Chamber and committees

Should this proposal be progressed and receive Parliamentary approval, it is anticipated that procurators fiscal would still be able to bring prosecutions under section 19 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 without a restoration notice being issued beforehand, depending on the circumstances of each case. In addition, if a third party was responsible for the damage of a Site of Special Scientific Interest then, unless they were in a position to carry out restoration works, prosecution for intentional or reckless damage to the protected natural features would remain the only option available.

Failure to comply with such a restoration notice would be a criminal offence for which the relevant person or persons could be prosecuted. In that scenario, it would be a matter for the procurator fiscal to decide whether to also prosecute for intentional or reckless damage of the SSSI''s features, and it should be noted that a successful prosecution for this could result in the court issuing a Restoration Order under Section 40 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.

Close seasons have been unchanged for many years, and there are no immediate intentions to vary the dates. We are consulting on how seasons might be set in future. Were the issue to arise in the meantime Scottish ministers would take advice from the Deer Commission for Scotland and would consult other parties interested in deer management issues.

The current legislation includes any vehicle in the offence of intending to drive deer on any land with the intention of taking, killing or injuring them, unless authorised to do so. However, the use of any aircraft or hovercraft is specifically excluded even when driving deer with authorisation.

Yes. Section 6(c) of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 would exempt any person from prosecution who accidently kills a badger while carrying out a lawful action such as driving a vehicle.

The Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill Consultation Document does not intend to suggest that a person found guilty of wilfully injuring, taking or attempting to kill a badger could have done so unknowingly. The consultation document proposes a new offence of knowingly causing or permitting another person to injure, take or attempt to kill a badger.

The Marine (Scotland) Bill proposes that consenting for aquaculture should be based on impact rather than activity. This is a complex issue and we continue to listen to representations on the best regime. The aquaculture industry is vitally important to Scotland and in order to help it develop sustainably a strategic approach is required.

The proposed new offence on driving deer recklessly referred to in the consultation on the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill would include the use of aircraft to drive deer recklessly.

Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 now provides the full range of protection to all wild birds as is given by Areas of Special Protection (ASP) with the exception that an ASP Order can also restrict public access to an area. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 established a right of responsible access to land and inland water throughout Scotland with certain limited exceptions. Scottish Natural Heritage is aware of no instances where public access is a cause for concern on Areas of Special Protection. The Scottish Outdoor Access Code gives additional advice on how to avoid damaging protected sites and disturbing wildlife. Damage would, in many cases, be a criminal offence and be dealt with under relevant legislation.

The Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill Consultation Document does not intend to suggest that a person found guilty of selling or offering to sell a badger could have done so unknowingly. The consultation document proposes a new offence of knowingly causing or permitting another person to sell or offer to sell a badger.

It is normal procedure for Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) to first seek a land manager''s voluntary cooperation to deliver the restoration of damaged features of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).

If a land manager does not restore such features voluntarily then the only option available at present is prosecution and, if the land manager is found guilty, for the courts to impose a restoration order. This can be a lengthy and uncertain process involving significant effort on the parts of the state prosecution service, the accused and their defence. It is also highly adversarial and likely to affect SNH''s future working relationship with land managers in delivering the conservation of the natural features of SSSIs.

If the proposal is progressed and receives parliamentary approval, the facility of issuing a restoration notice would be an intermediate enforcement option which could, in many cases, be a more appropriate means of securing the restoration of illegally damaged natural features when voluntary restoration was not forthcoming.