Chamber
Plenary, 04 Oct 2007
04 Oct 2007 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Wildlife Crime
I start by thanking the Solicitor General for his clear and useful introduction to the debate. I also compliment the minister and Sarah Boyack on getting together before we started to sort out the minor inconsistency in her amendment so that the debate could be consensual.
It is important that the debate is consensual because it has several different audiences, one of which is the small but unpleasant criminal fraternity that perpetrates crimes against Scottish wildlife. Parliament needs to give it the clearest possible message that we will not tolerate such behaviour and we will do everything possible to support the court and police services to ensure that such people are prosecuted and properly punished for their crimes.
I draw members' attention to my register of interests, particularly my membership of the RSPB. I hope that Michael Russell's and Jamie McGrigor's concerns about the RSPB have been allayed. I am absolutely confident that it is entirely appropriate for the police to consult the RSPB where necessary and where its expertise can be used. No one in this chamber should cast doubt on the RSPB's expertise.
Wildlife crime is a serious matter, which the Scottish public cares about very much. We should care about it because cruelty to animals is totally unacceptable and has direct links with other forms of human violence and degrading behaviour. Perhaps the minister will agree with me that there should be formal recognition of those links.
Scotland's wildlife protection laws may be among the best in Europe, but our record on the effective prevention, investigation and prosecution of wildlife crime could be better. The Scottish Government's motion rightly commends the collaborative work and commitment of those who are involved in tackling wildlife crime, but it is clear that more action is needed in three main ways. I commend Christine Grahame and Cathy Jamieson for their impassioned speeches, but I will repeat much of what they said because this message needs to be reinforced by every member this afternoon.
First, we need more wildlife crime officers in our police forces, with at least one such officer in each force. We have learned that that is on the way, but the officers must be properly resourced, valued and supported—a special, dedicated force of full-time officers. Some officers, as we have heard, are part time. There are examples of good practice by existing wildlife crime officers—such as the Lothian and Borders part-time WCO who led the investigation in the recent golden eagle case. Although good practice might exist in areas such as the Scottish Borders and Grampian, it has been accepted that is not yet the case throughout Scotland.
A similar concern applies to procurators fiscal and I will reinforce the comments that other members have made. It is not enough to have one environmental procurator fiscal per police force area; we need more such specialist prosecutors, who must be properly resourced. The current situation, in which wildlife crime cases are still presented by non-specialists, is unacceptable because cases may be underprepared and, as a consequence, excuses may be found for why a case should not proceed or why the wildlife charges should be plea-bargained.
Secondly, there must be a greater prioritisation of wildlife crime. An ex-police officer with considerable experience of wildlife crime told a member of my staff that, in his work on the issue, he was reminded time and again that we are dealing with crime and criminals. For example, the intimidation of witnesses is not uncommon. Prioritising wildlife crime is not a soft option; such crimes are not of a lesser nature.
As has been mentioned several times already, a related problem is that information on wildlife crimes is hard to come by because they are not separated from minor offences. It is important that we properly record wildlife crime incidents. They must not come under the heading of minor offences.
It is important that the debate is consensual because it has several different audiences, one of which is the small but unpleasant criminal fraternity that perpetrates crimes against Scottish wildlife. Parliament needs to give it the clearest possible message that we will not tolerate such behaviour and we will do everything possible to support the court and police services to ensure that such people are prosecuted and properly punished for their crimes.
I draw members' attention to my register of interests, particularly my membership of the RSPB. I hope that Michael Russell's and Jamie McGrigor's concerns about the RSPB have been allayed. I am absolutely confident that it is entirely appropriate for the police to consult the RSPB where necessary and where its expertise can be used. No one in this chamber should cast doubt on the RSPB's expertise.
Wildlife crime is a serious matter, which the Scottish public cares about very much. We should care about it because cruelty to animals is totally unacceptable and has direct links with other forms of human violence and degrading behaviour. Perhaps the minister will agree with me that there should be formal recognition of those links.
Scotland's wildlife protection laws may be among the best in Europe, but our record on the effective prevention, investigation and prosecution of wildlife crime could be better. The Scottish Government's motion rightly commends the collaborative work and commitment of those who are involved in tackling wildlife crime, but it is clear that more action is needed in three main ways. I commend Christine Grahame and Cathy Jamieson for their impassioned speeches, but I will repeat much of what they said because this message needs to be reinforced by every member this afternoon.
First, we need more wildlife crime officers in our police forces, with at least one such officer in each force. We have learned that that is on the way, but the officers must be properly resourced, valued and supported—a special, dedicated force of full-time officers. Some officers, as we have heard, are part time. There are examples of good practice by existing wildlife crime officers—such as the Lothian and Borders part-time WCO who led the investigation in the recent golden eagle case. Although good practice might exist in areas such as the Scottish Borders and Grampian, it has been accepted that is not yet the case throughout Scotland.
A similar concern applies to procurators fiscal and I will reinforce the comments that other members have made. It is not enough to have one environmental procurator fiscal per police force area; we need more such specialist prosecutors, who must be properly resourced. The current situation, in which wildlife crime cases are still presented by non-specialists, is unacceptable because cases may be underprepared and, as a consequence, excuses may be found for why a case should not proceed or why the wildlife charges should be plea-bargained.
Secondly, there must be a greater prioritisation of wildlife crime. An ex-police officer with considerable experience of wildlife crime told a member of my staff that, in his work on the issue, he was reminded time and again that we are dealing with crime and criminals. For example, the intimidation of witnesses is not uncommon. Prioritising wildlife crime is not a soft option; such crimes are not of a lesser nature.
As has been mentioned several times already, a related problem is that information on wildlife crimes is hard to come by because they are not separated from minor offences. It is important that we properly record wildlife crime incidents. They must not come under the heading of minor offences.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-609, in the name of Michael Russell, on wildlife crime.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament notes the collaborative work being undertaken by a variety of agencies to fight wildlife crime and commends the enthusiasm and commitment...
The Solicitor General for Scotland (Frank Mulholland):
I am grateful for the opportunity to open today's debate on wildlife crime. It is not routine for a law officer to make an opening speech of this kind, so I ...
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
Will the Solicitor General take an intervention?
The Solicitor General for Scotland:
I will carry on; I might take the member in a minute.In the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, we take seriously our role in the prosecution of wild...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
The Solicitor General, probably more than most, is aware of my interest in ensuring that those at the head of an organisation are held to account for the cri...
The Solicitor General for Scotland:
Karen Gillon makes a good point. It can be difficult to obtain evidence to prove that the owners of the land on which crimes are committed are responsible—to...
Jamie McGrigor:
Con
The Solicitor General mentioned that the police work with other bodies. Is it correct that the police allow bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protecti...
The Solicitor General for Scotland:
The police have the power to enter land and secure evidence. On occasions they work with the RSPB, which assumes the role of expert witness and provides assi...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Before I call Sarah Boyack, I point out to members a slight change to amendment S3M-609.1, in her name. The phrase "is required to" in the second line of the...
Tricia Marwick (Central Fife) (SNP):
SNP
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Was the phrase "is required to" put in the amendment by the member? Why have you accepted a change? Is that the norma...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I advise the member that, apart from the fact that other business managers agreed to the change, the procedure for a change in an amendment is catered for in...
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
Thank you for that clarification.
Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab):
Lab
Presiding Officer, I am sure that your reassurance to the member will be much more valuable than mine could be—I see that she is leaving the chamber. The cha...
The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):
SNP
I thank Sarah Boyack for her helpful amendment and for the manuscript edition that allows the Scottish National Party to accept it. We will accept it. I am i...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
We do not envisage the guidance as being prescriptive, but we would like the minister to explore the issue further and I am glad that he is keen to do so.I w...
John Scott (Ayr) (Con):
Con
I begin by declaring an interest in the debate as a farmer and, indeed, as an active conservationist.I expect a rash of consensus to break out in the Parliam...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
The previous Executive enacted some of the strongest wildlife protection laws in Europe. Ross Finnie made the changes: he doubled the fines for a number of o...
Michael Russell:
SNP
I did not say that.
Mike Rumbles:
LD
That is certainly how the minister was reported. If that had been the Government's approach, we would have opposed it. We must follow the proper process of t...
Michael Russell:
SNP
I want to make it absolutely clear that I have never suggested those things in the way that Mr Rumbles has described. I think that he must have misread one o...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
I thank the minister for that clarification. I am pleased that he has made it absolutely clear that he was misreported.I wish to raise some important questio...
Michael Russell:
SNP
I do not want to keep interrupting Mike Rumbles but, for the avoidance of doubt, I want to make it clear that there is no proposal of any sort to empower any...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
Again I am grateful to the minister. It is important for us to be sure that the RSPB will not take evidence away from the scene of a crime.I am pleased that ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
We move to the debate.
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I welcome the Solicitor General to the debate, which is not party political—as it should be. He is a master of the quiet understatement. When he said"I have ...
John Scott:
Con
What I was referring to in relation to the burden of proof was the removal of the single farm payment and gun licences, and therefore livelihood.
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I do not think that the penalties that follow from a successful prosecution or a plea can influence in any way the burden of proof on the prosecution. If I h...
Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab):
Lab
I confess that I have just discovered that I have more in common with Christine Grahame than I thought, given that I too am a member of the RSPB, have a long...