Free Methanol (Ban) (PE1376)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of seven continued petitions. The first is PE1376, by James McDonald, on banning the presence of free methanol in all manufactured products in our diet. Members have a note by the clerk. I invite contributions from members.
I think that we should simply close the petition, as we have done all that we can. There is clearly no desire by the Government to change and, indeed, no basis for it to do so in academic or other research, so I cannot see how we can take the petition any further.
11:45
Do members agree with that proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
I concur with Kenny MacAskill. A number of academics, including Professor Mike Lean of the University of Glasgow, as well as the Hull study, the Food Standards Agency and the European Food Safety Authority, all consider the substance to be a safe item for human consumption, so I do not see how the committee can take the petition any further.
However, if the petitioner, Mr McDonald, finds evidence to the contrary, he is of course free to bring the issue back to the committee in the future.
In the meantime, does the committee agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Proposed Cockenzie Energy Park (PE1537)
The next petition is PE1537, by Shona Brash, on behalf of the Coastal Regeneration Alliance, on the proposed energy park at Cockenzie. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
I welcome Iain Gray MSP to the meeting. He has a constituency interest in the petition.
I thank the committee for its forbearance in allowing me to address this petition once again.
The core of the petition is the request
“to abandon the proposal for the development of an Energy Park”
on that site. That proposal from Scottish Enterprise has now been withdrawn, so I can understand it if the committee feels that there is an opportunity to close the petition. However, I have discussed the issue with the petitioners and I make a plea for the petition to be continued, at least in the meantime.
The petition comes in two parts. The first is about the previous proposal for an energy park, but the second part says:
“and ensure that any future proposals are subject to full public consultation and do not extend beyond the existing footprint of the former power station.”
Indeed, colleagues may remember that, in its initial evidence, the Coastal Regeneration Alliance presented a master plan for the area that reflected the aspirations of the local community. It was quite a sophisticated plan that had been put together after a great deal of work that the CRA did locally with the community to try to draw out what local people would like to see on the site.
It is the case that the Cockenzie site remains a strategic site, so the tension between possible future developments and the aspirations of local people remains. The petitioners are concerned to ensure that that aspect of the petition is not lost and that some way is found to examine how they can have some confidence that future proposals will not be handled in the way that the energy park proposal was, which caused so much concern locally.
There are some general principles here about how the current planning and economic development processes can, on occasion, sideline local communities, particularly when a large strategic site such as this one is in question. I suggest to the committee that it continue the petition and perhaps even consider referring it to an appropriate committee, such as the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, to look at how this proposal and indeed other proposals can be brought forward alongside and with the support of local communities rather than without their collaboration and participation.
Thank you. Does anyone have any questions?
I have a comment rather than a question. Although I respect the views presented, the difficulty is that the petition that we have before us has been dealt with. Scottish Enterprise, East Lothian Council and Scottish Power have indicated that at the present time they are not prepared to go forward with the original proposals.
The other issue is that it has been suggested that we refer the petition to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee or another appropriate committee, but I remind members that the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill is going through Parliament and that it is hoped that it will deal with the issues that Mr Gray has raised by giving communities more of a say in the decision-making process for any major projects that go forward.
With that caveat in mind, I am minded to suggest that we close the petition and write to Scottish Power, Scottish Enterprise and East Lothian Council to say that, in line with what will be in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill, we would expect that any future discussions on the site in question should be undertaken in full consultation with the communities concerned so that they are fully informed and consulted on any developments that take place. I would rather do that than keep the petition open, because I think that it has achieved what it set out to achieve. If the petitioners feel at a later date that they are not being listened to, they can certainly submit another petition covering those issues.
I understand where Mr Wilson is coming from. However, given the representation that our colleague has made, I do not think that there would be anything inconsistent in writing to the organisations and seeking these assurances, as Mr Wilson himself has suggested, but keeping the petition open until such time as we receive an appropriate response. I accept that those issues were dealt with in the second half of the original petition, but I do not feel that the committee would be losing anything at this stage by responding to the request that has been made, making those representations and seeing whether we receive a satisfactory response. Such an approach might meet the petitioners’ original request and would stand on the record in the light of any future proposed developments.
I am not quite sure where to take this next. However, I think that Jackson Carlaw has made a valid point, and if we asked the petitioners about the destination that they want for this petition, that would help at least me make a decision on it. I agree that there is no need to make haste in closing the petition—I am quite happy to wait for a response.
Given that the petitioners’ main concern had been addressed, I was minded to close the petition, but I am happy to go along with Jackson Carlaw’s suggestions.
I am minded to support Mr Carlaw’s proposal, but the problem is that although we might receive assurances from Scottish Power, East Lothian Council and Scottish Enterprise, that is not to say that another developer might not come along at some stage with proposals and completely ignore the petitioners’ desire that the communities be fully consulted. I hope that we will get a speedy response from the three bodies concerned that they will commit to a full consultation, but, as I have said, the difficulty that I have is that someone else could come along and try to develop the site in question, and they might not be held accountable in the way that we are trying to hold Scottish Power, East Lothian Council and Scottish Enterprise accountable.
As for the wider issue of the current planning legislation that Mr Gray raised, that legislation was, of course, passed by the then Scottish Executive in 2006.
I think that the same principle would apply, regardless of who made an application for development. The biggest issue that I found in the petition was the concern about lack of consultation. In fact, if we continue the petition, I might want to take things further, because I think that the committee needs to put it on the record for the future that, particularly for developments of the proposed magnitude, adequate and comprehensive consultation must take place with the communities. To ensure that that happens, I think that it might even be necessary to tighten up the requirements that must be met for such consultations and to consider sanctions for non-compliance with those requirements.
Do members agree to keep the petition open, write to the people who need to be written to and then bring back the petition to the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
A83 (Rest and Be Thankful) (PE1540)
The next petition is PE1540 by Douglas Philand on a permanent solution for the A83. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions, and I welcome to the meeting Mike Russell MSP, who has a constituency interest in the petition.
Thank you for allowing me to attend the meeting to say a word or two about the petition’s progress.
I think that the petitioners are looking for the petition to remain open, because of the terms of the petition itself, which asks
“the Scottish Government to ensure ... a permanent solution for the A83 at Rest and be thankful ensuring the vital lifeline route is not closed because of landslides.”
I have to say that the submissions vary in quality. For a start, the letter from the leader of Argyll and Bute Council, Dick Walsh, surprises me. A great deal of work has been done to send out the message that Argyll and Bute is open for business and for Councillor Walsh as leader of the council to bemoan the
“stigma attached to the Rest and Be Thankful”
in the second paragraph of the letter is counterproductive and unhelpful. I was surprised that he fell into that trap. The letter is also factually inaccurate with regard to the military road.
The response from the Mid Argyll Chamber of Commerce is much more interesting and positive and makes some positive points about possibilities. As the person who coined the phrase “the Donald Clark option”, I think that Donald Clark’s contribution has been very important, but his option is not the only solution to making permanent progress. There are others.
The most interesting contribution comes from Graham Edmond of Transport Scotland. At the most recent meeting of the task force on 14 January, which I attended, there was a commitment from Derek Mackay, the transport minister, on “continuity of access”. That is an important phrase—indeed, I think that it was mentioned to the committee when it heard the petition—and it is all about ensuring that people are able to get in and out of Argyll on that road without being impeded by the difficulties that have taken place.
The minister asked Transport Scotland to make proposals on that matter. However, although those proposals were to be made at an earlier meeting of the task force than the standard meeting in June, I am sorry to see that June is now the set date. Nonetheless, the letter from Transport Scotland confirms very clearly that the consultant Jacobs, which did the original work, is
“to revisit the options available with the objective of delivering continuity of access”.
However, as the task force has not yet met to consider those options and given that we do not know what those options are or how they would fit in with the petition and the petitioners, I think that the petitioners want the petition to remain open and perhaps have a chance to come back to the committee. Indeed, once we know what the options are, the committee might want to talk to the minister about them, because it is extremely important that that continuity of access is put in place.
Nobody is criticising the work that has been done. The work on the military road has been a tremendous step forward and a great deal of work is continuing on the netting and mitigation activities, but the real prize is continuity of access. Until we know what that will be and how it will be guaranteed, I think that the matter remains open.
I agree with Michael Russell. It would be premature to close the petition without knowing what the task force has decided, and it is incumbent on us to write to the task force and ask to be kept informed of what happens in June. We need clarity about what is happening and perhaps follow things up from there. Instead of a long-term approach, we probably need to take a short to medium-term view to work out what the task force is proposing and then review where we can go thereafter.
Does the committee agree to take that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
In agreeing to that approach, I should say that the subject matter is not unfamiliar to the Public Petitions Committee; this problem has, I think, been around in one form or another as long as the Parliament itself—indeed, much longer than that. I suggest that we do exactly what has been proposed but flag up now that we might want to hold an evidence session with those involved to try to see whether we as a committee can provide some kind of additional public push behind what is being discussed when a permanent access proposal is made. After all, that will bring us to a point after which something has to be done rather than just talked about. I simply flag up that we might want to take evidence on that later in the year.
12:00
When we write to the Scottish Government, it might be useful to ask when in June the task force is going to meet. If it is early June, it would be useful for the committee to deal with the matter before the summer recess to enable us to consider having an early evidence session in September. No matter the time of year, access routes to that part of Scotland are always in jeopardy. During the summer, the routes are important for tourism and during the winter, they are important for commerce and the economy. It would be useful to get an assurance that we can have early sight of the recommendations that are presented to the task force so that we can seek an early evidence-taking session with the minister and perhaps Transport Scotland officials in order to discuss how a permanent access solution can be put in place.
I wonder whether the committee could visit the location, convener, because I, for one, am interested to know why this is taking so long. After all, infrastructure is important for our economy. I am certainly open to the idea of doing a formal visit.
Are you talking about making a committee visit to Inverary?
Why not? We need to resolve the issue.
Mr Malik and, indeed, other members would be welcome at the Rest and Be Thankful. Interestingly, it straddles two constituencies; the part where the rocks seem to fall most often is in Jackie Baillie’s constituency, while the people who are inconvenienced all live in my constituency. If members are willing to visit, I will be very happy to see them there.
It is also important to point out that we are talking about a stretch of road, not just one place. We need to look at the road from Ardgarten at the bottom of the hill right over to the head of Loch Fyne, where there have been incidents in the past. The major problem, however, lies at the very top.
I might have seemed flippant in suggesting that we have a committee meeting in Inverary, but I wanted to put in members’ minds the idea that we could have the evidence session with the minister and Transport Scotland at that meeting.
You would also be able to visit the Tinkers’ Heart, which is just off the main road there. My constituents have petitioned the committee many times on these issues.
Seriously, convener, I think that a visit might be helpful. I believe that our infrastructure is vital. If the problem is taking such a long time, a visit might help things to go in the right direction.
You will be very welcome.
I suggest that we wait and see what the task force review says and then we will have a site visit, if that is at all possible between now and the end of June.
Will it not be September?
I am just thinking of the timing and the arrangements that might have to be made. In any case, we will endeavour to make that possible. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Mr Russell for attending.
We will prepare ourselves for a visit.
A pint of Guinness would be helpful.
Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (Maximum Sentence) (PE1544)
The next petition is PE1544, by Olivia Robertson, on increasing the maximum sentence for convictions under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
I suggest that the petition be closed. We have written to the Government. I know that there is a suggestion that we ask when the legislation will be reviewed, but the difficulty with reviewing fines is that they depend on a variety of factors—for example, the rate of inflation, the cost of living and the issue. The matter has been aired and canvassed. We have taken it forward. There is no desire in the Government to increase sentences at present, nor has it come under great pressure from other agencies to do so. Will fines have to increase at some stage? Yes. When will that be? I do not know, and I do not think that we can second-guess that.
I am inclined to agree. The Scottish Government has made its position clear. It says that penalties for offences might be periodically reviewed, but I do not know that there would be any material benefit in terms of real clarity if we were to ask when that might be. At this stage, given that some of the maximum fines are yet to be imposed, I support closing the petition.
Do members agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Rendering Industry (Regulation) (PE1553)
The next petition is PE1553, by Councillor Andrew S Wood, on rendering industry regulations. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
The petition seems to have done its job. It has helped to concentrate minds and I am glad that the committee has played its part in that. It seems that the Dundas Chemical Company is on board with regard to discussions with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and DEFRA, and this is a reasonably quick result for a petition, given that it is not long since we were in Dumfries and Galloway. It is good to see things moving forward at a pace. I would be content to close the petition, while continuing to monitor progress in the background.
I concur. I think that this is a good result for the Public Petitions Committee. The problem has been highlighted and we have been able to resolve it quickly. Do members agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Whitesands (Flood Scheme) (PE1557)
The next petition is PE1557, by David R Slater, on behalf of the save our Whitesands car parks and river views campaign, on Scottish Government funding for the Whitesands flood scheme. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
It seems that things are not proceeding in the way that initially caused concern, although we recognise that there is an issue there. On that basis, it seems to me that we should close the petition, although all parties—certainly the council—could be encouraged to engage with the local community to ensure that, as matters progress and funds become available, we can get a consensus.
I suggest that, in closing the petition, we write to the council. I was surprised by the tone of its response in relation to the petitioners and the petition that was generated in the local community. As Mr MacAskill indicated, we should remind the council that it should endeavour to work closely with the petitioner and those who signed the petition in Dumfries to consider suitable arrangements for consultation and the way forward.
Do members agree with the proposed action?
Members indicated agreement.
American Signal Crayfish (Trapping) (PE1558)
The final continuing petition today is PE1558, by John Thom, on behalf of the RNBCC Crayfish Committee, Ken-Dee catchment, on the American signal crayfish. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
The issue comes up quite a lot when the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee discusses other matters. As we heard at our meeting in Dumfries, it is clearly causing concerns.
It might be a good idea to get SNH and SEPA to give oral evidence to the committee so that we can find out exactly where they stand on the issue, given their current stance and the fact that American signal crayfish are causing more difficulties and the area in which they live is expanding. The sooner we hear from SNH and SEPA, the better.
Does the committee agree with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our meeting.
Meeting closed at 12:10.Previous
New Petitions