Tag: scottish parliament

Conservationists issue joint statement on game shoot licensing proposals

Following the Scottish Parliament’s Environment Committee’s recent decision to recommend a Government-led inquiry in to the feasibility of a licensing system for game bird shooting (see here), a consortium of conservation organisations has now issued a response statement:

WILDLIFE GROUPS CALL FOR PARTNERSHIP WITH SHOOTING COMMUNITY OVER LICENSING OF GAMEBIRD HUNTING

Wildlife conservation organisations are calling for a progressive partnership with the shooting community, to develop a licensing scheme for gamebird hunting in Scotland.

The Scottish Raptor Study Group (SRSG), the Scottish Wildlife Trust and RSPB Scotland want to see a regulatory system introduced that helps tackle wildlife crime while delivering a range of public benefits, and would like to see the shooting industry play a full role in this approach.

The call follows the Scottish Parliament’s Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform (ECCLR) Committee’s consideration this week, of a petition calling for gamebird shooting in Scotland to be licensed – which was lodged by the SRSG.

The committee recognised that the illegal persecution of birds of prey remains a widespread concern and has voted to write to the Cabinet Secretary, Roseanna Cunningham MSP, recommending that the Scottish Government commission an inquiry to explore how such a licensing system could work.

All three wildlife groups welcome the ECCLR Committee’s decision and its view that a fresh approach to address the issue of persecution and the associated unsustainable land management practices is required.

SRSG and RSPB Scotland had previously provided detailed evidence to the committee, reinforced by a “Review of Sustainable Moorland Management” conducted by the Scottish Natural Heritage Scientific Advisory Committee in October 2015, and hope the Cabinet Secretary will respond positively to the ECCLR Committee’s advice.

Logan Steele of the Scottish Raptor Study Group and lead petitioner said: “The ECCLR Committee has made a thorough assessment of the evidence put before it, and clearly concluded that raptor persecution has not been dealt with by the gamebird shooting industry. I warmly welcome the committee’s decision to write to the Cabinet Secretary, recommending that the Scottish Government gives consideration to implementing a licensing system for shooting businesses. The Scottish Raptor Study Group accepts that many within the shooting industry are law abiding and are as keen as we are to bear down on the criminal element within their ranks. A Government-sponsored inquiry, into how a licensing regime might work, presents an opportunity to work in partnership with forward-looking representatives from the industry, and other stakeholders, towards creating a sustainable upland environment where our birds of prey can thrive alongside legitimate shoot management.”

Jonny Hughes, Chief Executive of the Scottish Wildlife Trust, said: “We fully support this call for a constructive and broad partnership to provide expertise to a much needed inquiry into licensing of gamebird hunting in Scotland. Now is the time for all interested parties to come together to address what is clearly still a significant problem in our countryside. Shooting organisations should not see this as a threat, but more as a real opportunity to put differences aside and ensure that the best long term interests of nature and enhanced rural employment are at the heart of such discussions.”

As he prepares to retire from his position as Director of RSPB Scotland, Stuart Housden said: “We commend the committee’s thorough scrutiny of the evidence put before it over the last few months, and welcome their vote to recommend an inquiry into a potential licensing regime for gamebird shooting in Scotland.

“Throughout my 23 years in this role, the illegal killing of our birds of prey has been a constant stain on the reputation of our country, with no evidence to support claims that these crimes are diminishing in large parts of our uplands in particular. The body of evidence – including many peer-reviewed scientific studies have demonstrated very clearly that our populations of golden eagles, hen harriers, red kites and peregrines are still being significantly impacted by poisoning; the illegal use of traps; shooting; and destruction of nests, particularly in areas intensively managed for driven grouse shooting. This simply must stop if the grouse shooting community is to enjoy public confidence in the future.

“There has also been an increasing recognition that self-regulation by a significant part of the gamebird shooting industry has failed, and that new regulatory measures are required to ensure that our uplands are managed in line with the public interest. We consider that a bespoke licensing arrangement, including sanctions for removal of a licence where there is clear evidence that wildlife crimes are occurring, would provide a meaningful deterrent to illegal behaviour, as well as protecting the interests of those sporting managers who already operate to legal and sustainable standards. We commend those that do, and ask that this must now be the norm.

“We expect the Cabinet Secretary to respond positively to ECCLR Committee advice. But in particular, we also invite progressive elements of the gamebird shooting industry to fully endorse and play a full part in this approach, to help heal the unnecessary divisions between conservation and gamebird shooting, and to recognise the many opportunities that sustainable management of our uplands will bring for wildlife, important landscapes and rural employment.”

END

Well, that’s quite an olive branch from the conservationists. The question is, will the game shooting industry accept it? Given that the industry as a whole is still in complete denial about the scale of raptor persecution, and has argued that licensing would be an unnecessary and unwelcome ‘threat’, it’s hard to see from where the “forward looking representatives” and “progressive elements” of the industry will emerge.

There’s certainly been no sign of them so far, with the main organisations wanting to maintain the status quo (see here) and another one wanting to bring in ‘licensed raptor management methods’ (see here), whatever that is, although we can take an educated guess, and another one refusing to even attend PAW raptor crime meetings because they ‘don’t trust’ the conservationists (see here).

But emerge they must if they want their industry to survive in any sort of format. The Environment Committee was clear that doing nothing and carrying on as before is no longer an option. Time’s up, gents.

GWCT wants ‘raptor management’ as part of game shoot licensing proposals

In the run up to the Scottish Parliament’s Environment Committee meeting last Tuesday to discuss options for progressing the petition to introduce a game shoot licensing scheme, several organisations from the game shooting industry submitted some last minute ‘evidence’ for consideration. Calling it ‘evidence’ is a bit of a stretch but anyway, we blogged about it (here) and commented that the industry was just calling for the maintenance of the status quo.

It turns out that other last minute ‘evidence’ was also submitted, this time by GWCT, although it seems the GWCT’s submission was too late to be considered during the meeting.

Here is a copy of that submission: GWCT letter to ECCLR Committee May 2017

It’s full of spin, of course, but it also introduces the idea that ‘licensed management methods‘ (of raptors) should be considered as part of any proposed licensing scheme.

The letter starts off by suggesting “The distribution of wildlife, is affected by many factors. In this case, raptors’ food supply (which changes seasonally and annually), habitat quality, weather in both the immediate area and landscape are all known to affect hen harrier , golden eagle and other species.  Ascribing a single cause to a perceived absence of occupancy is likely challenging“.

In relation to how these variables affect hen harrier and golden eagle, GWCT cites two references to support its claims: the Hen Harrier Conservation Framework and the Golden Eagle Conservation Framework. As the GWCT knows very well, both of these substantial and scientifically rigorous reports indicate that illegal persecution is the main single cause of the absence of occupancy in areas of intensively managed driven grouse moors in Scotland (note, it’s not a ‘perceived’ absence, it is an evidence-based, factual absence).

Here are some quotes from these two highly regarded reports:

Hen Harrier Framework: “Two main constraints were identified: persecution, and in one Scottish region [North Caithness & Orkney, where there’s no driven grouse shooting], prey shortages“.

Golden Eagle Framework: “Current evidence indicates that illegal persecution and low food availability in parts of western Scotland [where there’s no driven grouse shooting] are the two main constraints on the Scottish golden eagle population“.

So the GWCT’s claim that “ascribing a single cause to a perceived absence of occupancy is likely challenging” is utter tosh in relation to the hen harrier and golden eagle (and some other species such as red kite in the north, peregrine in the north east, and merlin in the south east) and the GWCT knows it. Why does the GWCT, and its other mates within the industry, continue to deny this evidence?

The letter then goes on to say that “the regulation of game shooting and its management in Scotland is extensive” and cites regulations such as the restriction on when species may be shot (i.e. open/close seasons), which species may be shot, when and where species may be disturbed, how habitats may be managed, how predatory species can be controlled, veterinary medicines regulation and site specific regulation such as Special Protection Areas.

What the letter fails to acknowledge is the the vast majority of these regulations are repeatedly broken (apart from the bit about open/close seasons), the use of veterinary medicines is barely regulated and if you think this equates to ‘monitoring’ then your brain has died, and many SPAs designated for various raptors are in unfavourable condition. If this ‘extensive’ regulation was working, we wouldn’t now be in the position of calling for state-regulated licensing! Duh!

The letter then goes on to discuss the current legislation, and this is where the proposed ‘licensed management methods‘ (of raptors) is introduced:

GWCT admits that illegal raptor killing goes on and claims that this is because “the drivers of the conflict remain unaddressed“. The letter continues, “Attempting to address this conflict in the absence of licensed management methods has been shown to result in loss of conservation status of birds of prey, loss of increasingly rare moorland wading birds, loss of local economic activity and degradation of protected habitat. Current legislation is enabling a DEFRA hen harrier management plan and brood management scheme that does address the conflict and such adaptive approaches should be given a chance to work in Scotland“.

Now, the GWCT hasn’t specified what it means, exactly, by ‘licensed management methods‘, and it may mean something as harmless as diversionary feeding, in which case, fill your boots. However, knowing this industry only too well, and the fact that the GWCT has already suggested brood meddling as a potential option, we suspect that the phrase ‘licensed management methods‘ has far more serious and sinister undertones. Don’t forget that there are already people within the industry calling for the inclusion of red kites and white-tailed eagles on general licences.

No doubt the GWCT’s plans for ‘licensed management methods‘ will be assessed during the Scottish Government’s inquiry in to game shoot licensing (assuming the Cabinet Secretary agrees to the Environment Committee’s recommendations) so hopefully we’ll find out whether the GWCT is proposing diversionary feeding, brood meddling, trapping and relocating, or killing, or something else.

We’ll be paying close attention to what the GWCT has to say at any inquiry, especially as its Director of Research is on record as saying GWCT wants to keep a lot of its management methods “under the radar” for fear of scrutiny and how the authorities might respond if they found out what was actually going on.

Richard Lochhead MSP to meet Environment Secretary today to discuss wildlife crime

Richard Lochhead MSP, who represents the SNP in Morayshire, continues to impress.

Last night, he posted the following on his Facebook page:

Richard Lochhead MSP will meet with Roseanna Cunningham tomorrow to discuss the need for more to be done to catch those who commit wildlife crime.

Mr Lochhead’s meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Climate Change follows his exchange with Nicola Sturgeon at First Minister’s Questions, where he highlighted the disappointment at the Crown Office’s decision to drop the case relating to the alleged illegal killing of a hen harrier in the Cabrach in 2013.

Moray’s MSP has been contacted by many constituents who were shocked that the Crown Office had taken the view that video footage supplied by RSPB Scotland was inadmissible despite such evidence being accepted in the past.

Whilst Mr Lochhead welcomes the progress that has been made by the Scottish Government in recent years in tackling wildlife crime, he will convey to the Cabinet Secretary that the Crown Office must take into account how difficult it can be to detect wildlife crime given that it most often takes place in remote areas and that they must ensure the justice system doesn’t miss opportunities to hold to account those who illegally kill endangered species.

Former Environment Secretary and Moray MSP Richard Lochhead said:

“The justice system needs to reflect the fact that wildlife crime often occurs in very remote areas and therefore every scintilla of evidence must be captured and used in the courts given how difficult it is to gather in the first place.

The alleged perpetrator caught on film who appears to have shot and killed a protected hen harrier in my constituency probably can’t believe his luck that he’s getting away with it. When the public view with their own eyes video footage showing an alleged crime being committed they expect it to count in the courts.

It’s clear we need a further package of measures to build on the good work already underway to tackle wildlife crime in Scotland. Nothing should be ruled out at this stage including the enhanced use of cameras by the authorities at nesting sites and improved enforcement and deterrents“.

END

Richard has been tweeting about this (@RichardLochhead) as has his Moray Parliamentary Office (@MorayParlOffice). If you’re on Twitter, or Facebook, please drop him a line to thank him for his interest and his efforts.

Game-shooting industry issues joint statement on licensing proposals

Following this morning’s fantastic news that the Scottish Parliament’s Environment Committee has voted to recommend further exploration of a licensing system for driven grouse shooting, the game-shooting industry has issued a joint statement:

“We are disappointed that the committee voted narrowly in favour of a course of action which includes examining the possibility of a licensing scheme for game shooting in Scotland as a method of tackling wildlife crime, particularly at a time when the level of wildlife crime – according to government statistics – is at a historically low level.

“It is widely acknowledged across the political spectrum that only a tiny minority of people engage in wildlife crime and further regulation will impact on communities where game shooting is of vital social, economic and environmental importance. It was also demonstrated throughout the committee’s evidence sessions that licensing is not a definitive solution, with intolerable instances of crimes against birds of prey still existing in European countries with a licensing system in place.

“We are heartened by the fact that members of the committee today recognised the shooting community’s set of proposals which, if taken forward, could have a significant impact in helping to eradicate wildlife crime for good. That is the objective we all want to achieve and we believe that a potent combination of punishment and prevention is the most effective way forward. Significant progress has been made and this should be built upon.

“We have urged the government to adopt tougher penalties for those found guilty of wildlife crime, as outlined in the Poustie report. We would also like to see a formal due diligence package created for shoots accompanied by a new warning sanction for shoots under suspicion – a measure that would be developed under a strengthened PAWS partnership with more local focus.

“We look forward to discussing our set of proposals with the Cabinet Secretary at the earliest opportunity in the hope of devising a workable set of proposals that will hopefully deal with this issue once and for all.”

Scottish Land & Estates

Scottish Gamekeepers Association

BASC Scotland

The Scottish Association for Country Sports

The Scottish Countryside Alliance

The Scottish Moorland Group [Ed: which is actually part of Scottish Land & Estates]

ENDS

What’s fascinating about this response is that it has been prompted, not by the news of yet another poisoned, trapped or shot raptor being found on a game-shooting estate, nor the disappearance of yet another satellite tagged raptor on a game-shooting estate, nor the discovery of yet another poisoned bait on a game-shooting estate, nor the discovery of yet another illegally-set trap on a game-shooting estate, but in response to the now very real threat of a licensing system being introduced to regulate game-bird shooting.

Isn’t that interesting? That tells us an awful lot about the sincerity behind the industry’s set of proposed ideas for reform, which, as we said yesterday, merely seek to maintain the status quo. If the industry was actually serious about tackling raptor persecution, it would have done a hell of a lot more, a long time ago. It would have spoken out each and every time one of the above crimes was discovered, but instead, it has denied, obfuscated, shielded and defended its criminals and criticised the RSPB at every given opportunity. But now, faced with enforced regulation, the industry is trying to be seen to be as conciliatory as possible to reduce the severity of what’s coming its way.

But even with this latest statement, the industry can’t resist spinning the facts. Raptor persecution is not “at a historically low level” – far from it. It might appear to be that way because the criminals have become better at hiding the evidence, hence a decreasing ‘body count’, but the endless scientific reports, papers and surveys continue to point in one direction and one direction only – there are many within the industry who are still ‘at it’. There is zero prospect of the industry cleaning up its own act if it refuses to accept the extent of the criminality.

The statement also says that “further regulation will impact on communities where game shooting is of vital social, economic and environmental importance“. If the industry introduces sustainable management practices and stops breaking the law, it shouldn’t have any negative impact on local communities and might even draw in more tourists, and thus their money, resulting in a positive impact for local businesses. It’s pretty simple really.

The statement also says, “We are heartened by the fact that members of the committee today recognised the shooting community’s set of proposals which, if taken forward, could have a significant impact in helping to eradicate wildlife crime for good”. An important word is missing from this statement. Only SOME committee members recognised the shooting community’s set of proposals (three Tories and an SNP MSP), not the whole committee as the industry’s statement suggests. In fact, Mark Ruskell went out of his way to dismiss the industry’s new set of proposals and at the end of the meeting, when Convener Graeme Dey asked whether the Committee wanted to include the proposals in his letter to the Cabinet Secretary, Mark Ruskell again made it very clear that the Committee should not “endorse” the proposals but should merely “note” them.

Unlike the game-shooting industry, we are very encouraged by today’s decision, notwithstanding our concerns about how a licensing system would be monitored and enforced. However, today’s decision is very much a long-term plan. What we want and what we expect to see from the Cabinet Secretary over the last few weeks of this Parliamentary session is also a short-term plan, to run parallel with the licensing proposal. We need to see something that will clamp down with immediate effect on the worst offenders within the industry. We all know who they are, as does the industry, as do the Police, as does the Government. These criminals cannot be allowed to continue their lawlessness while we await the findings of a licensing inquiry, which will take months, if not years.

UPDATE 26 May 2017: Wildlife conservationists issue joint statement on licensing proposals (here)

Environment Committee brings licensing for driven grouse shooting one step closer

It’s not often we can report good news on this blog but today is one of those rare occasions.

This morning the Scottish Parliament’s Environment Committee considered various options for progressing the Scottish Raptor Study Group’s petition calling for the introduction of a licensing scheme for game bird hunting.

In short, the Committee has agreed to keep this petition open and will be writing to the Environment Cabinet Secretary to recommend that the Scottish Government further explores, with stakeholders, the implementation of a licensing regime for driven grouse shooting.

This is fantastic and very welcome news!

Grouse shooting butt, photo by RPUK

The video archive can be viewed here (starts at 1:04:05).

The official transcript of proceedings can be read here: ECCLR Committee transcript_23May2017

For now, here’s a brief summary of what happened.

As we blogged earlier, the Committee had three options on the table (see here). Briefly, these were (1) to close the petition and do nothing more; (2) recommend that the Scottish Government explores a licensing system and the feasibility of a trial scheme; and (3) do something else, which in this case was to consider maintaining the status quo as recommended by the game shooting industry.

The following MSPs delivered their thoughts on this petition prior to the vote:

Kate Forbes (SNP), Alexander Burnett (Conservative), Claudia Beamish (Labour), Mark Ruskell (Greens), Emma Harper (SNP), Angus MacDonald (SNP), Richard Lyle (SNP) and Graeme Dey (SNP).

Maurice Golden (Conservative) and Finlay Carson (Conservative) did not have anything to say. Dave Stewart (Labour) was not present.

Special mention to Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell, who both demonstrated a clear grasp of the scale of raptor persecution, the length of time it has been allowed to persist, the need for a civil burden of proof, and a very marked view that voluntary regulation by the game shooting industry has failed to deliver tangible change.

The votes went as follows:

Option 1 (close the petition & do nothing else)

This option was rejected 10 votes to zero.

Option 2 (recommend that Scot Gov further explores, with stakeholders, how a licensing scheme could work and the feasibility of a trial scheme)

For: Kate Forbes (SNP); Claudia Beamish (Labour); Mark Ruskell (Greens); Emma Harper (SNP), Angus MacDonald (SNP); Graeme Dey (SNP).

Against: Alexander Burnett (Conservative); Maurice Golden (Conservative); Finlay Carson (Conservative); Richard Lyle (SNP).

This option was passed with six votes for, and four against.

Option 3 (close the petition & recommend that Scot Gov considers the non-regulatory alternatives put forward by the game shooting industry)

For: Alexander Burnett (Conservative), Maurice Golden (Conservative), Finlay Carson (Conservative), Richard Lyle (SNP).

Against: Claudia Beamish (Labour); Mark Ruskell (Greens); Emma Harper (SNP); Angus MacDonald (SNP); Graeme Dey (SNP).

Abstention: Kate Forbes (SNP)

This option was rejected with four votes for, and five votes against, and one abstention.

So as you can see, the decision to approve Option 2 was certainly not unanimous and it was a pretty tight call, but that doesn’t really matter. What matters is that this petition is moving in the right direction.

Various members of the Committee wanted to speak before the vote and many of them wanted to put on record their appreciation of petitioner Logan Steele’s evidence-based approach and his calm delivery of that evidence. We would echo that appreciation. As we’ve blogged before, Logan and his fellow petitioner Andrea Hudspeth, have both been subjected to some vile abuse and harassment on social media as a result of presenting this petition to Holyrood and it is to their credit that they refused to be intimidated and remained composed throughout. They deserve recognition for this, and for all the long hours of preparatory work that went in to writing the petition, and we all owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

So what happens next? Committee Convener Graeme Dey will write to Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham, outlining the comments made during today’s discussions and recommending Option 2 – that the Government needs to explore the issue of licensing, particularly with reference to land that is intensively managed for driven grouse shooting. The issues to consider will not be restricted to the illegal killing of raptors, but will also include other issues such mountain hare slaughter and the environmental impact of muirburn practices and the use of high dosage medicated grit.

We’re under no illusion that a licensing regime will solve the problem – we maintain our long-held concerns about the issue of enforcement, particularly brought in to focus with the recent decisions of the Crown Office to drop four prosecutions despite the availability of very clear evidence. However, we also recognise that a licensing regime is a necessary step before a full ban on driven grouse shooting will be considered. If licensing works, then fine. If it doesn’t, a ban will be inevitable.

We don’t know what the timescale for these stakeholder discussions will be, and, going on past experience, this process may take a long time. Somebody commented on an earlier blog that the issue may be kicked in to the long grass and that is certainly a possibility, but we will be doing everything within our power to make sure that doesn’t happen.

And who knows, today’s decision may prove to be a watershed moment for dealing with raptor persecution in Scotland. The Cabinet Secretary has some important decisions to make before the summer recess (30 June 2017), including her decision on increased powers for the SSPCA and her response to the findings of the raptor satellite tag data review.

Public awareness of both the criminality and environmental damage associated with intensive driven grouse moor management has increased massively in recent years and public opinion has been vociferous. This weight of public opinion, combined with today’s decision, may just buckle the fence on which the SNP has been balancing for far too long.

UPDATE 7.30pm: Game-shooting industry issues joint statement on licensing proposals (here)

UPDATE 26 May 2017: Wildlife conservationists issue joint statement on licensing proposals (here)

Environment Committee meeting this morning

The Scottish Parliament’s Environment Committee will meet this morning to discuss the petition calling for the introduction of licensing for game bird shooting.

The meeting begins at 10.15am and can be watched live on Scottish Parliament TV here

A video archive and a full transcript will be posted later.

Environment Committee seeks clarity from prosecutors on use of video evidence

Following recent decisions by the Crown Office to abandon two prosecution cases for alleged raptor persecution because of so-called ‘inadmissible’ video evidence (see here and here), the Scottish Parliament’s Environment Committee has today written to the Crown Office to ask for clarity.

Here is the letter from the Environment Committee to the Crown Office:

We applaud the Environment Committee for trying to hold the Crown Office to account. They seem to be the only ones willing to do so – everyone else seems to just shrug their shoulders and say ‘we can’t comment on Crown Office decisions’. As an example, here is the response one of our blog readers received from the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee when they asked about the Crown’s decision to abandon the prosecution for the alleged shooting of a hen harrier on Cabrach Estate:

Thank you for your email. The convener has noted the contents and asked me to reply on her behalf.

The Justice Committee is a cross-party Parliamentary body comprising members of 5 political parties. It is a scrutiny body whose remit is to consider and report on matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

Re your reference to “your justice system”, the Justice Committee does not take any decisions on the criminal process and, in particular, has no power in relation to the prosecution of individual crimes. These decisions are taken under the authority of the Lord Advocate as chief prosecutor and his independence in this role is set out in statute. The Committee is not able to comment on the specific of this case.

However, the Committee may comment on broader policy matters and I am sure that Committee members would agree that wildlife crime is a serious matter that should be tackled with vigour. For information, the Committee recently completed a major report on the COPFS, which included a short section on its handling of wildlife crime and made a recommendation for the COPFS’s consideration (paragraph 167 onwards).

http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/104512.aspx

It is my understanding that under some circumstances affected individuals are entitled to request a review of a decision not to prosecute, although I am not clear how that operates in the case of wildlife crime rather than a crime against a person. You may wish to direct your complaint to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and, in so doing, clarify whether there is any scope to formally object to the decision taken in this instance.

You may also with to consider contacting your constituency or regional MSPs to register your disappointment. As already stated, the Lord Advocate is independent in the prosecution of the the crime but there might possibly be other avenues for your MSP(s) to explore if they decide to take up your case.

Yours sincerely,

Peter McGrath, Clerk to the Justice Committee, The Scottish Parliament.

 To be fair to the Justice Committee, we understand that they can’t comment on individual cases. However, they say themselves that they can comment on wider policy issues, so you might think they’d have been interested in addressing the broader issues of video admissibility. But apparently not.
Thankfully, the Environment Committee thinks otherwise and we very much welcome their letter to the Crown Office. It’ll be interesting to see how forthcoming the Crown Office’s response is.
Meanwhile, news has emerged this morning that the Crown Office has dropped yet another prosecution case for alleged raptor persecution – this is the fourth abandoned case in the space of a month. We’ll be blogging about this one shortly….
 

Game shoot licensing petition: Environment Committee to decide next steps

The Scottish Parliament’s Environment Committee will meet next Tuesday to discuss how they wish to proceed with the Scottish Raptor Study Group’s petition calling for state-regulated licensing of game bird shooting.

As you’ll recall, the Committee took evidence from a range of stakeholders last month (see here for our commentary) so now they have to decide what should happen next. The ECCLR Committee clerks have outlined three possible options. Here’s option 1:

Given what’s happened since the Committee discussed this petition last month, i.e. Crown Office inexplicably abandoning three long-running prosecutions – alleged vicarious liability at Newlands Estate; alleged hen harrier shooting at Cabrach Estate; alleged pole-trapping offences at Brewlands Estate, and the witnessed shooting of a hen harrier at Leadhills Estate, the Committee will be hard pressed to justify taking option 1, because it is very clear that the current legislation and regulation is NOT working effectively.

Here are options 2 and 3:

As before, the session will be available to watch live on Scottish Parliament TV (we’ll add a link on Tuesday morning) and the video archive and official transcript will be posted here shortly afterwards.

Cabrach hen harrier shooting reaches First Minister’s Question Time

Today at First Minister’s Question Time, Richard Lochhead MSP (Moray, SNP) asked the following question:

The First Minister may be aware that there is huge disappointment and some shock following the decision by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service after a prolonged police investigation—and I am told, nine separate court hearings—to drop the case relating to the alleged illegal killing of a hen harrier in the Cabrach in my constituency in 2013. The Crown Office appears to have taken the view that the video footage supplied by the RSPB Scotland was inadmissible, despite such evidence being accepted in the past. Notwithstanding the progress that has been made by ministers in recent years to tackle wildlife crime, will the First Minister acknowledge that that case represents a serious crime against a threatened species? Given that wildlife crime is very difficult to detect, because most often it takes place in remote areas, will she acknowledge that the law and the approach of the Crown Office must take into account such factors? I ask the First Minister whether she would be willing to investigate this case, with a view to ensuring that the justice system does not miss any opportunity to hold to account those who illegally kill our endangered species?

The First Minister responded:

I agree with Richard Lochhead. As he well understands, decisions about the prosecution of crime are, of course, decisions for the Crown Office and in that respect law officers act independently of ministers. However, it is important that we take wildlife crime very seriously indeed, particularly in cases where, as Richard Lochhead has highlighted, it threatens a threatened species. I will be happy to ask the relevant minister, Roseanna Cunningham, to meet with Richard Lochhead to look at what more we can do, particularly taking into account his point about those crimes often taking place in remote areas and, therefore, being more difficult to detect. It is important that we make sure that the policy framework, the law around this and the decisions that are taken by the Crown Office in respect of prosecutions—although, as I say, it is independent of ministers—do everything possible to crack down on those kinds of crime. I assure Richard Lochhead that we will continue to do everything that we can to make sure that that is the case.

Well done, and thank you, Richard Lochhead. More of this, please.

No further General Licence restrictions in pipeline because Police Scotland sitting on evidence

The ability for SNH to impose a General Licence restriction order on land where there is evidence of raptor persecution taking place came in to force on 1 January 2014. This measure, based on a civil burden of proof, was introduced by then Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse in response to the continuing difficulties of meeting a criminal burden of proof to facilitate a criminal prosecution.

Whilst these GL restrictions are not without their limitations (because estates can simply apply for an individual licence instead –  see here, and we’ll soon be blogging again about the individual licences issued for Raeshaw & Corsehope estates in the Borders), Wheelhouse argued that as the restriction notices will be made public, they should act as a ‘reputational driver‘ and to us, that’s still where their value lies.

Since 1 January 2014, SNH has imposed two GL restrictions: one for Raeshaw & Corsehope estates, and one for Burnfoot & Wester Cringate estates in Stirlingshire. These restrictions began in November 2015 but as regular blog readers will know, Raeshaw & Corsehope made a legal challenge which ended up with a judicial review in January 2017. The court’s decision was announced in March 2017 and SNH was found to have acted properly and lawfully.

Since imposing those two GL restrictions in November 2015, SNH has not issued any others, presumably as they needed to await the outcome of the legal challenge, which is fair enough. However, now SNH has been given the green light to proceed with these restriction orders, we are expecting a flurry of further restriction announcements. We are aware of at least half a dozen other confirmed raptor persecution incidents that have taken place since 1 January 2014 that are not progressing for a criminal prosecution (and there’ll be more, it’s just that Police Scotland are currently hiding these from public view) and these should be eligible for SNH to consider for a potential GL restriction.

So, soon after the judicial review judgement had been announced, we submitted an FoI to SNH to ask about progress. We received their response last week and it’s staggering. In a nutshell, there aren’t any further General Licence restrictions in the pipeline because Police Scotland hasn’t bothered to pass on the evidence needed by SNH:

This, frankly, is an appalling neglect of duty by Police Scotland. We know that GL restrictions can ONLY be considered by SNH on receipt of evidence from Police Scotland. The Scottish Parliament’s Environment Committee was told by Police Scotland in November 2014 that Police Scotland would meet monthly with SNH, starting that month, to discuss any potential cases (although in the Scottish Government’s 2015 Annual Wildlife Crime Report it was stated that ‘SNH meet with Police Scotland and the National Wildlife Crime Unit every 3 months to review new information on bird crimes in Scotland and to identify any possible cases for future restrictions’).

So if they’ve been meeting regularly (whether that be monthly or quarterly) since November 2014, why the hell hasn’t Police Scotland provided any ‘formal information packages’ to SNH other than those used for the two GL restrictions that were imposed in November 2015?

SNH’s hands are tied until they receive such packages (so this is definitely not a criticism of SNH) and meanwhile, all those estates where evidence of raptor persecution has been uncovered since 1 January 2014 are allowed to continue without sanction. And that’s all thanks to Police Scotland’s apathy.

Police Scotland might argue that they’ve been waiting for the judgement of the judicial review before spending any time collating formal information packages because the judicial review might have gone the other way and prevented SNH from imposing any more. That would be sort of understandable, although a bit surprising for a police force that claims to take wildlife crime, and particularly raptor persecution, ‘very seriously’. However, SNH’s response to us suggests that these joint discussion meetings have been on-going, even during the lengthy judicial review process, but they can’t do anything because Police Scotland haven’t followed through with the evidence. But even if these meetings had been temporarily suspended, the judicial review judgement was announced at the end of March 2017 – that’s six weeks ago – so why has Police Scotland still not provided any evidence for SNH to consider? How long can it take to put together an information package, especially when in some cases you’ve had about 2-3 years to think about it?

It’s utterly pathetic.

We’ll be bringing this to the attention of members of the Scottish Parliament’s Environment Committee (responsible for scrutiny of wildlife crime policy and enforcement) and also to the attention of Environment Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham as she continues to deliberate (a) increased investigatory powers for the SSPCA and (b) her response to the findings of the raptor satellite tag data review (submitted 6 weeks ago but still to be formally published).

Meanwhile, supposedly protected raptor species will continue to suffer the consequences.