European Committee, 11 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 11, 2001

Official Report 185KB pdf

---

Petitions

The next item on the agenda is consideration of petitions. A report containing recommendations has been circulated to members. Four petitions are before the committee, some of them for the first time. I propose that we take each in turn to find out whether members have any comments on the suggestions for recommended action.

Stephen Imrie and Christine Boch will be happy to advise us on petition PE246 and Ross Finnie's letter, if the need arises. The designation referred to in PE246 has been introduced and the committee has been asked about the steps that we wish to take in the light of the minister's decision. As I do not think that the committee can do much more about this petition, I suggest that we simply note it.

Why did we not receive the information that we requested? The briefing note on the petitions says that the Executive has chosen

"to proceed with the designation in advance of any views and recommendations"

from this committee or indeed from the Transport and the Environment Committee.

All that we have received is the minister's letter, which has been circulated to members, indicating that the Executive has chosen to designate the area. We debated whether it was appropriate for the committee to consider the petition. When we could not reach a decision, the Executive, which was presumably not content to wait on us, took action. The issue is no longer the designation itself, but whether we have any comments on the fact that the designation took place.

The Public Petitions Committee may want to consider at what point a response should have been received from the Executive. However, it would not be an appropriate use of this committee's time for us to revisit the matter when a decision has already been made.

The minister's letter gives the Executive's reasons for moving ahead. Irene Oldfather has suggested that we refer the matter back to the Public Petitions Committee, to see whether it wishes to comment on the procedure that has been followed.

Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of this issue, I believe that an important principle is at stake. The Executive has taken a decision before committees of the Parliament have had the opportunity to consider a matter in detail. We were unable to carry out such consideration because there was a delay in the Executive providing us with appropriate information, which presumably the clerk requested. The Executive is taking decisions in such a way and according to such a timetable as to preclude the possibility of those decisions being influenced by a committee or committees of the Parliament.

That is the point that Irene Oldfather made. The Public Petitions Committee is responsible for commenting on procedure. We were not asked to do that; we were asked to comment on the technicalities of the matter and to assess whether it came within this committee's remit. Both Dennis Canavan and Irene Oldfather have made valid points. If there is concern that committees are not being allowed to make their contribution, that should be expressed by the Public Petitions Committee, rather than by this committee.

Can we report our concerns to the Public Petitions Committee?

Irene Oldfather has suggested that we refer the matter back to the Public Petitions Committee for consideration.

I have a different point, although I do not disagree with the things that colleagues have said. I am a member of the Public Petitions Committee, but I suspect that other members will also have been lobbied on the issue of special areas of conservation. I believe that a conference on that issue is likely to be organised soon—it may already have been organised—because there is a public perception that we are being over-zealous in establishing special areas of conservation without proper scrutiny of the social and economic consequences. People are saying that consideration is being given only to the environmental issues involved.

I offer that to members as information that has come to me through my mailbag and through my work on the Public Petitions Committee. It is for members to decide how they want to respond to public concerns on this issue, but there may be some merit in examining more closely the correspondence that has been received. Am I the only member who is receiving it? We need to consider whether the allegation that has been made is well founded.

I agree with Dennis Canavan that the procedural issue needs to be considered. However, it is for the Public Petitions Committee, rather than for this committee, to do that. I believe that there is a precedent. When the Stobhill petition was before the Parliament, Greater Glasgow Health Board took a decision in advance of reporting to the Public Petitions Committee. As a result, representatives of the board were required to appear before the committee to answer questions about the procedure that was being followed. We should take the same approach here.

I want to raise an issue that does come within the remit of this committee. I refer members to the fourth paragraph from the end of page 2 of Ross Finnie's letter. It states:

"It took SNH some time to analyse the complex points made by some consultees, and the Scottish Ministers did not receive SNH's finalised report on the consultation exercise until May 2001."

Did SNH fail to communicate its opinions and the opinions expressed by people in the consultation exercise to the European Commission or to the appropriate minister and then to the European Commission? Is that what has caused this situation?

John Home Robertson—unfortunately he is not with us today—seems to know rather a lot about the matter. If I remember correctly, he has pointed out that there was a failure in the process and that the UK Government was not timeous in its recommendation to the European Parliament. That is why we have ended up with the SAC. If that is the case, the matter is firmly within the remit of the European Committee and not within the remit of the Public Petitions Committee. Could we have some legal advice on that?

Both the Public Petitions Committee and the European Committee have previously agreed that neither the Scottish Parliament nor Scottish ministers can take the action requested. The Public Petitions Committee made a decision on 27 March and the European Committee made a decision on 19 June.

The reason why the issue is still pending is that the committee wanted to assess the consultation that took place when SNH was proceeding with designation of the area. That letter is currently before the committee and the committee needs to decide whether the further information it has received meets its needs in relation to its proposed assessment of the consultation process and the detail of the correspondence. We have already agreed that we could not competently do what the petitioner is requesting because the Scottish Executive has to designate the area.

The reason why the issue has been submitted to the committee and the reason why the Executive had to proceed with further designation, including designation of that area, is that the Commission has instructed the Executive to review the proposed list of sites, which was thought to be insufficient. The Executive has to proceed and a reasoned opinion has been sent to the UK about its implementation of the habitats directive.

I recommend that we refer the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee. John McAllion has already received a copy of the letter from Ross Finnie but we should comment that we were unable to do anything because of the time taken to carry out consultation. There seems to be a problem with the process and the Public Petitions Committee might wish to consider that.

I accept that, convener. I have one question that a committee member might be able to answer. Ross Finnie says in his letter:

"Case-law in the European Court of Justice is clear that Member States can only take account of scientific considerations when considering what sites to propose to the European Commission as candidate Special Areas of Conservation."

I accept what the minister says, but should not we be asking our colleagues in the European Parliament to take account of not just the scientific considerations but the wider economic, cultural and other issues that are at the heart of the concerns that the petitioners have expressed?

If case law in the European Court of Justice is clear on the issue, it would be a pointless exercise for us to make those suggestions. Under the legislation, only scientific considerations can be taken into account. That is the law.

Is the recommendation set out in the report agreed to?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE365. I suggest that the clerk tries to get a response and that we reconsider the petition at a subsequent meeting. Do members agree to that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

On petition PE369, it is suggested that the committee discuss and consider what action to take. I am not sure that this is the appropriate committee for the petition. If anything, the Transport and the Environment Committee would be the more appropriate committee. However, I seek your views.

The petition was referred to us as well as to the Transport and the Environment Committee because of the development of a European energy policy. We may wish to see what comments the Transport and the Environment Committee makes within that context. I have reservations about, if not absolute opposition to, the petition. In particular, I have reservations about paragraph (b), which recommends

"that opencast coal development is considered within the planning system like any other development proposal".

Members who have had opencast coal developments in their constituencies will know that there are special considerations, such as health, safety and the effect on the environment.

I will not go into that debate. At the moment, we want to consider whether it is appropriate that our committee look at the petition. In my view, it is not appropriate, but I seek the views of other committee members.

I agree with the convener that it is not appropriate for this committee to consider the petition, except in the context of the development of a European energy policy. Perhaps the UK Government or the Executive could clarify whether they are making a direct contribution to the European energy review and what the review will say about the specifics of opencast or strip mining, so that we have an indication of the European view. I suggest that that would be mainly for our information.

If another committee is going to consider the petition, it could ask those questions.

In brief, the petition is about the way in which local authorities interpret a Scottish planning guidance note. The only course of action that I can see under our remit would be, as Lloyd Quinan said, for us to carry out an investigation of European energy policy. That is not on our agenda and our agenda is pretty full. At this point in time, I recommend that we do not consider the petition.

I am happy to support the suggestion that the petition should go to the Transport and the Environment Committee. I also support the suggestion that

"the Committee may wish to nominate a reporter to take the action forward on its behalf."

I hope that part of that reporter's remit would include bringing back information about the European dimension to this committee. I understand that, over the years, the lack of a European energy policy has been a problem. I do not know where we are at with that policy but, whatever that policy is, it ought to include some provision for coal. Such a policy is not simply about checking national planning policy and guidelines but about ensuring that, at a strategic, Europe-wide level, we have taken on board opencast and deep-coal mining. I hope that any reporter who may be appointed would take on board the need to identify the strategic position, because that is important to Scotland's economy.

I think that Helen Eadie is talking about something different from referring the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee. If we refer it to that committee, it is up to that committee to determine what it wishes to do. Helen Eadie is talking about our committee undertaking an inquiry by appointing a reporter. That would not be appropriate as a response to the petition. I want to deal only with the specifics of the request. My recommendation is that petition PE369 should go to the Transport and the Environment Committee.

Members indicated agreement.

Let me add that, if we were considering energy policy within the framework of the EU, it would be more appropriate for us to request the Confederation of UK Coal Producers to give evidence to us.

The next petition is PE372. This will be the first time that we have considered the petition, which was also referred to the Rural Development Committee. The Public Petitions Committee agreed to seek the Executive's views on the petition. No information has been received yet. What action, if any, is appropriate in advance of a response from the Executive? Members may also wish to consider whether it is more appropriate for the Rural Development Committee to take the lead on the petition.

The issue is sensitive and is the subject of negotiation between Scottish ministers, through Westminster, and the EU. It might be better to wait for the Executive's response before we consider the matter further.

The issue came up in the Public Petitions Committee this morning when it had a videolink with the Shetlands. That committee referred petition PE372 to the Rural Development Committee. Therefore, we might want to leave it at that.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.