The next petition is PE449 from Alex Hogg, on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to initiate an independent investigation into the impact of predatory birds on waders, songbirds, fish stocks and game birds.Members may wish to note that the issues raised in the petition are similar to those that were raised in PE187, which has now been concluded. Members might also wish to note that work on issues relating to the petition was done by the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Rural Development Committee during the previous parliamentary session.It is over to members to tell me how they want to proceed. Three options are set out in front of us. I will take members' views.
Official Report · Committee
Public Petitions
Predatory Birds (PE449)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Sarah Boyack Lab 9
- Alex Fergusson Con 5
- Alex Johnstone Con 2
- Nora Radcliffe LD 1
- Karen Gillon Lab 1
- Maureen Macmillan Lab 1
- Mr Gibson 1
- Roseanna Cunningham SNP 1
- Fergus Ewing SNP 1
- Eleanor Scott Green 1
The record
25 contributionsThe recommendation on PE187—that the SGA should go to the moorland forum—was right. However, the deficiency in the knowledge base of the impact of raptors was highlighted, but the minister's response to that was vague. I would like some way of pinning down the Executive on what stage it has reached in its consideration of what research needs to be commissioned and how close it is to commissioning that research.
We are talking about conservation, which I believe in, in spite of what some people might sometimes say. As an ordinary individual, I am extremely concerned about the number of predatory birds in the Scottish environment. In my area, we used to have short-eared owls, kestrels and a number of other birds that moved through occasionally. Now, all we have are hundreds of common buzzards that have displaced a huge number of other predatory species, are consuming huge numbers of ground-nesting birds and are having a massive impact on the environment. Alex Fergusson made similar comments at a previous committee meeting.I am concerned that well-meaning conservationists might have significantly impacted on such a change, which has happened over a relatively short number of years. We must be aware of exactly what is happening in the predatory bird population. Many investigations that have taken place do not provide me with the answers that I think I need.
I sympathise with the petitioners and am not confident that the minister's letter of 13 March answers concerns about our knowledge. We need to do more work on the matter.
Nora Radcliffe and Karen Gillon have made some crucial remarks. We must get scientific knowledge about the causes of the effects that people are seeing on the ground. I was a reporter for the Transport and the Environment Committee in the previous investigation into the matter and the big concern was that we did not know what was happening. We received anecdotal evidence, but there was no scientific investigation to back up that evidence. In particular, there was no investigation in Scotland and the results of investigations in other areas possibly did not transfer. I would be interested to hear what stage the scientific investigations have reached and whether any progress is being made in the moorland forum.
Mr Gibson
link
The little booklet that the Executive provided us with has interesting key environmental statistics and shows the status of wintering waders between 1969 and 1999. The dunlin, bar-tailed godwit, turnstone, oystercatcher, ringed plover, curlew, black-tailed godwit and grey plover populations have all increased in a range between 2 per cent and 538 per cent. Such figures show that the number of waders is perhaps increasing. Some populations—such as those of the sanderling and redshank—are decreasing, but by small amounts. That suggests that we need more facts about what is happening and that the minister must make details available before we can set the petition to rest. The petitioners have made a point that has not been answered. We need detailed answers.
The figures that Rob Gibson mentions are interesting. My experience is that populations of species such as the lapwing and the oystercatcher in particular have dramatically fallen off in my area, albeit that curlews have benefited, as they are big enough to fight off buzzards.
I suspect that much evidence is anecdotal, which is a big flaw if we want to progress the debate. We should agree to option C and defer consideration of the petition. First, we should ask the minister about the Executive's factual knowledge. If that knowledge is deficient, we should ask what the Executive intends to do to obtain further information before we decide what to do. It would be far more sensible if the Executive obtained further information, if it can. We should agree to option C, defer consideration of the petition and ask the minister what the current position is and what the Executive's intentions are in respect of obtaining further information.
I think that there is consensus among members. All members seem to want more information and to be up to date. Therefore, I suggest that, as with the previous petition, we should ask the minister to answer our concerns. The committee can then reconsider the petition perhaps in the next two months and finally close it off or decide on further action, as required.
Members indicated agreement.
May I ask a procedural question?
Yes.
I came to the meeting specifically to speak to petition PE449—indeed, I caught your eye a few minutes ago, convener.
I am sorry—I thought that there was total unanimity and that members did not want to close off the petition, but to return to it.
So be it. Does that preclude a visiting member speaking in support of that position?
No. If you want to—
To be fair, members have agreed to the position that I was going to urge them to agree to, which is fair enough—I thank them for doing so. However, I would like to make one point, if I may.
You may do so, if you are brief.
I promise that I will be brief.It was mentioned that the matter should be dealt with in the moorland forum. I live in a non-moorland area and believe that I have witnessed the imbalance that is beginning to occur between the raptor population and that of smaller bird species. I do not believe that the moorland forum is the proper place to undertake a review of the petition and hope that the committee will ask the minister questions on that matter.
I think that that point was raised by a member, but I did not include that in my concluding remarks. I suggested merely that we would go to the minister first and get his comments, which we would bring back to the committee. We did not agree to refer the matter to the moorland forum, although that was one of the options that was open to us.
I endorse Alex Fergusson's comments. I do not think that the moorland forum has any particular dealings with goshawks, sparrowhawks and buzzards. If that is the case, they should not be in charge of arranging the research into those species or into fish stocks.I want to make a specific suggestion that I hope might be acceptable. The minister should be encouraged to consult directly with the SGA, which provided useful evidence on 25 February 2003 and whose members have a wealth of practical knowledge from their own everyday experience. The SGA could discuss with the minister how the research could be organised and advise him of the details that we heard about in February. Would that be in order?
I am expecting the minister to come back to us in a couple of months. Obviously, he will have to bring with him information that we think is robust or that we would wish to discuss. If members want to make specific recommendations as to who the minister should talk to, I am quite open to that.
If we were to do that, we would have to recommend a range of bodies with particular perspectives on the matter and particular abilities to gather information that is more than just anecdotal. I do not think that we should recommend only one body.
I sense that we are about to open out the discussion further. I suggest that we stick to the agreement that we seek information from the minister about research that is being done. It will go on to our agenda when we get that information. At that point, members who are not on the committee will be able to read that information and come back to the committee if there are issues with which they are not happy—Fergus Ewing's comments lead me to believe that that might happen.Do members agree to take that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 10 Sep 2003 →- Scottish Parliament Environment and Rural Development Committee Wednesday 10 September 2003 (Morning) Committee business · 1
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 128
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 23
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 3
- Work Programme Procedure · 12
- Public Petitions Petitions · 1
- Public Petitions Petitions · 16
- Public Petitions Petitions · 13
- Public Petitions Petitions · 25
- Public Petitions Petitions · 2
- Public Petitions Petitions · 8
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.