We now have a series of petitions, which members will remember are on Scottish Natural Heritage. PE462, from Mrs Margie Currie, calls into question the science on which SNH bases its decisions in relation to sites of special scientific interest; PE463, from Councillor Donald Manford, calls into question the consultation that SNH carried out on the Sound of Barra; and PE464, from Mr Robert Cunyngham Brown, calls into question the scientific justification for SNH's list of rain goose special protection areas.Members will remember that we agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Executive, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Advisory Committee on Sites of Special Scientific Interest on the issues that were raised in the petitions. We have received detailed responses from all three bodies. The Scottish Executive's response deals with the difference between sites of special scientific interest, special areas of conservation and special protection areas. It also explains the consultation that is done on behalf of the Executive. The SNH response refutes in detail the allegations that were made by the different petitioners on the way in which SNH conducts its business. The advisory committee sets out its role in respect of all these matters.It is important to point out to members that the clerks and I have received several e-mails from councillors and individuals who represent community groups on Barra. They say that, although they object to the proposed SAC designation for the Sound of Barra, they do not support PE463, which questions SNH's handling of the consultation process and the actions of local SNH staff. They say that their support for the petition was included without their permission and they have asked that it be removed. It has been suggested that that is also true of other groups of individuals on Barra.We have received a letter from Councillor David Buckland who was, I think, referred to by one of the petitioners. Councillor Buckland says that PE463"concerns a press release issued after the consultation meetings. The verbal submission given on 26th February 2002, supposedly on behalf of all the petitioners goes a significant step further than the written petition with the accusations: ‘…our representations which it SNH undertook to pass to the Parliament and the Executive, were totally misrepresented'.. and…‘SNH undoubtedly lied about the results of the consultation-that is clear'. I am concerned that these serious accusations call into question the integrity of those local SNH employees whose job it was to draw up the Local Consultation Report for the Scottish Executive. These SNH employees are highly respected in the local community and no one that I have talked to here (which includes the majority of the named petitioners) feels that accusations of lying are justifiable. The fact that these accusations are unjustified can be established if the members of the Public Petitions Committee -and if possible the public- are given access by the Scottish Executive to the Local Consultation Report so that they can see that the objections raised at each of the consultation meetings are detailed therein."We have received an e-mail from David C Houston, who is the professor of zoology in the division of environmental and evolutionary biology at the institute of biomedical and life sciences in the University of Glasgow. Members may remember that he was referred to in the evidence that was given to us. It was said:"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."—Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 26 February 2002; c 1679.Professor Houston has written to say:"I would like to make it clear that this statement is completely untrue. I have never said this, they are definitely not my views, and I have never commented on the consultation paper ‘The Nature of Scotland'. I have absolutely no idea where"the petitioner"Mr. Mitchell obtained this quote. I have never, to my knowledge, met Mr. Mitchell or corresponded with him, and he did not consult me on this matter. I would be very grateful if you could please report to the Committee that the statements attributed to me by Mr. Mitchell are totally incorrect."
Official Report · Committee
Community Volunteers (PE447)
Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Special Protection Areas (Arran, Barra and Yell) (PE462, PE463 and PE464)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- John McAllion Lab 15
- Dr Winnie Ewing SNP 8
- Phil Gallie Con 5
- Dorothy-Grace Elder Ind 2
- Rhoda Grant Lab 1
The record
31 contributionsIt is a pity, in a way, that we must consider all the separate issues together—rain geese, seals and everything—because each merits special attention. Paragraph 6 of SNH's response says:"Case law in Europe and the UK has established that the selection of sites, and the setting of their boundaries, must be done on scientific criteria".How can I get hold of justification for that statement? I am prepared to read through case law from Europe and the UK. I have a willing partner in Professor Neil MacCormick, who is an expert on European law.The whole situation has been unpopular in many quarters from the beginning. It is always said that only scientific evidence is used and that no socioeconomic factors are involved. It has now been conceded that socioeconomic factors will be considered after a designation order is made, but I question the validity of excluding normal considerations. However, SNH's response says that case law in Europe and the UK has established that scientific criteria must be used. Please could I have a note, even just for my legal satisfaction? I would like to know the basis for that statement, even if the paper is long.
I understand that Scottish Natural Heritage is prepared to give the committee further information, so we can obtain that information.
In paragraph 8 of its response, SNH pats itself on the back for extending consultation to community councils. You would think that that was obvious. Community councils are elected. Although SNH is happy to list all the unelected bodies that it will consult, it pats itself on the back for extending consultation to community councils. Of course community councils should be consulted. It is rather sinister that SNH did not consult them before, when many such orders were made.I give a considerable pat on the back to the Advisory Committee on Sites of Special Scientific Interest, whose membership is impressive. Its document amounts to a critique of the way in which SNH and the SSSIs have failed to deal adequately with public perceptions, opposition, distaste and demand for information, and the public's feeling that they are not consulted.I do not know whether members have time to go into it, but the document from the advisory committee is magnificent. It tries not to be too severe in its criticism of SNH—it is very polite—but that is what it is all about. It is as if the advisory committee is saying, "We know that democracy is dangerous and that SNH recognises that, but nevertheless, should not SNH try a different approach." The document is very impressive. It suggests total dissatisfaction with the way that SNH has been—and is—behaving.The advisory committee suggests that perhaps it should be regarded as an appeal body and that that might reinforce its independence. It also suggests that perhaps it should operate from a different address from SNH. The advisory committee is aware that it is being sucked into the general disapproval that is meted out to SNH for the way in which it has behaved on SSSIs over many years.As far as the birds are concerned, there is no doubt in the minds of the people of Yell that there was more protection for the birds before the SSSI designation, and people kept going to look for them. That has happened in other places, too. It has happened elsewhere in Shetland and in other places. The SSSI designations do not always protect what they seek to protect. The number of the birds that the order was trying to protect has diminished considerably in Yell. Local people are concerned about that. We should seek a meeting with the excellent people from the advisory committee. We should ask them to come before us so that we can have a general discussion on their paper, because it is magnificent.
Following on from Winnie Ewing's point on paragraph 6 in SNH's response, on the background to the designation process, there is a political question to be asked. What could the Scottish Parliament do, if it wished, about that? I presume that that is why Winnie Ewing asked for an explanation of the case law in Europe and the UK.
That is SNH's justification.
This matter seems to be relevant, particularly as rural communities are hard pressed. Winnie Ewing perhaps answered my question about paragraph 11 of SNH's response. I could not understand why SNH could not take account of social and economic aspects, but at the same time was talking with local enterprise companies and tourist boards about identifying possible economic opportunities. I presume from Winifred Ewing's comments that that discussion comes after the sites have been designated. I stand to be corrected on that.The Scottish Executive response states that there have been 227 proposed special areas of conservation sites around Scotland. How does that compare with the number of sites that have been designated in other countries in Europe and the United Kingdom? How many designated SAC sites are there in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and all the other countries in the European Union? Is this again a case where somebody has got the bit between their teeth and is pressing ahead?With respect to the comments that are coming in on the Barra petition, I despair. Many of us were fairly hard on SNH, based on the face value of comments that were made at the meeting. Given the comments that others are now making, it seems that some of our comments might have been unjustified. I do not know what could be done about that with respect to the petitioner. I presume that we will draw his attention to the fact that, if the complainants are to be believed, he misled the committee. We must lay down the line that that cannot be accepted.
I am informed that SNH has already offered to brief the committee on the petitions. It may well be that we should ask SNH and the advisory committee to give us a briefing. This is a difficult area. Several issues need to be clarified and it may be better to take evidence from both bodies.
Can we ask them specifically again—
We can ask them anything when they come here.
Could we ask them to come prepared with figures for the EU and the UK?
We will send them a copy of the Official Report of our discussion.
We could ask them what support is available to members of a community that faces designation. Any changes must be implemented on a scientific basis. The fact that ordinary people do not have access to scientific information is one of the things that most frustrates them. They do not have access to anyone who could help them to obtain that information. They know that a designation might not be totally correct, but they cannot prove it. Some sort of mechanism for getting assistance would be useful. Perhaps the advisory committee would be willing to look at the setting up of such a mechanism, which would allow people to obtain help and scientific back-up. Ordinary people cannot afford to employ a scientist to conduct a study.
That is a fair point. We will ask what access is available to people to enable them to make a scientific challenge to a designation.
SNH's view that decisions are made on a purely scientific basis is challenged in particular by the advisory committee on SSSIs, which states:"nature conservation is surely an endeavour undertaken for more than scientific purposes."From what the petitioners told us, the situation is shaping into one in which people definitely do not come first, even in limited areas. Some members will recall the case of the Arran farmer who just wanted a few extra hectares for a few extra cows, which would have made the difference between survival and failing to survive.Although quite severe criticism has been made of some of the evidence, that does not invalidate the whole case. Too many areas and too many islands have complained about SNH. We should take the matter as far as we can. We should also refer it to the Transport and the Environment Committee, or have we done that already?
That is the problem. Either we try to obtain a briefing from SNH and the advisory committee on the issue, or we deal with the petition now. There is no point in asking for a briefing if we deal with the issue straight away.
I did not mean that we should deal with it right away. I hope that our material will be given to the Transport and the Environment Committee later.
I am instructed that there is a problem with seeking a briefing, in the sense that only one regular meeting of the committee remains before the recess, because of the shift to Aberdeen. In fact, two meetings are left. There is the regular meeting, as well as the meeting with the minister that we have agreed for Thursday 18 June. Both those meetings have full agendas. It might be better to hold an informal briefing session with SNH. We could perhaps fit that in.
I would no longer be satisfied with written briefings.
I meant an informal briefing, at which we would be present.
Could we not postpone dealing with the issue until September?
We could do that.
That would give us a proper chance to really get a grip of what SNH and the advisory committee are about.
If members would like the issue to be dealt with before the recess, we would need to hold an informal meeting to receive a private briefing from SNH and the advisory committee. To deal with the issue in a formal meeting of the committee, we would have to wait until September.
We have already got the advisory committee's briefing—it is excellent.
You want to question the advisory committee, with SNH present.
Why cannot we fit in another official meeting? Other committees do that—there is not a problem.
We could do that. Members should remember that that would mean having three meetings between now and the recess. Are members agreeable to that?Members indicated agreement.
Before coming to a conclusion on the petitions, we will fit in a separate meeting at which we will take evidence from Scottish Natural Heritage and the advisory committee.
Perhaps the advisory committee should not be in the room when we are questioning SNH and vice versa.
We can deal with the witnesses separately. It is entirely up to us how we handle them. It will be a public meeting.
In this meeting
Everything on 21 May 2002 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Tuesday 21 May 2002 (Morning) Petitions · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 74
- New Petitions Petitions · 71
- New Petitions Petitions · 84
- New Petitions Petitions · 1
- Current Petitions Petitions · 8
- Current Petitions Petitions · 70
- Community Volunteers (PE447) Committee business · 17
- Community Volunteers (PE447) Committee business · 31
- Community Volunteers (PE447) Committee business · 6
- Community Volunteers (PE447) Committee business · 5
- Community Volunteers (PE447) Committee business · 16
- Convener's Report Procedure · 6
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.