I do, if that is okay, convener. I appreciate the opportunity and hope that it will be of value to the committee.
I am pleased to give an update on Scotland’s second annual report on wildlife crime. We are all here because the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 introduced a requirement for the Scottish Government to lay before Parliament an annual report into the extent of wildlife crime. As you will be aware, this is our second report, and I am pleased that we have been able to implement some improvements on the basis of feedback that my officials and I have received.
Last year, I said that this publication should serve as a reminder of the importance of doing everything that we can to challenge these abhorrent crimes. The reasons for doing so remain the same. Until they are eradicated, the impacts of wildlife crime will continue to stain Scotland’s reputation, and I know that I am not alone in holding the view that that is simply unacceptable.
Although we cannot possibly see trends in data in only two years, the report has again shown that poaching and coursing are a high-volume area of crime. While poaching may not harm the conservation status of deer, the loss of a golden eagle such as Fearnan at the end of 2013 and the mass killing of red kites in Ross-shire in March this year will certainly have consequences for those local populations of rare raptors. I share the revulsion of many people that such cruel and selfish crimes against raptors still occur in the 21st century.
The 2013 report includes information on court proceedings for wildlife crime offences over the past five years, police recorded crimes for the past five years, recent legislative changes and the future direction of wildlife crime policy. We have endeavoured to simplify the look of the data in the report by recording offence type by species rather than by legislation. We have also added sub-totals to the tables so that the reader can better see the changes in numbers across the five-year period. I hope that you will agree that those minor changes have improved the reader’s experience and understanding of a complex and difficult area.
Before I move on, I will take a moment to thank some of the key contributors to the report. The Scottish Government’s justice analytical services team, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Police Scotland and the national wildlife crime unit have, once again, supplied figures and explanation for this year’s report. Partnership against wildlife crime Scotland stakeholders have also provided advice and feedback that have been valued by my officials.
Last year, I said that it would be ideal if we could track each criminal case from discovery through to detection, prosecution and, ultimately, court disposal. We are still at a point when the justice system’s data simply does not allow that follow through, but it is clear that data on recorded crime is almost impossible to reconcile with court statistics because of the often lengthy time periods between the crime taking place and the court hearing. Also, some information is available on a financial year basis while other information is available on a calendar year basis. Last year, I talked about those difficulties and the need for change in that respect and, as Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm Graham said last week, key officials from the various agencies are starting work to get the data more consistent for next year’s report.
In 2013, the first ever case went to court to consider prosecution under the vicarious liability provisions that were brought into force by the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011. It remains to be seen what the outcome of that will be, but I am in no doubt that close attention will be paid to its outcome—not least by me. I am also aware of the second potential case, which is due to commence this month.
In February last year, I announced a further two years of funding for the national wildlife crime unit in Livingston. The unit provides a valuable service to the police nationwide by providing intelligence packages and investigative support. It has also announced three new measures to assist in the fight against wildlife crime. Professor Mark Poustie from the University of Strathclyde is midway through the review of wildlife crime penalties that I initiated and he will report back to me probably early in the new year. Both Police Scotland, which appeared before the committee on 29 October, and the Lord Advocate have confirmed the use of all appropriate technology for investigations, including surveillance cameras. ACC Malcolm Graham outlined the restrictions that the police face in the use of surveillance, but I am confident that such technology can be used where that is appropriate, and the Lord Advocate has made it clear that the option is available to Police Scotland.
The new measure that has perhaps attracted most attention is the introduction of new restrictions on the use of the general licence by Scottish Natural Heritage when there is evidence of wildlife crime taking place. The measure was formally announced on 6 October. Although it may not, on its own, eliminate such selfish and cruel practices overnight, I firmly believe that it will be a deterrent to those who are contemplating criminal acts both because of its practical impact on those landholdings to which it is applied and because of its reputational impact. We should bear in mind that the general licence is a privilege, not a right. It reflects the fact that we trust that its provisions will be used responsibly and constitutes a very light-touch form of regulation. It seems absolutely right to me that, on the basis of evidence that is provided by Police Scotland, where there is a strong reason to suspect that wildlife crime is taking place and trust has been lost, that privilege should be withdrawn and greater scrutiny applied.
Crucially, SNH will be able to consider imposing such a restriction in cases from 1 January this year. It remains to be seen when the first restriction will be imposed by SNH, the circumstances that it is deployed in and the effect that it will have. Implementing the restriction has not been a straightforward measure, and that was reflected in the length of time that it took to finalise the scheme. I thank all those who have been involved in its implementation.
I confirm that there have been informal discussions with both stakeholders and the Crown on the pesticides disposal scheme, which I will formally announce shortly. The scheme will focus on the removal of the illegal substances that are most commonly used in wildlife crime and that it is already an offence to possess. They are listed in the Possession of Pesticides (Scotland) Order 2005 and include strychnine, carbofuran and cyanide.
The report is designed to inform our response to wildlife crime and ensure that there is appropriate scrutiny of trends as they emerge. Wildlife crime is an issue that I am determined to eliminate, and the report is a useful tool in monitoring progress. I look forward to answering the committee’s questions on the annual report.