Transport and the Environment Committee, 22 Jan 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 22, 2003

Official Report 336KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Organic Waste Disposal (PE327)

Item 4 relates to the work that the committee has done on petition PE327, which is on organic waste spread on land. George Reid, the Deputy Presiding Officer, who has had a continuing strong interest in the subject, is in the public gallery, but I think that he is here only to observe.

A paper has been produced to allow the committee to consider whether to take further action on the environmental aspects of the petition. We have published a report on the issue, received responses from the Executive and had a useful debate in the chamber, during which George Reid made a particularly informed and strong speech. Members will be aware that concern has been expressed that the health aspects were not addressed as fully as the petitioners or some members wished. That was partly because of the Health and Community Care Committee's problems with its volume of work. I welcome the fact that, following discussions between the Health and Community Care Committee and the Public Petitions Committee, the Public Petitions Committee has taken the issue on board and a reporter from that committee will look into the public health aspects. Dorothy-Grace Elder has been identified as the reporter and has started her investigation. Irrespective of what we decide, that work is on-going.

I seek guidance from members. Are they content that we have exhausted the environmental issues that the petitioners raised? Do members wish to conclude the petition or do they wish to pursue further issues?

I do not think that there are further environmental issues. We should refer the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee so that it can make progress on the health issues, which are extremely important.

That is already happening. The Public Petitions Committee has appointed Dorothy-Grace Elder to investigate the issues and she will report back in due course. Do members agree to conclude the petition and to write to the petitioner on the action that has been taken, noting that the Public Petitions Committee is considering some of the health aspects?

Do we not have to refer the petition back formally, so that the Public Petitions Committee reporter can begin her consideration?

Yes. We will pass the correspondence back to the Public Petitions Committee.

I agree with the proposed route, but something has dawned on me and I would like to put it on the record for the new committee that comes along after 1 May. With this petition, the petition on the incinerator at Carntyne and the petition on genetically modified organisms, we considered the effects on the environment, but the issues crossed over to the effects on public health. Perhaps members of the new committees might want to consider that point closely.

I will worry Fiona McLeod considerably by advising her that I was thinking exactly the same thing. The clerk and I reflected on that point in recent discussions and I suggested that we draw up a paper to pass to the Parliamentary Bureau. We do not know what the structure of the committees will be after the election, but it is important that, whichever committee has the environmental remit, the remit allows that committee to investigate the public health aspects of environmental issues. The clerk will draft a paper of that nature, which we will present at a subsequent meeting to seek the committee's approval. We will then send the paper to the Parliamentary Bureau for post-election consideration.

It will be the Muldoon concordat.

Indeed.

That brings our meeting to a conclusion. I thank members for their attendance and contributions.

Meeting closed at 13:09.