Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Official Report 525KB pdf
Contents
Petition
Control of Wild Geese (PE1490)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of petition PE1490, by Patrick Krause on behalf of the Scottish Crofting Federation, on the control of wild geese numbers. The committee last considered the petition at its meeting on 24 June and agreed to write to the minister to outline our views on the need for an independent inquiry. On 1 September, we received a response from the minister. I refer members to the letter and the committee papers, and I invite comments from members.
I suggest that we find a bit of time in our crowded schedule to take evidence on the issue and see whether we can move it on. We are in a game of ping-pong between the minister and Patrick Krause, which is not getting us far.
Last night, I received an email from the Islay branch of NFU Scotland, which is getting more and more concerned about the matter. It states that the national goose management scheme is creaking at the seams and that, at the most recent meeting on the issue, the Scottish Government asserted that it did not yet know whether the scheme is state-aid compliant. That means that the new scheme might not be able to pay out money in December, which would be serious given the damage that is being done on Islay. The NFU quoted extensively.
RSPB Scotland has lodged a complaint about the national goose management scheme and is refusing to take part in it, which is putting the whole scheme in jeopardy. Some of the assertions that the RSPB is making are highly questionable—I have seen emails and other material that need to be challenged. It also says that no research has been done. However, over the past three decades, oodles of research has been done—people have even got PhDs from researching the issue.
We need to bring the facts into the open and have an open discussion in which we hear from farmers and crofters in the affected areas as well as from the RSPB and the Scottish Government, to try to move the issue on in a constructive way. It is a running sore at present, and people’s livelihoods are suffering.
We are talking about both resident and migratory geese, which cause two slightly different problems. The proposal is there for members to comment on.
Mike Russell’s take on the issue is important, as he represents a lot of affected communities. However, we need to look at the recommendations that are in front of us, which present a choice between seeking the petitioner’s views on the minister’s proposals and accepting the minister’s proposals, as far as they go.
The point about needing proper research was made previously. I know that the minister is not keen on commissioning a £100,000 piece of external research, but I do not see what is wrong with her proposal of getting Scottish Natural Heritage to do work to bring the matter up to speed. Crofting and farming communities, and the interests that Mike Russell talked about, could be on a panel to consider the matter. We should keep a watching brief on this.
I suppose that the issue is whether we should stop now or keep the petition open. At what point will we make progress? We can do nothing about any legal challenges. When we were in Islay and Jura two weeks ago, we saw fields that were totally flattened. There is clearly an issue.
Rather than spending £100,000 on an external review, should the focus be on what is happening to the goose management scheme? That is the main issue. Mike Russell wondered whether the scheme is legally competent and in line with EU requirements. What we did not get in the minister’s response is more about what is happening in other European countries. That is important, and not just in relation to whether the scheme is legitimate. What other approaches are being taken that we could learn from in Scotland? It is disappointing that we do not have feedback on that. Rather than going through the minister, can the committee go directly to Europe and ask for proper information? We have previously had Commissioner Phil Hogan before the committee. We need more information on the situation in the rest of Europe.
Getting a bit of research done would help—what is happening on that is a defect.
My point is that we need to make progress. A review that involved stakeholders would—no doubt—be interesting, but it would simply continue the matter through this winter, whereas people feel that we must begin to get a serious resolution. Resources are reducing all the time. If no money is paid to farmers and crofters on Islay and elsewhere, they will suffer hardship.
I suggest that more research should be done, and I am happy with Sarah Boyack’s suggestion. The committee should certainly get information. However, we should hear from the affected parties and help to take the issue forward. Nothing else is making any difference. If another group is formed, it will make no difference—we will be here again this time next year and the problem will still be as bad.
At our next meeting, we will have a work programme discussion, at which the clerks could suggest options for us to handle evidence sessions and so on. At the moment, it appears that we should continue the petition with a view to finding out what the situation is, as Sarah Boyack suggested. We can then decide on a way forward.
It has been suggested that we go to Europe. That might be a massive maze, which might not help us much. If we have an evidence session in which we are updated about the situation, we can make decisions on that basis.
You are right, convener. The committee has taken evidence on the issue, possibly before Mike Russell became a committee member. I do not think that much progress is being made. In the meantime, before we look at the work programme at the next meeting, we could seek the petitioner’s view on the minister’s letter. That would be quite easily done.
We are doing that and we will bring any information to the next meeting.
We should certainly consider the issue in discussing our work programme. If the committee agrees, I would like the clerks to include in the work programme the possibility of considering where an independent review might go. We have taken a lot of evidence on the issue. In the end, the approach will be up to the Scottish Government. We could write to it to suggest that there should be not only an independent review but actions coming from that review.
Let us face it: we have seen the evidence and we know what the problem is, SNH knows what the problem is and the Scottish Government knows what the problem is. It is time for the Scottish Government to act. I would like that other possible workstream to be considered, rather than the option of taking more evidence in committee.
12:45
I note the disappointment that has been expressed about the fact that the relevant authorities in Norway and the Netherlands have not responded to requests for information sharing. It strikes me that the committee, in seeking to increase our understanding of the issues and develop solutions, might write to the relevant parliamentary committees in those countries to ask about any work that they and the authorities in their countries have done on the issue. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
I guess that we can take a number of actions.
A lot of the suggestions sound sensible. The committee paper notes that the minister said in her letter that she would rather spend money on goose management schemes than on an external review. It would be good to find out what is being spent on goose management schemes and whether that £100,000 would be spent on those schemes.
I think that we have enough information to say that, as I said earlier, we should continue the petition. We will find out the petitioner’s views. We will pursue the workstream with regard to committees in other countries and we will also pursue Claudia Beamish’s point about the review and so on. We have a good sense of what the clerks should be doing for us before the next meeting.
At our next meeting, which will be after the recess, we will consider an affirmative instrument, before taking evidence from the Crown Estate on its annual Scotland report and getting an update on the devolution of the Crown Estate in Scotland. In addition, the committee will consider its work programme.
Before the committee goes into private session, Graeme Dey wants to say something.
If memory serves, we asked the Government for an update on the Salvesen v Riddell situation by today. Can the clerks advise us what has happened with that?
Mr Dey is right: the deadline was today. We have been in touch with Government officials, who were confident that the deadline will be met, and we will follow that up after today’s meeting.
It is three weeks before we meet again. It is quite important that we get urgent information. The information that we received from tenant farmers today says that they have received no communication from the Scottish Government. If that is true, it is extremely worrying.
As soon as we get the Government’s response, we will circulate it to members. We will also include the issue in the work programme paper that we will deal with on 28 October.
We will meet on 28 October and the deadline in relation to the order is 28 November. I have serious concerns that we will leave the issue for three weeks. I appreciate that we do not have a meeting scheduled but, depending on what the letter from the Scottish Government says, I would want us to seek further reassurance about the action that is being taken.
We are in agreement, but we need to see the letter from the Government. We will keep the issue very much in focus to ensure that progress is made as soon as possible.
12:49 Meeting continued in private until 12:59.