Current Petitions

The next group of petitions is about Scottish Natural Heritage. PE462 calls into question the science on which SNH based its decisions in relation to hen harrier sites on Arran. PE463, from Councillor Donald Manford, who was here earlier to talk on the Barra petition, comments on the allegedly erroneous reports of consultation carried out by SNH to sound out local public opinion on the Sound of Barra special area of conservation. Petition PE464, from Mr Robert Cunyngham Brown, calls on the Parliament to ask SNH to provide scientific justification for the list of rain goose special protection areas that it has classified or is in the process of classifying. The petitions raise complicated issues, which we had a special evidence session with SNH to discuss. The most recent development is that we now have a response from the Scottish Executive to the points that the committee raised previously. Let us go through them one by one. Petition PE462 calls into question the science on which SNH based its decisions in designating sites of special scientific interest and raises concerns about the availability of scientific data to the public. Petition PE463 questions allegedly erroneous reports of consultation by SNH. Petition PE464 questions the scientific justification for special protection area designations for the rain goose.Petitions PE462 and PE464 question the scientific evidence relating to specific designations. An appeal process exists via the Advisory Committee on Sites of Special Scientific Interest in relation to the scientific validity of SSSIs. Its remit does not extend to special areas of conservation or to special protection areas, so there seems to be a gap in the appeals process. In its evidence, the advisory committee indicated that it might welcome an extension of its remit to cover SACs and SPAs and we must consider whether that might be worthy of further consideration. If we think so, the Transport and the Environment Committee could be asked for a view on whether its successor committee should be invited to consider that issue in the new session. What do members think?

I think that the Transport and the Environment Committee should be asked to take a view on that in the new session.

I am concerned that people can appeal decisions only on scientific evidence. It is difficult for Joe Bloggs in the street to go and get the scientific evidence that is required to appeal a decision. It is almost a paper exercise to include the other designations in the advisory committee's remit. The advisory committee needs to consider how the process can be made more accessible to people who have concerns, so that they do not have to complete a scientific study to have an appeal held. Rather than putting the onus on the person who is concerned about a designation, perhaps the committee could look into the science that SNH uses.

That is an important issue. The Executive response rules out taking socioeconomic considerations into account as part of the appeals process, because of a European Court of Justice ruling that only scientific matters may be considered. That is something that the Transport and the Environment Committee may wish to consider.

That is not really my concern. My concern is that quite a lot of my constituents have come to me and said, "We do not believe the scientific evidence. We work this land and we know what's on it, but we do not have the financial ability to carry out a scientific study that challenges what SNH is coming up with." There is an argument about the socioeconomic perception, but an appeals process based on the scientific evidence is not that accessible to ordinary people.

The Executive has indicated that it will introduce provisions in the nature conservancy bill, which I think was announced this morning, to widen consultation on and notification of the designation of SSSIs to include local authorities, community councils and other local interests that are affected directly. That is to be welcomed and it might address some of the concerns raised in PE462.PE463 raises concerns about the handling of the consultation process in relation to the Sound of Barra SAC. SNH has refuted the allegations made in the petition about its handling of the Sound of Barra consultation. It indicated that, in meeting the requirements of the European directive, it consulted 15,000 owners and occupiers, local authorities and a wide range of local and national representative bodies. It states that fewer than 1 per cent of those consulted lodged an objection. We now need to consider whether the petitioner's specific concerns justify his view on SNH's consultation procedures.

That is an important point. We have seen that, in the national health service, consultation means one thing to some people and another thing to others. It would be useful to review what the guidelines say about SNH's consultation procedures.

What are you suggesting?

I am suggesting that we should go ahead with a review of SNH's consultation procedures. We would need to refer the matter to the Transport and the Environment Committee.

So PE463 should be referred along with PE462 and PE464 to the Transport and the Environment Committee.

Yes.

Rather than sending the petitions to different committees, we should refer the petitions to the Transport and the Environment Committee and leave it for it to decide whether it needs to consult other committees or ministers.

I think that, on land issues, particularly in relation to SSSIs, SPAs and SACs, she would probably say that she had no remit and that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development was the relevant minister.

When we refer the petitions to the Transport and the Environment Committee, we can ask it to consider which ministers it should involve, particularly in relation to the socioeconomic considerations that the petitions raise.

The other issue is that, as we all know, consultation means different things to different people. It can mean that an organisation simply puts advertisements in newspapers and asks people to respond, writes to individual people or has meetings and explains the detail of its proposals. We do not know what SNH's consultation procedures are. We could do with knowing more about the way in which our public bodies consult the public.

Yes, but it is not our job to do that at the moment. We are deciding whether we should refer the petitions to the Transport and the Environment Committee to ask it whether its successor committee would be interested in considering the aspects of the petitions that we have discussed, which I hope will be the case. Do members agree to do that?Members indicated agreement.