Local Government and Regeneration Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Official Report 393KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Use of Productive Land (PE1433)

Agenda item 8 is consideration of our approach to public petition PE1433, in the name of John Hancox, on productive land for landless Scots to grow their own food. We have a paper from the clerk that sets out the background to the petition. Do members have any comments?

The petition is interesting and the clerk’s paper helpfully delineates the underlying issues. I am interested to hear others’ views on the subject, but the issue might first and most usefully be considered under the broad remit of the land reform review group, which is led by Dr Alison Elliot.

I am in the convener’s hands on the matter procedurally but, although the petition has come to us, it might be better for that group to consider whether it can pick up the petition in the first instance, as the group goes around Scotland gathering evidence and delivers a series of interim reports. We should not necessarily resile from future consideration of the issue; I think merely that for the time being that might be the best way to deal with it.

I agree with Stewart Stevenson, but there is also scope in our work programme. Members who visited Glasgow three or four weeks ago heard compelling evidence from the GalGael Trust about how to utilise land and get communities involved. It would be useful for us to hear evidence from the petitioner, perhaps as part of the regeneration inquiry, to help to shape further thoughts and opinions.

However, I agree with Stewart Stevenson’s point about the wider picture. The petition is not solely for us to consider, and I suggest that it would be better directed elsewhere, but there is still an opportunity for us to hear further evidence.

Do Anne McTaggart and John Wilson have any comments, as members of the Public Petitions Committee?

First, I declare an interest: I have carried out work with John Hancox in the past. He has held a number of events in the Parliament, particularly in relation to apple day, which I have co-sponsored.

I remind committee members that the Public Petitions Committee can refer petitions only to other committees of the Parliament. It is not empowered to refer petitions to other external bodies or inquiries that are being conducted. However, this committee might wish to take up the suggestion that has been made, since the petition has been passed to it to deliberate and come to conclusions on.

Stuart McMillan suggested that we take evidence from the petitioner. I suggest that there is enough information in the work that has been done by the Public Petitions Committee to allow this committee to progress any suggestions or discussions in that committee. It is not necessary to take evidence from Mr Hancox, because he has already given evidence to the Public Petitions Committee.

The issue for that committee was quite clear. We passed the petition to this committee because we felt that it would fit in with the regeneration inquiry and the issues that the convener and other members have identified of community land ownership and how communities can be more involved in organising themselves around the use of community land that is currently unproductive. That ties in with the petition’s original objective, which is to free up more community land and put it to productive use for local communities. As I know the petitioner, I know his ideas about community allotments and grow-your-own projects.

The petition was remitted to this committee on the basis of the regeneration inquiry and to allow the committee to consider the petition, along with other submissions, in relation to how we fully engage with communities to make the best use of any identified land areas that can be turned to productive use for those communities.

I agree with everything that John Wilson said. I declare an interest in that I am on the Public Petitions Committee and was among the members who referred the petition. At that time, I was thinking about the forthcoming community empowerment and renewal bill, and issues such as the use of vacant and derelict land. I thought that the petition and the evidence tied in with that. I do not know whether we need to hear from the petitioner because, as John Wilson said, we have an array of evidence that has already been taken. The petition fits in well with what we are doing on regeneration but also as evidence in relation to the community empowerment and renewal bill.

11:15

Was this the only committee to which the Public Petitions Committee referred the petition?

Yes.

We have a number of choices. Stewart Stevenson’s suggestion of writing to Dr Alison Elliot’s group is good. Does the committee agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

What part of the country does Mr Hancox come from?

He comes from East Lothian.

I was going to suggest inviting him to one of our community events, but perhaps the next one, in South Ayrshire, is a little far for him. I have no problem with involving Mr Hancox in round-table events as part of the regeneration inquiry, but Anne McTaggart’s suggestion about the community empowerment and renewal bill is probably more important.

Do we agree to leave off the petition for the regeneration inquiry but maybe call on Mr Hancox as part of a round-table event when we deal with the community empowerment and renewal bill?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you.

11:16 Meeting continued in private until 11:45.