Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Public Petitions Committee, 24 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 24, 2002


Contents


Inadmissible Petitions


Low-flying Jets (IP27)

The Convener:

We have three inadmissible petitions to deal with today. The first is IP27, which is from Mrs Margaret MacDonald and which calls on the Scottish Parliament to take action to reroute low-flying jets away from Tain Fearn and surrounding districts. Obviously, the matter raised in the petition is reserved to Westminster and, on that basis, the petition is inadmissible. However, the committee may wish to agree to refer the petition directly to the relevant UK Government minister for further consideration. It is further suggested that the committee could agree to pass a copy of the petition to the Scottish Executive, with a recommendation that it may wish to raise the issue during future discussions with the UK Government under the defence concordat.

Dorothy-Grace Elder:

We should also pass the petition to the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department, because animals as well as humans are affected. One often has to slide round the rigidity of the system that determines what is a reserved issue and what is not by mentioning the impact of such issues on wildlife or animals rather than their impact on poor human beings. It is terrible that we cannot deal with the petition simply because it raises a matter that is totally reserved to Westminster. Those planes are flying low and annoying people and animals in Scotland. They are not being reserved to any other part of the country. I register a protest about that.

I see what you mean but, strictly speaking, I think that the only people who can do anything about the matter are at the Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for low-flying aircraft.

Dorothy-Grace Elder:

We could still refer the petition to the Rural Development Committee, if there are cases of stillborn lambs or disturbance to flocks. It is terrible to go along the lines of asking questions about animals, but that must be done. I have had to do that before with Cape Wrath, as the convener knows. I asked about wildlife, not human beings, because the Executive would not give an answer about American shelling.

We are trying to be helpful.

I know.

The Convener:

We are not resigning from dealing with the petition. We are referring the petition to the minister as the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament and the minister will have to respond to us. In a sense, we keep some ownership of the petition. The Rural Development Committee would probably say that it did not have time to look into such issues.

Perhaps that committee has heard other complaints. I know that it is difficult for all committees to examine matters. The petition could be passed to that committee for information.

The issues could be raised with the petitioner's local member of Parliament.

We could pass the petition to the Rural Development Committee for information.

There will be more low-flying jets if the military is preparing for war, and we will have to suffer that here.

Phil Gallie:

People throughout the country must put up with low-flying jets. The problem exists south of the border. My experience—it was once a direct experience—is that care is taken and that local communities are respected. Some blocks can be established. The fact is that people do not like low-flying jets, which are a necessity of life. With the greatest respect to Mrs Margaret MacDonald, I say that she raises a point of annoyance to her, but if we went down that line, we could have a letter from everybody in every area where low-flying jets operate.

Good.

That is a political issue on which Dorothy-Grace Elder and I will always disagree. If we want servicemen to be reasonably well trained, we must put up with some inconveniences.

Leaving the politics aside, we can agree to refer the petition to the relevant UK minister and to the Scottish Executive.

Please could we refer the petition to the Rural Development Committee, purely for information?

We will refer the petition to that committee to note.


West Dunbartonshire Council (IP28)

The Convener:

The second inadmissible petition is from Mr James Kelly and calls on the Parliament to seek the suspension of West Dunbartonshire Council, pending a full independent inquiry into alleged malpractice. The accusation of malpractice relates to the council's refusal to replace Mr Kelly's full electric central heating system with a gas system and to his claim that the same electric heating system in a neighbouring property was replaced with a gas system. The council maintains that the neighbouring property was eligible because it had only a partial system, rather than a whole system.

Mr Kelly submitted his correspondence with all the elected members and officials of the council, his local MSP and Scottish Executive ministers. He has been in contact with Annabel Goldie, who is a list member for his area. It would be inappropriate for the Parliament to interfere in the individual executive decisions of Scottish local authorities. On that basis, it is recommended that we agree that the petition is inadmissible. We may wish to suggest that the petitioner considers submitting a complaint to the local government ombudsman about his allegations of maladministration by West Dunbartonshire Council or pursuing the matter through the courts. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.


Yangtze Incident (Memorial) (IP29)

The Convener:

The third and final inadmissible petition is from Mr William Leitch and calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to facilitate the erection of a monument in Pan Yu park, near Shanghai, in memory of those from both sides who died during the Yangtze incident in 1949. Mr Leitch asks the Parliament to recognise the valour of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel who died in April 1949 during the shelling of HMS Amethyst, HMS Consort, HMS London and HMS Black Swan in the Yangtze river. The petitioner disputes the Prime Minister's claim that the Hung Jao cemetery, where 23 of those who died during the Yangtze incident were buried, was redeveloped during the 1960s. The petitioner has supplied photographs that were taken in 1998 that show the cemetery in a derelict and overgrown condition, but do not show redevelopment. Memorials for those who were involved in the Yangtze incident can be found at HMS Drake, HM Naval Base Portsmouth and the British embassy in Peking.

The issues and actions that the petition calls for relate to foreign policy, which is a reserved matter and the responsibility of the UK Parliament and therefore outwith our competence. On that basis, it is recommended that we agree that the petition is inadmissible. We may wish to suggest to the petitioner that he may pursue the matter with the relevant UK Government minister, perhaps via his local MP. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Helen Eadie:

I have a query relating to the progress report on PE320. I am about to attend a meeting of the European Committee. One of the papers for that meeting relates indirectly to this item. It indicates that a meeting of the internal market, industry and research council is due to take place on 30 September. Item 4 on the agenda for that meeting is the

"Commission's report on barriers to an internal market for services",

which is very relevant to PE320.

Our Executive briefing states:

"The Commission's report ‘The state of the Internal market for Services' published on 30 July 2002 marks the end of the first stage of its original two-stage Internal Market Strategy for Services. It is a comprehensive account of the difficulties encountered both by providers and recipients of services across the EU according to the consultations carried out by the Commission and Member States or which have been identified by complaints, written and oral Parliamentary questions, petitions, studies and surveys.

The Commission will present the Report at the Competitiveness Council on 30 September 2002. There will not be a substantial formal discussion amongst Member States at this meeting but at one of the subsequent Competitiveness Councils, either 14 to 15 November or 26 November, Member States are expected to endorse Conclusions on the Services Report. This Report will serve as a basis of work for actions to be launched as a second stage of the Services Strategy in 2003."

The Health and Community Care Committee is producing a report that is very relevant to the petition. I am worried that we will miss a trick in ensuring that the appropriate voice is heard at the appropriate time.

Shall we ask the clerk to the European Committee to copy the relevant papers to the Health and Community Care Committee and to me, as the reporter on this issue, so that we can follow up the matter?

That would be fine. This is an urgent matter. Before we know it, it will be November. After ministers have made decisions and signed off documents at European level, we will be powerless to do anything.

The Convener:

We will ensure that the clerks to the European Committee copy the relevant material to the Health and Community Care Committee and to me. I will inform the Health and Community Care Committee of the implications of what is taking place.

Thank you for your attendance this morning. I am sorry that the meeting was so long—that seems to be becoming a pattern.

That is good—it shows that we are doing something.

Meeting closed at 13:12.