Rural Development Committee, 18 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 18, 2002

Official Report 138KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Raptors (Licensed Culling) (PE187)

Item 4 is the long-running petition PE187, from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, which calls for the Parliament to allow limited licensed culling of raptors, under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, in areas where local raptor populations have increased to beyond normal levels.

We discussed the petition on 30 April and members asked whether the SGA had been invited to join the moorland forum. We wrote to find out about that, and members will have received a letter from Scottish Natural Heritage confirming not only that the SGA has been asked to join the forum, but that the first meeting of the forum was held on Friday last week. Members have also received from the clerks a cover note and various papers on the petition, which set out the background and suggest options for proceeding.

Members will be aware of the work that the Transport and the Environment Committee has done on the petition, and that that committee has now completed its consideration of the petition. Originally, we discussed considering the petition jointly with that committee, but the Transport and the Environment Committee took a lead role on PE187 and on related PE8. I note that PE187 has been with the Parliament for quite a long time now, so I think that we should take some steps towards concluding the matter.

Do members have any views on how best to proceed? If not, I will be happy to guide them.

I would like some clarification. Paragraph 7 of the note from the clerks says:

"On 14 January 2002 a petition (PE449) on a related matter was submitted by the SGA, calling for the Scottish Parliament to initiate an independent investigation into the impact of predatory birds on waders, songbirds, fish stocks and gamebirds."

The clerks' note says that that a new petition, PE449, has been sent to the Transport and the Environment Committee, but this committee is dealing with PE187. Surely the Parliament should be working in a joined-up way—one committee should deal with both petitions. I am a bit confused about that.

There are two separate petitions. PE449 has been referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee, although that committee has not yet considered it. PE187 went to both committees, but the Transport and the Environment Committee in effect stole a march on us—perhaps that is not the right phrase—and considered it before we did. My recommendation is that, in the light of PE449's having been laid before the Parliament, we should choose option B, which is that the committee should note PE187 and that I should, with the committee's approval, write to the minister pointing out the concerns that have been raised. In the light of PE449's having been presented, we would leave PE187 at that.

My point is still the same. The petitions deal with a subject that this committee should be taking a lead on. I do not understand why the Transport and the Environment Committee is dealing with PE449.

I hear Fergus Ewing agreeing with that. Do other members agree?

It would be a bit strange if we repeated work that had been carried out by the Transport and the Environment Committee. It has done the report, which we were not in a position to do when the petition was first considered. Matters are progressing nicely, so I suggest that we take the action that the convener recommends. There is nothing to be gained by going back over ground that has already been covered by another committee.

I agree with Mike Rumbles that the petitions are both plainly within the remit of the Rural Development Committee and that the gamekeepers should be given a hearing and get the opportunity to put their case to the committee. As far as I can see, that simply has not happened. Now, because the SGA has lodged another petition on a similar subject, it is being suggested that we should not properly dispose of the initial petition.

It seems to me that option C proposes sensibly that we take evidence from the main parties; the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Executive have been suggested. Surely we exist as a committee of the Scottish Parliament to give people a hearing. I would like to hear the case. I do not have fixed views, but the committee has a great deal of knowledge and expertise on related issues, through its consideration of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. I am sure that members are aware of many of the arguments. Surely the Rural Development Committee should give the Scottish Gamekeepers Association a hearing. If it does not, the association might be aggrieved, and rightly so.

Are you referring to PE449?

No. I think we should give the SGA a hearing on PE187. It might be that, because of the closeness of the subjects of the petitions, we could conjoin them and hear about them at the same time. That should not cause any difficulty from the petitioners' points of view. However, I certainly think that they should be given a hearing, which they have not had from the Rural Development Committee to date.

I approach the issue differently from Fergus Ewing, but I reach the same conclusion. There is an ecological issue involved. If there is predation by raptors on species that we are choosing to introduce to the environment, there are issues to be considered. I do not have a fully formed view on that. Fergus Ewing's suggestion that the committee hear from the gamekeepers on both the petitions, if they are in a position to give us evidence, is a sensible way forward.

PE449 has been referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee. The Rural Development Committee has been copied in only for information, so the petition has not been remitted to us. It would be wrong for us to start taking evidence on a petition that has not been passed to us for consideration.

I suggest that even if we continue along the lines that Fergus Ewing proposes, it will be some time before we can take evidence. The forum is meeting and the petitioners are part of that forum. We should note the petition; the petitioners will be in a position to petition again if they feel that they are not getting the answers they seek through the moorland forum. That will leave the petitioners with the scope to come back to the committee if need be, but it stops the committee going back over old ground that has been covered by another committee. Our agenda is pretty tight.

My understanding is that PE449 has been lodged because the petitioners felt that they were not getting the answers that they sought with PE187. That seems to be pretty clear. It is a logical extension of that that the gamekeepers consider PE187 to be dead as far as parliamentary procedure is concerned. That petition was dealt with by the Transport and the Environment Committee. I am sure that PE449 was lodged because the petitioners wanted further action on the issue, or felt that they had not been given a proper hearing.

PE449 has been referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee, so rightly we cannot barge in and take evidence on it, because that would be duplicating the work of another committee. However, I am not totally clear as to the right way forward.

Convener, will you clarify a point of fact?

I am looking at the clerks' note on PE187. Paragraph 7 refers to the procedural position of new petition PE449 and says that the Public Petitions Committee agreed to

"pass a copy of the petition"

to the Rural Development Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee. Where does it say that the Transport and the Environment Committee is considering the petition?

The next sentence of the note says that the petition was subsequently transferred to the Transport and the Environment Committee.

Is that the current situation?

If I am right, when the gamekeepers submitted PE449, they made a specific request that it be referred to the Rural Development Committee. The Public Petitions Committee has obviously seen fit to decide otherwise.

Do we have an explanation for why that was that case?

I do not know, but I cannot say that I am au fait with the Official Report of the relevant meeting of the Public Petitions Committee. I could not attend the meeting on that day, although I wanted to.

I wonder whether committee members agree that we should ask the Transport and the Environment Committee to notify us about when it will discuss the petition, so that the Rural Development Committee can be represented at the meeting. We could appoint a reporter to that committee when the petition comes up.

We could perhaps add a request for an indication of whether the Transport and the Environment Committee plans to take evidence from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. I expect that it will. We want to know whether the gamekeepers will get a hearing, because that is at the core of what we are talking about.

It might be in order for us to say that we are aware that the gamekeepers feel that they have not had a hearing on the subject with the Rural Development Committee, even though the committee's remit is relevant to it. We could request that the Transport and the Environment Committee take evidence on PE449 and that we appoint reporters to that committee. Does that proposal meet with members' approval?

Members indicated agreement.

What is the difference between the two petitions? Petition PE449 was lodged by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, which also submitted petition PE187. The petitions are closely related and I do not see what the difference is.

That is not for us to say—it is up to the gamekeepers to do that.

I think that PE449 came after PE187, because PE187 was not dealt with.

I presume that the wording of the two petitions is not the same, because if that had been the case, PE449 would have been thrown out.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I am aware, when the gamekeepers submitted PE187 more than two years ago, they expected—and I hoped—that the then Rural Affairs Committee would at least give them a hearing. They are obviously frustrated by the extreme length of time that has elapsed. Although PE187 was passed for consideration by the Transport and the Environment Committee and to the Rural Affairs Committee, I do not believe that the gamekeepers appeared before that committee. They have submitted another petition—PE449—in an attempt to obtain a hearing. It seems odd that a parliamentary committee has not given the petitioners a hearing.

If other members of the committee think that it is appropriate to ask for reporters from our committee to go to the relevant meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee, I will accept their wishes. I also request that we keep open our consideration of PE187, because that is the only hook that is left to us, as PE449 was not referred to the Rural Development Committee. I do not know why that was the case and I ask the convener to enquire politely about the reasons for that.

I agree.

I agree, too.

I would like clarification on a matter that relates to what Mike Rumbles said about petitioners getting a hearing. Perhaps the clerks know whether every petitioner to the Parliament gets a hearing.

Not every petitioner gets a hearing.

John Farquhar Munro made the point that the petitions are substantially the same. Although the subject matter is the same, the recent petition—PE449—calls for an independent investigation, whereas the original petition called for specific action, namely allowing limited licensed culling of raptors. The petitions are on the same topic, but because they call for different action, they should be regarded as different. It is about time that we gave the Scottish Gamekeepers Association a hearing. It is not relevant to say that the SGA should not be heard from just because one or two petitioners might not receive a hearing. I feel strongly that the SGA has been treated poorly so far and that we should try to put that right.

That is not what I was saying at all. I merely asked whether all petitioners are called to give evidence to the Parliament.

I take your point.

To move the issue on, I suggest that we appoint a reporter to attend the meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee at which PE449 will be discussed and that we ask whether that committee will take evidence from the gamekeepers.

I was going to suggest slightly stronger action. I propose that we write to the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee to request politely that the committee consider asking the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to give evidence on PE449, provided that the SGA was not asked to give evidence on PE187. I do not think that it was. I also propose the appointment of one or two reporters. There is nothing to stop any interested member of the committee from going along to the meeting when PE449 comes up. I could ask that we be informed when the petition is on the agenda. I also suggest that we write to John McAllion, the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, to clarify why, when a specific request was made for the petition to come to this committee for consideration, that did not happen. Do members agree with those suggestions and with the proposal to keep open consideration of PE187 as a final fallback position?

Members indicated agreement.

I nominate Jamie McGrigor as the committee's reporter.

Fergus Ewing has probably teed himself up for the role.

There is nothing to stop us from having two, three or even four reporters.

Two might do.

I would like to go.

Would it be sensible to postpone the decision about reporters until we find out whether the Transport and the Environment Committee will give the gamekeepers a hearing? We would want to appoint reporters only if a hearing was to be held.

We will postpone the choice of reporters until we receive an answer to the letter that we will send this week. The relevant meeting will not take place before the recess. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.