the SSPCA arrive on the land and the animal is dead, they have no powers to act and to gather that evidence. That evidence, if the Police Scotland can't get there quickly, could be lost, so it gives them the power to act on that evidence if the animal is dead. OK, and Mike, you would agree that that's the purpose of it? That's the essence of it because we have been there, we have contacted Police Scotland and for whatever reason, somebody has not been available and we've had to walk away so that the evidence can get damaged by the weather, can disappear, can whatever. It's a kind of failsafe just to take that gap that's missing because there is no issue between the Scottish SSPCA and the Police who we work with on a daily basis on a range of things. David. The relationship between the Police and the SSPCA is generally good, we have issues that you'll have between any two ages working together, at times maybe communication isn't great and things can fall by the wayside, but generally speaking the relationship is good. Any increase in powers would have to be very limited? I believe so, yes. Police Scotland's view is that the increase in power should be purely just if the increase is going to happen at all, we are generally going to oppose it, but if the increase is going to happen at all it should just be at those initial stages and that would meet the concerns that have been highlighted about seizing evidence then and there and not having to wait for the Police. Again, as I said earlier on, though, this increase in powers could potentially lead to unintended consequences of, in reality, affording them far more power than maybe was intended. We've got nothing in front of us at all, we've got a direction of travel. Can I ask Susie specifically, should there be far more detail in the face of the bill around the additional powers, the requirements, the safeguards that we might need to put in place? Independent scrutiny of SSPCA, given the hugely increased potential impact of even an initiation of an investigation resulting in the loss of a licence or whatever, should there be a lot more in the face of the bill than just a guidance or a protocol that's part, not even of sector legislation, should that detail be on the face of the bill? I don't think that it's required in the face of the bill. Having that code of practice and the working protocols is sufficient to provide the safeguards that are required. It comes back to the question that you posed to the minister the other day, convener, which is whether the additional powers should be enacted before those protocols are in place. There is already a good understanding, a good relationship between those partners. I don't see that it should take a huge amount of time and effort to put the protocol in place and to agree that. Thanks, convener. Just to pick up on a point that we were a little bit concerned about reading Susan Davies' review, paragraph 30 makes reference to the fact that Police Scotland and the National Wildlife Crime Unit expressed concern that extending powers to the Scottish SPCA could result in wider crime investigations being disrupted. To us, we're all committed to tackling wildlife crime and getting it to the absolute lowest levels possible. When we were reading that particular paragraph and the police's evidence that they submitted to the committee, it's pretty excoriating. Our worry is that we could be compromising potentially some wildlife crime investigations if, as we've said and set out, the protocol isn't really watertight and ironed out. We just really would emphasise the importance of getting that protocol right. Again, early and effective communication could negate that. If we are notified of exercising those additional powers at a very early stage, that could negate any damage to any wider police investigation, ultimately. Thank you, convener. The report, as well, predates my time there, and I've looked at that. I don't necessarily share the views from the NWCU at that time and would like to move forward looking at working in partnership. It goes back to my opening comment around governance and managing the risk around it, which is where I see the issues here is what's policing's appetite for risk. If we get this right via what's the EBOU, what's the pathway to delivery look like, then is it trialable to work? Without that, there's too much risk to policing to be able to say. There's one piece of information that I want to get in record, because the response I got wasn't quite clear from Mike. I'm going to read this out to make sure that I'm being clear. For the SSPC, it was to respond to a call about a live animal caught in a trap under its powers under the 2006 act, but the animal died before the inspector arrived at the scene. Would the current proposals enable an approved inspector then to enter land to gather evidence of a suspected wildlife crime? Ask me what the potential might happen. Would the new powers, as you understand them, allow you to enter the land to gather evidence? Well, I'm not trying to be obtrusive, but we would know. As I explained before, I think it was in the previous session, that animal actually died while we were standing there. Yes, I think that's the point. Would the direction of travel that the legislation is taking at the moment, if you were to get a call about a live animal and if you arrived and it was dead, would it currently allow you to then undertake a collection of evidence? I would say yes. In that instance, if somebody phoned us up saying that there's a dead raptor up a hill and it's been there for six months, phoned Police Scotland. Susan, is that your understanding? My understanding at the moment is that if the SSPC gets a call about a live animal and it arrives and that animal is dead, they are very limited in what they can do, so that power would give them more scope to then investigate that. That's helpful. We're in new territory with this new protocol. If somebody had their license suspended on the basis of an investigation that had been carried out through the agreed protocol that we haven't seen, would that individual have the ability to appeal against the process that had been carried out within the protocol, if they believed that the protocol hadn't been followed? I suppose that it's hard to say without a protocol being in place at the moment and knowing what the legal obligations are in terms of that. If it's not going to be on the bill, then I imagine it would be quite difficult to raise any issues. If the detail within the protocol is not contained on the bill itself, then I don't know how you could really take issue with just basically what is a standard operating procedure between two agencies. I don't know the honest answer. Very brief last comments. I've got Susan, Outros and Ian. Just in relation to that point, I think that you're talking about a licence which NatureScot would be issuing. In that situation, it would have to go back to NatureScot for review. Obviously, I can't speak for NatureScot. I have worked for them in the past and there is a process that they would go through to look at any evidence that was presented for revoking a licence or if something happened that suggested that that had been the wrong course of action. That would be a NatureScot issue for their internal procedures to be in place to cover that. Ross, just a small correction, convener, because the right to appeal on the context of the grouse shoot lightens is actually to the sheriff court, so it would be them that would make the determination of any appeal that was made and on that they'd be looking at everything on fact and law. That would be the mechanism through which it would happen. I think that we would then reiterate that the right to appeal is comprehensively undermined if the regulator actually doesn't need to be satisfied that a relevant offence has been committed. You've got no avenues then or no evidence that you can throw back if you do want to go down an appeal if that is the low baseline without proof that they are essentially setting as being the right mechanism for licence suspension. Ian Thomson. Susan Davis made the point that I was going to make. Very briefly. I could be right to the minister on this specific point because I'm still some dubiety in my mind around how that would work. I think that there are still some questions around what constitutes an official investigation as it's on the bill at the moment and what involvement NatureScot would have in deciding whether a crime had been committed, so we can certainly write for a little bit more clarification. I would like to thank you all very much. That's been a really productive and interesting session and it'll help us in our deliberations further down the line, so thank you all for your time today. That concludes our business for today, and I formally close this meeting.