Current Petitions

I am disappointed, to say the least, in the minister’s response to the committee and would be interested to hear Helen McDade’s response to it. In one paragraph, for example, the minister says:“I am not persuaded that there is a case for a new statutory designation for ‘wild land’ for a number of reasons”which he sets out. However, he then says:“We intend to consult upon both a draft Scottish Planning Policy and Main Issues Report for the Third National Planning Framework in March this year. The question of the appropriate policy approach to wild land is one on which we will be very keen to hear views as part of this consultation.”There seems to be a contradiction there; the minister says that he has not been persuaded of the case for a new designation and then says that he is keen to hear others’ views on the matter. The question is whether the minister will listen to the views that are being expressed and, if there is clear evidence that a new designation is needed, act on that basis or whether he will stick with the line that he has taken in the response, which is that he has not been persuaded of “the case for a new ... designation”. I certainly seek clarification from the Scottish Government on the purpose of the consultation that has been mentioned, where it will lead if the evidence and views clearly demonstrate the need for a new designation and whether the minister can be persuaded to change his view on the matter. After all, there is no point in having a consultation if the minister’s view is already set.Like you, convener, I want to find out what point SNH’s mapping exercise has reached. We were assured that it would be done in 2012 but, as far as I am aware, it has not yet been undertaken. Until we see SNH’s report, we cannot determine whether we should continue to support the petition and seek suggestions on how we might take it forward.

Issues such as the relationship between guidance for planning authorities and the lack of consistency and the apparent inability to produce spatial frameworks in development plans for particular areas and to take on board the definition of “wild land” do not apply only to this petition. I have previously raised concerns about the permissibility of a wild land designation; I feel that it should not obstruct economic development, which, indeed, brings us back to the question of who owns the land. I keep asking that very question. When the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee examined the issue, we found that we know the ownership of only 21 per cent of Scotland’s land; a wild land designation must consider the role of landowners, quasi-landowners and what have you.SNH obviously plays an important role, and it needs to be much clearer not only in its guidance but in the legislation that might have to be applied to ensure that planning policy considers the natural landscape with regard to whatever developments may or may not be required.

I am bursting with support for Jackson Carlaw. I am getting sick fed up of certain bodies not doing work that they have been given to do. I am sorry if that offends SNH; it applies to other bodies too. We should know exactly what they are doing, who is responsible for it, and when it will be produced. If they cannot do the work, we need to suggest other ways to the Government. As I said, this issue has cropped up elsewhere and it is important for such bodies to explain to the committee exactly what they are doing without any obfuscation.