Official Report 276KB pdf
The first petition is PE16 from Mr Jimmy Oswald, calling for urgent action to reverse the decline of the capercaillie population in Scotland. The petition has been circulated with accompanying notes. We have received information from the Scottish Executive and Scottish Natural Heritage on the issues raised by the petitioner. In addition, "Capercaillie: A Review of Research Needs", commissioned by the Executive, has recently been published. The committee may wish to seek further information on the petition or members may wish to express views on points raised by the petition and convey them to the Executive, the petitioner and any other relevant bodies. As the covering note indicates, the petition was received by the Parliament almost a year ago and therefore a prompt response would be appropriate.
Given the length of time the Parliament has had the petition, I suggest that it would be appropriate for us to advise the Scottish Executive of our support for the conservation practice outlined in the extract from "Capercaillie: A Review of Research Needs". We should draw the Executive's attention to the update from the petitioner, dated 23 September, indicating that so far some of those management practices have not succeeded. We should ask ministers to consider taking more effective action. As the issues all relate to land management, we should encourage the Executive to report at an appropriate date to the Rural Affairs Committee on changes and achievements in management practices. We should advise the petitioner accordingly.
I thank Murray Tosh for his helpful response. That seems fair. Do we agree to do what is suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
Our next petition, PE33, is from Mr Stuart Crawford. It calls for the clearance of litter and rubbish from roadsides and other public areas. The petition was circulated to members with a covering note. We have received a response from the Scottish Executive on the issues raised; that response is attached to the covering note.
I suggest that we advise the petitioner of the Executive's response and of your intention to clarify what response COSLA will make to future petitions.
That is a fair comment. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
PE39 is also on the subject of littering. We agreed to consult the Scottish Executive and COSLA on the issues raised in the petition. We received a response from the Executive, but, again, we have not received a response from COSLA.
I suggest that we advise the petitioner of the response from the Scottish Executive as well as of Sarah Boyack's answer to a parliamentary question from Keith Harding on the subject. It might also be appropriate to indicate that I intend to ask the minister a question about allowing councils to keep fine income to pay for enforcement, along the same lines as fines for speeding and parking offences. I would be happy to advise the petitioner of the answer that I receive in due course.
We should commend Angus Council as suggested.
I strongly support the steps suggested. It seems bizarre that we have so much legislation on litter, which is hardly ever enforced.
Do we agree to the actions that have been suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition, PE96, is from Mr Allan Berry. It calls the Scottish Parliament to hold an independent and public inquiry into the adverse environmental effects of sea cage fish farming. A copy of the petition was circulated at last week's meeting. Members will have a list of indications of support for the petition, a copy of the paper on the petition requested from the Scottish Executive rural affairs department and a letter from Mr Frank Buckley, which raises similar issues.
The inquiry will need to be a significant exercise. The Rural Affairs Committee took the view that the reporters would have to carry out a ground-clearing exercise to identify the parameters of the work to be undertaken. It is not expected that the reporters would carry that work through. There will be a need for an external adviser and further support. I am happy for us to appoint reporters, but we should be clear that that is a preliminary step to conducting the inquiry and not the inquiry itself.
That is clear and was mentioned in my discussion with Alex Johnstone. The reporters will deal with terms of reference, approach, content and possible mechanisms for carrying out the research. The reporters will not conduct the research.
Members indicated agreement.
We now come to petitions PE132, PE154, PE156 and PE207. The petitions have been grouped because they relate to planning matters and contain several common themes. They are accompanied by a covering note, which updates the committee on the progress of each of the petitions. We should bear in mind our agreed work programme, in which we have made heavy commitments in the forthcoming months.
I suggest that we select option A in relation to the long outstanding petitions. We could discuss the more recent petition from East Renfrewshire separately.
I was going to suggest that we take option B, which is that the committee write to the Scottish Executive to ask whether it has any plans to consult on legislative proposals for the Scottish planning system and whether that would be compatible with requirements under the European convention on human rights.
I think that that could be premature, given that there is an Executive appeal against a legal decision in Glasgow relating to the whole issue. If we took the course of action that Helen Eadie suggests, we would be prevented from dealing with any of the petitions in the interim.
We have a problem in relation to what Helen Eadie has suggested. I accept what she wants to achieve, but I agree with Murray Tosh's view.
A large part of my mailbag is concerned with third-party rights of appeal and the fact that the planning system is not transparent to the man and woman in the street. As a matter of urgency in the next couple of years, the Executive should revise the Scottish planning system. We should do what we can at this stage to accelerate that process.
The route to doing that is by committee consideration of the issues rather than by being prompted by petitions. Petition PE96 is perhaps an exception, as it has generated an inquiry. If we are to carry out a review of planning procedures, we should do so as part of our regular work programme in a considered way.
It is important to bear in mind the fact that the planning aspects of local government will find the ECHR binding on them in the near future and that the Scottish Executive will have a responsibility for ensuring that the entire planning system is ECHR compliant. That will require all the issues that we have discussed to be addressed. It would be appropriate for us to play our part at that time. To go further while specific decisions are still up in the air would be difficult—some of the issues might be sub judice.
I share the view that Robin Harper takes—a large part of my mailbag is also concerned with third-party rights of appeal. I accept the wisdom of Murray Tosh's point about the fact that legal cases might be pending, but I think that the issue is important enough to warrant our asking the Executive about its plans. I get a sense that it might want to consider the issue anyway without our pushing it to do so. That is why it would be valuable to ask that question.
A number of issues are driving the matter—the ECHR, the fact that cases are currently going through the courts, and our desire to help people with whom we have come into contact who feel disillusioned and detached from the planning process and have found themselves up against powerful forces such as large multinational organisations, planning consultants and well-organised legal advisers. Bearing in mind the external forces that are involved, the committee should mark out some territory and write to the Executive to say that we consider this to be a problem. We should ask how the Executive expects the situation with third-party appeals to develop in the near future. If the response is inadequate, we will have the opportunity to fit into our planning programme some work on the matter. I believe that time will run with us on this issue and that it will take care of itself.
In that case, I propose that we send Mr Whittet, who submitted petition PE132, an extract from the Official Report that will advise him of the discussion that we have just had. I suggest that we draw to his attention the Scottish Executive's response in relation to points (a), (d) and (e) on his list for action and that we advise him of ministerial answers to parliamentary questions in respect of request (b) on statutory rights of appeal. He will see what the Executive's current thinking is and, from our discussion, he will see that we think that the system requires reassessment within a realistic time scale.
Are we comfortable with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Petition PE134 has also been before us for a long time. I was interested to read the documentation that Kenny Macintosh insisted we get from the city of Glasgow. It would be appropriate to advise the petitioners of the responses from the Scottish Executive and from Glasgow City Council to our requests for information. We should advise them that we have no power either to revoke a planning consent or to rebuke and that, having reviewed the evidence from Glasgow City Council, we see no basis for a rebuke. There was clearly an important difference of opinion between the council and the objectors, but it is clear that planning permission was recommended by the council's planners, that notification procedures were drawn to the committee's attention and were followed, that the Scottish Executive considered the notification procedures and declined to call the applications in, and that, therefore, no basis exists for suggesting that there were any procedural improprieties. I further recommend that we so advise the Scottish Executive and the council.
That seems fair, with the exception of what you said about commenting on the arguments. I think that we should stay out of that. We should say that the proper processes were followed and that our powers and remit are narrow in relation to this matter—in a sense, we have no powers. With that exception, I am happy to concur with what Murray Tosh has constructively suggested.
The suggestion would also cover petition PE156.
Petition PE207 fits into our previous discussion. If members are clear about the process that will be undertaken with regard to the ECHR, we can deal with it in the same manner. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank members for their co-operation in relation to the petitions. We need to get through them as constructively as possible and try to ensure a decent response for the people who submit them.
Previous
Genetically Modified Organisms