Gull Summit: Scottish Government minister Jim Fairlie says NatureScot made some ‘completely ludicrous’ requests but insists the system still works
Scottish Government minister Jim Fairlie has hit out at some actions by NatureScot over gulls as “completely and utterly ludicrous” and “simply wrong.”
Speaking after the unexpectedly controversial gull summit in Inverness, the agriculture and connectivity minister insisted that the system works.
The meeting was supposed to resolve issues but instead provoked a few with the resignation of Jamie Hepburn as a minister over an altercation with Douglas Ross and frustration over a limited guest list and no media attendance.
It comes after consistent challenges to NatureScot’s decision-making as the licensing authority for egg and nest removal by critics who say they are unfair.
The issue of gulls spread to the role of quangos and the proper administration of public policy in Scotland amid concerns about accountability.
Inverness BID has found it difficult to acquire licences because NatureScot repeatedly changed the guidance, BID also questions the objectivity of the process.
‘It was ludicrous asking people to take a photograph of a newspaper beside a nest’
But Mr Fairlie believes the meeting set out to do what it set out to do by getting people together to start work on resolving the issues at hand.
He sympathised with Inverness BID, admitting that he got “inadequate answers from NatureScot as to why several things were being done in a certain way.
“Some of the advice that was given to people while they were applying for licences was quite simply wrong and I had a word with NatureScot.
“It was ludicrous asking people to take a photograph of a newspaper beside a nest so that they could actually determine what day it was on, completely and utterly ludicrous and I absolutely accept that.
“So in individual cases where people have asked for ridiculous evidence or proof that there is an issue it’s something that NatureScot will be very cognizant of going forward.”
However, despite those examples Mr Fairlie still believes that it is better for the agency to remain as the licensing authority because the system works.
He said that issues were rectified via himself after he received letters from north MSPs Fergus Ewing and Douglas Ross and this was the correct process.
“Having them being the licensing authority works because they are looking after the overall strategic welfare of the birds as a particular group.”
‘Serious concerns over changing licensing guidance, arbitrary decisions, and alleged constant moving of goalposts’
At the summit, Inverness BID called for an open forum to allow all those “excluded from the summit to contribute directly”.
They also want licensing reform amid “serious concerns over changing licensing guidance, arbitrary decisions, and alleged constant moving of goalposts.”
BID wants independent and transparent decision-making separate from conservation duties to restore trust and confidence as “there is a clear conflict of interest with NatureScot holding both conservation duties/responsibilities and licensing powers.”
Mr Fairlie responded saying: That already exists on the basis that if somebody is really, really vexed about something and says, ‘look, this isn’t working and it’s causing a major issue.’
“Ultimately an MSP can come to me as the minister say, ‘I think NatureScot is not doing their job properly because of this’.
“At the moment, I’m more than happy to look at those issues but what is being suggested currently exists because we’ve already demonstrated it.”
He added: “But if there is a particularly vexatious or unreasonable rationale behind the refusal of the licence then the ultimate arbiter is the minister who’s in charge at any given time.”
A spokesperson for the BIDs said: “This Summit, or round table as it is now being termed, had many key voices missing. That’s why we called for a fully inclusive Open Forum to now be held in follow up, so that going forward the debate is more fully representative and inclusive.
“We asked that there be a review to look at independent licensing reform, to separate conservation duties from licence decision-making to restore trust and confidence.
“We highlighted that long-term national funding will be essential and required if Scotland is to strike the right balance, between protecting both wildlife and people.
“We supported calls from the RSPB that sanctuaries and alternative nesting sites must also be funded so that longer term solutions, rather than just displacement or shifting the problem around can be achieved in practical terms by using a degree of push and pull.
“We highlighted that there appears to be a strong emphasis on conservation of the species, which is of course important but at the same time little regard for quantifying and reducing the impact on people, businesses and our communities.”