Environment and Rural Development Committee, 08 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 8, 2003

Official Report 240KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

South-east Islay Skerries (Special Area of Conservation) (PE246)<br />Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Special Protection Areas (Arran, Barra and Yell) (PE462, PE463 and PE464)

The next item is consideration of petitions. Members have several papers in front of them, pertaining to four petitions: PE246, PE462, PE463 and PE464. The petitions are all about the procedure for the designation of sites of special scientific interest, special protection areas and special areas of conservation. The committee will recall that, at our meeting on 10 September, we agreed to consider the issues that the petitions raise as part of our stage 1 scrutiny of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill.

We have a note from the clerks, which provides background to each of the petitions. It gives us three separate proposals for how to incorporate consideration of each of the petitions into our stage 1 consideration of the bill. It is up to the committee. When I read the papers through, I was glad to see the extent of the detail that we have, particularly on the debates in the Public Petitions Committee. It is good for us to be able to read into our work the discussions that the Public Petitions Committee had, the questions that committee members asked and the representations that the petitioners made.

Do members have anything else to say? If not, we can conclude consideration of the petitions. Will we take each of them in turn?

Although they are related, we should say something about each of the three.

That is what I am saying. We will go through each of them.

Because all the petitions are on related subjects, might you be minded to invite the petitioners as witnesses when we discuss the relevant parts of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill? Each of the petitions raises questions of process against which we need to measure the new legislation. I propose that the first petition be taken in that fashion. Perhaps somebody would like to join me in proposing the same for the other two.

I take a slightly different approach. A number of issues that we can put to the minister have been raised in the petitions. It is not necessary for us to have the petitioners give evidence to understand their questions about the process. Those questions are in the papers, and we can put them to the relevant agencies and the minister. We do not need to bring the petitioners back to the Parliament to give us the same answers as they have already given the Public Petitions Committee. Instead, we should take time to go through the papers to pull out the most relevant issues about procedure. We can put those in a question paper for us to use with the relevant agencies and the minister.

We want to ensure that we do not lose at stage 1 the points that are made in the petitions. I suspect that, when we get to how designation issues are covered in the bill, there will be quite a discussion among the different parties. We will consider later whom to invite to give evidence.

It is also worth saying that the petitions relate not only to SSSIs, but to the designation of special areas of conservation and special protection areas. The comments need to be logged for future reference should the European Union require the Executive to designate more such sites in future. We are almost through the process. It is important that, in taking stage 1 evidence, we do not lose the thrust of what the petitioners brought to us.

If the committee is broadly happy, we will agree to close formally consideration of the petitions but to take up the points in our evidence taking at stage 1 of the bill. Committee members will have the papers as part of the general background to the stage 1 consideration, but I ask the clerks to flag up any issues that are relevant when they arise, so that we do not lose the points.

I presume that we will contact the petitioners and tell them that they can give evidence at stage 1 too. My original point was whether they think that the new system will work and whether it will answer their questions.

That would be quite a good idea. Let us follow the loop of where the policy is going.

I agree with that.

I am sorry: I missed the flow of the conversation. I have one brief point on the petition relating to Barra. The Transport and the Environment Committee sent the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee because the committees had been misinformed about the level of support for one of the petitions. You will not recall that, convener, because you were not on the committees concerned.

Bluntly, one of the petitioners had been at it. Names were added to the list of people who supported the petition. Members will see that from the paragraph in annex A of the clerk's paper that states:

"The Convener and clerks also received several e-mail messages from councillors and individuals representing community groups on Barra. They make the point that although they object to the proposed … designation … They have asked to have their support removed from the petition, which they say was included without their permission."

I do not remember the position that clearly, but my recollection of the Public Petitions Committee meeting is that members were duped. Members were led down a certain route, genuinely believing that the councillor who led the petitioners was being straightforward and honest, whereas events proved that he was not. The petition carries a health warning.

I want to comment on that—

Let me comment first. Before Alasdair Morrison came in, we were discussing what we should do with the petitions. The point was made that, as we had the whole extract from the Official Report of the meeting in which the issues were debated, there is no sense in our reopening that whole discussion again. We were on the point of agreeing that we would ensure that the points made in all the petitions came through during the committee's stage 1 consideration of the bill, but that we should be able to close the petitions today with those comments.

Will we retrace the arguments and debates before closing the petitions?

No. No one has proposed that we invite the petitioners back to the committee. We would write to the petitioners to tell them what we decide. We would also make them aware of the fact that we will consider the issues during stage 1 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill after the recess. If the petitioners want to come back to us, we would be happy to consider their comments in the light of the bill.

Alasdair Morrison has used pretty strong language about the petitioner, but we do not know exactly what conversations took place on Barra between the parties before the petition was lodged. I want a health warning on being totally condemnatory. People do not like the SAC designation. I do not know fully the issue that led to the petition and I do not want to revisit the way in which the petition was presented, but we need to be careful. There is perhaps disagreement about the way in which concerns were raised, but I suppose that there must have been a groundswell of opinion to allow the petitioner to believe that he should submit the petition in the first place. We need to be careful what we say about the petitioner's motives.

We are not in a position to make judgments on that, but annex A, which we have in front of us, is quite clear.

We were prepared to listen to comments of a strong nature about the petitioners, but I do not know whether those comments are true.

The paper in front of us gives a statement of fact:

"The Convener and clerks also received several e-mail messages from councillors and individuals representing community groups on Barra. They make the point that although they object to the proposed Sound of Barra SAC designation, they do not support the petition (PE643) which questions the handling of the consultation process by SNH and the actions of local SNH staff. They have asked to have their support removed from the petition, which they say was included without their permission."

That is a strong statement of fact from another committee. That does not take away from the fact that the petition might also address the process, but Alasdair Morrison is right to highlight the issue.

Let me clarify that health warning. I have been condemnatory in private, but I have used equally strong language in public when I attended the Public Petitions Committee when it revisited the petition. I can appreciate why Rob Gibson is not up to speed on the issue, because he failed to be elected in the last parliamentary elections.

I did not stand in those elections.

The Public Petitions Committee dealt comprehensively with the issue but, as I said, the committee was duped.

That is the point we were at. The petition has been dealt with comprehensively.

I want to return to my first suggestion, which is that we put the guts of the issues into our stage 1 consideration of the bill, agree to close the petitions and inform the petitioners of what we have done and about stage 1 of the bill. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We can address the theories about the process in our consideration of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill.

We now move into private session to discuss our approach to stage 1 consideration of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill. I ask the public and the official report and broadcasting staff to leave the room. I remind everybody that we will be back in public session at half past 11 to take evidence from the minister on the draft budget and on our national waste plan inquiry.

Meeting continued in private.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—