Item 4 is consideration of petition PE187 from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, which calls on the Parliament to allow the limited licensed culling of raptors under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in areas where local populations have increased beyond normal levels. Members have received from the clerks various papers on the petition and a cover note that sets out the background and suggests options for proceeding.I am sure that by now members will be aware of the work that the Transport and the Environment Committee has done on this petition, and will know that that committee has now formally closed consideration of it. We discussed considering the petition jointly with the Transport and the Environment Committee, but in the end that committee took the lead role on petition PE187 and the related petition PE8.The petition has been with us for some time, and it is desirable that we take steps towards concluding consideration of it. How would members like to proceed?
Official Report · Committee
Petitions
Raptors (Licensed Culling) (PE187)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Alex Fergusson Con 8
- Jamie McGrigor Con 5
- Richard Lochhead SNP 5
- Rhoda Grant Lab 4
- Mike Rumbles LD 3
The record
26 contributionsWe should take the petition very seriously, especially in the light of our inquiry into integrated rural development. There is no doubt that legitimate field sports—in this case, we are dealing with shooting—provide a great deal of employment and income for rural Scotland. The proliferation of raptors is causing gamekeepers to find that their jobs are under threat. Areas that are managed well by gamekeepers are home to more types of wildlife than areas that are not so managed.I have lived in Argyll for 30 years. When I first came to the area, there were many lapwings, curlews and small birds on the hillsides. Many people have remarked that today there are nothing like as many such birds. The general feeling is that the increase in the number of raptors is responsible for the decrease in numbers of other birds. We should support the petition, but I am not sure how we should proceed. Perhaps you can clarify the situation, convener.
Three options are available to us. I assume that you are suggesting that we choose option C—to take more evidence on the petition, to add to the evidence that has already been taken by the Transport and the Environment Committee.
I support our doing exactly that. Whether people are for or against shooting, there is no doubt that it brings many jobs and a great deal of money to rural Scotland. The current numbers of raptors appear to have reached a very high peak, which is probably the reason why many species, including songbirds, are being decimated.
I seek some information. The cover note says that the Transport and the Environment agreed to write to"the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, the Scottish Executive and Scottish Natural Heritage to recommend that the SGA becomes a member of the moorland working group".Is the SGA now a member of that group?
It has been invited to join.
We have a letter from SNH that says that the SGA was invited to a meeting in March. However, I have no idea whether the meeting took place or what its outcome was.
Do we know whether the SGA is a member of the moorland working group?
I am afraid that I do not know that.
We know that the association has been invited to join the group. Given that that has been a recent development, I suggest that we simply note the petition and keep an eye on what happens. I acknowledge Jamie McGrigor's comments and the evidence that we received earlier from SNH. However, the issue is far too complicated to be covered by one easy solution. If the SGA becomes part of the moorland forum and gets round the table with other groups, it can think about developing the issues in its petition and find out how the land is managed. After all, it was suggested earlier in the meeting that land management might be the cause of the problem. As a result, we should note the petition and wait and see how the matter develops. It is too soon for us to reopen an inquiry that the Transport and the Environment Committee has just completed.
I would genuinely like to know whether the SGA is a member of the group and whether it is now working together with other organisations. Until we receive that information, we should defer consideration of the petition until a future meeting rather than pursue any of the options set out in the cover note.
That future meeting might be some time away. However, I am not against your suggestion. The question whether the SGA has accepted the invitation to join the forum is a rather important one.
I tend to agree with Rhoda Grant and Mike Rumbles. Although I recognise that legitimate field sports have their place, we should keep the whole matter in perspective. Another parliamentary committee has investigated the matter in a lot of detail. That said, I notice that the moorland forum was set up in March, so perhaps we should find out what it has been doing. Perhaps, if the SGA is now part of the forum, the petition itself has been overtaken.
The letter refers to a meeting in March to which SNH was going to invite the SGA. I have no idea whether the meeting took place.
The SNH letter says:"This Forum will succeed the smaller Moorland Working Group",which suggests that it is a new body.
I think that the moorland working group became the moorland forum. It just changed its name.
Presumably that has evolved since the petition was submitted.
Actually, quite a lot has evolved since the petition was submitted.
Given that fact, I support Rhoda Grant's proposal, with the slight qualification that we receive an updated report as Mike Rumbles suggested.
I cannot remember what Rhoda Grant's proposal was.
I suggested that we should note the petition.
It might also be worth while to invite the SGA to make a submission to the inquiry, as Jamie McGrigor suggested.
Given the time that has elapsed since the petition was put before us, it would do no harm to find out the position of the moorland forum and the SGA's membership of it. Are members content to defer a decision until then?
I have no problem with that.
Right. I am sorry to say that we are deferring the petition yet again. However, the question is important.As item 5 on the agenda is in private, I ask the public to leave the meeting at this point. I regret to say that that includes Linda Smith. I thank her very much and hope that she has enjoyed the meeting as much as we have.
Meeting continued in private until 16:39.
In this meeting
Everything on 30 Apr 2002 →- Scottish Parliament Rural Development Committee Tuesday 30 April 2002 (Afternoon) Committee business · 2
- Integrated Rural Development Committee business · 141
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 3
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 1
- Petitions Petitions · 25
- Petitions Petitions · 26
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.