Official Report 261KB pdf
Agenda item 5 is petitions. Members will recall that they were provided with details of five open petitions from session 2 that have been referred to the committee. The clerks have contacted all the petitioners and given them the opportunity to provide additional information. The note from the clerks summarises each petition, details the consideration of each petition during session 2, provides further information that has been referred to us by the petitioners, and lists options for the committee to consider.
Sewage Sludge (PE749)
PE749, from Geoffrey Kolbe, is on sewage sludge. Do members have any comments on the petition?
I agree with the options in our paper.
We should write to Scottish Water asking for an update on when it expects to publish its sewage sludge disposal strategy.
Does the committee agree that we should press Scottish Water on the timescale?
Lamlash Bay (No-take Zone and Marine Protected Area) (PE799)
Do members have any comments on the Lamlash Bay petition from Tom Vella-Boyle?
I feel as if I have been watching this petition for a long time. It would be useful to ask the question that the committee posed when it last had a full session on the petition, about funding from Scottish Natural Heritage and the fisheries budget. At that meeting, the committee agreed that there was scope for funding as part of a project.
You seek to emphasise the funding issue.
Absolutely. Two offers were on the table at that previous meeting, and we should go back and clarify the position.
Does the committee agree with that option?
Ship-to-ship Oil Transfers (Conservation) (PE956 and PE982)
We move to PE956 by Mary Douglas and PE982 by B Linden Jarvis, on ship-to-ship oil transfers, which members will be aware was the subject of a parliamentary debate.
The issue is clearly not closed. It is regrettable that a private company should have the final say on ship-to-ship oil transfers. We should keep the petitions open. The committee should take the option of writing to the minister as suggested.
As suggested by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds briefing?
I am sorry; I am looking at the options in paragraph 28 of the clerk's paper, which says that the committee
I seek guidance convener. Is it possible to decouple the two petitions?
They are separate petitions and can be treated separately.
I am quite relaxed about keeping PE956 open, although I note the petitioner's comments and think she has been unduly harsh on the Scottish Government, given what the cabinet secretary said about the division of powers between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster. I am therefore happy to keep that petition open. However, the terms of reference of PE982 have broadly been fulfilled, because there was a debate before the recent parliamentary recess. I am pretty sure that I participated in that debate.
We should not close the petitions because we have not reached the endgame. Although a statutory instrument was passed before the recess, the Scottish Government has not called in the assessment process.
I am going to ask members for their views on each petition separately, since the view has been expressed that they can be dealt with separately.
PE982, by B Linden Jarvis, arguably is slightly different, because it calls for a debate and Parliament has had that debate, in a sense. What is the committee's view on that? Do we continue with the petition simply because it is about the same subject as PE956, or do we close it?
As I said, we should close it down.
Given the link between the two petitions, we should continue with both of them, but I am happy to go with the flow, convener.
I would keep the petition open. The paper sets out what the petitioner has said about how the Government
Right. I propose that we keep both petitions—PE956 and PE982—open and that we proceed on the basis of the action that is set out in paragraph 28, which is to follow up on the issue with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, asking him for an update on the various discussions that have taken place. When we have received that update, the clerks will bring it before the committee for our consideration. Is that agreed?
National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 (PE1011)
We move to consideration of PE1011. The petitioner, Mr Ian MacKinnon, calls for a referendum on national parks. The petition was submitted in October 2006. In March 2007, a response was received from the then Minister for Environment and Rural Development, but our predecessor committee—the Environment and Rural Development Committee—was, of course, unable to consider it prior to dissolution. We have received no comment from the petitioner on the minister's response. I propose that we write to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, asking whether he endorses his predecessor's position on the matter and what his plans are in respect of the 2000 act. Are members happy to go with that?
There is a case for closing PE1011, given that the legislative programme does not include a bill on the subject. I do not agree with what the cabinet secretary has said on the matter but, in all fairness, he has made it clear that he does not intend to proceed in the way that his predecessor set out. We can probably save ourselves the price of a stamp, convener.
I do not think that we use a stamp.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation