Hansard

I am pleased to take part in this debate on the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. I start by commending Gillian Martin and colleagues on the ECCLR Committee for their scrutiny work, and I thank all those who have supported their efforts, particularly those who have provided written and oral evidence at stage 1.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats strongly back the principles of the bill, and many of the measures that it proposes, not least the introduction of what has become known as Finn’s law.

As Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and others have reminded us, Scotland has one of the lowest tariffs of sentence in Europe for animal cruelty. Twelve months in prison, plus a fine and a ban on keeping animals, for the worst act of animal cruelty compares badly with five years for crimes such as fly-tipping. The comparison does not reflect well on our justice system, nor does it reflect public attitudes towards crimes of animal and wildlife cruelty. The case for reform is therefore compelling. The bill seeks to bring in such reform by increasing the maximum available penalties for cruelty and causing unnecessary suffering to wild or domestic animals.

As OneKind has pointed out, establishing the principle of penalising wildlife offences at the same level as offences against domestic animals is both significant and very welcome. So too, I think, is the point that has been made by OneKind about the need to make a distinction between those acting perhaps out of ignorance, or a lack of capacity, and those who, as OneKind suggests, should know better. It is not unreasonable for courts to take a particularly dim view of individuals who perpetrate acts of cruelty or cause unnecessary suffering of animals in the course of their employment or business. Breeders, farmers, and gamekeepers can rarely argue with any credibility that they are somehow ignorant of the law.

In supporting an increase to up to five years’ imprisonment for the most serious cases of cruelty and abuse, the Law Society of Scotland helpfully clarified that the benefit is in the extent to which that broadens the range of prosecutorial options. That will allow certain offences to be tried on indictment, where circumstances merit it, and will potentially also increase police powers in the detection of certain more serious crimes.

As well as allowing for more appropriate sentencing in some instances, I hope and expect that the measures in the bill will act as a more effective deterrent. Obviously, the ambition is to see a reduction in cases overall, including a reduction in the number of individuals who reoffend. In that context, I was particularly struck by OneKind’s comments about the potential for alternative approaches. At a time when our prisons are full to bursting, when all the evidence tells us that short prison sentences are less effective in reducing rates of reoffending than community-based measures, this area seems ripe for making use of alternative and more effective approaches.

Community payback orders are already used widely to deal with animal welfare cases, but perhaps not enough attention is given to using them to deliver lasting behavioural change. That is in line with the Poustie review, which recommended

“That wildlife crime offenders should be required to attend retraining courses, including courses on empathy where appropriate”.

However, Poustie went on to warn that

“This would require establishing that such courses are available and raising awareness of such courses amongst the judiciary.”

As the Justice Committee has heard repeatedly over recent years, that is a common refrain when it comes to community-based measures.

The investment that is needed to increase capacity and raise awareness is far less costly than continuing with custodial sentences and high rates of reoffending. I hope the ECCLR Committee will look at how the bill might be amended at stage 2 to broaden sentencing options further, including, for the reasons that Mark Ruskell laid out, by using restorative justice.

I note the committee’s support for an extension of vicarious liability provisions. I was a member of the committee that considered the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which first brought in vicarious liability provisions. The previous convener of that committee swung effortlessly into the role of minister before bringing forward the proposals that the committee was scrutinising. Those proposals were intended to respond to the persistent and egregious persecution of raptors and birds of prey.

Notwithstanding Mark Ruskell’s concerns about the lack of prosecutions, I believe that the measure has had some success as a deterrent. However, the painful truth is that the illegal poisoning and persecution of many of our iconic species continues at shameful levels. That helps to explain the conclusions that Professor Werritty reached in his report on the case for licensing. I think there is an argument for looking at how vicarious liability might sensibly be extended to other types of wildlife crime.

I am not yet persuaded on the argument for extending the powers of the SSPCA. That was another debate that we had at the time of the WANE bill’s passage through Parliament. I was sympathetic to the frustrations and difficulties in gathering evidence, and indeed about the capacity of police officers to cover the ground in a timely fashion. I also recognise the apparent anomalies in the powers that SSPCA officers have in responding to complaints of cruelty towards domestic animals compared to reports of wildlife crime incidents.

Nevertheless, I remain uneasy about an extension of SSPCA powers. My mind is not closed to the idea, but the implications—and knock-on consequences—of going down that route need very careful consideration. I believe a task force would be well placed to give that consideration.