Environment and Rural Development Committee, 08 Feb 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 8, 2006

Official Report 213KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Scottish Agricultural College (Restructuring) (PE653)

The next item is a catch-up on public petitions that are round and about the committee's remit. We have three petitions to consider this morning, the first of which is PE653, on the Scottish Agricultural College. Members who have been on the committee for a long time will know that this is one of the first issues that we picked up following the election in 2003. We have quite a bit of update information on the college's business plan. Members have a note providing an update on the business plan for the SAC, together with comments from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and from a representative of the petitioners.

The petition achieved its objective, in that the SAC looked again at its proposals. The outcome is far better than the original proposals. We need to keep a watching brief on the matter, but the petition has achieved its objective. The committee and the minister did a good piece of work on the issue.

In the context of our discussions on the food chain, it is interesting to note that the Government supports the SAC to the tune of £17 million per year. The development of co-operatives, on the other hand, attracts about £300,000. In future, we might well wish to examine the question of best value in spending on the Scottish Agricultural College. The petition has helped the college to maintain its presence in different parts of the country where agriculture is still practised but, at some point in the future, we might wish to consider what it is spending its money on.

It is always open for us to return to the matter. Having said that, I think that we are in a position formally to close consideration of the petition. It has been round the tracks for almost three years now. Nora Radcliffe is right to say that the committee's intervention has been helpful for the long term. It has certainly caused a lot more discussion about the SAC than might otherwise have been the case. If members are happy with that, we will formally close the petition and we will let the petitioners know that we have done so.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Sewage Sludge (PE749)

I remind members that, the last time we considered PE749, on sewage sludge, we agreed to return to the petition once the Scottish Water sludge strategy had been developed. The matter is on our agenda today for information. I wanted to log the fact that the consultation on the national sludge strategy and the strategic environmental assessment has been launched. I wanted simply to keep members posted on that. Do members have any comments or questions on the petition?

I thought that we could note the launch of the consultation by Scottish Water and return to the matters that are addressed by the petition once the consultation is complete. Members will see that the consultation raises a lot of issues, many of which are the kinds of matters that we have been raising in our European updates and in our regular discussions with ministers on a more sustainable approach to both the management of sludge and waste to energy. There are a lot of matters for communities to consider, and we will come back to them. We will move that petition to the side and return to it later, if colleagues are happy to do so.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Fishing Industry (PE804)

Our third petition, PE804, is from the Cod Crusaders group. It calls for Scottish control of the fishing industry and withdrawal from the European Union's common fisheries policy. The petition has not been formally referred to the committee. The Public Petitions Committee referred it to the European and External Relations Committee because of the wider European Union issues that it raised. Before dealing with it formally, the European and External Relations Committee decided to write to us to ask whether we wished to consider it. The petition is before us for comment and it comes with a lengthy background note from Mark Brough, outlining the work that the Public Petitions Committee did on the issue as well as the history of discussions on the subject over the past few years in the Parliament. Do members have any comments?

I have paid close attention to the petition; indeed, I attended various meetings of the Public Petitions Committee when it was discussed. There is a sense that the petition is being sent from pillar to post in the Parliament. The people behind the petition are keen for it to be taken up by one of the committees. I am very sympathetic to the aims of the petition, and other committees that have looked at it seem to have a great deal of sympathy with it too.

I would like the Environment and Rural Development Committee to take up the petition. The petition has the support of more than 250,000 Scots, so it would not be right for the committee or the Parliament to discard it. I wonder whether the committee could hold a joint inquiry with the European and External Relations Committee, given that the petition crosses the remits of both of them.

I strongly argue that, as the subject committee, we should have nothing to do with the petition. There are proper processes in this place for dealing with petitions and if it has been sent from pillar to post, I suggest that we send it back to pillar—the European and External Relations Committee—having noted what that committee said. I would not like the Environment and Rural Development Committee to waste one moment on what is a politically motivated campaign. I would support any legitimate effort to safeguard fisheries and fishing communities on any coast of Scotland, but it would be a waste of our time to consider the petition.

The issues have been well debated in the Parliament at plenary and we would be doing a disservice to fishing communities and wasting our resources and time if we were to give the petition even a moment's consideration. I suggest that we return it forthwith to the European and External Relations Committee.

We have two suggestions.

Like Richard Lochhead and other members, I have taken a particular interest in the petition and, although I have not attended as many meetings on the subject as he has, I have attended some. I share his view that the petition does not appear to be going anywhere, which is regrettable for the reasons that he outlined. My views on the aspirations of the Cod Crusaders and others to safeguard the Scottish fishing industry are well known. Equally well known is my view that the Scottish fishing industry should be out of the common fisheries policy and that we should regain national and local control of our fishing.

Whether this committee is the right committee to look at the issue is another matter. Ultimately, it would be for United Kingdom legislation to take us out of the common fisheries policy; such legislation could not be enacted in Scotland. We have responsibility for fisheries within a 12-mile limit, but we do not have responsibility for anything further out than that. Although I would be very happy to continue discussing the matter, the Environment and Rural Development Committee has a huge workload and therefore I would be in favour of referring the petition back to the European and External Relations Committee for it to pursue.

Unlike Richard Lochhead, I am not particularly sympathetic to the petition's aim of withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. However, I recognise that 250,000 people signed the petition, which is a huge number, and we have a responsibility to deal with the issue that it raises.

Although the committee has done a great deal of work on fisheries, a short evidence-taking session would enable us to produce a report that drew on some of our previous work; we could then draw a line under the issue. It is important that we do some limited work on the petition, although I acknowledge Ted Brocklebank's point about the workload of the committee. A limited, short inquiry is all that I would support doing on the petition.

If we read the petition, we can see that it does not fall within the committee's remit. It asks for

"the Scottish Parliament to use its influence to return control over its fishing industry to Scotland."

That is not within our remit. It is ultra vires, so we should send the petition back to the European and External Relations Committee. If we want to do something on the protection of the fishing industry and the recovery of stocks, that is a completely separate issue that might well fall within our remit. The petition is nothing to do with us.

There seems to be a range of views in the committee. Having listened to them all, I suggest that, as we have done quite a lot of work on this issue, rather than reinventing the wheel and making the petitioners feel that nothing is happening, we pass our last report and its recommendations back to the European and External Relations Committee. We have dealt with the issue before.

I take Mark Ruskell's and Ted Brocklebank's points that we have a very busy agenda and that we have picked up a lot of on-going fishing issues over the past couple of years. Richard Lochhead has raised quite a few of them himself.

The petition should not be kicked round the Parliament, but it should be dealt with properly. As Nora Radcliffe says, given that the petition is about the control of the common fisheries policy, it comes under the remit of the European and External Relations Committee. I therefore suggest that we send the petition to that committee with the work that we have done previously on this issue, and let that committee get on with it. That might not be agreeable to everyone; if people are not happy, we can put it to the vote and then we will know where we stand.

On a point of clarification, the petition asks for the Scottish Parliament to

"use its influence to return control over its fishing industry to Scotland."

Although, as things stand, it might not be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to withdraw Scotland from the CFP, it is definitely within the Parliament's remit to use its influence. The people of Scotland expect the Parliament to use its influence to stand up for Scottish interests, or at least to listen to a plea from the 250,000 Scots who have signed a petition that I would imagine is the biggest to have been presented to the Scottish Parliament. For that reason, we should take the petition a bit more seriously. If we were to refer it to the European and External Relations Committee—

No. It is not about whether we refer the petition to the European and External Relations Committee. That committee has asked us for comments.

Well, the phraseology that is being used by members is that we should get the petition back to the European and External Relations Committee and let it deal with it. I would accept that only if we recommended that it should carry out an inquiry.

We will just have to go to a vote. The European and External Relations Committee has not referred the petition to us; it has asked for comments. Perhaps we could also send the Official Report of this morning's discussion, but I stick with my suggestion that we should pass our previous work on the issue to the European and External Relations Committee. That does not mean that the Parliament is not dealing with the petition; it is making sure that the European and External Relations Committee, which deals with the relationship between Scotland and the UK and the European Union, gets it back, with our comments in the light of our previous work. Everyone will be able to look at the Official Report and see the different views that have been expressed. Can I put that to the vote and see who is in favour of that proposal?

Just for clarification, what kind of comments will be we sending back?

The specific comments are mentioned in paragraph 9 of the petition cover note. When we last looked at issues facing the Scottish fishing industry, we carried out some consultation, including discussions with the Cod Crusaders, so we have covered this ground.

I am just going to put it to the vote.

Presumably the contrary position is that we do a limited inquiry, as per Mark Ruskell's suggestion.

There is an option to do a limited inquiry. What was your proposal?

I started off by saying that there should be a joint inquiry with the European and External Relations Committee, but I am happy to pursue Mark Ruskell's suggestion that this committee should do a limited inquiry.

I have a contrary view and Nora Radcliffe articulated it very well; the petition has nothing to do with us. Not only is it procedurally bonkers, it is environmentally bonkers and, as you have clearly outlined, convener, we should return it to the European and External Relations Committee with our existing body of work. As you have properly suggested, we should immediately go to a vote. That would prevent any further posturing.

Can Mr Morrison clarify what is bonkers?

I said that it is procedurally and environmentally bonkers.

Are you suggesting that the views expressed in the petition and by many of the members here are bonkers?

I suggest that it is bonkers to claim that we can withdraw from the common fisheries policy. I also think that it is environmentally bonkers—

That just does not stand up. Of course it is possible to withdraw from the common fisheries policy.

Okay; please speak one at a time and through the chair. I am going to put my suggestion to the vote because I suspect that if I allow this discussion to go on any longer, tempers will rise further and we will not make any progress.

The question is, that we send our comments back to the European and External Relations Committee as requested, along with the recommendations that we made and the report that we produced when we last considered the issues facing the Scottish fishing industry, which includes evidence from the European Commission, the Scottish and UK ministers responsible for the issue, the Cod Crusaders and many other parties. Is that agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)

Against

Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 1, Abstentions 0.

That will be recorded in the minutes for everyone's satisfaction. Members' comments will be recorded in the Official Report.

The next item on the agenda is our food supply chain inquiry. We will have a short suspension while we are waiting for the ministers to come from the Cabinet meeting. I clarify for members of the public that we will start again at 11.30 exactly. If we can get the ministers here faster than that, we will do so, but we should kick off again at 11.30.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—