Contents
- Attendance
- Continued Petitions
- New Petition
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
Proposed Cockenzie Energy Park (PE1537)
Agenda item 5 is consideration of five continued petitions, the first of which is PE1537, by Shona Brash, on behalf of the Coastal Regeneration Alliance, on the proposed energy park at Cockenzie. I welcome Iain Gray, who has a constituency interest in the petition. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
Members are fully aware of the background to the petition but, for the public, I point out that the petition calls for the development plans for Cockenzie to be halted and seeks assurances in relation to future developments. When we considered the petition previously, we noted the announcement that Scottish Enterprise had dropped its plans, which has been welcomed by the local community. Assurances have been given with regard to future plans, although I know that the petitioner does not feel that they go far enough. The Parliament recently passed the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill, and my view is that the issue of what might or might not happen in the future is not for the committee at this time. If new proposals come forward, our colleagues on the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee might wish to consider them in due course.
I invite members’ views on the petition.
I am happy to close the petition on the ground that the proposals for the Cockenzie area have been dropped.
Mr Gray, do you want to comment?
Thanks, convener. I am glad that you noted that the petitioner feels that there are still concerns. Although the community welcomed the dropping of the energy park proposal that originally led to the petition, there is still concern about what will happen to the site and the degree to which the community’s aspirations will be met.
It is fair to say that all those whom the committee wrote to following the previous consideration have pointed out that there has been agreement on the establishment of a forum to provide a proper mechanism for dialogue and discussion. That will involve all those with an interest, including the Coastal Regeneration Alliance, which is the organisation behind the petition. That progress is due, at least in part, to the work of the committee in pursuing the petition, so I thank the committee for that. Although concerns remain, I understand why the committee feels that it should close the petition.
12:00
I am sure that the local residents are relieved that the plans for an energy park have been dropped. However, it might be heading in my direction and to my constituency.
Considering the assurances that have been given with regard to consultation on future proposals, I do not see how the committee could take the petition any further, so I agree that it should be closed.
I would remind all the agencies, but particularly Scottish Enterprise, that the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill was passed by the Parliament last week. I hope that Scottish Enterprise will take on board the intent of that legislation and work with the community to ensure that there is the best delivery of services and that what the community has requested in its campaign is taken on board. I have a concern that, although Scottish Enterprise accepts in its letter that the energy park is not going ahead at present, it seems to have a view on how it should proceed in the future. I hope that that view will not clash with the community’s intentions for the area.
Does the committee agree to close the petition on the basis that the proposals for the development of an energy park at Cockenzie have been dropped?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Mr Gray for attending.
Dairy Farmers (Human Rights) (PE1542)
The next petition is PE1542, by Evelyn Mundell, on behalf of Ben Mundell and Malcolm and Caroline Smith, on human rights for dairy farmers. Members have a note by the clerk, a letter from the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee and an email from Mrs Mundell.
As we all remember, colleagues, the petition calls on the Scottish Government to accept that individual dairy farmers’ human rights have been breached by the ring fencing rules for milk quotas. Ring fencing was introduced in 1984 and was abolished earlier this year. Mrs Mundell lodged a petition in exactly the same terms in 2009.
There is sympathy for the Mundells’ position, and for that reason the committee has considered the issues that are raised in the petition and has sought views. We heard from David Stewart and Jamie McGrigor. We also wrote to the Scottish Human Rights Commission again in February, but it told us that its view has not changed since we wrote previously, in 2010. Its position remains that, in such a dispute, it is for the courts to rule on whether Scottish ministers have breached human rights. The committee is not a court of law and we cannot provide such a ruling.
The last time that we discussed the petition, we agreed to seek the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s views on the issues that the petition raises and to ask that committee whether it would be willing to consider the issues in the context of any future work. The RACCE committee has now responded to us, and its letter states clearly that, as the ring-fencing decision was a democratic one, it will not be looking into the matter. It repeats that the only body that could provide the ruling that Mrs Mundell seeks is a court.
In those circumstances, my view is that we have gone as far as we can with the petition. We need to be careful that we do not create unrealistic expectations. As far as I can see, there is nothing more that the Public Petitions Committee can do. I will be grateful to hear other members’ views, but I am minded to close the petition.
The issue has been on-going for some time. As I have stated previously, I understand the petitioners’ frustration. However, as a member of the RACCE committee, having listened to the views of other members of that committee and taking on board its letter to the Public Petitions Committee, which recommends that we close the petition, I agree with you, convener, that we have no option but to close it.
It is regrettable that no further action can be taken at this level, but it has been reiterated that only a court can rule on whether human rights have been breached, and the petitioners have been advised of that on numerous occasions. Although I have sympathy with the predicament that the petitioners find themselves in, I do not see that there is any more that this committee can do to help. The advice that only a court can make the ruling is a salient point.
I am a little disappointed. I feel that the petitioners have been failed in regard to support from the Government. They have come back to this petition time and time again and they have stressed that they do not have the means to challenge the Government on the issue. I feel that we have let them down, because it is a fact of life that, unless they had large sums of money, they were not going to be able to defend themselves, so they were up against the wall from day 1.
The fact that we have not found a solution for the petitioners is disappointing. I feel that they have been let down. I feel that somehow, somewhere, there should have been a mechanism to better protect the rights of citizens of this country. We have clearly failed them. I feel quite sad that we may take the decision to close the petition today.
I would have felt more comfortable if a solution had been found whereby the petitioners’ rights could have been protected and they could have had a fair hearing in another place to pursue their human rights. I think that we have let them down. I am sorry to say that, convener, but I feel that we have not been able to reach out and support them in the way that I would have liked to see them supported.
I have some sympathy with Hanzala Malik’s position. At our previous consideration of the petition, when David Stewart and Jamie McGrigor suggested the possibility of an inquiry, I thought that the idea was worth pursuing. However, the letter that we received from the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee is not encouraging in that regard.
The point that Angus MacDonald ultimately made—that we cannot adjudicate on a legal matter—means that, if we were to initiate an inquiry, it might well shed light on something but, in itself, it could not bring about a resolution of the issue, which is beyond our competence. I am concerned that, in those circumstances, the balance of whether or not we should do it is not proven. A bit like Hanzala Malik, I am not satisfied that Mr and Mrs Mundell’s position has been resolved in any way by this committee, but I am not sure that this committee can resolve it.
As there are no further questions, what action would members like to take on the petition?
I suggest that we close the petition.
Do members agree to close the petition?
Reluctantly.
Members indicated agreement.
The petition is now closed on the basis that the decision to ring fence was democratically made and the petitioner’s claims and allegations can be determined only in court.
Electric Shock and Vibration Collars (PE1555)
The next petition is PE1555, by Siobhan Garrahy, on electric shock and vibration collars for animals. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
It might be premature to do anything. I am at a loss to see what we should do. There is a suggestion that we get further information, but the subject does not seem to be one on which we would necessarily wish to pursue an inquiry. Unless the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, for example, has a view, we seem to be reaching the end of the road as to where we go with the petition. The issue has been raised; nobody is running to make any decision one way or the other. It seems to me that we should either just leave the petition and see where things go or close it. I cannot see that any inquiry by us would be of any substance.
My view is that shock collars are cruel and certainly cannot be justified. Having said that, I am not opposed to the use of vibration devices in appropriate circumstances.
It may be possible for the committee, before closing the petition, to consider one more point. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is carrying out a second survey of those who are or are not in favour of a ban. The committee may wish to seek the views of the authors of the study, at the University of Lincoln, on what the petition is calling for. We could then bring the petition back to the committee.
I am struck by the penultimate paragraph of the cabinet secretary’s letter to the committee, and I believe that it might be a bit premature to close the petition now. The letter states:
“The previous view, therefore, was that there was insufficient objective evidence to support a ban. However, after considering the points made in the debate in January, I share the strong concerns expressed regarding the potential for misuse of these devices and I have asked for further information on the use of electronic collars in Scotland, and other countries, and the basis for the ban in Wales. Officials are currently in the process of gathering this information and have had discussions with animal welfare organisations, the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association ... and animal behaviourists.”
Given that the cabinet secretary has decided to take an interest in the matter, we might be well advised to wait at least until he is able to update us on the outcome of that consideration.
I was going to make the same suggestion. The Welsh Assembly’s response notes that the Assembly is about to review the ban that has been in place. It might be worth waiting until we hear from the Assembly when it expects the review to be completed. We can then look at the issue further.
We have had various responses to date, a number of which have opposed the continued use of the collars. One of the responses in favour of their use has come from the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association. NFU Scotland is split on the issue and does not want to come down on either side at present.
We should hold off closing the petition, taking on board the suggestions made by Kenny MacAskill and other members. We can look at what the Scottish Government intends to do on the issue and ask the Welsh Assembly when it expects to complete its review. That information might help to inform us on whether we should close the petition or take it forward.
Do members agree to wait until the Scottish Government provides further information and the Welsh Assembly gives us a date for the outcome of its review? We may also want to ask the study authors at the University of Lincoln for their views on what the petition calls for. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
National Parks Strategy (PE1556)
The next petition is PE1556, by John Mayhew, on behalf of the Scottish Campaign for National Parks and the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, on a national parks strategy for Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
It is disappointing that we have not yet heard from the Scottish Government in response to the letter that we sent on 29 April. However, it may be the case that no news is good news: the Government may be considering the points studiously. That said, it is disappointing that it has not responded to date.
Are there any more questions?
I will have a glass of whatever Angus MacDonald is on. It obviously breeds optimism. [Laughter.]
There is a suggestion that we contact some other organisations. In the first instance, I would really want to hear the Scottish Government’s response to our original letter. That might well lead to further information being sought, but I would not want to initiate the process of seeking further information before we had that response.
I think that we should write to the Government, saying that we are slightly disappointed that we were not able to have a response before the summer recess and that it will therefore be some time before we can return to the issue. Had the Government replied timeously, that would have been to our benefit and the petitioner’s advantage.
Do members agree that we should write to the Scottish Government?
Members indicated agreement.
Perverse Acquittal (PE1562)
The final continued petition today is PE1562, by Alan McLean, on perverse acquittal. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
I think that the petition should be closed. There is a good deal of sympathy for Mr McLean, but—as we see from the Sheriffs Association submission—it would involve a fundamental change in the law of Scotland to change the current position.
I cannot see any merit in writing to ask about the number of times that sheriffs have sent a decision back. In 20 years of practice and seven and a half years as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, I have never been aware of that having happened. In all likelihood, we would find that it has hardly ever been done. That brings us back to the point that the Sheriffs Association makes: we would be asking one person—the sheriff or judge—to replace a verdict of 15.
We will just have to leave the matter until such time as the Government or the Parliament, through a member’s bill, wishes to change the law or until the Bonomy report moves matters further. We have gone as far as we can. With no desire for legislative change, anything else would simply run into the sand.
If there are no other questions, do members agree with Mr MacAskill’s proposal that we close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting closed at 12:16.Previous
New Petition