| Allan Wilson:
I thank all
those members who have participated in the debate and I thank Jamie McGrigor
for securing the debate. I welcome the opportunity that the debate presents
to discuss some of the issues. The fact that the Presiding Officer has
extended the time that is allocated to the debate is indicative of the
wide interest in environmentally designated areas in the Parliament.
Those members
who have been engaged in dialogue with me during the past few months will
not be surprised to learn that I have a great deal of sympathy with the
thinking behind today's motion. I believe strongly that SNH's consultation
processes should ensure that decisions on whether to designate sites are
informed by local views, but I have no reason to think that SNH has not
undertaken full and open consultation on recent designations. In fact,
for some time SNH has gone beyond its legal requirement to consult local
owners and occupiers and has involved other interested parties. I want
to ensure that the interests of local people are fully recognised in the
consultative process.
The problem
is what constitutes consultation, which I touched on during question time
in response to Tavish Scott. Consultation should not be confined to the
environmental or scientific implications of designation. Like most people,
I take the view that consultation should encompass much more than that.
However, we
go beyond many of our European partners, who simply designate without any
process of public consultation, because we incorporate a system of consultation.
We are also constrained by decisions of the European Court of Justice,
which confined the consultation process to those very same scientific and
environmental considerations. Social and economic considerations are excluded
until after the designation has been made.
Tavish Scott:
I
am grateful for the minister's explanation. When the current—dare I use
the word—quota of the habitats directive has been fulfilled, will the Scottish
Executive ensure through the member state that any new tranche of designations
will take those wider points into consideration? Is that a possibility?
Allan Wilson:
As Tavish Scott knows, we are considering that issue with some degree of
urgency in the light of current circumstances. I had intended to deal with
that. As has been said, the proposals that are outlined in "The Nature
of Scotland" include a stronger voice for local communities. It is my personal
mission to see that that is enshrined in the forthcoming legislation.
We also propose—this
answers the point that was raised by Sarah Boyack and several other members—that
there will be less bureaucracy and increased resources, which will provide
incentives for the positive management of those protected areas. I am pleased
that nobody has doubted the need to protect Scotland's most important wildlife
and habitats through site designations. Environmental policy and legislation
has long recognised the need to identify and protect sites, rare plants
and species because what we collectively understand as Scotland would be
belittled without them.
The selection
of sites of special scientific interest is an important component of that
policy. A recent survey of SSSI owners and occupiers showed that 71 per
cent of them are proud to have an SSSI on their land and do not believe
that it causes any problems. In the UK, the SSSIs underpin the whole designation
for special areas of conservation and special areas of protection. I am
also familiar with the statistic that Robin Harper quoted that, of local
consultees for proposed special areas, only 1.2 per cent—a wee bit more
than 1.1 per cent—have objected to the proposals. I am sure that all members,
including Jamie McGrigor, would agree that that is a pretty good record
for which SNH can and should take credit.
Mr McGrigor:
I would agree with the minister on that, except
that, having looked at the situation in Barra, I might doubt the figures.
Allan Wilson:
I understand where Mr McGrigor is coming from,
but I understand that some of the more difficult and controversial designations
are dealt with only after circa 95 or 96 per cent of the schedule of proposed
sites has been dealt with. The more controversial designations, such as
Barra, necessarily come at the end of the process. Mr McGrigor alleges
that SNH did not properly report the outcome of the Barra consultation.
SNH denies that. The reason that I delayed a decision on the designation
is that we attach great importance to such decisions. In the light of what
has been said by Jamie McGrigor and others, we will require further information
before taking any decision on Barra and on some of the other remaining
designations.
As has been
pointed out, the designations should not be seen as a negative force. There
is no automatic barrier to development or to change of use. If I may to
some extent answer Alasdair Morrison's question—and, as a corollary, agree
with what Rhona Brankin said—site designation does not in itself affect
the management or use of a site. Development is not prevented on SSSIs
or on Natura 2000 sites. On the landowner interest, the proposals in each
individual case must be examined, but any designation must be scientifically
valid.
As George Lyon
suggested before he left, designation can be of economic benefit to rural
communities and places, where it can make the most difference. We have
provided an additional £22 million over a three-year period to SNH
to fund its natural care strategy.
I was in Galicia
at Easter on an Executive visit. In Spain.
Sarah Boyack:
We know where it is and we are jealous.
Allan Wilson:
It was a long-delayed visit and I was fortunate
enough to be in my post by the time it came up.
In Galicia,
a system of land reform, which is now about 10 years old, was all about
consolidating very small parcels of land to make them more economically
viable. The system is complex and involves getting lots of people around
the table to agree to co-operate. When the process started, there was massive
opposition; but now, because successful programmes have been running for
some time and have been proven to be of economic benefit to the landowner
and to the land users—an issue that has been mentioned by many speakers
tonight—the system is popular. People are now queueing up to participate.
I would like to see a similar thing happen with designations here.
A scheme is
already under way for the Forest of Cluny in Perthshire. Others are planned
in Ayrshire, Galloway and the island of Arran in my constituency. I hope
that local landowners and occupiers will take advantage of the new schemes,
which are designed to promote sustainable management of the land for forestry
interests. People can also benefit from other funds.
I want to respond
to a point raised by Sarah Boyack and others. The continuing process of
identifying tourism sites has been a massive undertaking. The vast majority
of designations have not raised local concerns over the protection of the
sites. The process shows our concern for the natural heritage of Scotland.
The Executive and SNH are making every effort to inform and involve local
interests. I hope that we can all, locally and nationally, share a pride
in, and a concern for, these special places.
Fiona McLeod:
rose—
Allan Wilson:
I think that I am just coming to the question
that Fiona McLeod wishes to ask. I repeat my assurance that we will be
publishing a draft bill based on the proposals in "The Nature of Scotland".
Fiona McLeod:
When?
Allan Wilson:
As soon as possible. Fiona McLeod poses the
question and she has said that we need a bill and that we need it soon.
I agree, but I want to go further. We need a bill and we need it very soon.
I will certainly make it my objective to bring forward proposals as soon
as possible.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
