Chamber
Plenary, 22 May 2008
22 May 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Wildlife Crime
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.
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.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1954, in the name of Frank Mulholland, on wildlife crime.
The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):
SNP
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 no...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
On that point of order, Presiding Officer. The minister is being less than straightforward in challenging the parliamentary authorities for accepting the Lib...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
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. ...
Michael Russell:
SNP
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 Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
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...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
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...
David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
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 wildl...
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
Could the member tell me in which areas of Scotland beavers lived?
David Stewart:
Lab
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 ...
Jim Hume (South of Scotland) (LD):
LD
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 wh...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
Does the member support the recommendation in the report that the Government consider the concept of vicarious liability in this area?
Jim Hume:
LD
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 m...
John Lamont (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con):
Con
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 Bor...
Jim Hume:
LD
Will the member take an intervention?
John Lamont:
Con
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 ...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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...
Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
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 impor...
Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP):
SNP
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 wildl...
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green):
Green
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...
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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 a...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
One minute.
Karen Gillon:
Lab
Will the member give way?
Bill Wilson:
SNP
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 w...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
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, wildli...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
Does Karen Gillon agree that although it is important that employers take responsibility for their employees' actions if they are engaged in criminal offence...
Karen Gillon:
Lab
I do think that employers should take responsibility for their employees' actions. In this area, as in others, we find that employers consistently hide behin...
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
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...