Plenary, 04 Oct 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, October 4, 2007

Official Report 756KB pdf

---

Wildlife Crime

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-609, in the name of Michael Russell, on wildlife crime.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament notes the collaborative work being undertaken by a variety of agencies to fight wildlife crime and commends the enthusiasm and commitment of those involved in that fight; regrets that, despite these efforts and some highly successful prosecutions, 2006 was the worst year ever for recorded wildlife poisoning incidents and figures so far for 2007 show no improvement; condemns those responsible for such acts which destroy vital parts of our natural and national heritage while damaging our international reputation, and welcomes the thematic inspection of arrangements for the prevention, investigation and prosecution of wildlife crime which will be undertaken by HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary in association with HM Chief Inspector of Prosecutions in Scotland which will make recommendations by 31 March 2008.—[Michael Russell.]

I am grateful for the opportunity to open today's debate on wildlife crime. It is not routine for a law officer to make an opening speech of this kind, so I am not in my natural habitat. My contribution to the debate is not political and is made entirely within the limits of my duties and responsibilities as a public prosecutor, firmly rooted in the application of the criminal law that Parliament has laid down and in the public interest. It is made with the intention of providing Parliament with a factual basis to inform the debate.

Members will be aware of the range of crimes and offences in respect of which the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is responsible for prosecution. The department is responsible for prosecuting crimes and offences that are reported by more than 52 reporting agencies. Serious and organised crime, violent and sexual crimes, drug dealing, child abuse, terrorism, health and safety, environmental crime and antisocial behaviour all demand the best attention and priority of Scotland's prosecution service. We also recognise the impact that wildlife crime has on our unique and precious natural heritage. In determining the public interest, we are aware of the strength of feeling that such crimes engender and the widespread public concern that there should be effective enforcement of the law.

Although crimes against wildlife present particular challenges, prosecutors must have regard to exactly the same laws of sufficiency, evidence and procedure as in any other criminal prosecution. Our task as prosecutors is, first, to decide whether a crime has been committed and, if so, what crime. Next, and crucially, we must decide whether there is sufficient admissible evidence in law to identify the perpetrator and to bring home his or her guilt. Finally, we must assess whether it is in the public interest to take criminal proceedings. Those decisions will be made dispassionately, independently and without fear or favour.

Effective prosecution begins with effective investigation. Many of Scotland's forces have trained wildlife crime officers. I understand that there are currently four full-time wildlife crime officers and approximately 90 police officers who have received specialist training. I recently met two such officers from Lothian and Borders Police, Mark Rafferty—who I think is here today—and Jim McGovern. It is clear from meeting and speaking to them that they bring energy, dedication and expertise to their work. In addition, the police run regular and well-attended training courses on dealing with wildlife crime at the police college at Tulliallan.

The national wildlife crime unit is a police unit with a United Kingdom-wide remit. It is based in North Berwick, thanks to the support of Lothian and Borders Police. The unit provides police forces throughout the UK with intelligence and analytical support on wildlife crime. It has provided useful support in those areas to Scottish police forces.

A key theme in combating wildlife crime is, of course, working together. The partnership for action against wildlife crime—or PAW as it is known—is a UK organisation with a separate Scottish sub-group. The partnership brings together a range of people with an interest in the area, from the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, to groups representing landowners and land managers, to environmental groups.

The wildlife and habitats crime prosecution forum also allows representatives of various agencies that are involved in the investigation of wildlife crime to meet twice a year to consider issues and identify problems relating to the prosecution of wildlife and habitats crime; to work towards bringing about any necessary improvements in law and practice; and to achieve the effective enforcement of wildlife and habitats policy. The next meeting is scheduled for 12 October 2007, and representatives from the Scottish Countryside Alliance and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association have been invited to talk about their work. However, no one voice will be heard above another.

I mention in this context the work of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency. SASA provides a highly professional and efficient post mortem service, which determines whether the carcases that are being sent to it in increasing numbers have been deliberately poisoned, are the victims of accidental misuse of pesticides or have died by some other means. It is the agency's rigorous scientific work that underlies successful prosecutions in the field. It also provides invaluable intelligence on the scale of the problem and the range of chemicals that are used by the criminals.

Will the Solicitor General take an intervention?

I will carry on; I might take the member in a minute.

In the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, we take seriously our role in the prosecution of wildlife crime and constantly consider how our approach can be improved. The investigation of wildlife crime is a difficult area with specific problems. It covers a wide range of criminal behaviour with widely varying motivations ranging from financial gain to sheer cruelty.

The significance of wildlife crime might vary. For example, it might have an economic significance where a property developer destroys a habitat for financial gain. It might threaten an endangered species, or it might have no conservation implications but instead raise issues of animal welfare. It might also raise public safety concerns, for example with the laying of poisoned baits.

The Solicitor General, probably more than most, is aware of my interest in ensuring that those at the head of an organisation are held to account for the crimes of that organisation. Will he assure me that, as part of the forthcoming review and in the prosecution of wildlife crimes, those who run the organisation are held to account equally with those who implement their decisions?

Karen Gillon makes a good point. It can be difficult to obtain evidence to prove that the owners of the land on which crimes are committed are responsible—to apply the law of causing and permitting requires proof of knowledge. Therein lies the difficulty, but I am sure that it will feature in the review that is to be carried out by Joe O'Donnell and Paddy Tomkins.

That brings me to the difficulties in detecting wildlife crimes because, as was mentioned, evidence can be notoriously hard to secure. As the chamber will be aware, in Scotland, the need for corroboration poses an additional hurdle that is not faced in other jurisdictions. Material evidence can easily be concealed or destroyed by the perpetrators and never come to light. Despite those challenges, wildlife officers are detecting, investigating and charging offenders and reporting such cases to the local procurator fiscal.

Once a case has been reported to the local fiscal, it is important that we understand its significance to ensure that the way in which we deal with it is appropriate and effective. Of course, when wildlife crime is set in the wider context, it constitutes a very small proportion of our day-to-day case load. That can mean that, with wildlife crime, fiscals often do not have the same opportunity to develop a wide understanding as they do in other areas of criminal law that they deal with more commonly.

That is why, in September 2004, a dedicated team of specialist wildlife prosecutors was appointed to strengthen the network of environmental specialists that had been established by the Lord Advocate earlier that year. We now have at least one wildlife specialist in each of the 11 areas of the department across Scotland. Their role is to act as the local contact for receiving reports of wildlife cases and to provide advice and information to wildlife investigators at any stage leading up to that. Where possible and if necessary, the wildlife specialists will mark and prosecute wildlife cases that are reported and will be available as a resource for other COPFS staff, providing advice and guidance when required.

The network is ably headed by Tom Dysart, the area fiscal for Dumfries and Galloway, who is one of the department's most senior, experienced and able prosecutors. He has extensive experience in the field and he chairs the wildlife and habitats crime prosecution forum.

An important feature of the wildlife specialist initiative is the opportunity that it will give the specialists to gain an appreciation of the bigger picture of wildlife crime enforcement from investigative agencies, stakeholders and interest groups. That is a departure from the usual day-to-day activities of an operational prosecutor, but I think that advancing our understanding of the context in which we are working, while retaining our necessary independence, is a vital component of improving our approach to wildlife crime.

The poisoning of the magnificent 15-year-old female golden eagle in the Borders in August was rightly greeted with outrage in all sections of the community and is tragically emblematic as an example of wildlife crime. However, it is, of course, the case that the criminal law protects a wide variety of species and outlaws a wide range of activities. There are many examples of successful prosecutions.

On 8 January 2006, a man was caught in the act of trapping wild songbirds—finches and siskins. Police acting on intelligence caught him using mist nets strung between poles in woodland to the south of Wallyford industrial estate in East Lothian. Several songbirds were recovered at the locus and a search of his parents' address revealed that 20 siskins, three bullfinches and a goldfinch—all of which had been caught in the wild—were being kept captive in an aviary. The man was fined a total of £1,000.

On 4 June 2007, a Borders gamekeeper pleaded guilty to the setting out of poisoned baits, possession of banned pesticides and further illegal use of cage traps. He was sentenced to 220 hours of community service. In 2004, a man who was convicted of the theft of birds' eggs received a fine of £5,000 and a prison sentence. I have had some professional dealings with that person. A Borders gamekeeper was convicted of killing a buzzard by setting poisoned bait. He pled guilty at Jedburgh sheriff court on 14 December 2006 and was sentenced to community service.

I have described in some detail the partnerships and organisations that exist in Scotland to combat wildlife crime. They strive to do good work. However, I am aware of the concern that the position is not uniformly strong throughout the country. There are concerns about different levels of resources being applied and about variations in the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions. We hear concerns about the priority that is given to such work in some areas and the difficulties in obtaining evidence to proceed with prosecutions. It has also been asked whether what are sometimes perceived to be light sentences reflect on the way in which cases are investigated and prosecuted. Whatever the balance between perception and reality, there is no room for complacency.

I therefore welcome unreservedly the joint thematic inspection of the wildlife crime functions of the police that is to be carried out by Paddy Tomkins, Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary, and Joe O'Donnell, Her Majesty's inspector of prosecution in Scotland. The joint review will provide an unparalleled insight into the investigation and prosecution of wildlife crime in Scotland. It will consider leadership, policy and strategy, partnership and resources, and processes. It will report in spring next year. The Lord Advocate and I will reflect carefully on its findings and are committed to acting on the recommendations that are made.

The Solicitor General mentioned that the police work with other bodies. Is it correct that the police allow bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to take evidence away from wildlife crime scenes for independent analysis?

The police have the power to enter land and secure evidence. On occasions they work with the RSPB, which assumes the role of expert witness and provides assistance and guidance to police officers. However, the reporting agency is the police, in the form of the wildlife crime officer, who reports to the procurator fiscal. The procurator fiscal will consider the provenance and chain of evidence and determine whether the case can be established and proved in a court of law.

It is essential for the economic health and successful biodiversity of our nation that we have protected, thriving wildlife. Wildlife is an inheritance to be cherished and the criminal law has an important part to play in its protection.

The motion is detailed and I have no doubt that it will provoke wide-ranging debate on a subject that is important to Scotland. I have outlined what I hope members will agree is a positive framework for the effective enforcement of the criminal law. Prosecutors have made an energetic start to the journey, but we have a way to go. We are willing to examine what we do and how we do it, with a view to improvement. We must do that in the context of the wider public interest, not as a response to the most vociferous lobby. That is the balance that prosecution in Scotland seeks to achieve. I welcome this debate.

Before I call Sarah Boyack, I point out to members a slight change to amendment S3M-609.1, in her name. The phrase "is required to" in the second line of the amendment has been removed. I have revised the daily business list. Copies of the new list, with the altered amendment, are available at the back of the chamber.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Was the phrase "is required to" put in the amendment by the member? Why have you accepted a change? Is that the normal process?

I advise the member that, apart from the fact that other business managers agreed to the change, the procedure for a change in an amendment is catered for in standing orders. The member need have no concerns.

Thank you for that clarification.

Presiding Officer, I am sure that your reassurance to the member will be much more valuable than mine could be—I see that she is leaving the chamber. The change to the amendment was made entirely to ensure that the wording could not trip us up on a matter on which we all agree. The Minister for Environment and I discussed the matter a few minutes ago.

Labour members welcome the tone and content of the motion, which acknowledges that wildlife crime in Scotland is unacceptable and that we need to do more to tackle it effectively. We welcome the involvement of the Solicitor General for Scotland, which signals that passing laws is not in itself sufficient and that there must also be enforcement. If the law is not leading to successful prosecutions and convictions, despite evidence being presented by the police and taken on board by fiscals, we need to consider why that is happening. Therefore, we very much welcome the review. The intention behind the amendment is to add to the debate and to suggest action that we think the minister can take before the review is completed.

The Parliament has a proud record on tackling wildlife crime. We need to support a range of species in Scotland and we need to support and promote biodiversity. Biodiversity is good for our environment and our tourism industry and it is part of what defines our country—it is part of our culture. For those reasons, it is disappointing and upsetting that so many wildlife crimes are committed throughout Scotland. A map showing the incidence of wildlife crime would confirm that crimes of all sorts are committed throughout the country. We must stamp out wildlife crime.

There are some disturbing facts and figures in the briefings that we have received. The one that struck me most forcibly concerned the reintroduction of red kites. I visited a red kite trail in Dumfries and Galloway—I found it to be a fantastic tourism experience, and I was interested in the local partnership that had put the trail together. The statistics show that, where red kites have been reintroduced south of the border, the number of birds has risen from something like 90 to four or five times that figure, whereas, in the Black Isle, there are now half the number of red kites that were initially released. We need to focus on that issue, because it is not right.

We have passed three main acts that are relevant to wildlife crime. The Criminal Justice Act (Scotland) 2003 toughened penalties and custodial sentences and introduced specific powers of arrest. The Nature Conservation Act (Scotland) 2004 strengthened the legal protection for threatened species—including protection for the nests of certain bird species—and extended protection to dolphins, whales and basking sharks. It also extended controls on the use of snares and introduced the offence of possession of pesticides without reasonable excuse, as well as new provisions setting out the powers of Government wildlife inspectors. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 modernised our animal welfare legislation and included tough action on animal fights. Wildlife crime is an issue that we have come back to over the years.

We passed those laws because the Parliament agreed that there needed to be clear protection for animal welfare and that there must be lines drawn to clarify what is not now acceptable. It is right that, as a society, we debate these issues, as what might have been regarded by some as acceptable practice in past years is no longer allowed. Views change over time, and those changes have been reflected in the laws that we have passed.

Today's debate reflects the fact that laws alone are not enough. People need to understand them and act on them and, when they are broken, we need effective enforcement at every level. That means that the police must have resources to investigate wildlife crimes that are reported, and the prosecution service must have expertise available in every case where that is possible. As the Solicitor General pointed out, wildlife crimes can be complex and difficult crimes to prosecute, so specialist knowledge hugely assists in the securing of successful prosecutions. We need to ensure that the effectiveness of the system is monitored.

Our amendment is intended to provide support for action against wildlife crime and to support the implementation of the partnership for action against wildlife crime's agenda and the work that has been carried out throughout Scotland to try to stamp out these crimes. We do not intend to cut across the inquiry—we think that those are the issues that the minister can act on now. We have deliberately focused on the areas in which we think there will be greatest consensus in the chamber. I will raise a set of issues shortly that we think the inquiry needs to examine carefully and take evidence on. For that reason, we have not put those issues in the amendment.

Throughout the summer, we have been asking ministers a raft of questions about the extent of wildlife crime and the effectiveness of the action that has been taken against it. It is clear that, although we have tough laws in place, wildlife crime has rocketed. I do not know whether members have read The Scotsman today, but it draws our attention to the fact that all categories of crimes against wildlife are on the increase: offences against birds, badgers and deer; cruelty to wild animals; hare coursing; illegal snaring; poaching; and the use of pesticides. That might be due partly to increased awareness among members of the public and partly to the increased determination of organisations such as the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the RSPB to see the wildlife crimes that they have identified stamped out. Increased reporting, however, has not led to a significant increase in the number of successful prosecutions. We do not believe that that is because of poor-quality police work or lack of evidence, which is why we welcome the review that the Solicitor General outlined today.

One of the key messages is that we need dedicated police officers in every force to co-ordinate the effort across Scotland, to build up expertise and to ensure that crimes are pursued effectively. There are a lot of police officers working on these issues, but many of them are dealing with other important issues as well. We need to ensure that there is a focus on wildlife crime. The Solicitor General mentioned the training of fiscals; we want trained fiscals to be able to take on wildlife crime cases routinely. From talking to the SSPCA and a range of organisations that have given evidence to committees over the year, it is clear to me that we need to ensure that there is appropriate knowledge on the prosecution side so that we get appropriate convictions.

I warmly welcome the initiative at Langholm, which many members will have been notified about. It takes exactly the right approach to get those on our estates involved in working together to make a success of our laws. I wholly agree with the statement from the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association, the Countryside Alliance, the Scottish Estates Business Group, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. Their support is vital in the fight against wildlife crime and I hope that it will send a powerful message to all estate owners, their managers and staff. The statement's focus on poisoning offences is to be welcomed. Clear guidance would be helpful. Nobody should have the excuse that they had not had time to read the law.

I thank Sarah Boyack for her helpful amendment and for the manuscript edition that allows the Scottish National Party to accept it. We will accept it. I am interested in the issue of guidance and I hope people on all sides of the chamber can work to develop such guidance with the agencies and to ensure that it is distributed.

We do not envisage the guidance as being prescriptive, but we would like the minister to explore the issue further and I am glad that he is keen to do so.

I want to put some key issues on the record today. I hope that the inquiry will look into them. The first is the accurate reporting of wildlife crime incidents. At the moment, if a crime is not the main crime, it is not recorded. The SSPCA view is that the crimes that are recorded represent only the tip of the iceberg.

A second issue is plea bargaining. If a series of crimes has taken place, the wildlife crime element is often plea-bargained away. It is simply not good enough if people are given just a slap on the wrist and a paltry fine. The message must be put across that wildlife crimes are crimes and there will be consequences for people who commit them.

Another issue is accountability in farming and estate management. Rhona Brankin asked a parliamentary question on 16 August and, from the answer on 10 September, it is clear that the locations of incidents relating to wildlife crime—and in particular to the use of poison baits, which have affected red kites, buzzards, golden eagles and other birds—are known and recorded. Some estates pop up more than others. That will have to be examined. Where patterns emerge, action will have to be focused.

If someone has committed a crime, it is right that they should be prosecuted. However, I would be keen to see whether some crimes are committed in particular areas and whether series of incidents happen on particular estates. We will have to find out how we can achieve better buy-in to the legislation. That should be done across the whole of Scotland.

The Solicitor General mentioned admissibility. The issue has been raised by the RSPB, which has experience of evidence not being accepted because of the way in which it was collected. I would like the issue to be examined in detail.

Another issue is who can report crimes. The SSPCA was given powers when we considered legislation in the Parliament. That has made a real difference in highlighting criminal activity so that it can be tackled. Are there other changes that could be made to help to tackle wildlife crime? Could Crimestoppers be used better to raise public awareness and engagement? The initial reporting of wildlife crimes may take place in relatively remote places. How can the information be spread? There is huge public support for tough action, but people need to know how they can help.

Will the minister outline his intentions regarding snaring? Snares catch protected species such as otters and badgers. Does the minister have a timetable to announce in light of his consultation? I understand that 172 of the 247 responses were in favour of an all-out ban. I also understand that many comments suggested how a ban could be made more acceptable. I am keen to hear the minister's views.

It has been pointed out to me that the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 is virtually impossible to implement. That is a piece of outstanding business to which I hope the minister will turn his attention.

A robust series of acts is in place, but more will have to be done to make them effective. I believe that all of us in the chamber want to stamp out wildlife crime. The legislation is in place, but we have to raise awareness. There is excellent police work across Scotland, and an increasing number of trained fiscals. We have to support the range of officers who are working to ensure that wildlife crime is stamped out.

Parliamentarians will have a role in taking up the issue in their own areas and in supporting people who bring problems to our attention. I urge everyone to raise issues directly with the minister, so that they can be incorporated into the inquiry. It would be useful for us to see the terms of the inquiry.

The inquiry will build on the work that has been done, and it will be able to consider the issues in depth. I look forward to seeing its conclusions, and I look forward to debating the issue again in Parliament. Let us all agree on the action that is required to implement the laws that we passed after endless—as it sometimes felt—debate in committees. We have debated the issues at length, and there is tremendous support for the laws from people across Scotland. Let us see the laws being implemented properly in a way that we can support.

I move amendment S3M-609.1, to insert at end:

"and urges ministers to ensure that each Scottish police force appoint at least one full-time police wildlife crime co-ordinator, that wildlife crime cases are prosecuted wherever possible by fiscals with specialist training and that guidance is produced which pulls together all legislation relevant to wildlife crime for use by landowners, managers and their staff, and further urges ministers to monitor the effectiveness of such guidance and report back to the Parliament."

I begin by declaring an interest in the debate as a farmer and, indeed, as an active conservationist.

I expect a rash of consensus to break out in the Parliament over the condemnation of wildlife crime. It is rare for all the briefings that we receive from lobbying bodies to agree, but the debate appears to have united the RSPB, the SRPBA, the Countryside Alliance, the Scottish Estates Business Group, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and Advocates for Animals in condemnation of wildlife crimes. That is no easy task.

However, the Parliament uniting against and recoiling from such crimes will not of itself reduce them, despite our having some of the strongest wildlife protection law in Europe, according to the RSPB. Indeed, it appears that 2006 may have been one of the worst years for raptor poisoning for 25 years. In a civilised society, that is simply not acceptable.

I believe that the minister met stakeholder groups this morning. I welcome that up-front approach. This afternoon, the Solicitor General for Scotland proposed a thematic review of the problem, to be carried out by Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary and Her Majesty's chief inspector of prosecution in Scotland and report by 31 March. That is a sensible way to try to get a handle on the problem.

Wildlife crime takes place in many different ways. Badger baiting, hare coursing, illegal seal shooting, and illegal poisoning and trapping all take place in Scotland. Regrettably, there are many other forms of wildlife crime, but the one that most outrages everyone is the poisoning of raptors, and I congratulate The Scotsman on its exposé of those issues in today's edition.

Although I endorse the minister's intention to carry out a review and not immediately rush to create a new piece of legislation, it is important that he gets the terms of that review right. Sarah Boyack raised an important point about producing guidance, and I too would welcome that. Joe O'Donnell and Paddy Tomkins must first recognise the scale of the task, the difficulty of enforcement and the apparent inconsistency of approach across Scotland. The review team must then separate out the different types of crime and why they are committed. Hare coursing and badger baiting offences are perpetrated for different reasons from raptor poisonings, and the review group really needs to examine why those crimes are committed before solutions can be found. I welcome the Solicitor General's recognition of that point.

Individuals who try to protect their grouse or their pheasants—and their own livelihood—from raptors do so for different reasons from those who carry out badger baiting or collect birds' eggs. Illegal seal culling to protect river salmon stocks and livelihoods is a different crime from hare coursing and is carried out for different reasons. Although I condemn all those crimes, I urge the review group to look behind the offences at why they are committed, with a view to coming up with solutions. Worldwide best practice should be examined for its applicability to Scotland's raptor habitats and proactive suggestions should be made.

There is much talk of the need for spatial planning for wind farming versus other types of land use and of marine spatial planning in our seas. In the same way, perhaps the zoning of areas and habitats for protected bird species is a concept that should be examined. For example, notwithstanding the good intentions of the second Langholm project—which I wish every success—it may be that commercial grouse moors and hen harriers will never be compatible. Perhaps areas should be set aside for commercial grouse moors and wildlife reserves, with trapping and release programmes put in place. I do not know whether that is practical, but it should be considered.

Increasing demand for access to and use of our countryside is putting ever growing pressure on landowners. The potential for conflict between the people who wish to use our countryside for recreation and those who need to make a living from it has never been greater, and wildlife and protected species—including the raptor population—are caught in between. That is why understanding is needed in carrying out the review, although the moorland forum might be a more appropriate place for those discussions to take place.

Of course, a crime is a crime and the law must be upheld—I am utterly behind that. But in addition to applying the law more consistently—the Solicitor General noted the need for that—the Parliament and others must take a more holistic approach in trying to address the causes of those crimes. To adapt a well-known phrase, we must be tough on crime and, in this instance, understanding of the causes of crime. I see Cathy Jamieson smiling at that.

The RSPB has suggested that a full-time wildlife crime officer should be put in place in each Scottish police force area. That makes sense, and I welcome the Solicitor General's comments on that. There must be more procurators fiscal with special training in wildlife crime. That is a constructive suggestion, although the minister might not want his hands to be tied absolutely at this point with respect to any pre-emption of the review's recommendations.

The minister has suggested the loss of firearms licences for those found guilty of poisoning, and the cutting of single farm payments for those who have been implicated in poisoning. Although I understand his reasons for escalating the penalties for those who are convicted of such crimes, the burden of proof must also become greater, as either of those measures could cause people to lose their jobs and their livelihoods.

The managers and tenders of grouse moors and pheasant shoots might lose their jobs if there are no grouse or pheasants. They could now lose their jobs for killing raptors. That would be a real lose-lose situation for the individuals involved, and I feel that those proposals might just be a step too far. Balances must be struck, and the view of those at the sharp end must be taken into account.

I wish the review every success. I know that it will be carried out sympathetically, given the reputations of the individuals involved, and I hope that conclusions can be reached that will cut wildlife crime consistently across the whole of Scotland.

The previous Executive enacted some of the strongest wildlife protection laws in Europe. Ross Finnie made the changes: he doubled the fines for a number of offences, he created a network of environmental specialists in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and he consulted last November on further enforcement measures—it would be useful if the Government published the results of that consultation—but those laws and other measures are not being used as effectively as possible to deter those who seek to destroy protected species. The enforcement of existing legislation has to be strengthened. We need more co-ordinated action to secure effective protection of Scotland's threatened species.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats are pleased to welcome the much more measured approach that the Solicitor General has outlined today—we could not have supported the statement that Mike Russell made on behalf of the SNP Government on 30 August. The new penalties for wildlife crime that he suggested included the possibility of stripping farmers of subsidies such as the single farm payment simply if wildlife crime took place on their property.

I did not say that.

That is certainly how the minister was reported. If that had been the Government's approach, we would have opposed it.

We must follow the proper process of the law and allow the courts to determine penalties for environmental and wildlife crimes. I said this at the time, and I repeat it: it is not the place of any Government to add extra penalties at whim simply because a crime takes place on someone's property. That must be made clear. Such a draconian approach has now been abandoned—although I heard the minister say just now that he feels that that was not in fact his view. It was certainly reported in that way.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I have never suggested those things in the way that Mr Rumbles has described. I think that he must have misread one of the reports of what I said. Had I said what he thought I said, I would have opposed it myself. I think that Mr Rumbles will now have a much better understanding of what we are trying to do, as was so well described by the Solicitor General.

I thank the minister for that clarification. I am pleased that he has made it absolutely clear that he was misreported.

I wish to raise some important questions. The question that Jamie McGrigor raised with the Solicitor General is important. I was somewhat surprised at the Solicitor General's response. Allowing the RSPB—as an expert witness—to take evidence away from the scene of a crime is problematic. The RSPB has an agenda to pursue. It is a very effective lobbyist organisation—it is a very good organisation—but it is one of the players in the countryside.

I do not want to keep interrupting Mike Rumbles but, for the avoidance of doubt, I want to make it clear that there is no proposal of any sort to empower any organisation other than the police to be involved in evidence taking or to interfere with the chain of evidence. I am absolutely certain that members across the chamber will agree that that would not be the right way in which to proceed.

Again I am grateful to the minister. It is important for us to be sure that the RSPB will not take evidence away from the scene of a crime.

I am pleased that the minister will accept the amendment, which commits the Government to employing more officers, but that does not chime with what Kenny MacAskill, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, said on 21 September in answer to a parliamentary question:

"The deployment of personnel to undertake wildlife crime duties is an operational matter for Chief Constables".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 21 September 2007; S3W-4146.]

That is, of course, a statement of the obvious, but Mr MacAskill seems in no hurry to indicate that the Government intends any such further employment. If anything, the statement was rather defensive—I hope that the minister will not feel the need to interrupt me again. Indeed, Nicol Stephen highlighted the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's prevarication in a particularly useful way at First Minister's question time today.

Given the lack of a clear commitment on police numbers—[Interruption.] Well, it is absolutely clear. Given that lack, greater clarification would be appreciated that not only the minister, but the whole Government, is committed to that approach.

Everyone who has the interests of the Scottish countryside at heart supports the legislation that we brought in. For example, the SEBG has made its position crystal clear:

"The SEBG strongly condemns any illegal activity. The Group expects its members to adhere to best practice. A member convicted of a wildlife crime will have their membership withdrawn. Members should put the necessary employment terms in place to rule against breaches and to take disciplinary action against any employee convicted of an offence…if disciplinary action is not taken against an employee who has been found guilty of a wildlife crime, then that member will be asked to leave the group."

The position of the SEBG is similar to every other organisation that is involved in countryside management, including the Scottish Gamekeepers Association—and rightly so. It must be right that everyone in every organisation that is involved with the countryside operates to the very highest standards in ensuring that best practice is adhered to. Wildlife crime in Scotland must be eradicated. The Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome every approach that is taken to end this illegal activity by coming down hard on the perpetrators. Like other members, we would also welcome the Government addressing some of the more contentious issues that surround countryside management.

The thematic inspection arrangements that the Solicitor General announced today are very welcome. The Liberal Democrats look forward to seeing the recommendations that will result by 31 March next year.

We move to the debate.

I welcome the Solicitor General to the debate, which is not party political—as it should be. He is a master of the quiet understatement. When he said

"I have had some professional dealings with that person",

a shiver went up my spine as it sounded quite sinister.

I welcome the tone of the debate and, in particular, some of the remarks that Sarah Boyack made about accurate reporting. That is a difficult issue for the Procurator Fiscal Service in other areas, too, when there is a combination in the charge. It is important that the PFS looks at that. I also echo Sarah Boyack's comments about patterns of crime.

I declare an interest as a member of the RSPB and of the SSPCA, and as the convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare. Like many members, I have a long-standing interest in and commitment to animal welfare issues. I therefore commend the minister for introducing what I think is the first subject debate on the issue. I may be wrong about that, but I think that other wildlife debates have been on pieces of legislation.

I thank all the organisations that provided helpful briefings for the debate, including the Scottish Parliament information centre. In its briefing, I learned, inter alia, that the violet click beetle is a protected species, as is the lagoon snail. I fear that the latter now inhabits my garden as its only haven and sanctuary. Thanks to SPICe, I can now check that one out.

I want to move on from that rather trivial comment—a type of comment for which I am becoming a little too renowned—to talk about wildlife crime, which is cruel, covert and cowardly. If we require to be reminded of that, we need only look at the graphic pictures of badger baiting in The Scotsman today. We can see what happens to the poor beast, and to various other animals. Many of us agree that their long, lingering, painful death, and the horrific injuries they sustain, is outrageous. Sometimes, other innocent animals are used to kill them off. The Solicitor General mentioned the recent outrageous poisoning in the Peebles area of a golden eagle—an animal that had been encouraged back into the area and that was much loved by everyone, including tourists.

Our difficulty, which has rightly been addressed here, is evidence. I hesitate to say anything about evidence with the Solicitor General sitting there, but the principles that apply in criminal prosecutions must apply in the same way to wildlife crime. John Scott talked about evidence being brought to court that is obtained in a different way. That is a dangerous route. The burden of proof remains the same. It is for the prosecution to establish its case, and it must do it beyond reasonable doubt. I know that there are difficulties, but we meet such difficulties in other criminal prosecutions, such as rape and sexual assault. The same principles should apply here.

What I was referring to in relation to the burden of proof was the removal of the single farm payment and gun licences, and therefore livelihood.

I do not think that the penalties that follow from a successful prosecution or a plea can influence in any way the burden of proof on the prosecution. If I have misunderstood John Scott, I ask him to forgive me. I understood him to be saying something else. The same principles of evidence must apply in cases of wildlife crime as apply in any other case. That is important, because remoteness and rurality present difficulties.

I want to ask a question to which I do not know the answer. We should not really do that—we should really ask questions to which we know the answer—but I am going to ask this one anyway. Do we have a reward system for those who are prepared to give evidence under protection for wildlife crimes? Do we have a system of whistleblowing, in which people can feel secure? As many of us who are familiar with rural areas know, somebody is aye going to know who blew the whistle on them. People may well know who has been up to it on various estates, but they are not going to tell anyone in case the finger is pointed. I wonder whether we have sufficient protection in place.

I hear what was said about specialist prosecutors and wildlife crime officers but, like many members, I think that we should wait for the outcome of the thorough review before we start tying its hands. I am sure that the review will consider what members have to say.

I want to commend the work of the SSPCA, particularly Mike Flynn and his team. The SSPCA is a charity, and is recognised as an agency that reports to the Crown. It does enormous work to assist in the area of wildlife crime, which is not always easy while it is fulfilling its other duties. I commend Mike Flynn for that, as I commend the Parliament for debating the issue. I hope that, together, we can, so far as is humanly practicable, eradicate the foul practice of wildlife crime.

I was disturbed by something the judiciary said. Although it rightly says that it is completely independent, I say, cautiously, that I hope that it will begin to address wildlife crime more seriously. Whether or not wildlife is protected, the killing and torture of animals is shameful and grim. That whole series of crimes must be disposed of by our courts in a manner that reflects not only that, but society's opprobrium for those acts.

I confess that I have just discovered that I have more in common with Christine Grahame than I thought, given that I too am a member of the RSPB, have a long-term association with the SSPCA and Advocates for Animals, and am a former convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare. I suspect that the comparison stops there, but I do not know.

I think that we joined together when we went on a trip around the Bass Rock.

I think it was actually the Ailsa Craig in my constituency, but I will move on.

I took a great interest in wildlife crime when I was Minister for Justice, and it is also relevant in my constituency. It is interesting that it always comes high on the agenda whenever I conduct local surveys among my constituents. Sarah Boyack mentioned the wider map of Scotland, but I know from the information that I receive from one of my local wildlife crime officers, who is also a community police officer, and from the information that is supplied by the RSPB and others that wildlife crime is a current issue in Ayrshire. Sadly, rare birds of prey have been poisoned, and police believe that badger baiting and snaring are still common.

Advocates for Animals and others point out that wildlife crime is not carried out in isolation. It is particularly disturbing that the police are making links between badger baiting, hare coursing and other forms of organised crime including drug dealing. If I look back to my time as a social worker, concerns were expressed then about the link between animal cruelty and child abuse.

There is now a substantive body of research that shows that abusive, cruel and violent behaviour towards animals can be a predictor of violent behaviour towards humans at a later stage and an indicator of domestic violence. The SSPCA highlights that link in its first strike Scotland campaign. It wants formal recognition of the link and endorsement of a protocol for the cross-reporting of animal abuse and child and domestic violence. There is merit in considering that in more detail. Perhaps it could be part of the wider information sharing around child protection. Maybe the Minister for Environment will speak to his colleagues in the interest of good, joined-up government.

In my area, there are also concerns about the links between antisocial behaviour and damage to the natural environment, which has the potential to have an impact on wildlife. Recently, for example, an increase was reported in the irresponsible use of quad bikes in and around the Loch Doon area, which is a site of special scientific interest that falls within the newly designated Galloway and Ayrshire biosphere. As with other forms of antisocial behaviour, it is as important to educate young people as it is to use legislation. That is why I welcome the positive work that the RSPB has done, particularly in East Ayrshire, to introduce primary school children to wider environmental concerns.

As Sarah Boyack said, we have made significant strides to put in place some of the best wildlife protection laws in Europe, but there are challenges ahead in implementing the legislation and getting the right resources in place. The police forces that have dedicated wildlife crime co-ordinators are to be congratulated, but figures from the SSPCA, which investigated more than 600 calls on wildlife crime in 2006, suggest that there is a strong argument for a dedicated, full-time wildlife crime co-ordinator in every police force. That is what we propose in our amendment.

As the SSPCA says, it might well be that others should have increased powers to help with investigations. The important point is that the wildlife crime co-ordinators must have the responsibility to drive the agenda and co-ordinate work on the ground. That does not rule out others' being given appropriate powers to act. A sensible way forward would be to consider an increase in the number of dedicated wildlife crime co-ordinators in the police and to consider how civilians can be given additional powers.

One of my constituents, Mr Charles Park, has received an MBE for his tireless campaigning and wildlife and conservation work in south-west Scotland. He has written to me on many occasions and met me to discuss potential improvements to the prosecution of wildlife crime. I am very pleased that Labour's amendment calls for more cases to be prosecuted by fiscals with specialist training, and I heard the positive words of the Solicitor General, but there is a question about the admissibility of evidence.

The RSPB and others have given some bizarre examples of prosecutions that were unable to proceed because those who discovered or reported the crime were on land where there would have been public access but they did not have the landowner's permission. I do not think that the public will see that as justice being seen to be done, and I hope that that situation will improve.

There is merit in the calls of the SSPCA and the RSPB for a national database, and I urge the Executive to work with the partnership against wildlife crime to improve enforcement.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am just about to conclude, but I will give way if the Presiding Officer gives me the time.

Cathy Jamieson said that prosecutions could not continue because people did not have the right, or permission, to be on the land. Did we not pass legislation that gave people a right of responsible access?

That is exactly my point. It seems rather odd if a prosecution does not go ahead because the person who reported the crime does not have permission to be on the land, but they have the right to access that land. That anomaly must be addressed.

I had hoped to be consensual with Michael Russell today, but I am afraid that he has spoiled my hope. I wanted to say that I welcome the commitment that he gave on 30 August to look at introducing the automatic loss of firearms licences and cutting the single farm payment to estates that are implicated in bird poisoning. I gather that the minister has clarified his position and that I am therefore unable to give him the applause that I intended to give him. I see that Mr Rumbles is now congratulating him.

I heard what John Scott said about jobs and livelihoods that might be lost. I also heard him say that we have to be tough on the causes of crime. I find myself being tougher than the Tories on crime in this case because if people who receive public subsidies are found to be in breach of the law, it is quite right and proper that they should not continue to receive those subsidies. Any penalty must be about deterrence as well as punishment.

However, in the spirit of consensus, and having said all that, I welcome today's debate. Of course I want there to be guidance that pulls together all the wildlife crime legislation. In accepting our amendment, Michael Russell is signalling that this is not a one-off debate but the start of a concerted period of action that will be monitored, and I welcome Parliament's full involvement.

I start by thanking the Solicitor General for his clear and useful introduction to the debate. I also compliment the minister and Sarah Boyack on getting together before we started to sort out the minor inconsistency in her amendment so that the debate could be consensual.

It is important that the debate is consensual because it has several different audiences, one of which is the small but unpleasant criminal fraternity that perpetrates crimes against Scottish wildlife. Parliament needs to give it the clearest possible message that we will not tolerate such behaviour and we will do everything possible to support the court and police services to ensure that such people are prosecuted and properly punished for their crimes.

I draw members' attention to my register of interests, particularly my membership of the RSPB. I hope that Michael Russell's and Jamie McGrigor's concerns about the RSPB have been allayed. I am absolutely confident that it is entirely appropriate for the police to consult the RSPB where necessary and where its expertise can be used. No one in this chamber should cast doubt on the RSPB's expertise.

Wildlife crime is a serious matter, which the Scottish public cares about very much. We should care about it because cruelty to animals is totally unacceptable and has direct links with other forms of human violence and degrading behaviour. Perhaps the minister will agree with me that there should be formal recognition of those links.

Scotland's wildlife protection laws may be among the best in Europe, but our record on the effective prevention, investigation and prosecution of wildlife crime could be better. The Scottish Government's motion rightly commends the collaborative work and commitment of those who are involved in tackling wildlife crime, but it is clear that more action is needed in three main ways. I commend Christine Grahame and Cathy Jamieson for their impassioned speeches, but I will repeat much of what they said because this message needs to be reinforced by every member this afternoon.

First, we need more wildlife crime officers in our police forces, with at least one such officer in each force. We have learned that that is on the way, but the officers must be properly resourced, valued and supported—a special, dedicated force of full-time officers. Some officers, as we have heard, are part time. There are examples of good practice by existing wildlife crime officers—such as the Lothian and Borders part-time WCO who led the investigation in the recent golden eagle case. Although good practice might exist in areas such as the Scottish Borders and Grampian, it has been accepted that is not yet the case throughout Scotland.

A similar concern applies to procurators fiscal and I will reinforce the comments that other members have made. It is not enough to have one environmental procurator fiscal per police force area; we need more such specialist prosecutors, who must be properly resourced. The current situation, in which wildlife crime cases are still presented by non-specialists, is unacceptable because cases may be underprepared and, as a consequence, excuses may be found for why a case should not proceed or why the wildlife charges should be plea-bargained.

Secondly, there must be a greater prioritisation of wildlife crime. An ex-police officer with considerable experience of wildlife crime told a member of my staff that, in his work on the issue, he was reminded time and again that we are dealing with crime and criminals. For example, the intimidation of witnesses is not uncommon. Prioritising wildlife crime is not a soft option; such crimes are not of a lesser nature.

As has been mentioned several times already, a related problem is that information on wildlife crimes is hard to come by because they are not separated from minor offences. It is important that we properly record wildlife crime incidents. They must not come under the heading of minor offences.

On the subject of the number of such crimes that are reported, as someone who is familiar with farming and the countryside I have always found it odd that birds such as eagles and red kites are reported to have been poisoned, although such birds may be the last carrion eaters to visit a carcase. Why is it that large numbers of other birds of prey that usually arrive at a carcase first—such as black-backed gulls, ravens and hooded crows—are not found?

I cannot comment on that—

Will the member take an intervention?

I had intended to give my answer and then take an intervention, but I am happy for Sarah Boyack to intervene.

My intervention is simply to direct the member to the answer to parliamentary question S3W-3373, which gives a detailed breakdown of poisonings including the bait that was used and where they took place. I urge all members to read that reply—it makes fascinating reading—as it answers Jamie McGrigor's question.

I will read it, too.

Where was I? Oh yes—we must properly record wildlife crime incidents, including the incidents that I have been made aware of.

Effective action and greater prioritisation go hand in hand. A good example is the success of operation Easter, in which there was effective police action and enforcement, with the outcome that egg collecting is now a comparatively rare crime in Scotland. That contrasts with poisoning cases. There has been no dedicated enforcement of that wildlife crime, and even when perpetrators have been found guilty, they have received comparatively light sentences, small fines and even just admonishments.

Finally, there is the matter of specialist training.

You should be finishing now, Mr Harper.

I will do.

Training in wildlife crime legislation and procedures must be consistent across all police forces and throughout the Procurator Fiscal Service. Again, from what we heard from the Solicitor General, that may well arrive.

A compassionate society should tighten and enforce legislation on wildlife crime. It is not an optional extra; it is an absolute duty.

I should probably start by declaring my membership of the Scottish Wildlife Trust.

There can be little doubt about the importance of both birdwatching and the quality of the general environment to Scotland's economy. Recent RSPB estimates suggest that the presence of the sea eagles on the island of Mull is worth approximately £1.5 million to the local economy. That is just one of many examples—I could cite the large number of visitors to the RSPB reserve in Lochwinnoch as another.

However, there is more to it than the immediate benefit to the economy. Wildlife and the environment attract international attention. There can be few people in the United Kingdom who do not have at least some knowledge of rainforest loss or the debates about whaling or the ivory trade. For example, the debate in Catalonia on the use of lime traps to catch small birds demonstrates the level of international interest that wildlife attracts. The environmental movements of Catalonia have organised a petition, which has already gained the support of 600 organisations and more than 19,000 individuals. Signatures are flooding in from all over the planet.

Damage to Scotland's environmental reputation will almost certainly result, at the very least, in a loss of tourism. Shooting estates are just as likely to suffer economically as those whose living is derived from providing services to birdwatchers or hillwalkers. Ending wildlife crime is of economic benefit to everyone. The strong reaction by Alex Hogg, the then chairman of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, to the 2004 slaughter of some 25 raptors—he was quoted as being

"sickened by the latest allegations"—

makes it clear that there is wide acceptance of the potential risks of wildlife crime.

Hillwalkers, too, may benefit from the ending of wildlife crime. A large proportion of wildlife crime is reported by walkers, which is almost inevitable—most wildlife crime or bird poisoning does not occur near major thoroughfares, and walkers are the group most likely to spot such incidents. Reducing or ending wildlife crime will carry a number of benefits for that group: a greater abundance of wildlife; improved access, as estates engaged in wildlife crime are less likely to be amenable to walkers; and enhanced safety, as the poisons used are dangerous to both humans and their pets.

Let us make no mistake about the importance of hillwalking to the Scottish economy. In a VisitScotland survey of UK tourists in Scotland, 400,000 trips were identified as having walking as the main purpose and 4 million were identified as containing some walking. That is UK tourists alone. When it comes to wildlife crime, Scotland cannot afford the damage to its economy or its reputation. It cannot afford wildlife crime.

Despite the potential damage to Scotland's reputation and economy, wildlife crime continues. Indeed, it is increasing. As the motion notes, 2006 was the worst year for wildlife poisoning, and there is no indication of improvement in 2007.

When the costs of such crime are so clear, why has wildlife poisoning reached such a level? It may be that wildlife crime has simply not been taken seriously enough. Indeed, there is corroborative evidence from other types of wildlife crime outwith Scotland that that may well be the case. To examine a parallel, there are no records of magistrates handing down custodial sentences to those prosecuted under the control of trade in endangered species enforcement regulations. That is in spite of the many links between trade in endangered species and the illegal drugs trade.

A report from the University of Wolverhampton entitled "The International Wildlife Trade and Organised Crime" concluded that

"with notable exceptions that have been successfully prosecuted under CEMA, the punishments imposed for wildlife trade offences are generally low and towards the bottom end of the scale."

I should add that CEMA means the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

The failure to prosecute or enforce heavy penalties appears to be mirrored in many Scottish wildlife crimes. In 2006, which was the worst year for poisoning and trappings since the start of the 1980s, there were nearly 100 allegations. More than 40 of those were confirmed, yet only seven resulted in convictions. A rate of less than 20 per cent of confirmed cases of poisoning or trapping resulting in conviction is far too low. As with the illegal international trade in wildlife, there have been allegations of generally lenient sentencing of those convicted, and I welcome the minister's proposals for new penalties.

The RSPB has stated that Scotland's wildlife protection laws are among the best in Europe—that is something of which we should be proud. However, it is not the existence of a law that makes the difference, nor is it the intention of the lawmakers, however good it may have been. What makes the difference is enforcement, which requires the full commitment of all the bodies involved. A range of organisations is calling for the inclusion of a wildlife crime officer in every police force. A specialist who understands the particular difficulties surrounding wildlife crime would be of clear benefit in fighting it. I look forward to the review report on the issue, which will determine the potential of those options.

I spoke earlier of the importance of hillwalkers in the identification of wildlife crime. Evidence from those walking the countryside should never be deemed inadmissible because they did not have express permission to be on the estate. To accept that state of affairs is to accept that wildlife crime will continue.

I prefer to end on a high note. There are grounds to feel positive. Today's joint statement by a wide range of bodies, including among others the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and the Scottish Countryside Alliance, is a clear sign that the tide might be turning. Gamekeepers and scientists can work together to find solutions that satisfy everyone. The Langholm moor demonstration project is an encouraging example of a new experimental, evidence-based approach that may lay damaging myths to rest and undermine the arguments that are used by poisoners, ensuring co-operation between the various interested groups.

Our natural environment is too valuable a resource, too important to the health and well-being of Scotland's citizens and too important to Scotland's economy and international reputation for us to fail it. I hope that we can join together to support the motion and help build a better Scotland.

I join others in welcoming the opportunity to debate an important issue. As members may know, I have a passion for birdwatching; I should in that context declare my membership of the Scottish Ornithologists Club. I will restrict my remarks largely to the effect of persecution on birds of prey.

I have the privilege to live in and represent the Highlands and Islands. It is a region which, without question, has the widest range of habitat, birds and other species of anywhere in the UK and, arguably, Europe. In recent decades, we have seen the economic significance of that environmental diversity grow as more people visit the region. Huge numbers of people derive pleasure from the harmless and peaceful pursuit of observing, often in awe, magnificent birds and other creatures in the Highlands and Islands. People are drawn to some of the remotest parts of Scotland, spending money as a consequence and bringing economic benefit to them.

I live in the countryside near Inverness and I manage—I use the term loosely—my garden to encourage wildlife. I have the pleasure of seeing badgers, hares and foxes passing through. I am frequently visited by roe deer and occasionally by red squirrels. Soaring above my house last weekend were buzzards, alerting any observer in the area to their presence with their piercing, high-pitched cry. I am fortunate to have visiting my garden owls, sparrow-hawks and occasionally kestrels. Even ravens and ospreys pass overhead from time to time. I admire and respect those creatures. It is horrifying to most people that some people choose to persecute or to poison them. However, as has been said, it is a sad fact that some people choose to damage the creatures that I have mentioned and many others, including red kites, hen harriers and even the iconic golden eagle to which others have referred.

Sometimes, those people are directed or encouraged by misguided economic reasons to take those actions; sometimes, they derive perverse pleasure from behaving in such a way; and sometimes, they appear to be addicted to the activities in which they are involved. Whatever their motivation, their actions are simply unacceptable, as others have said. The debate gives members from across the political spectrum the none-too-frequent opportunity to give a clear signal that such actions are unacceptable. It also gives us the opportunity to reflect on and plan what more needs to be done to bring such practices to an end. Members have mentioned that the RSPB has been good enough to recognise that the previous Executive brought to Scotland some of the strongest wildlife protection laws anywhere in Europe. It has also been mentioned that it is now necessary to ensure that those laws are used to the full and are strengthened wherever doing so is appropriate and necessary.

I appreciate that it can be difficult for a hard-pressed police force that is fighting drug crime or street violence in their community to give wildlife crime the priority that other members and I think is necessary, but all parties must make it clear in the debate that chief constables will have the Parliament's support if they give tackling wildlife crime more priority. I hope that the Government will help chief constables in that cause by making available additional resources to gear up their efforts, and that the minister will signal a commitment to doing so in summing up. Indeed, I am sure that his acceptance of the amendment points in that direction.

In particular, I would like Northern Constabulary to be enabled to do even more than it currently does. I acknowledge—and congratulate it on—what it is doing and its increased efforts in tackling wildlife crime in recent years, but I would like it to be enabled to go even further. Bill Wilson and I have touched on the fact that the protection of wildlife is not only economically important for the Highlands and Islands; I have also touched on the fact that the Highlands and Islands holds a fine range of species, which we have a duty to protect. I would like to think that, in a few years, Highlands and Islands, through Northern Constabulary, will have set new standards in wildlife crime protection that set the standard for the whole country. That would be fitting for the force that serves the finest area of natural environment in the UK.

I would like far more resources to be made available to investigate why there is a lower occurrence of species on some estates than one would expect to find in any other comparable area of the country. We need to explore that matter more fully. We also need to investigate why the expansion of the red kite population out of the Black Isle, which is across from where I live, appears to meet certain barriers that, from experience, are not met elsewhere in the country. The RSPB, the police and I can speculate on why that is the case, but I would prefer the police to have the resources to explore and investigate fully why that is and to take the necessary action.

In neighbouring Grampian, people are seeing the impact of excellent police work, with other people in that area, in operation Lepus, which is clamping down on hare coursing. This week, I was pleased to see gamekeepers and landowning interests coming together and making a joint statement about their approach to the issues that we are discussing—members have referred to that. I echo the sentiments of those gamekeepers and landowning interests, and hope that they will take tough action, as they have promised to do, against any members who are found to have breached wildlife legislation. It is vital that landowners make the law explicit to their employees and that they expect the law to be observed. I hope that the poisoning of birds of prey comes to an early end; if it does not, I urge the Government to take a further step and introduce corporate responsibility for wildlife crime. In other words, it should ensure that the owners of land have a responsibility in law for any crimes that are proven to have been committed by their employees. I hope that that is not ruled out.

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to handle an eagle owl, which is a huge and magnificent creature. Anybody who has such an opportunity would be appalled to think that someone could harm an eagle owl, but just outside Inverness, Tommy Horne voluntarily looks after damaged creatures from many parts of the country. I applaud what he does and hope that he will have less work to do in the future as a consequence of the Parliament's collective action in sending the signal that what is still happening in this country is totally unacceptable and must stop.

The debate has been interesting, and members of all parties have made constructive speeches. I welcome the constructive approach that has been taken by a former colleague on the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, Sarah Boyack, whose amendment we are considering. I would have enjoyed the chance to discuss the finer details of the amendment in the committee, but she has moved on to pastures new. I wish her well in her new role. In particular, I welcome her slight rewording of her amendment, as it may allow the Parliament to speak with a unified voice on the important issue of wildlife crime. Robin Harper spelled out why that is important. Sarah Boyack is therefore to be congratulated on amending her amendment.

I also welcome the Government motion, which has allowed us to have the debate. In addition, I welcome the Solicitor General for Scotland to the slightly different role of opening the debate for the Government.

All members have received briefings from various organisations that are concerned with wildlife crime. The information with which we have been provided indicates that there is an enduring problem of wildlife crime in Scotland. Advocates for Animals states that in 2006 alone there were 183 reported incidents of illegal poisoning of birds, and it points to 40 incidents of hare coursing in 2006-07 in Tayside alone. The SSPCA informs us that in 2006 its inspectors responded to and investigated more than 600 calls about wildlife crime. A Government press release earlier this year stated that since May 1999, at least 455 birds and 168 bats have been killed by poisoning in Scotland.

Sarah Boyack is probably right to say that the number of crimes greatly exceeds the reported figure, which is only the tip of the iceberg. It is clear that wildlife crime is a problem, and I am glad that we seem to be agreed on that, but the question remains, what should be done to tackle it?

We will have to wait and see what the review proposes. I look forward to that. However, in his closing speech, the minister may be able to identify some of the issues that the review will assess. Will they, as I hope, include stronger sentences for wildlife crime, which the Labour Party included in its manifesto and at which the minister hinted previously?

I welcome the approach that the minister has taken since coming into office and the measures that have been set out today. Some members have been slightly vexed by comments that Mike Russell has made. John Lamont, a Tory member, said in the Berwick Advertiser on 6 September that the Conservatives

"have concerns about the potentially heavy-handed nature"

of some punitive measures that Mike Russell has suggested for those who are found guilty of having committed a wildlife crime. John Scott reflected some of that concern today. However, if we are seriously to target wildlife crime, there must be serious repercussions for those who perpetrate it. It is important to remember that it is those who are found guilty of wildlife crime who will have to pay the penalty. John Lamont, John Scott and Mike Rumbles, who was also concerned, can rest easy: only those who have committed the crime will pay the price. The whole chamber will welcome that.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will take one from the minister.

I want to be absolutely clear on the issue, as it has been raised on a number of occasions. I hope that I can satisfy both Cathy Jamieson and Mike Rumbles on the matter. I stand by my suggestion of a number of penalties. The difference between Mr Rumbles and me relates to the level of proof that will be required. I am entirely happy to say that the burden of proof must be no lighter than that for any other crime. However, I believe that further penalties are required.

I am glad that my speech was structured in such a way as to allow the minister to intervene at such an opportune stage.

In her intervention during the Solicitor General's speech, Karen Gillon noted the need to ensure that those who are indirectly involved in wildlife crime are prosecuted. She gave the example of an employer who instructs an employee to carry out a crime. I hope that in such cases all who are responsible—both those who instructed the crime and those who carried it out—are prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law. I hope that the inspectorate-led review will consider serious measures against those who are found guilty of wildlife crime, and I look forward to hearing what the review has to say.

Will the member give way?

I am about to close.

I hope that the review will also consider the points that John Scott made about the different reasons for different types of wildlife crime. I join the RSPB and other animal rights organisations, as well as the other agrarian and rural bodies that have written to all members, in welcoming the review that the Government has announced and I trust that the chamber will also welcome it.

Like Cathy Jamieson, I am concerned about the connections between wildlife crime and animal cruelty—for example, dog fighting and badger baiting—and other forms of organised crime in our communities that make life a misery for so many people. As we have heard, Scotland is a beautiful country that is teeming with wildlife that, sadly, all too often faces real danger when it comes up against humans who are intent on causing harm.

The debate is about wildlife crime, and we must concern ourselves with the crimes that take place not only in our hills and glens but in our urban areas. I am pleased that Labour's amendment recognises that and calls for guidance to pull together all the relevant legislation. I hope that the review that has been announced will cover all crimes of animal cruelty. I will explain why.

As a member of the committee that considered the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill, I had cause to look into the issue of dog fights when I was researching the section on animal fights. Making arrangements for an animal fight to take place, causing it to take place, attending it and showing, supplying or publishing a recording of it are all illegal actions, but dog fights continue to happen. Historically, dog fighting has tended to be viewed as an isolated animal welfare issue and, as such, has perhaps been treated less seriously than it should have been by the prosecution services. The communities that have been morally, socially and culturally scarred by the prevalence of dog fighting have suffered as a result of that approach.

Some people who are involved in the barbaric practice try to justify it as a cultural and historical tradition, along with cock fighting, hunting and so on. Because of that, from an early age some children are routinely exposed to the violence that is intrinsic to this illegal blood sport. The atrocities of the dog fights are absolutely appalling, yet children who grow up exposed to them are conditioned to believe that such violence is normal. They are systematically desensitised to the suffering and, as a result, can develop a distorted sense of societal norms and civilised behaviour.

Dog fighting is not only an issue of child welfare and extreme cruelty to animals; it is something that should concern us from the perspective of the cycle of violence and criminal behaviour that it can perpetuate. Not only is dog fighting cruel, sadistic and inhumane, it is an insidious, underground organised crime involving illegal gambling, drug dealing, money laundering and a host of other peripheral criminal activities. It is big business, involving massive sums of money. The links between dog fighting and other forms of violent crime have become more apparent over the years, so it cannot be regarded as merely an isolated animal welfare issue.

Nonetheless, it is an animal welfare issue, as the dogs that are used for fighting have been bred for generations to be dangerously aggressive towards other animals. The presence of such animals in communities increases the risk of attacks not only on other animals but on people. Children in our communities are particularly at risk because of their small size, which may cause a fighting dog to perceive them as another animal.

The dogs, too, are the victims of horrific abuse. The injuries that are inflicted on and sustained by them during fights are frequently severe and often fatal. Pit bull terriers, which are used in the majority of fights, have been specifically bred and trained for fighting and are unrelenting in their attempts to defeat their opponents. Often, the dogs die from blood loss, shock, dehydration, exhaustion or infection hours, or sometimes days, after the event.

Some owners train their dogs for fights using smaller animals, such as cats, rabbits or small dogs. Those bait animals are often stolen pets or are obtained through adverts that offer them free to a good home. Only a few months ago, BBC Scotland reported that the SSPCA had received reports of Staffordshire bull terriers being turned on domestic cats, and the charity said that cat remains had been found at the scene of a number of organised dog fights. It believes that cats are being used to rile up fighting dogs, which are then allowed to tear those animals apart before they are turned on each other. There is no question but that dog fighting is a barbaric crime, however the involvement of other domestic animals adds a horrible new twist to it and further indicates the kind of people who participate in such events.

Although it is perhaps less common than it was, dog fighting is still going on in and around the central belt. Recently, "Panorama" uncovered a network of criminal gangs who were supplying illegal pit bull terriers for fighting, which were brought into the country using false documents. It is important that resources are deployed to catch the criminals who are involved in dog fighting and to make the links between that appalling crime of animal cruelty and the other crimes that I have mentioned. Labour's amendment will make it easier to do that. I hope that the review includes dog fighting in its remit.

I ask the minister, in summing up, to say how the Government can help to highlight the SSPCA's anonymous reporting service and the rewards that might be available for those who provide information. Given the vicious perpetrators who lie behind such fights, it is understandable that people who have information might be reluctant to come forward.

Badger baiting is another wildlife crime that is linked to organised crime and which is related to dog fighting through similar perpetrators. I note that it seems to be on the increase—according to The Scotsman there were seven cases last year. It is worrying that Advocates for Animals reports that a lesser plea of disturbing a badger sett was allowed in a recent case of badger baiting, in which officers were confident that there was strong evidence for a conviction. That underlines the need for procurators fiscal who have specialist training, which is outlined in Labour's amendment.

Although it is important that we take steps to protect vulnerable pets and wild animals in Scotland from cruelty, persecution and neglect—I welcome the review—we must recognise the links that exist with criminals who are involved in other serious crimes. The stabbings in our schools, the shootings on our streets and the peddling of drugs to children are all linked with members of the criminal underworld who are involved in cases of serious animal cruelty and wildlife crime. I hope that we have a debate about those links soon.

You should be finishing now.

I am pleased that the Solicitor General is present for today's debate, and I hope that he will attend that debate, too.

I point out that when I came into the chair, we had a considerable number of minutes to spare. If three members talk for 20 seconds longer than their allocated time, someone will lose a minute from their speech. Not one member—except Jamie Hepburn—has stuck to their time. It would be nice if members looked at the Official Report to get an idea of the extent to which they talk for longer than they should do.

I apologise for my more prolonged absence from the chamber than I anticipated—I had an unavoidable meeting with my committee clerks to attend.

I welcome the Solicitor General to his first major outing in the chamber, which serves to remind us that we are talking about real crime, not some lesser order of offence. Because of that, I believe that the minister's approach is the right one.

As a number of people have said, this morning's Scotsman reveals the scale of the problem, which is staggering. It is worth putting some of the figures on the record. There has been a 33 per cent increase in the number of offences involving birds, a 300 per cent increase in the number of cases of cruelty to wild animals and a 250 per cent increase in the number of offences involving badgers. The number of offences involving deer is up by 275 per cent and the number of cases of hunting with dogs has gone up by 300 per cent. Salmon and freshwater fisheries crimes are up by 90 per cent and there has been a 220 per cent increase in other wildlife offences. Those figures are staggering.

It is never easy to determine whether a rise in the number of prosecutions for a particular crime is down to an increase in the crime, to more accurate reporting of the crime or to increased activity and vigilance on the part of the police or the public in respect of the crime. I hope that those issues will be investigated over the next few months.

It was clear from the answers that I received to a series of questions that I asked on the subject last year, in response to a constituent's concern, that there is no nationally accepted system of recording wildlife and environment crime. I strongly suggest that that is one of the problems that will have to be addressed.

There is no doubt that wildlife crime is a massive problem that should not be an issue just for people who are concerned about feathered friends and furry animals—although, frankly, that is enough for me. Those people who want hard-headed business arguments for taking wildlife crime seriously should look at the tourism industry. I gently suggest to John Scott that there is another side to the economic arguments that he made. A review of wildlife tourism in 2002 indicated that more than 250 businesses, with more than 3,000 employees, were involved in nature and wildlife tourism in Scotland. Given the rate at which the sector is growing, it is a safe bet that those five-year-old figures seriously underrepresent the present situation. Indeed, VisitScotland has said that wildlife tourism generated £210 million for the Scottish economy in 2006.

I accept the member's point, so will she accept the point that I made, which is that a balanced approach must be taken?

Indeed. I am providing some balance to Mr Scott's comments.

A survey of visitors to the Highlands that was published in 2002 underlined the importance of wildlife to our tourism industry. Fifty-eight per cent of respondents said that they agreed or agreed strongly with the statement that the opportunity to see wildlife in the Highlands had been an important aspect of their visit. Scotland's wildlife is a hugely important resource, which we must take great care to protect.

I echo some of Sarah Boyack's remarks. Birds and animals are important in and of themselves, but they are also part and parcel of how we in Scotland define ourselves and how others see us. We should never forget that.

I have long been concerned about the killing of birds of prey, in particular, because the issue raises its head with worrying frequency in my constituency. Tayside Police has taken the issue seriously for many years. Arguments are made about the threat that sparrow-hawks pose to racing pigeons or that hen harriers pose to grouse stocks, but the most dangerous predator of all is the two-legged wingless poisoner, which needs to become a good deal rarer. Sparrow-hawks are thought to take less than 1 per cent of released racing pigeons annually, and the taking of excess grouse by a hen harrier is simply the natural order of things—I am not sure how far we can go to interfere with that. I am the teeniest bit uncomfortable with how John Scott articulated his concerns, which sounded a little like special pleading. I point out to him that the burden of proof does not vary depending on the reason for the crime. The reason might be a mitigation, but that is not the same thing as the burden of proof.

The use of deadly poisons such as carbofuran to kill birds of prey is unnatural and downright dangerous. Such behaviour is utterly irresponsible, because it is clear that the people who set traps give no thought to the implications of their actions for a curious child, for example. Carbofuran is an extremely dangerous chemical and is the poison of choice among people who seek to kill our birds of prey. It is clear that the fines that are levied against people who poison birds of prey are insufficient to create a deterrent. The fines do not reflect the serious implications of the illegal misuse of such a dangerous and potentially fatal substance. Fines should be punitive as a starting point. I hope that the HMIC investigation will give serious consideration to the issue.

Badger baiting and dog fighting sound like things out of a Victorian novel, but such activities go on in our country. However, such wildlife crime is firmly underground and is despised by everyone in mainstream society. Other categories of wildlife crime have been excused, or have had a blind eye turned to them. The culture of silence must end. There are good signs that that will happen as a result of the new multi-agency approach, which I welcome. Silence is no longer acceptable.

The laws that are needed are in place, but we must ensure that they are enforced vigorously enough to protect wildlife and act as a deterrent. We need to get that right and we need time to do so. I support the motion in the name of Michael Russell and look forward to the recommendations of the review.

I call John Hume.

It is Jim Hume, Trish.

I declare an interest as a member of the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association and the RSPB.

Wildlife crime of any kind is appalling. It was described as a "national disgrace" by the late Donald Dewar. I have been involved in conservation throughout my working life, so I am glad to sum up on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

Fresh in our minds is the recent and tragic poisoning of a golden eagle in Peeblesshire in my region. There is significant evidence that such illegal activity is seriously damaging populations of golden eagles and other birds of prey. Such activity is not just devastating to Scotland's biodiversity but potentially damaging to the economy. The Galloway red kite trail alone is thought to bring around £750,000 to the region each year.

Roseanna Cunningham referred to products that are used to carry out illegal killings. Such products are often banned in this country and are illegally imported—that appears to have been the case in the Peeblesshire incident. HM Revenue and Customs should be alerted not just to the illegal importation of meat products that can lead to foot and mouth disease but to the seriousness of bringing illegal pesticides into the UK. Let us tackle the issue at source.

Scotland's wildlife protection laws are among the best in Europe, so why do we have such a problem? Liberal Democrats in the previous Scottish Executive significantly improved our capacity for effective wildlife policing, through the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. Despite that, in 2006 Scotland had the worst figures for illegal poisoning for at least 25 years, so we need people in place to ensure that the law is enforced. Each police force should have at least one full-time wildlife crime officer and back-up from part-time wildlife crime officers, as has been the case in Lothian and Borders Police since 2005—the force was the first to have such an arrangement. Thereafter, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service must pursue wildlife crimes vigorously.

Proper co-operation between Scotland's police forces is all-important, and by placing dedicated wildlife crime officers throughout Scotland we will ensure that there is greater synchronicity between regions and with the national wildlife crime unit. That will lead to better investigation, prosecution and record keeping. We would appreciate advice from the minister on the steps that his department is taking to ensure that at least one full-time serving officer is appointed as a wildlife crime officer in each Scottish force.

I mentioned earlier that, as well as having the people in place to investigate wildlife crimes, we also need a system that delivers uniformity in applying penalties, so that the existing legislation successfully acts as a proper deterrent. The Scottish Government needs to review the use of penalties by the courts and to encourage the Crown Office to press for full use in all cases. Our ministers need to review the process of recording wildlife crime, so that its full extent, its trends and the effectiveness of efforts to deal with it are clearer.

There are evidence-gathering problems, for example in cases in which evidence is considered inadmissible in court because the person who reported the crime did not have the landowner's permission to be on the land. With that in mind, I welcome the SRPBA's willingness to help in stamping out wildlife crime, as well as that of the BASC, the SEBG and the SGA, which have all been mentioned.

The minister told us in August about the measures to deal with wildlife crime that his department is considering. One suggestion was the possibility of stopping single farm payments. I have heard some clarification on that today, but I still urge serious caution when considering such a measure. If a landowner or farmer is implicated in wildlife crime and as being in breach of cross-compliance, their payments can be reduced by 1 to 5 per cent where they are shown to be negligent. If the action or omission is intentional, the penalty can go up to 100 per cent. That is important, because unlike criminal prosecutions the lower civil standard of proof is used to decide whether or not cross-compliance requirements have been breached. If there is no criminal prosecution, cross-compliance penalties can still be applied. The civil standard of proof relates to the balance of probability, and if an inspector can provide evidence to show the probability, they can say that there has been a breach.

I appreciate Mr Hume's point—it is the same point that Mr Rumbles made. For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that in the serious circumstances of taking away people's livelihood, we would require the heaviest burden of proof—I am happy to clarify that once again.

The issue is that cases should be heard in courts of justice. Fairness must prevail—there is no question but that those who are convicted of wildlife crime should face the loss of their firearms licence and jobs. I am heartened that the Scottish Government is taking wildlife crime seriously and that it has committed to crack down on the perpetrators, but to reiterate my earlier point, I also urge serious caution and moderation, so that the right people are caught and dealt with firmly. Farmers and gamekeepers do their job because they love their countryside, and Scotland has a wonderful and biodiverse countryside only because of the people who work in it and for it. With good liberal principles, let us leave the fines and punishments to properly constituted courts. I welcome the amended motion.

I declare an interest as a member of the RSPB. We have had an important and useful debate this afternoon, at a time when there seems to be an increasing determination to combat the sickening criminal activity that continues to threaten the well-being and very existence of some of the most magnificent creatures that make their homes in Scotland. The wonderful diversity of the wildlife that inhabits our countryside attracts nature lovers and watchers from across the globe, rewarding us in turn by sustaining a tourism industry that is important to the fragile communities of remote and rural Scotland and by supporting the livelihoods of the many people who earn their living in our hills and moorlands.

Wildlife crime takes many forms, and affects many species, but across the board it is sickening and disgraceful, and it does us no credit as a nation of so-called animal lovers. It needs to be tackled relentlessly until it is stamped out. The persecution of birds of prey—usually by poisoning—is the most high-profile form of wildlife crime, and we have seen some appalling examples of that this summer. Despite the stringent wildlife and animal welfare legislation that has been enacted in this country in recent years, it is concerning that last year produced the worst ever figures for recorded wildlife poisoning, with this year looking set to be little better.

More than 450 birds are known to have been poisoned since May 1999, and it is likely that many more poisonings were undetected. There is clearly a problem, and we Conservatives welcome the Scottish Government's stated determination to tackle it. Despite appropriate legislation being in place, enforcement is patchy and inconsistent. We therefore support the forthcoming review, which will examine those inconsistencies and report back with recommendations in March.

Elaine Smith made an interesting contribution on dog fighting and urban forms of wildlife crime. I commend her suggestion that the review should consider such issues as well.

At this stage, we do not see a need for new legislation on wildlife crime, but we await the outcome of the review with interest. We will respond in due course to any ensuing proposals that will aid the eradication of such crime. However, we see the need for better partnership working between land managers, conservation bodies, the Government and police. Today's clear statement of commitment by Scotland's land managers and sporting interest bodies to work with the Government and police to stamp out crimes against wildlife is very welcome indeed. It is crucial that people who are guilty of these crimes are caught. They will not always be easily found.

There are concerns that some killings are malicious. As we heard from Jamie McGrigor, there have been cases in which an iconic bird has been found dead, but crows and gulls in the same locality—birds which are also voracious carrion eaters—have been unharmed. Such concerns have to be addressed as the battle to stamp out wildlife crime progresses. As the Solicitor General said in the opening speech, proper investigation of crime is crucial and prosecution must be properly evidence based.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I do not think that I have time; I have a lot to get through.

A number of constructive suggestions have been made, which are worthy of consideration. Like others, I ask ministers to consider those suggestions in drawing up their plans to combat wildlife crime. The setting up of a central database for the recording of all wildlife crime in Scotland will help with the accurate recovery of information. Ensuring that the procurator fiscal service considers appointing fiscals with wildlife expertise will mean that we have people who will thoroughly and vigorously pursue and prosecute people who are thought to be involved in wildlife offences. I was pleased to hear that the Solicitor General is sympathetic to that idea.

Consistency is required in the application of penalties, to ensure that they act as sufficient deterrent to people who are considering or embarking on criminal activity in this area.

I agree with many colleagues in the chamber who have said that consideration should be given to the appointment of full-time wildlife crime officers in all Scotland's police forces, to act as a local enforcement link for the national wildlife crime unit. The unit is tasked with sending intelligence to local forces, but according to the RSPB, that intelligence is seldom acted on at present.

Before today's debate, I made contact with Grampian's full-time wildlife crime officer, who is one of only four in Scotland. I look forward to meeting up with him soon to discuss his work in more detail—although I confess that I do not look forward to hearing about some of the atrocities that he encounters in his day-to-day activities. He was appointed to the new post 18 months ago, in March last year, and he is responsible for wildlife crime matters across the whole Grampian Police area. Working with him are a further 10 police officers who undertake part-time wildlife crime duties; that equates roughly to one more full-time officer. Those people have many incidents to deal with, and their workload is ever increasing as they heighten awareness of wildlife crime in Grampian, thereby also increasing the expectations of the public and the other partners with whom they work.

The incidents of crime that the officers deal with are varied and include offences against badgers; deer and salmon poaching; hare coursing; and trading in endangered species. However, the persecution of birds of prey through shooting, trapping and especially poisoning is a serious problem and a major part of the full-time officer's work. After 18 months in post, the officer concludes:

"Wildlife crime is alive in Scotland, and it will take every police force in Scotland to make full-time appointments to go some way to tackling the problems and crimes we face. One of the most important functions of my role is to support and encourage partnership working, and that includes the landowners, gamekeepers, scientists and the public. I am thoroughly enjoying the challenge, and the support of most of my colleagues in the force."

He is a dedicated police officer and I wish him well in his efforts to combat wildlife crime in Grampian. I commend the initiative of his chief constable, and the initiative of the other chief constables who already employ full-time wildlife crime officers, to those forces who as yet do not do so.

We welcome the debate, we welcome the review, and we look forward to responding to any Government proposals that follow.

The debate has been excellent, and I hope that neither I nor Mr Russell, who will speak after me, will spoil that. It has helped to raise the profile of animal welfare and wildlife crime. I highlight the quality of the speeches and the information and knowledge behind them.

It is only fair to congratulate the minister on continuing down the path that the previous Administration set when it introduced sections tackling wildlife crime in a series of bills and on his efforts to build consensus, not only across the political spectrum but among the different interests, from landowners and gamekeepers through to the specialist animal welfare and wildlife protection groups.

Although we talk of Scotland's natural landscape, it is important to recognise that, despite its rugged and unspoilt appearance, virtually all Scotland's countryside is managed. Over the centuries, man has shaped rural Scotland no less than urban areas, whether through forestry, different types of agriculture, organised hunting and fishing or conservation. Our inheritance is rich, but it is not a garden of Eden unshaped by human hands. Rather, it has emerged from dominant interests, whose ideas about how land should be used affected everything, including the wildlife.

In the past, the landowner was sovereign and enforced his priorities—it generally was a man—which were often economically driven. The land was converted to whatever use provided the best return. The landscape and the people and creatures that lived in it bore the consequences. What environmental protection there was depended on what was in the interests of large estates and farmers.

That situation has not completely changed—landowners and farmers have a huge interest in the use of land and, in turn, in wildlife—but we can see the beginnings of a much more balanced approach to land management, in which the conservation of species can be considered alongside the requirements of other land uses. The conservation organisations—whether they focus on birds or mammals, or on flora, which lies outside the scope of this debate—are entering into constructive debate with landowners, gamekeepers, farmers and other groups on issues on which they have traditionally had fundamental differences. Others are involved in those national and local discussions, representing tourism and other interest groups that, in the past, may have stood back from debates about wildlife protection.

It will not necessarily be easy to bring people together in that way. There is a significant need for cultural change. Some people still have the attitude that some species are vermin, while others consider them to be intrinsically interesting and important. However, the fact that the debate is taking place and that there is an enforcement process represents a valuable step forward.

Colleagues have highlighted some of the key issues that need to be addressed. Numbers of reported wildlife crimes have increased, but successful arrests and prosecutions are comparatively rare. As a consequence of plea bargaining, penalties that the courts impose seem light, so it is right that policing and prosecution patterns should be reviewed as the minister suggests. The amendment in Sarah Boyack's name is intended to flesh out what the Labour Party believes can be done now to make progress on those matters, and I hope that, in his closing speech, the minister will confirm his intention to implement those actions as soon as practicable.

Written questions that Rhona Brankin lodged earlier in the summer produced answers that showed considerable numbers of police involved in dealing with wildlife crime, but other information suggests that those figures might be misleading. I was told that only two forces—Grampian Police and Lothian and Borders Police—have full-time police officers working on wildlife crime, but the minister suggested that the figure is four, and I would be interested to know which other forces have full-time officers.

Most of the officers who were identified in the written answers deal with wildlife crime on top of their other responsibilities. That is why the Labour Party has asked that, in each police force, at least one officer should be designated as a full-time wildlife and animal welfare crime co-ordinator. On that, I disagree with the cautious comments that were made by Christine Grahame, who is not normally noted for her caution.

On prosecutions, we welcome the mechanisms that the Solicitor General outlined. However, the reality is that too many cases are not being prosecuted by fiscals who have received the appropriate specialist training. In some instances, that seems to have contributed to lesser penalties because more serious charges have been dropped. The recent case at Edinburgh sheriff court, in which men received fines for interfering with badger setts, whereas other charges relating to animal cruelty and attacking badgers were not pursued by the prosecution, raises particular concerns.

The final suggestion in Labour's amendment asks the Government to take forward the production of guidance on the prevention of wildlife crime that is aimed at landowners, gamekeepers and others who are responsible for land management. My view is that landowners or managers should not be able to claim ignorance as an excuse if an employee commits a crime in the course of their duties. Guidance would help to ensure that no one is in any doubt what the law requires. I view its introduction as a further step towards more responsible care of wildlife on estates and farms.

Does not the member agree that the general principle of Scots law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that any penalty should apply to the guilty? A person cannot be guilty simply because their employee commits a criminal offence.

I think that it is the responsibility of the employer to be aware of what the individual employee is doing in his or her name. That is the issue as far as guidance is concerned. That applies in many other areas, too.

We accept what ministers are doing, and we hope that the Minister for Environment will accept Labour's amendment, in furtherance to our shared objectives. We do not believe that what we suggest should cut across the proposed inquiry, and we are not precious enough to think that others cannot come up with even better ideas. We welcome voluntary initiatives, such as those of the Scottish Estates Business Group, which represents major landowners. The group has promised that its members would discipline employees who were caught harming birds of prey. Parliament should set out clear expectations of the actions that it would like to be taken by the police, the prosecution service and ministers.

Aristotle claimed that the test of a civilisation could be found in its treatment of animals—an inhumane civilisation was one that treated animals inhumanely. We need to ensure that we put our own house in order.

Cathy Jamieson made some strong points about the link between inappropriate treatment of animals and inappropriate and criminal behaviour directed towards humans. Many of the people who are engaged in dog fighting and similar activities are also engaged in some of the more unsavoury crimes against other individuals.

Turning to John Scott's point, we need to be careful, where there is a prospect of people losing their livelihood, to ensure that the burden of proof is satisfied. However, the loss of someone's livelihood is not an excuse for committing a crime, whatever the circumstances. We must ensure that the law applies to everyone.

There appears to be some sort of anomaly in the idea of there being a need for permission to catch people committing crimes. I thought that access legislation had created a situation in which evidence could be given by the RSPB and other agencies without permission necessarily being sought. Perhaps the Solicitor General could comment on that, and on whether poaching legislation applies in such situations.

As the motion says,

"2006 was the worst year ever for recorded wildlife poisoning incidents".

The Scotsman has today highlighted the range of wildlife crimes. It is important that we are seen to be doing something. The message goes out from the Parliament that the things that were illustrated in The Scotsman today are not acceptable, and that we are determined to ensure that they do not happen.

I ask those members who are having conversations to take them outside the chamber.

I welcome the amendment. I am very grateful to Sarah Boyack and Des McNulty—those are words that I never expected to say—for the work that they did to ensure that we could accept the amendment. The key issue was that we must recognise the independence of the prosecution services in Scotland; we must recognise the operational flexibility that chief constables require. The change that was made to the amendment allows us to do that, and I very much take on board the useful suggestions that are contained in it.

My view is that we can consider the guidance issue very quickly. It is important, however, that the reviews and inspections have a chance to consider the other issues, but they will do that. In a moment, I will come to the issue of how the inspections will take place.

The message from today's debate—and from the unanimity in the chamber—is absolutely clear. Wildlife crime is crime; it is not trivial, nor is it victimless. Aside from cruelty to animals, members of the Scottish public are the victims—indeed, the whole nation suffers. Internationally, wildlife crime is a slur on the country and how we are presented in the world.

There is, can be, and will be, no excuse for murdering birds of prey. There is also no excuse for the barbarities that we see in activities such as hare coursing. I was delighted that the Solicitor General opened and took part in the debate. In doing so, he demonstrated absolutely the seriousness of the matter as a crime and the independence of the prosecution service in ensuring that that crime is pursued.

I am grateful to the members who participated in the debate and to the organisations that contributed. In the public gallery, we have representatives from a range of organisations that took part in informing the debate. I am particularly pleased to see representatives from the Scottish Estates Business Group, the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association, the Scottish Countryside Alliance, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and my very good friends, the gamekeepers. All those people recognise very strongly that it is bad for them, bad for the interests that they represent, and bad for Scotland to permit wildlife crime, in any sense, to take place. That enormously strong message is going out from the chamber and, now, from those organisations

Wildlife crime is not only the poisoning of wild birds, horrific as that is. I note the presence in the public gallery of Mark Rafferty, who, of course, is the constable who works on wildlife crime for Lothian and Borders Police; I met him some weeks ago when he showed me the corpse of the golden eagle, the death of which he is investigating.

Wildlife crime is also hare coursing, which is not a sport but organised cruelty. It is frequently reported in Scotland and hares are often left injured, dead or dying in the fields—there is not even the justification of hunting for the pot. Since September 2005, operation Lepus has recorded 103 coursing incidents in Tayside and has detected and charged individuals in 34 of those cases.

Wildlife crime is also badger baiting, as those who have read today's issue of The Scotsman will know. In badger baiting, badgers are dug out of their sett, after which dogs are set upon them or they are bludgeoned to death with a spade. That is a barbaric crime.

Wildlife crime can also be poaching, which is not the romantic activity that some portray, but organised crime. In those circumstances, large sums of money can be involved. We must ensure that poaching is stamped out.

Wildlife crime can also be the stealing of birds' eggs, a practice that has been much reduced by the vigilance of enthusiasts.

Poaching is not a word that we celebrate in Scotland, but we all have our own view on that.

A number of people have contacted me recently regarding the tremendous increase in raptors throughout Scotland and the difficulty that that has created. Is the minister prepared to instruct his officials to work in conjunction with Scottish Natural Heritage and other land management groups to undertake a survey of the raptor population in Scotland and to assess the impact of current numbers on farmers, crofters and other rural businesses? I ask the question because, if there is to be a debate on possible control measures, such a survey would ensure that the information is accurate and based on fact.

I hope that you might give me an allowance for the time that that intervention took, Presiding Officer.

I sympathise with John Farquhar Munro's point, but I will come in just a moment to the Langholm moor demonstration project, which demonstrates the concern on both sides of the equation to moving forward.

I return to my remarks on the types of wildlife crime. Wildlife crime also concerns the freshwater pearl mussel, a rare Scottish resource, which criminals are exploiting. Wildlife crime is also, of course, the trade in endangered species, which is particularly cruel and barbaric.

The thematic review by HM chief inspector of constabulary will look at all those areas and many more. As is common practice, the review will have elements; in this case, the first of those elements will be leadership, both in Government and across public bodies in Scotland, including voluntary bodies and others.

Will the minister give way?

No. If I may, I will make some progress.

The review will also look at policy and strategy; people and resources; partnership; and processes. Of course, HMCIC will work with the inspectorate of prosecution to ensure that a complete survey will be made. I give the chamber a commitment that we will bring those reports to the Parliament whenever we possibly can.

Will the minister ensure that the inquiry will consider all the comments that members have made on different aspects of wildlife crime but which he may not get to in his concluding remarks?

I shall certainly try to ensure that all that information is drawn to Paddy Tomkins's attention.

Taking a tough line on wildlife crime does not mean opposing country sports—they have an important role to play. However, it means considering new ways of doing things. The second Langholm moor project, which I launched on 20 September, brings together a range of organisations in an attempt to find a way forward for traditional shooting industries, grouse moor management and the preservation of raptors.

On 22 October, I shall open an international endangered raptor conference at Loch Lomond, which will be attended by nine Government ministers from various jurisdictions around the world. The eyes of the world will be on Scotland that week, and I hope that I can tell the conference that the Parliament has unanimously renewed its commitment to drive out wildlife crime in Scotland.