Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Official Report 531KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Control of Wild Geese (PE1490)

Agenda item 3 is petition PE1490. We will consider the Scottish Government’s responses and the petitioner’s response to them. I refer members to the paper on the petition and seek their responses to it.

I agree with the Scottish Crofting Federation. We as a committee asked a lot of questions that have not been answered or have been partially answered. To be frank, it strikes me that much of the letter that we have received from the Government could probably be described as civil service waffle. It does not really deal with a number of the points that the committee raised.

We should write back to the minister. We should get the clerks to list very simply the questions that we think have not been answered, as questions 1 to 6, for example. We should keep things simple and ask for the questions to be answered properly. When questions have been partially answered, we should ask for further information.

That is one proposal.

I certainly agree with Dave Thompson. As Patrick Krause of the Scottish Crofting Federation stated in his response to the minister’s letter, a number of unanswered questions remain. The committee needs more details on the

“intentions on the funding of wild goose control”.

I put it on the record that I am pleased that the minister has acknowledged the Salmonella and listeria risks from large numbers of geese congregating in fields. However, I think that they are more common than he believes.

I entirely agree with and support Dave Thompson’s proposition, but I will add something briefly. I wonder whether we might be able to refer in our letter to what I am about to say.

I know that we wrote to all the goose management schemes at the start of the investigation, if I may call it that. I put on the record my disappointment that we did not hear anything from the Solway barnacle goose management scheme. If a response is not received, it is not unreasonable to assume that, basically, all is well. However, Elaine Murray and I received a deputation from the Solway barnacle goose management scheme three or four weeks ago that clearly indicated that all is not well.

The scheme has been hugely successful in that the numbers of Svalbard—I believe that I have pronounced that correctly—barnacle geese have expanded hugely over the years; obviously, the pressures have also increased, unlike the funding, which has reduced. The Solway is the only part of Scotland where those geese land. Is it valid to point out in our response that the issues that Patrick Krause raised in the petition are not just confined to the north-west and that they also seem to exist in the Solway scheme?

We received evidence—at least informally—that Aberdeenshire and other places are affected in the same way, so you have made a valid point. Are you suggesting that we ask that question in the letter that we will send?

If you think that it is appropriate to do so.

I see no reason why not. We should highlight the extent of the problem, and that is another example.

I, too, entirely agree with the approach that Dave Thompson suggested. At the risk of slightly lengthening our letter, can we ask perhaps at the end of it for updates on paragraphs k) and p) of the minister’s letter? Paragraph k) says:

“SNH are working with the local Pilots to ensure that we gather the information required”

in relation to

“the relationship between goose numbers and agricultural damage.”

The possible effects on

“water quality in lochs and reservoirs”

are being looked at. As paragraph p) says, Scottish Water is working

“with SNH on Orkney to investigate this further.”

I would certainly welcome updates on those two points as they become available, and I would like us to request them.

12:15  

Yes.

I support Dave Thompson’s proposal and seeking the additional details that other members have suggested.

I highlight paragraph o) of the minister’s reply. Is there any possibility of the minister or the Scottish Government looking at the viability of a compulsory bag reporting scheme, rather than only a voluntary scheme, in view of issues that involve private landowners and other matters? That came up in evidence. We will not go into the details of those issues now, but I would value other members agreeing on a response to that, as well.

We should certainly ask the question to see what answer we get. That sounds reasonable.

I would like to add to what I said simply to help the clerks in formulating our letter. In five years, the number of those barnacle geese in the Solway scheme has gone up from 29,800 to 38,100. If I am right, that is roughly a 30 per cent increase. The funding has stayed the same. The point that was made in particular—the same will apply in Aberdeenshire and areas in the north-east—was that, as the CAP reforms begin to bite and the single farm payment reduces in those areas, the incentive to remain in the schemes will become less.

If we agree that that is the amount of business that we wish to deal with now, the clerks will have a clear steer. We need more answers, and we need more detailed answers than those that we received. I thank members for that. Do we agree to write to the minister and seek those answers?

Members indicated agreement.

At the committee’s next meeting, on Wednesday 19 November, it will take evidence from the Minister for Environment and Climate Change on the draft Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Amendment Order 2015, which is an affirmative Scottish statutory instrument, and then on the draft budget. The committee will also take evidence from Scottish Government officials on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill.

I close the public part of the meeting and ask for the public gallery to be cleared.

12:17 Meeting continued in private until 12:24.