Chamber
Plenary, 07 Jan 2004
07 Jan 2004 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
I feel that I should be standing up and saying, "Oh deary dear," but I shall resist.
I express my pleasure at having arrived at this stage of the consideration of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill and I add my thanks to all those who have contributed to getting us to this point. The stage 1 consideration has been, in some respects, unusually detailed, reflecting the bill's long gestation and the degree of consultation and input. It seems a long time since the publication of "The Nature of Scotland: A Policy Statement". Indeed, it has been a long time—the statement was published in March 2001. However, I still think that the document was by far the most attractive that the Scottish Executive has produced in five years and I should add that the content matches the quality.
There is still detailed work to do on the bill, but it is basically sound, as is widely recognised. However, it is not the final word on nature conservation. It is important to stay focused on getting the bill right—but only after a small digression at this point.
The bill deals with SSSIs, but not with local sites. I do not think that those should be covered in the bill, but I am given to understand that SNH was charged with undertaking a review of, and with developing some common standards for, the treatment of the 3,000-odd local sites in Scotland. Many of those local sites are of SSSI calibre and could be spares to draw on if replacement SSSIs are needed. I would find it useful if the minister said whether SNH has been charged to do that work and if he outlined the probable time frame for that.
The bill is not the vehicle for tackling every form and level of designation, for rationalising the plethora of legislation that deals with nature conservation and for ensuring the proper protection of the marine environment, but it has been encouraging to hear from ministers that the last two matters—in particular the protection of the marine environment—are high on their agenda and are on the near rather than the far horizon.
On the very near horizon is a Scottish biodiversity strategy. All members of the committee and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development agree that the bill should require a strategy to be designated. Our challenge is to ensure that the bill states unequivocally what the size and shape of the strategy should be; we need to create the right-sized hole for the desired strategy to fit into while being clear about what should properly be in the strategy and what should be in the bill.
Part 2 of the bill deals with SSSIs. We will have to consider whether there should be—as has been suggested—a statutory purpose for SSSIs, which would include both the notification and designation side and the management and protection side.
In general, I welcome the greater openness and transparency and the shift in emphasis towards positive management that the bill will deliver. I am also interested in the enhanced role of, as Alex Johnstone described it, that excellent body the Scottish Land Court. I wonder whether that could be a straw in the wind that indicates the future development of an environmental court with an even wider scope. Again, that is not for the bill, but it is an important future item.
If all the proposals for improved processes and approaches are to work properly, it is necessary to ensure that the resource implications have been fully and adequately identified and will be met. The committee's report flags up concern on that front.
Part 3 of the bill relates to wildlife crime and builds on the legislation that was passed in the previous session of Parliament. Again, I hope that the outcome will be not only greater transparency and openness, but better law and a better understanding of the law on the part of professionals and the public alike, all of which should enhance enforcement. There are issues on which the committee has sought clarification—those are detailed in the report.
The subject of snaring received significant attention from the committee while it was taking evidence on the bill. A wide range of views was heard and many of the representations have been acted on. We were effectively lobbied by animal welfare groups, which would infinitely prefer a complete ban on snaring. However, we came to the view that a blanket ban on snares is not currently a practical option because of the lack of suitable alternative methods for effectively or humanely controlling vermin. Alternative methods of pest control are available, but we note in our report the reservations of land management practitioners about their effectiveness.
Although I acknowledge the strongly held views on the matter, I agree that free-running snares should continue to be available as a method of pest control until an alternative that can fully satisfy both animal welfare and land management objectives is developed. The bill includes a number of measures that are aimed at improving the operation and effectiveness of snaring. It will be important to ensure that those provisions are sufficiently tightly drafted and properly enforced, so that any irresponsible use or misuse of snares is firmly dealt with.
There are particular difficulties associated with dealing with wildlife crime because, not surprisingly, it is usually perpetrated in wild and remote areas. A careful balance will have to be struck between the practicalities of bringing a prosecution and the protection of civil liberties. Those practicalities include single-witness evidence and the question of what constitutes reasonable powers of entry and search without a warrant.
There will be considerable resource implications if the police are to be able to deal effectively with wildlife crime. My local police force, Grampian police, has seven designated wildlife liaison officers, who are backed up by crime analysis and are allocated one day per month on which to work proactively on wildlife crime. That is a significant commitment and has to be met from existing resources. In due course, I would like police funding allocations to recognise the impact of the devotion of resources to wildlife crime on the police forces that choose to use resources in that way.
The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill is a good bill and it has been widely welcomed. I look forward to helping to make it even better and I commend it to the Parliament.
I express my pleasure at having arrived at this stage of the consideration of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill and I add my thanks to all those who have contributed to getting us to this point. The stage 1 consideration has been, in some respects, unusually detailed, reflecting the bill's long gestation and the degree of consultation and input. It seems a long time since the publication of "The Nature of Scotland: A Policy Statement". Indeed, it has been a long time—the statement was published in March 2001. However, I still think that the document was by far the most attractive that the Scottish Executive has produced in five years and I should add that the content matches the quality.
There is still detailed work to do on the bill, but it is basically sound, as is widely recognised. However, it is not the final word on nature conservation. It is important to stay focused on getting the bill right—but only after a small digression at this point.
The bill deals with SSSIs, but not with local sites. I do not think that those should be covered in the bill, but I am given to understand that SNH was charged with undertaking a review of, and with developing some common standards for, the treatment of the 3,000-odd local sites in Scotland. Many of those local sites are of SSSI calibre and could be spares to draw on if replacement SSSIs are needed. I would find it useful if the minister said whether SNH has been charged to do that work and if he outlined the probable time frame for that.
The bill is not the vehicle for tackling every form and level of designation, for rationalising the plethora of legislation that deals with nature conservation and for ensuring the proper protection of the marine environment, but it has been encouraging to hear from ministers that the last two matters—in particular the protection of the marine environment—are high on their agenda and are on the near rather than the far horizon.
On the very near horizon is a Scottish biodiversity strategy. All members of the committee and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development agree that the bill should require a strategy to be designated. Our challenge is to ensure that the bill states unequivocally what the size and shape of the strategy should be; we need to create the right-sized hole for the desired strategy to fit into while being clear about what should properly be in the strategy and what should be in the bill.
Part 2 of the bill deals with SSSIs. We will have to consider whether there should be—as has been suggested—a statutory purpose for SSSIs, which would include both the notification and designation side and the management and protection side.
In general, I welcome the greater openness and transparency and the shift in emphasis towards positive management that the bill will deliver. I am also interested in the enhanced role of, as Alex Johnstone described it, that excellent body the Scottish Land Court. I wonder whether that could be a straw in the wind that indicates the future development of an environmental court with an even wider scope. Again, that is not for the bill, but it is an important future item.
If all the proposals for improved processes and approaches are to work properly, it is necessary to ensure that the resource implications have been fully and adequately identified and will be met. The committee's report flags up concern on that front.
Part 3 of the bill relates to wildlife crime and builds on the legislation that was passed in the previous session of Parliament. Again, I hope that the outcome will be not only greater transparency and openness, but better law and a better understanding of the law on the part of professionals and the public alike, all of which should enhance enforcement. There are issues on which the committee has sought clarification—those are detailed in the report.
The subject of snaring received significant attention from the committee while it was taking evidence on the bill. A wide range of views was heard and many of the representations have been acted on. We were effectively lobbied by animal welfare groups, which would infinitely prefer a complete ban on snaring. However, we came to the view that a blanket ban on snares is not currently a practical option because of the lack of suitable alternative methods for effectively or humanely controlling vermin. Alternative methods of pest control are available, but we note in our report the reservations of land management practitioners about their effectiveness.
Although I acknowledge the strongly held views on the matter, I agree that free-running snares should continue to be available as a method of pest control until an alternative that can fully satisfy both animal welfare and land management objectives is developed. The bill includes a number of measures that are aimed at improving the operation and effectiveness of snaring. It will be important to ensure that those provisions are sufficiently tightly drafted and properly enforced, so that any irresponsible use or misuse of snares is firmly dealt with.
There are particular difficulties associated with dealing with wildlife crime because, not surprisingly, it is usually perpetrated in wild and remote areas. A careful balance will have to be struck between the practicalities of bringing a prosecution and the protection of civil liberties. Those practicalities include single-witness evidence and the question of what constitutes reasonable powers of entry and search without a warrant.
There will be considerable resource implications if the police are to be able to deal effectively with wildlife crime. My local police force, Grampian police, has seven designated wildlife liaison officers, who are backed up by crime analysis and are allocated one day per month on which to work proactively on wildlife crime. That is a significant commitment and has to be met from existing resources. In due course, I would like police funding allocations to recognise the impact of the devotion of resources to wildlife crime on the police forces that choose to use resources in that way.
The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill is a good bill and it has been widely welcomed. I look forward to helping to make it even better and I commend it to the Parliament.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-425, in the name of Ross Finnie, on the general principles of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill.
The Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Ross Finnie):
LD
There can be no doubt that Scotland's natural heritage matters to us all. It matters both in its own right and because it is one of the most basic national a...
Shiona Baird (North East Scotland) (Green):
Green
Is the minister aware that on 11 December the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development agreed with me—on the record—that the biodiversity strate...
Ross Finnie:
LD
If I may, I will come back to that point when I develop my theme. That was a cunning intervention, coming at that particular stage.As I was saying, we have a...
Mike Watson (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab):
Lab
In light of the remarks that the minister has just made, does he not agree that it is very disappointing that the committee's conclusions on snaring fail to ...
Ross Finnie:
LD
I feel that it is not appropriate to do so on the very good grounds of the evidence that was presented to the committee, which was very similar to the eviden...
Alex Fergusson (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con):
Con
Will the minister take an intervention?
Ross Finnie:
LD
No, I think that I am about to incur the wrath of the Presiding Officer.The bill is important because it tackles issues that are of fundamental importance to...
Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP):
SNP
I take the opportunity to express my thanks to all those who have assisted the Environment and Rural Development Committee in the production of its report. I...
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
As we all know, the Conservative party stands up for the interests of the countryside. In trying to do that over the past four years, we have on occasion fou...
Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab):
Lab
I wish to put on record that I am speaking as a Labour MSP and not as the convener of the Environment and Rural Development Committee.I congratulate the comm...
Mr Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green):
Green
I welcome the bill. There is a good deal of consensus around its basic principles, which is down to the good policy development process that was followed fro...
Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I speak in support of the general principles of the bill, which has been welcomed widely outside and inside the chamber. In spite of what the minister said i...
Bruce Crawford (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
First of all, I congratulate the minister on introducing this important bill for consideration. After all, many issues related to nature conservation law in ...
Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
Although I agree that it is possible that there are too many deer in some parts of Scotland, does the member agree that in many parts of Scotland the numbers...
Bruce Crawford:
SNP
I certainly do not agree with much of the intent behind Jamie McGrigor's statements. For example, around the area that I know—the Stirling area—the Forestry ...
Mr McGrigor:
Con
Will Mr Crawford give way?
Bruce Crawford:
SNP
I have already given way to Jamie McGrigor once and, quite frankly, his point was so ridiculous that I am not going to give way again at this stage.Not only ...
Mr Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
Does Bruce Crawford accept that the Deer Commission for Scotland itself is not advocating any strengthening in the powers to cull deer? As he rightly says, i...
Bruce Crawford:
SNP
Oh, yes it is. I think that Ted Brocklebank should take a look at the Official Report of the Environment and Rural Development Committee meeting at which the...
Mr Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
Scotland's beautiful and diverse countryside is, of course, one of its priceless assets. Through a unique combination of circumstances, including history, th...
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
Does the member accept the fact that the species that contributes most to the Highland economy is the human species, not the red deer?
Mr Brocklebank:
Con
The member is absolutely right, but the human species would not be in the Highlands in the same numbers without the presence of the red deer and annual stalk...
Rob Gibson:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Mr Brocklebank:
Con
No, Rob Gibson has had his opportunity. I will press on.The emptying of the glens that would result if deer stalking was abandoned would make the original cl...
Bruce Crawford:
SNP
I accept some of what the member says about the figures that are available, but the point is surely whether he supports what I said about potential amendment...
Mr Brocklebank:
Con
I will deal with that in the next three sentences.I believe that the best people to manage deer in the Highlands are the landowners and estate factors who ma...
Bruce Crawford:
SNP
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Mr Brocklebank:
Con
No. I am just finishing.We do not believe that the Deer Commission seeks or requires any extension of its existing powers relating to the compulsory culling ...
Nora Radcliffe (Gordon) (LD):
LD
I feel that I should be standing up and saying, "Oh deary dear," but I shall resist.I express my pleasure at having arrived at this stage of the consideratio...