Environment and Rural Development Committee, 10 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 10, 2003

Official Report 304KB pdf

---

Public Petitions

The Public Petitions Committee has referred again eight petitions that its predecessor dealt with, along with one new petition. Members have a paper that gives the background to each of the petitions and provides a set of options for dealing with them. I ask members to note that we have already agreed to consider petitions PE541 and PE543 as part of our national waste plan inquiry. The taking of evidence from those petitioners has been scheduled for 24 September. That is in line with our new attempt to ensure that petitions link into our inquiry or legislative work.

---

South-east Islay Skerries (Special Area of Conservation) (PE246)

The first petition for us to deal with is PE246, which is a new referral. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to request Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish ministers, as appropriate, not to proceed with the designation of the south-east Islay skerries as a special area of conservation. Although the Environment and Rural Development Committee is required to consider the petition, members might wish to note that the area of south-east Islay skerries has already been designated as an SAC. I invite members to discuss the four options for action that are laid out in the covering note and to agree on how we can progress.

The issue that the petition deals with has been huge on Islay. I want to go for option D, which would involve more scrutiny of the general principles of local consultation and the need to take into account the wishes of local people. We could perhaps consider those issues as part of our stage 1 scrutiny of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill and take evidence on those processes.

I support that view.

That is a sensible approach, but I would like some information. Is there any way in which we could recommend that Scottish Natural Heritage's order be rescinded?

My understanding is that, once such an order has been laid, it is laid. We are talking about a European requirement. The key issue is the process that leads up to that point, which we need to cover when we consider the nature conservation bill.

Fine.

I hope that I am right. That is my recollection.

We will see what the Official Report says.

Although I do not wish to go against other members' proposals, I thought that option C might have been more appropriate.

Personally, I would go for option C. I think that we should pick up the general issues that the petition raises as part of our consideration of the nature conservation bill. I can see that Alex Johnstone and I are being quietly outvoted by the rest of the committee. Are there any other views?

Option C and option D would involve considering the general principles. It is a question of whether we put the petition to one side and consider the general principles or whether we consider the general principles and the petition along with them.

I think that we want to keep the petition with this committee. That is why option D is important.

Is there a broad consensus for option D? The key issue is that the petitioners' points are properly considered when the matter is debated. That is what we all want.

I seek clarification. We do not want to rehash the debate that the Public Petitions Committee has already had with the petitioners. I take it that, rather than having a huge evidence-taking session with the petitioners, we will take the evidence from the Public Petitions Committee and put that into our inquiry on the general principles of the nature conservation bill.

Everyone would agree with that. We will take the key issues that have been raised, collect the written evidence that has been presented to, and considered by, the Public Petitions Committee and ensure that that is fed into our stage 1 consideration of the nature conservation bill. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Fishing Industry (Fixed Quota Allocations) (PE365)

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.

Is that option B in the paper?

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.

I am happy to support option B.

I support option A.

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

If the Executive is doing a good job, I want to know that it is, so I favour writing to the minister and confirming that.

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?

Members indicated agreement.

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.

---

Predatory Birds (PE449)

The next petition is PE449 from Alex Hogg, on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to initiate an independent investigation into the impact of predatory birds on waders, songbirds, fish stocks and game birds.

Members may wish to note that the issues raised in the petition are similar to those that were raised in PE187, which has now been concluded. Members might also wish to note that work on issues relating to the petition was done by the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Rural Development Committee during the previous parliamentary session.

It is over to members to tell me how they want to proceed. Three options are set out in front of us. I will take members' views.

The recommendation on PE187—that the SGA should go to the moorland forum—was right. However, the deficiency in the knowledge base of the impact of raptors was highlighted, but the minister's response to that was vague. I would like some way of pinning down the Executive on what stage it has reached in its consideration of what research needs to be commissioned and how close it is to commissioning that research.

We are talking about conservation, which I believe in, in spite of what some people might sometimes say. As an ordinary individual, I am extremely concerned about the number of predatory birds in the Scottish environment. In my area, we used to have short-eared owls, kestrels and a number of other birds that moved through occasionally. Now, all we have are hundreds of common buzzards that have displaced a huge number of other predatory species, are consuming huge numbers of ground-nesting birds and are having a massive impact on the environment. Alex Fergusson made similar comments at a previous committee meeting.

I am concerned that well-meaning conservationists might have significantly impacted on such a change, which has happened over a relatively short number of years. We must be aware of exactly what is happening in the predatory bird population. Many investigations that have taken place do not provide me with the answers that I think I need.

I sympathise with the petitioners and am not confident that the minister's letter of 13 March answers concerns about our knowledge. We need to do more work on the matter.

Nora Radcliffe and Karen Gillon have made some crucial remarks. We must get scientific knowledge about the causes of the effects that people are seeing on the ground. I was a reporter for the Transport and the Environment Committee in the previous investigation into the matter and the big concern was that we did not know what was happening. We received anecdotal evidence, but there was no scientific investigation to back up that evidence. In particular, there was no investigation in Scotland and the results of investigations in other areas possibly did not transfer. I would be interested to hear what stage the scientific investigations have reached and whether any progress is being made in the moorland forum.

The little booklet that the Executive provided us with has interesting key environmental statistics and shows the status of wintering waders between 1969 and 1999. The dunlin, bar-tailed godwit, turnstone, oystercatcher, ringed plover, curlew, black-tailed godwit and grey plover populations have all increased in a range between 2 per cent and 538 per cent. Such figures show that the number of waders is perhaps increasing. Some populations—such as those of the sanderling and redshank—are decreasing, but by small amounts. That suggests that we need more facts about what is happening and that the minister must make details available before we can set the petition to rest. The petitioners have made a point that has not been answered. We need detailed answers.

The figures that Rob Gibson mentions are interesting. My experience is that populations of species such as the lapwing and the oystercatcher in particular have dramatically fallen off in my area, albeit that curlews have benefited, as they are big enough to fight off buzzards.

I suspect that much evidence is anecdotal, which is a big flaw if we want to progress the debate. We should agree to option C and defer consideration of the petition. First, we should ask the minister about the Executive's factual knowledge. If that knowledge is deficient, we should ask what the Executive intends to do to obtain further information before we decide what to do. It would be far more sensible if the Executive obtained further information, if it can. We should agree to option C, defer consideration of the petition and ask the minister what the current position is and what the Executive's intentions are in respect of obtaining further information.

I think that there is consensus among members. All members seem to want more information and to be up to date. Therefore, I suggest that, as with the previous petition, we should ask the minister to answer our concerns. The committee can then reconsider the petition perhaps in the next two months and finally close it off or decide on further action, as required.

Members indicated agreement.

May I ask a procedural question?

Yes.

I came to the meeting specifically to speak to petition PE449—indeed, I caught your eye a few minutes ago, convener.

I am sorry—I thought that there was total unanimity and that members did not want to close off the petition, but to return to it.

So be it. Does that preclude a visiting member speaking in support of that position?

No. If you want to—

To be fair, members have agreed to the position that I was going to urge them to agree to, which is fair enough—I thank them for doing so. However, I would like to make one point, if I may.

You may do so, if you are brief.

I promise that I will be brief.

It was mentioned that the matter should be dealt with in the moorland forum. I live in a non-moorland area and believe that I have witnessed the imbalance that is beginning to occur between the raptor population and that of smaller bird species. I do not believe that the moorland forum is the proper place to undertake a review of the petition and hope that the committee will ask the minister questions on that matter.

I think that that point was raised by a member, but I did not include that in my concluding remarks. I suggested merely that we would go to the minister first and get his comments, which we would bring back to the committee. We did not agree to refer the matter to the moorland forum, although that was one of the options that was open to us.

I endorse Alex Fergusson's comments. I do not think that the moorland forum has any particular dealings with goshawks, sparrowhawks and buzzards. If that is the case, they should not be in charge of arranging the research into those species or into fish stocks.

I want to make a specific suggestion that I hope might be acceptable. The minister should be encouraged to consult directly with the SGA, which provided useful evidence on 25 February 2003 and whose members have a wealth of practical knowledge from their own everyday experience. The SGA could discuss with the minister how the research could be organised and advise him of the details that we heard about in February. Would that be in order?

I am expecting the minister to come back to us in a couple of months. Obviously, he will have to bring with him information that we think is robust or that we would wish to discuss. If members want to make specific recommendations as to who the minister should talk to, I am quite open to that.

If we were to do that, we would have to recommend a range of bodies with particular perspectives on the matter and particular abilities to gather information that is more than just anecdotal. I do not think that we should recommend only one body.

I sense that we are about to open out the discussion further. I suggest that we stick to the agreement that we seek information from the minister about research that is being done. It will go on to our agenda when we get that information. At that point, members who are not on the committee will be able to read that information and come back to the committee if there are issues with which they are not happy—Fergus Ewing's comments lead me to believe that that might happen.

Do members agree to take that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Special Protection Areas (Arran, Barra and Yell) (PE462, PE463 and PE464)

All these petitions are concerned with the designation of sites of special scientific interest. The Public Petitions Committee has suggested that, due to the similarities between them, they should be considered together.

At the end of the first session, the Transport and the Environment Committee recommended that its successor committee should take these petitions into account in its consideration of the nature conservation bill. Do members agree with that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Water Treatment Plants (PE517)

Petition PE517 is specifically concerned with the waste water treatment plant in Seafield, claiming that noxious odours emanating from the plant are hazardous to the health of local residents. Following the circulation of the petition's cover note, there has been coverage in the press suggesting that the City of Edinburgh Council is considering legal action against Scottish Water in relation to the plant. That is a result of independent research commissioned by Scottish Water into the odours emanating from the plant.

Members should note the recommended action that is set out in the petition's covering note.

Susan Deacon has joined us and would like to speak to the committee on this matter.

I would like to make a few brief points and also acknowledge the work done by the Transport and the Environment Committee in the previous session. That committee was influential in relation to the progress that has been made on this issue. However, it would be wrong to suggest that the issue is resolved either locally or nationally, in terms of statute and regulation.

The problem that the petition deals with has a long history. The Seafield plant, which is the largest sewage treatment plant in Scotland, serves Edinburgh and much of the surrounding area. Odour has been a problem for decades, but it was hoped—and expected, on the basis of assurances from East of Scotland Water—that the odour issue would be addressed following a major investment in the plant a few years ago. That investment allowed huge strides forward in local bathing water quality, which was one of its main aims, but the odour problem has persisted. Despite persistent efforts by me, by Gavin Strang, who is the local MP, by the local residents association, by the local community council and by others, the problem remains to be resolved. There have been many meetings, liaison committees, action plans and penalties served against the contractor, but the problem has still not been resolved.

Most recently, Scottish Water stepped up its efforts and attitude, and acknowledged the scale of the problem more explicitly. It has also commissioned independent assessment, which local people have long asked for. As the convener noted, the investigating officer from the City of Edinburgh Council has reached the view that a nuisance exists, and consideration is being given to the serving of an abatement notice, on which counsel's opinion is being sought.

The committee has the opportunity to make a huge difference on the issue, not just as it affects people in Edinburgh, but as it affects people in other communities in other parts of Scotland with similar odour problems. We appreciate that waste water treatment plants—sewage works, in other words—are vital facilities that are needed throughout the country. However, communities should not have to suffer to the existing extent just because they live close to those facilities. The technology exists to address odour issues. With the will and the investment, those problems can be resolved.

The issue relates to quality of life. Smell might be hard to measure—I suspect that that is why it has not been given the attention that other environmental nuisances have had—but it is real to the people whom it affects. As representatives of the local community said when they presented the petition, 4,000 noses can't be wrong.

Most recently, as part of its independent assessment, Scottish Water commissioned a customer survey over a wider area than I expected. That covered an area with a radius of a number of miles from the plant. One quarter of residents said that they were affected by the smell. Many had to close windows, could not hang out washing and did not want their kids to play outside on hot days. That is unacceptable.

Odour has not been treated seriously enough in the past by service providers or policy makers. The statutory regulatory regime is, at best, overly complex and confusing, and at worst, inadequate. The matter raises planning law and environmental protection law issues. I welcome the Minister for Environment and Rural Development's acknowledgement of inadequacies on the issue, which he gave in response to the Transport and the Environment Committee's efforts in the previous session. He gave a commitment at least to introduce a voluntary code of conduct and to conduct a consultation. Now that we have a new Parliament, I hope that we will keep up the pressure on the Executive to progress the action that it has promised and to ensure that, once and for all, we give odour nuisances the attention that they deserve and that people expect us to give them.

I hope that that helped to give the committee a sense of the extent of the problem and the strength of feeling. I look forward to hearing the committee's comments.

I thank the member for her presentation, which was just about kept under five minutes.

The committee has three suggested options in the briefing paper. Do members have any views on them? I have followed progress in the local press, and I used to have to visit sewage treatment works, so I know that odour is a sensitive issue. The situation depends partly on people's location downwind or upwind of a sewage treatment works.

I do not want to close out the petition, as option A suggests, but I am keen to await the outcome of the outstanding appeal that has been lodged with the House of Lords. Once we know the result, we could keep up the pressure on the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, as Susan Deacon suggested, and ask what measures the Executive will take. As Susan Deacon said, the issue might involve not only Seafield but other sewage treatment works. Relevant factors are scale and location in the built environment, but the matter will not go away. After we know the result of the appeal, the committee can decide how to proceed and whether we want a reporter. Am I right in thinking that until we have the House of Lords result, a legislative proposal from the minister is unlikely? That is guesswork.

I do not know how long we will have to wait for the result of the appeal, but other odour nuisances come not only from sewage works, but from landfill sites, knackeries and rendering plants. I would like to pursue with the minister odour control more widely and not just in relation to the Seafield plant.

We could write to ask the minister whether a voluntary framework or a tougher parliamentary regulatory framework is envisaged. We could do that on the back of the Seafield issue, which is a major concern to people that has been running for some time.

I appreciate that the outstanding appeal has a bearing on the issue and I am sure that the Executive is monitoring it closely, but that does not preclude the Executive's making progress and the committee's putting pressure on the Executive in the meantime.

We have broad agreement that we will write to the minister. If we can return to the petition in a couple of months' time, as we will to our other petitions, we will do that.

We have worked our way through our agenda and will now go into private, as we agreed at our meeting last week, to discuss our approach to the budget process. I invite the official report, broadcasting, the public and visiting members to leave the room.

Meeting continued in private until 12:49.