| Allan Wilson:
I am grateful
to all members—especially John Scott—who have contributed to the debate.
People such as John Scott and Alex Fergusson have a proprietorial interest
in the land, but they also have a heartfelt interest in the land and the
rivers from which they earn their living or seek their recreation. Some
of that passion was evident in what they, and others, had to say.
In summing up,
I will answer the question—I think it was asked by Donald Gorrie—about
why the Scottish Executive and Scottish Natural Heritage are pressing ahead
with the selection and designation of protected areas for Scotland's nature.
I also intend to make it clear that we will not introduce protection unless
we are satisfied that there is a clear scientific case for doing so and
that the necessary consultation has been conducted satisfactorily on our
behalf by Scottish Natural Heritage.
Scotland has
an outstanding natural heritage, and some areas of the country have special
importance as part of our national inheritance. However, some of those
sites are not so obvious, such as the raised bogs in central Scotland,
which Kenny Gibson mentioned, that have taken thousands of years to accumulate,
and the rich underwater habitats of some of our reefs. We can sometimes
be blinded by the abundance of natural resources in Scotland and, as a
consequence, not pay enough attention to conservation. I agree with Kenny
Gibson that we should protect the best examples of all our habitats and
species, to ensure that we pass on to our successors a natural heritage
that is at least as rich as the one that we inherited. That is why we have
a continuing programme to protect Scotland's most special natural places.
Mr Jamie McGrigor
(Highlands and Islands) (Con): Will the minister
take an intervention?
Allan Wilson:
I suspect that I am about to come to the point
that Jamie McGrigor wants to raise.
As well as the
arguments of principle for continuing a programme of protective designations,
there are arguments of simple legal necessity. Our obligations under European
law mean that we are completing an ambitious programme of nature conservation
designations.
As Sylvia Jackson
said, we have a specific obligation under EC law to propose the best sites
for a range of habitats and species to the European Commission.
On reflection,
the UK's original approach was perhaps too restrictive compared with what
some other member states proposed and it was fair enough that we should
be asked to do some more. If we did not select further candidate special
areas of conservation, we would also be likely to face specific penalties
and infraction proceedings in the European Court of Justice for failing
to propose sufficient sites, with the prospect of daily fines against the
UK. The Commission is also considering restricting our ability to access
European structural funds if we do not comply with environmental obligations.
We have a similar legal obligation under the EC birds directive. It is
clear from European Court of Justice case law that member states must classify
those sites that meet the scientific criteria for selection as SPAs. There
is no room for voluntarism.
The Scottish
Executive and Scottish Natural Heritage know that nature conservation designations
can be controversial. Different interest groups think different things.
On the one hand, proprietors have legitimate concerns about a nature conservation
designation's potential to constrain their choices about how they manage
their land. On the other hand, environmentalists tell us that we should
do more. We must try to balance the two interests. Let us not forget that
the last time a controversy about a European nature conservation site arose,
it was because proprietors wanted us to do more. We must walk the tightrope
and make objective judgments about whether there is a sound scientific
case for selection of any particular site as a protected area. Full and
considered consultation with the proprietors of proposed sites and other
interested parties is an essential part of that process.
Members should
be clear that the selection of a site as a protected area does not mean
that it is put beyond economic use. There are cases in which damaging development
is inhibited by the presence of a nature conservation designation. Sometimes
it is right and proper that a judgment should be reached, through the planning
system or other consent regimes, that the natural value of the land means
that damaging development should not go ahead. That is a long-established
principle, which I, and other members who spoke today, support.
A number of
valid criticisms have been made, for example by Bruce Crawford, of the
way in which the programme of nature conservation designations has been
managed. The question is, can we do better?
There is always
room for improvement and, as the Minister for Environment, Sport and Culture
made clear in a response to a parliamentary question from Bruce Crawford's
colleague, Fergus Ewing, we are considering whether improvements can be
made to policy and law on nature conservation. Through our spending review,
we have allocated additional resources to Scottish Natural Heritage to
enable it to offer more financial incentives to the people who manage protected
areas. In the meantime, however, European obligations mean that we must
pursue a programme of nature conservation designations quickly. That is
not necessarily popular with everyone. I am, however, convinced that it
is the right thing to do and that it is an essential part of protecting
the best of our natural heritage.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
