Transport and the Environment Committee, 01 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 1, 2000

Official Report 223KB pdf

---

Petitions

The first petition for us to consider is PE8, from the Scottish Homing Union, on the impact of the increasing number of birds of prey on the sport of pigeon racing. That petition was circulated previously to members, and you have a covering note giving additional information.

As members know, there is confusion about the Hawk and Owl Trust report. We must also take into account the position of the Rural Affairs Committee, which is considering this matter. The Rural Affairs Committee recently considered the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions report and will take further evidence. In response to a parliamentary question on the DETR report, the minister said recently that she had asked Scottish Natural Heritage to provide formal advice to the Scottish Executive on that report's recommendations and on whether they might be implemented in Scotland. The outcome of that is some months away.

We also received a request from the petitioners yesterday, which has been circulated to members, that we delay our decision on the petition until the Hawk and Owl Trust report has been published and they have been able to comment on it. The petitioners stress their willingness to meet the committees.

We can defer consideration of the petition until the petitioners have had the opportunity to comment on the Hawk and Owl Trust report, and then either agree to hear evidence from the petitioners and from the UK raptor working group jointly with the Rural Affairs Committee or wait until that committee has taken evidence before we consider the petition further. I am in your hands on this matter.

It would be helpful to defer further consideration, but we should also agree to hear evidence jointly with the Rural Affairs Committee. I went to the launch of the raptor working group and heard the very strong views that were expressed. I was sufficiently convinced that the issues need further work, and would be happy to undertake such work with the Rural Affairs Committee. However, I would not be happy simply to hear what the Rural Affairs Committee had decided, because the environmental implications of the matter are very important for this committee. SNH, which launched the report at that meeting, has much compelling information to offer as well.

I should declare an interest in that I am a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I attended the Rural Affairs Committee meeting at which the raptor working group report was considered. The committee members took a vote on whether to accept the report, and the decision to take further evidence fell to the convener's casting vote. I have no problem with taking further evidence. The Rural Affairs Committee is obviously deeply divided on the issue and, despite my feelings on the matter, it is only fair to let the other side give further evidence.

If we decide to take further evidence, on which there is some consensus around the table, should one of us go along to the Rural Affairs Committee as a reporter, or should we examine the issue jointly with that committee? I am open to the committee's comments on that matter.

The ideal scenario is to work jointly with the Rural Affairs Committee. I should say that the matter is wrapped up in larger economic and social issues and goes beyond the issues raised in the Scottish Homing Union's petition. For example, there was a radio programme this past week about grouse shooting.

As the committee has a lot of work to do, it is probably more time-effective for Helen Eadie and Robin Harper to report on our behalf along with the Rural Affairs Committee.

A lot of heads were nodding at Des's suggestion.

As standing orders require us to identify one reporter for a topic or an issue, it would be difficult for us formally to identify two.

I agree with Helen. This issue has so much impact on the environment that the committee should be seen to be taking a full interest in this matter.

Interesting.

I concur with Des McNulty. We have already discussed the issue of reporters and agreed that Linda and I will report on rural affairs and national parks. Des is right; as the committee's work load is onerous—for example, Linda and I have taken on more work by attending Rural Affairs Committee meetings—we should seriously consider using reporters on this issue.

I want to clarify something. By saying that we should have a joint committee meeting with the Rural Affairs Committee, I mean simply that we should have a joint information session, not make it part of a joint committee approach to the issue. After that, we could discuss whether to appoint a reporter.

I am entirely in the committee's hands. As I felt that there was a consensus on Des's suggestion, my recommendation is to select a reporter from this committee to attend the Rural Affairs Committee. Lynn Tullis has just advised me that that does not preclude us from taking evidence on the issue later.

Any member can attend any committee if they are so inclined.

Helen Eadie has expressed an interest in being the reporter on that. Is it agreed that we proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you.

I refer members to PE23 from Save Wemyss Ancient Caves Society, calling for action to be taken to repair storm damage to the access to the caves. Members have also been given a covering note and related material. The petition was originally considered by the Public Petitions Committee, which referred it to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee. The Public Petitions Committee suggested that we might want to make general comments on coastal erosion matters.

Fife is one of the few local authorities that has acute problems of coastal erosion. Highland has extensive problems and Lothian has a small problem, as do Moray and Nairn. I did a survey of all the Scottish local authorities and they said that there is very little money to deal with problems of coastal erosion.

The Wemyss caves are a significant natural feature. Tam Dalyell and others have written articles on them in The Scotsman. If the Scottish Parliament does nothing to help prevent the erosion of the Wemyss caves, it will be a tragic loss. It is not just about the Wemyss caves. Only a stone's throw away is a village and a local company that provides jobs. At one point they lost 50m of their coastline overnight. That is where the Michael colliery used to be and the workings from the coal mine gave extra land to the community, which was subsequently built on. However, when the coal mine closed, the sea began to reclaim that land again.

Fife Council is the only local authority in Scotland to have a coastal management plan. The council took a decision about those areas of coastline that it wanted to protect and those that could be given up to the sea again. The Wemyss caves were identified as an area that should be protected, if money were available. The Pictish drawings are part of our natural heritage, which is one of the concerns of the committee. We should hold on to our heritage. I hope that the Parliament will do its utmost to identify resources to help protect the homes, the jobs and the caves.

We might follow the option suggested in the briefing note, which is that we note the petition and await responses from the Scottish Executive and the petitioners to information that they have sought from Fife Council. We cannot make progress on the issue until we have those responses. Furthermore, the Scottish Executive will either accede to the request for additional resources or it will not, in which case a member can lodge a motion on the matter. Once we have all the information that we require, we can make it public through the Official Report. After that, it would be up to an individual member to take the issue on and to lodge a motion.

I have sympathy with that. I also have sympathy with Helen Eadie's point about coastal erosion generally. When I was a councillor, we had the same problems as those described by Helen. It is difficult—it comes down to what can be done with the resources that are available. It is never easy to balance the conflicting needs.

Des's suggestion is probably the right way to handle it. The only thing I would add is that it might make sense for a couple of members of the committee to visit the site on an informal basis and to hear about the problem from the local community. They could have informal discussions with Fife Council and any other appropriate bodies and report back to the committee with any further information that would help us.

The difficulty is that endless resources are needed to tackle coastal erosion in a serious way. That will always be the problem in this kind of area.

I used to teach just down from the Wemyss caves, and I have visited them. Even then, 35 years ago, they were getting into a parlous condition. I appreciate the urgency of this. That piece of coastline has been under attack for a considerable period. We should be seen to be doing something about it.

Des McNulty has made a suggestion, which has been augmented by Tavish Scott's proposal. Members will see from the committee papers that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is seeking views on this issue, which we should receive copies of. At this stage, we should note the petition and wait until those responses have been received.

Lynn Tullis could circulate Tavish's suggestion of a visit to members of the committee, and that could be arranged via the clerks' office. Is that okay?

I have no objection to that. However, it impacts upon Helen Eadie's and Tavish Scott's comments. I have not been a councillor and I do not live near the coast, but I think that we should find out the extent of the coastal erosion problem. Where there is a significant problem, one of the duties of the Parliament is to try to pull information together.

As well as dealing with the locally identified problem, we should perhaps ask the Executive about the extent of the problem of coastal erosion—not just in Wemyss—and what plans it has to deal with that. Ultimately, we might want to factor that into our future work programme. On the basis of that advice, we could decide whether we should propose to deal with Wemyss in isolation or whether the problem should be addressed on a national basis.

That is accepted. We now know our response to that petition.

We will now consider in private our telecommunications developments draft report and our future work programme.

Meeting continued in private until 13:07.