Petitions
Waste Water Treatment (PE517 and PE645)
Item 3 is consideration of two petitions, PE517 and PE645, which relate to noxious odours from waste water treatment works. Colleagues will recall that we have debated the issue on several occasions. Most recently, on 9 June 2004 we took oral evidence from Allan Wilson, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, and Mary Mulligan, the Deputy Minister for Communities. Following that, we decided that we wanted more information on a number of issues and that we would reconsider the petitions once the information had been received.
Members have in front of them a fairly lengthy paper, which is useful, because it gives them all the information that we have had back from a variety of organisations in response to a series of questions that we put. Members also have a draft code of practice on odour nuisance, which has just been issued for consultation by the Executive, which is also useful in the context of this discussion.
We have to consider the information that we have received and decide how to proceed. Members will have read the background paper. I found it useful reading given the different positions of the organisations that wrote in, in particular those of the local authorities, and the supplementary information from Scottish Water, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Executive. We have moved a long way on the matter.
Members should also have in front of them a note from Susan Deacon, MSP for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, who has taken a close interest in the Seafield waste water treatment works. She acknowledges in her letter that she finds our new information to be interesting, particularly the draft code of conduct, and she welcomes the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development's comment that he is keen to have some form of statutory underpinning for the draft code. She makes the point that she is keen to see progress
"at the earliest possible opportunity"
and hopes
"that the Committee will continue to pursue this matter vigorously."
It is over to colleagues on where we should take the matter next. The paper sets out three options. The clerks have done an excellent job in working out how we can take the matter forward. Option A is to wait until we have research on the interaction between land-use planning and environmental regulation. The second option is to keep the issue going as we move to the stage 1 report on the Water Services etc (Scotland) Bill, which we will discuss with the Minister for Environment and Rural Development later this morning. The third option is to appoint a reporter to consider the issues, monitor developments in relation to noxious odours from waste water treatment plants and landfill sites, and report back to the committee. Those are straightforward ways to move forward.
My feeling is that we have a huge amount of information and the key issue now is what happens to it. Does it get taken on board by the Executive? Do we get statutory underpinning and, if so, how do we get it? Might we see the matter being advanced in the Water Services etc (Scotland) Bill? I am not sure that we want to monitor developments, because we know what has happened and now it is over to the Executive. My view is that we should address the matter in our discussions on the Water Services etc (Scotland) Bill, when we will also be discussing quality and standards III and the investment programme. That would be the ideal time to ensure that we complete our consideration of the petitions.
Do colleagues have strong views to the contrary, or would they like to add something?
You said that we should address the issue in our discussions on the Water Services etc (Scotland) Bill, which is about competition, but the issue is more to do with Q and S III. I am being technically correct, but what really matters is how the money is spent.
We could debate how to provide a statutory underpinning of the process. We can have that discussion.
My first reaction is similar to that of Rob Gibson. I have watched a lot of legislation go through Parliament over a number of years, and I am fairly happy to proceed on the proposed basis. We can decide during our stage 1 deliberations the appropriate way to address the issue, and by including it in our stage 1 report we can encourage the Executive to use its greater resources to consider it. I am perfectly happy with option B in the meantime, to see whether we can provoke some movement. If we do not succeed, we will have to consider one of the other options.
I, too, am happy with option B. My only concern is that the Executive has not identified an appropriate legislative vehicle to deal with the matter. I presume that it will come at some point in the future. We need to monitor that and keep pushing the Executive, so that it introduces an appropriate vehicle if the Water Services etc (Scotland) Bill is not the right one. Clearly, establishing a code of practice for the water industry is great, but we want it to be followed through with statutory underpinning. If that cannot be done through the Water Services etc (Scotland) Bill, it will need to be done at some point somewhere. We need to ensure that that happens, so that communities are assured that the issue will be tackled.
That is helpful. We do not know what the legislative options might be. Clearly, the issue has been outstanding for a long time. I echo Susan Deacon's comments that we should address the issue
"at the earliest possible opportunity".
We might wish to go away and think about that, but I will put it to the minister later this morning.
It sounds like we all agree to option B, which means that we will conclude our consideration of the petitions by ensuring that the issues are addressed in discussions on quality and standards III—the investment programme discussions—and in the representations that are made to the Executive, and by considering the opportunities that the Water Services etc (Scotland) Bill might afford.
I see general agreement round the table. I thank members and the clerks. The issue has been with the committee for a long time. Part of the reason for that is the fact that the problems that communities in Edinburgh and Kirkcaldy are experiencing are severe. I know that many members of the public are keen for us to address the issue. I hope that people read the Official Report of our discussion today and view our decision as a step forward.
We will have a short suspension before we take evidence from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—