Official Report 127KB pdf
Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Special Protection Areas (Arran, Barra and Yell) (PE462, PE463 and PE464)
We have a number of petitions to consider. Petition PE462, from Mrs Margie Currie, PE463, from Councillor Donald Manford, and PE464, from Mr Robert Cunyngham Brown, all relate to Scottish Natural Heritage's consultation procedures.
Are the options mutually exclusive? Would it not be better to be on the safe side and refer the petitions back to the Public Petitions Committee? That would mean that they would at least be sent to our successor committee for discussion if, for any reason, the nature conservation bill were delayed for another six months to a year. At this stage, we simply do not know what the new Administration's priorities will be or, indeed, who the new Administration will be. Would it not therefore be safer to refer the petitions to the Public Petitions Committee so that it could refer them back to our successor committee at the beginning of the next session?
That would be a perfectly acceptable position for us to adopt.
I agree with Robin Harper. I know that there is often local tension between SNH and communities. The Executive is saying that it acknowledges the need for greater transparency and wider consultation. It wants to involve a broader range of stakeholders, including local communities. As Robin Harper said, we want to ensure that, if the bill is delayed for any reason—and we know that bills can be delayed—something happens to alleviate any tensions that may arise.
I agree with everything that has been said so far, but I believe that imposition of the designations should be delayed until the bill is introduced. One of the recommendations, which is to be found at paragraph 15 of the clerk's paper, is for a review of SNH's consultation procedures and consideration of whether an appeals procedure should be put in place to examine the scientific validity of SNH's claims. I believe that such a review is vital. I reiterate my view that the designations should not be imposed until the proposed nature conservation bill is introduced or a review of SNH has been undertaken.
My opinion is that the committee could not legitimately take that position without having studied the issue in considerably more detail. It would not be appropriate for the committee to draw such a conclusion on the basis of absolutely no evidence. I do not favour that approach, although I will be guided by the views of other members.
John Scott's second point was about a review of SNH's procedures. I say to him that, as part of the bill procedure, it is inevitable that the successor Transport and the Environment Committee will take evidence from witnesses. I am certain that any proposals will generate considerable comment not only from SNH, but from the various bodies throughout Scotland who feel aggrieved by SNH's actions.
I would like to record my fundamental disagreement with John Scott's second point, which would be an unsafe recommendation for the committee to make. It would prejudge SNH before we have even taken evidence. On the balance of the evidence that I have read so far, in the majority of cases there is good justification for the creation of the SSSIs.
I do not dispute the justification for the creation of the SSSIs and I am not against their creation. However, the petitioners need a response to their petitions and we should not write them off, saying that it is bad luck that the petitions arrived at this point. Members may say that we lack the powers to make a difference and that we have to wait for new legislation. In the meantime, however, the designations will be imposed on the petitioners. The designations should be postponed until the bill is introduced or a review of SNH is undertaken. The petitioners have given evidence to this committee and to the Public Petitions Committee and their views must be taken into account.
The consensus seems to be that we should refer the petitions back to the Public Petitions Committee so that they can be considered after the election. I recognise that John Scott wishes to go further, but I do not hear anyone else agreeing with him. We will refer the petitions back to the Public Petitions Committee. After the election, our successor committee will take account of the issues that the petitions raise when it considers the proposed nature conservation bill.
We should make it clear that that is why we are referring the petitions back to the Public Petitions Committee. If the nature conservation bill is delayed for any reason, our successor committee should reconsider the petitions.
We should add one small caveat. I cannot imagine the circumstances in which this would happen, but if for whatever reason a nature conservation bill does not arrive on the table, we will need to come back to the petitions and take on board the points that the petitioners have made.
I accept that. That can be noted.
We all agree that the system needs greater flexibility, as is noted in the clerk's paper. We hope that the nature conservation bill will deal with the issue but, if it does not, our successor committee will, as Bruce Crawford rightly said, have to deal with that situation.
Indeed. Is it agreed that we refer the petitions back to the Public Petitions Committee?
Planning Process (PE508)
PE508 is on the implementation of environmental impact assessments, about which we took evidence from the Deputy Minister for Social Justice two weeks ago.
I agree with the recommendation that is given and I agree with everything that the convener has said. Further research should be carried out, particularly on whether there are conflicts of interest. If independent research could determine whether the problem was real or imagined, that would put minds at rest.
I would like to see further research not only on terrestrial EIAs, but on EIAs for aquaculture. There is a crying need for a review of the way in which such EIAs are implemented.
For a second, I thought that Robin Harper was about to ask for research into extra-terrestrial EIAs.
Given this morning's announcement of the discovery of 120 soundings from extra-terrestrial bodies, perhaps Robin Harper is closer to the reality than we expected.
That probably falls outwith our brief.
Yes. It probably comes under culture, as you cannot get hold of it.
I would not want us to give the impression that EIAs are necessarily flawed because they are conducted by the person who wants the development. Robin Harper mentioned aquaculture. I have seen the EIAs that the fish farming firms have done—those assessments are detailed and extremely thick and I have no doubt that they are done well. I do not want us to give the impression that we think that there is some sort of sleight of hand. There might be problems occasionally, of course.
We are being asked what issues the research should address. People might think the process more transparent if the planning authority commissioned the EIA and charged the developer to recover costs. That would not cost anyone any more money, but it might give people more confidence in the system.
Just as we expect to deal with a nature conservation bill in the next session of Parliament, we may want to deal with environmental assessments through the new planning bill that whoever forms the Government after the election will introduce in the next session. We should ask the Executive to deal with the matter in that way.
On the concerns of the petitioner, we should ask for the research to be carried out with a view to revising planning advice note 58. That should address some of the petitioner's concerns.
If we said that there should be a revision before we have carried out the research, we would be in danger of making decisions before analysing the evidence.
We should add the issue of whether the body that commissions the EIA should be the planning authority or the developer.
That can be added. Do members agree to write to the Executive making those points and to conclude consideration of the petition, writing to the petitioner to advise him of the recommendations that we are making?
Before we begin the next item on our agenda, we will suspend the meeting to allow the minister and his officials to take their seats.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Previous
Items in Private