Public Petitions

Our next petition is PE365, which was lodged by Mr Iain MacSween on behalf of the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation Ltd. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the status of fixed quota allocations for fishing vessels and to take appropriate action to ensure that fish stocks are not sold to owners whose main place of business is outwith the UK.Members may wish to note that, although the petition has been around for some time, the issue seems particularly relevant, as the current decommissioning scheme does not require quota allocations to be given up. That was touched on in the Rural Development Committee report. I am told that the Executive reply was not particularly detailed.A suitable option might be to write to the minister asking for a detailed briefing on his current position on the operation of the quota system; how the approach to decommissioning fits into that; and information on any current or future developments on the issue. The petition would be kept open. If we felt in the future that, in response to the minister's comments, we wanted to do more detailed work, we could appoint a reporter.

Yes.

How long will the process take? Is it contingent on when the minister responds?

We can expect an update within the next two months.

One of the flaws in the system is that it keeps petitions alive for months and months; in some instances, they run for years. There is a tendency—perhaps it is the right thing to do—to keep some petitions running for years when there is little that can be done about them. My favoured option is option A, which is to note the petition.

Right, two members support option A and three support option B.

We could note that we have dealt with the petition and ask the minister to come back to us with further information. That would meet Alasdair Morrison's point about not letting the petition bob on for ever, but would follow the key points that it raises, which are about how quota ownership works and what is happening under the current decommissioning proposals. That brings the issue back to the committee formally without keeping the petition going for years. Would members be happy with that? I do not want to lose the substantive points in the petition, but I note the point that we perhaps let petitions live for years without going back to the petitioners. Are we agreed?

I ask the clerks to contact the petitioners to let them know what we intend to do on the points that they have raised. We will return to the issue within two months, I hope, with a response from the minister.