New Petitions

All three petitions relate to a single body, SNH. It is important to stress that SNH's influence in rural areas of Scotland is pervasive and extends from wildlife conservation—which everybody understands—to industrial developments, such as wind farms and wave power, and objections to housing developments on aesthetic grounds. The influence of SNH goes right across the board. It is important that a body with such a wide brief behaves honestly and with proper scientific integrity. The petitions raise three examples of SNH not behaving in that way.On Yell, a designation was imposed for red-throated divers. Such designations are supposed to be imposed only on purely scientific grounds but, in that case, there was no supporting science. I can summarise the evidence that I put to SNH and the Scottish Executive by saying that where there was no science, it was made up. I will explain that later, if members would like. The matter is complicated, but the information is not disputed by SNH; indeed, it is SNH's information.On Arran, where plenty of scientific information was available, it was concealed. SNH refused to let people know where the birds nested, for example. All the information was kept secret, supposedly on the ground of bird protection. Obviously, that deprived people of the opportunity to make an objection on scientific grounds, which is the only form of objection that they are allowed to make. The situation was much the same on Barra. There, three official seal counts have been carried out. Two have been published, but the third, which shows that there is no scientific justification for the case as it stands, has been suppressed. The reason why the most recent count does not support the case is that the construction of the Eriskay causeway has driven the seals away. That fact was concealed rather than being addressed openly. On Barra, Arran and Yell, all local opinion was ignored. Indeed, in the case of Barra, local opinion was misrepresented to the Scottish Executive, which was told that the people of Barra were reconciled to the designation. However, the list of petitioners shows that every democratically elected person, trade representation body, industrial interest and land-owning interest is against the designation. People do not trust SNH to behave honestly in matters of public opinion or with any kind of integrity in matters scientific. This matter is critical for rural Scotland. The three petitions that we have submitted to the Scottish Parliament ask for a proper investigation of SNH to be undertaken by the appropriate parliamentary committee. We also ask that, in the meantime, the Scottish Executive and perhaps also SNH respond to the particular points that are raised by the petitions.

I endorse all that Ian Mitchell has said. We believe that SNH will become far too powerful in our island because 65 per cent of the land mass of Arran will come under the designation. In effect, that gives SNH the power to comment on any planning proposals not only in the designated area but outwith it as well—that covers virtually the whole island. Some 20 per cent of the island is Forestry Commission land. We are well aware that hen harriers nest in the forest. We do not dispute the fact that there are hen harriers in Arran—nobody has chosen to do that and hen harriers are not challenged or persecuted in Arran. We have lived happily with them for at least a generation, so we question the need for the current level of protection. We submit that the reason for the designation is more political than scientific. We are aware that, under the European directives relating to the natura 2000 network, the UK must designate a certain number of hectares of land as being sites of special scientific interest. We believe that, to do that, SNH has been scratching around, looking for places to designate and that, as we happened to have hen harriers, we have been landed with this severe designation, which covers 65 per cent of our land. That proportion is well above the average for Scotland, which is only around 12 per cent. As an island community, Arran has a fragile economy and has to seek selective inward investment. We believe that SNH will discourage that. The designation is a direct disincentive to developing any business in Arran. Farm diversification will also be affected. There are serious repercussions for the wider community in Arran, and the community council supports me in saying that. SNH acts only in the name of science, but socioeconomic factors are more important.I shall give an example from farming. There are only seven dairy farmers left on the island. We try to support Torrylinn creamery, which, in the context of Arran, is a main industry, but it is short of milk. One of our farmers proposed to rear a further 30 cows, which would require him to reclaim 12 hectares of land. SNH objected to that and precluded the farmer from increasing his herd, although he wanted only 12 hectares of the designated area of 8,400 hectares.That example, which can be substantiated, demonstrates our fear that SNH's influence is far too great. An island with a finite community that lives on a finite piece of land cannot put up with that.

I agree with Ian Mitchell's presentation. SNH is the agent of Government. Its task was to investigate and consult on the impact of its proposed designations. Many of the issues behind the science that it proposes may be challenged. However, our main concern is that our representations, which it undertook to pass to the Parliament and the Executive, were totally misrepresented. We want to understand how such a powerful organisation, which interferes daily in our lives, can totally misrepresent our views to the people whom we elect.

I concur with Councillor Manford and Ian Mitchell. We are worried that SNH has misrepresented us. The people of Barra feel that they can no longer trust it. Minutes of a meeting of SNH state that its officials confirmed that they would convey to the Executive the strong views against the designation of all who were present. It was also said that the Executive should make the final decision, and that we were reconciled to the designation. I do not understand that; it does not make sense. We are the elected representatives of the people of Barra, who expect us to put forward their views. We can no longer do that through SNH because we do not trust it. We want the Executive to take that on board and investigate how to address our worries.

I represent Yell community council and the people who are affected by SNH, who include myself. Three weeks after the petition was lodged, SNH wrote to many people to inform them that the proposed special protection area had been confirmed. That pre-empted the committee's ability to consider the petition or to do anything effective. With respect, the Scottish Executive—or the bureaucracy of the Executive—is treating our elected representatives with contempt.We all know that SNH must meet a quota in order to keep clear of the European court, but there was no need for such rush. I ask the committee to ask Mr Finnie, the minister responsible, why the matter was a done deal three weeks after the petition was lodged.The people of Yell are just as much in favour of protecting the birds as SNH is, but they are worried about designations. Past experience shows that such designations will lead to twitchers or monitors who will disturb the birds. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds bought a large tract of land some 10 to 15 years ago and managed to reduce considerably the number of breeding rain geese, just by monitoring them. People are afraid that, with the monitoring and with the publicity that will come from SNH having information about the site on the internet, the birds will be much more damaged than they would be if they were left alone. That is what local people do.The other point that concerns local people is that SNH seems to have no policy on what it is going to protect or why it is going to protect it. SNH protects a bird known locally as the bonxie, the arctic skua and the rain goose, or red-throated diver. It also protects otters. The otters do quite a lot of damage to the rain geese, and the bonxies do even more. They do a lot of damage to many little birds, but they are still protected. SNH has no policy at all on what to do. People are genuinely worried that small birds are becoming fewer all the time because they are being predated by birds that SNH is protecting. The situation does not add up and SNH has no thoughts on where it is going in the future.The SNH consultation procedures are a travesty. When SNH first proposed the designation, the chairman of the community council suggested that it should hold a public meeting, at which anybody could say what they wanted to say. SNH said, "No. We will do it our way." SNH then sent people round to interview everybody individually. The results of the interviews were kept secret, so nobody knows who said what to whom. It is fair to say that, as with any public poll, you get the answer that you want depending on the question that you put. Heaven knows what questions they put. In my discussions with SNH representatives, the impression that I got was that they do not listen. Their attitude is, "We are right, we are the experts and you do not know what you are talking about. You may have been farming there for the past 35 years or whatever and you may have been extremely interested in those birds, but we know better." The whole consultation procedure is a joke.The designation procedures are archaic. There is no statutory mechanism or right to question the consequences of the designations. There is no way that you can say, "Justify this" to SNH representatives. Once the designation is in place, they can in effect do whatever they want. You cannot make them stand up and explain why the designation has been made and whether it is necessary. I compare that with the procedures for planning and compulsory purchase. If you put in a planning application and get turned down, you have the right to go to appeal and to make the local authority produce its reasons and evidence to support them. You can cross-examine the local authority, put it through the hoops and say, "Okay, it has had to do that." There is no mechanism for doing that with SNH.I submit that the procedure does not comply with the European convention on human rights, which states that people are entitled to a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within a reasonable time. That does not happen under the designation procedures. In effect, the matter is very similar to planning, so a mechanism similar to the planning mechanism should be put in place quickly.

The community council asked to be addressed by SNH, so that it could consider the matter. After that, the consensus of opinion was that the community council was totally against the designation. However, some members of the community council changed at the most recent local elections and the thread was lost.The community council does not wish to be mentioned en bloc in the petition, because some of the new members are not conversant with what has taken place. The chairperson, who has been very consistent on the matter, is deeply concerned, as are many members of the Arran community outwith the farming community, which is more involved.

I will start with the issue of collusion. Most of the petitioners had not met each other until last night. I suppose that there has been collusion in the sense that I prepared all three objections. I earn my living partly as an advocate for such communities—I am a kind of barrack-room lawyer in the field. There has been a bit of collusion and that is helpful. I have had dealings in a case on Islay, as well as peripheral dealings in other places. I can draw together what is happening all over the country. It is well worth pointing out that Arran is about the most southerly island in Scotland, Barra is about the most westerly island and Shetland is certainly the most northerly archipelago in Scotland. Such complaints occur all over the place—we are not talking about a particular, local complaint.On SNH's quality of information, it must be borne in mind that SNH is an organisation that was criticised by one of the independent Government scientists who were appointed to oversee the science of the designations. There is a body called the advisory committee on sites of special scientific interest. Members of that body—independent scientists—were appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the consultation on the white paper "The Nature of Scotland", Professor David Houston of the University of Glasgow said that there is an anti-science culture in SNH. He is very worried about that. He said that there should be more contact with the universities. His evidence is probably the best evidence that I can produce to support the argument that there is an anti-science culture in SNH.We all know that there is an anti-communities culture in SNH. That does not need proving. What else is there? There is only the wildlife—that is, the science—and the people. John Scott indicated that there must be a choice between people and nature. That is true in the sense that it would be healthy if their relative importance were prioritised.The most important thing to understand is that the combination of wildlife, nature and landscape has been created by people—people are inseparable from it. Withdrawing all the people would leave bush. It is vital to understand that the two aspects must go together—to protect nature, the communities that run nature must be protected. SNH seems to be completely ignorant of that fact. Most members of SNH are university-trained people. That allegation might be unfair to some members of SNH, but in general they are not people who have grown up in the localities—they do not understand the interaction. They are anti-science culture, anti-community culture and they are incompetent.

I am not sure that I can say anything useful about that. As far as I am aware, SNH is accountable—theoretically—through the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department to the minister and the Scottish Executive. As we know, SNH does not seem to take its accountability function seriously. Before the election, one party proposed that SNH should be turned into a ministry, so that ministers could oversee it much more directly. I take no view on that. SNH appears to be able to get away with rum science, appalling community relations and practical incompetence, without anybody catching up with it.

Oh, yes.

It is very serious. I shall take Barra as a practical example to illustrate my point. In my opinion, SNH undoubtedly lied about the results of the consultation—that is clear. More interesting is the way in which the organisation misused science.My example is simple to present. SNH's entire case for designating a seal area is based on the numbers of seals. The sea mammal research unit based at the University of St Andrews has carried out only three surveys. The unit, which is part of the Natural Environment Research Council, is the Government's official body established to study such matters. In 1992, it recorded some 700 seals and in 1996 some 550. When SNH presented its case in 2001, it quoted those two figures, which suggested a slight decline and made the organisation's proposals to protect the seals seem reasonable. However, SNH suppressed the 2000 count, which showed that seal numbers had dropped to 140. That meant that the seal colony in that area did not fulfil the criteria as sizeable enough to require protection. The Eriskay causeway had shifted a lot of the seals—they had simply shifted around the corner, but they were no longer in the area that SNH wanted to designate.SNH suppressed that information. I discovered it only because I dealt with the Islay seal sanctuary and found that I needed to get information directly from the sea mammal research unit to check it against what SNH had said, which was usually inaccurate. As far as I know, if I had not intervened and discovered that, the public would have been unaware of the fact that the seals had disappeared and that there was no legitimate scientific case for SNH's proposals.

The answer is no, we have not considered that. Maybe we should.

Arran has a fairly good statistical rate, but the existence of many part-time jobs distorts the situation. I think that the rate is about 4 per cent, but I may stand corrected. That may not be a true figure because of the number of part-time jobs and people who hold two part-time jobs.

As far as Barra is concerned, I cannot give a percentage. However, there are many part-time jobs. Barra is a fishing and crofting community, and fishermen are worried about losing their livelihood. They were the first people who asked for our help to prevent the designation. People need to live and eat. Seals may be lovely to look at, but they do not put food on the table. Our main concern must be that people come first. We want to keep our environment and wildlife, but people must feed their families. We pay mortgages in Barra too, you know.

I am afraid that I do not know the unemployment figure in Yell, but I suspect that it is very low. Shetland has been blessed by oil and, thank heavens, that has changed the economic picture.About 30 to 40 people are employed on salmon farms, which are all foreign owned. That is fine at the moment. However, if the price that is received for salmon falls below the cost of production and somebody in Oslo pulls the plug, 20 to 30 people would be out of work. The situation is good at present, but not as secure as it might be.

I understand that SNH wanted to protect and control the seal populations. It also referred to sand banks in constantly shifting sands that frequently move in and out of the designated areas, and maerl beds. We asked it about the number and position of the maerl beds. Most of we fishermen know exactly where the maerl beds are; they are not in the designated area. SNH had no idea and did not know the number involved.We are part of nature. The them-and-us situation does not exist; it has been created. A place may be called a designated area in order to look after the environment, but we have always done that. The only difference is that a designated area has been made in name. Conservationists who have done the work for centuries have been excluded by people who do not understand balance and nature.I shall make a final point on employment. I do not know the specific figure, but employment in the Western Isles is fairly high. However, the situation is much worse than that because, in island communities, a person who is unemployed and cannot make a living must leave. Therefore, the population is declining and it is aging because the young have to leave.

It is; that does not go ahead.

My personal view, which may not be that of the other petitioners, is that a post-imperial command culture affects Britain. Tony Benn famously said that Whitehall regards Britain as the last colony of the empire, and there is some truth in that. I am reading Anna Paterson's book "Scotland's Landscape: Endangered Icon". She worked in Sweden for a long time and points out that local opinion may prevent the formation of a national park. I do not have the figures, but indications show that the problem is also English—it is not peculiar to Scotland—it is a British problem. It certainly does not happen in Ireland. However, I cannot comment beyond that.

May I answer a question that I failed to answer earlier, which was about targets? Although I do not have specific figures and this is only one piece of information to consider, the EU says that there must be designation of certain areas. It publishes a table showing the percentage of land area in all countries that has been designated. The problem is not that there will be large areas because the Scottish Executive is under pressure to expand the area for a variety of species listed under annexe 1 of the European Birds Directive 1979. The problem is also not that areas are zoned for certain birds, because that occurs all over Europe. The problem is the way in which SNH carries out its function, which is why we respectfully ask the committee to arrange an investigation into that.

Potential—or, indeed, actual—damage is being caused by the lunatic idea that something can simply be designated, or that a snapshot can be taken of a situation, as it has been described. We are talking about a living environment, which we must all play a part in balancing. We have a greater stake in ensuring continuity of balance than any paid official, because our lives and homes are involved. People coming in, changing the way of doing things and locking that into a system causes greater damage than natural evolution. That is the sad part.