New Petitions

Good afternoon, everyone. I welcome members of the public and others to the seventh meeting this year of the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee. We have received two apologies. There is a standing apology from the deputy convener, John Farquhar Munro, due to ill health, and an apology from Bill Butler MSP, because of a hospital commitment. All mobile phones and electronic devices should be switched off.There are a number of modern studies teachers in the public gallery. I welcome them. They will see how the committee structure in the Parliament works, and I hope that that will encourage participation. The committee has received fantastic responses when it has gone around the country, particularly from high school students, who have been supported by modern studies teachers. Those teachers have been good at promoting awareness of our pretty radical programme of public participation. Good luck to the teachers in the gallery if they are in a school at the moment, or if they hope to be in a school in the near future.The first new petition that we will consider is PE1315, from RSPB Scotland, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to increase its efforts to stop the illegal killing of birds of prey. I welcome to the meeting Stuart Housden, Lloyd Austin and Duncan Orr-Ewing, and invite one of them to make some opening comments.

Thank you, convener. It is good of the committee to listen to us. I will crack on, as members obviously have a busy schedule today.The petition, which was lodged on behalf of our 87,000 members in Scotland, celebrates Scotland’s incredible heritage of birds of prey and calls for increased efforts to end the illegal killing of them. We draw to members’ attention that we have also received 22,000 pledges that call for an end to such illegal killing.Our petition suggests a number of actions that will help to address the problem that we have raised. As members know, birds of prey are rightly protected by the full force of the law, but the illegal killing of those wonderful birds remains a persistent issue. Despite great efforts that have been made by many people, the problem continues throughout Scotland. Some species are threatened and some are not recovering as they otherwise would have done, because of the problem. That is not only bad in itself; it is bad for the environment and detrimental to Scotland’s tourism industry and our reputation across the world.Since we lodged the petition, two pertinent studies have been published that highlight the scale of the issue. The first study was on the poisoning of red kites that were the subject of a reintroduction programme in Scotland and England, in the scientific journal Biological Conservation. The study compared two release areas—one in the north of Scotland around the Black Isle and one in the Chilterns in England. An identical number of birds was reintroduced into those areas at exactly the same time, starting in 1989. The Chilterns population is now more than 320 pairs, whereas the population around the Black Isle is confined to around 40 to 50 pairs and is not increasing. There is a difference between the two populations because the population around Inverness has been subject to illegal persecution, particularly poisoning, whereas the population in the Chilterns has been largely unmolested. Illegal activity has had a direct effect around the Black Isle. That shows the serious impact that it can have.In late March, the Minister for Environment, Roseanna Cunningham, launched maps of illegal poisoning in Scotland. Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture, which is the key Government agency, has verified those maps. They confirm that poisoning is concentrated in upland areas, where driven grouse moor management accounts for the predominant land use. I regret to say that 2009 was among the worst years on record for the reporting of illegal cases to us. The use of illegal poisons remains a serious and widespread problem, and it is having a big impact on our bird of prey species in Scotland. Our petition sets out a range of things that we think could make enforcement more effective.Birds of prey are magnificent, enjoy wide public support and are something special in our landscape. By the early 20th century, many were extinct or close to extinct in Scotland. Some, often aided by conservation activities by bodies such as the RSPB, have since recovered, which is welcome, but the recovery is partial, patchy and jeopardised by the illegal killing that I have described. Scots and tourists alike value the birds, which add and contribute to the rural economy, especially in remote areas such as Mull, the Black Isle and Dumfries and Galloway, to name but three, where we have programmes running.The laws protecting birds of prey are pretty good and were recently improved, yet illegal killing on a serious scale persists, largely because the investigation and prosecuting of such crimes are difficult. There is a lack of specialist resources for those who are responsible for enforcement; our petition asks that more be done in that area. In 2007, a thematic review of wildlife crime, which was published here in Scotland and is an excellent document—I hope that the clerk can refer the committee to it—made a series of recommendations for better enforcement of the laws protecting wildlife here in Scotland, but a number of those recommendations are yet to be implemented. We ask for that issue to be addressed.Despite much good work by Government, the police, many responsible landowners and others who manage land across Scotland, much more needs to be done to address the problem. The full implementation of the recommendations of the thematic review is one of the matters that should be addressed with urgency. We will be delighted to answer any questions that the committee has.

Thank you for being brief.

I apologise for missing the first part of Stuart Housden’s presentation. I am a member of the RSPB. My question relates to the prosecution of wildlife criminals. I am fortunate in that I come from the Grampian area, where there is a full-time wildlife and environmental crime officer. I have been out with that officer, who does a particularly good job. Two years ago, when I went out with him, that sort of provision was patchy in police forces in Scotland. Can you update us on the current situation?

We ask, and the thematic review recommended, that all police forces in Scotland have a specialist to deal with these matters. You are right to say that you have an excellent wildlife crime officer in your area. Duncan Orr-Ewing can advise the committee of the latest situation.

Four or five Scottish police forces have a full-time wildlife crime officer. As Stuart Housden said, that is imperative if we are to make progress on the issue. Dave MacKinnon is the wildlife crime officer in Grampian, which we regard as the model. Many forces have still to reach that standard. Northern Constabulary, for example, does not have a full-time wildlife crime officer. Given the amount of wildlife crime that occurs in the area and the importance of its bird of prey populations, that is an important issue to address.

There has been some progress, but I have read in the papers about the lack of such an officer in Highland. I am always pleased to hear the praises of my neck of the woods being sung, but I know that provision there is good. I am pleased that you are looking to have that model rolled out across Scotland.

You will be aware that, at our previous meeting, we considered a petition“Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend relevant legislation to remove the protection given to sea eagles and ... ravens”,among other predators. My instinct is not to support that and to support what you call for. In your recommendations, you ask for“a clear and unequivocal commitment by Scottish Ministers not to weaken the legal protection for birds of prey”.I assume that you are referring there to PE1309, among other things.As a committee, we agreed to write to various organisations. We will have written to you—or we will be writing to you. I have a lot of sympathy with the petitioner and people who are losing livestock to birds of prey. I understand that you will write back to us, but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on how we could overcome that problem at the same time as protecting the bird population.

The first thing to say is that the committee has written to us and we will respond in some detail. In a nutshell, we need to agree the evidence base in order to discuss the problem. In the past 12 months, the Government has put more than £100,000 into investigating the claims that have been made. The evidence that has come out of that thus far seems to indicate that if there are losses, the number is very low indeed. There is a gap between the claims that are being made and the evidence from the independent scientific study. In order to make progress, the Government needs to ground truth that to work out the extent of the problem, so that we can come up with bespoke solutions that will help.I refer members to the situation that arose on Mull about 10 years ago, when similar claims were made. At that time, we had looked at what was happening in Norway before we brought the birds across to Scotland to reintroduce them. There was very little evidence of any damage to livestock, so we were quite sceptical about the claims. However, the study by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, a Government agency, showed that a small number of viable live lambs was being taken, particularly in years when there had been a bad winter and the lambs were quite light and had been on the hill. We shifted our position, because the evidence showed that a small number—although not the number that had been claimed—were being taken. That helped defuse the situation. Scottish Natural Heritage came up with a scheme whereby, in effect, the farmers or crofters on Mull are paid to facilitate the sea eagle programme, which involves quite a lot of monitoring by scientists on their farms. That has taken the heat out of the situation.We have a model, which I hope that, with good will, we can begin to transpose into other areas, where necessary. Our feeling is that we have to look closely at the claims and the way that sheep farming is conducted in the area, because it is difficult ground. There are undoubtedly losses, but how many live viable lambs are being lost to eagles is still in dispute. We have to get behind that and help farmers in difficult conditions address the stocking rates and the husbandry, from cradle to grave, in their systems, rather than look at one particular problem in isolation. In short, I hope that you understand that we are sympathetic to the petition, but we feel that the right thing to do is base concerns on an agreed understanding of the scientific evidence, so that we can come up with appropriate and sympathetic solutions.

I think that, instinctively, I support your position. I understand that the actual effects are being studied, but the anecdotal evidence from individuals seems to be that their businesses were being crippled. For some of the people involved, their businesses have been in their family for generations. It is important that we work together and take cognisance of the problems that they are facing, even if they might be exaggerated in some quarters. I will read your response with interest. Previously, somebody talked about feeding birds during bad winter seasons, so that they will not require to take lambs. That seems a bit of a simplistic solution, but it will be interesting to read your response.14:15

I agree. I want to reassure you that we are not blind to complaints and that we are not saying that there is no evidence of any of this and so it cannot be shown to be having an impact. Sheep farmers and crofters in the area lead a hard life, and we need to look at the issue sympathetically and ensure that we understand their difficulties. Obviously, there is no doubt about some of the claims; however, given the very short window in which lambs are vulnerable to eagles—they simply outgrow the eagles’ capacity to take them—the number of viable live lambs that are taken must be smaller. As these birds are carrion feeders and have evolved to clean up dead animals, deer grallochs and so on, we can sometimes use that to change behaviour and ensure that instead of going off hunting they can take free food. It is a bit like a bird table in one’s garden transposed to the countryside. We will respond sympathetically and in detail and are happy to provide more evidence as required.

I, too, am happy to acknowledge my membership of the RSPB.A few years back, I remember being shocked—I was going to say impressed, but that is probably not the right word—by a list of birds and animals that had been shot over a weekend at a Victorian shooting lodge, which included several hundred brace of game birds, deer, and at least 12 birds of prey, as well as three eagles. The Victorian love of Scotland was certainly reflected in the mass slaughter of Scottish wildlife, and I wonder whether some of those attitudes have hung around and are still with us today.As far as I am aware, in other European countries very few problems seem to arise among farming interests, hunting interests—hunting goes on in all northern European countries—and environmental interests. Are there any lessons that we can learn from Norway, Sweden and Finland about looking after wildlife?

That is a very pertinent question. Game management in Scotland evolved around a fairly intensive management of land specifically to increase the numbers of grouse, deer or whatever the target species was, which involved employing a lot of people, heavy management and the eradication of any competitor with the gun. As a result, the game records from the period are infamous, if I can put it that way, with hundreds of birds of prey, wild cats and just about every other species that was unwanted in the situation accounted for. I find it quite extraordinary; if we think about how Scotland today might support even some of the numbers of the things that were being killed then, we can see how different the landscape at the time must have been.The approach in Scotland is different. Most areas in northern Europe do not have such intensive game rearing and, as a consequence, systems are sustainable with lower bags but a more natural land management approach. It also appears that many top predators, whether they be birds or other animals, live more in harmony with the land use pursued in those countries.Of course, that implies that people in Scotland do not take such an approach when in fact there are many good and very progressive estates in Scotland that understand the issue and will accept lower bags in order to pursue multiple land use objectives, including the conservation of wildlife. Our task is not only to prosecute the bad boys, if I can put it like that, but to shift practice to make it sustainable and to ensure that people have enlightened attitudes towards top predators.The problem is so long lasting that I remember speaking to the late Donald Dewar about it. He described what we told him as a national disgrace. Lord Sewel made some comments in support of activities that we did in the 1990s. He had just returned from a holiday on the continent where he had seen large birds of prey quite commonly and, when he returned home, he looked for them but did not see them. That is all part and parcel of the same issue.

I, too, confess my membership of the RSPB as well as the Scottish Wildlife Trust. It is important to put it on record that some of us in the Parliament genuinely believe that wildlife has a place within our society and should not be persecuted.As my colleague Anne McLaughlin mentioned, the timing of the petition is pertinent given the fact that, two weeks ago, we considered a petition that asked the Parliament to consider extending licences to deal with sea eagles. The petition referred to sea eagles and other carrion birds, but the person who made the supplementary oral submission started talking about golden eagles as well. It is quite worrying that, at the same time as we are trying to protect and reintroduce birds of prey and develop their populations within Scotland, we have people who, because of the accusations that have been made against certain birds of prey, want licences to kill and destroy them.In your submission in support of your petition, you refer to Scottish Natural Heritage’s report “A conservation framework for golden eagles: implications for their conservation and management in Scotland” and say that a number of birds of prey have been killed by poisoning and trapping. The report also indicates that the number of birds that fall victim to illegal trapping, shooting and poisoning and nest destruction may be underestimated. Will you hazard a guess, based on the figures that you gave in connection with the reintroduction of red kites in two parts of the United Kingdom, about the real figures for the killing of birds of prey in Scotland?

There is a wee bit of a tinny sound. I do not know whether it is John Wilson’s microphone or whether I am reaching a certain age.

We must recognise that the discovery of a poisoned golden eagle is a matter of chance, large though the bird is. If it was lying on the floor in this room, we could all see it but, if it was in 2ft or 3ft-deep heather on a steep scree slope 100m away from a footpath or track on which we were working, we would not see it. Hill walkers, shepherds, gamekeepers and farm workers sometimes report dead birds, but it is difficult to find them just by chance.One or two cases have really brought that home to us. A satellite tag was still working on a dead golden eagle but it took us three days to find the bird even though the transmitter was telling us broadly where it was within a radius of about 100m. Even when people are out searching for a dead bird, it can be extremely difficult. The terrain is difficult as we all know. The birds that are found undoubtedly provide an underestimate of the total. The people who kill them know that it is illegal, so they take active steps to hide what happens. They might recover birds and dispose of them themselves. The poisoned baits are put in places that are not easily seen. Having said that, we occasionally come across incidents in which there are baits all over the place that prove to be poisoned. In those circumstances, the poisoners have clearly taken no care at all to hide the bait or even to protect other animals or children.The way to hazard a guess on the real number is to examine the biological impact at the population level. There are about 650 to 700 suitable territories for golden eagles in Scotland. If nobody was molesting the birds, interfering with them, disturbing them or doing something to them, we would assume that most of those territories would be occupied. The birds might not nest successfully every year—that is the norm—but there would be some birds in those territories.Now, about 400 to 420 of those territories are occupied. There is an increasing east-west divide. In the west, most of the territories are occupied, whereas in the east and central Highlands and the Grampians, the number of territories that are occupied is diminishing. Scottish Natural Heritage has done a detailed study, incorporating 10 years of data; in effect, it says that our population in Scotland is vulnerable, because we are not producing enough young birds to keep the existing territories occupied and too many birds are dying. Poisoning and other persecution appears to be the principal cause.Duncan Orr-Ewing has examined the situation in some detail and might have things to add.

I have some comments about red kites. Since reintroductions began in 1989, about 60 birds have been found, confirmed as poisoned. To return to Stuart Housden’s point, we estimated through a piece of work that was done a few years ago that 37 per cent of the north of Scotland red kite population had been illegally poisoned. That does not include birds that had been shot or subjected to other forms of illegal killing. That has an effect on the population level of red kites, as can be seen from a stark comparison between the figures for the north of Scotland and the south of England.

Your submission admits that Scotland has some of the best wildlife crime legislation. The evidence that we have heard today shows that we must examine that

legislation very carefully to ensure that it is being enforced. There is no point in having legislation in place if the sort of incidents that the witnesses have described today are still happening and if these birds continue to be persecuted.

I apologise for my lateness. I declare an interest as a member of the RSPB—a very high proportion of the population are members.

A few of us are not—the witnesses might still get a hard time in a few minutes.

If only as many people were members of political parties.I am interested in the relationship between managed moorland and estates and the issue that we are discussing. It is a difficult issue, and people must go on the information that they have before them, but my understanding is that certain estates have come up time and again in relation to this issue, whereas other estates are known to have good practice. It would be useful for the committee to have information on that; I do not know whether you have that information with you or whether you could furnish us with it.I am sorry that I missed your initial input—this might have been referred to—but it would also be useful for the committee to have some examples of estates on which there is acknowledged good practice in conservation management on estates.How is the partnership for action against wildlife crime in Scotland resourced? Is its work adequately resourced? What has happened to its resourcing in recent years? Is there an issue for the committee to consider with regard to how the partnership might be strengthened?Again, this might already have been covered, but where is your thinking on future legislation or possible amendments to nature conservation provisions?Finally, when I was out a couple of weekends ago, I saw a trap with a black bird in it, probably a raven. Is that sort of thing legal or common?I think that those are all my questions for now.14:30

I will race through some quick answers, but we can provide detailed evidence, including a mapped scale, to try to answer your questions. To give you a fuller answer now would take me more time than I expect the convener—

It would be interesting to get the names of the estates and their owners, too.

We must not leave the committee with the impression that all sporting estates are badly managed and that the people who own and manage them do not care about wildlife, because nothing could be further from the truth. However, there is a significant minority of such estates where problems keep cropping up. We can provide the committee with data from SASA maps and our own maps. From there, you will see that if we could tackle the top 10 worst places we would solve a significant proportion of the problem. I am happy to share those data with you.Rhona Brankin mentioned that she saw a trap. It sounds to me like a pro-cage trap. It is a legal and legitimate trap, but the way in which it is operated, how often it is checked and the conditions in which it is kept and managed are critical and subject to legislation that this Parliament has made to tighten considerably the controls on such traps. There are cases of such traps being abused. If the funnels at the top are wide, even eagles can get in and I have seen pictures of that. It is easy for the eagles to be killed or die inside the trap if the traps are not checked regularly. The issue is how the traps are managed. Part of the antidote to the illegal activity that we described—illegal traps and evidence of poisoning—is that we have to give land managers legitimate and legal traps to use, provided that they are managed properly and that their operation is humane and as permitted by the law.I will hand over to Duncan Orr-Ewing, who represents the RSPB in PAWS.

As you know, PAWS has developed and the Parliament was instrumental in energising it. The current cabinet secretary has taken a lead on PAWS and good progress is being made. However, we might like to see a closer focus on the implementation of the 24 recommendations of the thematic review of wildlife crime and in particular, the securing of a full-time wildlife crime officer in every police force, perhaps using the Grampian model.Another recommendation is that vicarious liability should be looked at to make landowners more responsible for the actions of their employees so that they can be held to account if somebody behaves in a criminal way and kills wildlife illegally. That is worth further exploration. Although this is not a thematic review recommendation, the issue of cross-compliance has had some success leading on from Rhona Brankin’s time as minister. We would like a focus on conditions being attached to receipt of public payments for agriculture and forestry and ensuring that they are conditional on good standards and obeying wildlife laws. Some landowners have been penalised where wildlife crime has occurred on their land, which we think is an effective deterrent. There might be other areas of public policy in which similar sanctions could be investigated and applied.

Lloyd Austin works with legislation and might want to comment.

Rhona Brankin asked about future amendments to legislation. If the liability point that Duncan Orr-Ewing mentioned were to be developed, the wildlife and natural environment bill that the Government will introduce probably before the summer—it will be dealt with by the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee after the summer recess—would offer the ideal opportunity for that to be taken forward. However, as was mentioned earlier, the legislation is generally pretty good; it is a question of ensuring implementation through adequate policing and a well-resourced and well-trained fiscal service.

Nigel Don has a final question and then we will pull it together.

Thank you for your scientifically-based comments. I am not the only member of the committee who likes scientifically-based numbers; I just wish that we got more of them. I encourage you to stick with that approach. I, too, represent the Grampian region. It was suggested to me by someone who is concerned about wildlife crime that those found guilty of it might find their gun licences being taken away and that, if that were possible, people who regard their gun licence as a passport to a job might be a little bit more careful about how they did that job. Guns are a reserved issue, and the legislation is clear that the only reason why a licence holder will have their gun licence revoked is when they represent a risk to others—not to wildlife. I have had that checked, and I have a letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to that effect. Nonetheless, will you comment on whether gun licence revocation for wildlife crime would be an appropriate part of the jigsaw?

I will ask Duncan Orr-Ewing to answer that. To reassure you, we have to be an evidence-based organisation. We would address the wrong solution to the wrong problem if we did not concentrate on evidence. I am 100 per cent with you, and I assure you that we try to base everything that we do on a sound understanding of the science. Indeed, we spend nearly £2 million a year in Scotland contributing to that science base.

On the firearms question, I believe that there are cases in Scotland in which people who hold a firearms certificate and have subsequently been convicted of wildlife crime have had their certificate removed by the chief constable concerned. However, you will appreciate that when wildlife crime cases are discovered, police searches can uncover other crimes. Sometimes it is hard to disaggregate whether the firearms certificate has been removed on account of the wildlife crime case or because of other crimes that have been identified at the time.

As a matter of law, gun licences will not be removed because of wildlife crime. That is quite unambiguous, as the lawyers understand it. To come back to my question, if that were one of the sanctions provided by the law, would it reduce wildlife crime?

It would be a helpful sanction. We are suggesting that you should consider the range of public policy mechanisms, of which that is one, to see which would act as a deterrent.

In my constituency, a lot of concern has been raised about the quality of some research on raptors and predation on pigeons. Has that research reported? If so, what is the outcome?

The research has concluded. It was conducted by Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Homing Union, and the results were independently reviewed by the British Trust for Ornithology. The headline outcome is that the research was inconclusive. My understanding is that the Scottish Government has taken the view that it can make no recommendation on licence control for example around the removal of sparrowhawks around pigeon lofts to resolve the problem. Indeed, of the six or seven sparrowhawks removed in the study, at least one has returned to the loft from which it was removed. There were quite a lot of difficulties in trapping the birds, and I understand that the research is not being taken forward.

We have had an extensive series of exchanges. There are one or two issues on which it would be helpful to have a more detailed response. The committee is in a difficult situation, in that it will have to deal with petitions that are at opposite ends of the spectrum. It will be important to get enough information to help us decide how to approach them. I invite members to suggest how we should deal with this petition.

I would like to follow up on my questions about wildlife crime officers. Perhaps we should get the comments of the Scottish Police Federation and ACPOS on the petition, and find out their attitudes to rolling out the Grampian model, for instance. We should ask whether they would consider doing that and, if not, why not, particularly when there are areas in Highland where wildlife crime is a significant issue.

We could write to the Government and ask what increased efforts it has made to stop the illegal killing of birds, what its response is to the recommendations of the Natural Justice review, as set out in the petition, what its response is to the actions suggested by the petitioners to stop the illegal killing of birds of prey and whether there are any other actions that it might bring forward that could be of interest to the petitioners.

We should ask the same questions of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. With regard to Nigel Don’s point, we should write to the UK Government to ask whether it would consider including legislating on the option to remove a gun licence from a licence holder not only if they are a danger to people but if they break the law that applies to wildlife.

I would be interested to find out whether action has been taken through single farm payments where there have been abuses. We need to write to a range of interested parties to seek their views on the petition.

As it was specifically mentioned, the Northern Constabulary might like a letter, too.

Given the issues that were raised two weeks ago about how farmers and others feel about birds of prey, we should also write to the Scottish Landowners Federation and NFU Scotland, to get their views on the issue. As well as writing to the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, other organisations need to be brought in. If we can write to those organisations as part of our consideration of the petition, we may get a fast response, which would enable us to take action on the recommendations in the report that has been referred to.

A couple of other things occur to me. We could ask the Government to update us on training support for wildlife crime officers and whether any consideration has been given to training support on wildlife crime for the Procurator Fiscal Service. I know there is something of a lacuna with regard to marine transgressions and perhaps other environmental misdeeds.

We have a series of things that we need to explore. Mr Housden, the process is that we will make inquiries about the petition to all the relevant organisations and individuals. Their responses are then brought back to us. As a petitioner, you may always communicate directly with the committee clerks. If you wish to furnish us with additional information or suggestions, we would be happy to receive those. Thank you for your time.