Wildlife Crime (Raptors)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-09916, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, on wildlife crime—eradicating raptor persecution from Scotland.
15:41
The debate offers Parliament the opportunity to unite in condemnation of all forms of raptor persecution and to show our resolve to eradicate it. I hope that I speak for us all in conveying my feelings of anger, revulsion and utter frustration that these and other wildlife crimes persist in 21st century Scotland. I hope that, today, we will send the clearest possible message to those involved that what they are doing has no place in Scotland and that they should expect to be pursued with the full weight of the law.
Persecution of raptors must stop. It is cruel, barbaric and outdated; it is selfish and dangerous. It threatens the survival of some of our rarest wildlife, and poisons risk livestock, domestic pets and, conceivably, children too. Wildlife crime stains Scotland’s reputation as a country that values and respects its nature and wildlife—we are, after all, the land of John Muir—and, through its impact on wildlife tourism and Scotland’s brand, wildlife crime threatens our economic prosperity. It is certainly against the law, but it is also true that the vast majority of Scots, in both rural and urban Scotland, detest the practice and have contempt for those who carry it out.
I acknowledge the sincere views of Opposition members and, in the spirit of unity, we will support the Labour amendment. I hope that members appreciate that we will need to consider how best to undertake such a review and that we do not want to deflect effort from the measures and reviews that are under way.
I will recap briefly on some of the steps that have been taken since 2007 by the Scottish Government. In 2007, in this Parliament’s first debate on wildlife crime following the poisoning of a golden eagle near Peebles, the then Solicitor General for Scotland and now Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, who opened the debate, gave a strong signal when he said:
“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.”—[Official Report, 4 October 2007; c 2497.]
In 2008, a review of how we tackle wildlife crime led to the “Natural Justice” report and the setting up of a new and strengthened partnership for action against wildlife crime in Scotland, which I am honoured to chair.
The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 strengthened our existing wildlife legislation and introduced the new concept of vicarious liability into the protection of wildlife, including birds of prey. The WANE act, as it is known, also triggered the first-ever annual report on wildlife crime, which was laid before the Parliament last year.
Law enforcement agencies have strengthened their resourcing of wildlife crime prosecutions, with a dedicated Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service wildlife and environmental crime unit with experienced fiscals who provide consistency and focus to a complex and diverse area of law.
The new Police Scotland structure has maintained and improved the wildlife crime officer network. It has added new central co-ordination roles, as well as more senior officer oversight to ensure consistent professional standards of investigation of wildlife crime.
We have internationally recognised and outstanding support services for law enforcement. We have committed a further two years of funding to the national wildlife crime unit, which is based in West Lothian.
I am grateful to the minister for the strength of his words so far. When Police Scotland was approached about incidents in South Lanarkshire, it was suggested that its response was to say that that was not a police matter. The minister is aware of those concerns. Has he investigated and got to the bottom of the matter?
I have had a discussion with officials about the matter and we think that the proper procedures were followed, but I am happy to consider the matter further.
Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture—SASA, as most of us know it—has a state-of-the-art facility and a hugely respected team who carry out post mortems and undertake toxicology testing in suspected poisoned wildlife cases. SASA provides undisputed data on the extent of the abuse of pesticides and other poisons that are used to kill wildlife in Scotland.
Evidential trails are often hard to develop. We are fortunate that SASA is also home to the development of a world-leading wildlife-DNA forensic laboratory, which provides services in advanced forensic techniques for wildlife crime investigators here in Scotland and around the world.
Robust laws are in place and we have professional and determined investigators. However, more needs to be done, as recent events clearly demonstrate. Last year, given early signs that criminals were changing their modus operandi, I announced three new measures in response to continued evidence of raptor persecution.
First, Professor Mark Poustie, from the University of Strathclyde, has agreed to lead a review of wildlife crime penalties. We need to be assured that the penalties that are available to the courts are a sufficient deterrent, amid concern that they are insufficient. Professor Poustie will report in December.
Secondly, I charged Scottish Natural Heritage with initiating a measure to restrict the use of general licences in areas where there is good reason to believe that wildlife crimes might be taking place. The general licence has been, in practice, a very light-touch piece of regulation. It allows a user to shoot or trap certain bird species, such as crows, without further reference to or control by SNH. The general licence is based on trust. We know that it can be used as a cover for committing wildlife crimes, and it would be utterly wrong to allow its continued use in circumstances in which SNH judges, on the balance of probabilities, that wildlife crime is taking place. SNH has introduced an enabling paragraph into the general licence and will soon bring forward a scheme to allow for a restriction to be implemented.
On the third measure, I recognise that it appears that people who kill raptors very often do so in a determined and organised fashion, taking advantage of the fact that they are operating in remote areas, often at night, with little chance of being spotted by witnesses. Modern policing has tools to address that issue, and although we cannot interfere in police operational matters, as I am sure that members agree, I am grateful to have the clear and explicit support of the Lord Advocate and senior police officers in encouraging the police to use all the investigative techniques that are at their disposal, including video surveillance, where appropriate.
Will the minister give way?
I will do so if the member can keep it brief.
I shall definitely keep it brief.
A concern that has been raised with me is that specialised wildlife policing is pretty thin on the ground in Scotland. Does the minister share that concern, and if so, will he intimate to Police Scotland that he does so?
Christine Grahame raises an important issue; similar concerns have been expressed to me. We have expanded the number of trained wildlife crime officers from eight to 14, and we are undertaking a consultation on investigatory powers for the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, to which I will refer in my closing speech.
I want to say a few words about the recent and appalling events that prompted this debate. Members will appreciate that I cannot go into any detail that runs the remotest risk of prejudicing criminal investigations or prosecutions.
The poisoning incident in Ross-shire has seen the loss of 16 red kites and six buzzards. That is a horrendous loss. The death of so many red kites in a single incident is very likely to have a significant impact on the population, in an area in which huge efforts have been made to reintroduce red kites. Many of the dead kites were established breeding birds, which would have contributed to the population around the Black Isle. The incident’s significance is reflected in the very welcome unity of all local stakeholders in condemning the incident and in the joint reward of £26,000.
The incident is only part of the story. Members might be aware that the red kite population in the area was reintroduced at the same time as a similar number of red kites were released in the Chilterns, in England. Now, though, there are roughly six times as many birds there as there are in the north of Scotland. I accept that there might be other factors, but the difference is most likely if not entirely due to illegal killing here in Scotland. If toxicology confirms the suspected poisonings, I regret to say that we will probably have passed a shameful landmark: the recording of 100 illegally killed red kites in northern Scotland since 1989.
We have had reports of separate incidents, involving peregrine falcons in Stirlingshire and Lanarkshire and, most recent, a missing satellite-tagged sea eagle in Aberdeenshire. The missing sea eagle was the first chick to be born to the sea eagles that were recently reintroduced to the east coast—something that we all celebrated last year. It is frustrating that we might never know what happened to the sea eagle, but it is perhaps highly significant that the bird and its transmitter disappeared in an area where other raptors have disappeared in suspicious circumstances.
In that context, I can understand why some people are calling for further legislation now. However, although in due course that might prove to be the end game—and frustrating as the current situation is—I sound a note of parliamentary caution. I will explain why.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I am running out of time.
The three measures that I mentioned have not been fully implemented and have not yet taken effect. As I stated, we are yet to see the effect of restricting the use of general licences or of any increase in penalties. Similarly, although proceedings have commenced in the first vicarious liability case in Stranraer sheriff court, we have not yet seen what impact such a case will have on the actions of owners and managers in the areas where these problems occur.
However, let me make it absolutely clear that the Scottish Government is determined to stamp out this deeply unpleasant and pernicious criminal behaviour. If and when we judge it necessary, I am committed to taking further action. If that involves licensing certain types of businesses, we will do so. Although I am not committed to licensing of that kind, it is not unreasonable for us to undertake a desk study of measures that are deployed elsewhere, particularly in the European Union. I will ask officials to advise on the next steps.
All those who might be affected by tougher regulation should take note that it is they who are unnecessarily bringing down a threat on their whole sector. They must hear that these crimes have gone much too far and that Parliament’s patience is rapidly running out.
In my closing speech, I will address the current important consultation on Scottish SPCA investigatory powers and I will cover the wider work of PAW Scotland. I will also address what additional steps we propose to remove toxic substances from our countryside.
We are implementing measures that I believe will have an impact, but our patience and that of Parliament are not infinite. This Government and this Parliament are determined to rid Scotland of a blight on her reputation. I hope that we will stand together for Scotland’s wildlife, and I look forward to hearing members’ speeches.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the impact of wildlife crime in Scotland and the potential strain that this places on Scotland’s reputation; welcomes the Scottish Government’s determination to tackle wildlife crime in Scotland; supports the work of the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime; welcomes the introduction of vicarious liability in wildlife crime in 2011 and the announcement in July 2013 of the review of wildlife crime penalties, the introduction of restrictions on general licences and the enforcement work being taken forward by Police Scotland; unreservedly condemns the appalling poisoning incident in Ross-shire that has killed at least 20 red kites and buzzards; recognises that these birds are a critical part of Scotland’s biodiversity and a key element in the growing wildlife tourism sector; expresses concern about the very worrying disappearance of the first sea eagle chick born from the reintroduced sea eagles on the east coast; considers that an update on the fight against wildlife crime is now timely, and welcomes agencies redoubling efforts to work together to protect Scotland’s remarkable wildlife.
We have a little bit of time in hand for interventions at this stage in the proceedings.
15:51
I commend the minister for bringing the debate to the chamber. I have tried to have the subject selected for topical questions over the past few weeks, so I am glad that the minister has recognised the seriousness of the situation and has used Government time to debate it. It is an emotive subject that has gathered a significant amount of attention from organisations and the wider public. I am pleased that we have the opportunity today to discuss wildlife crime and how we can work together to ensure that we do not continue to be faced with the unacceptable deaths of our iconic birds. I fully support the minister’s comments in his opening speech.
The reaction to the latest raptor deaths, from the demonstration in Inverness to the donations that have been received by RSPB Scotland, should make everyone within the chamber pause and reflect on the impact that the deaths are having not just on our wildlife, but on the image of Scotland and the value that we place on our environment. Nature-based tourism is worth some £1.4 billion a year to our economy, and SNH has said that the recent deaths
“detract from that value and diminish Scotland’s appeal as a major wildlife tourism destination.”
It is vulnerable raptors that are being targeted. Therefore, although overall numbers might be small, the impact on the populations can be significant.
I appreciate that such crime is difficult to tackle because of the remote locations, the length of time that it can take for a crime to be detected and the lack of witnesses. We have recently passed legislation and the Government has announced some welcome additional measures, but the lack of prosecution in recent cases—the poisoning of a golden eagle in December 2013, the poisoning of a peregrine falcon in February 2014 and the killing of a peregrine falcon in April 2014—shows that the crime is evading the law. If we can identify areas of legislation that can be strengthened or reviewed, we must give serious consideration to pursuing that option. We must also look critically at the resources that are being deployed, and we must challenge the culture in which such crimes are considered acceptable.
I am confident that everyone in the chamber today believes that the abhorrent deaths of the 22 raptors last month are unacceptable and that the perpetrators should be found and prosecuted. However, again and again we come back to the difficulty of detection and evidence gathering, and I believe that more can be done in those areas.
I am pleased that the Government is now consulting on greater powers for Scottish SPCA officers. The consultation was due last year, and in the light of delays I would be interested in hearing the reasons why we are having such a long consultation process, which will run from March to September. The minister will speak about that in his closing speech; perhaps he can tell us when any extra powers will be granted to the Scottish SPCA.
A proposal to increase penalties is very welcome. They must be fixed at a level that will provide a strong deterrent. However, deterrents will work only if there is a realistic prospect of prosecution. That is why the Scottish SPCA consultation is so important. RSPB Scotland’s briefing states that
“the expertise, specialist equipment and facilities of the SSPCA benefit the work of the police.”
We must ensure that the powers that are granted to inspectors are sufficient to contribute to the securing of convictions.
I have previously raised concerns over the role of wildlife crime officers in Police Scotland. Having spoken to people who work in that area, I know that there are concerns that it is often a part-time role or that officers are frequently moved around and changed. There is also an issue around commitment and expertise. The effectiveness of the role depends on the commitment and knowledge of the officer. There is a need for officers to gain the trust of the community, to know the community well, to be able to gather intelligence and to work in partnership with others. What discussions has the minister had with Police Scotland over operational matters on wildlife crime? Christine Grahame raised that issue.
Our amendment acknowledges the work that the Government is undertaking in relation to the Scottish SPCA and wildlife crime penalties, but it also calls for further action. I know that the Government recognises that need, and that it has given a commitment that, if such action needs to be taken, it will take it.
I appreciate that is not long since the passing of the WANE act, but there was a rise in confirmed raptor poisonings last year. There is a danger that this year’s incidents, combined with a lack of convictions, could encourage others to think that it is acceptable to carry out such crimes and that they are likely to get away with them. That suggests that there is a need for us to go back to the legislation, to scrutinise its measures and to consider additional action.
There is a belief that the detected crimes are perhaps not the complete picture. There will be undetected and unreported crime, so the true figures could be more significant. When the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill was passed, there was an indication that the Government would be prepared to go back and consider other options if the legislation was not successful. Although the introduction of vicarious liability was welcomed—there is a belief that it led initially to a reduction in poisonings—it has not yet been tested in a Scottish court, notwithstanding the current case at Stranraer. The lack of convictions for wildlife crimes seems to indicate that the 2011 act is failing to work as a vehicle for holding those responsible to account.
That is why, in our amendment, we propose that the Government should conduct a study of wildlife legislation from outwith Scotland, particularly of licensing and game-bird legislation in other countries. I am pleased that the minister has indicated that he will support our amendment.
The RSPB briefing highlights the fact that Scotland lacks any regulation of game shooting. My colleague Peter Peacock lodged amendments to the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill on that area at stage 3.
We cannot eradicate this type of crime without changing the culture. It seems to come from a place where there is a single focus on what one sector believes suits its needs, regardless of the consequences on other interests. That places a huge responsibility on land managers. I fully accept that a small minority is involved in any kind of criminal activity, and I fully acknowledge the contribution that NFU Scotland and Scottish Land & Estates have made to the reward fund that was established by RSPB Scotland. However, there are still elements of land management that think that such activity is acceptable, perhaps even necessary, and we must all work together to challenge and change that culture. That challenge must come not just from politicians and conservationists, but from land managers themselves. As I say, it is a small minority but, when such acts are perpetrated, the subsequent negative press and public reaction impact on all landowners and land users across Scotland, on their businesses and on tourism as a whole.
Does the member accept that, at this point, there is not one shred of evidence that links the appalling losses in Ross-shire to land management or land ownership?
That is an on-going police investigation. The minister said that we need to consider the science and where the bird population has been affected. We need to be honest: there are people involved in land management who think that such practices are acceptable. I fully accept that it is a minority, but we need to change that culture and make it clear that the practice is unacceptable.
I spoke to representatives of Scottish Land & Estates last week. I recognise the work that it is doing to address the matter. Some people are perhaps not involved in any of the structures or big organisations, and we need to reach those people. As well as having robust legislation and an effective wildlife crime unit, we need to resource education and training opportunities properly. As I said, not every landowner or manager is a member of a formal organisation, and we need to ensure that they still have the opportunity to interrogate their practice and ensure that they are compliant with the law.
I looked back at the passage of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. Peter Peacock closed his speech by saying:
“The issue has not gone away; it will come back.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2011; c 33708-09.]
We should all be hugely disappointed that those words have come to pass. We must continue to strive to create a culture where raptor persecution is unacceptable and where the practice will not be tolerated by anyone who has an interest in our countryside and wildlife. We must be prepared to take measures to ensure that that happens.
I move amendment S4M-09916.3, to leave out from first “welcomes” to “Police Scotland” and insert:
“believes that the commitment to tackle wildlife crime is shared across the Parliament; acknowledges the work undertaken by the Scottish Government and its relevant bodies and partners in working to tackle wildlife crime, including the review of wildlife crime penalties and the consultation for increased powers for the Scottish SPCA; however believes that the latest wildlife crimes show the urgent need for further action in Scotland; calls on the Scottish Government to conduct a study of licensing and game bird legislation in other countries with a view to working with other parties to review wildlife crime legislation in Scotland;”.
15:59
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and I thank the organisations that have provided briefings. I emphasise that the Scottish Conservatives, along with other parties across the chamber, condemn, without hesitation, the recent poisoning incident in Ross-shire, as we condemn any illegal poisoning of any animal or bird. It is important that we are united in sending out that strong message.
The Scottish Conservatives are clear that there is enough legislation in place to enable the police to investigate wildlife crime, catch those responsible and bring them to justice. Proper enforcement of the legislation is vital. The rule of law must be upheld. That is what we must focus on.
We support Police Scotland in its efforts to investigate and find those responsible for the Ross-shire incident. There has been much side-briefing by many organisations, which is not necessarily a good thing, as it can cloud a straightforward issue. Many rumours are now circulating among local inhabitants in Ross-shire about how this disaster might have come about. I am reliably told that the red kites are hand-fed in that area at the Tollie feed station on the Brahan estate. It has been mooted that such a sudden mass death might have been caused by some contamination in what they were fed. I repeat that that is only rumour and speculation but I imagine that the first thing that anyone investigating an incident of this kind would do is check the food source for possible contamination. I ask the minister to confirm whether that was done in the early stages of the investigation.
Police Scotland should have adequate resources to allow it to investigate all wildlife crime in the appropriate way, so is there any reason why the public still do not know what type of poisoning the birds died from? An answer to that would surely establish possible sources, but it seems that we are all in the dark on this, unless the minister can now enlighten us.
I hope that the member will forgive me for pointing out that there are sound reasons for why details of what substance might have affected the birds and how the investigation is proceeding have not been revealed. I am afraid that I therefore cannot enlighten him any further on the detail, although I know some of it.
I, too, urge caution, Mr McGrigor.
I am sure that those reasons are sound, but I am sorry that the minister cannot share those details. We would like to know what they are.
We support the good work of PAWS and congratulate all the participants. A partnership approach is necessary to resolve all types of wildlife crime. We, too, recognise the significant economic importance of wildlife and ornithological tourism to the Scottish economy. That involves all birds that ornithologists come to see, from song birds to the golden eagle.
I warmly welcome the Scottish Gamekeepers Association’s new conservation project, the year of the wader, which aims to help halt the alarming decline of wading bird species such as the curlew, the lapwing and the golden plover. As a farmer for a long time, I can remember when all those birds were plentiful in large flocks at certain times of the year in the Highlands. Now, however, they have become scarce in most places, and we must know the reasons why.
I commend the Scottish Gamekeepers Association’s briefing for today’s debate. It calls on the Scottish Government to seek to tackle wildlife crime at its root, by dealing with some of its possible causes, and to act to ensure that people understand that they have genuine legal alternatives to taking the law into their own hands when they are faced with conflicts that might affect their livelihoods. The SGA has repeated its call for proper guidance to be published in relation to a functional, science-based licensing system for businesses that might be affected by the impact of raptor species. I ask the minister to respond to that in his closing speech.
The motion mentions sea eagles. The impact of sea eagles on crofters’ and farmers’ livelihoods is another genuine issue of concern that has been widely publicised lately, and is one on which I have spoken out for a number of years. It was discussed at a recent meeting of our cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on crofting, which I chair. I welcome the NFUS’s recently published sea eagle action plan and look forward to ministers responding positively to it. I am clear that Government agencies in future must do more in terms of environmental impact studies before the reintroduction of raptors or predators, in order that damage to livestock and the existing indigenous wild bird population is minimised.
On Labour’s amendment, we are not convinced, because we think that there is already enough legislation. However, we will not vote against the motion.
Today’s debate is useful as it sends out a unified message from Parliament that we condemn illegal raptor persecution and all wildlife crime. However, it is important, in this instance, that we rapidly find out whether the poisoning of a huge number of hand-fed red kites was in fact a crime and not an awful accident. We look to the Government and its agencies to enforce existing legislation to bring those responsible to justice and to work constructively with all stakeholders to tackle some of the underlying reasons why some people say that they may commit wildlife crime.
The minister says that he is growing impatient and he proposes further legislation. I suggest that wildlife crime is being perpetrated by a very few individuals, rather than by any particular section of the Scottish countryside.
We come to the open debate; speeches should be up to five minutes, including interventions. I also urge caution if any of the matters is sub judice.
16:06
I welcome the briefing from Scottish Land & Estates, which states that it attempts
“to keep a record of all recorded confirmed raptor incidents, but believe there is only information on just over half of these officially confirmed incidents in the public domain. Very few of these raptor investigations lead to charges being brought, let alone convictions. This makes it difficult for anyone to draw reasonable and informed conclusions, but it is likely that there are a wide range of causes including protection of game, sheep, poultry, racing pigeons and recreational disturbance.”
That points at land managers to a great extent, but not entirely. It seems that the 19th century culture of killing all game and livestock predators has not passed into history. More’s the pity. The reasons for bird poisonings need to be better understood in today’s land management climate. Motives for grouse moor protection are adduced by RSPB Scotland. What motives would prompt poisonings on farmland and forest properties? Can ministers analyse motives from convictions secured? That is very difficult because, as we know, the statistics make few links between convictions and bird deaths. That is why the list of bird deaths ought to be combined with a map of the estates and farms in the area where the carcases were found. That is not in order to blame people there, but to see whether people other than members of the NFUS and Scottish Land & Estates are in fact in the firing line, as the birds have been. The birds have been shot, poisoned, trapped, disturbed and have had their nests destroyed. All that suggests that land management in particular is at the root of the problem.
The 2012 survey showed that there were 52 breeding pairs of red kites in the Black Isle. However, we should not forget the destruction of 166 red kites in the Black Isle between 1999 and 2006. There is a pattern of behaviour there that we need to see on paper and on maps, to find out exactly where those birds have been picked up.
I am disappointed in those who suggest that tourists will be put off coming to our beautiful countryside because of the news about the raptors. Tourism is on the rise—it is strong. Weather plays a far bigger part in tourists’ decisions about where they will go than anything else. We should take that into account.
I have far greater concerns about the ill-informed and the malcontents in our communities, perhaps on farms, forests and estates, who practice or condone the poisonings. Someone, somewhere knows the culprits. This wall of silence must be broken down.
Proof of intent is essential. An amnesty for chemicals raises questions about cross-compliance and good practice. Vicarious liability has yet to be applied. Perhaps once we have seen a case in which it is, we will know whether the law goes far enough.
Biodiversity and support for its application through the Scottish rural development programme need to be appropriate and well publicised and leave land managers and users in no doubt about their duties in respect of raptors.
While sheep farmers and crofters claim that sea eagles predate their flocks, financial compensation should be based on proof that such attacks have been happening. There needs to be a much more credible evidence base than has been provided so far.
The default position in our countryside and communities should be to do no harm and to live and let live, but a clearer picture is needed across Scotland for MSPs to be sure that a culture change is truly embedded in terms of respect for raptors and their place in our ecosystem.
I support the Government motion.
16:11
I was privileged back in 2001 to be asked by the then environment minister, Rhona Brankin, to stand in for her when the first cohort of red kites was reintroduced into the Galloway forest. It really was an extremely exciting event to see those beautiful birds at close quarters and to see them gain their liberty. They had come from up north and from colonies in England. I know that there was quite a lot of anxiety at the time that, given the history of persecution of those beautiful birds, they might not survive and thrive and that they might become victims of the sort of persecution that we are hearing about.
I visited the red kite trail in Galloway on Good Friday this year on a beautiful sunny day. I observed pairs of kites riding the thermals above the roads in several locations. We stopped outside Bellymack Hill Farm near Laurieston just after 2 o’clock when the kites are fed and observed dozens of red kites circling and swooping to pick up food. It really was one of the most spectacular wildlife sights that I have ever witnessed. To pick up on Mr McGrigor’s point, from what I could see of the feeding at that location, it is very doubtful that any kind of contamination would be likely to take place, because the feeding seemed to be extremely well organised.
A report by the RSPB in 2010 estimated that at that time the red kite trail in Galloway had brought £21 million of new spend into the area in six years. Certainly, on the occasion when I observed the kites feeding from the side of the road, the viewing gallery on the farm was absolutely packed with bird watchers. The kite trail is clearly an established tourist attraction in the area.
The visit really drove home to me the shocking nature of the recent poisonings in the Highlands, with 16 red kites and six buzzards poisoned. We have discussed and debated wildlife crime in this Parliament on many occasions and it is so disappointing that this illegal and disgraceful activity is still going on.
When the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill was passing through the Parliament in 2010-11, my colleague Peter Peacock suggested that perhaps a licensing scheme could be introduced for sporting estates, which would mean that estates where raptor persecution persisted could lose their licence and the source of their income. At the time, it was not felt that that was appropriate and, as far as I recall, Scottish Land & Estates was progressing some form of voluntary code. I am not sure how that has progressed since then.
The then environment minister, Roseanna Cunningham, introduced into the bill provisions for vicarious liability, which would enable landowners to be prosecuted for poisoning on their estates. Labour fully supported that measure and was happy to do so. However, we have always believed that if it did not work—perhaps the jury is out on that—we should consider whether further measures were necessary. One of the measures that I promoted at the time of the bill was the extension of the powers of the SSPCA, to enable officers to retrieve evidence relating to wildlife crime. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 conferred powers on SSPCA officers to search and enter homes to retrieve evidence relating to animal cruelty. Those powers were deployed in 2011 when the first conviction for dog fighting was secured under that act. That is a possible parallel in terms of powers. When the WANE bill was under consideration, it was believed that there had not been enough consultation on the proposals for them to be taken forward in the bill.
In 2012 I asked the Scottish Government whether it would consider extending the Scottish SPCA’s powers. A consultation on that was supposed to be launched in the first half of 2012. That did not happen, so I asked again in 2013, and at that point the consultation was supposed to come out in 2013. It is a wee bit disappointing that the consultation did not appear until the end of March this year, but I am glad that it is under way and I look forward to the responses to it.
A lot of us agree that the issue needs to be tackled urgently, because, as the minister said, the fact that we do not seem to respect our wildlife is a stain on Scotland. When you see these beautiful animals up close, as I did recently in Galloway, it is such a privilege. I totally condemn anybody who takes part in the poisoning and persecution of these creatures. We should value and treasure them. They are becoming part of our heritage; they are back in our countryside again, and it is tremendous to see them.
16:16
When the minister appeared before the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee back in November last year, he was able to report a downturn in incidents of recorded raptor poisonings, noting that the figures had improved from 30 in 2009 to three in 2012. Interestingly, however, he added:
“It goes without saying that we cannot afford to be complacent.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 27 November 2013; c 3063.]
How prophetic those comments have proven to be, for it seems hostilities have been resumed in big style. In 2013 there was a doubling of the number to six and this year has been even more depressing. Other criminal non-poisoning recorded incidents involving raptors have been on the increase as well, going up from 10 in 2012 to 17 last year.
Ironically, that comes against the backdrop of a marked increase in police resources being deployed across Scotland for the purposes of tackling wildlife crime. It is worth noting that in an area such as Angus, which sadly is a hotspot, those dedicated resources are further supplemented by community police officers who operate to assist the work of the designated wildlife crime officer, police constable Blair Wilkie.
As we all recognise, getting on top of an issue such as raptor poisoning is, by its nature, hugely challenging. The Scottish Wildlife Trust and the RSPB both want penalties for such offences to be toughened up. I think that we all have some sympathy with that view, along with a desire—where relevant to the case and where convictions have been made—to implement the vicarious liability provisions of the WANE act and send a message to landowners that they are responsible for the actions of those whom they employ.
First, we have to catch these criminals, and the difficulty is that their barbaric practices are mostly—although not always—carried out in remote rural parts when it is unlikely that anyone will be around. In addition, is it not the case that they will continue down the path they are on, not because of the nature of the punishment that they risk, but because they believe that there is little chance they will ever be caught? A £26,000 reward is on offer for information that leads to a successful prosecution of those responsible for the Black Isle incident. The fact that thus far the police have failed to charge anyone perhaps illustrates the fundamental difficulty in catching these criminals.
That said, when hotspots emerge—and there are one or two in the north-east of Scotland—surely they should become the focus of intensive attention. General licence arrangements should also be considered, as the minister mentioned.
In the interests of fairness and balance, we also need to acknowledge that we are not talking about every estate being involved or there being a sizeable number of gamekeepers caught up in these barbaric practices. The reality is nothing like that. There is undoubtedly an unacceptable problem out there, but is important to get it in appropriate perspective. The Scottish Gamekeepers Association has demonstrated that when its members are found guilty of this sort of behaviour it will act. Three SGA members have been expelled from the organisation for wildlife crime involving raptors in the past 18 months. Scottish Land & Estates has made it crystal clear to its members that there is no place for raptor killing within its ranks.
Of course, this is a serious matter and we need to find a way to catch the perpetrators and make an example of them. I therefore welcome the measures that the minister announced today. I wonder whether we also need to consider the introduction of a brief amnesty on the chemical Carbofuran. Over the past eight years, some 28 eagles have been found dead on or have disappeared from Scottish grouse moors. I understand that, of those, 15 were poisoned either by Carbofuran or through a lethal concoction involving Carbofuran, which is of course illegal in Scotland and highly dangerous to humans as well.
Such a measure would undoubtedly prove controversial and perhaps it is naive to think that people who have gathered such a poison would be prepared to hand it over. However, we have reached the point at which any measure that has the potential to reduce the threat to Scotland’s birds of prey must be considered. I suggest that once we have had such an amnesty, we could greatly increase the penalties for possessing Carbofuran, let alone using it.
16:20
The debate is timely, as we are in the grip of what appears to be a serial bird poisoner in a small area of Ross-shire. It appears to be an overt act of cruelty. The perpetrator needs to be caught and to feel the full force of the law. The poisoning is even more destructive in light of the work that has taken place to reintroduce the magnificent birds into the area. The reintroduction has provided many people with a great deal of pleasure—I, for one, have really enjoyed watching the birds in Easter Ross. I ask the Scottish Government to assess the barriers to detection and prosecution in the case and, if need be, amend the law.
I also ask that the Government consider an amnesty for pesticides and poisons. In his opening remarks, the minister talked about removing toxic substances from our countryside, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say about that in his closing speech. Many of those substances could have been lying about in outhouses and barns undisturbed for many years. While they are there, they could fall into the wrong hands or the packaging could disintegrate and the poison become accessible to birds and animals. An amnesty would ensure the removal of poisons from circulation altogether.
I have the privilege of being the species champion for the golden eagle. Through my work with that species, I have been given an insight into the value of those birds to not only our tourism industry but local people.
We can trace the history of raptor killings in Scotland back to the 18th century, when landowners and farmers deemed the birds to be vermin. Around that period, game hunting became really fashionable and birds became victims of that sport. Displaying them as stuffed ornamental pieces was also fashionable during the Victorian era. As a result, many became extinct.
The poisoning, trapping and shooting of raptors was not made illegal until the introduction of the Protection of Birds Act 1954. The vast majority of people now recognise the beauty of such birds and really appreciate the protection that they are given.
In recent years, the police have set up wildlife crime units and worked in partnership with organisations such as the RSPB, the SSPCA and the NFUS to try to address the issue.
The main difficulty in identifying offenders is that the crimes take place in isolated and remote areas. Usually, hillwalkers and others engaged in outdoor activity uncover poisonings by pure chance. That is why the fact that a huge number of birds have been found in the poisonings in Easter Ross is rare.
Donald Dewar said that raptor killing in Scotland was a national disgrace. We should all be ashamed of it and do our utmost to stop a horrible crime.
Wildlife is a key element of our tourism industry. With it comes an obvious boost to the economy in sparsely populated parts of the country where scattered communities live. Wildlife tourism is on the increase, as television programmes such as “Hebrides—Islands on the Edge” portray our wildlife at its best and encourage people to come and visit the area.
We desperately need to come up with a strategy that stops wildlife crime in our hills and glens. If we do not, Scotland’s image as a land of wildlife, tranquillity and beauty will be damaged beyond repair. We have to protect our iconic birds for their own survival, but we must also act for the good of our wildlife tourism and the natural heritage of our countryside.
As a few members have mentioned, the offence of vicarious liability in relation to the persecution of wildlife should have provided additional protection for birds. However, it too is a difficult crime to prosecute. There is a defence that the accused did not know that an employee was engaging in such activity. Another defence is that the individual took all reasonable steps to prevent an offence from being committed. The legislation on that should be reviewed to ensure that it provides maximum protection.
People involved in wildlife crime are criminals plain and simple. They are seldom people who farm or care for livestock, because such people have a natural affinity for living creatures—although I recognise that a minority are involved in wildlife crime. Others act out of badness, conducting activities such as egg collecting, badger baiting and the like. We should all be deeply ashamed of those things and do everything that we can to stop them. The people who commit those crimes also break down working relationships, because they cause suspicion among land managers, conservationists and the community as a whole. There is a duty on us all to stop those crimes and work together to bring the criminals to book.
16:25
I am sure that all members are disappointed and saddened by recent wildlife crimes, especially those in Ross-shire.
I begin by endorsing every sentence that Rob Gibson spoke this afternoon. In some respects, his speech is difficult to follow because everything has been said. However, the crime is not new and it has not gone away, and the criminals are sometimes fairly innovative in their attempts to deceive.
Only last year, a golden eagle was trapped in the Angus glens, which is a hotspot for the birds, as Graeme Dey mentioned. We know that the bird was then transported—it had to have been transported because its transmitter was on and it was moving at night, and golden eagles do not fly at night—and then dumped near Aboyne in my constituency of Aberdeenshire West. Its legs had been broken and it was left to die. I cannot for one minute think why someone would do such a thing, and why they would take a bird from one area to another to dispose of it.
We have recently heard that a sea eagle chick has disappeared without trace from my constituency. We have no idea what has happened to it, but we do know that there has been activity in that area in the past. The minister is quite right to say that we should not presume when investigations are on-going, but we have to ask why. What has happened to that chick?
Last year, a red kite was shot near Aboyne, again in my constituency. It was a female bird that had successfully reared three chicks the year before. It was shot deliberately.
I have read the many briefings for the debate, including the one from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to which Jamie McGrigor referred. Yes, it says that it is doing all that it can to encourage its members to act within the law, but why should we have to encourage people to act within the law? Surely we know to act within the law. The SGA has also said that three quarters of the time at its meetings is dedicated to the issue, but its briefing also talks about general licensing. That makes me ask whether the SGA is taking more time to talk about licensing and how to obtain it rather than talking about how to eradicate wildlife crime. Is it talking to its members to ensure that they are acting within the law and that everyone knows about the consequences if they do not?
Scottish Land & Estates has done a fantastic job of trying to ensure that its members are aware of what is going on. The partnership agreements between the RSPB, NFUS and others is testament to the fact that we want to eradicate this abhorrent crime against our wildlife.
There might be a case for new legislation but the consultation on the proposal for the SSPCA to have new enforcement powers will probably lead to better detection. With DNA detection, we will probably catch more criminals, but we need to be as innovative as the people committing these crimes. We need to ensure that, where crimes are being committed—and where there are hotspots, as Graeme Dey suggested—we have closed-circuit television. We must ensure that we can get the information that we need and that the information is recorded to effect prosecution.
I support the Government motion and I endorse the Labour amendment.
16:30
This is a timely debate and the mood throughout has been fairly sombre. I welcome the minister’s motion and the unequivocal words of condemnation in his opening speech, and also his acceptance of Claire Baker’s amendment, all of which enjoy the whole-hearted support of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
I perfectly understand why the minister cannot comment in detail on the case in Ross-shire that has prompted today’s debate but, as he acknowledged, the incident has provoked revulsion and anger from the public, including members of Scottish Land & Estates, the NFUS and the SGA, as others have said. It has also tested the patience of the Parliament. As the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds points out in its briefing, it is an example of wildlife crime on an unprecedented scale, but it is far from unusual. What we are seeing is an emerging map of hotspots around the country, which leaves us asking what more can be done.
I firmly believe that the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 was a significant step in the right direction. It introduced a range of measures that will prove beneficial over time. Much consideration has been given in this debate and previously to the introduction of vicarious liability and, although I understand that it has not yet been fully tested in law, I whole-heartedly welcome the move. It was made by the minister’s predecessor, Roseanna Cunningham, who acknowledged that the act was not a panacea and would not make prosecution straightforward, but I still think that it was a move in the right direction.
The act left open opportunities to consider other areas in which Parliament was not yet ready to take a view and wanted further work to be done—for example, making penalties available to the courts. There are three areas that I would like to address in which we suspended judgment. One relates to licensing, one to the SSPCA’s role, which is now subject to a consultation, and one to the capacity and expertise in Police Scotland, to which Christine Grahame alluded.
On licensing—although not the general licence that is currently subject to review, which I very much welcome—last time round I was of the opinion that the concerns about bureaucracy and penalising good estates were well expressed. I was not persuaded at that stage that we should go down the licensing route, but I recall the words of Peter Peacock at stage 3, and my own conclusion was that such a move should not be made then but if we debated the matter again, the point of departure would be that some form of licensing would almost inevitably be required. The minister appears to have come to a similar conclusion.
On the SSPCA’s role, other members have pointed to the potential benefit of increasing resources and improving the chances both of detection and of bringing successful cases. During consideration of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, it was pointed out that the SSPCA was able to be involved up to the point of death but not thereafter. Although I saw difficulties with extending that role back then, I am increasingly of the view that it is probably now essential.
Finally, I turn to Police Scotland. We heard evidence when the bill was passed that there were areas of good practice, and the north-east was often referred to as one such example. Ministers promised that the creation of Police Scotland would deliver better targeted resources and expertise, but I share the concerns that Christine Grahame raised, because there does not seem to be any evidence of that. The example that I cited in relation to South Lanarkshire is but one case, and I could cite others from my own constituency. A pattern is building up that suggests that wildlife crime does not necessarily have the priority within Police Scotland that we might hope.
As Graeme Dey suggested, there were signs of improvement in the situation recently, but that position appears to have been reversed. Police Scotland is either struggling to cope with the issue or failing to prioritise, and the disincentives that are in place for wildlife crime appear to be inadequate. Meanwhile, public anger is rising and I think that the reputational damage is increasing. I acknowledge the steps that the Scottish Government has taken to date and the strength of the minister’s remarks this afternoon. However, we need to up the pace and intensity and ensure that the worthwhile work that is under way is brought to a conclusion and that changes are implemented without delay.
16:35
The persecution and killing of raptors in Scotland is, as we know, a crime punishable at law, but it is also a crime against God’s law. Those beautiful creatures are innocents that God requires us to nurture, support and steward, and it ill behoves anyone to do them damage.
This debate is timely. Although the Government is doing much to support wildlife, we must consider what additional measures and resources are required to eradicate, for good, these moronic crimes. However, before taking any action, we must look carefully at what has happened. The mass killing that has prompted this debate is very close to home for me as it occurred exclusively around Conon Bridge in Seaforth, which is in the east of my constituency of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch.
The news of the killings, which broke over several days as more bodies were discovered, prompted a meeting on Monday 21 April at the Dingwall mart, where I and Rob Gibson MSP met the NFUS Highland region chairman, Jim Whiteford, senior officers from Police Scotland and farmers from the Conon Bridge area to discuss the deaths around the village. As with the minister, the police were not able to tell us too much about their investigation or how the birds died. As a former animal health inspector, I can fully understand why that is the case. Nevertheless, it was a very useful meeting.
I am pleased that a group of local farmers and landowners have come together and pledged more than £12,000 towards the reward fund for information about the deaths of the birds of prey, which shows just how seriously they, too, view the matter. It is important to note that all the birds appear to have died around the same time. Although bodies were discovered days and weeks afterwards, there was no on-going poisoning. Although the bodies were found gradually, they seem to have been the result of only one incident.
I am pleased that the minister put out to consultation on 31 March whether it would be wise to extend the SSPCA’s investigative authority. However, has the minister considered—he may well have done—using Government and local authority animal health inspectors? There is not a huge number of them, but local authorities have responsibilities under the animal health laws, mainly in relation to animal disease and so on.
When the member was at the meeting in Dingwall, was it considered odd that although 16 red kites and six buzzards were found dead, apparently there were no such fatalities among crows and seagulls?
All sorts of stories, rumours and suggestions about what has happened are flying around. The member mentioned another one earlier. I think that we are better to let the police and the authorities get on with their investigation without our speculating on matters. Good information has been passed on to the police, so it is best to let them carry out their investigation.
I hope that the minister will consider my suggestion about animal health inspectors. During the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease back in 2001, I was in charge of co-ordination at Highland Council—we co-ordinated the work of all the various bodies. There is a resource there that we could use. Perhaps we need to think about consolidating enforcement by the police and local authorities. Consideration is being given to bringing in the SSPCA. The approach needs to be broadened slightly.
I must disagree with my colleague Rob Gibson on tourism. The Tollie centre on the Brahan estate near Conon Bridge, which I opened a year or two ago, hosts several thousand visitors a year, who watch the red kites being fed.
Could you draw to a close, please?
There should not be a knee-jerk reaction to recent events. We need to find out exactly what happened before we come to any conclusions about what we need to do.
We come to the closing speeches.
16:40
I very much welcome the debate, just as I welcome anything that highlights the utter iniquity of wildlife crime, but I am clear about the fact that wildlife crime is the result of the actions of just a very few people. That in no way justifies their actions, and I join all those who totally condemn those actions, especially when poisoning is involved, but we must keep such crimes in perspective. In general, I think that we have done that during the debate.
There are some people in the wider country who are engaged in the debate whose comments do not keep such crimes in perspective. For instance, I do not think that the recent comment by an RSPB spokesman that levels of wildlife crime are in danger of returning to Victorian levels has done the debate any favours, because nothing could be further from the truth. In Victorian times, we completely eradicated some species, the reintroduction of which we are now—in general—strongly supportive of, along with the subsequent rebalancing of nature, which man has done so much to destroy in the past. The Victorian era and the present day do not bear comparison and, in my view, to make such a comparison is simply to whip up feelings, often against the landowning and gamekeeping fraternity in general, in a way that is totally unjustified and which is completely contrary to the partnership working that is exemplified in the workings of PAWS, as the motion recognises. I totally endorse that partnership approach.
When it comes to wildlife crime of any sort, surely we are all in it together. The approach should not—indeed, must not—become one of us and them, between specific sectors or organisations. Surely this is an issue on which it is all of us against just a few individuals, as Rob Gibson and Graeme Dey said. The individuals in question have no respect for the law and even less respect for the wildlife that the vast majority of us seek to protect and enhance.
As has been pointed out, up until 2013 we had quite a success story, as the number of raptor poisonings reduced steadily from 30 in 2009 to three in 2012. Sadly, there has been a slight increase since then, which almost pales into insignificance when it is placed alongside the truly shocking incident in Ross-shire in which at least 20 red kites and buzzards were killed. I am sure that we all hope that that incident will be the one-off that Dave Thompson indicated that it was, but it is imperative that the cause and the culprit or culprits, if there are such, are identified, because there will be many valuable lessons to be learned.
It is easy to become a bit despondent on the issue, but I do not think that we should be too hard on ourselves. Scotland’s approach to wildlife crime has a really good record and there is considerable evidence to suggest that its approach has been working. All trends suffer an occasional blip, and we should not lose sight of the encouraging downward trend that was evident up to and including 2012.
It is for that reason that we cannot fully support the Labour amendment to the motion. We believe that existing legislation, especially as it was strengthened through the WANE act, contains appropriate measures, which still have to be tested to their fullest extent. We support increased penalties for people who are found guilty of wildlife crimes and we will support any measures that help to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice, including increased powers for existing organisations.
In short, we support the Government motion that is before us and will do so even if it is amended. We believe that the work that PAWS is undertaking is immensely worth while and we encourage the continuation of partnership working to ensure that the downward trend that existed up to and including 2012 is first re-established and then maintained.
As the motion says, Scotland’s wildlife is remarkable. The mindless actions of a very few individuals will not change that. Like Rob Gibson, I do not believe that their actions will have a major impact on tourism, because our wildlife is still remarkable, despite the unpleasant actions.
Let us use the existing powers and ensure that individuals get the message once and for all that their crimes are against not just wildlife but Scotland. As first Donald Dewar and now Rhoda Grant said, they are a national disgrace.
16:45
The consensus on the eradication of raptor persecution and the strong words from the Parliament send a clear message to Scotland. It was a positive step when the Scottish Government produced the first “Wildlife Crime in Scotland” report in 2012. As the minister said in the foreword, the aim
“is to establish a baseline of what is happening in Scotland”,
which can be built on in future years.
Like today’s debate, the report sent a clear message about the importance of tackling wildlife crime. It provided a clear focus for the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s questioning of stakeholders and of the minister. However, as we have heard from Rhoda Grant, Dennis Robertson, Dave Thompson and many other members, all is far from well, given the foul catalogue of recent attacks on raptors.
As has been stressed, partnership is essential in preventing and detecting wildlife crime. OneKind has asked for genuine partnership working and for the police and the Crown Office to be prepared to accept evidence from non-governmental organisations such as OneKind and the RSPB rather than to rule it inadmissible before it even gets to court. As we have heard, wildlife crime is so hard to detect and evidence is so hard to come by that such crime should be followed up vigorously whenever possible. OneKind suggests that one way of approaching that would be for PAWS to issue guidance and give encouragement to NGOs, as it already does to the public.
Volunteers play a part in partnership and the prognosis would be bleaker without their commitment to what is often round-the-clock vigilance. To see peregrines nesting in cliff crevices across the Clyde and soaring high above is a thrill. They are protected by volunteers. The Falls of Clyde peregrine watch, which the Scottish Wildlife Trust set up to prevent egg thieves from stealing eggs during the nesting season, has been oversubscribed this year. That shows that the public have a strong interest in getting involved.
Other partnerships are also significant. There are moorland projects such as Langholm moor demonstration project, which I recently visited. The project, which is supported by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, the Buccleuch Estates and the RSPB, involves scientific monitoring that is paid for. It takes account of biodiversity as well as protecting hen harriers and other birds. Diversionary feeding is keeping more grouse chicks alive, along with other species, such as lapwings. Game have not been shot during the project, to enable grouse to return to a sustainable number. That is an interesting voluntary model; I know that the minister has visited the project, too. However, the Scottish Government should explore further the need to consider the statutory regulation of game shooting for conservation purposes or, if estates are named under vicarious liability in the future—we hope that they will not be—because of prosecution.
The culture has changed radically. Continuing education is essential, but there is no excuse for persecution for any reason. Raptor protection and the detection of despicable attacks on raptors can happen in remote and rural Scotland only if the partnerships that are already having success are further developed. Sadly, the birds that have been discovered are unlikely to be the only fatalities, as NGOs have stressed in their briefings.
Partnerships must be adequately funded. I ask the minister to reassure the Parliament that wildlife crime officers have the resources to do their jobs consistently. Christine Grahame and other members raised that issue.
In that context, the consultation on increased powers for the Scottish SPCA, which Elaine Murray highlighted, is welcome. The RSPB suggests that the bird-of-prey crime hotspot maps, which Scottish Land & Estates has piloted, are invaluable in targeting efforts to expose repeat perpetrators in my own South Lanarkshire, as well as in Angus, Inverness-shire and other hotspot areas.
It is right that the Scottish Government is reviewing the wildlife crime penalties so that they are more robust and send a clear message.
Since vicarious liability, which was supported by Scottish Land & Estates, has been on the statute book, there have indeed been no prosecutions. My colleague Claire Baker has called for a review. The Scottish Wildlife Trust rightly argues that, with any proven crime, the vicarious liability provision can be used to send a clear signal to landowners that they must take responsibility for their staff. Apart from the current case in Stranraer, can the minister shed any light on why there have been no prosecutions under that law? Will he also comment on the suggestion that Rhoda Grant, Graeme Dey and others have made about a chemicals amnesty and whether that would help in future?
Arguments have been put forward that changes to protection arrangements for some species in some areas might be a way forward. Buzzards in England are a case in point. However, I understand from the Scottish Wildlife Trust that a third of pheasant fatalities take place on our roads, and only 1 to 2 per cent have been recorded as having been taken by buzzards.
It is significant that the minister has agreed
“to conduct a study of licensing and game bird legislation in other countries”.
I am sure that we will all be able to work together with him on that.
Finally, our international reputation is at stake to a degree, particularly at the moment. We really have to push forward on eradicating raptor persecution because of that.
The sight of the vast wingspan of a red kite overhead at the Loch Ken RSPB reserve in my region is exciting and breathtaking. The support of the feeding station is essential. We must not allow Scotland’s reputation as a wildlife destination with iconic species to be ruined and become tarnished by such crimes. The raptors deserve our protection, and we must all work on that together.
16:51
I thank very much my fellow MSPs for attending and taking part in this important debate, and for the quality of their speeches and the thought that they put into them. It was good to hear so many personal experiences. I think that Elaine Murray’s will stick with me. I look forward to seeing red kites in the field at some point in the future.
It is important that Parliament is able to send a clear and unambiguous message that there is no excuse for the persecution of our birds. I strongly welcome the broad support from all parties in the chamber and the condemnation of the crimes that have been committed recently. Obviously, we still await the outcomes of incident investigations. As Dave Thompson fairly said, we need to let the police do that work and give us the truth about what happened.
I certainly agree with those who say that Scotland has much to offer. Alex Fergusson and Rob Gibson were first to raise the fact that Scotland has a lot of offer as a tourism destination. However, if such persecution goes unchecked, we run the risk of damaging our country’s reputation, particularly for those who value coming to Scotland to see our wildlife. We all revelled in the programme about the Hebrides last year, which was a fantastic tribute to the quality of the environment in Scotland. Let us not see that tainted by things such as raptor persecution.
Illegal killings potentially affect Scotland’s reputation as a brand, and we need to send the message to all those who are involved in conducting them that we will not tolerate that. Recent events that have involved red kites, buzzards, peregrines and sea eagles show that a range of species are at risk, including some of the rarest birds in Scotland.
We have introduced vicarious liability—I have already gone through that, but I will recap. The Parliament endorsed the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011, and we will see what comes of it in due course. We have asked Scottish Natural Heritage to examine how it can restrict the use of general licences where we have reason to believe that a wildlife crime has been conducted, as I said, and with the Lord Advocate’s support, we have signalled to the police our encouragement to them to use the full range of investigative techniques to tackle wildlife crime. I look forward to receiving Professor Poustie’s deliberations on wildlife crime penalties. I detect a strong sense in the chamber that people support strengthening action where that is deemed to be necessary. I am sure that Professor Poustie will have reflected on that, too.
I promised to come to back to the public consultation on extending the powers of the Scottish SPCA. I will address a couple of points that Claire Baker and others have raised.
The length of the consultation period is genuinely an attempt to allow the maximum possible scrutiny, given the complexity of the issue, the strong feelings on both sides and the strong public interest in the subject. I have borne criticism in the past for not consulting adequately on previous bills and processes—I am not sure whether it was Mr Fergusson who made that point; it may have been another member. It is important that we provide the public and stakeholders with an opportunity to have their say on this important issue.
Does the minister agree that, with the start of the agricultural show season upon us, we have an opportunity to promote the consultation, to highlight wildlife crime and to specify how people can get involved?
Mr Robertson asks a very sensible question. We want a strong and broad-based representation of all views across the industry and stakeholders in the conservation area. I will consider his suggestion and see what the possibilities are.
A number of members mentioned a potential amnesty on the disposal of toxins—I am specifically thinking about carbofuran, the toxin that Graeme Dey identified, although members will be aware that other poisons affect wildlife. My officials have been tasked with looking at an existing scheme to do precisely that.
When I spoke about the matter last week at the wildlife crime conference at the Scottish Police College, I reiterated that it was an offence to possess such substances, which pose a risk to those who work in the vicinity and their families. I am not naive enough to think that everybody would hand over their supplies as and when we are able to put something in place. However, those that do not hand them over—I think that this is the point that Mr Dey made—need to take cognisance of the reasonable suggestion that more severe penalties might follow if they ignore the opportunity to surrender material that they are then found in possession of. We must find a means of encouraging people to surrender the material safely, without exposing police officers or others to dangerous chemicals. As I said, we will look at extending existing schemes.
Members have made a number of comments about the Scottish SPCA. Its involvement poses advantages and disadvantages, so we need to be clearer about its role. As we set out in the consultation, a broader range of situations could be opened up to the Scottish SPCA. For example, where no live animals are present, it is unable to intervene.
On the point about whether we have adequate resources to detect and prevent wildlife crime, an additional specialist resource might be made available at no cost to the public purse, and there might be quicker response times in circumstances in which police resources are restricted.
However, I point out to Liam McArthur, Christine Grahame and others that a total of 41 individuals were involved in the search of the Ross-shire farms. I will not detail what they did or did not find, but the amount of people involved gives an idea of the resource that was dedicated to the investigation. I think that the point was made that we can pull in community and non-specialist officers, and not just specialist wildlife crime officers, to support police investigations.
Dave Thompson mentioned animal health inspectors, and I will look at the issue that he raised. Staff from the rural payments and inspections directorate supported the police in the Ross-shire investigation, as did Scottish SPCA and RSPB personnel. We are trying to maximise the number of individuals involved, but I will look into the issue that he raised and see whether it has any mileage.
I strongly welcome Jamie McGrigor’s support for the position that we have taken. He mentioned an important issue about the sea eagle action plan in relation to crofters and farmers. We have had a scheme in place to support farmers and crofters who can demonstrate that their livestock has been affected by sea eagles. On next steps, we are looking at continuing to provide similar support.
We need to make clear to people that there are avenues that they can use. For example, they can come to SNH for advice and support if they encounter raptor problems that impact on their livestock—there is no excuse for persecuting them.
Does the minister agree that it is important that, before raptors such as sea eagles are reintroduced, an impact study should be carried out on what they are likely to eat before they eat it?
As Jamie McGrigor probably knows, two studies have been done. The Gairloch study looked at the impact of sea eagles and revealed that there was not the perceived impact on livestock that had been suggested.
I recommend that people visit Langholm moor to see what can be done with regard to diversionary feeding. In that case, it helps hen harriers to co-exist with a sporting estate.
The Scottish Land & Estates wildlife estate Scotland initiative also has value, in that it enables landed estates to demonstrate that they can co-exist happily with a vibrant raptor population and work with conservation interests, to ensure that their sporting interests and wildlife are protected.
I very much welcome the strong signal that the Parliament has sent today in condemnation of wildlife crime and, in particular, raptor persecution. I endorse the words of members across the Parliament and I hope that the debate sends as strong a signal as possible to those who permit such crimes to take place on their land or who carry out the crimes themselves.