Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Justice 2 Committee, 24 Sep 2002

24 Sep 2002 · S1 · Justice 2 Committee

Item of business

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Aitken, Bill Con Glasgow Watch on SPTV

Amendment 139 highlights a basic difference between me and other committee members about whether the code is likely to be effective in deterring activities that could be damaging in the countryside. The unqualified right to fly kites or mechanised toy planes could clearly have serious implications for the welfare of ground-nesting birds. There are other conservation issues. It is important that the bill should recognise that rural Scotland is not only a place of recreation, but a place of work. Rural people care for and maintain rural Scotland, from which they derive their livelihood. It is clearly important that we acknowledge that their right to that livelihood takes precedence over the right of people to enjoy free access for recreation alone. For example, noise disturbance from a mechanised biplane could cause a pregnant ewe to abort.Shooting, stalking and fishing are big business in rural Scotland, particularly in some areas where the economy is fragile. The money that sporting activity brings to local economies pays for much of the maintenance of rural Scotland. That must not be put at risk by the right of access. Without that source of income, many of the landscapes that give recreational users such pleasure and enjoyment and make Scotland so attractive to visitors may be lost through lack of finance to fund essential land management and conservation. The bill must be balanced if it is not to destroy the very thing that it seeks to open up.I believe that amendments 30 and 155, lodged by Scott Barrie and Pauline McNeill respectively, would greatly reduce the clarity of the bill. They would make it harder for those who own and manage the land to protect their interests and for users of access rights to know the extent of their rights. It is essential that the key areas that are excluded be stipulated in the bill; that should not be left to guidance contained in the access code. The bill must not only be fair; it must be seen to be fair. It must adequately protect those who are responsible for land.Amendment 31, in the name of Pauline McNeill, deals with domestic dogs. In most instances, dogs are totally compatible with the countryside, but there are times when dogs that are under no great control roving the countryside pose a threat to livestock and ground-nesting birds, particularly in the breeding, lambing and nesting season. Working dogs are used by experts, who are used to handling such highly trained dogs and who know the country and terrain in which they operate. That is why it is important to distinguish between those who live and work in the countryside and have a knowledge of its activities and those who are casual visitors, albeit that they are in the countryside to enjoy its recreational facilities.I have to intimate that Murdo Fraser, in whose name amendments 98 and 79 are lodged, is held up at another committee meeting. With the convener's consent, I will deal with amendments 98 and 79 on his behalf. Does the convener want me to deal with them now or later?

Search Hansard contributions

Justice 2 Committee, 24 Sep 2002

In the same item of business