European Committee, 19 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 19, 2001

Official Report 165KB pdf

---

Petitions

We have two petitions to consider: PE246 and PE365. Petition PE246 was discussed at a previous meeting. We asked the clerk and our legal adviser Christine Boch to provide us with additional information. Our main concern related to whether any consultation on the designation of sites as special areas of conservation had been carried out adequately under the procedures specified in the relevant directive.

I draw members' attention to the conclusions set out in committee paper EU/01/08/3. In essence, procedures seem to have been followed correctly. Moreover, the Executive is obliged to designate a number of sites to meet its obligations under the relevant directive. Are there any comments?

Earlier today, I had a word with Stephen Imrie about this issue, as I was the one who flagged it up. Dennis Canavan spoke about shadowing directives. The petition illustrates the kind of story that could bring European procedures into disrepute.

The designation of the south-east Islay skerries as a special area of conservation for grey seals is absurd. Someone in a committee of environmentalists has said, "Seals are a good thing and there are a lot of seals in Islay, so they need special protection." They have paid no regard to the fact that the seal population in Islay is perfectly secure and that the designation of a special area of conservation could create difficulties for other species, which should also be taken into account. The procedures should be more robust and there should be greater accountability. Whoever has made this decision has not taken into account the wider interests of the people who live in this remote area.

I want to probe this matter further. Stephen Imrie seemed to think that that would be possible. We need to make the people involved in making this decision a little uncomfortable, so that they pay attention to local interests.

That is a separate issue. The proper procedures for designation have been followed, which is the main issue for us as far as this petition is concerned. You are questioning the procedures themselves.

Technically, the procedures have been followed. However, they have still produced what many people would regard as an absurdity. This is the sort of thing that we and our friends in the European Union should be aware of and guard against.

I have heard John Home Robertson talk about this before. Until I see some evidence, I take everything that he is telling us as hearsay. I do not know how we can have a debate on his opinion or on what he thinks has happened. Can we obtain the papers to ascertain whether what he thinks happened actually happened? We could then have a debate.

I could probably get access to the papers, as I was the minister when the area was being designated. However, I could not make them available to the committee. I saw what happened. Nobody was happy about it, either in the Scottish Executive or at Whitehall. The United Kingdom was under pressure to designate more special areas of conservation, because of other considerations, so local interests in Islay had to be sacrificed.

I support the point that John Home Robertson is making. In the Public Petitions Committee, I heard representations along the same lines. There is a public view that greater weight is given to the arguments of the professional organisations than to the arguments of the disorganised groups in communities. As politicians, we have a duty to address that and to give adequate weight to the views of groups that are less organised than the professional organisations. That view is supported by people throughout Scotland. If pressed, I could access the documents that were submitted to the Public Petitions Committee.

I agree up to a point with what Helen Eadie is saying. However, not for the first time, we are having to accept the view of an ex-minister on papers that he cannot show us. That is no way in which to go about the committee's business. If we cannot see the papers, we are working on the basis of hearsay, whether it is from an ex-minister or from the under-represented communities that Helen Eadie has mentioned. This is the second time that previous ministerial experience has been used as an excuse for the fact that we have not been provided with information, which is unacceptable.

From the information that we have received, it seems that the correct procedures have been adhered to, whether or not they have resulted in the desired outcome. That leaves us in some difficulty. If there is a problem in translating procedures into what is happening on the ground in communities, a solution might be to highlight the problem to MEPs and ask them to investigate whether there is sufficient linkage between what is happening on the ground and the legislation, directives and proposals.

As the correct procedures appear to have been followed, I suggest that we agree to take no further action on the issue and instruct the Public Petitions Committee accordingly. However, if the issue is the principle of the way in which the procedures work, and if John Home Robertson can liaise with the committee clerk, he can consider whether there is sufficient material to constitute a future agenda item. If there is, we can consider it. Otherwise, we will just leave it. Can we agree that, for the moment, no further action will be taken on the matter?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, convener. I do not want us to get bogged down on this point; I cite it merely as an example of something being handed down from the centre in the European Union that does not make sense at the periphery. It is the sort of thing that brings European institutions into disrepute. I will try to get hold of any papers on the decision to share with the clerks or fellow committee members, because the issue is relevant to us.

PE365 has been referred to us for information only at this stage. The Public Petitions Committee has written to the Executive for more information. Once that is available, it will be sent to us so that we can see whether there is anything that we have to do. At this stage, I ask that we note the contents of the petition and defer any discussion until we have seen the Executive's response to the Public Petitions Committee's inquiry.

I am a little bewildered by the expression

"the property rights to the Nation's fish".

What does that mean? It is a strange way of putting it. There are fish in Scottish waters and there are Scottish fish, but the phrase "property rights" suggests something firmer than that.

We will try to get that information for when the rest of the information comes back to us.

The petition was on the agenda for this morning's meeting of the Public Petitions Committee, when the point was made that it would be helpful if the European Committee's report on the common fisheries policy could be sent to the petitioners. The clerk will receive a representation to that effect in due course.

I believe that Iain MacSween has already received a copy of the report.