Petitions
School Playing Fields (PE422, PE430 and PE454)
Agenda item 4 is on public petitions. We must consider four petitions, which are in two groups. The first group has petitions PE422, PE430 and PE454, on the provision of playing fields in Scotland. At our meeting on 8 January, we agreed to write to the Minister for Social Justice to ask for the Executive's views on sportscotland's comments about guidance on standards for the provision of playing fields.
The minister's response indicates that two days after sportscotland wrote to the committee, the Executive met sportscotland and said that it does not object to the proposal to prepare guidance. In view of the Executive's correspondence, the committee might feel that it would be fitting to conclude the petition by writing to the petitioners, stating that the committee's policy is to not take a view on individual local planning decisions, and providing them with the correspondence that the committee has received on the issue, which includes reference to the fact that the Executive has no objections to preparing guidance on the provision of playing fields. Do members agree with that course of action or does anybody want to suggest another?
I am glad that the committee decided to push on with the petition, which has had a good outcome. The Executive has considered what was said and has acted promptly on it. I am happy with the convener's suggested course of action, but I am not sure what "preparation of guidance" means. Guidance can be prepared, but is the Executive prepared to accept and implement such guidance? Does the word "preparation" mean that? It might be okay to prepare guidance, but the guidance could just sit in the stocks and nothing could happen. Does the Executive intend to follow the matter through?
I cannot answer for the Executive, but if it is comfortable about guidance being prepared, I take it that that implies that the Executive would pursue and issue such guidance. That is what I would take from the minister's response.
That is good. I am quite pleased with that.
I, too, am happy with the option that is outlined in paragraph 8. If the Executive went to the trouble of preparing guidance, I would expect it to follow it through.
Are members agreed that we will correspond with the petitioners as suggested.
Members indicated agreement.
Water Treatment Plants (PE517)
The second petition for our consideration today is PE517, from Mr Rob Kirkwood, and concerns water treatment plants. In correspondence with the committee, the Executive asks us to note that the petition deals with waste-water treatment plants, as opposed to water treatment plants. I think that we were all aware of that, but I am happy to put that on the record.
We are joined for this item by Susan Deacon, who is the constituency MSP for the area concerned. I welcome Susan to the committee—I will give her an opportunity to comment on the petition in due course.
The response from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development indicates that the Executive will undertake consultation on alternative approaches to dealing with odour nuisance from public sewers and sewage treatment works. That shows recognition of the fact that current regulations are perhaps insufficient to deal with such problems.
There are two ways in which we could take the matter forward. We could see fit to acknowledge the action that the Executive has taken and conclude our consideration of the petition, or we could refer the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee so that further consideration could be given by a committee at the start of the next parliamentary session.
My inclination would be to pursue the latter course of action, because I do not think that we have had sufficient time to give the petition full consideration. We could, as an interim measure, correspond with the petitioner to say what action the Executive intends to take. It would be appropriate for the committee that holds the environment brief in the new session to take another look at the issue and ascertain whether it is satisfied with the action that the Executive has taken to progress the issue. I invite committee members' views, after which I will invite Susan Deacon to comment.
Odour nuisance is a serious pollution problem, so I agree with the convener. We should recommend that our successor committee keep an eye on the matter.
I endorse and agree with what the convener and Maureen Macmillan said. It is vital that consideration of the petition continue and that we consider potential future guidance on such matters.
I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on the subject, especially because I was unable to attend the previous meeting at which the committee considered it. I wrote to the committee prior to that meeting and prior to today's, so I will not repeat all the points that I made in that correspondence.
I record my appreciation and that of my constituents for the way in which the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Public Petitions Committee have handled the issue. Their consideration has been extremely thorough and constructive, and I am delighted to hear members' comments this morning. I very much hope that the committee will decide to continue to take the issue forward.
As I said, I will not repeat the full background to the case, but I should underline the fact that residents who live in close proximity to the Seafield sewage works—or the Seafield waste-water treatment plant, to give it its Sunday name—have experienced odour problems for many years. A genuine expectation was raised—not least by Scottish Water itself—that the substantial investment programme that has taken place at the plant over the last few years would result in a marked improvement to the odour problem. It should be recognised that the investment has resulted in substantial improvements to the waste-water quality, yet the odour problem has not been resolved. As recently as last week, residents in the area were experiencing very bad smells, and had occasion to call in the City of Edinburgh Council once again to look into the matter. I believe that a report is currently being compiled.
It is important to note that the problem has not been resolved, despite the fact that after sustained campaigning by local residents, the local MP and me, Scottish Water has put an action plan in place and penalties have been imposed on the plant's operators. Having examined the matter carefully over the past couple of years, I have reached the firm conclusion that the regulatory regime that covers the matter is a complex tapestry of statutes, regulations and different organisations. In other words, there is no lack of machinery—it has simply been ineffective. I have consistently argued that the regime is, at best, overly complex and confusing and, at worst, inadequate.
As a result, I am absolutely delighted by Ross Finnie's response to the committee, in which for the first time of which I am aware, he has acknowledged explicitly that there are inadequacies. I believe that the problem of odour, which the committee has previously examined in other contexts, has received insufficient attention in the past. The Scottish Parliament now has a real opportunity to make a difference in this matter, which impacts on the lives of many people not only in my constituency, but in other communities throughout Scotland. I thank the committee for allowing me to have the opportunity to put my comments on record.
I take it that there is broad agreement for the action that we have proposed, which is that we continue consideration of the petition by referring it back to the Public Petitions Committee. That will enable our successor committee to consider the issue in more detail. We also welcome the Executive's proposals for action to address the problem; our successor committee can ensure that that is followed up on. We will also correspond with the petitioner to that effect. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We will now move into private session. I should point out that if we have not managed to conclude our consideration of the three items in private by 11:15—when we will receive a planning briefing from Des McNulty—we will have to do so later.
Meeting continued in private.
On resuming—