Petitions
I think that we have sufficient committee members to reconvene and get on with our business. To our visiting colleagues, I say that this has been a bit of a marathon session, but we will plough on.
The committee has agreed to have an update on petitions every two months or so. This is our first such update and it pulls together a number of petitions. Our papers give us information on previous petitions and some newly referred petitions. We will consider the petitions on our agenda in turn and agree on any further action. We are not aiming to consider the subject matter of each petition in detail today; we are aiming to consider our next steps.
Predatory Birds (PE449)
The first petition is PE449, from Mr 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. Since we last considered the petition, on 10 September, members have received a letter from the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, outlining the formation of a research group to investigate the issues that the petition raises. The letter also outlines a time scale for the consideration and commission of the research.
I invite members to consider the options for action on this petition, as laid out in the covering note. The key thing to note is that the minister has invited the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to take part in the moorland forum. That body has now been expanded to take on board some of the concerns that were raised in petition PE449. The clerks have outlined three options for us. Dealing with the petition will be straightforward, because progress has been made since we last considered it. I hope that we will be able to agree that what is suggested under option A in the paper will let the process advance. The petition might come back to us in the future, but we can now address the issues to the moorland forum. Do members agree to accept option A?
Members indicated agreement.
I agree, but I would like to be kept informed of progress.
If the petition goes to the moorland forum, it is likely to return to us at some point. I am happy to conclude our consideration, pass our thoughts back to the petitioner with a copy of the Official Report from our discussion this morning and inform the Public Petitions Committee. Are members happy with that on the basis of the information in front of us?
Members indicated agreement.
Waste Water Treatment (PE517 and PE645)
PE645 is a new petition that calls on the Scottish Parliament to take a range of steps to ensure the control of offensive and noxious odours from waste treatment plants. The committee is required to consider the petition and to agree a course of action. Everyone will have read their papers, so I imagine that they have noted that the issues that are raised in the petition are broadly similar to those that were raised in PE517, although this is the first time that we have considered the new petition. Are members content to accept the referral from the Public Petitions Committee and to consider PE645 alongside PE517? The local member is here this morning.
Petition PE645 relates to the Pathhead waste water treatment works in Kirkcaldy, which is affectionately known as the "Pathhead pong". Matters have moved on since the petition was submitted, but issues remain. The residents group, the council and I met Scottish Water, but we have reached an impasse. As members are aware, we are awaiting judgments and we are considering closely what the City of Edinburgh Council is doing. Fife Council will monitor the situation over six weeks and we have issued recording sheets as we did in the past. With the residents in Kirkcaldy who still suffer from the odours, although there are fewer of them now, we are looking at the measures we can take to address that impasse.
I am concerned that we have two petitions from two widely different areas, but which seem to relate to the same problem. That might be evidence that the problem is much more widespread. Although we see that problem in the context of individual petitions, perhaps we need to take the bigger issue more seriously. I know that the committee's work load is horrendous for the foreseeable future, but I am wondering about option C in the paper on PE517, which proposes monitoring the situation. That option could also apply to PE645 and it would allow us to monitor developments that are wider than those in the two petitions. My guess is that they might only be the tip of the iceberg.
The suggested action on PE645 addresses the broader issues with which we have been dealing under PE517. The two petitions relate to issues which, although they are experienced locally, are not local issues because they raise broader issues throughout Scotland. I am keen that we agree to consider PE645, but that we consider it alongside PE517, which picks up the point that the issues are not isolated and that they are public policy issues.
My constituents would have no problem with that. They know that, although their petition concerns the Pathhead works, broader issues are involved, as the convener said.
So we would agree to pursue option A, which is that we accept the referral of PE645 and undertake further consideration of the issue in conjunction with PE517. I want to ensure that we deal with the petition properly, instead of simply closing it down.
I think that I am in the same position as other members, in that an existing sewage works in my area has been producing odours for a long time. The works have recently been renewed and the smell periodically worsens. Moreover, there is a proposal for a significant extension to an existing sewage works 500yd from the centre of Clydebank, which means that we will get the smells from the north side of Glasgow and from Renfrewshire in quite a narrow space.
I want to identify three action points in connection with this issue. First, I would like the committee to highlight that the matter should be taken into consideration in the proposed Water Services (Scotland) Bill. Legislation that relates to this matter is coming down the track and, given colleagues' comments about what is happening around Scotland, it is entirely unacceptable that only one abatement notice has been served since 1999. As the Executive will have an opportunity to examine legislation in this area when the proposed bill is introduced, an early indication from the committee that it would expect such an examination would send an important signal.
Secondly, the petition raises the significant planning issue of permitted development rights. There is no legislative obligation on water authorities to carry out normal planning scrutiny or to provide notification of proposals to develop an existing facility, however small it might be. As a result, planning authorities have no opportunity that is backed by legislation to enforce conditions as far as planning consent is concerned. Although such conditions were enforced with the proposed Erskine works, which are on the opposite side of the Clyde from my constituency, that was done largely on a grace-and-favour basis. We need to address the way in which permitted development powers are used in that respect and how they allow public authorities to bypass legislative planning mechanisms as opposed to mechanisms that address odour problems.
Thirdly, Scottish Water recognises that it could maintain higher odour-control standards. However, with the funding regime that it operates under the water industry commissioner and the Scottish Executive's policy direction, it is not funded to achieve such standards. Indeed, it could be criticised for imposing higher standards, which is a completely topsy-turvy arrangement. I suggest that the committee could flag up the issue to the Finance Committee, which is investigating the funding regime of the water authority.
I suppose that I am making three suggestions. First, I suggest that the committee writes to Ross Finnie in relation to his legislative powers; secondly, that it writes to Margaret Curran to ask about permitted development rights in the context of the on-going consultation on planning matters; and thirdly, that it writes to the Finance Committee in the context of its investigation into Scottish Water's funding regime.
We know that you are the convener of the Finance Committee, so I take it that you are actively seeking that advice from us.
Alasdair Morrison was about to ask a question.
I have nothing to add.
I seek members' agreement that we accept the referral of PE645 and that we wrap it up with PE517.
Members indicated agreement.
It was important that Marilyn Livingstone was able to speak about how the matter has impacted on her constituents.
I want to pick up some of the other issues that were raised by Des McNulty in relation to the previous petition and which are also relevant to PE645. I will bring everyone up to date on the progress of PE517 and then bring in Susan Deacon, who is keen to speak on it.
This is the second time that we have considered PE517. At our meeting of 10 September, we agreed to write to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to seek his view on all the issues that arise from it, including the effectiveness of the current system for regulating odour nuisance from water treatment plants, on which Des McNulty has just commented. The minister's response is attached to the petition cover note. We will try to sweep up some of the broader issues that Des McNulty and Marilyn Livingstone have raised and consider how to proceed with PE517.
I attended the previous meeting at which this issue was raised, so members will be aware of my interest in petition PE517. Seafield sewage works, which prompted the petition, is in my constituency.
The specific point that I would like to make is in direct response to the minister's reply. It is approximately 18 months since PE517 was submitted to the Parliament. I recognise that the petition has been progressed actively by the Public Petitions Committee and by the Transport and the Environment Committee before the election and by the Environment and Rural Development Committee since. Nonetheless, 18 months have elapsed since the issues were first raised.
It is more than six months since the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, acknowledged to the Transport and the Environment Committee that there were inadequacies in the statutory and regulatory regime and gave certain commitments in that regard. I am deeply concerned that we are not moving forward further and faster.
Other members are absolutely right when they say that this is not an isolated case—I have acknowledged that from the outset. We are hearing about more and more such cases across the country. Recently one Sunday newspaper investigated the issue and established from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency that in excess of 30 plants are subject to various forms of investigation. The four members present who have experience of the issue in their constituencies know that we are dealing with a major environmental nuisance to the community. The existing arrangements have proven somewhat inadequate in addressing that.
My fundamental point is that I have read the minister's response and do not believe it to be satisfactory. It is a reiteration of the situation that prevailed a considerable time ago. I understand that a House of Lords ruling is awaited, but I am not convinced that consultation on legislative change must await that. There is a wide range of issues on which discussion and debate could usefully be initiated. I echo Des McNulty's suggestion that we seek other vehicles for addressing the problem.
Even if the House of Lords rules that the statutory nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 apply to odour from sewage treatment works, that does not deal with the wider legislative and regulatory issues that are involved—for example, the planning issues to which Des McNulty referred.
I can do no more than request that the committee, in its response to PE517 and PE645 and, indeed, to the minister, goes beyond simply noting the current position. Every further month or six-month period that elapses during which work is not actively commenced to tighten up the regulatory and statutory regime in this area is time during which communities are suffering.
I realise that this is the third time that I have echoed Des McNulty—it is becoming worrying—but he was right to touch on the complex issue that is the nature of Scottish Water and to say that it must have a basis on which to invest time, energy and, crucially, money in the development of its infrastructure. Odour is not treated seriously enough at the moment. It has been seen as the cinderella in the major investment projects that have been carried out at a range of pre-existing and new waste water treatment plants.
Last week, several of us attended a briefing with Scottish Water and the chair, Professor Alan Alexander, essentially or loosely acknowledged that point, although I do not want to put words into his mouth. The Scottish Parliament has an opportunity to make a difference, but if the minister's response is accepted as it stands, people will start to lose faith in the Parliament's processes and powers to address an issue that affects thousands of people throughout Scotland.
Although my area has not submitted a petition, the Levenmouth sewage treatment works is experiencing similar problems. Scottish Water has been very good at coming to meetings, but one of my criticisms is about what I and the community perceive as its lack of urgency in taking steps. I echo what Susan Deacon said: unless Scottish Water comes under pressure from those who have the power to legislate—us—I suspect that it will feel no sense of urgency, particularly because of all the other pressures that it is under. If that happens, the situation will continue in which my constituency has been told that it might be up to a year before any remedial work can be planned and put in place. That is not acceptable to the community, but we cannot put any more pressure on Scottish Water and we hope that the committee can use its powers to do so.
No member of the committee has spoken thus far. The options that we have available to us require a varying amount of work. Option A says that we are happy with the Executive's response and that we will defer further consideration of the petition until the House of Lords appeal is resolved. We have had representations from colleagues who have odour problems in their patch saying that that is unsatisfactory. The second option is for us to write to the minister outlining further views and asking how the Executive plans to address the issues relating to odour control on landfill sites. The committee has been picking up on that issue and announced that in the report that was published yesterday. Thirdly, we could appoint a reporter to monitor developments in relation to noxious odours from waste water treatment plants and landfill sites, who could then report back to the committee.
Noting what has been said today, it seems to me that there are two issues. One is a short-term enforcement issue on local authority powers. I wonder whether it would be helpful for the ministers to write to local authorities and tell them what the Executive's powers are at the moment. Guidance might come along later this year in the form of a voluntary code, but it would be no bad thing if ministers were to tell councils what they think the current provision is and to reinforce the fact that the House of Lords ruling will be binding under Scots law. Local authorities are allowed to take enforcement action and it might be useful if that fact was reinforced.
Des McNulty has highlighted what we can do with the proposed Water Services (Scotland) Bill and the planning bill, which concerns permitted development rights. When we come to scrutinise those two bills—the water bill will be our responsibility and the planning bill will be the responsibility of the Communities Committee—we could gear up to make points at stage 1. Would it be worth it if we said now that that work had to be done? We could write to the ministers with our views and ask them to start considering those views in the context of both bills. Alternatively, we could appoint a reporter to do that for the committee and then we could tell Ross Finnie and Margaret Curran what we are looking for.
I seek members' views. Do we do it ourselves now or do we write to the ministers and tell them that we expect those issues to be considered in the bills that are being prepared? We could write the letter tomorrow, or we could do the scoping work for the discussion of the principles of both the bills.
The first option—writing to the minister—is the obvious first course of action.
We have written to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and have received feedback, so we would be writing to make a concrete proposal that the issue be addressed in the Water Services (Scotland) Bill. That would pick up Des McNulty's point that the current legislative framework under which Scottish Water works does not require it to address the issue to the extent that we think it needs to be addressed. We will flag that up now and, in effect, get the minister to do the work. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The second point is—this is an efficient use of time—permitted development powers under the proposed consolidated planning bill. Following the same principle, we will write to Margaret Curran and say that the issue has been highlighted and that it should be picked up in the planning bill. We do not want the issue to be dealt with at stage 3 of the two bills; we want the work to be done now so that it sends the message to a series of agencies that the issue is one that the Parliament feels is important and on which it wants legislative action. We should ask for a response from the minister and, if we think that the response is lukewarm, we can appoint a reporter and do the work ourselves. We are firing a shot across the Executive's bows and saying that the committee expects the issue to be included in the bills.
Do members feel that that would be a good way to proceed? It picks up Susan Deacon's point about time scale and raising the issue up the agenda so that people outside the Parliament can see that we think it important and want it to be dealt with through legislation.
Members indicated agreement.
I suggest a third letter, which would be to Ross Finnie in the context of the quality and standards consultation that he will be opening in February 2004 and would say that we seek higher standards of odour control, which would have to be factored into the way in which arrangements between the water industry commissioner and Scottish Water would be addressed as part of that consultation. Again, we would be asking the civil servants to do early work on how that could best be achieved.
It might be worth copying our correspondence to—I have forgotten the technical term—the environmental regulator for the water industry, as opposed to the water industry commissioner. They are different: one deals with environmental standards and the other is about the water industry as a whole.
You mean SEPA and the water industry commissioner: the WIC deals with economic aspects, which have been a barrier, and SEPA deals with environmental considerations and enforcement.
We should flag up that we are taking an early interest in the matter and that it will be coming to those to whom we are writing. Is there anything else that we should do at this stage to ensure that we have swept up all the issues properly?
You talked about a letter to local authorities outlining to them what measures can be taken at the moment. In my area, we have found that the most difficult thing is measuring the odour. That difficulty needs to be pointed out. Scottish Water is putting monitors around the site in my area at the moment.
Secondly, the definition of nuisance seems to be quite loose. We need to tighten up how we measure and define nuisance. My constituents who are living with the odour would say that it is a nuisance, but the issue is how the local authority determines nuisance.
I would appreciate it if those points could be clarified.
Those are important issues to put in front of the ministers. I clarify that my suggestion is that Ross Finnie should write to local authorities to clarify the current legal position, but it is important to put your points about measurement and definition into a letter. The other ministerial letter that we need to write is to the Minister for Communities, and, out of courtesy, we should copy that letter to the convener of the Communities Committee. Des McNulty, as a local member, also requested that we write to the convener of the Finance Committee to recommend that the issue be addressed.
That is a lot of letter writing, but it is quite a concrete way in which we can flag up the issues. We will make a judgment on the responses that we get from the ministers and decide whether we are happy with them or whether we feel that we need to take ownership of the issue and appoint a reporter.
I want to pick up on a point that Marilyn Livingstone made. There is an issue about the method of measuring odours and the standard that is set for that. There is also a related issue about having a cordon sanitaire around such plants, which is to do with how close they should be to residential and other areas. Planning is the other way in which the problem can be dealt with. It is probably worth flagging up that we want both those issues to be considered.
We certainly picked up that issue during our waste inquiry. As members will be aware, we identified the need for minimum distances between new landfill sites and such areas, and suggested that the minister should adopt that.
I think that we have swept up all the issues that are raised by the petition for today. I hope that members of the Communities Committee will be able to read the Official Report of today's meeting and will realise that we were persuaded by the arguments that people have made, which need to be acted on. That picks up on Susan Deacon's point.
Are we agreed on the way forward for the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank members—especially visiting members—for their comments.
Greyhound Racing (Regulation) (PE604)
We move on to petition PE604, in which the petitioners request the Parliament to deal with greyhound racing. The committee is required to consider the petition and to agree a course of action. I invite members to discuss the options for action that are laid out in the covering note on the petition.
Over the past few years, I—like most members—have become aware that there is an issue with greyhounds, so I do not think that we can afford simply to turn the petition away. At this stage, the proposals in option A appear to me to be the most sensible way forward. I suggest that we pursue a combination of paragraphs 17 and 18.
Members indicated agreement.
It seems that everyone is agreed.
That seems to be a very sensible recommendation. Alex, would you be happy to sign up to that?
Yes indeed. If possible, I would also like us to ask the minister for an indication of the time scale for the introduction of the proposed Protection of Animals (Scotland) Bill.
That is a sensible addition to Roseanna Cunningham's recommendation.
I want to clarify whether everyone is happy to agree to consider the issues relating to the welfare of greyhounds that PE604 raises during our stage 1 consideration of the proposed Protection of Animals (Scotland) Bill, to conclude consideration of the petition on the basis that we will pick up the issues that it raises and to write to the petitioner to inform him of our decision. It has also been suggested that we invite the petitioner to give evidence to us during our stage 1 consideration of the bill, and I know that other people have written in about the welfare of greyhounds. Although we do not have a time frame for the introduction of the bill, I think that we should write formally to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to ask for a view on the issue that the petition raises. It would also be useful to get from the minister a sense of what the time scale will be. It would be helpful to seek clarification on those points.
I invite members to agree that they are happy with that course of action.
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Agricultural College (Restructuring) (PE653)
We move on to PE653, which is a new petition on issues relating to the Scottish Agricultural College. As with the other petitions, the committee is required to consider the petition and to agree a course of action.
Members have a lot of paperwork in front of them. We received correspondence following the evidence that we took on the SAC from relevant interest groups at a meeting in the early summer, and we have now received subsequent correspondence from the SAC and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, to which I draw members' attention. That correspondence outlines amendments to the original restructuring proposals; the amendments have been made in light of the concerns that we and other interest groups expressed during the summer. Members will also note that, in the past few days, we have had further representations from the SAC and from a variety of interest groups, which were aware that we would discuss the issue at our meeting today.
I invite members to discuss the three options that are laid out in the covering note on the petition. Alex Johnstone is first off the mark.
I have considered the complications that have arisen during recent months and I am afraid that my view remains that the Deloitte & Touche phase 3 report differs from the phase 2 report only on cosmetic issues and that, in the long term, it will have the same result as the previous reports.
We are in a very dangerous situation, where it looks as if we could lose our structured agricultural environment education unless some action is taken. Consequently, I am of the view that we should continue our consideration of the petition at least until—as one of the letters says—the SAC releases its business plan in March.
As the local constituency member is here, I think that it is important that we have the opportunity to hear from him about the direct communication that he has had about the Craibstone campus.
Paragraph 6 of the paper that members have before them indicates that a large number of the stakeholders who were involved in the discussions on 25 June were significantly dissatisfied with the proposals. I am not aware that any of the stakeholders that are referred to in that paragraph have changed their view. I have had representations from agricultural interests, the staff and the students, all of whom still regard the proposals with significant reservations.
I have taken some trouble to go through Professor McKelvey's letter to the committee dated 16 September. I note that he has offered to keep the minister fully informed of the details of the business plan as that takes shape. The committee ought to monitor that carefully as well. Perhaps you could invite the SAC to keep the committee informed, too.
I note also that, at the bottom of the first page of his letter, Professor McKelvey deals with the delivery of sub-degree education. He states:
"Initially this will be by our own hand on existing sites, but moving to partnership delivery as soon as possible."
As a consequence of that comment, I corresponded with several of the alternative providers who are potential partners. It is true to say that discussions have taken place between SAC and a number of the potential partners but, having spoken directly with Professor McKelvey and his deputy, Professor Atkinson, I think that it would be worth while to receive clarification from them of how that partnership delivery is to be achieved.
From my reading of the letter, I assumed that the work would be subcontracted to universities or colleges, although it is rather doubtful that a university would be interested in delivering sub-degree level courses. My discussions with Professors McKelvey and Atkinson lead me to suggest that the SAC intends to continue to deliver those courses by its own hand, but not necessarily on the same site. The partnership that is being sought is with a place with the appropriate facilities where the teaching could be carried out. Clarification of that point would be helpful.
The SAC does not appear to have considered the options that new technology presents. A big difficulty for people who want to continue with agricultural education, in particular at degree level, is the severe lack of student numbers and interest. The potential may exist for some of the appropriate coursework to be delivered by highly qualified people through the use of the new technology that is available, whereby classes can be arranged on different campuses and everybody can participate at the same time. That solution does not appear to have been considered, although other forms of distance learning seem to have been. Such developments could well mean that students who might have done only the first two years at Auchincruive or Craibstone could continue to do years 3 and 4 at those sites. That approach to education would be much more collegiate, rather than one that takes people away from their families and communities for the delivery of the last stage of their higher education.
That approach does not appear to have been considered, but staff and students have suggested it to me and I would like it to be explored. I know that some potential partners would be willing to come and talk to the committee. I would be happy to advise the clerks about that after the meeting, if the committee so wishes.
There is general acknowledgement of overcapacity on all campuses. In his letter, Professor McKelvey refers to overcapacity at Craibstone. I am pleased to say that he has promised to work with local councils, politicians and the enterprise company to develop the estate in partnership with other organisations. That appears to be happening. There has been a change of atmosphere that I welcome. It is also generally acknowledged that developments on landholdings at Craibstone could be advantageous and would not necessarily adversely affect the capacity of the college to deliver research and development, teaching or advisory work.
I would prefer the committee to go with option A. The committee may be interested to know that, in response to written question S2W-3653, I learned that the student head count this year is 213 at Aberdeen—which is up from previous years, in spite of the doom and gloom of some members of the SAC's management team. The figure for Ayr, which is 376, is up as well. However, the picture from the SAC's preferred site for the concentration of education in future—Edinburgh—shows that the numbers are down, at only 130 students. That does not exactly support the idea that Edinburgh is an attractive campus or the idea that students would be willing to move to the area in the future. I hope that the committee will go for option A.
I do not think that we want to rehearse all the arguments for and against the various sites. However, some letters that we have received in the past couple of days suggest that the consultation that the minister was hoping for either has not taken place or has taken place in a manner that was not particularly helpful. Option A is appropriate but, in the immediate future, it is unlikely that we will have time to carry out what it suggests. However, the SAC's business plan is published in March and that would be a suitable time for us to reconsider some of the issues. We would be able to look back over a number of months and consider whether things had gone as we might have expected them to go. In March, we might be better able to fit such consideration into our work programme.
I would not be happy for us to close down this petition. Any suggestion that events have moved on and that it is now irrelevant are demonstrably—if I am being kind—overstated.
I am sorry, I did not catch that. Did you say that you thought that we should close down the petition?
I said that any suggestion that we should close it down on the ground that it is now irrelevant in light of subsequent events is, to say the least, overstating the case.
Right. I understand.
There seems to be consensus that we are prepared to accept the referral. It seems that progress is being made, but we need clarification on that. I suggest that we keep the petition open. When the SAC's business plan is prepared in March, we should invite the SAC to send it to us for our comments, as well as its being sent to the minister for his comments. If we then feel that we need to do more, that will be fine. If we keep the petition open, that means that we will be keeping a watching eye on it. Is that acceptable?
Members indicated agreement.
That is not to accept option A as such; it is to accept referral of the petition and to come back to it after the business plan has been published. This morning's discussion will, I hope, give everyone who is interested in the petition a sense of our thoughts.
Fishing Industry (Fixed Quota Allocations) (PE365)
The final petition is PE365 on fixed fishing quota allocations and property rights. Members will recall that the committee agreed on 10 September to conclude its consideration of this petition by noting the issues raised by the petitioner. We also agreed to write to the minister to seek further information on the current situation. Members will have seen the minister's response. Are members happy for us to send a copy of the minister's letter to the petitioner?
Members indicated agreement.
Because of the problems in the fishing industry, the situation remains fluid. We may wish to return to it in future, but, in the meantime, we have dealt with the petition to the best of our ability.
We have dealt with it and have to close our consideration of it.
We will consider European issues in the near future and we are bound to discuss fishing. We will have to consider the fisheries councils in more depth, possibly in the new year. On 2 December, Ross Finnie will attend the European and External Relations Committee. At least one member of this committee is also on that committee, but other members may want to attend that meeting. This committee will deal with the results of whatever the European fisheries ministers achieve. Any future regulations or monitoring issues will come back to this committee, and some of the information provided by the minister will be useful for future consideration.
Meeting closed at 13:31.