Official Report 241KB pdf
National Heritage Committee (Cramond) (PE801)
We move now to consideration of current petitions. As we have linked the first two of these petitions to a previous petition, we shall now consider PE801, by Ronald H Guild, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to establish a permanent national heritage committee and to ensure the protection of the whole Cramond area's environment, including islands, and the proper investigation and preservation of the natural, manmade and cultural elements of the site, together with the establishment of an appropriate museum.
On the basis of the responses received from Historic Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and the City of Edinburgh Council, I think that we should probably close the petition. It seems to me that they are dealing adequately with the situation.
Do other members agree that that is the case?
Mr Guild has pursued the issue vigorously through the Parliament, and through the Parliament's Education Committee, previously. I have to say, with regret, that I do not know where we can go with the petition, given the responses from Historic Scotland, SNH and the City of Edinburgh Council, so I support John Scott's recommendation.
Is it agreed that we close the petition?
Food Supplements (European Directive) (PE738)<br />Food Supplements (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (PE828)
The next petitions are PE738 and PE828. PE738, by Joanna Blythman, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that the voice of consumers of vitamin and mineral supplements is heard as the European Commission prepares to set maximum permitted levels as part of the food supplements directive, and to consider all options, including a derogation, that would allow Scots consumers access to the vitamin and mineral potencies currently available.
Given the European Court of Justice decision, which accepts the validity of the directive, there is not much more to do. We should close the petitions. The court's decision is pretty much the final word.
Do members agree?
I have every sympathy with the petitioners, but we have gone to the highest court available and it has made its decision.
Planning Applications (Third-party Right of Appeal) (PE809)
Our next petition is PE809, by Angela and William Flanagan, which calls for the Scottish Parliament to legislate to provide third parties with a right of appeal regarding planning applications.
The petition is very live. The Communities Committee will deal with the forthcoming planning bill in due course, so I suggest that we refer the petition to it to consider as part of its scrutiny of the planning bill.
Are members happy to do that?
Egg Stamping Legislation (PE733)
The next current petition is PE733, by Peter Siddons, which calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to provide guidance to egg producers in Scotland on relevant legislation relating to egg stamping and whether it is compatible with the provision of the EU Council Decision 94/371/EC.
Again, on the basis of the responses that we have received from all the people to whom we wrote, I do not think there is any point in taking the petition further.
Do members agree?
G8 Summit (Peaceful Protest) (PE871)<br />G8 Summit (World Poverty) (PE874)
The next petition is PE871 by Rosemarie McIlwhan on behalf of the Scottish Human Rights Centre and G8 Alternatives group and calls on the Scottish Parliament to express its support for peaceful protest during the forthcoming G8 summit, including at Gleneagles itself.
The purpose of the petition was in part to highlight the issue; it is a question of timing rather than anything else. The petitioners should take comfort from what happened subsequently and could perhaps even claim some credit for it. Whether we require a letter from the First Minister to close the petitions formally is a matter for your judgement, but I am clear that there was support for the petitions from the First Minister's office at the time.
I agree.
It depends whether we want to pursue the matter further. The First Minister has made public statements in response to the petitions and there have been discussions in the chamber on the matter. The issue is whether we want to express our disappointment that we did not receive a response. There is nothing more that we can do with the petition.
The issue was responded to in the Scottish Parliament debating chamber. It would be appropriate to send copies of the Official Report of those parts of the debate to the petitioners. I recall that the issue came up in the context of First Minister's question time. The First Minister made it abundantly clear to everyone that he supported the events. As Jackie Baillie rightly points out, events afterwards indicated that there was strong support for them throughout Scotland. I was one of the people who queued for ever in the park. I was with all my church groups, local Labour party groups and so on. We queued for more than six hours and still could not get on the march, but we had a nice gala day in the park and enjoyed ourselves because we were there to support the event. Most MSPs were there.
I do not disagree with my colleagues on the First Minister's response. He was rightly enthusiastic about it all. However, there is a point of principle. A failure to respond, no matter how briefly, would set a bad precedent for other ministers, who might not respond if they feel that they have already said enough about a matter in Parliament. We should seek a response for reasons of tidiness and the functionality of the committee. The points that Jackie Baillie and Helen Eadie have eloquently expressed about the First Minister's view could be encompassed in a letter from his office. That would round off the process. If the committee is strong on anything it is strong on process.
I agree. We will not learn anything from a response from the First Minister, but it is appropriate that we receive one. We should pursue that.
Education Maintenance Allowance Payments (PE815)
The next petition is PE815, by Ian Dalrymple, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the distribution of education maintenance allowance payments this year to ensure a fairer introduction of the new higher payments so that all eligible pupils gain an equal amount.
I agree: there is nothing further to be gained. We have received the response.
Okay. We will close the petition.
HMP Peterhead (PE675)
The final current petition is PE675, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the suitability of HMP Peterhead for the long-term imprisonment of convicted sex offenders.
An SPS consultation is on-going and the Minister for Justice has indicated that following that she will report on the future of HMP Peterhead. There is therefore no further point in keeping the petition open, so I recommend that we close it.
Are members agreed?
That was our last petition. That concludes our business.
Meeting closed at 11:54.
Previous
New Petitions