Official Report 260KB pdf
Scottish Agricultural College Auchincruive (PE480)
Item three is petitions. Petition PE480, from Mr William Campbell, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the current situation at the Scottish Agricultural College at Auchincruive as a matter of urgency. I do not think that I have to declare an interest, but I point out to members that I was educated—so they think—at that establishment.
You were educated?
I should say that I received further education at that establishment.
The petition raises an important subject, albeit the petition has been overtaken by events, because—thankfully—the Government has intervened following the members' debate that was secured by my colleague Adam Ingram. That intervention led to the binning of the plans that were proposed by the SAC management and a return to the drawing board, which we all must welcome. The committee should also welcome the information that independent external consultants are to be appointed. Clearly, the original plans were botched by the SAC management and that led to a question mark being put over Auchincruive.
Do you accept that the right time to take evidence will be after the audit has been published, so that we can take a look at all the details?
I assume that there will be a big gap between the publication of the audit and the decision in October. We need to remember that we have the summer recess.
The convener's suggestion is a positive step forward. All the developments have been quite positive. I profoundly disagree with Richard Lochhead. It is not helpful to use terms such as "botched" plans, the "binning" of plans and "debacle". The issues are serious, so we should not use such language.
Does John Scott want to say anything?
It is kind of the convener to let me speak here today. I welcome the comments that colleagues have made and the convener's positive contribution. I also welcome Professor McKelvey's e-mail, which I asked him to send to the committee after my meeting with him yesterday.
I did not mention that—Richard Lochhead did.
I beg your pardon. All the options should be considered and the review should be wide ranging. Nothing should be sacred.
I understand that you met the minister and others at Auchincruive campus yesterday.
That is correct.
Were you given an indication of what the remit of the review might be?
No. Professor McKelvey asked me—rather embarrassingly—whether I would be happy with the proposed evaluation. I said that it was absolutely what is required.
I, too, welcome the review. I was at the meeting of the Public Petitions Committee when the issue was discussed. The review is an exceptionally good idea and shows that people can respond to issues that are raised. I suggest that we note the petition in the meantime and—should we need to—reconsider the petition when the inquiry is completed.
I want to respond to Mike Rumbles. I welcome the e-mail that we received today. Mike emphasised the need for a robust plan, but the point is that the minister thought that we did not have a robust plan, which is why he intervened—I welcome his intervention. That is why the original plan has been binned and we have gone back to the drawing board. I remind Mike that on 21 March, the minister said in the chamber:
I referred to your intemperate language.
There is an opportunity to get the matter right and to develop cross-party support, if the right plans are delivered. I hope that, this time round, the process will be utterly transparent and therefore justifiable and that, provided that the facts are laid out properly, the thought processes will be such that the conclusions that are arrived at will be ones that anybody would arrive at.
One would like to think that the reactions that were provoked in Parliament by the SAC's actions will ensure that that will be the case.
We should mention John Scott's point about the audit's terms of reference.
We could simply indicate that the committee wants the audit to be as thorough and robust as possible and express the hope that the remit will take that into account. As Richard Lochhead pointed out, the minister made it plain that he was pretty dissatisfied with the way in which the issue has been handled so far. Given what he said, and the feelings that were expressed at the recent members' debate and on other occasions, I cannot believe that the audit's remit will be other than thorough. However, I am happy to take on board suggestions from members about how we solidify the point that we want to make.
Forgive me for butting in, convener. I believe that the audit must be as wide ranging as possible.
I assure John Scott that this is not the first time a member has butted in. In our letter to the minister, we can ask for the audit to be as robust and wide ranging as possible. Are members content to accept option A in the paper, which calls on us to note and monitor the situation, and to move on?
I congratulate Mr Campbell on the role that he has played in bringing this issue to our attention from the word go. He has put a great deal of work into it. Mr Campbell is with us today, although—as I explained to him earlier—under standing orders he is not permitted to speak. However, as a good Ayrshire man, he accepted that quite happily. I thank him very much for coming.
Raptors (Licensed Culling) (PE187)
Item 4 is consideration of petition PE187 from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, which calls on the Parliament to allow the limited licensed culling of raptors under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in areas where local populations have increased beyond normal levels. Members have received from the clerks various papers on the petition and a cover note that sets out the background and suggests options for proceeding.
We should take the petition very seriously, especially in the light of our inquiry into integrated rural development. There is no doubt that legitimate field sports—in this case, we are dealing with shooting—provide a great deal of employment and income for rural Scotland. The proliferation of raptors is causing gamekeepers to find that their jobs are under threat. Areas that are managed well by gamekeepers are home to more types of wildlife than areas that are not so managed.
Three options are available to us. I assume that you are suggesting that we choose option C—to take more evidence on the petition, to add to the evidence that has already been taken by the Transport and the Environment Committee.
I support our doing exactly that. Whether people are for or against shooting, there is no doubt that it brings many jobs and a great deal of money to rural Scotland. The current numbers of raptors appear to have reached a very high peak, which is probably the reason why many species, including songbirds, are being decimated.
I seek some information. The cover note says that the Transport and the Environment agreed to write to
It has been invited to join.
We have a letter from SNH that says that the SGA was invited to a meeting in March. However, I have no idea whether the meeting took place or what its outcome was.
Do we know whether the SGA is a member of the moorland working group?
I am afraid that I do not know that.
We know that the association has been invited to join the group. Given that that has been a recent development, I suggest that we simply note the petition and keep an eye on what happens. I acknowledge Jamie McGrigor's comments and the evidence that we received earlier from SNH. However, the issue is far too complicated to be covered by one easy solution. If the SGA becomes part of the moorland forum and gets round the table with other groups, it can think about developing the issues in its petition and find out how the land is managed. After all, it was suggested earlier in the meeting that land management might be the cause of the problem. As a result, we should note the petition and wait and see how the matter develops. It is too soon for us to reopen an inquiry that the Transport and the Environment Committee has just completed.
I would genuinely like to know whether the SGA is a member of the group and whether it is now working together with other organisations. Until we receive that information, we should defer consideration of the petition until a future meeting rather than pursue any of the options set out in the cover note.
That future meeting might be some time away. However, I am not against your suggestion. The question whether the SGA has accepted the invitation to join the forum is a rather important one.
I tend to agree with Rhoda Grant and Mike Rumbles. Although I recognise that legitimate field sports have their place, we should keep the whole matter in perspective. Another parliamentary committee has investigated the matter in a lot of detail. That said, I notice that the moorland forum was set up in March, so perhaps we should find out what it has been doing. Perhaps, if the SGA is now part of the forum, the petition itself has been overtaken.
The letter refers to a meeting in March to which SNH was going to invite the SGA. I have no idea whether the meeting took place.
The SNH letter says:
I think that the moorland working group became the moorland forum. It just changed its name.
Presumably that has evolved since the petition was submitted.
Actually, quite a lot has evolved since the petition was submitted.
Given that fact, I support Rhoda Grant's proposal, with the slight qualification that we receive an updated report as Mike Rumbles suggested.
I cannot remember what Rhoda Grant's proposal was.
I suggested that we should note the petition.
It might also be worth while to invite the SGA to make a submission to the inquiry, as Jamie McGrigor suggested.
Given the time that has elapsed since the petition was put before us, it would do no harm to find out the position of the moorland forum and the SGA's membership of it. Are members content to defer a decision until then?
I have no problem with that.
Right. I am sorry to say that we are deferring the petition yet again. However, the question is important.
Meeting continued in private until 16:39.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation