Special Areas of Conservation (Designation)
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-01532, in the name of Jamie McGrigor, on the designation of special areas of conservation. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with alarm concerns expressed by local communities in the Western Isles regarding procedures and scientific data used by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) for designating special areas of conservation (SAC) in East Mingulay and the Sound of Barra; notes that the concerns were assessed by SNH, which, in the case of the East Mingulay consultation process, deemed them to be unfounded, and notes that the designation process is continuing for both sites, despite continuing local concerns and what it understands to be government-sponsored evidence of substantial economic damage and little quantifiable benefit as a result of SAC status.
17:03
I thank those MSPs who signed my motion, particularly Margo MacDonald and Willie Rennie, whose cross-party support has enabled the debate to take place.
My purpose is to highlight the strongly felt concerns of many constituents about the Barra proposal and the virtually unanimous opposition of Western Isles Council to it. I hope to increase understanding on both sides of the debate, and the focus of my remarks will be on the Barra proposal.
The debate mirrors closely a previous members’ business debate in April 2002 about an earlier attempt to introduce a special area of conservation in the same area. That did not go ahead because it was shown that Scottish Natural Heritage’s evidence was simply wrong, because the number of common or harbour seals was less than the 1 per cent of the national seal population that was then required to justify such a designation.
However, with no apparent explanation or justification, the proposed designation of Barra was never taken off the table. It has now been resurrected with extended boundaries and with different and additional goalposts: namely, the sandbanks containing maerl beds, and the reefs, which were not previously deemed to be important enough to merit designation.
SNH’s consultation document states that the proposed Sound of Barra designation would represent 0.1 to 0.4 per cent of the overall total of United Kingdom sandbanks, 0.7 per cent of the overall total UK common seal population and a mere 0.07 per cent of the overall total UK reef resource. By any standards, those are very low percentages.
In 2007, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee assessed the Minches and west Scotland regional sea as not requiring
“any additional areas for sandbanks/reefs for possible inclusion”
in SACs.
With regard to seals, SNH states:
“Harbour seals are widespread in the outer Hebrides”,
and yet the seal population in the Sound of Barra is low, unstable and not fully understood.
With regard to reefs, the JNCC stated in 2009 that the Sound of Barra
“contains similar reef types to other sites in this regional”
area.
With regard to sandbanks, SNH fails to give any supporting data for its assertion that they are “in good condition”; fails to acknowledge that they are continually in motion, as the local fishermen well know; and concedes that what little maerl remains alive is often sparsely distributed, which is not the case everywhere in Scotland.
All of that, and the lack of robust scientific supporting data, feeds into local concerns that the Sound of Barra proposal is being singled out in order to avoid somebody losing face. It is telling that the consultation response of the widely respected and independent Scottish Association for Marine Science twice notes that the Sound of Barra data is
“limited and the references sparse”.
Detailed concerns about the scientific basis for the proposal have been identified in Ian Mitchell’s comprehensive paper, which was commissioned jointly by the Western Isles Council and the Mallaig & North West Fishermen’s Association.
Surely, if we agree that decisions should be evidence based, SNH should have made an appropriate and thorough assessment of all other marine sites to ensure that the Sound of Barra genuinely is such an important location and the best one. That simply has not taken place, which is what concerns so many of my constituents.
SAMS has stated:
“This is not the only area of maerl worthy of consideration: the Sound of Harris is another excellent site and ... a comparative study”
should be done
“of the pros and cons of the two sites.”
Does the minister agree that Ian Mitchell’s report appears to reveal collusion between Marine Scotland and SNH over reclassifying the designation so that the Barra sandbanks were upgraded to fit the criteria? If so, does he agree that that is unethical? SNH is meant to be an independent advisory body to the Government, and Marine Scotland is a tool of the Government
I will touch on the impact of an SAC on the local economy. The Scottish Government-commissioned Halcrow report in 2010 suggested that the closure of the proposed SAC to mobile fisheries gear operators would result in a loss of landings worth £121,000 per annum. However, industry feedback suggests that that is a gross underestimate of the value of the shellfish. Those sectors support a significant number of jobs both at sea and in onshore processing, and are a crucial part of the fragile economy of Barra, Uist and Harris.
What angers local fishermen is the total lack of evidence that existing fishing activity has contributed to a deterioration in any of the marine features that SNH says are already in good condition. Scallop fishermen know better than to draw their gear over rocks and risk losing it, and—at the very least—information from existing scallop vessels should be incorporated into designation assessment in order to retain existing scallop activity.
Despite assurances that have been given about fishing interests, the minister should be aware of the impact that such a designation may have on creel fishermen in Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland, as reported in last week’s Fishing News. Despite the assurances that were given beforehand, the European Union is demanding ever more restrictions there. There are also concerns about the impact that designations might have on possible future renewables developments pertaining to the island of Barra.
Constituents have asked me to raise their concerns about the way in which SNH has gone about consulting the community and local interests. One constituent e-mailed me this week, imploring me to emphasise today
“how bitter and disenfranchised we feel in regards to the whole so-called ‘consultation process’”.
He went on to criticise
“the so-called experts from SNH who come to Barra and in public meetings cannot give answers on the very subject they are supposed to be expert on.”
SAMS has expressed concern at the approach that has been taken and at the SNH consultation document, which
“pays little regard to future management strategies and stakeholder interests”,
regretting the “polarisation” that has occurred and noting that
“suspicion and distrust is exacerbated by the lack of transparency.”
That must be a concern for all of us, and lessons should be learned.
The same things were said in the 2002 debate. For example, Fiona McLeod of the SNP said:
“SNH is not alone in being a public body that is not good at consultation”.
I repeat some comments that I made in my debate in 2002, which are just as valid today:
“It is ... vital that the needs and concerns of local people in areas of proposed designations are taken into consideration. The people who live and work the land and get their feet muddy are the people who know the environment best. In many cases, they are the reason that the species are there. They are the people who have been protecting the land and the wildlife for centuries, and who will make or break the protection.”—[Official Report, 18 April 2002; c 8088, 8082.]
In a letter to me, the chairman of SNH, Andrew Thin, said that
“an erroneous impression has been promulgated locally to the effect that designation will prevent local fishermen and others from continuing with activities that currently take place within the designated area.”
Local people in Barra and the Western Isles are still worried and feel that their views are simply being ignored by the Scottish Government. I hope that the minister will remedy that, as the minister did in 2002, and look closely again at all the evidence before submitting the area for designation.
I call on the minister to assure me that he will give timely notice to the people of Barra and the Western Isles before he makes any decision, so that they can begin to make plans for their future livelihoods and income streams should those in any way be strangled by the designation.
17:12
There is no disputing the strength of feeling in Barra, Eriskay and Uist about marine special area of conservation designations. That was expressed at the time of the east Mingulay consultation and it is being expressed again about the Sound of Barra. Although I am bound by collective responsibility once decisions have been made, this one has not yet been made and, as a constituency MSP, it is my duty—until and unless a decision is made—to make clear what my constituents feel, as I have done for some years.
The process around the designations, which are driven by the EU habitats directive, has given rise to expressions of enormous concern in Barra. In its dealings with SNH, the community feels that its economic concerns are being ignored. It is important that the minister tells us tonight, for instance, how he intends to protect scallop dredging not just in the short term, but for future generations. Above all, my constituents have expressed a strong feeling of grievance at a process that legally considers only scientific questions, not economic ones. In that context, it is worth stressing that the very existence of a pristine environment is down to the fact that generations of islanders have treated their environment responsibly.
Some limited progress has been made. Most recently, I pointed out successfully to SNH that my constituents felt that it was ludicrous for SNH to include the Tràigh Mhòr in the proposals—an area that contains none of the designated habitats or species but which includes the island’s lifeline airport. I am happy to say that SNH has changed that element of its plans. A concerted campaign by the community—some of whom are in the public gallery today—has led, over time, to SNH unusually publishing in advance advice that it would offer about the management of any MSAC in the Sound of Barra. That would now include undertakings for there to be no impact on creel fishing and that demersal trawling could continue away from the most sensitive habitats. However, in the mind of the community that raises the question of what, in any practical sense, the MSAC is meant to achieve in a community that has legitimate concerns about its economic future.
Some of the language in the motion is rather less apolitical than might be expected in a members’ business debate. The accusation of “government-sponsored ... damage” to the people of Barra—in relation to an issue that was first raised by a Government 10 years ago—is so partisan that a response might be necessary.
The interest that some members have shown in supporting the cause stands in marked contrast with their record on the issue. For example, of the 27 responses to the consultation on the east Mingulay designation, only three came from political figures, who were the local MP, local councillor Donald Manford and me. All those responses said, as the member who lodged the motion just said, that it is no secret that the relationship between the community involved and SNH has broken down.
The MSAC designation that is proposed in the Sound of Barra has provoked strong feelings in the area. I hope that proposals such as that for a fish farm in the sound provide evidence that investment in the area will continue, but people in Barra have frequently questioned why we have a legal framework for designations that is—from the point of view of somebody who lives in Barra—inflexible and illogical.
I take part in the debate as the constituency MSP who represents Barra. From my many meetings with fishermen, crofters and others, I know the strength of their feelings, which I record again today.
17:16
I congratulate Jamie McGrigor on securing the debate and I welcome the representatives from the community of Barra who are in the public gallery.
As Jamie McGrigor said, the issue has been long running and has created a great deal of disquiet in the community. It is clear that SNH made up its mind about the Barra designation from the outset, but it failed to make the case to the community or scientifically. Throughout the process, it has moved the goalposts and cited different reasons for designation when it has failed to make the case.
SNH has said that the designation will not impact on the fishing industry, but it has also said that designation could limit static-gear fishing effort and will require some types of fishing activity to be prohibited in more sensitive parts of the site. To be frank, SNH has lost touch with the community and has lost its trust.
SNH has not acted openly. It has given the constituency MSP and MP information but has failed to brief regional members. That gives the impression that it might have something to hide, which is not helpful in the debate.
SNH has failed to make the case to the local council, which objected to the designation on scientific and socioeconomic grounds. The scientific grounds for the designation are the protection of common seals, sandbanks that are slightly covered by seawater all the time and reefs.
Back at the beginning of the process, the common seal was the primary reason for the designation, but the seals have left, which is possibly because of the building of the Eriskay causeway—and SNH hid even that until it was pulled out by a freedom of information request. Back in 2000, the sandbanks were not considered sufficiently important to justify designation but, when seal numbers plummeted, they became crucial to the designation. To designate on that basis, other sites must be examined, after which the best is designated. No comparisons with other sites have been made, so the proposed designation is at odds with the European legislation. The reefs in the proposed area are not unique. Many similar types of reefs have been designated, so further designation is not required. The science does not hold up.
The council objected to the designation on socioeconomic grounds, because the islanders in Barra alone stand to lose earnings of about £800,000 per annum, and an additional 27 jobs are at risk in Uist. The figures all depend on the fishing industry and take no account of the potential for wave and tidal renewables, once those technologies are developed. It is recognised globally that the west coast of the Western Isles will be one of the main sites for wave and tidal power once we have the technology to harness that power.
It is widely understood that the Western Isles has a challenged economy. It has been a priority area for Highlands and Islands Enterprise for many years, and the jobs that I mentioned are crucial to the survival of the islands. The people who live there know that—that is why they would never do anything that would damage their fishing industry. For generations, they have looked after their natural heritage, and SNH is arrogantly overlooking that knowledge. Designation has to be an open process that must start with engaging the communities who have looked after that natural heritage over the years. They must have ownership of the process. It is very clear that that has not happened with the Barra designation.
It is also clear that SNH has not been open and honest with the community. For that reason, as much as any other that I have talked about tonight, the process must stop now. The minister must ensure that there is a full investigation into what has gone wrong and that no other community is treated in the same way.
In many such places, the most endangered species are the people who live there. They are forced to guard their natural heritage. I hope that the minister will give the community some comfort tonight.
17:21
I thank Jamie McGrigor for securing the debate and support him and the other members who have built a reasoned case around their concerns and the concerns of the local community.
Jamie McGrigor raised three points that I will address. To some extent, the independence of SNH is at the core of the debate, in terms of how the issue has been handled. When the SNP Government came into being in the previous session, Mr Russell, who was then in the seat that Mr Stevenson now occupies, made much of declaring in this Parliament that he would bring together all the external agencies, including SNH, to operate as a whole—that was absolutely Government policy. I am sure that Jamie McGrigor is aware that the idea that SNH operates as an independent agency came to an end when Mr Russell made that statement, changing the relationship between those agencies and the Government.
Jamie McGrigor made a point about Marine Scotland that is important in understanding the concerns of the community that we are speaking about tonight and others across rural Scotland. Marine Scotland is not some separate Government agency; it is part of Mr Stevenson’s department. Mr Stevenson can shake his head, but that is a fact.
I was not shaking my head.
I concede that the minister was not shaking his head. He was looking quizzical—I will leave it at that.
As any whitefish trawlerman will say, Marine Scotland is the Government and delivers Government policy. It is important to recognise that.
I have a lot of sympathy for Dr Allan. I appreciate how difficult these issues are for ministers who are constituency members. I must confess that I always thought that the convention was that, if a Government minister did not agree with the Government, they had to go. However, if Dr Allan has found a way of describing the issue that we are talking about as a decision rather than a policy, I can only applaud that. That was not an option that was open to some of us previously. If that is now how the Government operates, it is different from what has happened in the past.
I commend to members Lesley Riddoch’s compelling piece in Monday’s Scotsman. On the principles of government, she wrote:
“In top-down Scotland ... Barra folk will only see the consultation written ‘on their behalf’ after a ministerial decision has been made.”
That encapsulates what is wrong with the way in which such decisions are made. I hope that ministers will reflect on the views of the communities and individuals who are deeply concerned about how top-down such nature designation is. The fact that the situation has been going on for as long as Jamie McGrigor has described is indicative of the problems with that approach.
Jamie McGrigor mentioned another strong point. The Scottish Association for Marine Science, which is based in Dunstaffnage, has looked into the human ecology and socioeconomic concerns and has said that they can lawfully be considered under the European Union habitats directive. To pick up the points that were made by Jamie McGrigor, Rhoda Grant and Dr Allan, those of us who are concerned about other developments—salmon farming, mussel farming, shellfish farming, whitefish trawling and all the other marine activities that take place, to say nothing of the renewables industry that will continue to develop in all our constituencies and areas in the coming years—believe that it is vital that the EU habitats directive is used in that way. I hope that, when he winds up, the minister will give us some comfort by saying that, instead of using the EU directive to impose designations on communities around Scotland, he and his department will interpret it in a way that will enable them to take into account the socioeconomic factors that island and rural members are well aware of.
Finally, I want to pick up on the point that Dr Allan made—if I caught him right; I will stand corrected if I caught him wrong—about the proposals being the only ones from his Government for further marine designations. I fear that that is not the case. There are others. I know of some that the Scottish Government is introducing in my part of Scotland, as I have a letter from the chief executive of Scottish Natural Heritage. SNH is proposing a new network of marine nature designations around Scotland’s coastline. I will quote from its chief executive’s letter.
I would be grateful if you would quote from it quickly, Mr Scott.
I will finish on this point. The chief executive of SNH referred to
“a project being led by Marine Scotland”.
I hope that the minister will reflect on that and ensure that, when he deals with the issue, he will deal with all the other issues that are coming in other areas of Scotland.
17:26
There is no doubt that effective engagement is essential when decisions are being made that may impact on a community’s use of its local environment, and I am in no doubt that SNH must do better in that regard with the community in Barra. It is crucial that authorities work with communities, involve them fully in the decision-making process, and explain why they are proposing action and how to influence decisions. SNH has certainly scored a must-try-harder mark on community engagement.
However, SAC designation decisions must ultimately be made according to the criteria that are laid out in the habitats directive—and those criteria alone. That is the case for a very good reason: the interests of industry and big business have run roughshod over the conservation requirements of our natural environment for too long. I accept that those are not the circumstances that are faced in Barra, but the principle remains correct. Decisions on whether to protect our priceless natural assets must be based first and foremost on the needs of the environment. As we are all aware, we rely on a healthy environment for a productive economy.
Once it has been decided that a site requires protection, decisions that relate to how it will be managed must be made. In making those decisions, how the area is used must be considered. Local communities are absolutely central to those decisions and discussions. It must be stressed that designation does not mean a no-take or a no-go zone—far from it. However, it does mean that activities that risk harming the features will be managed.
The case for protecting the two sites is beyond doubt. Mingulay is home to the only example of Lophelia pertusa in United Kingdom waters—potentially even in European Union inshore waters. As Scottish Environment LINK has highlighted, its being inshore means that it is subject to completely unique conditions, which makes it incomparable with any examples that are found in deeper water. The reefs shelter and support more than 400 different species, including commercially important fish and shellfish.
The same can be said for the maerl and sea grass habitats in the Sound of Barra. It is simply not correct to suggest that SNH sought out other features to compensate for the decline in seal numbers. The Sound of Barra contains the largest maerl beds in the UK. In and of itself, that should justify SAC designation. By protecting those habitats, we will also help to ensure that the fish that rely on them can thrive, and help to secure the future of a sustainable fishing industry in the area, which we all want.
Those relatively rare habitats are incredibly fragile. Just one pass of a dredge could cause irreparable damage to the reefs. If the Lophelia were damaged, it would be lost for ever. There is no getting away from the fact that bottom-contact gear would have to be restricted around those features, but I cannot imagine that there is any trawling or dredging near the reefs anyway because of the risk of gear damage. It is common practice to zone the restrictions of activities within sites. That does not necessarily mean that all bottom trawling would be banned within the SACs; it would simply be restricted around the most sensitive parts of the site.
Furthermore, there is no intention to restrict creeling, pelagic or dived fisheries, which make up by far the biggest economy in the sound. There is surely a workable compromise that will respect both the natural environment and the community of Barra's relationship with those two areas.
I completely understand the concerns of fragile and remote communities such as those on Barra about their future. That is why I support the designations of the Sound of Barra and east Mingulay. Designation of protected areas on land and sea is about protecting our assets for future generations. Without a healthy and well-functioning marine environment, we directly jeopardise the future of our island communities.
17:30
It is very important that public bodies and, indeed, politicians are held to account, so I am grateful to my colleague, Jamie McGrigor, for securing the debate.
In many respects, this is a highly technical matter, but in other respects it is not. I have called on a number of briefing papers, one of which was sent to me by Scottish Environment LINK, which tells me that it has a
“broad spectrum of environmental interests”—
30 in total—
“with the common goal of contributing to a more environmentally sustainable society”.
It says that it understands that SACs are “ecologically coherent” and that
“decisions must be based solely on features ... of the Habitat Directive”.
It is not in dispute that the reefs are important habitats for important species, with more than 400 having been identified during the survey. One of those species is a very iconic Scottish species: Homo sapiens—the native islander. It is clear that the islanders, who have been in touch in some numbers, have great frustrations about the process. I understand that strength of feeling. As a regional MSP, when I am in receipt of matters, I clarify them with the constituency MSP, so I record my thanks to Dr Alasdair Allan for his work behind the scenes. He made the case that designation is unnecessary; that view is shared by local people and the council. As is apparent to all, the European designation process is flawed, because it allows for scientific but not economic concerns to be discussed.
I found the briefing papers to be fascinating, with some interesting phrases that I had not come across before, such as “displacement of fishing effort”. I doubt that displacement of the fishing effort will be matched by displacement of the fish following the fishing effort.
We can give a cautious welcome to the advice that was provided to ministers that an SAC will be administered on a basis that minimised the impact on fisheries, but we need much more information on that. I join my colleague, Dr Allan, in seeking further assurances on the protection of scallop dredging and undertakings in relation to creel fishing. We have heard about the inconsistency between the damage to equipment and the reality for people fishing in the area. I welcome the removal of the area around the airport and identify myself with the comments of Rhoda Grant about the possible implications for renewables.
How many of the 30 members of Scottish Environment LINK who are strong proponents of the proposal have spoken to the good folk of Barra or given any consideration to the main indigenous species during the process? History will record that we in the Highlands and Islands have a history of men coming in from outwith the area and telling us what is good for us, and sadly that organisation has fallen into that category too often in recent years. Indeed, it can be seen as frustrating the “environmentally sustainable society” that it purports to support.
As I said, it is very important that we have confidence in our public bodies, and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say about that.
17:34
I am happy to contribute to this debate about an issue of great concern to many people. People from Barra, some of whom have joined us in the chamber this evening, have been in the Parliament today to make their concerns heard, and it is right that they are heard in the chamber. I recognise the strength of feeling of many local MSPs who have expressed their concerns about the proposal to designate.
I say at the outset that it is important that we designate protected areas to protect our unique wildlife and natural environment and make our contribution to the Natura 2000 network of conservation sites across the European Union. Our most significant sites must be given the fullest protection.
Many factors must be taken into consideration when proposing designations, and they can include different perspectives on what is the best way forward. Often, what is presented in good faith as sound scientific evidence rubs against a local need for economic development and growth. Of course, those things are not always mutually exclusive. However, in the case of the Sound of Barra, it is becoming increasingly difficult to reach agreement between community interests and SNH. The evidence from Western Isles Council challenges the evidence from SNH, and we now need to find a way forward.
I appreciate the pressures that the minister faces in making the final decision on the designation. In 2009, the European Commission found that the United Kingdom sites that contribute towards the Natura 2000 network fail to protect an adequate proportion of sandbanks, reefs and harbour seals. The network must be completed by the end of this year and, if further special areas of conservation are not designated this year, the Scottish Government may be subject to infraction proceedings and face a substantial fine.
However, we need to have confidence that the designation is right. It will be for the minister to make that call. Local members have been right to raise their concerns about the process and the evidence that has been provided, but we must now focus on a way forward.
The minister could reject the designation, but then we would be in danger of not meeting our Natura 2000 obligations. He could press ahead with the designation, but previous experience has shown that designations work best when the community buys into the decision—in some cases, even actively pursues it—because it appreciates the socioeconomic benefits that could be gained and supports the changes.
That is currently not the case in Barra. Given the strength of feeling that we have witnessed today, it will be difficult to build bridges if the decision is forced on to the community. My colleague Rhoda Grant has suggested a halt in the process to allow for a full and thorough investigation, and it would be helpful to hear the minister’s views on that. The minister can avoid addressing these questions this evening. The public consultation on Barra has just concluded and I am not sure whether he has yet received the report. However, he can be in no doubt about the tensions that exist.
Whatever the outcome, it would be constructive for us to reflect on whether the process for designation is right and fit for purpose. SNH has come in for a lot of criticism this evening, but is that partly due to the role that it must play in the process? It prepares the scientific case for the minister and then carries out the public consultation. Perhaps we need to reflect on what can be learned from the experience in Barra to improve accountability and engagement in future designations.
I look forward to hearing the minister’s remarks.
17:37
I will start by acknowledging some important points. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about people in Barra—Homo sapiens—seeking to protect their economic and environmental interests. In that regard, I acknowledge the substantial contribution to informing the debate that the local MSP, Dr Alasdair Allan, has made. Barra residents Angus Brendan McNeil and Donald Manford have also been in touch with me, as have others.
That leads me to an issue that may perplex some people. I assure members that SNH provides advice but, as Claire Baker correctly said, the minister decides. I do not necessarily have the free hand that some people might wish me to have, but I have the power to protect local interests. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall exercise that power in the following way.
If—for the avoidance of doubt, I said “if”—I designate the Sound of Barra, my objective is to do so when three conditions are fulfilled. First, I will invite local interests to participate in the development of a management plan that has the objective of protecting those interests. In particular, it should maintain a sustainable scallop fishery, the existence of which has, over many years, influenced the local environment such that it is optimised for that activity. The second condition is that any such management plan provides a continuing role for local interests in management of the area. Thirdly and necessarily, any package of proposals has to conform to European Commission rules.
Members might ask what I mean by “local interests”. I recognise that that term must include local fishing interests, local fish processing interests and local environmental and community interests.
I spoke in the debate on the issue that took place 10 years ago. Does the minister accept that the problem remains the same? Plus ça change. It is not that anyone doubts that there is a need for a designation; the issue is the manner in which the process is gone about. That is what needs to be addressed, and the Government agencies need to be held to account by ministers in that regard.
I will say more on that, because I do not reject the point that is being made.
I am asking my officials to bring forward proposals that address the issue of management, so it is vital that local fishing interests engage in the process that I have just described.
In the limited time that is available to me, I would like to respond to a few of the points that members have made. Jamie McGrigor mentioned the Halcrow report. It is worth saying that the value of identifying potential impacts is that it informs the decision of this Government and this minister and enables me to be aware of the need to safeguard vital services, and to ensure that there is a thriving local economy.
It is worth saying that there are some things in the consultation that might be of interest. The Sound of Barra is referred to on page 14 of the consultation, which shows that the significant impact of the Eriskay causeway has not been reflected in damage to the environment in relation to things such as reef. I had not heard about the issue for creel fishermen in Strangford Lough—I will follow that up after the debate—although I have examples of places in Scotland where we do not appear to have such problems.
Alasdair Allan said that we have to work on the basis of scientific rather than economic issues. Tavish Scott said that economic issues can be part of the decision-making process, but they cannot form part of the scientific advice. However, I can, of course, consider economic issues, and members can be assured that I will so do. I smiled at the mention of Marine Scotland simply because it is my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment who looks after that organisation rather than me. Ministers are responsible, and that is absolutely correct.
It is some time before I expect to receive the report. When I do, I will consider it.
I want to address the point that John Scott and others have made. I fully accept that relations between SNH and local people have broken down. I cannot allow that situation to endure, but I recognise that it will not be possible to fix it quickly. Rebuilding trust will extend well beyond the resolution of the issue that is currently before us. Part of that process will involve my officials being party to more of the discussions. However, it is necessary to avoid an extended period of reflection on what has been. We must focus on what happens next.
One issue that has exercised the Barraich has been the limitation—which derives from EU law and court judgments, not from SNH’s preferences—that, when considering possible SAC designations, only environmental issues can be considered. That has caused huge angst—even at a substantial distance, I have felt the intense frustration that it has caused for those who are concerned, quite properly, about economic impacts.
The good news is that, in considering the management of SACs, the Government’s view is that we should take account of economic factors. The law permits that. Indeed, in certain cases, an adverse environmental impact may be contemplated when there are “Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest”—that is a quote from the relevant directive.
Will the minister take on board the fact that windows of economic opportunity are not an overburdening factor in the Western Isles? Windows of economic opportunity must be grabbed, not thrown away.
I wish that we all had four hands to grab them with. In the relatively brief meeting that I was able to have with the people from Barra who are with us tonight, I committed to have further engagement on economic issues, so I am on song with the member’s point.
I take the opportunity to thank those who have travelled here, at no minor expense, to listen to the debate and to meet me. I trust that they feel that, although there is a distance to travel on the issue, the minister has been listening to the MSP for the Western Isles, to this debate and to people beyond. I ask the people from Barra, when they go back there, to highlight that the minister has visited Barra many times over a 30-year period. I absolutely understand, and I am committed to ensuring the economic viability of the island both now and in the future. We need to work together—in the Parliament, but more fundamentally with local people on Barra—to deliver on that commitment, and we need to rebuild trust.
Meeting closed at 17:45.