Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Rural Development Committee, 11 Dec 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001


Contents


Petitions

Agenda item 4 is to consider a paper on the petitions that are before the committee. This is a housekeeping exercise. I have considered the briefing on the petitions and I think that one or two of them can be put to rest.


Raptor Predation (PE8)

The Convener:

The first petition is PE8, from the Scottish Homing Union, on raptor predation. The petition was originally grouped with PE187, but I would like to treat them separately. Elaine Murray and I were appointed as reporters to the Transport and the Environment Committee, which originally dealt with the petitions.

Many of the Transport and the Environment Committee's questions and queries have been answered through a working group that was put together by Alex Neil, who performed an admirable task in getting the Scottish Homing Union and Scottish Natural Heritage around the same table. They agreed to a research project that will be partly funded by both organisations. SNH had a considerable part in dealing with some of the Scottish Homing Union's concerns. I feel comfortable in suggesting that we note the petition and look forward to a positive conclusion from the research work that will be undertaken by SNH and the Scottish Homing Union. Do members agree to that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.


Raptors (Licensed Culling) (PE187)

Petition PE187 is from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. Members received a substantial e-mail last week, which voiced the SGA's considerable dissatisfaction that PE187 was lumped together with PE8. I have some sympathy with that.

Fergus Ewing:

It is late in the afternoon and I do not want to go through all the substantive issues, because PE187 is on the Transport and the Environment Committee's agenda for tomorrow. However, I feel strongly that the petitioners so far have not received a proper hearing by the Parliament. There is a huge number of unresolved issues, many of which are of substance and could constitute a barrier to the success of integrated rural development. I suggest that we postpone consideration of the matter until we find out what the lead committee—the Transport and the Environment Committee—decides. Rather than having a lengthy kick of the ball today, which might not be relevant, we should come back to the issue next week or at an appropriate time.

I whole-heartedly agree. Does anyone disagree?

I do not disagree, but I have a point. If the matter is to be put on a future agenda, can members have the details and papers again? Apart from its title, the petition is not mentioned in the briefing.

That is a fair comment and it is noted.


Scottish Quality Beef and Lamb Association (PE138)

The Convener:

Petition PE138 is a long-standing petition on which Richard Lochhead—who seems to have left the meeting—and I were appointed as reporters. We tried on several occasions to have a meeting with Quality Meat Scotland—as the organisation is now called—but foot-and-mouth and various other factors put paid to that and we never managed to have one. However, the chairman of QMS wrote to the committee offering to make a full presentation of the organisation's work and the agenda that it has identified in its early days. My recommendation is that we take the chairman up on that offer and invite him to make a presentation to the committee at the first meeting that time will allow, which will probably be around 12 February. I invite comments.

That is a sensible suggestion. I add that, in the interests of balance, we should provide an opportunity for Mr Wood, the petitioner, to be heard on that day. We should hear what he has to say, too.

As the petition was from Mr Wood, I find that suggestion difficult to disagree with. Are members happy that we should take evidence on petition PE138 on Tuesday 12 February?

Members indicated agreement.


Foot-and-mouth Disease (Public Inquiry) (PE386)

The Convener:

Petition PE386 is from Les Ward, on behalf of Advocates for Animals. Unusually, Mr Ward and I are in total agreement on the petition. Advocates for Animals is asking for an independent public inquiry into all aspects of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. We had a debate on the matter in the Parliament and made our views known, but we did not have a vote on the debate. My view is that we should note the petition, given most of the questions that we put during the debate. I feel that, for the time being, the matter has been laid to rest. If members want to disagree with that, they should feel free to do so.

I am not disagreeing, but I ask whether, given that a Tory motion initiated the debate, your colleagues have come to a view on how that may be brought to a conclusion.

The Convener:

I intend to raise a point of order on that topic either tomorrow or on Thursday. I will write to the Presiding Officer informing him of my intention to do so. The matter has been the cause of some procedural difficulty and it is only fair to give him warning. I would like to press the matter to a conclusion, given that we are coming up to the recess.

Are members happy to note petition PE386 on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 16:22.