Wildlife Crime
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1954, in the name of Frank Mulholland, on wildlife crime.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You have had notice of this point of order, which relates to the Liberal Democrat amendment to the motion.
As is my normal practice, the full text of the motion to be debated today was distributed to Opposition spokespeople on Monday with a request that if issues arose that were worth discussing, they should be discussed before today. I saw the Liberal amendment last night and, on reflection, I found that there is a substantial difficulty with it in terms of the operation of the Government and the Parliament ultra vires.
I want to make the situation as clear as possible, but I will be brief. Referring to a body that does not exist,
"the Legislation, Regulation and Guidance sub-group of Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime",
the amendment calls on the Government
"to give full consideration, in consultation with land users, to the proposal that loss of single farm payments should occur only in cases where responsibility has first been proven in a court of law".
It would be impossible for that proposal to be given any consideration because it is ultra vires in terms of the regulations on rural payments. Indeed, were it to be accepted as a proposal, it would run so contrary to the present situation that all single farm payments would be put in jeopardy, as would a substantial part of the £1.6 billion that we plan to spend on the Scotland rural development programme.
I made the point to Mr Hume at lunch time today, when I notified the Presiding Officer of the issue. I asked him to seek a manuscript amendment to alter the situation. He agreed to do so. I understand that such an amendment was sought but that Mr Hume subsequently withdrew permission and reverted to the original amendment. I have had a conversation with him, as has the Solicitor General for Scotland.
The situation remains that, if the amendment were agreed to and an amended motion were passed, it would instruct the Government to do something that is illegal and which would put at risk every farm payment in Scotland. Inter alia, the amendment also fatally confuses civil and criminal law. The way in which the matter is dealt with is that criminal conviction for wildlife crime can be considered as an element in the existing three-stage appeal process, which includes in the final stage an appeal to the Scottish Land Court.
In those circumstances, the amendment is incompetent and therefore should not be called for debate this afternoon. I seek your ruling on that, Presiding Officer.
On that point of order, Presiding Officer. The minister is being less than straightforward in challenging the parliamentary authorities for accepting the Liberal Democrat amendment for debate this afternoon. Prior to the debate, I had discussions with the Solicitor General. Unfortunately, Mr Russell was unwilling even to discuss the matter; it seems that he would rather spend time arguing a spurious point of order in the chamber. Our amendment does not, in any way, call on the Government, or anyone else, to act ultra vires.
To put it politely, there has been a misunderstanding on Mr Russell's part. I am in complete agreement with the Solicitor General when he says that if Scottish ministers see that there has not been cross-compliance with European Community regulations, they must act to enforce the rules. We have no problem with that. Our amendment does not challenge those rules. As the amendment makes absolutely clear, we are talking about ministers acting after—not before—the due process of law has taken place. It would be wrong to take away someone's income for the suspicion of a crime or, indeed, the prosecution of someone who has been accused of a crime. It must be right that ministers take action only after due process.
Our amendment does not challenge EC regulations. As recommended in the report, it calls on the future sub-group to give full consideration to the situation. That is all. By accepting the amendment, the chamber desk has acknowledged that that is an entirely appropriate action to call for. It is up to members this afternoon to decide on the appropriate way forward, after proper debate on the matter. Presiding Officer, I urge you not to accept the spurious point of order that Mr Russell has raised, which is unfortunate to say the least.
I thank the minister for giving me notice of his point of order. The amendment is admissible under the standing orders. I am satisfied that it is competent. I therefore propose to continue with the business as set out in the business programme.
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer. Although, of course, I entirely accept your ruling, would it be possible for the detailed thinking behind the ruling to be made available to the chamber? That would assist in the avoidance of doubt in such circumstances in future.
I have ruled on the matter, Mr Russell, and you have heard me. I propose to move on.
The Solicitor General for Scotland (Frank Mulholland):
I am grateful for the opportunity to open today's debate on wildlife crime, following the recent publication of the joint review on wildlife crime, which was carried out by Paddy Tomkins, Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland, and Joe O'Donnell, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prosecution in Scotland. I am grateful to both of them and their teams for their detailed and careful consideration of the arrangements in Scotland for preventing, investigating and prosecuting wildlife crime. Their review has provided an unparalleled insight into the investigation and prosecution of wildlife crime in Scotland.
The Lord Advocate and I welcome the review's findings. We are pleased that it highlights much of the good work that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the police already do to tackle wildlife crime. I note that the report confirms that the COPFS has introduced
"a sound system for managing wildlife crime particularly by establishing a network of specialist wildlife prosecutors who should prosecute these cases."
Having examined all the wildlife cases that were reported to the COPFS for prosecution from the beginning of 2006 until late 2007, the inspectorate concluded that the majority of cases were dealt with appropriately and in accordance with Crown Office policy.
The Scottish Government accepts in full the recommendations of the review of the investigation and prosecution of wildlife crime. From the prosecutor's perspective, the COPFS will work closely with the police and its other partners in tackling wildlife crime to implement the recommendations quickly and effectively. As far as the recommendations that are specific to the COPFS are concerned, I have already met the area procurator fiscal for Dumfries and Galloway, Tom Dysart, who is in the chamber and whom the report describes as
"a knowledgeable and forceful lead in wildlife crime matters."
We discussed the conclusions and recommendations and, as a result, an action plan for implementing the recommendations has been drawn up.
Of the 10 recommendations that directly affect the COPFS, four have been implemented and the others are in hand. Of course, some of them depend on the new structure for the Scottish sub-group of the United Kingdom partnership for action against wildlife crime, which is known as PAW (Scotland). Those will be taken forward when the new structure is in place. Tom Dysart is working with officials to oversee implementation of the recommendations in full.
On implementation, I advise the Parliament that we have strengthened the role of the specialist wildlife prosecutors and are developing practical arrangements for cross-area co-operation and support in making decisions on wildlife cases and prosecuting them. That will ensure that all wildlife cases are dealt with by wildlife prosecutors who have the relevant experience. In addition, specialist wildlife prosecutors will be in regular contact with wildlife and environmental crime officers in their local police forces to develop further the already close working relationship that we have with the police in this area of work. As the inspectors recognised, it is vital that we work together and share expertise in the complex area of wildlife cases so that we achieve successful outcomes.
Experience shows that early engagement between investigators and prosecutors, even in the earliest stages of investigation, often serves to strengthen the final case. We will ensure that there is regular and effective contact with other specialist wildlife investigators. We recognise the value in making full use of the expertise that is available in wildlife agencies, which can be crucial in tackling crimes that sometimes take place in remote, isolated areas. We are confident that, in working together, with the commitment and assistance of wildlife and countryside organisations, and by harnessing public support, we will be a powerful and effective challenge to criminals who carry out crimes against wildlife, which is such an important part of our natural environment in Scotland.
As the inspectors state in the report,
"Attempts to reconcile the opposing arguments and factions within wildlife crime"
will be
"greatly assisted by a clear and well supported national strategy or policy statement."
PAW (Scotland) will be restructured into a more effective organisation in order to provide that. It will receive funding to finance law enforcement projects and it will also be given a role in training. It will produce guidance, review existing legislation and, where appropriate, propose new legislation.
At the recent Scottish PAW steering group meeting, which was chaired by the Minister for Environment, it was agreed that a small sub-group will be created to draw up a draft strategy for PAW (Scotland) in time for the next steering group meeting in early September, when it will be finalised. I am pleased to confirm that my officials will assist their colleagues in the Scottish Government, as appropriate, to develop and, thereafter, implement the strategy.
When the new structure of PAW (Scotland) has been agreed and finalised, we will implement the recommendations in relation to the wildlife and habitats crime prosecution forum. In its brief existence, the group has provided an important focus for the discussion of wildlife crime issues. When the strategy for the restructured PAW is available, the forum will focus its attention on the issues recommended in the report.
The review emphasises the importance of debriefs after a case has been completed. We have already begun to do that. They give specialist prosecutors, police and other wildlife crime investigators the opportunity to improve continually how they investigate and prosecute such crimes. A full and frank review of what happened in a case, including the successes and, I hope less often, the failings, is a useful training tool for all involved, and it is something that we will encourage the specialist prosecutors to use.
Tom Dysart is in discussion with the head of training for the COPFS to provide further training to our specialist prosecutors on wildlife crime. That will build on the joint training that has already been carried out with the police at Tulliallan in the form of mock trials and the annual wildlife seminar. We will also assist PAW in developing and delivering training to specialist agencies.
We are firmly of the view that increasing knowledge about the wildlife issues that are tackled every day by those working in the field will help prosecutors to understand the context and significance of wildlife crime. In turn, that will enhance their ability to present in court the full implications of the offences committed.
Although many of the COPFS-specific recommendations are capable of speedy implementation, others involve our partners against wildlife crime. Implementation of the report's wider recommendations will require much work to be done across the Scottish Government and criminal justice sector. The COPFS is committed to working closely with the police and our other partners against wildlife crime to achieve that.
The COPFS will report to PAW on the progress that is being made to implement the COPFS-specific recommendations. In addition, officials are considering with Scottish Government and police colleagues how best to provide the public with information about the progress that is being made to implement the report's wider recommendations.
The Solicitor General should conclude.
The Solicitor General for Scotland:
I can advise the Parliament that, since the debate in October 2007, we have had our first successful prosecution of wildlife offences on indictment, relating to a badger baiting case in the Borders. Other successful prosecutions have demonstrated the vigilance of the prosecution service in Scotland in meeting the challenges head on.
I am confident that implementation of the recommendations will help to improve the detection, investigation and prosecution of wildlife crime. It will reinforce the message to the Scottish public that the Parliament and the Scottish prosecutors are serious about wildlife crime.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the report, Natural Justice: A Joint Thematic Inspection of the Arrangements in Scotland for Preventing, Investigating and Prosecuting Wildlife Crime, by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland and the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland; commends the recommendations in the report, the implementation of which will bring to bear the full professional expertise of the agencies who investigate, detect and prosecute those involved in wildlife crime, and looks forward to the development of a strong and effective partnership for action against wildlife crime, working to a new agreed strategy on wildlife crime and co-ordinating the fight against the abuse of Scotland's vital natural heritage.
This is a welcome debate, and I am sure that, notwithstanding any debate about amendments, there will be a strong core of consensus among members about wildlife crime, how it is to be tackled and a timetable for action.
Labour welcomes the Tomkins report. We acknowledge the Government's initiative in commissioning it and call for full implementation of the 24 recommendations. I echo the Solicitor General in congratulating the fiscals, police officers and others who have built up tremendous expertise in the subject.
In my brief remarks, I will look at some of the bigger pictures and international issues relating to wildlife crime and I will comment on some of the specific recommendations in the Tomkins report.
It was the American President Benjamin Franklin who once said:
"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."
Looking back in time, we may argue that there is a third: wildlife crime. I understand that, in the 1600s in Scotland, the beaver was hunted to extinction for its pelts, which were traded all over the world. Even at that early stage, that had major implications for biodiversity. The bulk of what was even at that time an internationally organised business was carried out by poachers on large estates.
Could the member tell me in which areas of Scotland beavers lived?
Argyll and Bute was a very important area. I understand that that is one area where piloting the reintroduction of the beaver has been considered.
At a naive level, it could be argued that we are a nation of animal lovers, but the harsh reality on the ground is that laws are broken and wildlife is destroyed and exploited for profit. All over the world, animals are sold illegally to satisfy consumer demand. For example, trading in ivory has been banned worldwide since 1989, apart from the trade in so-called antique ivory that predates 1947. However, the International Fund for Animal Welfare estimates that 90 per cent of the internet ivory trade may breach international conventions.
We could argue that wildlife crime has three elements: the illegal trade in endangered species; crimes that involve native species that are endangered or of conservation concern, to which the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 applies; and cruelty to and persecution of wildlife species, which includes badger baiting and illegal snaring, poaching and poisoning.
What wildlife crimes have occurred in Scotland? Members will be well aware of examples in their areas. For instance, the eggs of protected birds have been stolen on a massive scale. It is estimated that more than 10,000 badgers in the United Kingdom have been killed through badger baiting, and deer poaching is undertaken by commercial gangs.
I have found two examples in the national press, at which the Solicitor General hinted. In November 2007, a Dalry man was convicted of badger baiting—that was the first such conviction. He allowed his dog to attack two young badgers in a sett and to maul them to death. Kilmarnock sheriff court ordered him to serve 175 hours of community service, awarded compensation to the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and banned him from keeping dogs for two years.
In another case, a London man was sent to prison for six months for taking more than 500 bird eggs, many of which were from endangered species such as the red kite and the barn owl. That was the first imprisonment of an individual under the reinforced legislation.
There are good examples of best practice. Tayside Police has co-ordinated a nationwide operation to tackle egg collectors who are known to the police and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. In March 2002, osprey eggs that had been taken from Scotland were seized by police as part of operation Easter. As members know, the osprey is particularly vulnerable, as only 140 pairs remain in Scotland.
The previous Administration introduced the 2004 act, to which I have referred. The act provided a series of protection and enforcement measures to safeguard Scotland's natural heritage. The key driver was the protection and conservation of biodiversity. The act introduced the concept of recklessness and created the offence of possessing a pesticide that contains any prescribed ingredient, to reduce incidents of poisoning. Side by side with that went the new powers for the police to search and arrest in the complementary Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003.
I must mention the National Wildlife Crime Unit in North Berwick, which is doing good work and is working extremely well towards achieving co-ordinated action.
I like the fact that the Tomkins report is well written and well researched and that it is not embarrassed to talk about potentially embarrassing issues.
I will ask the Minister for Environment a couple of questions. What is the timescale for implementing the report's recommendations? Will the achievement of recommendations be funded centrally or from the core police budget? How quickly can each police force appoint a wildlife crime co-ordinator? Will an early goal be to train all police officers in the general awareness of wildlife crime? Will the minister follow up my work by contacting the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the concerns about restricting the Britain-wide registration of rare birds, which might have a detrimental effect on conservation?
Has the minister taken advice to determine whether Scotland breaches the European Union habitats directive by indiscriminate use of snaring of European protected species such as otters? Has progress been made on snaring since the minister made his announcement? Has he ruled out a ban on snaring?
The debate is important. Scotland's wildlife protection laws are among the best in Europe, but concern is felt about levels of wildlife crime, and the link between organised crime and crimes such as badger baiting is recognised. The Tomkins report provides a major contribution to the debate and I commend it to Parliament.
I move amendment S3M-1954.1, to insert at end:
"supports in full the recommendations of the Tomkins report, and calls on the Scottish Government to produce an action plan on tackling wildlife crime, including a timetable for the implementation of the report."
I declare an interest in farming.
I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing debate on my amendment. It is a pleasure to debate with Frank Mulholland, with whom I sat at the same desk in this town 11 years ago, when we studied for our MBAs. That is the Scottish village.
There is no excuse for wildlife crime, so I welcome the Scottish Government's intention to implement all the report's recommendations, including the recommendation that an expert group of the partnership for action against wildlife crime be established.
One of the most serious and contentious aspects of wildlife crime is that farmers could be fined without going through a normal court of law. That is a serious concern and I make no apology for referring to it in my amendment. Most of the country believes it to be unjust. Does a local authority get fined for every crime on its streets? No. All we are calling for is due process. We recognise the complexity of the issue. That is why we are calling on PAW, which has already been tasked in the report with considering regulation, to give full consideration to my amendment.
Unlike with criminal prosecutions, the lower civil standard of proof is used to decide whether cross-compliance requirements have been breached. In other words, even if there is no criminal prosecution, penalties can still be applied. The civil standard of proof relates only to the balance of probability, even though there is an appeal process. One is therefore presumed guilty until proven innocent. Mr Russell has stated that that will not happen, but now we find that it may. Where sanctions are so severe that they can have devastating effects on individuals, such as the withholding of single farm payments or the removal of firearms licences, it is imperative that they are applied fairly and justly.
I particularly welcome the recommendation of the appointment to each police force of a wildlife crime co-ordinator and a lead officer to investigate incidents locally, as well as the appointment of a lead wildlife prosecutor within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I would like to hear from the minister what steps are being taken to implement the report's recommendations. Is there a timetable? When will the new wildlife co-ordinators, lead officers and prosecutors be in place?
I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to tackling wildlife crime and to cracking down on the perpetrators, but I call on the minister for serious caution because such action should take place only after due process.
Does the member support the recommendation in the report that the Government consider the concept of vicarious liability in this area?
I fully concur.
I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to tackling wildlife crime, but I hope that the PAW sub-group fully considers the wording of my amendment. The message is simple: if Scottish people can be guilty until proven innocent, there is an injustice. I hope that the PAW group considers that. I fully support Frank Mulholland's motion.
I move amendment S3M-1954.2, to insert at end:
"recognises the concerns surrounding the impact on livelihoods of a reduction in single farm payments or the loss of firearms licences, and calls on the Legislation, Regulation and Guidance sub-group of Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (Scotland) to give full consideration, in consultation with land users, to the proposal that loss of single farm payments should occur only in cases where responsibility has first been proven in a court of law; welcomes the success of the Grampian Police model, which provides an example of good practice to be replicated by forces across Scotland, and calls on Scottish chief constables, the Crown Office and the Scottish Government to outline the specific steps they will take to ensure the speedy and effective implementation of the report recommendations."
I am pleased to be leading my party's contribution to this important debate. Wildlife crime is a big issue in my constituency and throughout the Scottish Borders. As members may know, last August a golden eagle was poisoned in the Borders. The eagle was a female and was part of the only breeding pair of golden eagles in the area. That came as a huge blow to many of my constituents.
Wildlife crime takes many forms. Habitat destruction, poaching, egg collecting, badger baiting and poisoning are a few examples. The most common form, and arguably the one with the highest profile, is the persecution of birds of prey by poisoning. During the 19th and 20th centuries, the practices of some shooting estates led to many birds of prey being wiped out in Scotland. Since then, some birds of prey have been reintroduced to the areas where they were wiped out but with limited success. Wildlife protection is crucial to the survival of those birds, as well as to all other forms of wildlife. Birds of prey are especially vulnerable because they are long lived and slow breeding. Golden eagles, for example, will raise only one chick a year and do not start breeding until they are at least three years old.
Wildlife is an important part of Scotland's economy. Thanks to television shows such as "Springwatch", visitors have been attracted to Scotland to see wildlife and its habitats. That has generated millions of pounds for Scotland. For example, the Galloway red kite trial contributes around £700,000 to the local economy, and the white-tailed eagle viewing project in Mull generates £1.4 million to £1.6 million locally. That is why I welcome any modification to the current policy that could protect birds of prey and all other threatened wildlife. My party believes that the current legislation regarding wildlife crime may need to be tightened, but we would emphasise that the enforcement of the existing legislation is the real problem when it comes to wildlife crime.
RSPB Scotland said recently:
"The Scottish Parliament is to be commended for enacting some of the strongest wildlife protection laws in Europe. However, these laws are not being used as effectively as possible to deter those who seek to destroy protected species."
The problem seems to be the varying levels of enforcement in the regions of Scotland. There are concerns about the number of police officers who have specialist training in wildlife matters.
The Tomkins report, which was published in April lays out observations on wildlife crime. That is what we are considering today; we are not specifically looking at the sanctions that may or may not be proposed. The report concludes by making a number of recommendations, which we support.
I turn to the Liberal Democrat amendment. The report mentions only briefly the possible sanctions—I believe that recommendation 11 touches on sanctions. Therefore, we do not think that it is appropriate to be considering further deductions from the single farm payment, which is what the Liberal Democrat amendment might suggest. We, like the vast majority of the farming community, do not think that there should be any more deductions from the single farm payment.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I have had enough of Liberal Democrat incompetence today.
We have great difficulty in supporting the Liberal Democrat amendment as it is drafted, because there might be additional circumstances in which making deductions from the single farm payment might be permitted. We are happy to support the Labour amendment.
The Scottish Conservatives condemn all wildlife crime and support fully the Scottish Government in its pursuit of wiping out such crime. We agree with the Government that legislation on wildlife crime might need to be tightened, but I emphasise that consistent enforcement of the current legislation is the real issue.
The RSPB has said that, although our laws against wildlife crime are some of the strongest in Europe, they are not being used effectively. Our efforts should be focused on ensuring that the existing legislation is used and enforced properly.
Wildlife in Scotland is an important part of our culture and economy. By protecting it, we can protect our culture, our economy and the beauty of Scotland.
I declare an interest as convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare, although I am speaking in a personal capacity.
Post-devolution legislation, such as the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, has added to the portfolio of legislation in Scotland that gives us some of the most powerful animal welfare legislation in the world. I welcome the extension of that, particularly through the employment of specialist prosecutors and, I hope, more specialist police. Nevertheless, there was a 95 per cent increase in reported wildlife crime between 2002-03 and 2006-07, and that might be the tip of the iceberg, given that there is better reporting.
We all appreciate the difficulties, to which the Solicitor General for Scotland referred, that are caused by the fact that wildlife crime happens in remote places and, sometimes, in close, small communities in which there might be tacit and sometimes even overt support for such crime. Nine of the 12 persons convicted for persecuting birds of prey between 2001 and 2006 described themselves—I emphasise "described themselves"—as gamekeepers. Add to that the lack of current full-time wildlife crime officers and ordinary officers who have received specialist training—the most recent parliamentary answer said that there were four and 90 respectively—and we can see that catching offenders is like finding the proverbial needle in the haystack, especially in remote areas such as the Yarrow, Ettrick and Tweed valleys.
After his recent statement to the Parliament on snaring I asked the minister about the enforcement of legislation. There is not much good passing worthy legislation if we cannot enforce it. Enforcement brings the perpetrators to punishment and acts as a deterrent.
In 2006-07, 5,000 mountain hares—a protected species—were illegally snared. Since the minister made his statement, 13 badgers have been snared in Scotland, including two in the Borders. The incident in the Borders was particularly horrific. The two dead animals—one female and one male—were found dumped at the side of the road. Both had suffered broken necks and the strength of the wire traps had nearly beheaded one of them. The animals had put up a tremendous fight—when they are caught in a snare, they do so. They dig, fight and sometimes hang themselves on the fences. We knew that the badgers had been snared, because they make specific marks on the ground as they struggle for survival. Of course, it is unlikely that the perpetrators of that crime will be discovered.
I listened carefully to what the minister had to say about snaring and the licensing of it. I know that he is considering a review of and research into it—there is no existing research. However, I cannot see that the compulsory fitting of identification tags will be policed.
On a wild day in the Ettrick valley, I came across, by chance, the hounds from three hunts on a Borders hillside. The outrider motorcyclists were on the brow of the hill when some creature came to its end among the hounds, which were far away from the motorcyclists. I watched the lights blaze and descend on the hill as the bits of some animal were gathered up. No-one was policing that kill.
I want to know what will change—notwithstanding the changes that are proposed in the Tomkins report, to which the Solicitor General referred. Reference was made to funding and training. We need to ensure that wildlife crime—and it will take place in the most difficult places—is properly covered so that no-one can continue to carry out those barbaric acts in the face of, and with blatant disregard for, any legislation that we have.
Like other members, I welcome this debate, and I declare an interest as a member of the Scottish Ornithologists' Club and the RSPB.
We have debated this important issue in the chamber before. As my mailbag testifies—and as other members' mailbags do, I am sure—people are writing in with concerns about bird poisoning; badger baiting; snaring and hares, to which Christine Grahame referred; and egg collection, which David Stewart mentioned. The way in which we deal with those issues affects our national reputation. We must do, and be seen to do, everything that we can to protect our wildlife. The Highlands and Islands is the largest rural area of Scotland. It has the widest range of species anywhere and has the potential to get the most economic benefit from wildlife, but it has the most wildlife crime, due to its geographical scale and diversity, so I welcome the HMIC and COPFS report. I know that Paddy Tomkins has a personal commitment to improving the policing of wildlife crime and the report is constructive.
That said, it is worth mentioning some of the pretty critical findings in the report, particularly in relation to the police service. There is a clear shortfall in practice in most forces and the report refers to persistent calls by the police themselves to professionalise practice, which implies that that is not currently the case. There are calls for better debriefing practices, to which the Solicitor General referred, and references to the lack of a national plan to reduce wildlife crime. The report also points out that few areas have local operational plans; the low level of intelligence that is held and fed into the intelligence system; the fact that sufficient expertise has not yet been built up in the system and that training is inadequate; that wildlife crime is not viewed as equivalent to other forms of crime in the policing system; and that the interview process is not yet standardised.
Although those criticisms are in the report, it would be wrong to say that it is universally critical: it is not. It points clearly to a strong commitment, in many police forces and in COPFS, to improving matters. Grampian Police and Tayside Police are singled out as examples of exceptionally good practice. I welcome all the recommendations in the report—as David Stewart said, it is founded on the principle that wildlife crime should be managed as any other crime would be managed. That is an important principle for all police forces to establish.
There are good recommendations about COPFS and I am pleased that the Solicitor General has dealt with those in the way that he has. There are also clear recommendations about the need for a national wildlife crime reduction strategy—I hope the minister will address that in his summing up—and about the need for local plans and joint working between Government agencies and non-governmental organisations.
I particularly welcome the recommendation that each force should have a full-time wildlife crime co-ordinator. I view that as a minimum, not a maximum measure. It is in no way a substitute for current practice—for example, in my own part of the world under Northern Constabulary—but it adds to and strengthens current practice, provides more expertise in training and more support for officers who are doing their jobs day by day, and it follows the lead of Grampian Police. There will be huge benefit from that. I hope that Northern Constabulary will act on that recommendation and implement that particular reform. Indeed, I hope that, because it operates in the largest area in Scotland, Northern Constabulary will go further than the minimum and create a unit to support officers and to push their day-by-day practice further. I wrote to the chief constable earlier this week to ask for that to happen.
That said, I commend what Northern Constabulary has been doing recently. In March, it demonstrated considerable commitment by undertaking a large raid on an estate in Badenoch and Strathspey to investigate the illegal poisoning of birds. Dozens of officers were involved, as well as other police forces such as Grampian Police and Tayside Police, the RSPB, the SSPCA, the national wildlife crime unit and many others. It was a huge commitment and I congratulate the force on it. It sends a clear signal that the police will not lie back and see such activity take place in their area. I commend the report and the recommendations, and I hope that the minister will put his considerable weight—I refer to his political weight—behind them.
I will not rehearse the crime statistics. Everyone knows that the figures are high and getting higher and that they probably still do not cover all the wildlife crime that takes place.
From the responses to a series of questions that I asked on the subject in 2006, it became clear that there has been no nationally accepted system of recording wildlife and environmental crime—I raised the issue in the debate in October 2007. I have searched the recommendations of the joint review and I am not sure that a standardised reporting system has been specifically addressed. Perhaps the minister can comment on the matter in his closing speech. I hope that my concern is misplaced but, if such a national system is not among the recommendations, I feel strongly that it should be part of any future wildlife crime reduction strategy, because if we do not have a true picture of the problem it will be impossible to know if any strategy is working.
Another concern is that there does not seem to have been any national plan to reduce wildlife crime and, even locally, only a few areas seem to have taken such crime seriously. I am glad that Tayside is one of those areas and I take the opportunity to pay tribute to Alan Stewart, the former police inspector who is now Tayside Police's full-time civilian wildlife and environment officer. He was the first wildlife liaison officer in Scotland when he was appointed by Tayside Police in 1993. Reaching right back into his police career, he has been proactively involved in pursuing wildlife crime since the 1960s. Although he is perhaps not single-handedly responsible for Tayside's long-standing good practice, he must share much of the credit.
No one denies the extent of the difficulty presented by this area of criminal behaviour. I have commented on the previous lack of a national wildlife crime reduction plan, but we have to acknowledge that it is impossible to police vast tracts of our rural landscape and that, even if we ascertain that a crime has been committed, evidence gathering is difficult. Short of a countryside-wide network of rural closed-circuit television cameras to help in the investigation of wildlife crime—believe me, I have contemplated that—there will always be a problem gathering the evidence that is required to achieve a successful prosecution. It is therefore vital to encourage communities and individuals to play their part in reporting suspicious behaviour. I wonder how that will be achieved, because it is essential.
The authors of the review disclose a distressing failure to treat this area of crime seriously. That is fundamental, because if the police do not gather sufficient intelligence, do not take proper notice of the intelligence that they get or if they delay investigation, it will be harder to uncover the information that is required. I am not sure how it will be possible to persuade all police forces that the approach taken by both Grampian Police and Tayside Police is a model that they should follow, but that should be done—I hope that the minister can indicate how.
Intelligence and evidence gathering to the extent that perpetrators can be identified, charged and prosecuted is one side of the deterrence equation. The other side is the disposal, assuming a verdict of guilty, which is where the evidence is important. The report is rather kind to the courts when it deals with that aspect of the debate. I am not sure that most people would agree that the disposals always fit the crime. There certainly seems little to suggest that the fines that are handed out in most cases are much of a deterrent. I hope that that aspect of the issue will continue to be monitored. After all, the biggest predator in our countryside might be said to be the two-legged, wingless poisoner. No one would mourn the eradication of that species.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in a debate on wildlife crime for the second time in the session. It is certainly a topic that is worthy of the minister's attention. I highlight my register of interests, particularly my membership of the RSPB.
In the previous debate, I argued that there must be greater prioritisation of wildlife crime, so I commend the minister for focusing his attention on this area of serious crime and criminality. I also argued that effective action and greater prioritisation go hand in hand, so I welcome the "Natural Justice" report, which makes important recommendations for preventing, investigating and prosecuting wildlife crime, such as creating a wildlife crime reduction strategy and putting in place full-time wildlife crime co-ordinators in every force in Scotland. That could be extremely useful. I would also like to congratulate organisations such as the SSPCA and the RSPB on the positive and vital role that they have played in helping the police. I am sure that the minister will acknowledge their important work.
The Government has been handed a good report to work with. However, we now enter the nitty-gritty phase of implementation. How quickly the Government will act to implement these important measures remains to be seen. Can the minister provide an indication of when the strategy for wildlife crime reduction will be produced? Further, can he tell us when he expects the full-time wildlife crime co-ordinators to be appointed? Those are two very important questions. Obviously, the full-time wildlife crime co-ordinators are fundamental and we must ensure that those new officers are appointed swiftly and are properly resourced, valued and supported.
The report, as has already been said, points to the exploration of landowners' liability or responsibility for the actions of their employees. There is, of course, precedence for that kind of move in Scots law, such as the licensing laws and health and safety legislation, and I encourage ministers to thoroughly explore the issue.
Wildlife crime is serious and the Scottish public cares greatly about it. Treating nature and wildlife with respect should be a shared vision for Scotland. I am glad that, today, we can send another clear message from this Parliament that wildlife crime is unacceptable.
Several doubts have been raised about the validity of the Liberal Democrat amendment. Clearly, there is no time today to investigate whether the amendment is sensible. The best that I can do is to acknowledge the fact that it was lodged in the spirit of seeking fairness, justice and equity. However, I am afraid that I will be abstaining in the vote on the amendment, as will Patrick Harvie.
I was pleased that the subject of snaring was brought up, by David Stewart and others, and I agreed with Christine Grahame when she said that we must ensure, at the very least, that the laws that we have in place on snaring are obeyed, and that transgressors are identified and receive condign punishment.
I welcome the Government's motion, which we can support, and I look forward to more detail from the minister when he winds up.
Gun ownership in Scotland is a contentious issue, and so it should be. A gun in the hands of an irresponsible individual is a danger to humans and wildlife alike. Unfortunately, not only is present United Kingdom legislation on gun ownership ambiguous, it also makes a pointless distinction between firearms and shotguns. To hold a shotgun certificate, it is sufficient for a person to be considered not to pose a danger to the public safety or the peace; to hold a firearms certificate, however, one must, in addition, not be considered "otherwise unfit" to possess such a weapon.
I wrote to Scotland's chief constables about wildlife crime and weapons certificates. Their replies underlined the inadequacy of UK firearms legislation. Although all the chief constables stressed that cases were dealt with on an individual basis, some appeared to consider that committing wildlife crime qualifies people as "otherwise unfit" to have a firearms certificate, but the vague nature of the legislation resulted in inconsistent interpretations.
With respect to shotgun certificates, however, all respondents agreed that committing wildlife crime does not, under UK law, give grounds for revocation. Most used cautious language, but Superintendent Alan Smailes, responding on behalf of Grampian Police, wrote unambiguously:
"I am personally keen to see Firearms Licences revoked where offenders are guilty of committing offences against wildlife during the course of their employment."
I hope that we would all agree that individuals who are found guilty of wildlife crime are unfit to hold gun licences. The conclusion is clear: the law should be changed and those who are guilty of wildlife crime should be denied firearm and shotgun licences.
Scotland has no control over gun legislation. We have no control with respect to firearms, shotguns or airguns. Offences involving airguns are the most frequent form of firearms offence. It is a particularly unpleasant crime in which creatures are shot merely for the pleasure of wounding them. At least 75 per cent of vets, in one survey, had seen an animal that had been attacked by an airgun. After domestic cats, wild birds are the commonest targets. One SSPCA inspector in Aberdeen dealt with a dozen fatal attacks on birds within a single year. The SSPCA notes that however many injured or dead animals are found, it is likely to be but the tip of the iceberg. Strathclyde Police wildlife crime co-ordinator, Joe Connelly, said that his force had a particular problem with attacks on deer and swans. According to The Courier, he went on to say:
"If you are getting teenagers starting off shooting cans and then progressing to swans, where do they end up as they get bored shooting swans?"
With that background, members will understand my disappointment at not having received a reply to my letters to Pauline McNeill asking for clarification of new Labour's position on airguns. This issue is too important for new Labour to hide its position. We know Aberdeen Labour councillor Norman Collie's position, because he called for airguns to be banned. Will the new Labour MSPs state their position?
One minute.
Will the member give way?
I am in my final minute; I did hesitate.
In the meantime, Scotland is powerless to alter the conditions for issuing or revoking firearms certificates. Those who are convicted of wildlife crime offences will continue to brandish their weapons. Scotland is also powerless to prevent irresponsible individuals from purchasing airguns.
Westminster has such powers, yet Westminster will neither act, nor devolve the powers to Scotland. My message to Westminster is simple. Gordon Brown should stop dithering. Gordon Brown lacked the nerve to call a general election or to support a referendum on independence so, at the very least, he should find the nerve to let Scotland act on firearms.
Individuals who are convicted of wildlife crime are not responsible and are not fit to own firearms. On conviction they should immediately have their right to possess firearms removed, making Scotland's wildlife safer.
As others have done, I pay tribute to the work of Paddy Tomkins and Joe O'Donnell on the report, and I welcome the thrust of the report. For too long, wildlife crime has not been taken seriously by people across Scotland, but the previous Executive and current ministers are moving forward on the matter, and I welcome that, along with the report and its findings. The purpose of the Labour amendment is to ensure that those findings are taken forward as quickly as is practicably possible.
I will focus on a couple of the recommendations. Members and the Solicitor General for Scotland will not be surprised to hear that I have considerable sympathy for the concept of vicarious liability. The report identifies the fact that some agencies argued forcibly that for certain offences against wildlife it would be particularly effective to have legislation that makes an employer responsible for the criminal actions of their employees while in their employ. That is founded on the suspicion that, on a small number of estates in Scotland, employees are merely carrying out their employer's instructions by illegally ridding the estate of protected predatory birds and mammals. The report points out that some current legislation, such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, makes it an offence knowingly to cause or permit the offence to occur. Other statutory offences in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 have implied guilt "art and part", in that anyone, including an employer, is guilty of an offence if there is evidence that that person
"aids, abets, counsels, procures or incites"
another to commit an offence. Those provisions require evidence of third-party, or employer, involvement rather than the strict liability that some would prefer.
I accept that there is no direct precedent for such a wide provision of criminal vicarious liability in Scots law. I very much regret that, and I am convinced that it would strengthen the protection that is offered to workers and the public if it were applied to offences such as culpable homicide. Across all sectors, ordinary working people fall foul of the law, while those who turn a blind eye or collude with their actions go unpunished for the death or injury of individuals or the destruction of our natural environment and the death or injury of wildlife.
Does Karen Gillon agree that although it is important that employers take responsibility for their employees' actions if they are engaged in criminal offences and have been egged on to do it, the main point is that any sanction should be applied after the due process of the law and once people have been found guilty in a court of law?
I do think that employers should take responsibility for their employees' actions. In this area, as in others, we find that employers consistently hide behind the actions of their employees that they coerced their employees into taking. On sanctions being applied before a court process, there are examples of offences in Scotland in relation to which we may have frozen someone's assets ahead of a conviction or taken pre-emptive action.
An employer is vicariously liable for negligent acts or omissions by his employee in the course of employment whether or not such acts or omissions were specifically authorised by the employer. To avoid vicarious liability, an employer must demonstrate—that is the key word—either that the employee was not negligent and was reasonably careful or that the employee was acting in his own right rather than on the employer's business.
I accept, as the report acknowledges, that the whole issue will need to be given further consideration before it comes back to the Parliament, but I think that the issue should come back to the Parliament for a further debate. Personally, I take the straightforward position that those who are doing nothing wrong have nothing to fear from such provisions.
Finally, let me respond to Bill Wilson's rather bizarre speech, which clearly sought to open up a divide between the UK and Scotland. If the courts deem that a person is not fit to hold a firearms licence, the person is not fit to hold such a licence. No matter who is responsible for introducing the legislation, our system of law allows for UK provisions and Scottish provisions, so where those provisions come from is not the issue. In my view, those who have been found guilty of a wildlife crime should have their firearms licence revoked, which is what I am sure will happen in due course.
In today's debate, I am interested in considering how the strategy for tackling wildlife crime might be extended to deal with issues for which employers such as the Ministry of Defence should be made liable.
At the beginning of this week, it was reported that tracer bullets had sparked a huge heath-land fire near Cape Wrath. The Press and Journal reported:
"Nests full of eggs and young birds on the most north-westerly point of the British mainland may have been destroyed in a heath fire caused by military training in the area yesterday."
Does the minister agree that such activities—in this case, more than 2 square miles of land were set ablaze—are a kind of wildlife crime and that the MOD's activities need to be reviewed to see how they affect large areas? The MOD's actions have damaged wildlife in the Cape Wrath area on the very edge of the north-west Highlands geopark, which is one of our best and most scenic areas and is full of natural habitats.
I could not possibly say whether the Ministry of Defence was guilty of a wildlife crime, but I think that Rob Gibson's point illustrates the need for a responsible approach to land ownership and land management so that people do not run the risk of damaging nature. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will bear that in mind in future.
I thank the minister for that intervention. Given that we are discussing landowners' liability, I do not see why the MOD, as a large landowner and large land user, should be exempt from any provisions. In this case, RSPB Scotland was extremely concerned about the incident. Its spokesman pointed out:
"It's right in the middle of the breeding season."
A spokesman for Scottish Natural Heritage stated:
"We're obviously concerned about things like this happening and we're monitoring the situation."
This very week, we have seen physical examples of the large-scale activities that the strategy for tackling wildlife crime should consider. I hope that my short speech today will help to make it possible for such activities to be taken into account. I am deeply concerned that the MOD could say that activities on its land do not affect any other landowners, whereas others could be affected if such fires spread. The fact is that the MOD takes a cavalier attitude towards the wildlife on that land, which has been made exempt from the geopark because it is the only live firing range in north-west Europe. What that does for the wildlife, I leave to members' imagination.
We now move to winding-up speeches. I call Mike Rumbles.
Should the Conservatives not wind up first?
No.
The Conservatives did not lodge an amendment, so they should wind up first. I would hate to take the Conservatives' turn in this unusual debate, for which they did not lodge an amendment. It is normal—
Order. It is normal that, in the winding-up speeches, we follow the normal order. Whether a party has lodged an amendment is of relevance only in the opening speeches.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
As part of the previous Executive, the Liberal Democrats pushed hard for tougher legislation to deal with wildlife crime. RSPB Scotland has described Scotland's wildlife protection laws as among the best in Europe. Ross Finnie made changes to strengthen enforcement by doubling the fines for a range of offences and creating a network of environmental specialists in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The Liberal Democrats favour better investigation and prosecution of environmental and wildlife crime, which will require more resources, environmental police officers in every police authority area, more training for prosecutors and heavier penalties for environmental crimes. However, those penalties must be imposed only after due process of law.
Unfortunately, through his cack-handed attempt to misrepresent our amendment, Mike Russell has given the impression that the SNP Administration is willing to act against individuals to withdraw their incomes before the legal process has run its course. That is despite the assurances that he gave to the Parliament on 4 October, when he said:
"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."—[Official Report, 4 October 2007; c 2529.]
The minister's objection to those very words even being put before the Parliament for debate betrays a certain level of insincerity and an unwillingness to act only after due process of law, which must disturb the many people across Scotland who will be listening to the debate, especially those in our rural communities.
As far as the Conservatives are concerned, I am again incredulous at their position. They do not back our amendment, which makes it clear that ministers should act to withdraw farm subsidies only after due process of law. The farming and rural community will not understand the Conservatives' stance, because if our amendment is not agreed to, SNP ministers will be able to take away people's incomes without due process of law.
I am afraid that John Lamont allows his dislike of Liberal Democrats to cloud his judgment. In failing to support the Liberal Democrat amendment, the Tories are betraying farmers up and down the country. Where is the Conservative amendment to the Government's motion? Where is it, indeed? Once again, the Conservatives have abandoned the field.
This should be a largely consensual debate. [Laughter.]
Order.
I ask Christine Grahame to keep quiet and listen.
The only contentious issue has been the reluctance of the SNP Administration to make it clear that it will act to withdraw farmers' European Commission income only if their employees are found guilty of a wildlife crime after due process of law. We all agree that we need to take significant action on wildlife crime, but such action must not only be fair but be seen to be fair across the country. I hope—I always live in hope—that, even at this late stage, the minister will acknowledge that important point.
I, too, declare an interest as a member of the RSPB.
During the debate on wildlife crime that was held in the Parliament last October, my party stated that the sickening criminal activity against Scottish wildlife that threatens some of our rarest and most iconic species needs to be tackled relentlessly until it is stamped out, and we welcomed the setting up of a review of the inconsistent application of the law to such crime, so we are extremely pleased that the conclusions of that review have come before the Parliament for discussion.
Like other members and the bodies that are concerned for the welfare of wildlife that have contacted us, such as the RSPB, we very much welcome the detailed conclusions and recommendations of the review and look forward to their implementation in due course. We hope that that will lead to the development of a strong and effective partnership for action against wildlife crime and a co-ordinated approach to the detection, investigation, prosecution and eventual punishment of the perpetrators of it, which will help to protect Scotland's vital natural heritage from the abuse to which it is currently subjected.
Therefore, we are happy to support the motion in the Solicitor General's name and, indeed, the Labour Party's amendment, which adds urgency to the call for the implementation of the Tomkins report by suggesting the production of an action plan with an attached implementation timetable.
However, as John Lamont indicated, we will not be supporting the Liberal Democrat amendment, which we think is badly drafted. We do not think that it is appropriate for today's debate, the purpose of which is to discuss the report's proposals rather than to consider any specific sanctions that might emanate from them. My party does not accept the withholding of single farm payments as a punishment for wildlife crime.
Why are the Conservatives going to vote for it, then?
We do not accept it at all. Were the Liberal Democrat amendment to be accepted, Parliament would, in effect, be giving its support to the sanction.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am not taking interventions from the Liberal Democrats.
Wildlife crime needs to be punished, but that sanction is not the way in which to do it. An important debate must be had about the penalties that should apply, but that is for the future, not for this afternoon. The Liberal Democrats have caused considerable confusion today, so I hope that their amendment will not win the Parliament's support at decision time.
We heard the usual separatist posturing from Bill Wilson, although I doubt whether many of us were particularly impressed by it. However, there have been several well-thought-out speeches, from Karen Gillon, Peter Peacock, Rob Gibson and others. I will ignore Mike Rumbles's speech.
Will the member take an intervention?
The main barrier to the eradication of wildlife crime is not a lack of legislation, as Scotland has some of the most stringent wildlife protection laws in Europe.
I take it that the member will not take an intervention.
I am not taking any interventions.
We fall short on the consistent enforcement of existing legislation and our efforts should be focused on setting that right.
There is a consensus that we need full-time wildlife crime co-ordinators in each police force. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service should put action against wildlife crime in the hands of a specialist wildlife prosecutor. As members know, I come from the Grampian area, where we are fortunate to have one of Scotland's four wildlife crime police officers, backed up by other part-time members of the force. I look forward to the time when all Scotland's police forces are in that position. I look forward to meeting the officer from Grampian Police next month and to learning at first hand about the detail of the work that he undertakes. I am particularly pleased that the minister has accepted my invitation to come to the North East Scotland region to share in that meeting. Unfortunately, no other parties took up my offer, but I will happily report back to them, if they wish.
I am sure that we all agree that the discussion has been interesting. I reiterate that we commend the work of the review, accept its recommendations and look forward to their timely implementation. We support the motion and accept the Labour amendment, but we do not accept the Liberal Democrat amendment.
We welcome the Tomkins report and we congratulate all those who worked on it. It is a comprehensive report that has clear recommendations and a clear agenda for action, with a call for partnership to ensure that the action is effective. I welcome the general support throughout the Parliament for the report, which provides a sensible set of fine-grained recommendations that were drawn up by people who understand how the police work and what would make sense. David Stewart and Christine Grahame set out most effectively the point that although we have good legislation—let us be in no doubt about that—there is simply too much wildlife crime happening in our country and we need to focus on how to eliminate it and how to enforce the law.
An overarching issue is political leadership, which is why we wanted to ensure that the whole Parliament supports the principle of a wildlife crime reduction strategy that is produced by the Scottish Government with a timetable. Our amendment was generated with the aim of getting cross-party support and a commitment from ministers. We now know about the rate of progress, so I welcome the Solicitor General for Scotland's comments that we will get the strategy in, I think, September—it is useful to have that on the record. However, we know that timescales can slip. If we look back to the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, we see that a huge amount of work is still to be done on the regulations, which need to be produced and then implemented.
It would be good to find out today how the minister sees snaring fitting into the agenda. I am aware that he intended to establish a group to consider the issue, but its meetings have been cancelled. It would be helpful if the minister would say where he sees that discussion taking place. Will it be in the partnership for action against wildlife crime sub-group or does the minister intend another agency to discuss it? Transparency on the issue is critical. All members are interested and there are many people outwith the Parliament who are keen to know what is happening. There is a strong demand for inclusion, so that everyone can get round the table. I hope that the minister will also consider the definition of wildlife crime. We have several pieces of legislation, so how they join up and are enforced is crucial.
The issue of resources is fundamental, which is why I am so pleased that the Tomkins report sets out the case for wildlife crime officer support in every police force, with full-time officers who are properly supported by senior management. From members across the chamber, we have heard about the need for consistent activity across Scotland and for experience to be shared within the police forces and among the other agencies involved. We have also heard that the prosecution team has to be as well-briefed and as well-trained as possible. The process will have to move effectively from identification of the crime through to prosecution. It can make a huge difference to successful prosecution if the police have secured the evidence and if the prosecution team is knowledgeable too. Therefore, I very much welcomed the opening remarks from the Solicitor General for Scotland.
We support the report's recommendations 3 to 7 about better co-ordination and better information. They will be crucial. We also support recommendations 10 and 11. It will be important that legislation be thought through in depth by the sub-group. We want the sub-group to accept the recommendation about looking into criminal vicarious liability. Landowners have to take responsibility for what happens on their estates. The arguments are set out fully and effectively in the report. The issues must be considered properly over a period of time, and people have to be involved in the discussion.
Recommendation 11, on implementation, is important. That is why we will not be supporting the Liberal Democrat amendment. We believe that the report gets it right, but the issues require proper consideration before coming back to this Parliament. We should not be making policy on the hoof today. Proper action will be required to ensure proper implementation. Karen Gillon made the case for that extremely well.
We need action on several fronts. We need clarity in the legislation; we need resources for every police force; we need leadership and commitment in each police force; we need a parallel commitment in our prosecution service; and, crucially, we need all the other agencies to be involved effectively. We must not ignore organisations such as the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which have a special role in helping to tackle wildlife crime. I wonder whether the minister will agree to look into the financial support that the SSPCA puts into the system. I understand that it pays for many of the post mortems of animals whose deaths later lead to prosecutions. I question whether that is right; the SSPCA is a charity and we are talking about the implementation of the law. I hope that the minister will reflect on that point and then come back to us—although perhaps not in his final speech—with his thoughts.
We will need maximum effort. Recommendation 20 must be supported—the greater use of Crimestoppers by members of the public. That would send a clear message that wildlife crime is unacceptable and should be treated, and acted on, like any other. As Peter Peacock said, wildlife crime must be treated professionally. There is excellent practice in different police forces, but the practice has to be universal across the whole country.
John Lamont spoke about the persecution of birds of prey. We know that that is happening and that it leads to a loss of biodiversity. What will the minister do about it?
With support across the chamber, I hope that the Government will get on, get the strategy in place, and then bring it back to us. There is clear support for it.
I press the Labour amendment.
I will dispose of the Liberal amendment immediately. I am sorry that we have been distracted by it—it is absolutely clear that the amendment is a waste of chamber time, which is deeply to be regretted.
Peter McMahon, who is now a correspondent for The Scotsman, once wrote a piece entitled "What are the Liberal Democrats for?" It is a question that many of us ask ourselves, and we find great difficulty in finding an answer. However, this afternoon they are for wasting chamber time: their amendment asks a body that does not exist to do something that cannot be done. If there could be a bigger waste of time, I cannot imagine it.
However, it is worse than that. We have heard political posturing of the worst sort—playing to the gallery. No doubt Mr Rumbles will announce in a press release immediately after this debate—if he has not already done so, and I would not bet that he has not—that this Government is in favour of penalising farmers. The system of cross compliance is clear. He knows the system and I know the system. Were we to do what the amendment suggests, Scottish farmers would lose every element of the single farm payment. It is a disgrace that he lodged his amendment, and it is a disgrace that he has wasted Parliament's time.
Mr Hume is not going to waste any more of my time this afternoon.
As I proceed to address the serious issues in the debate, I note that Mr Hume never referred to them in his speech. I will deal first with strategy. I agree entirely that we should accept the recommendation that the Government should have a comprehensive wildlife crime strategy. At its meeting two weeks ago, the PAW group accepted that recommendation. As the Solicitor General said, we will discuss the matter over the summer and return to Parliament in early autumn with a strategy to be debated and a timetable for implementation of recommendations. We will aim to do that in September, although I am glad that Sarah Boyack acknowledged that the timetable may slip a little.
The level of wildlife crime in Scotland continues to be unacceptably high. Figures on poisoning for 2007 show little improvement on the corresponding figures for 2006. There was an increase in the incidence of badger baiting and hare coursing continues to be a problem. Poaching is a wildlife crime, and the number of offences of poaching deer and salmon has risen. Abuse of habitats is also getting worse. Recently, there have been reports of hillsides being deliberately set alight in Sutherland, which is completely against the Muirburn code. All those acts are abuses of Scotland's natural heritage. That is the crime, and it is a crime that offends all Scotland.
The answer to wildlife crime lies not in the posturing that we have heard from the Liberal Democrats this afternoon, but in the serious debate in Parliament, in bringing people together and in ensuring that people move away from entrenched positions. We will make real progress only when land managers and conservationists share their experiences and knowledge and work together to isolate what I called in my statement on snaring the "cowboys and criminals" who still damage the countryside.
I accept the points that have been made this afternoon on snaring. Presiding Officer, you will not be surprised to know that I am not moving away from the statement that I made on 20 February, but I agree that we must enforce rules and regulations as they are set. The current failure to do so leads to incidents such as Christine Grahame described. I confirm to Sarah Boyack that we hope to use a sub-committee of PAW to take forward the regulatory and legislative framework to which I referred. I accept that the group should be inclusive in nature and would be happy to talk to organisations that genuinely wish to be part of the process of improving regulations.
The thematic review has been vital. To be fair, it should be called not the Tomkins review but the Tomkins-O'Donnell review. I pay tribute to the entire team in the review: Paddy Tomkins, Joe O'Donnell, David McCracken and Maura Lynch. I congratulate them on having worked superbly well. We must now build on that work.
I am pleased to announce this afternoon—[Interruption.]
Order. There is too much background noise.
I am sure that members will wish to quieten down when I start to talk about money. I am pleased to say this afternoon that we will provide PAW with the funding that will be necessary to support new law enforcement projects, which was one of the recommendations in the report. We believe that such projects will show the way to a more professional and systematic approach to combating wildlife crime. SNH will provide the funds—a total of £220,000 in the current spending review period. Substantial sums of £100,000 a year in 2009-10 and 2010-11 will be provided, along with some start-up resources this year, as PAW gets under way. That money will be invested in the future of fighting wildlife crime.
The report accepts that wildlife crime is a crime like any other; we can now move ahead on the basis of that definition and we have accepted the recommendations that affect the Government. As the Solicitor General said, the recommendations that affect the Crown Office have not only been accepted but are being implemented. I know that chief constables are taking seriously the recommendations that affect them.
We still have a big job to do. We must not only outlaw wildlife crime but change the attitude to it. We must make it clear that wildlife crime is as morally unacceptable as any other form of crime and that it must disappear from Scotland. We will do that as a Parliament if we work together. I am heartened by what we have heard today from almost all parts of the chamber, although it seems that the hardest people for us to reach are the Liberal Democrat spokespeople, which is deeply to be regretted.