Committee
Public Petitions Committee, 29 Feb 2000
29 Feb 2000 · S1 · Public Petitions Committee
Item of business
New Petitions
The next group of petitions—PE96 and PE99—should have been taken together, but Mr Allingham has withdrawn his petition. We have only Mr Berry's petition to consider at this meeting. The subject is sea cage fish farming. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to hold an independent and public inquiry into the adverse environmental effects of sea cage fish farming and the regulatory failure to recognise and prevent significant damage to our natural heritage, the environment and other interests that are dependent on the integrity of Scottish coastal waters.
We have received around 60 e-mails—not 40, as the briefing says—in support of this petition. The Scottish Parliament information centre has advised us that some of the suggested links between cage fish farming and amnesic shellfish poisoning have been identified elsewhere. Several of the references that are attached to the petition appear to have come from reputable sources, and many environmental groups have seriously questioned the impact of fish farming.
We have also been contacted by Mr Berry, who has written to the clerk to highlight his concerns over the handling of this petition by the Parliament. Mr Berry says that much of the material that supports his petition has been in the hands of the Scottish Executive's rural affairs department for some time. He has also passed copies of that material to the Rural Affairs Committee, the Transport and the Environment Committee and the relevant ministers. He is concerned that, apart from acknowledgement letters, he has not received responses from either of those committees or from the ministers. It is his view that it would not be appropriate for this committee to pass his petition to either of those committees, as a key component of the petition is his concern over what he terms the "regulatory failure" of the Executive ministers and the parliamentary committees to address his concerns previously.
Mr Berry suggests that, in the circumstances, the petition should be passed to the Standards Committee for consideration. However, it is my view that it would be inappropriate for this committee to accept the petitioner's request. It is not for petitioners to judge the way in which petitions are dealt with by the Parliament. That is the role of this committee, and I suggest that we continue to emphasise that. The Rural Affairs Committee received the material to which Mr Berry refers in November, shortly after the publication of its second report on amnesic shellfish poisoning. That committee passed it on to the rural affairs department and fisheries research services, to seek comment. Mr Berry was informed of that by letter. There is no suggestion that his submission was ignored by that committee.
I suggest that we pass this petition to the Rural Affairs Committee for further consideration, and ask it to respond to Mr Berry's concerns. However, I am open to the committee's views on this one.
We have received around 60 e-mails—not 40, as the briefing says—in support of this petition. The Scottish Parliament information centre has advised us that some of the suggested links between cage fish farming and amnesic shellfish poisoning have been identified elsewhere. Several of the references that are attached to the petition appear to have come from reputable sources, and many environmental groups have seriously questioned the impact of fish farming.
We have also been contacted by Mr Berry, who has written to the clerk to highlight his concerns over the handling of this petition by the Parliament. Mr Berry says that much of the material that supports his petition has been in the hands of the Scottish Executive's rural affairs department for some time. He has also passed copies of that material to the Rural Affairs Committee, the Transport and the Environment Committee and the relevant ministers. He is concerned that, apart from acknowledgement letters, he has not received responses from either of those committees or from the ministers. It is his view that it would not be appropriate for this committee to pass his petition to either of those committees, as a key component of the petition is his concern over what he terms the "regulatory failure" of the Executive ministers and the parliamentary committees to address his concerns previously.
Mr Berry suggests that, in the circumstances, the petition should be passed to the Standards Committee for consideration. However, it is my view that it would be inappropriate for this committee to accept the petitioner's request. It is not for petitioners to judge the way in which petitions are dealt with by the Parliament. That is the role of this committee, and I suggest that we continue to emphasise that. The Rural Affairs Committee received the material to which Mr Berry refers in November, shortly after the publication of its second report on amnesic shellfish poisoning. That committee passed it on to the rural affairs department and fisheries research services, to seek comment. Mr Berry was informed of that by letter. There is no suggestion that his submission was ignored by that committee.
I suggest that we pass this petition to the Rural Affairs Committee for further consideration, and ask it to respond to Mr Berry's concerns. However, I am open to the committee's views on this one.
In the same item of business
The Convener:
Lab
It is sad that Mr Frank Harvey was not the 100th petitioner—it may have been appropriate for him to have been. He is the 91st. Members will see that the firs...
Ms White:
SNP
I agree with you entirely, convener. The subjects of the first three petitions have been raised by MSPs anyway. Perhaps Mr Harvey should be made aware of the...
The Convener:
Lab
We write to Mr Harvey, telling him what has happened to the petitions, so that information can be passed on to him.Mr Harvey's next petition is on the subjec...
The Convener:
Lab
The next petition from Mr Harvey, petition PE93, is on the subject of Falkirk hospital. It asks the Scottish Parliament to amend legislation to make it a cri...
The Convener:
Lab
The next group of petitions—PE96 and PE99—should have been taken together, but Mr Allingham has withdrawn his petition. We have only Mr Berry's petition to c...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
Did you say that it had been referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee?
The Convener:
Lab
It was referred to the Rural Affairs Committee.
Christine Grahame:
SNP
Perhaps the Transport and the Environment Committee should also see it.
The Convener:
Lab
It has also been before that committee.
Christine Grahame:
SNP
It might be useful to send a copy of Mr Berry's comments to that committee and to ask its members for their comments. It is not for this committee to comment...
The Convener:
Lab
Good point.
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
I support what you said, convener. The committee should decide where the petition goes. It is more an environmental than a rural affairs issue. It is a good ...
The Convener:
Lab
All the background papers associated with any petition are passed to committee members for information. If the committee's view is that there is too much inf...
Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab):
Lab
I agree with that. Petitioners might want to take on board some concerns about the presentation of the material that is sent to the committee. I do not want ...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I disagree with Pauline. It is a matter for the committee that will consider the substance of the petition to decide what value to place on evidence that is ...
Phil Gallie:
Con
The issue will have an effect on the fish farming industry and that industry is extremely important to rural communities. There is a rural economic aspect to...
The Convener:
Lab
In any case, most of these papers have been passed to the Rural Affairs Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee, so they have them in their...
The Convener:
Lab
Petition 97 is from Mr Thomas Gray. It calls for the Scottish Parliament, by whatever powers available to it, to limit agricultural support to one farm per f...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I disagree. The petition should go the European Committee to consider whether there is any remit within the European regulations to deal with this matter. As...
The Convener:
Lab
Does farming receive only European subsidies? I though that there were other subsidies, particularly from the Scottish Executive.
Christine Grahame:
SNP
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament"to limit agricultural support to one farm per farmer . . . and, to have all future EU support".I thought that t...
The Convener:
Lab
I think that it includes European support, but he is referring to limiting agricultural support as a whole, which includes subsidies that come from the home ...
Phil Gallie:
Con
He is talking about subsidies that fall under European directives and the way in which they are delivered. This matter affects the farming community consider...
The Convener:
Lab
We can pass the petition to both committees.
Ms White:
SNP
We should pass it to both committees. I read the petition the same way as you, John. It asks for all future moneys from Europe to be limited to one farm per ...
The Convener:
Lab
If agricultural support is coming from the Scottish Executive, the Westminster Government or the European Union, the petition should go to the European Commi...
The Convener:
Lab
The petition may go to the European Committee. It should, but we will consult on whether it should go to the Rural Affairs Committee as well. I think that it...
Ms White:
SNP
So it is going to both committees?
The Convener:
Lab
It is going to both of them.Petition 98, from Mr Frank Harvey, is on rural sub-post offices. It calls for the Scottish Parliament to raise the closure of sub...
Members:
Yes.