The second of our new petitions is PE2100, by Gary Wall, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to produce guidance under section 54 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to clarify the criteria for consideration of “no other satisfactory solution” in relation to licensing and to include the sustainable cultural use of natural resources under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
In his written submission to the committee, the petitioner notes that
“NatureScot can change their ‘will’ because they have no transparent conservation ‘objective’ to apply when making a licensing decision on sustainable cultural use.”
The petitioner is concerned that NatureScot’s application of the satisfactory solution test is not clear, and that Scottish Government guidance is therefore required.
In its written response to the committee, the Scottish Government highlights the fact that NatureScot’s licensing guidance includes specific guidance on the interpretation of the “no other satisfactory solution” test. It sets out the points that are considered by NatureScot when it applies that test and notes that
“where another solution exists, any argument that it is not ‘satisfactory’ will need to be strong and robust”.
I emphasise the fact that, in its response, the Scottish Government states that it has
“no intention to bring forward legislation to include the sustainable cultural use of natural resources under Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.”
The key here appears to be interpretation of the “no other satisfactory solution” test and the petitioner’s assertion of something that I am not sure is actually detailed in the way that the petitioner believes that it is, together with the fact that the Scottish Government has said that it has no intention of bringing forward legislation, which is a pretty clear steer.
In the light of that, do colleagues have any suggestions on how we should proceed?
