§ Mr. DalyellTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his assessment of the value of marshland areas in lochs for the safeguarding of water quality; and what advice he has had on this topic from the advisory committee on sites of special scientific interest.
§ Sir Hector Monro[holding answer 28 June 1994] : There is no doubt about the importance of marshland areas in lochs both for safeguarding water quality and for providing shelter for wildfowl and other aquatic wildlife. The United Kingdom is a contracting party to the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance and a total of 25 sites in Scotland have been designated under its terms. More will follow. In additon many marshlands and similar wetland areas such as fens, flushes and mosses have been notified as sites of special scientific interest. It is for Scottish Natural Heritage to advise my right hon. Friend in relation to these issues. The advisory committee on sites of special scientific interest provides advice to SNH where there are objections on scientific grounds to the notification of such sites.
§ Mr. DalyellTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he and SNH have had from the advisory committee on sites of special scientific interest in relation to the Lake of Menteith concerning the preservation of the peripheral marshland areas, and their value in controlling the chemistry of inflowing burns.
§ Sir Hector Monro[holding answer 28 June 1994]: The statutory function of the advisory committee on sites of special scientific interest is to provide advice to Scottish Natural Heritage when there are objections on scientific grounds to the notification of a particular site. The committee does not provide advice to my right hon. Friend.
764WIn its advice to SNH the committee endorsed, inter alia, the inclusion in the site of special scientific interest of the burns which feed the Lake of Menteith so as to maintain its hydrological integrity. It recommended that the width of the areas adjacent to the burns should vary according to topography, soil type and land use.
SNH accepted nine of the committee's 10 recommendations on aspects of this case but did not accept the recommendation on "buffer zones". It proceeded with "buffer zones" of uniform width to produce a boundary that would be more straightforward to apply in practice. The committee provided no advice on marshland areas, of which the site has relatively few.