Petitions
I welcome committee members, witnesses, the press, members of the public and a visiting MSP colleague to the Environment and Rural Development Committee. We have received no apologies. I remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones before somebody is embarrassed.
We may have to rejig the agenda slightly, depending on when the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development turns up. We programmed him for half past 11, but I suggest that if he arrives early we take the relevant agenda items early. We will see how we get on.
Waste Water Treatment (PE517 and PE645)
The first item on the agenda is petitions. Members will remember that we agreed that we would have regular wrap-up sessions on petitions. We have three current petitions. Members have extensive background paperwork to go with the petitions, which should bring them up to speed with where we are on all of them. I will be looking for agreement on how to proceed with them.
The first petitions are PE517 and PE645, which we last discussed at our meeting on 19 November. We agreed to put them together because they both deal with the control of noxious odours from waste water treatment plants. We wrote to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to raise a large number of issues, including the key issue of the effectiveness of the current system for regulating odour nuisance from water treatment plants. Members now have the responses.
The paper from the clerk sets out four options for further action. If members feel that the Executive's response is satisfactory, we could agree to defer further consideration of the petitions until the appeal to the House of Lords is resolved, which is likely to happen in November. Members may wish to write to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development on outstanding issues or to invite him to the committee to give oral evidence and to explore further issues about the regulation of odour nuisance—members should note that a consultation exercise is likely to be conducted in the summer on that issue. Alternatively, we may want to appoint a reporter to delve into the issue in more depth.
Over to members. Can I have a steer on how you would like to deal with the petitions?
I do not think that I want to delve into the depths of sewage treatment works—as a reporter or in any other way. However, we must keep a close eye on what is happening. We are still waiting for the House of Lords decision, which is now due sometime in November. Once the consultation exercise has concluded, I would like to bring the minister to the committee to ask him about what is happening, what the result of the consultation was and what the Executive intends to do. It is an important issue that we should not let slip.
I have one or two specific questions. Paragraph 29 of the clerk's paper states that
"‘the distances from the boundary of the site to residential and recreational areas'"
are
"to be taken into account".
I do not see why that should preclude the setting of a minimum distance. Local circumstances are taken into account, but I do not see why there should not be a minimum distance from a dwelling-house at which we could say it would be totally unreasonable to have such a development. We should write to the Executive, asking why it is setting its face so hard against setting a minimum distance.
In paragraph 26 of the clerk's paper, we are told that the Executive is carrying out research into the dividing line between planning and environmental controls. Will that research be used as input into the planning bill, so that we can pick up properly the difficulties in the planning system, which is partly where the controls belong? If the Executive is not planning to do that, how will it use that research to undertake some sort of action?
Susan Deacon has been involved with PE517 for months. Do you have any views on the way forward, Susan?
Colleagues will know of my interest in the petition as the constituency member for the area that includes the Seafield sewage works, which is the subject of petition PE517. I have read carefully the ministerial response to the committee and I am bitterly disappointed with its contents. We have waited almost six months for a five-page response that goes into considerable detail about why lots of things cannot be done. That is a wholly unacceptable response to the views on the issue that have been put to the Parliament not just by my constituents but by a range of communities and MSPs over some years.
I want to highlight the extent to which the Executive has engaged in delaying tactics. On 6 March 2003, Ross Finnie gave me a commitment, in response to a parliamentary question, that there would be a consultation exercise on potential legislative change. On 11 September 2003, Allan Wilson said that there would be a draft voluntary code, which was due to be finalised and issued for public consultation towards the end of last year. I note that the latest ministerial response contains no commitment to consultation on legislative change, but we are told that the consultation even on the draft voluntary code is not to commence until the summer. That is wholly unacceptable and calls into question the seriousness with which ministers are treating the issue.
I am very pleased that the committee has continued to pursue the matter assiduously. As I said when we debated the issue previously, if we fail to achieve some tangible progress in the near future, people—not only in my constituency, but in communities throughout Scotland—will lose faith in the Parliament's processes for addressing what is a real issue for them. There is dread in my constituency as we approach another summer, as such problems are always worse in summer. Scottish Water's own independent research, which was commissioned following pressure from me and the local community last year, showed that people who live as far as 2 miles away from the sewage works have to close their windows and not hang out washing on a summer's day because of the smell from the sewage plant. I believe that that is unacceptable in such a built-up area. I agree entirely with Maureen Macmillan's suggestion that the minister should be called to account before the committee and required to answer these points.
No other member has indicated that they wish to comment at this time. Maureen Macmillan has suggested that we invite the minister back to explore the matter further. Nora Radcliffe has raised some specific issues, especially the minimum distance and input into the planning bill. Susan Deacon has made the point that no commitment has been made to legislation and that a voluntary code is not yet before us.
Maureen Macmillan suggested that we invite the minister to appear before us once there has been consultation on the voluntary code. Perhaps we should invite him before the summer recess, to keep up the pressure on the matter. That would allow us to raise the issues that Susan Deacon has placed on the agenda. As she mentioned, it is now a year since hopes were raised that a voluntary code would be issued, but the timetable has slipped again. Perhaps we should keep the matter on our agenda and not close the petition. The minister could give evidence to us before the summer recess to explore the voluntary code and distances and to get some thoughts about the research that is needed and the issues that should be explored.
Susan Deacon suggested that sewage works affect people living as far as 2 miles away. When we discussed the matter in committee, we identified 0.5km as the sort of distance that should separate waste management and treatment facilities from residential areas. It would be useful for us to consider the impact that such developments can have on local communities.
How do members feel about the approach that I have outlined? I see members nodding.
We are caught between two stools—planning matters and environmental matters. We need both the Minister for Communities and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to appear before us to provide answers. I do not see how the Executive can say that this issue does not fall into the area of planning. The letter from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development states that certain things are planning matters and that under the statutory nuisance provisions of the planning process responsibility lies with local authorities. We want to square off ministers' shoulders—we are fed up with sloping shoulders.
I see that there is 100 per cent assent in the committee to those comments. Do we agree to invite both ministers to appear before the committee, so that we can explore this issue in more detail?
Members indicated agreement.
Greyhound Racing (Regulation) (PE604)
Petition PE604 concerns the establishment of an independent Scottish greyhound racing regulatory body. I draw to members' attention what will hopefully be good news. The Executive has written back to us indicating that it will give serious consideration to addressing the issue of the welfare of greyhounds in the forthcoming animal welfare legislation, on which there is now a consultation document. I invite members to note that the Executive is seeking views on the issue. That is a relatively successful conclusion to the petition.
Do members agree to conclude consideration of the petition?
Members indicated agreement.