|
The
Scottish Gamekeepers Association appreciates that the Justice & Home
Affairs Committee is concerned only with the judicial aspects of the
Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill (known hereafter as the Bill).
We
submit that without an understanding of the contribution made by the
professional gamekeeper to Scotland’s natural heritage and to Scotland’s
rural economy, it is impossible to accurately determine the legislative
effects of the Bill.
We
attach a copy of our submission to the Rural Affairs Committee, as
Appendix 1, illustrating the wider implications of the Bill. The first
section, entitled “Terriers”, and the section at the end of page 2,
“The National Parks Bill”, are of particular relevance.
The SGA
condemns the Bill and submits that it will have a divisive effect on rural
communities. Accordingly, we dispute the validity of all the
evidence given to this committee by the Scottish Campaign Against Hunting
With Dogs (SCAHD) and their advisors.
Scotland’s
wildlife managers (gamekeepers) are the largest working group affected by
the Bill. Having read the 28th Official Report of the Justice and Home
Affairs Committee meeting, the SGA seeks permission to submit the
following for the Committee’s consideration:
-
It
is unclear precisely what the “Licensing” intentions are. The SGA
submits that licences are an unnecessary and bureaucratic expense. The
SGA is concerned that the conflicting evidence given, reflects the
confusion surrounding the principles of the Protection of Wild Mammals
(Scotland) Bill. A further example of the muddled thinking employed in
the drafting of this Bill, can be found in Section 1 (5) which states:
A person who owns or keeps one or more dogs intending any of them to
be used to hunt… commits an offence”. Does this mean that any dog
owner with a terrier or hound is a suspected criminal?
The
recent Burns Inquiry, in England & Wales, recognises that in some
areas, Terrier Work is necessary as a means of fox control (9.20). The
foreword to the Consultation on the National Parks (Scotland) Bill,
written by Sarah Boyack (MSP and Minister for Transport and
Environment), begins: 'Scotland's natural and cultural heritage is a
most precious and valuable asset. It is an essential part of what
defines Scotland, what makes it special. It is worth protecting in its
own right…' The SGA maintains that the putting of terriers down holes
to flush out foxes so that they may be humanely shot, is integral to
Scotland’s unique bio-diversity.
When
considering the evidence given by Mike Flynn, SSPCA, the committee’s
Convener noted that in 1999, only four cases of wildlife crime were
reported to the Procurator Fiscal - of which only two cases resulted in
convictions. Given the rising rate of serious crime and the negligible
figures involved in Terrier Work, the SGA questions the justification
and the requirement for this legislation.
Assistant
Chief Constable Gordon states in his evidence that he does not expect
chief constables to see this bill as a major priority for police
resources. Indeed, he goes on to say it might well “sit low on the
list of policing activity, when compared with other more pressing
demands”.
Current
police funding focuses on issues of real importance to government
and to the welfare of society such as: drug dealing, theft, murder, rape
and arson.
There
is no financial or moral justification for adding law-abiding
gamekeepers to that list.
We
object to the Burden of Proof being placed on the accused. There is no
parallel between those who misuse or sell drugs and the work of the
professional gamekeeper. The SCAHD has failed to show why a “crime”
that the police concede does not fulfill the criteria of a “Serious
crime”, should be classified as one that requires such harsh measures.
The
SGA supports the evidence given by Assistant Chief Constable Gordon and
by the wildlife liaison officer for Tayside Police, Alan Stewart.
Relationships between police and gamekeepers/rural communities are
generally constructive and crime in rural areas is generally low. If
this Bill is enacted and surveillance teams descend on rural areas,
these contacts will deteriorate and the police will inevitably be viewed
with suspicion. Equally, Countryside Rangers would find life in rural
communities untenable were this responsibility to pass to them.
We
are concerned about the confusion surrounding dogs seized by police, in
particular where the accused enters a plea of Not Guilty. Furthermore,
who is going to pay for a dog’s upkeep if the accused is subsequently
found not guilty? Who will be responsible for the dog’s welfare during
its incarceration? Working dogs are often household pets and the
distress caused, to all family members, by the removal of a dog who is
following its instinct and its training, is draconian in the extreme.
In
our submission to the Rural Affairs Committee, we covered the question
of compensation for those whose dogs would be destroyed because of this
Bill. The MLURI report to the Scottish Executive suggests that 10% of
gamekeepers would lose their jobs (and their homes) if this Bill is
enacted. We submit that this is a short-term view and that, long-term,
numbers will be much higher; there has been no consideration by the
drafters of this Bill as to what level of compensation should be
payable. Nor has there been any consideration as to levels of
compensation payable to land owners for loss of income due to depleted
shooting stocks, nor for the inevitable drop in land value. There is of
course no way that Scotland can be compensated for the loss of wildlife.
The SGA
urges the Justice and Home Affairs Committee to recommend to the
Parliament’s lead committee on this Bill that this proposed legislation
is unworkable and unnecessarily compromises law abiding citizens.
|
