Wildlife Crime

Thank you Presiding Officer. eleven years ago I sat at the same desk as Frank Mullholland studying for our MBA in this town, and now we sit in the same room again. Such is the village of Scotland that we live in.

There's no excuse for wildlife crime and I therefore welcome the Scottish Government's intention to implement all the recommendations in the report.

One of the most serious contentious parts of wildlife crime is that farmers can be fined without going through a normal court of law. I do not apologise for that being in my amendment, and I believe that most of this country believes that to be unjust. Does a local authority get fined for every crime on its streets. No. All we call for is due process.

We recognise the complexity of this area, and it's for that specific reason that we are calling for the expert group of Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime PAWS, already tasked in the report at looking at regulation to give this full consideration.

My amendment clearly states that the PAWS should give full consideration to this issue, not that this Parliament should legislate - it states that quite clearly.

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, penalties can still be applied. Civil standard of proof relating only to the balance of probability, even though there is an appeal process - i.e. presumed guilty until proven innocent. Mr Russell has in this chamber stated that that will not happen, and now we find it may.

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

I particularly welcome the recommendation of the appointment to each police force of a Wildlife Crime Coordinator to help partnership working and a Lead Officer to investigate incidents locally, as well as the appointment of a Lead Wildlife Prosecutor within the Procurator Fiscal service.

( I would however like to hear from the Minister as to what steps are being taken now to implement the report's recommendations. Is there a timetable? When will we see these new wildlife coordinators, lead officers and prosecutors actually in place? )

I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to tackling wildlife crime and its commitment to crack down on the perpetrators, but I call upon the Minister for very serious caution so that the right people are punished, and for the PAW sub group to fully consider this issue

The message is simple. There is an injustice if Scottish people can be guilty until proven innocent, and I hope that the PAWS group can consider this.

I move my amendment on behalf of Liberal Democrats.

Thank you.

4th october

. That is important, because unlike criminal prosecutions the lower civil standard of proof is used to decide whether or not cross-compliance requirements have been breached. If there is no criminal prosecution, cross-compliance penalties can still be applied. The civil standard of proof relates to the balance of probability, and if an inspector can provide evidence to show the probability, they can say that there has been a breach.

Michael Russell: I appreciate Mr Hume's point-it is the same point that Mr Rumbles made. 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.

Jim Hume: The issue is that cases should be heard in courts of justice. Fairness must prevail-there is no question but that those who are convicted of wildlife crime should face the loss of their firearms licence and jobs. I am heartened that the Scottish Government is taking wildlife crime seriously and that it has committed to crack down on the perpetrators, but to reiterate my earlier point, I also urge serious caution and moderation, so that the right people are caught and dealt with firmly. Farmers and gamekeepers do their job because they love their countryside, and Scotland has a wonderful and biodiverse countryside only because of the people who work in it and for it. With good liberal principles, let us leave the fines and punishments to properly constituted courts. I welcome the amended motion.

Rumbles

The new penalties for wildlife crime that he suggested included the possibility of stripping farmers of subsidies such as the single farm payment simply if wildlife crime took place on their property.

Michael Russell: I did not say that.

Mike Rumbles: 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 the law and allow the courts to determine penalties for environmental and wildlife crimes. I said this at the time, and I repeat it: it is not the place of any Government to add extra penalties at whim simply because a crime takes place on someone's property. That must be made clear. Such a draconian approach has now been abandoned-although I heard the minister say just now that he feels that that was not in fact his view. It was certainly reported in that way.

Michael Russell: 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 of the reports of what I said. Had I said what he thought I said, I would have opposed it myself. I think that Mr Rumbles will now have a much better understanding of what we are trying to do, as was so well described by the Solicitor General.