Wildlife Crime Report

Presiding Officer, wildlife crime of any kind is an appalling act against our natural environment. And so following on from the consensual debate back in October, I'm therefore glad to be speaking on behalf of my party this afternoon.

We will all recall the tragic poisoning of the golden eagle in Peeblesshire in my and my colleague, Jeremy Purvis's, area last year and as was said at the time there is now significant scientific evidence that illegal activity like this is seriously damaging populations of golden eagles, red kites, hen harriers and other birds of prey. Whilst devastating to the variety of species in our natural landscape, it is also potentially damaging to the economy. The Galloway Red Kite Trail alone is thought to bring around £750,000 to the region each year.

And why is there such a problem when Scotland's wildlife protection laws are among the best in Europe? As part of the previous Executive, Liberal Democrats significantly improved the capacity for more effective wildlife policing through the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Nature Conservation Act 2004. But despite this, in 2006 Scotland had the worst figures for illegal poisoning for at least 25 years. That's why our laws must be enforced. But we need people in place to ensure enforcement - each police force should have at least one full time wildlife crime officer and support back up from part time wildlife crime officers. And thereafter the procurator Fiscal service must pursue wildlife crimes vigorously if our laws are to act as a deterrent.

Proper cooperation between Scotland's police forces is all important in achieving effective enforcement and prosecution. By putting dedicated Wildlife Crime Officers in place in each police force, we're ensuring greater synchronicity between regions and with the National Wildlife Crime Unit. By doing this, not only is more emphasis placed on actually investigating and prosecuting those committing wildlife crimes, but it will also lead to records being kept for future reference.

And that leads me to ask, will the results of the Justice Committee's Inquiry into the Effective Use of Police Resources include an analysis of the successful work of the serving Wildlife Crime Officers in Grampian and Lothian and Borders, and an examination of how this practice could be extended to the rest of the Scottish police forces?

Furthermore, advice from the Minister on what steps his department is taking to ensure the appointment of at least one full-time serving officer as a Wildlife Crime Officer in each Scottish force would be appreciated.

I mentioned earlier that as well as having the people in place to investigate these crimes we also need a system in place that delivers uniformity in applying penalties so that the existing legislation successfully acts as a proper deterrent.

The Scottish Government needs to review the use of penalties by the courts and encourage the Crown Office to press for full use in all cases. And our Ministers also need to review the process of recording wildlife crime, so that its full extent and trends, and the effectiveness of efforts to deal with it, are clearer.

There are also problems of evidence gathering when for example evidence is considered inadmissible in court where the person reporting a crime does not have the landowner's permission to be on the land.

I would like to see the Scottish Government taking measures to ensure that the rules on admissibility of evidence do not hinder the effective prosecution of wildlife crime.

Presiding Officer we heard from the Minister in August when he spoke about measures being considered by his Department to deal with wildlife crime. One suggestion was the possibility of stopping single farm payments. I would urge very serious caution when considering such a measure.

If the landowner or farmer is found to be implicated in wildlife crime and in breach of Cross Compliance his payments - which can be up to £20,000 a year - those payments can be reduced by 1 to 5% where they are shown to be negligent and the action or omission leading to the breach is directly attributable to them. If the action or omission was intentional the penalty can be up to 100%.

But unlike criminal prosecutions, the lower civil standard of proof is used to decide whether or not Cross Compliance requirements have been breached. In other words, even if there is no criminal prosecution, Cross Compliance penalties can still be applied. Civil standard of proof relates to the balance of probability. If an inspector can provide evidence to show that on the balance of probability a breach has been committed, then this is enough to allow a Cross Compliance penalty to be applied.

Presiding Officer where sanctions are so severe that they can affect an individual's livelihood, such as the withholding of Single Farm Payment or removal of a firearms licence, then it is imperative that they are applied fairly and that the right person is being penalised.

There is no question that those convicted of wildlife crime should face the loss of their firearms licence and indeed, in the case of employees, also their job. But many gamekeepers have such a clause in their contract of employment in any event.

I therefore am heartened that the Scottish Government is taking wildlife crime seriously and has made a commitment to cracking down on the perpetrators, but to reiterate my earlier point, would also urge serious caution and moderation so that the right people are caught and dealt with appropriately.