Plenary, 15 Nov 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, November 15, 2001

Official Report 658KB pdf

---

Scotland's Natural Heritage

We move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion S1M-2444, in the name of Ross Finnie, on the Executive's vision for the protection and promotion of Scotland's natural heritage. There are two amendments to the motion.

Scotland's nature is at the heart of what makes our country special. If we diminish it, we diminish our quality of life and our nation's future. That is why earlier this year we published our policy statement "The Nature of Scotland". We wanted to set out our vision for the protection and promotion of our natural heritage. We consulted widely on the policy statement. The huge response proved how many of Scotland's people share our vision. We want to build on that support in taking the proposals forward.

In "The Nature of Scotland" we recognised that our natural heritage is the fruit of many centuries of human stewardship. That wise stewardship needs to continue if natural interests are to be safeguarded for future generations. The pressures are increasing. We are committed to supporting and rewarding those who care for Scotland's natural heritage, but at the same time, we shall enable effective, hard-hitting action against those who seek to damage or diminish the natural wealth that is Scotland's greatest asset.

That action will include new legislation. We announced recently that we intend to produce legislative proposals at an early opportunity and a draft bill will be published as soon as possible. We are committed to protection of our land in a way that reflects the interests of those who use it and those who live on it.

Many members will welcome the intention to legislate to introduce prison sentences for those convicted of serious wildlife crime offences. Will such legislation be introduced in this Parliament before 2003?

I reiterate that we are committed to drafting the bill to introduce those changes, and we will introduce the bill as soon as possible. It is important that we get the draft bill out for consultation. We are committed to doing that as soon as possible.

We are proposing new powers for Scottish Natural Heritage to prevent damage and deterioration to sites of special scientific interest. The SSSI system has served Scotland well, but reform is needed to introduce a system that will serve Scotland better. On those occasions when it is necessary, SNH will be able to refuse consent for activities that will damage SSSIs. We will provide a new appeals mechanism for anyone aggrieved by a refusal and we will ensure that a fair compensation system is in place.

Will the minister give way?

Not just now.

Land managers will be compensated if refusal of consent inhibits the established management of their land, but we will no longer countenance claims for the refusal of damaging new projects. The detail of the proposals is being worked out with assistance from a wide variety of interested parties. Their support has convinced us that the measures we propose are fair.

We are also proposing tough new measures against those criminals whose selfish actions deprive us all of the opportunity to enjoy some of our most special wildlife. In the 21st century we can no longer tolerate the 19th century practices of poisoning or shooting birds of prey or the stealing of birds' eggs. We have proposed new powers to allow the police to detect wildlife crime and new powers for the courts to impose stiffer penalties for those guilty of acts of wildlife crime. Those include the option of custodial sentences.

We received many constructive ideas about how to take forward the proposals contained in "The Nature of Scotland". To help to forge those ideas into practical measures, the Executive has established an expert working group involving land managers, conservationists, public bodies and others. I am pleased to report that the group is achieving a high degree of consensus on how the proposed measures should be implemented. We will be using the work of the group to help us to draft legislation, and to develop the supporting policies that we announced in "The Nature of Scotland".

Legislation is for the future and is only part of the story. Much is being done now to protect and promote Scotland's natural heritage.

The minister mentioned legislation on wildlife crime and she mentioned SSSIs. Will she address the issue of national scenic areas, which are our equivalent of areas of outstanding natural beauty down south, which urgently require statutory provision?

Yes. Of course that is taken into consideration. We need to adopt an integrated approach to the future of Scotland's natural heritage. Much is being done to protect and promote Scotland's natural heritage. As is made clear in "The Nature of Scotland", the Executive is committed to that integrated package of policies and incentives to help people to manage the natural heritage.

We have used the SSSI system to fulfil our international responsibilities. The European Union habitats and birds directives govern our contribution to the Natura 2000 network of European protected areas. Special protection areas for birds and special areas of conservation for habitats and species listed in the habitats directive are normally protected through the SSSI system.

Those international interests are all around us—from the common terns that nest around the cranes in the Port of Leith to the corncrake that breed in the Hebrides and the geese that feed in the fields across Scotland. Some of our typically Scottish habitats, such as the machair of the Western Isles and our bogs and heather moorland, are unrivalled anywhere else in Europe. To protect those species and habitats of international importance, we have as of today designated 131 special protection areas and proposed 221 special areas of conservation in Scotland.

Will the minister comment on the effect of global warming on habitats for rare species such as the capercaillie or for upland species such as the ptarmigan?

I assure the member that we are aware of the potential impact of global warming on species such as the capercaillie and the ptarmigan. As the member also will be aware, through our climate change programme we are seeking to mitigate the potential effects of climate change on Scotland. The member probably heard on the radio yesterday that a great deal of work is being done in that area. The Scottish Executive is involved in advancing projects to protect the capercaillie. The member will recognise that a variety of factors are contributing to the decline of the capercaillie. We are contributing to programmes to remove deer fences and to other measures to protect that species.

Will the minister give way?

If Fergus Ewing does not mind, I will move on.

"A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture" highlights the need for a joined-up approach to agriculture and environment policy. We are developing those policies in partnership with the farming industry and the environmental sector, and have set up an agriculture and environment working group, which will report to ministers next year.

A number of agri-environment schemes support environmentally friendly farming. The rural stewardship scheme gives priority to plans that focus on the effective management of farmed environments that are important for biodiversity and protected areas.

Will the minister give way?

If Robin Harper does not mind, I wish to get to the end of my speech.

The Executive's funding of agri-environment schemes, including the rural stewardship scheme, is continuing on a rising trend, and will increase from £22 million this year to £37 million per year by 2006.

But we are not talking only about land. Our marine heritage is also subject to growing pressure from pollution and over-exploitation of fish stocks. We are committed to the sustainable management of our seas and coastlines, and our contributions to the forthcoming reform of the common fisheries policy will reflect that commitment. We are currently involved with our UK partners in a review of marine nature conservation, and shall study carefully the implications of that review for Scotland.

Protected areas are equally important in the marine environment. We have recommended marine special areas of conservation in inshore waters for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network and are expecting scientific advice on the classification of special protection areas for birds. We will be in the forefront of applying the habitats directive in offshore waters. The recently discovered cold-water corals of the Darwin mounds between Shetland and the Faroe islands are likely to become part of the first UK special area of conservation beyond 12 nautical miles. We are conscious of the need to work with those who earn their living from the marine environment. There is local involvement in management fora to care for marine sites. In addition, we have benefited from financial support from the EU LIFE fund.

The proposals in "The Nature of Scotland" go beyond protected areas. Biodiversity—the variety of all living things—is an essential resource for sustainable development and a measure of success in delivering sustainability. Much has already been achieved for biodiversity through the Scottish biodiversity group. That broad-based working partnership involves the Executive, its agencies, local government, voluntary bodies, land users and the business sector. Partnership is, once again, the key feature. The Executive cannot deliver their policies without such support, and I take this opportunity to express my respect for the work of the Scottish biodiversity group. It is right that the Executive should set an example, and we have proposed a specific duty on Scottish ministers to have regard to the conservation of biological diversity in the exercise of their functions. That will be included in the new legislation.

Will the minister give way?

The minister is winding up.

Scotland's nature is a national asset, but to maintain that asset requires resources. Scottish Natural Heritage's budget has been increased from £39 million in 1999-2000 to £48.5 million in 2001-02. A substantial part of that increase is intended to allow SNH to enter into more positive management schemes for the benefit of SSSIs and the people who manage them. Last month, I was pleased to launch SNH's natural care programme of management schemes for key habitats and species. The incentives provided by the natural care programme will ensure that more people will benefit from having protected areas on their land.

Our countryside and wildlife already bring great enjoyment to Scotland's people and visitors. Who could fail to be thrilled by the sight of dolphins leaping in the Moray firth or the gannets on the Bass rock? Our countryside and wildlife are assets that already pay dividends. Around 1.25 million tourists from other parts of the UK visit Scotland to participate in mountaineering, climbing and hill walking. That generates £275 million annually for the Scottish economy and it supports almost 10,000 jobs. Clearly the highest standards of wildlife protection go hand in hand with success in attracting tourism.

The natural heritage is also at the heart of our proposals to establish national parks in Loch Lomond, the Trossachs and the Cairngorms. Our investment is for all Scotland's people, their children and their grandchildren. We want everyone to understand why our natural heritage is special and to have the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy it. If we work together for our natural heritage, we will see benefits for all who live in, work in and enjoy our magnificent country.

I move,

That the Parliament supports the Scottish Ministers' intention to come forward with legislative proposals to protect and promote Scotland's natural heritage; notes the widespread support for this proposed reform, and agrees that improved protection of nature requires a combination of new legislation and integrated land use policies and incentives currently being developed by the Executive.

In the document "The Nature of Scotland", published in March—as the minister rightly said—Sam Galbraith said:

"Scotland's nature is at the core of what many of us believe makes our country distinct and special".

He also said:

"Our natural inheritance is in many cases the fruit of many centuries of human stewardship."

How right he was. Proper stewardship of land, rivers, lochs and seas is something that runs deep in the Scottish make-up. It is part of who we are. In Scotland, the royal title of Steward of Scotland has been in use since the 14th century. That reflects a long tradition of guardianship on behalf of the public interest.

I wonder, however, what the previous Stewards of Scotland would think of the actions of today's Government. I can only say to the minister that the lack of commitment shown in the tenor of her speech today explains why she has nothing new to propose to the Parliament in the way of action. Nothing has moved since March and the publication of "The Nature of Scotland"—not one thing.

Would the member like to say what he thought the minister meant when she said "as soon as possible" in her speech?

If Sylvia Jackson looks at the SNP's motion, she will see that we have demanded a timetable. I have heard nothing from the minister about a timetable for action on any of the issues about which she spoke. Although the intention might be in the right place, there is no action in the shape of a timetable for the introduction of a wildlife crime bill or a modernised system of SSSIs, for which the SNP has called in its motion.

If the member is so concerned about wildlife crime, why was it not mentioned in the SNP manifesto in 1999?

I am so concerned about it that I was the only person to mention it during the programme for government debate, unlike any Government minister or back bencher from the Liberal Democrats or the Labour party.

Also missing from the minister's speech is a timetable to give Scottish ministers a specific duty relating to biodiversity.

The Executive is right to say in the motion that there is widespread support for such reforms. It is also true to say that there is support for action, as witnessed by the 10,000-signature petition that calls for wildlife crime legislation. Such legislation is urgent because it is well known that wildlife criminals are targeting Scotland since tougher laws have been implemented in England. Wildlife criminals now view Scotland as a soft touch. It is time that the Executive acted to sort out what Donald Dewar called a national disgrace. There will be great disappointment in many parts of Scotland that no timetable was mentioned today.

The issue of modernising SSSIs is another area where reform is desperately needed. Under the current system of designating SSSIs, wildlife has continued to decline on many protected sites. It is also true that the people who live and work in the countryside are concerned that those designations affect their livelihoods. They await action, not more words.

There is a pressing requirement to introduce a much stronger voice for local communities, local authorities and landowners, to improve consultation with them on the designation and management of SSSIs and to ensure much more open and transparent decision making. Crucially, we need to sweep away much of the time-consuming and confusing bureaucracy, but we do not yet have a timetable for doing that.

Those matters were glaring omissions from the recently announced programme for government and nothing has changed today. Why is that? I hate to say it, but we told you so. The lack of action was inevitable from the day that Ross Finnie was appointed as Minister for Environment and Rural Development. At that time, we pointed out that—through no fault of his own—Mr Finnie's portfolio was overloaded. We asked how he could be expected to deal with the fishing industry and the catastrophe of foot-and-mouth disease and to guide through two water bills at the same time as taking action on his environmental responsibilities.

The lack of action is visible to everyone in the failure to act on commitments in "The Nature of Scotland". We warned of the potential for conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, those have been only too visible in the decision to give the go-ahead to new genetically modified crop trials at Munlochy or the refusal to concede a public inquiry into the contentious issue of sea cage fish farming. The pending coronation of the new First Minister is the perfect opportunity to correct the wrong and muddle-headed decision to combine portfolios and to ensure that there is a dedicated minister for the environment, who will champion environmental concerns and ensure that the Executive adopts an integrated stewardship approach.

What is stewardship about? At its simplest, stewardship is the notion of entrusting people with the responsibility to care for the community to which they belong, for the land they own and work on and for other living things. The concept also involves a strong culture of pride in the things that are special about Scotland. By necessity, it means Government, individuals, communities and organisations—public and private—taking a pride in Scotland. It means that Government must recognise that, for all to thrive, the nation has a responsibility to live within particular boundaries. Those boundaries need not be onerous for Scotland.

Stewardship simply requires Government and the nation to accept that future generations have a legitimate interest—to ensure that valuable assets that past generations helped to create for us, such as our natural heritage, can be passed on in good order for future generations. It also means that Government must act not only for the good of individuals or organisations, or for its own benefit, but to increase the common good. In recent days, when the press has been full of accusations of cronyism, some quarters would do well to pay heed to that ethos.

Government must also recognise that we might have to accept a reasonable constraint on our freedom to act, but that does not need to mean a welter of new regulation. On the contrary, if a greater sense of individual responsibility, common good and recognition of our mutual obligations can be fostered, there might be fewer requirements for burdensome regulation and legislation.

A stewardship approach by the Executive would inevitably lead to some searching and fundamental questions about whether funds are being used for the common good and about how the decision-making framework can be developed to take account of the interests of future generations and the species with which we share the place that we call Scotland.

I move amendment S1M-2444.2, to leave out from ", and agrees" to end and insert:

"and the many open ended commitments in the policy statement The Nature of Scotland; calls on the Executive to publish a timetable for the introduction of a Wildlife Crime Bill and a modernised system for the protection and management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest; records its concerns over the portfolios of rural development and environment continuing to be the responsibility of the same Minister, and further calls on the Executive to adopt an integrated ‘stewardship' approach to the development and implementation of its policies in regard to the natural heritage and resources of Scotland."

As a farmer and the owner of land that is about to be designated as an SSSI to protect hen-harriers, I must declare an interest.

We must take a broad view. In general terms, I give a qualified welcome to the Executive's proposals that are published in "The Nature of Scotland" and to many of the details that the minister outlined. The document and its proposals will have a far-reaching impact on rural Scotland. Any owner, occupier or manager who is not aware of its existence should get a copy forthwith and read it. The proposals represent the Executive's attempt to address the problems of competing interests in SSSI designation and to extend significant further protection to wildlife. I will deal first with the increased protection of wildlife, as outlined in the document.

The Conservative party, too, welcomes the new proposed powers of increased protection of Scotland's wild birds, animals and plants from wildlife crimes. We welcome particularly the intention to protect the capercaillie more, but we question the wisdom of completely removing deer fencing to do so. We also welcome the new strategy for species reintroduction, but that must be carefully monitored. The long-term impacts must be carefully assessed.

Our disagreement with the Executive is a matter of emphasis in land and sea management, and particularly over the current and new designations of SSSIs, special protection areas, special areas of conservation and national nature reserves. I recognise that the Executive has obligations under various European Union directives to create new SSSIs, SPAs, SACs and NNRs, but I ask that a better balance be struck between the interests of all parties involved. I accept that "The Nature of Scotland" represents a change in the attitude of the Executive and SNH to trying to deliver a more inclusive approach, but that does not go far enough. Owners, occupiers and managers of land will remain unhappy.

"The Nature of Scotland" raises expectations of adequate compensation for SSSI designation, but the detail—if I have understood it correctly—means that little compensation will be paid to managers, occupiers and owners of land. The minister's statement today about the increase in SNH's budget does little to reassure me.

One could not disagree with the motherhood and apple pie principles that Sam Galbraith outlined on 7 March 2001, but the reality is that those who must live with the designations daily and with the restrictions that they impose remain apprehensive, because, as the document says on page 35:

"There should be a stronger voice for local authorities and local communities in the designation and management of SSSIs, balanced with the need to … respect the rights of the owners and occupiers of the land."

Owners and occupiers do not know what that means. How will the phrase "local communities" be defined? Who will have the final say on the desire on which all agree—

"to secure the protection of Scotland's most important nature sites"?

There is the rub. Ultimately, the designations—the protection of our precious habitats—cannot be delivered by decree alone. SNH and the Government must secure the full co-operation and commitment of owners and occupiers. The proposals do not adequately address the need to recognise that a burden is being imposed on owners and occupiers without compensation being paid, in many cases.

"The Nature of Scotland" also says:

"There will be increased resources to provide incentives for the positive management of SSSIs".

I thought that ministers might have said this, but I will do it for them. The document says:

"We will end claims for large compensation payments"

and that the Executive will consult site owners. I struggle to find the difference between the Conservatives' amendment and many statements in "The Nature of Scotland".

If the member had listened to the debate, he would have heard that I am talking about a difference in emphasis.

I am talking about the Conservatives' amendment.

I thank Bruce Crawford for his intervention, but I will continue. The EU habitats directive is at odds with human rights legislation. Although the proposals represent a move in the right direction, I still do not believe that they adequately address the conundrum.

The proposals also do not recognise that the management and conservation practices of the past delivered what is regarded today as so worthy of protection. They do not recognise that only thriving businesses can deliver environmental enhancement and protection. Social and economic factors are not sufficiently regarded in the proposals. However, the proposals recognise that global warming, to which Nora Radcliffe referred, may render the whole strategy ineffective.

The proposals represent a desire to freeze-frame the situation and stop it from evolving organically as it did over generations and centuries.

Please wind up.

The proposals do not acknowledge that the rural stewardship scheme, which I understand will finance the proposals, is significantly underfunded.

Will the member give way?

Yes.

I am sorry, Mr Canavan, but Mr Scott is winding up and will have to continue.

We accept the broad principle of the strategy, but despite the more conciliatory tone, we do not believe that it goes far enough to achieve the full co-operation of those who will have to deliver it daily. That is why we lodged our amendment, which I urge the chamber to accept.

I move amendment S1M-2444.3, to leave out from "and promote" to end and insert:

"Scotland's wildlife and welcomes their proposals to promote and continue to protect Scotland's natural heritage; recognises the conservation practices of previous generations; supports the need for an overall balance to be struck which recognises the needs of local communities, land owners, occupiers, managers and conservationists alike, and urges Scottish Natural Heritage to take more account of local interests and knowledge and to consult more widely before designating further Sites of Special Scientific Interest."

Scotland's wildlife and natural beauty are essential elements of our national identity and culture, and contribute significantly to our economy. It is therefore tragic and unacceptable that mindless persecution of rare species and damage to important natural sites continue. Too little is done in Scotland to punish offenders such as rogue gamekeepers, egg collectors and criminals who trade in protected species, and conversely, too little is done to reward responsible farmers and landowners who manage and protect Scotland's most important sites.

I am pleased, therefore, to speak to a motion that reaffirms the Executive's intention to introduce a bill in line with the proposals outlined in the policy statement "The Nature of Scotland", which was published in March.

Given that the minister said three times that she would introduce a bill as soon as possible, will Nora Radcliffe proceed with her proposed member's bill, to ensure that such proposals are on the timetable for this session?

If I thought that proceeding would bring forward the introduction of such proposals, I would.

The proposals in "The Nature of Scotland" received widespread approval and support, and there was great disappointment that a related bill was not included in the September list of legislation to be dealt with in the next few months.

The proposals have three main strands: maintenance of biodiversity, substantial reforms to the way in which we work with land managers and communities to protect and manage the most special of our natural assets, and new measures for the effective deterrence, detection and punishment of crime against wildlife.

"Action for Scotland's Biodiversity" was published last year. Most local authority areas have local biodiversity plans, and the document, "A Flying Start: Local Biodiversity Action Plans in Scotland", which was published in August 2001, outlines how much is happening throughout Scotland.

An important aspect of local biodiversity action plans is the way in which they have been produced by a wide range of people and organisations working together. If they are to be effective, an even wider range of people must understand what they are, why they are necessary and that everyone must contribute. A big job of awareness raising must be done.

The big three—farming, fishing and forestry—are industries where an impact on the environment is expected and considered. Developers, industry, commerce and private individuals must all be made aware that they are just as important a part of the equation. There are 90,000 species of animals, plants and microbes living in Scotland's land and sea, and they are everywhere—not just in the pretty bits of the countryside. They provide us with food, building materials and medicines; they recycle nutrients and convert carbon dioxide into oxygen.

Are members beginning to feel that they should be more involved in protecting all 90,000 building blocks of our ecosystem? Would they be happier if more were known about how each building block fits into the structure and which are crucial to its continued existence?

We are experiencing the effects of our actions in past decades with global warming. We started that process and do not know how far it will run until we manage—if we do—to slow it and reverse it. Monitoring species as part of biodiversity action planning will give us an idea of what is happening and how we are doing.

As I said, a strong feature of local biodiversity action plans has been the way in which people have worked together to develop them. That way of working—involving local communities and organisations in looking after their own environment—should be extended to how we deal with particularly rare, precious or important parts of the environment. The proposals in "The Nature of Scotland" will do that.

It is intended that we change from paying people not to do things to more positive measures that support people to do things. That is good. Carrots can work well, but sometimes a stick is needed. There have to be sanctions against people who persecute or destroy rare species or who damage precious habitats, whether that is wilfully or recklessly.

Last week, the Transport and the Environment Committee dealt with a statutory instrument that gives the capercaillie greater legal protection. That is very laudable, but what resources are in place to ensure that the legal protection that is given on paper has some force on the ground?

Perhaps we do not take wildlife crimes seriously enough because people do not think that such crime is big business. We should reflect on the fact that it is estimated that crimes involving abuse of wildlife generate a turnover globally of about £2 billion. That represents organised crime on a scale that is second only to the drugs trade. However, the penalties that are imposed on wildlife criminals are derisory. A live falcon can fetch over £5,000 in the middle east or Germany. In the unlikely event that a trapper is caught, prosecuted and convicted, the fine that is imposed ranges from £90 to £150. That is hardly a deterrent.

The falcon would at least be reasonably well treated, but other wildlife might not be so fortunate.

I ask the member to wind up.

Badger baiting continues to go on in Scotland despite badgers being fully protected by the law.

It is time to make the penalties for wildlife crime more realistic. Since the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was passed, penalties in England have been stiffer. Committing a wildlife crime in Scotland is therefore a much more attractive prospect. We need a bill that will tackle crime and which will bring in other measures to protect and promote Scotland's natural heritage. A draft bill is now eagerly anticipated. I hope that that anticipation will be satisfied speedily.

A large number of members wish to take part in the debate, but very little time remains. So that I can try to accommodate all those who wish to speak, I ask members to keep their contributions to three minutes if at all possible.

A current ScotRail Outlook magazine contains no fewer than 19 photographs of Scotland's scenic beauty. I am pleased that at least one of the photographs was taken in my constituency.

Those images of beautiful landscapes, peace and tranquillity are what attract visitors to Scotland. Speakers at a recent meeting of the cross-party group on tourism, convened by Maureen Macmillan, confirmed that view as well as the importance of eco-tourism.

Does Sylvia Jackson agree that, in addition to the growing importance of eco-tourism to the economy of rural and Highlands Scotland, the perception and actuality that Scotland cares for its natural environment is a strong marketing point for Scottish produce, as that helps to create premiums on that produce? If so, that means that the environment plays a caring part in the rural economy.

That is a good point. I plan to talk about salmon later.

In terms of Scottish tourism, Scotland's nature, our natural heritage, and its protection and promotion, are paramount. I speak as one of the members of the cross-party group that presented RSPB Scotland's petition to the Public Petitions Committee in support of "The Nature of Scotland". The petition's 10,000 signatures make it one of the biggest petitions ever submitted in support of Government policy. As the minister said, the response to the consultation process was extremely supportive. The Executive received 225 responses, virtually all of them in support of the proposals in the document.

Why do we need urgent reform? Some points have already been well made by Nora Radcliffe. First, we need it to stop the present persecution of birds of prey, as that continues unabated. More than half the 284 cases of alleged wildlife crime that were reported to RSPB Scotland last year involved birds of prey. England and Wales now has reformed and strengthened wildlife legislation. That has led to sentences such as the three-month prison sentence given to an egg collector by a Liverpool magistrate. Concerned groups, such as the Scottish Raptor Study Groups, fear that egg collectors will come from south of the border to Scotland, as they will find Scotland with its more lax laws an even more attractive target for their activities. As Nora Radcliffe outlined, fines seem to have little effect. I welcome the minister's comments on that point.

Secondly, there is urgent need for reform because, due to neglect or mismanagement, SSSIs continue to deteriorate. As many members have mentioned, a new system is needed.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, as my time is short.

Three points have been raised by the Scottish Wildlife Trust. First, the process of biodiversity action planning needs to be recognised in law. Much work has been done locally, including in Stirling, to develop local biodiversity action plans. BAPs provide an opportunity for community action and ownership and for an approach to be taken that looks at the community as a whole.

I ask the member to wind up.

Secondly, there needs to be a formal recognition of the 3,500 wildlife sites that are recognised by local authorities. A strong argument can be made that local authorities should maintain those sites. Thirdly, as was mentioned by the minister, the bill should address the process of designating marine sites.

In these debates, time is always short, but in summing up I would like to mention that none of the matters that we are debating exists in isolation. Agricultural policy is a key determinant. We have debated the importance of the funding for organic farming and for the rural stewardship scheme, which need to be run separately.

There is also the issue of pollution—

The member must come to a close.

I am particularly pleased that the Transport and the Environment Committee is looking at pollution, with particular regard to fish farming.

Finally, there is a need for cross-department working at the level of the Scottish Parliament.

There is no doubt that we all agree about the objectives that are contained in the Executive document. However, as Nora Radcliffe and Sylvia Jackson said, there is a desperate need for those objectives to be implemented.

The SNP does not disagree with the sentiments that Nora Radcliffe and Sylvia Jackson expressed. Wildlife criminals need to be subject to far more serious sentences. That is the point of the document, and that is what Peter Peacock and Sam Galbraith professed they would do in March. However, when they said that they would introduce legislation, they did not say, "Oh, by the way, we won't actually bring forward legislation until some time after the next election."

The central problem that the Executive faces today is that it has backtracked on the issue. The Executive cannot find time in its legislative programme for a matter that is of grave concern to almost all back benchers in the Executive parties. Members have already heard two of them arguing for legislation to be introduced. However, when I intervened during the minister's speech, she manifestly failed to put any time scale on the introduction of legislation.

The Executive motion is vacuous, nebulous and unclear. Its purpose is clear—it is to let the Executive off the hook. The Executive plans to do nothing until after the election. The purpose of the Parliament is to hold the Executive to account and, such is the feeling on the back benches, I do not think that it will get away with that. I wait with interest to see whether Sylvia Jackson and Nora Radcliffe will support the Executive motion.

The minister said that the system of SSSIs has served Scotland well. That is not what is said in the document: at page 63, a whole variety of flaws is set out. I agree with that part of the document—the system is flawed. However, what does the document propose? It proposes a new duty to be imposed on SNH. There is nothing new about the proposal, as it appears in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991—the act that set up SNH. The act states:

"it shall be the duty of SNH in exercising its functions to take account as may be appropriate in the circumstances of … the interests of local communities."

Ten years on, the Executive is choosing to ignore the fact that SNH has, in some cases, not observed its duty to take account of the interests of local communities. Under section 3(1)(c) of the act, SNH has to take account of

"the need for social and economic development".

Under section 3(1)(b), it needs to take account of

"the needs of agriculture, fisheries and forestry",

and under section 3(1)(e), it needs to take account of

"the interests of owners and occupiers of land".

That has not happened. Indeed, in my constituency, that has not happened big style. I have to put it to the ministers that the designation of areas including Loch Sunart, Arran, Islay and various areas in Badenoch and Strathspey has gone ahead because SNH wanted it to go ahead. SNH paid little or no regard to the views of local communities, yet it had a duty to take them into account.

That fact is well known in my constituency. What is not well known is that that legislation also gives ministers the right to give directions to SNH, just as is done with the Scottish Qualifications Agency. That power has not been used.

I ask the member to wind up.

The Executive has not brought this quango to account. One of the reasons why the Parliament was created was to bring quangos to account. Many people believe that SNH—or at least its top management—stands not for Scottish Natural Heritage but for See No People. [Members: "That is SNP."] Nothing in the document will give succour to those people.

The tradition of interest in Scotland's natural heritage has its origins in the farming community. It is no surprise that three farmers are speaking for the Conservatives today. That traditional link between the farming community and our natural heritage goes right back to Robert Burns and many of the other great authors of previous centuries.

Will the member give way?

Unfortunately, three minutes gives me no time to take interventions.

It is that tradition that I wanted to highlight. There are those, even in my own party, who believe that it is something of a mistake for the minister who is responsible for agriculture to have responsibility for Scotland's natural heritage. When the minister was appointed, I was the first to welcome the fact that the two roles had been combined. That is a personal view and not necessarily that of my party. However, that combination of poacher and gamekeeper, so to speak, takes two of the biggest issues in Scotland today and puts them in the hands of the same man in the same department.

Ross Finnie finds himself between the proverbial rock and a hard place. He has to find a way forward that deals with the requirement to maintain Scotland's natural heritage and to take into account the social and economic interests of those who live in conjunction with or very much on Scotland's natural heritage.

We have heard from the proposer of our amendment, John Scott, that that is the gist of our amendment. We believe that the Executive's policies are fundamentally sound and that its aspirations are worthy of pursuit. However, we wish, through our amendment, to ensure that the interests of those who live in rural Scotland—the landowners, land occupiers and land managers, and the communities that depend on them—will be properly and adequately recognised through that structure.

We in Scotland have serious concerns about the level of population of many of our species. Unfortunately, those who sit on the benches behind the Executive do not necessarily agree with its policies. Too often, members of the Parliament have tried to represent the interests of deer, seals, foxes and raptors at the expense of the people who suffer the consequences of their actions. In a debate earlier this year, the fox—well known as a wily and intelligent creature—outwitted 84 out of 129 MSPs.

When it comes to protecting our natural heritage, Scotland badly lags behind England and Wales. We are 50 years behind on national parks. It is to the credit of the Scottish Executive that it has moved as fast as it has and made the designation of two national parks a top priority. We are the country that produced the man who invented the concept of national parks, yet we are one of the last countries to designate any.

The fact that legislation on wildlife crime is much stronger down south has been alluded to. We must follow England and Wales on that as soon as possible. There is also the issue of SSSIs, and of national scenic areas—our equivalent of areas of outstanding natural beauty down south. The top priority and a matter of urgency must be legislation to bring us into line with England and Wales on wildlife crime. The passing of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 made provision for custodial sentences; I understand that the first one has just been handed out. I also understand, from SNH, that all that is required is a simple, straightforward bill of around three to four sections. If the Scottish Executive is to maintain its excellent track record of moving to protect our unique natural heritage, there is no excuse for not introducing legislation in the next parliamentary year at the latest. I hope that the minister can give us an assurance on that point when he winds up. "As soon as possible" is far too vague.

We need a second bill, to cover, among other things, SSSIs and national scenic areas. As far as SSSIs are concerned, it is almost too late. We needed such a bill five years ago. We need a proper definition and perhaps even a new designation. SSSIs were originally introduced to cover small sites in the lowlands of England, not huge areas such as the Tweed basin, which incorporates 800 landowners. We certainly need to improve the decision-making processes. At the moment, SNH gathers the scientific evidence and says that much of it is unreliable. We need to provide the resources so that the scientific data are more comprehensive and reliable. The Executive currently takes the decisions, but we need wider consultation and—as Nora Radcliffe mentioned—provision for a review to include global warming, which might lead to a change in certain species' habitats.

National scenic areas need to be given statutory provision. My constituency at Westminster included the Clwydian range, which was designated an area of outstanding natural beauty, the equivalent of national scenic areas. How valuable is that designation? I saw the value of it, and it is potentially important for Scotland too, for areas such as highland Perthshire, which finds itself wedged between the two national parks that have so far been designated: the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. It is also a potential designation for the Angus glens, if they are not included in the Cairngorms national park.

I commend the UK Labour Government since 1997 and the Scottish Executive since 1999 for moving so rapidly and making up for the lost decades of the 1980s and 1990s. The previous Conservative Government did nothing. Its record on protecting our natural heritage was lamentable to the point of disgrace. Unlike the Scottish Liberal Democrats but like the Tories, the SNP failed to mention wildlife crime in its 1999 manifesto. We welcome SNP members' belated display of interest and concern, but they will not be surprised if we view their indignation today as somewhat synthetic, let alone hypocritical.

I welcome the Executive's commitment to introduce legislation, but I would like the minister to define precisely what she means by "as soon as possible". There is widespread support for the implementation of the proposals outlined in the Executive's "The Nature of Scotland" paper. If external experts and members of the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Rural Development Committee started working with Executive civil servants on preparing a preliminary draft of the bill, it would be a new way of working and a real opportunity to implement new politics.

While the proposals in "The Nature of Scotland" are commendable, they provide only a part of what is needed to protect Scotland's natural heritage. Nora Radcliffe spoke about local biodiversity action plans and used the political term "majority" to describe how the local authorities are getting on with them. That disguises the very real fact that just under half of local authorities are nowhere near completing their biodiversity action plans. That is a strong argument for making it a statutory duty on local authorities to complete them, and even a statutory duty to sustain local biodiversity action plans once they have been prepared.

I am sad that, judging by the rural development plan and the minister's introduction today, the Executive still fails to recognise the contribution that organic farming could make to our environment and to Scotland's marketing in Europe. Yesterday, the UK Climate Impacts Programme published a report entitled "Climate Change and Nature Conservation in Britain and Ireland", in which it said that it was likely that animal and plant species in Scotland, including the capercaillie and the red-throated diver, would die out as a result of climate change. Nora Radcliffe also mentioned that.

The long-term future of Scotland's natural heritage depends not only on specific wildlife policies but on Government policy right across the board. That is why we need a dedicated environment minister in Scotland. The concept of sustainable development needs to be elevated to have an impact throughout the Executive. That was pointed out in the independent report prepared by Tim Birley for the World Wide Fund for Nature for our education and enlightenment.

There is now an opportunity—I hope that the new First Minister or those in the new Cabinet are listening—for the post of dedicated minister for the environment to be reinstated. Furthermore, the Executive could recognise the importance of environmentally sustainable development, and could give the ministerial group on sustainability in Scotland and the sustainable development unit a place at the heart of Government policy making. In addition, I would like a commitment from Rhona Brankin that she will suggest that the First Minister go to the global environment talks in Johannesburg next year. Those talks are too important for the future of Scotland's natural heritage to leave to our colleagues south of the border.

There is much to commend in the SNP amendment. My amendment, which covered similar ground, was not selected. However, the SNP's concern for Scotland's natural heritage might be all the more credible if it were to review its policies against increasing duties on fuel.

It is extremely important that we safeguard our natural heritage, not only because, once lost, it can never be replaced, but because of the benefit that we can gain from environmental tourism. To promote environmental tourism in Scotland, we must provide a landscape and wildlife that will attract tourists, but we also need to provide the facilities to enable them to come back. To protect our natural heritage, we need to take with us the people who live and work on the land.

There is always tension between those who have cared for our natural heritage through the generations and the public bodies that give the impression that that work has no value. Decision makers sometimes appear remote from the areas that they look after. That is why I and my colleague Maureen Macmillan have written to Angus MacKay asking him to review the base of Scottish Natural Heritage. It is my belief that, if that agency were based in the Highlands, decision makers would gain a more in-depth knowledge of the areas that they cover. Large parts of the Highlands are covered by SSSIs and some people who work the land are frustrated by regulation. Easy access to SNH would alleviate some of those communication problems and encourage partnership working.

We must also examine ways of encouraging a proactive role by those who work the land. At present, people are paid large amounts of money to do nothing. I am glad that the minister has addressed that point. We all know of practices that can enhance our natural heritage and we should contract with those who work on the land to carry out those practices and should provide financial help to enable them to do so. That would make a lot more sense than paying someone to do nothing. People who work on the land must also be involved in drawing up the contract, and must have their expertise put to full use.

The minister mentioned marine conservation, and I commend to her the work of the Moray Firth Partnership. It has worked with local communities throughout the Moray firth area and is doing much to conserve the local area and the dolphins that live there and which are a huge tourist attraction.

To protect our natural heritage, we need to involve local people, who must be at the heart of our policies. We know the value of natural heritage to our people, and local people are the natural protectors of that heritage. We must be able to support them. If we all work together, we will achieve the protection and promotion of our natural heritage.

The only interesting point in Alex Johnstone's speech was his mention of Robert Burns. That brings me to the subject of the humble haggis, which may be part of our natural heritage. Any members who have been following local papers in the north-east will have noticed that professional tourism signs have been put up at Oyne in Aberdeenshire warning of a haggis crossing and a haggis sanctuary.

Turning away from haggis, I want to talk about the freshwater and marine environment, which is an important part of our natural heritage. I shall begin with freshwater fisheries in our rivers in Scotland. Members may remember how the Executive was dragged kicking and screaming to introduce the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Act 2001 after international protests against the Government's record and reaction to low catch figures in our salmon rivers. That is symptomatic of the Government's approach. It has to be dragged kicking and screaming to introduce relevant legislation.

The debate on the freshwater fisheries sector now continues about the transfer of non-native species between river catchments and about importing non-native species into Scotland from elsewhere. That debate is currently raging among environmentalists and the angling community. People want it sorted out and they want legislation introduced as soon as possible.

I welcome the fact that all those issues are mentioned in the Government's proposals, but there is no timetable. When will we actually see the legislation? Action on those issues is long overdue, but we face the prospect of waiting even more years before any new laws can be put on the statute book. The implications of not protecting our fish stocks from genetic imbalance or diseases are huge. We need that legislation, and we need it soon.

On the subject of genetic imbalance in fish stocks and the spread of disease, there is a crying need for an independent inquiry into sea cage fish farming. That concept was supported by a majority of parties in the Parliament, by parliamentary committees, by the salmon farming industry, by the angling community and by environmental organisations. If the Government were taking the matter seriously, surely it would have accepted the strong and unassailable case for that inquiry. But, oh no, the minister chose to be isolated once again, took on the whole united front and would not go down the sensible route of protecting, or at least ascertaining what is behind the decline of, freshwater fish stocks, particularly in north-west Scotland, and what is the right way forward for the relationship between sea cage fish farming and the environment.

On the marine environment, new discoveries are being made all the time in Scottish waters. I pay tribute to the University of Aberdeen's Oceanlab, which recently opened in Newburgh, Aberdeenshire. I encourage the minister to visit Oceanlab, which is now investigating the world's ocean floors, as well as those around Scotland, and is discovering new species all the time. That shows just how great Scotland's natural environment is. I also congratulate the oil industry, which has made progress in recent years in protecting the environment.

We want a sustainable fishery in our oceans. The minister alluded to that in her opening remarks. We have to tackle industrial fishing as part of the common fisheries policy negotiations if we are to protect our fishing stocks and the marine environment. It is extremely important that we achieve those objectives.

When people around the world think of Scotland, they tend to think of our natural environment. We have to protect that environment as a matter of urgency, not just for tourism and for the economy but because we have a responsibility to the environment and to the rest of the world to do so.

I am trying to accommodate all the members who want to speak in the debate, so it would be helpful if the last three speakers could stick strictly to the three-minute time limit.

This morning, we have heard from many members about their interest in the natural heritage of our countryside. I too want to protect and promote Scotland's natural heritage, which has been handed down to us by our forefathers, in whose keeping it was cared for and nurtured in a natural and responsible manner to the extent that today our countryside, our wildlife and our flora and fauna are the envy of our national and international neighbours who, I am sorry to say, have forfeited much of their natural surroundings to the commercial onslaught of bricks and mortar.

We must ensure that any new legislative proposals do not impose further restrictions. It is often felt that there is gross over-regulation as it is. SSSIs, SACs and other designations are imposed on land and marine sites when the justification is highly questionable. Designation is frequently inappropriate. In my area, a marine designation has been placed on Loch Duich, Loch Alsh and Loch Long. In spite of the best efforts of the local community to determine what is being protected or why the sites should be designated, we have had no information.

The current system of designation is quite unacceptable. It is inefficient and it is always controversial. We must adopt a more positive management framework and direct more emphasis and focus towards incentives rather than restrictions. I suggest that earlier and continuing consultation with affected communities and landowners would be a welcome step forward.

We should also exercise more control over the many statutory bodies, charities and other organisations that seem to control and regulate our countryside. Their aims and objectives are always channelled through the guise of a single issue and they are always oblivious to the other views and aspirations of local communities.

Scotland's natural heritage and environment has been protected and preserved by generations of people living and working in the countryside. We must ensure that, through genuine dialogue and consultation with people who have a genuine interest in the control and management of the countryside, we can secure their co-operation and have the opportunity to preserve a vibrant and viable heritage and environment and present it to the generations that follow us. That is our duty, and it is what I recommend.

I have put so many big lines through my speech I might need fewer than three minutes.

To begin with, I want to make one or two comments about access issues, which I know are not within the minister's remit. Earlier this year, foot-and-mouth disease caused huge problems in rural areas. When the notices went up in the countryside, the tourists—whether they were day trippers, weekenders or visitors who were staying longer—stopped coming. Access is absolutely crucial to Scottish tourism. I have already expressed concerns about delays in introducing access proposals as part of the land reform bill and about how they will be handled in the bill. If we do not see those proposals soon, I will renew my call to split the issue off into separate legislation. However, since the Parliament should be about joined-up thinking, I ask the minister to put pressure on her justice colleagues to introduce the land reform bill as quickly as possible, as it is partly key to some of the issues that we are discussing.

The Executive's policy statement in March contained a lot of fine words and a higher than usual standard of art work, but wildlife professionals and the public clearly want much more than that. We want some action. As people have said—and as I say again—until this month, the Executive had given no indication about when it intended to proceed with the wildlife crime legislation. In one of his last appearances at First Minister's question time, the ex-First Minister said that a draft bill will be published "as soon as possible". I note that the same phrase has been repeated again today. It is not good enough; the phrase "as soon as possible" does not tell us anything.

Green tourism is a fast-expanding sector of Scotland's most important industry. Despite the foot-and-mouth outbreak, which had a catastrophic effect on my constituency, the great outdoors is still by far Scotland's biggest visitor attraction. A recent report discovered that it supports 180,000 tourism-related jobs and contributes £2.6 billion to the Scottish economy.

I have already stated why people come to the countryside: they come because they care about Scotland and what it looks like, and to see things that they might not otherwise see. For example, the image of the golden eagle is used around the world to attract visitors to our country, but last year alone three golden eagles were illegally poisoned and there are now only 420 breeding pairs in the whole country. It is not just the golden eagle. Eleven of our country's species of breeding raptor are an official conservation concern of the RSPB. That organisation has provided me with a list of the poisonings so far this year; it is distressing to tell the chamber that three of them have happened in my constituency. I also note that one of the bad-news case studies in "The Nature of Scotland" relates to a poisoning in west Perthshire.

It is a tragedy. Indeed, those figures might be under-representative because under-reporting undoubtedly happens. Furthermore, the comparison between Scotland and New Zealand makes very sad reading. Someone in New Zealand was jailed for nine months for being caught with 32 eggs; in Scotland, people do not receive such sentences. We need to follow New Zealand's example, to get moving on the issue and to get it into practice now.

I listened with interest to John Scott's comments about SSSIs. I can well understand why there is a proposal to designate John's land as such a site: it is the habitat of a very rare species indeed—a Tory MSP who represents a Scottish constituency.

The Executive motion refers to

"legislative proposals to protect and promote Scotland's natural heritage".

Like Roseanna Cunningham, I want to confine most of my remarks to one legislative proposal in particular—the right of access to the countryside. Such access is an important part of Scotland's natural heritage.

Earlier this year, the Executive published a draft land reform bill that was supposed to ensure a statutory right of responsible access to the countryside. The part of the draft bill that dealt with access was a big disappointment to many people, especially ramblers, hillwalkers and mountaineers.

I understand that the Executive received about 3,500 responses to the draft bill. I have not had enough time to analyse them all, but my researcher has looked through about 500 of them. Around 90 per cent of respondents raised concerns about access and more than three quarters said that the draft bill is too restrictive and provides less right of access than currently exists. Similar views were expressed in a petition signed by 17,000 people. On the basis of the number of signatories, it is one of the largest petitions so far presented to the Parliament.

The draft bill would provide for exclusion orders to stop access to the countryside and give the police power to arrest anyone in breach of an exclusion order. Walkers could find themselves branded as criminals and landowners would have the right to suspend access. Some landowners want to ban access at night time, which would make it impossible for people to camp overnight. Many hillwalkers, ramblers, scouts, members of the Boys Brigade and young people who do adventure training enjoy such camping. Experienced hillwalkers do not understand why the draft bill did not follow the agreed conclusions of the Scottish access forum. That point was also made by the Mountaineering Council of Scotland.

Many ramblers and hillwalkers feel that the draft bill is worse than the status quo. Some go further and say that if the redraft of the bill is not a vast improvement on the original draft, the Scottish Executive would be better to drop the section that deals with access. It would be a great pity to miss a golden opportunity to ensure a genuine right of access to the countryside.

Scotland is blessed with some of the finest countryside in the world. The mountains, glens, rivers and lochs of Scotland are not simply the property of the landed gentry, they are part of our natural and national heritage and should be accessible for people to enjoy. It is up to the Executive to ensure that the right of access is enshrined in statute.

That ends the open debate. I thank members for their co-operation, Mr Harper in particular. He delivered a six-minute speech in about three minutes.

During the summer, I was asked to stand in for the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development at short notice to perform a most unusual and enjoyable parliamentary duty: I had to release some red kites into the wild from a secret location in Dumfries and Galloway in the hope that the species might again become established in the south of Scotland, as it has in the Highlands.

The red kite is a large raptor. It can predate small mammals, birds and amphibians, but it is primarily a scavenger. Due to ignorance of its behaviour, it was persecuted to the point of extinction in England, Scotland and most of Wales by the end of the 19th century.

The event that I attended was extraordinary. There was high security and we had to creep through the forest to the cages. Releasing the huge and spectacular young creatures and seeing them gradually, one by one, plucking up the courage to fly from their cage and sweep up to the high trees to look at their colleagues' progress was moving. It was not only a symbol of hope for the species: in some ways it was also a symbol of hope for Dumfries and Galloway. Earlier in the year, we felt that we were almost at the point of extinction ourselves.

Members can imagine my wrath when I discovered that, two months later, one of those fine creatures had been found poisoned. I do not know whether it was poisoned deliberately or by the reckless use of poisons for other purposes.

I welcome the proposals—they have been welcomed throughout the chamber—to tighten up the law on reckless behaviour and on the intentional behaviour that results in wild birds being injured, killed or disturbed. I ask SNP members—particularly the Mr Angrys who feel that if they agree with the Executive they must sound cross about doing so—what could be sooner than "as soon as possible"? Do they want us to say "as soon as not possible"?

The minister referred to SSSIs, a designation that has been in use since 1949. There has been some criticism of SSSIs, particularly of the fact that people who work on the land in an SSSI are given long lists of potentially damaging operations that they must avoid and on which they must go to SNH to seek its views. Rhoda Grant referred to the fact that landowners are sometimes paid for not doing things that might damage the SSSI, even though they may not have intended to do those things anyway. It is also true that designation as an SSSI does not always provide the optimum protection for conservation sites. I think that Keith Raffan made some reference to that.

SNH has stated that recorded damage to SSSIs in Scotland affects only 5,000 hectares, whereas a total of nearly 1 million hectares are designated as SSSIs. Only 0.5 per cent of SSSIs have been damaged. Why is more "effective protection" required?

The legislation has to be more reflective of people's views. Fergus Ewing does not disagree with the Executive's proposal to strengthen the role of local authorities and communities in defining an SSSI or with the proposal to consult and provide independent scientific advice to those stakeholders. Everyone welcomes those proposals.

As Rhoda Grant, Sylvia Jackson and others have said, Scotland's natural heritage is one of our greatest assets and the Scottish Parliament has a duty to protect and preserve it. I believe that the whole chamber welcomes the Executive's proposals, however much people may whinge and carp about timetables or the level of detail in the proposals, as the Tories have done. One would expect the detail about issues relating to communities and so on to be in the bill and the associated memorandums, not in the proposals.

I thank Fergus Ewing for his explanation of the acronym "SNP" and wonder whether he is suggesting that, in the unlikely event of an SNP electoral success, a programme of mass emigration from Scotland would take place.

I associate my party with Rhona Brankin's opening remarks. However, while I welcome the Executive's desire to protect and promote Scotland's wildlife I must, as a representative of the Highlands and Islands, voice the concerns of the people who live in the area where a great deal of that wildlife is present. I cannot fail to voice their disappointment about the lack of consultation between bodies such as SNH and the local population when it comes to making designations of SACs and SSSIs.

The agitation came to light recently in a meeting in Perth called "People: the Forgotten Species". The title adequately sums up many people's frustrations. The main aim must surely be to protect and promote rural communities and the people who will maintain the environment and the natural heritage, who will continue to live in the glens and islands of the north and west of Scotland despite the present difficulties and who will act as stewards of the landscape and wildlife as has happened for centuries.

There is a strong impression that proper consultation is not taking place with the very people whose lives will be affected by the measures that will be introduced. For example, those affected by the Loch Sunart SSSI, the Sound of Barra SAC and the proposed Islay seal sanctuary include farmers, crofters, fish farmers, shellfish farmers, clam divers and winkle pickers—to name but a few—but none of those people have any idea of how the designations will affect their daily lives. No wonder they are upset. This is happening because different people interpret the word "consultation" differently.

Ordinary people believe that consultation means substantial discussion and debate on the pros and cons of an issue before that issue becomes a reality that affects places and, above all, the people who live in them. The feeling is that SNH's so-called consultations amount to explanations of designations that, in some cases, have been made without prior consultation on the pros and cons of the measures.

That, not surprisingly, infuriates many people, who feel that they are being trodden on and forgotten in a mad race to fulfil a Europe-driven agenda on time. They are not necessarily against the agenda, which might bring benefits, but they are astonished and aghast that their views, which, after all, benefit from local knowledge and practical experience, are not being listened to in the first instance.

For example, I recently received a copy of a letter from a constituent from Ardnamurchan to John Markland, the chairman of SNH. I quote:

"one of the major problems which needs to be overcome prior to any joint understanding is the lack of confidence which a significant majority of the people in this area have for SNH staff. It is universally perceived that SNH staff will say one thing at a meeting in order to reach agreement, and will then not abide by that which was understood to have been agreed."

That does not bode well for the future of our heritage, which depends on the co-operation and enthusiasm of local people to make it work. Although some of SNH's incentives are successful, such as the excellent Lewis peatland management scheme, others are perceived to be against the interests of local people, who must be able to earn a dignified living unhindered by the whims of any great improvers with a distant intellectual agenda.

For instance, the people of south Knapdale in Argyll are about to be subjected to an introduction of European beavers to an area of Forestry Commission land. The idea was originally turned down by the west areas board of SNH, which covered Argyll, but for some reason that decision was overruled by SNH's main board. There is irrefutable evidence from Norway that beavers do a lot of damage to young woodlands and to fisheries. Many farmers in Scotland receive payments of public money for countryside premium schemes, one of the main priorities of which is the encouragement of water margins to allow trees to grow on the banks of rivers and streams to improve the spawning grounds for fisheries. The introduction of beavers means that those trees will be munched up. That seems to me to be a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing—or certainly not knowing what the beaver is doing.

Wind up, please.

What happens if the beavers escape from their so-called enclosed area? Will they create the havoc that escaped mink have already caused after being introduced to Scotland, or that the coypu caused after being introduced to East Anglia?

I have met and listened to several local residents who are against the trial. I have yet to meet anyone who wants beavers in Knapdale.

Come to a close, please.

I beg your pardon?

Come to a close, please.

I beg your pardon.

Why persist with an unpopular idea when the £500,000 that it will cost could be equally well spent facilitating the watching of the local otter population or the local wild red deer and roe deer populations or improving the local fisheries, which are already major assets of Scotland's heritage?

I make a plea to the Scottish Executive to follow the words of John Scott's amendment and build on the expertise of the past to bring about an improved future environment in which people and nature can live in harmony and sustainable co-existence.

There is a famous phrase in America: "Where's the beef?" The recurrent phrase for today's debate is "Where's the bill?" It is not good enough for the deputy minister to say three times that the Executive will introduce a bill as soon as possible. Can she define "as soon as possible"? It could mean "as long as we can get away with doing nothing". That is what it sounds like today. It does not sound like that to members alone, it sounds like that to the enormous part of the population of Scotland that cares passionately about the nature of Scotland.

The land reform bill is brought to my mind. In 1999, we were promised that bill as soon as possible. I understand from my colleagues in the SNP justice team that no bill has yet been introduced in 2001. Is the "as soon as possible" for the bill on the protection and promotion of Scotland's natural heritage as good as the land reform bill "as soon as possible"? It is not good enough to leave legislation to a member's bill. In response to my intervention, Nora Radcliffe said that if the Executive does not provide a legislative timetable she will go ahead with her member's bill to ensure that wildlife legislation is updated during this session of Parliament. I must tell the minister that that is not good enough. It is not for a member to introduce much-needed legislation. Ministers are supposed to be a Government. Do it. Govern.

The Parliament is here to pass laws. I have to say that the minister's opening remarks were more like story time in Parliament: she simply read out "The Nature of Scotland"—a lovely document with pictures. As a librarian, I enjoy story time; as an MSP, I expect to see a legislative timetable in front of me.

In "The Nature of Scotland", the Executive makes 41 commitments. One says that all

"Scottish Ministers should have a specific duty to have regard to the conservation of biological diversity".

There is a specific duty to have regard. If we do not have a minister who introduces legislation to ensure that we have wildlife protection and updated SSSIs, the Executive's regard is like a blind man. If the Executive's regard for biodiversity is the same as its regard for sustainable development, we have no chance of protecting the nature of Scotland.

I have been involved with three bills in the Parliament—the Standards in Scotland's Schools Bill, the Transport (Scotland) Bill and the current Water Industry (Scotland) Bill. On each of them, members of the Opposition have had to make statements and lodge amendments on sustainable development—and each time Labour back benchers have defeated those amendments. That is not good enough. We have to ensure that legislation to protect the wildlife of Scotland is in place.

Will the member confirm that at yesterday's meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee, at which the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill was discussed, we discussed the section of that bill that places an obligation on the water industry to have regard to sustainable development? The member did not produce that bill; the Executive produced it.

The Executive also produced section 47(5), which is the get-out clause. It says quite clearly that sustainable development is at the bottom of the list of priorities for Scottish Water.

That is a lie. That is an absolute outrage.

Order.

If Mr Finnie is so outraged, perhaps he could produce a timetable for legislation in his closing speech. His outrage would then be justified.

I turn finally to page 45 of "The Nature of Scotland". The Government of which the minister is a member says:

"The management and protection of Scotland's natural heritage is, however, first and foremost dependent on the commitment of Scotland's people rather than on laws and policies."

What a get-out. We all accept that every individual and citizen has a commitment to the nature of Scotland, but it is not good enough for the Government to say that it is our responsibility, not theirs. They are the Government—govern.

Before I call the minister, I ask members to respect the opportunity that is being given for members to speak by keeping down the background noise. I call Ross Finnie to wind up for the Executive.

Today's debate has mainly shown that most people share the Executive's conviction about Scotland's natural heritage. The difference appears to be a question of what to do, when to do it and how to do it. Bruce Crawford and most of the SNP were concerned. I think that Fiona McLeod's last statement was, "If you are going to govern, govern." Well, perhaps she has been away for a while, but we have been producing at the rate of 20 bills a year since we came into Parliament. If that is not governing, I am not sure what is. Indeed, I want to know, given Fiona McLeod's interest in the matter of government, which of those bills she would particularly like not to have.

The process of Parliament is to introduce discussion papers and to inform, advise and instruct on the final point of the bill. Fiona McLeod is also not aware that we have already consulted on agricultural holdings and crofting communities. Those elements also are involved in the question of how we get to legislation. We produced a paper in March. The SNP believes that in February, or indeed in September, October or November, there ought instantly to be legislation.

Now what have I done?

Will the minister give way?

No. I will make one more point about a timetable.

When I became Minister for Environment and Rural Development, it was clear that work on producing a bill was not getting very far. Bruce Crawford asked me what I have done: I have accelerated the timetable for the production of the bill. Let there be no question about that. However, I cannot give a categorical timetable for its drafting at this point. Instructions have only recently been given and the bill is quite complex. There are various matters—for example, the need to improve SSSI and other designations, to which Fergus Ewing referred—that will require quite a bit of draftsmanship. We require the necessary drafting capacity. If members really believe that, with 23 bills already progressed, that capacity is infinite, they are wrong. It is sheer cant and hypocrisy to be critical in that regard.

As for having a minister in charge of the environment, we certainly have not delivered everything that we would wish to deliver, but since I acquired the environment portfolio—Mr Harper, who I think was reading the minutes of the ministerial group on sustainable Scotland, will agree on this at least—we have committed to doing what we had not previously committed to: to produce targets and measures and to extend the membership of the group to make it more inclusive.

Minister—

No. Fiona McLeod made the accusation and I am now responding to it. We are delivering on the national waste programme. We are doing more on floods. We have opened the flood helpline. We have committed £2 billion for environment-related investment in waste and water for 2002 to 2006.

I was asked about conflict of interest in agriculture. What is the conflict of interest in my funding a person to give advice to the agricultural community—not to be in conflict, but to deliver on environmental improvements? We also promoted the national goose forum. I am not suggesting that we have done everything, but I am telling SNP members that they are quite wrong to suggest that there has been no progress on environmental matters since I took over the portfolio.

I believe that John Scott illustrated an interesting position—although I did not hear it. Nor did I hear Jamie McGrigor. I am not quite clear what point he was pursuing. I did not, in any case, hear any real difference in principle on the forthcoming bill's provisions. I think that John Scott's point was one of emphasis. In common with a large number of other members, he expressed great concern and unease about the way in which designations come into place.

During the debate, I was becoming concerned about Scottish Natural Heritage, or SNH. That was until Fergus Ewing told me that SNH equalled SNP. Then I realised that even SNH could not be that bad.

We always enjoy it when the minister plays the man, not the ball. Long may that continue.

I return to a serious point. The minister said that he has ordered the acceleration of production of the draft wildlife bill. Can he provide any timetable for when it will be produced?

I am glad that Fergus Ewing managed to conduct that question without the usual spelling error, which he managed earlier. I have made it clear that, in accelerating what we currently have, we are putting in place resources that were not previously in place, in the form of parliamentary draftsmen. As soon as they can indicate that time to me, I will provide a more precise timetable. I will give one. We have instructed parliamentary draftsmen and we have the resource of those parliamentary draftsmen to tackle the bill. We did not have that resource before. We are now making it available.

Rhoda Grant made an important point about extending the debate to marine conservation. That point was also made forcibly by Richard Lochhead.

I acknowledge the excellent work done by the Moray Firth Partnership. Visitors to its site have the opportunity to observe the red kite after walking only a few yards.

It is important to extend the debate not just to haggis but, as Mr Lochhead rightly points out, to the very important area of marine conservation. He is wrong, however, to speak about dragging the Executive kicking and screaming. He uses that phrase time and again; he really must find a new one. It is an old phrase. It is also not true. In the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill we were responding to the long and excellent report by Lord Nickson. The bill's provisions were required and they were introduced.

I want to touch briefly on access, which was raised by Roseanna Cunningham and Dennis Canavan. I have been in discussion with the Minister for Justice on this issue. Contrary to rumour, we are committed to ensuring that there is a right to responsible access. The bill providing that, which has proved extraordinarily difficult to draft, will be introduced. I understand that in the next few days the Deputy First Minister will make a statement on that bill.

Roseanna Cunningham and others made points about wildlife crime and the integration of access. This is about people as well as about legislation. As Robin Harper said, it is about the attitude that we as a society take to our wild species and to our countryside. The suggestion that the great mass of our population is lining up to tramp across the countryside and to tear it down is deplorable. It is an absolute nonsense. However, I understand some of the tensions that exist and to which reference has been made. There are tensions relating to designation and how we explain the reasons for it. We need to preserve our countryside and to have the mechanisms that will enable us to do so. There will be increased consultation and we will take land managers' concerns seriously.

I hope that we can move towards a more sustainable future for Scotland. Each of us must take responsibility for preserving and promoting our natural heritage. That must be linked to the other actions that are being taken by individuals and organisations. We must conserve natural resources, promote access to our shared natural heritage and make sustainable economic development a reality.

Scotland has a rich natural heritage. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to protect and promote it. I believe that by pursuing the approach that we have outlined today we can make that happen.