Official Report 202KB pdf
Item 2 on our agenda concerns petitions. We have a total of four petitions before us today. The first is petition PE8, from the Scottish Homing Union. Members will also have received copies of a report from the United Kingdom raptor working group, a note from the Scottish Parliament information centre on that report, and a cover note by the clerk. A briefing note from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and a letter from the Scottish Homing Union were circulated to members earlier today. Do members have adequate information to help them to reach a decision on how to proceed with this petition?
I do not think that we do, to be honest. I was present at the launch of the raptor working group report and, like everyone else who was there, I welcomed that report. It contains ideas for solid foundations for working partnerships on what is an emotive subject. However, considerable concerns were raised by several bodies at the launch. Having read a great deal on all sides of this argument over the months since we were elected to the Scottish Parliament, I am absolutely satisfied that both sides of the argument deserve to be heard by this committee. I suggest that we should set time aside to do that. We do not have the information available to make a learned judgment just now.
I am interested in the recommendations in the RSPB report—they are worth looking at. There is no conclusive evidence that raptors are a major danger to pigeons. However, it is worth following the recommendations in the working group's report that studies be undertaken on the range of possibilities of reducing the predation of racing pigeons. I am not convinced by the information that we have; recommendations 20, 21, 22 and 23 would be helpful, as they would add to that information.
I do not argue with Cathy Peattie at all, but I think that we need to hear evidence from all sides of the argument.
The report from the working group is fairly comprehensive. It also appears to be based on a consensus among the organisations involved, which included the Scottish Homing Union and the Royal Pigeon Racing Association. I would be interested in hearing any contrary information from committee members, but the purpose of the working group appears to have been to bring together the views of all those interested in the issue and to try to establish common ground, especially among those who were involved in doing the work—that is the key thing.
Alex is hinting that we should get some more information, but I am not sure what more we need.
At the launch, people and organisations other than the Scottish Homing Union were raising concerns over much of the wording of the raptor working group report. They were all agreed that a level of consensus had been reached, but there was considerable disagreement about whether that consensus was as strong as suggested in several sections of the report.
I broadly agree with Cathy Peattie and, strangely, with some of what Lewis Macdonald said. Given our current work load and the fact that I, for one, am sympathetic to a number of the working group's recommendations, I wonder how useful an investigation would be.
Am I right in thinking that we are the secondary committee on this matter and that we will report our views to the Transport and the Environment Committee?
The petition was submitted to the Parliament fairly early on. At that stage, the Public Petitions Committee referred it to this committee and to the Transport and the Environment Committee. There is no concept of a lead committee on this matter.
Having read the report, I am quite clear what the raptor working group's recommendations are. I know that the racing pigeon organisation would voice a different view, because it disagrees, but the report is well written.
Three—or even four—out of the four bodies I mentioned were involved in drawing up the report, but they still voice concerns about the matter. That should give us enough cause for concern to listen. The raptor working group's report mentions the final report of the Hawk and Owl Trust, which has not even been published yet. How can its findings be taken into account? That gives cause for concern.
Alex, are you indicating that there are real problems with the report?
I am indicating that people have justified concerns, which deserve to be, and should be, heard by this committee.
The note prepared by the clerks says that the petition seeks
I support Lewis Macdonald's suggestions. It is difficult to see how the two points of view could be reconciled; as Lewis says, they are very different. Clearly, the raptor working group has done a lot of work; its report goes into a fair amount of detail. However, it may be worth asking the Scottish Homing Union what its specific counter-arguments are. A number of the suggestions that have been made may be helpful, although they may not be what the Scottish Homing Union wants. It may be useful to progress those suggestions. For example, there should be research into some of the other methods of control and deterrence in relation to attack from raptors. I support Lewis's suggestion that we invite other bodies to comment once they have had the opportunity to consider some of the suggestions.
The information in the petition from the racing pigeon people is diametrically opposed to that provided by the raptor working group. Therefore, it would be useful to invite the raptor working group to talk about its recommendations and to invite someone who can speak about the concerns of the petitioners. We should hear both sides of the argument and then make a quick decision.
Twice I have proposed that we consider the suggestion by the RSPB. If we are going to examine the report and the concerns of the petitioners, and make recommendations, I would like to hear what the RSPB has to say. We must find a middle ground and try to achieve some sort of consensus. I am not in favour of culling wild birds, but there must be a way forward.
I do not want to have a shout in two committees on this matter, but you will not be surprised to hear that I have strong opinions. Rather than inviting two people to appear before two committees, should we not suggest that members of the Transport and the Environment Committee, which also has an interest in this matter, attend the same briefing as members of this committee?
I was not necessarily suggesting that we move immediately to hear evidence from both points of view. I suggest that we note the contents of this petition and the recommendations of the raptor working group and take no further action. Once the people who support the petition have had time to consider the recommendations of the working group, they may wish to comment, at which time it may be appropriate for us to deal with their concerns. We do not have to open up a debate immediately. It may be that a consensus will develop over the next weeks and months as a result of the recommendations of the raptor working group. We should not stage a public debate in a committee while people are coming to terms with the recommendations of the report.
I sympathise with Lewis Macdonald's view, but I am taking a wider view of the use of public petitions to the Scottish Parliament. We said that we would wait for the report of the raptor working group. If we now follow Lewis's suggestion, we will put off the issue again. I do not think that that is an effective way in which to deal with petitions that are presented to us. It is up to the petitioners to decide whether to withdraw the petition as a result of the report of the raptor working group. As Alex Fergusson said, we should hear both sides of the argument and, as Cathy Peattie said, we should hear from the RSPB. We should limit the number of witnesses from whom we hear.
The petitioners have a narrow agenda. They want to cull wild birds to protect pigeons. There has been much discussion about whether that would have any effect, and I think that the consensus is that that is not the way forward.
I have a slight problem, in that I agree with what you just said, Rhoda, although I would feel guilty about taking that course of action without having heard the Scottish Homing Union's objections to the report.
I do not believe that the Scottish Homing Union has ever asked for a cull of raptors. I cannot think of a better way of endorsing the validity of the raptor working group's report than by thoroughly investigating the concerns of many of the people and bodies that contributed to it—we should be in a properly informed position to welcome or criticise its findings. I fail to recognise any difficulty in that. I agree with Mike Rumbles—the fact that this was one of the first petitions that was submitted to the Parliament is almost reason enough to recognise its legitimacy through proper discussion of the issues.
Would it be fair to say that there is a difference of opinion in the committee, and that a small majority of members is in favour of hearing further evidence on this issue?
There is only one way to find out.
Cathy Peattie's suggestion is middle of the road. If we get the RSPB in, it can present both sides of the argument and represent both bodies. That would be the simplest and quickest solution.
I suggest that the committee notes the report and welcomes the recommendations. We can ask the Transport and the Environment Committee whether it wants to have a joint meeting to take evidence. If it does, this committee can send representatives to that meeting. If not, we can simply express our support for the recommendations.
We are dealing with the petition.
I made a proposal in my opening statement on this matter.
The petition asks us to review urgently the operation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We must ask whether we have done that by referring to this report and making a recommendation accordingly. I am not sure that we have.
I would like to point out that the request was for the Government, rather than this committee, to review the act. Furthermore, the raptor working group review was commissioned by a department of state, so I presume that it constitutes that department's review of that aspect of the act.
Let us start with a series of questions. Does the committee want to decide the matter now or does it agree to hear from interested parties?
I would support the latter suggestion only if the evidence was taken in conjunction with the Transport and the Environment Committee and that committee felt that the exercise was worth while. If it did not, we should not take evidence independently.
Should we approach the Transport and the Environment Committee, with a view to hearing from interested parties on this issue?
Does the committee wish to express a view on the petition at this stage, or wait until we have heard the views of interested parties?
If we agree to listen to interested parties, it would be extraordinary to comment on the report now. We have not been asked to comment on the report anyway. As Mike Rumbles said, we are talking about the petition. The raptor working group's report is not on the agenda. The only reason that we are considering it is that we agreed to postpone talking about the petition until the report was published.
Is it feasible for the committee to respond by saying, "In response to your petition, we note and welcome the recommendations in the raptor working group report, and we have indicated to the Transport and the Environment Committee that, should it wish to take evidence, we would like to send representatives"?
May I come back on that point? We are the Rural Affairs Committee. We are not the farming committee. We are not a committee for agriculture, fisheries and food, although I have always felt that there is a great danger that we will start operating like an agriculture, fisheries and food committee. I do not take kindly to Richard Lochhead's suggestion that the Transport and the Environment Committee should deal with the issue and that we should send someone along. This matter should be dealt with in a joint meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee.
I agree with that.
Will we approach the Transport and the Environment Committee with a view to hearing from the interested parties, and postpone a decision on the terms of the petition until we have heard those views?
I am confused. Perhaps Richard Davies can answer my question. If we make a decision today—either to hear evidence, to make a recommendation on the report or to make a recommendation on the recommendations of the RSPB—what would happen to it?
The committee is being asked to examine a petition that seeks the support of the Parliament in re-examining the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The committee postponed taking a view on the petition so that it could receive the raptor working group report. The committee has received that report, so the only outstanding question is the committee's view on the petition.
A couple of propositions have already been made, so I hesitate to make another one, but it is clear that what was asked for in the petition was a review of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and what has just been completed is a review of legislation and procedures in relation to birds of prey. Therefore, it would be an appropriate response to say, "We have received your petition. We did not consider it until we had seen the outcome of the review. Having seen the review, we are content with it and support its recommendations."
I am happy with that.
That is a clear position. Of course, that leaves it open to the Scottish Homing Union, or anyone else with an interest, to come back to us. We are a parliamentary committee, so they can say, "We are not happy with the recommendations and we would like you to consider that." At that point, we should be prepared to follow up the matter, but at the moment, we have a petition before us, the terms of which have been met, and we should say that.
Is that a counter-proposal to Alex's proposal to hear further evidence?
At this stage, yes.
Is Lewis saying that this is the end of the petition—the petition that we put off considering while we waited for this report? Are we saying that we will not take this petition any further?
That is correct.
Convener, you will not be surprised to hear that I am not happy with that. I do not consider the report of the raptor working group to be a consensual review of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and I stick to my original proposal that we should have a vote.
There will be a division on Alex Fergusson's proposal that the committee continue consideration of the petition to hear further evidence on the report of the UK raptor working group, and from the petitioners, and to approach the Transport and the Environment Committee with a view to taking that evidence jointly.
For
The result of the division is as follows: For 5, Against 5.
Let Robin Harper vote.
I am afraid that that would be a highly irregular way of taking the casting vote. I think that I will have to offer my casting vote in favour of Alex Fergusson's proposal. Although I am prepared to discuss the matter retrospectively, I will not change that vote.
Do members wish to hear that evidence from a range of interested parties?
Would it be worth while to form a small sub-committee comprising members of this committee and members of the Transport and the Environment Committee?
The clerks are encouraging me to use the phrase "appointment of reporters" rather than "forming of sub-committees".
I beg your pardon.
Do members agree to appoint two reporters to handle this issue?
I am happy to be involved.
Do members agree that Alex Fergusson and Cathy Peattie should be the reporters on this matter?
Okay. We will ask the Transport and the Environment Committee to deal with the matter.
The Transport and the Environment Committee has agreed that this is a good way of working on any issue.
Do you want us to report back at the next meeting, convener? How speedily do you want us to go about this?
We should move as quickly as possible. You could report back at the next meeting about how you wish to proceed.
Paragraph 29 of the briefing paper that was circulated to members refers to the legal status of the petition. Can the clerks bring us up to date on the advice from the director of the Parliament's legal office?
The Parliament's lawyers are still considering what advice to give on the status of the petition.
In what particular area was legal advice sought? What is the area of concern?
The area, not of concern but of question, that was referred to is set out on the final page of the members-only briefing. It relates to general information on the ability of the Parliament to direct the matter, the methodology that would be used and the implications of such action in relation to activities that are broadly based on European Community regulations.
Do you mean the power of Parliament to countermand EC regulations?
Yes, if Parliament chose to go down that route.
I had a similar question about Parliament's powers in connection with the regulation of GM crops.
Robin, would you like to make some opening comments?
I shall be brief. We have lodged a number of motions in the past nine months and genetically modified crops have been a matter of considerable public debate outside the Parliament. The debate might not be raging round the walls of the Parliament, but the subject comes up regularly. There is considerable public concern, some of it well informed and some of it possibly not so well informed.
I certainly think that there are grounds for debate. As one who has signed up to the Scottish Green party's petition, what is your view on the petition from Friends of the Earth, which does not ask for quite the same thing?
My view is clear—I do not mind which petition is progressed, or whether one or both petitions are progressed. It is a question of opening the debate and taking evidence. I do not want to be put in the position of saying, "This petition is better than that petition." I want to get the debate going.
I would welcome an opportunity to debate GM foods, whether by taking evidence in the committee or by debating the issue in the chamber, even if that is done in the context of a members' business debate. The issue needs to be debated and I agree with Robin that members want further information, as there is a lot of misinformation around.
I draw a distinction between the two petitions. Petition PE60 calls on the Scottish Parliament to
The petitions have been put together purely to avoid duplication during discussion. There is no requirement for us to take the same view on both. We can take quite separate views—
We should draw a great distinction between the petitions. One is negative—asking us to prevent something—while the other asks us to open up the debate.
I am quickly getting the impression from members that we are almost unanimous that there should be a full parliamentary debate on this issue.
I also support that approach.
Richard makes a good point, but could not we mandate the convener to seek that consensus, as we cannot predict the actions of other committees? If that consensus exists, the convener could then approach the Parliamentary Bureau to ask for a motion to be debated in the Parliament.
Yes.
My view is that debating the issue, as described in PE60, might well lead to the outcome described in PE51.
Fair enough—that is your view.
We should note, however, that there is a difference between the view that we should debate this issue because it is important to the people of Scotland and the view that there is consensus on GM foods or GM organisms. It might be difficult to find a motion that everyone is able to sign up to, as such a motion might not express everyone's views on the issue. We might all, however, feel that the issue should be debated.
It seems that the Transport and the Environment Committee is the lead committee for the petitions. Therefore it would be appropriate for us to say to that committee that we support the call for a debate on GM foods, but that we do not support the actions called for by the petition from Friends of the Earth.
Is it the view of the committee that we agree with the terms described in PE60—that there should be a debate—and that I should approach the conveners of the other committees that have an interest in the petition, in order to explore methods of securing that debate?
In addressing PE51 separately—in order to have a distinct response—how do members think that we should proceed with the requests contained in that petition? Should we formally defer our consideration of the petition until the debate has taken place?
We should defer determination of our capabilities or locus in respect of that petition until we have received legal advice. Are not we waiting for legal advice?
If we did anything other than defer consideration of PE51, that would negate what we have just done with regard to PE60. We said that we want to debate the whole subject; we cannot then say that we agree with PE51. We cannot do anything with PE51 if we want to open up the discussion and have the whole subject debated in Parliament.
Would it be appropriate to defer a decision on petition PE51 until we have appropriate legal advice and the discussion has moved on sufficiently for us to address the issue in the terms laid out in the petition?
We now come to the next petition on the list—petition PE69 from James McPherson of Wick—on which this is the lead committee and of which members have copies in front of them. The petitioner asks the Parliament to direct that public meetings be held as part of the consultation process into the review of the Crofters Commission. I remind members that they might want to declare an interest before we discuss this matter.
I would love to stay for the next four items, as they are dear to my heart, but I am afraid that I am very pressed by work and must leave.
Thank you for your contribution, Robin.
I would like to declare an interest.
I should perhaps declare an interest, as I am looking to set up a cross-party group on crofting, and I am concerned about it.
Are there any other comments?
I am happy to support Rhoda Grant's comments. A selling point of this Parliament was that it would be outgoing and consultative. Anything that can be done to promote that, especially in this field, should be welcomed.
Does the committee support the terms of this petition?
Yes.
That was simple and straightforward.
Next
Petrol Pricing