SCOTS Project - www.scottishcorpus.ac.uk

Document : 1169
Title    : Scottish Parliament: Committees: Transport and the Environment:
Official Reports: Meeting 1, 2003
Author(s): Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body

Copyright holder(s): Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body: © Scottish
Parliamentary copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the
Queen's Printer for Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary
Corporate Body.

Text

Session 1 (2003) 
Scottish Parliament
Transport and the Environment Committee
Official Report 
Meeting No 1, 2003 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
8 January 2003 
CONTENTS

Wednesday 8 January 2003


TRANSPORT AND THE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 1ST MEETING 2003, SESSION 1
   
ITEM IN PRIVATE
BUILDING (SCOTLAND) BILL: STAGE 2
SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION
Smoke Control Areas (Authorised Fuels) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations
2002 (SSI 2002/527) 
Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI
2002/538) 
Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc)
Order 2003 (draft) 
PETITIONS
Opencast Mining (PE346 and PE369) 
Playing Fields (PE422, PE430 and PE454) 
Telecommunications Developments (Planning) (PE425) 
Planning Process (PE508) 
Water Treatment Plants (PE517) 
RAIL INQUIRY

TRANSPORT AND THE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
1st Meeting 2003, Session 1

CONVENER

*Bristow Muldoon (Livingston) (Lab)

DEPUTY CONVENER

*Nora Radcliffe (Gordon) (LD)

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

*Bruce Crawford (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
*Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green)
*Angus MacKay (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
*Fiona McLeod (West of Scotland) (SNP)
*Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
*John Scott (Ayr) (Con)
*Elaine Thomson (Aberdeen North) (Lab)

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTES

Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
David Mundell (South of Scotland) (Con)
Iain Smith (North-East Fife) (LD)

*attended

THE FOLLOWING ALSO ATTENDED:

Des McNulty (Deputy Minister for Social Justice)

CLERK TO THE COMMITTEE

Callum Thomson

SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK

Alastair Macfie

ASSISTANT CLERK

Rosalind Wheeler

LOCATION

The Chamber
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  8 January 2003 
Scottish Parliament

Transport and the Environment Committee

Wednesday 8 January 2003

(Morning)

[THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 09:39]

The Convener (Bristow Muldoon): I welcome everyone to the first meeting of
the Transport and the Environment Committee in 2003 and wish you all a
happy new year. I hope that it is a successful year—for most of us,
anyway.

I have received no apologies for absence from today's meeting, but Fiona
McLeod said that she would be late. If the meeting is still progressing at
11:30, Elaine Thomson will need to leave to attend another committee.

Item in Private

The Convener: I ask members to agree to take agenda item 7 in private. Item
7 is consideration of a paper on the committee's approach to the
examination of telecommunications developments, following its report in
2001 and the subsequent action taken by the Executive.

Members indicated agreement.

Building (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

The Convener: I ask members to ensure that they have copies of the
marshalled list of amendments and the bill.

Sections 22 and 23 agreed to.

Section 24—Building warrant enforcement notices

The Convener: Amendment 57 was debated with amendment 11.

The Deputy Minister for Social Justice (Des McNulty): I wish everyone a
happy new year.

Amendments 57 and 58 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

The Convener: Amendment 59 is in a group on its own.

Des McNulty: Amendment 59 would amend and broaden the provision on building
warrant enforcement notices to reflect changes made by amendment 21, which
removed the restriction on what an amendment to a building warrant might
include.

I move amendment 59.

Amendment 59 agreed to.

Amendments 60 to 66 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

Section 25—Defective buildings

The Convener: Amendment 107 is grouped with amendment 108.

Angus MacKay (Edinburgh South) (Lab): Amendment 107 is intended to be a
tidying-up exercise to grant local authorities power to carry out emergency
repair work. Examples of such work include work on blocked drains and the
right to erect scaffolding to facilitate repairs, such as those needed by
Ryan's Bar, which has been much quoted during the committee's
deliberations.

Amendment 107 has no hidden agenda or greater intent beyond the wish to
transfer the powers contained in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982
to the bill, where they would be placed alongside local authority powers to
serve defective building notices.

I move amendment 107.

Elaine Thomson (Aberdeen North) (Lab): I support amendment 107. Following a
fire in Aberdeen, the Poundstretcher building in Union Street was left in a
dangerous condition. Although the owners of the property collected
insurance money, they failed to carry out repairs to return the building to
a safe condition, with the result that a workman who went into the building
was killed. The local authority had major problems with being able to bring
enough pressure to bear on the owner of the building to make it safe. The
amendment might tackle such problems. I ask the minister to consider the
important approach of giving local authorities adequate powers to tackle
dangerous buildings in such circumstances.

09:45

Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): I ask Angus MacKay to
explain further the implications of amendment 107, which begins:

"Where it appears to a local authority to be necessary".

What criteria would the local authority use? I am anxious about the
amendment's resource implications, were we to agree to it. In principle, we
want to ensure that buildings are as safe as possible, so what would be the
effect of the amendment?

Bruce Crawford (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP): My question is for Angus
MacKay and the minister. I am interested in the minister's response to
amendment 107, which has the sort of rationale that we should get on to the
statute books.

Proposed subsection (15) says that the local authority may recover costs
from the owner of a building if it wants to. It may also remit any sum, or
part of any sum, if it wishes. I want to ask about circumstances in which a
building becomes unsafe, not because of lack of repair or proper building
upkeep but because of something happening outside. For example, an adjacent
building or an earth tremor—God forbid—might undermine the building in
question and place it an unsafe condition. In such circumstances, would an
individual be expected to bear the cost, or would that be an insurance
matter? I wonder about some of the unseen things that can happen to
property. Would a local authority be able to seek redress—and perhaps
costs—from an owner for action that the owner had taken, despite the fact
that the owner has no right of appeal or any other mechanism to use against
the local authority?

Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green): We are talking about a sensible strategy
for emergencies. How would competitive tendering fit in? Would councils be
able to take immediate action without putting the work out to tender?

Angus MacKay: I shall answer those questions as well as I am able to and in
the order in which they were asked.

Maureen Macmillan raised the cost implications, which would be minimal
because amendment 107 proposes to incorporate in the bill existing law from
the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. Therefore, I do not expect a
significant additional cost.

On Bruce Crawford's point about costs being recovered by local authorities
from an individual owner, or several owners, there would be a need to test
the circumstances against the provisions of insurance policies. Without
knowing the specific circumstances that Bruce has in mind, it is difficult
to envisage what they might be. The details of a property owner's insurance
policies would determine whether they were covered for certain costs. If an
individual felt that the authority was pursuing them unreasonably or
unfairly for costs that were not covered by insurance policies, the matter
might have to be contested through law. If such an action were raised, a
local authority would certainly have to defend its position in law. I find
it difficult to conceive of an explanation that would meet all the
circumstances that Bruce Crawford described.

On Robin Harper's point, we must consider the amendment for what it is.
There is nothing fantastical and new in it; it would simply bring together
existing provisions from the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
Therefore, I do not envisage that any material change would be created.

Nora Radcliffe (Gordon) (LD): I am concerned that we may be creating a
responsibility for local authorities. If a local authority does not act in
the way in which people perceive it should have done, the authority will be
held liable for not having done so.

Des McNulty: I am grateful to Angus MacKay for lodging amendments 107 and
108. I accept that there is merit in suggesting that we tidy up the
provisions. However, the professional advice that I have received is that
the best way of doing so may not be simply to import sections from the
Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 that contain different legal language
and have not been worked through in so far as the legal consequences of the
bill are concerned.

If Angus MacKay were willing to withdraw amendment 107 and not to move
amendment 108, I would be happy to consider lodging amendments at stage 3
to achieve the effect that he seeks. Executive officials have already had
discussions with officials from the City of Edinburgh Council, which has a
particular interest in the matter. We will consult both the council and
Angus in developing the amendments that we want to lodge at stage 3.

Angus MacKay: I am happy with the minister's suggestion, as, I am sure, the
City of Edinburgh Council will be. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw
amendment 107.

Amendment 107, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 25 agreed to.

Section 26—Dangerous buildings

The Convener: Amendment 88 is grouped with amendments 88, 89, 90, 91, 92,
93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105 and 106.

Des McNulty: As drafted, the bill requires local authorities to remove
occupants from a building only when the work that it intends to do relates
to dangerous buildings. It does not cover danger from work that a local
authority intends to do in other circumstances. The amendments are intended
to rectify that situation. They would provide that a local authority must
require the occupants to leave a building if such work might endanger them.
That logical change to the bill would ensure occupants' safety.

Amendment 105 would insert a new section to cover work relating to various
enforcement notices. The other amendments are consequential to amendment
105. I do not propose going through each amendment, although I will be
happy for Lorimer Mackenzie to answer questions about the detail. However,
I draw the committee's attention to amendments 102 and 103, which would
ensure that the protection for tenants who were required to remove
themselves from a building was extended in line with the new section.

Amendment 106 would provide a definition of "dangerous building" in section
51. It states that the term should be construed in accordance with section
26(1), on dangerous buildings, because, if the amendments were agreed to,
the phrase would be used more widely in the bill. We are proposing to tidy
up the process and extend the provision to take account of eventualities
that we have recognised might arise.

I move amendment 88.

John Scott (Ayr) (Con): May I ask for clarification? If such a notice of
temporary removal were given to occupants of a building and, through no
fault of their own, they were forced to evacuate, would compensation be
available?

Des McNulty: We are talking about the protection of occupants' rights,
which the provision was drawn up to cover. The issue of compensation is not
really for the bill. In that context, we are concerned with ensuring that
people can be removed from a building under the various enforcement
circumstances that may arise. The issue of compensation, where appropriate,
would arise out of the particular circumstances of the enforcement.

Lorimer Mackenzie reminds me that if a building became dangerous, redress
would be sought against the owner rather than the local authority. 
 
We are seeking to give local authorities the power to ensure that people
can be removed from a building safely.

Amendment 88 agreed to.

Amendments 89 and 90 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 26, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3

EVACUATION OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS AND ADJACENT BUILDINGS

Amendments 91 to 103 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 27 agreed to.

Section 28—Dangerous building notices

The Convener: Amendment 67 is in a group on its own.

Des McNulty: Amendment 67 is a sensible amendment that seeks to expand the
remit of the building standards advisory committee in reviewing
regulations, as set out in section 28. Under the bill as drafted, the
committee can keep under review only the operation of building regulations
in addition to its advisory role for ministers. We now believe that the
committee could play a useful role in keeping under review all regulations
made under the bill, including procedure regulations and regulations on
fees and charges. Consequently, amendment 67 would permit the committee to
carry out that broader role.

I move amendment 67.

Amendment 67 agreed to.

Section 28, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 29 and 30 agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Section 31 agreed to.

Section 32—Scheduled monuments, listed buildings etc

Amendments 68 to 70 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 32, as amended, agreed to.

Section 33 agreed to.

Section 34—Service of notices etc

The Convener: Amendment 104 is in a group on its own.

Des McNulty: The purpose of amendment 104 is to ensure that people are
given appropriate notice of the notices that are served under sections 22
to 26, which are building regulations compliance notices, continuing
requirement enforcement notices, building warrant enforcement notices,
defective building notices and dangerous buildings notices. Amendment 104
would provide that, when such notices are served, copies should be served
on the owner, the occupier and others who it appears to the local authority
might have an interest in the building. The amendment would therefore
ensure that those who might be affected by work—in particular owners and
occupiers, on whom the effect might be significant—would be informed of
the existence and requirements of a notice.

Amendment 104 follows on in part from amendments that were agreed to at the
committee's previous meeting, which will allow people other than an owner
to apply for warrants, undertake work and submit completion certificates.
Those amendments will also allow enforcement action to be taken against
those people.

I move amendment 104.

Bruce Crawford: I understand why amendment 104, which is a good amendment,
has been lodged. It would protect people's rights and would ensure that
what the local authority is trying to achieve is clear and transparent.
However, what about the person who does a midnight flight and disappears
off the scene because they find themselves in a difficult situation with
their own building, such as a shop owner who has gone bankrupt and whose
property is falling into disrepair? If the local authority were unable to
serve the notice, would that prevent the work required on the building from
being done? A local authority constituent of mine tried to repair an
unsatisfactory building but could not trace the owner or anyone who was
responsible for the building. I would not like what the Executive is
sensibly trying to achieve with amendment 104 to put a brake on work being
done if the relevant person cannot be traced.

10:00

Des McNulty: The amendment would allow additional people, above and beyond
the owner, to be notified. Nothing in the requirement to serve additional
notices would delay work being undertaken. Where the owner is a midnight
flier, as Bruce Crawford described them, the local authority could act
through compulsory purchase or other mechanisms to undertake the work.

Bruce Crawford: I am concerned about compulsory purchase. One of the
problems with compulsory purchase is that, if the owner cannot be traced,
advertisements have to be placed in the press to allow them time to come
forward. The process is lengthy and time consuming. That is exactly why I
asked those questions. Compulsory purchase can take a long time. If the
local authority cannot act until compulsory purchase has been achieved, we
may be building in a delay mechanism that could create even more danger and
raise even more health and safety issues for members of the public.

Des McNulty: I am happy to look into the circumstances of owners who cannot
be found when compulsory purchase mechanisms are invoked, but such
circumstances do not pertain to amendment 104. The amendment is about
extending the serving of a notice to a range of people. I am happy to write
to Bruce Crawford about compulsory purchase and the time issues that are
associated with it, but those issues do not relate to amendment 104.

Amendment 104 agreed to.

Section 34, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 35 and 36 agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Section 37—Work required by notice: right of entry

Amendments 71 to 74 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 37, as amended, agreed to.

Section 38—Tests of materials

The Convener: Amendment 75 is in a group on its own.

Des McNulty: Amendment 75 expands the definitions of "materials test" in
section 38(3) to provide that it

"includes a test of materials in combination with other such materials and
the test of the building as a whole".

Fragmentation was raised earlier. Amendment 75 will allow verifiers to test
whether the materials that have been put together fulfil certain functions,
such as thermal or sound requirements. The materials test can include a
test of a whole building, where such a test would be relevant.

I move amendment 75.

Amendment 75 agreed to.

Section 38, as amended, agreed to.

After section 38

Amendment 105 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Sections 39 and 40 agreed to.

Section 41—Sale of materials from demolished buildings

Amendments 76 and 77 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 41, as amended, agreed to.

Section 42 agreed to.

Section 43—Penalties for offences

Amendment 78 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 43, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 44 to 49 agreed to.

Section 50—Meaning of "building"

The Convener: Amendment 79, in the name of the minister, is grouped with
amendment 87. I invite the minister to move amendment 79 and to speak to
both amendments in the group.

Des McNulty: If possible, I would like to hear what John Scott has to say
about amendment 87 before I speak to it.

The Building (Scotland) Act 1959 includes "any railway line" in the list of
exceptions. It was an oversight not to include that in the bill; therefore,
amendment 79 is simply a technical amendment to include "any railway line"
in the list of exceptions.

I move amendment 79.

The Convener: I invite John Scott to speak to amendment 87. He may speak to
the other amendment in the group if he wishes to do so.

John Scott: The minister will be pleased to know that I had not considered
railway lines.

Amendment 87 is designed to broaden the scope of the bill a little, but not
too much. In evidence, the committee heard of the need to include in the
bill areas of the built environment that are by definition not buildings,
such as car parks, footpaths, street lighting, roads, and so on. We heard
of the need to bring those important complementary features into the scope
of the bill, and my amendment 87 seeks to achieve that. I note what is said
in the minister's letter to the committee, and I lodged amendment 87 with a
view to complementing that. The introduction of the expression "the built
environment" would also allow ministers to include in the scope of the bill
such areas as they saw fit. I would welcome the views of the minister and
other members of the committee on that.

The Convener: I seek clarification from the minister on the exception of
"any railway line". Am I correct in assuming that the reason for that
exception is that railway lines would fall under the jurisdiction of the
Health and Safety Executive and UK legislation rather than the Building
(Scotland) Act 1959?

Des McNulty: On the convener's point, railway lines have never been
incorporated in building legislation, so to incorporate them in the bill
would take them away from the legislation that currently deals with them
and would require a change to the bill. We want to promote consistency and
not to give ourselves additional problems by not excepting something that
we had intended to except, and which it would have been an oversight not to
except—if you see what I mean.

I recognise the argument behind what John Scott is saying in amendment 87.
However, I ask him not to move the amendment for a couple of reasons.
First, the phrase "the built environment" is vague. I set up the
cross-party architecture and the built environment group in the Scottish
Parliament, which chose the phrase deliberately because it was vague and
could encompass many interests. Some uses of the phrase "the built
environment" in planning are a long way from the purposes of the bill.
Therefore, it would not aid clarity in the bill to change the phrase in the
long title.

Secondly, the mechanics of the bill are tied to the definition of the term
"buildings", and to change that now might have a number of implications for
the bill's substance. Therefore, if John Scott wants to go down that route,
he should be mindful that it is a long and complicated means of changing
the nature of the definitions in the bill. In that sense, amendment 87
would not add much.

There are no other amendments whose substance would justify amendment 87.
My letter makes it clear that the Executive is aware of the relationship
between buildings and their surrounding environment, such as roads and
footpaths. However, amendment 87 does not tackle the problem sensibly and
would cause unnecessary complications. On that basis, I ask John Scott not
to move amendment 87.

Amendment 79 agreed to.

Section 50, as amended, agreed to.

Section 51—Interpretation

Amendment 106 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 51, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 52 and 53 agreed to.

Schedule 6

MODIFICATION OF ENACTMENTS

Amendment 108 not moved.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Section 54 agreed to.

Long Title

Amendment 87 not moved.

Long title agreed to.

The Convener: That brings us to the end of our stage 2 consideration of the
Building (Scotland) Bill. An announcement will be made in tomorrow's
business bulletin about lodging amendments for consideration at stage 3. I
thank members, the minister and the Executive team for the swift progress
that was made on stage 2 and I look forward to considering further
amendments at stage 3.

Des McNulty: I am very grateful to members of the committee. This might be
the first stage 2 that has gone through without a vote.

The Convener: You will provoke Bruce Crawford during stage 3, I suspect.

Subordinate Legislation

Smoke Control Areas (Authorised Fuels) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations
2002 (SSI 2002/527)

The Convener: There are two negative instruments for consideration. No
members have raised points about the first instrument and no motion to
annul has been lodged.

Bruce Crawford: I appreciate that no one has lodged a motion to annul the
instrument. The legislation gives certain companies the authority to
produce a product for smoke control areas. It is a good idea, and I
understand the Executive's reasoning, but I am concerned by proposed new
paragraph 11A, which authorises Tower Colliery Ltd to manufacture
Dragonglow briquettes. It also mentions the address of the production area
of the briquettes. Given that the legislation states specifically where the
company can produce the briquettes, if it were to move, could it no longer
produce briquettes for smoke control areas? I am concerned that including
the company's address would make it more difficult for it to relocate and
that that would require us to pass another statutory instrument that would
allow it to produce briquettes at a different location.

I am not sure that it is worth stopping the legislation, but that level of
detail is unnecessary. If the wording was "Dragonglow briquettes,
manufactured by Tower Colliery Limited", that might have allowed enough
flexibility to ensure that such circumstances do not arise.

The Convener: The clerks advise me that we would have time to write a
letter to ask such a question, which we could consider at our next meeting.
However, I take it that Bruce Crawford does not oppose the measure and that
it therefore might not be necessary for us to delay consideration. We could
still write the letter to bring the matter to the Executive's attention and
to ask for its response, which the committee would consider. We could take
either approach.

Bruce Crawford: I do not want to cause any delay, unless the Executive's
response is that what I have to say has some merit and that it wants to
produce another negative instrument. However, that would mean restarting
the process, and I suspect that the chances of that happening are limited,
given the available time. I am happy for us to write to say that we have
some drafting concerns and that the Executive should ensure that such
problems do not recur, unless somebody wants to take a stronger line.

10:15

Nora Radcliffe: The end of the explanatory notes says that the place of
manufacture of several briquettes is now different. That implies that it is
normal to include the place of manufacture. As Bruce Crawford says, there
might be a good reason for that, because it looks as though that has been
done previously and that designation is now required again. It would be
interesting to know about that.

The Convener: On that basis, do members agree to make no comment that would
affect the instrument's progress—we will not oppose it—but to ask the
Executive to explain the inclusion of the manufacturer's address? We will
ask the Executive to write to the committee to share its views on why that
was necessary and whether it creates a problem for the instrument. Is that
agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI
2002/538)

The Convener: No members have made points about the regulations or lodged
motions to annul. As members have no comments, do they agree that we have
nothing to report on the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.

Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc)
Order 2003 (draft)

The Convener: The order is a draft affirmative instrument. We have been
designated as secondary committee on it and we will report our comments to
the lead committee, which will consider the order on 21 January. If members
have substantive questions about the instrument on which they wish to hear
evidence from the minister, we could ask the minister to appear before the
committee on 15 January. However, if members do not wish to raise
substantive issues, we could leave consideration of the order to the lead
committee. I seek guidance from members on the approach that they wish the
committee to take.

Bruce Crawford: I do not wish to see the minister about the order. The only
aspect that pertains to the committee is the provision on the Transport Act
2000, under which the Scottish ministers are being given an important
power. I will explain that from personal experience.

In the run-up to achieving the Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry service,
considerable controversy blew up over whether the Department of Trade and
Industry would support the project in principle and through funding. I give
all credit to Henry McLeish, who at that time pushed hard behind the
scenes. To clinch that deal and make the ferry service a reality, the
Executive was required to pay £12 million to the DTI, which used that
money to support the project at Rosyth through a freight facility grant
subsidy.

The DTI did not want to fund the project and the Executive had no power to
fund it, so a book mechanism had to be found to ensure that the money was
in the right coffers to enable Superfast Ferries to set up shop. That
seemed to me to be a ridiculously bureaucratic system. The order will
remove that problem, so if ministers in Scotland wish to support a ferry
project from Scotland to another country—rather than an internal ferry,
such as from Aberdeen to Orkney—they will be fully at liberty to do so.

Given that the power will come to the Scottish ministers, my only question
is what will happen to the finances that were previously available to the
DTI to support such activity in Scotland. Will that money come to the
Scottish budget? I am not sure whether that issue is linked directly to our
requirement to consider the order, but it is an obvious question that needs
to be asked. I am glad that the new powers will come, because they will
remove unnecessary bureaucracy from the system, but will the money follow
with them?

Nora Radcliffe: The Executive note on the order mentions

"financial assistance for shipping services which start or finish or both
outside Scotland".

Is that intended to cover ferry services that call in in passing?

The Convener: Yes.

The order covers issues that are in the justice committees' remit and
issues that are in our remit, which is why we have been designated as a
secondary committee on the order. Bruce Crawford pointed out correctly the
part of the order that relates to our remit. I note that Bruce welcomes the
transfer of the powers, but I cannot answer his question about whether
there will be a financial transfer. To answer that question, we could
correspond with the minister and ask him to send a response to the lead
committee and a copy to us, so that the lead committee has that information
available to it when it considers the order. If members are content, we
will indicate that we do not wish to take evidence on the order and that,
in general, we welcome the transfer of powers, which will simplify the
process with regard to ferry or shipping services that the Executive wishes
to promote. We will ask the specific question that Bruce Crawford raised
and request that the minister send the response to the lead committee and a
copy to us prior to the lead committee's consideration of the order. Do
members agree to that action?

Members indicated agreement.

Petitions

The Convener: We have eight public petitions to consider today, some of
which cover the same subject, so we have grouped them into five headings.
As we are approaching the dissolution of the Parliament, some of the
petitions that we are considering now or that we will consider in future
meetings might not be considered fully prior to dissolution. The committee
is required to refer back to the Public Petitions Committee any petitions
that do not reach satisfactory completion in our minds prior to the
dissolution. The Public Petitions Committee, when reconstituted after the
election, will decide whether to refer such petitions back to newly
constituted committees. If we do not finish the consideration of a petition
between now and the dissolution, the petition will not necessarily die. We
will have the power to keep the matter live, if we feel that further work
can be done on it.

Opencast Mining (PE346 and PE369)

The Convener: At our meeting of 9 October, we agreed to write to the
Minister for Health and Community Care to ask about research on the impact
of opencast coal mining on public health. We welcomed the indication that
the relevant national planning policy guideline was to be reviewed, but we
had further questions on health matters. At that stage, we agreed to copy
any relevant correspondence to the Health and Community Care Committee to
keep it informed on the health issues.

We have now received a further response from the Minister for Health and
Community Care to our questions on health issues; members should have a
copy of that letter. Members should also have received a copy of another
letter from the primary petitioner of Scotland Opposing Opencast's
petition, who encloses some articles from The Lancet Oncology on
respiratory illness relating to pollution in the air, including
particulates.

I look to the committee for guidance on a suggested course of action. I
suggest that the issues that are directly within our remit, such as
planning powers, have largely been dealt with. The Executive has said that
it will review the relevant national planning policy guidelines, and the
committee agreed on that way forward when it considered the matter
previously. However, questions still exist on the health aspects of
opencast mining, which have not been fully resolved and which are outwith
our direct remit. Perhaps we should, therefore, decide that although we
have concluded consideration of the aspects of the petition that are
directly within our remit, we should refer the minister's correspondence
and the committee's consideration of the health issues to the Health and
Community Care Committee, for its consideration.

Nora Radcliffe: I agree that we should refer the matter to the Health and
Community Care Committee. The fourth paragraph of the letter of 2 December
from the Minister for Health and Community Care states:

"The Executive's Health Department does agree ... that there is a need for
further research to address current uncertainties surrounding the general
relationship between environmental exposure to airborne particulates and
respiratory ill health."

However, it goes on to say that

"The relationship between respiratory ill health and opencast development
is not regarded as a major driver".

If the Executive recognises that there is a need for research in that area,
we might legitimately ask what it is doing to promote such research. If it
is doing generic research into the effect of particulate matter on
respiratory health, it does not matter whether the research is conducted
using opencast mining or anything else—the important thing is that it is
done. Generic research would be relevant to opencast mining because it
would still be scientific evidence about the effect of particulate matter
on health.

We should refer the matter to the Health and Community Care Committee, but
it might also be appropriate for us to write back to the Minister for
Health and Community Care, pointing out that the implication of his letter
is that the Executive should be doing something about the matter.

Bruce Crawford: I agree with the convener. The jury is out on whether there
is any point-source pollution from opencast mining operations especially
because of particulate problems. I understand that the University of
Strathclyde is keen to pursue some research on that subject, especially in
the coalfield communities.

In the circumstances, it is incumbent on the committee to keep the issue
alive and the only way we can appropriately keep it alive is to pass it to
the Health and Community Care Committee, to ensure that that committee is
aware of the concerns. I am not sure whether that committee will have time
to do anything about it before the dissolution of Parliament. However, at
least it should make the decision to hand it back to the Public Petitions
Committee to keep the matter going and ensure that any research that is
undertaken is followed up by the appropriate parliamentary committee. We
will then be able to come to a conclusion about whether there really are
the health effects from opencast mining that people in nearby communities
believe exist.

John Scott: I, too, agree that someone should examine further the health
matters. I also agree that the matter should be referred to the Health and
Community Care Committee. I presume that, if that committee does not have
time to consider the matter before the election, it will consider it after
that.

Maureen Macmillan: I agree that we should refer the matter to the Health
and Community Care Committee. We should also refer that committee to the
discussion that we have had about the subject today.

The Convener: There is broad agreement on the way forward. We will
correspond with the petitioners on the basis of the evidence that we have
taken so far, relating to the areas where the NPPG is going to be placed
under review, and we will inform them that we have decided to refer the
health issues to the Health and Community Care Committee. As the petition
is passed to the Health and Community Care Committee, it will be given a
copy of all relevant committee discussions and any correspondence that this
committee has received on the issue. Are we all agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Playing Fields (PE422, PE430 and PE454)

The Convener: The second group of petitions, PE422, PE430 and PE454,
concern the disposal of playing fields. When the committee considered those
petitions initially, we agreed to write to the Executive for its view on
the implementation of current planning guidelines on the disposal of
playing fields. The Executive's response detailed the current planning
system, and the measures that the Executive and sportscotland have
undertaken to improve the system.

10:30

The committee then agreed to write to sportscotland and the Convention of
Scottish Local Authorities regarding their views on the adequacy of current
guidance and their implementation of the guidelines that are currently
being developed by the Executive. A cover note that was circulated with the
petition recommended that—considering the preparation of NPPG 3 under a
policy advice note to support NPPG 11, and COSLA's and sportscotland's
comments on the current guidelines on protecting playing fields—the
committee may decide that there is no need to take further action at this
time.

We could agree to conclude consideration of the petitions and write
accordingly to the petitioners and we could provide them with copies of
correspondence from each of the bodies with which we have corresponded. I
seek members' guidance on whether they wish to accept that course of action
or to pursue another.

Bruce Crawford: I understand why we might want to do as the convener
suggests, but I have two concerns about this issue. Torbrex community
council highlights a paragraph in section 77 of the School Standards and
Framework Act 1998 in England and Wales. Unfortunately, I do not know what
that legislation says about how we could strengthen the position in
Scotland, and there is no explanation in the papers. I do not feel that I
have all the information that would allow me to come to a final conclusion
as far as that is concerned. It might be that the new guidelines that are
being drawn up by the Executive will cover that legislation and might prove
to be adequate.

I noted another issue from the covering paper that does not relate to
particular planning issues. Sportscotland asked the Executive about
preparing guidance on the appropriate standards for playing field
provision. So far, sportscotland has been unable to secure the Executive's
support for that work. I would have thought that that was a reasonable
request for sportscotland to make, given that such guidance would provide a
framework in which local authorities could operate in terms of planning
guidelines and so on by establishing a standard. The committee must decide
whether it wants to support sportscotland in that call—I would certainly
like to ask the minister why it was rejected, because it would have been a
reasonable course to take.

To cut to the quick, I suggest two things. First, we should ask the
minister why the Executive did not support sportscotland's view on
standards. There might a good reason why the Executive did not support
it—I do not know. Secondly, we can ask for further explanation of what
section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 in England and
Wales says and compare it with the Executive's position in order to find
the best option.

Nora Radcliffe: I picked up on Bruce Crawford's second point. I have read
the papers and it seems to me that there is a gap between the guidance and
appropriate standards it is fine to defend the existing standards, but what
constitutes reasonable provision of playing fields? Although that matter is
obviously not within our remit, we have identified the gap, so should we
draw it to the attention of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and
ask it to pick up that detail?

Bruce Crawford: It could come under the guidelines to local authorities on
planning—for their own provision, provision on a housing estate or
provision by the education authority. If whoever forms the Government after
the Scottish election in May decides to hold a consultation on planning,
the issue could be considered as part of that. That would be a reasonable
way forward for the Executive. That is why I think that the issue falls
within our remit.

Robin Harper: I agree thoroughly with what Bruce Crawford has just said.
Despite the assurances that we receive from the Executive, we continue to
lose play space and sports space.

I am not satisfied by paragraph 13 of the cover note, which states:

"The Executive response states that ... Sportscotland often negotiates
alternative sports pitches with developers".

Often those sports pitches are a long way from areas that were local and
accessible to the people who used them. We do not want young children to
have to travel ever further to reach play spaces that should be local and
accessible. We should do everything that we can to keep the issue alive. We
should be aware of the fact that this is a cross-committee issue that also
involves the Health and Community Care Committee and the Education, Culture
and Sport Committee.

The Convener: I understand that section 77 of the Schools Standards and
Framework Act 1988 was addressed in previous correspondence on the
petitions. That correspondence has not been distributed with the papers for
today's meeting. I suggest that we dig it out and provide members with
copies of it, so that we can consider whether we are satisfied with its
content. We can keep the petitions live in that respect, but we do not need
to write further letters on section 77 at this stage. If members are still
not satisfied after they have considered the correspondence, we can
consider taking other action.

In its response, COSLA indicates that it has consulted section 77 of the
Schools Standards and Framework Act 1988 and believes that the current
legislation is sufficient.

Bruce Crawford asked about sportscotland and the issues that it has raised
with the Executive. There seems to be consensus among members that we
should ask the Executive how it intends to respond to sportscotland and
whether it intends to issue guidelines on appropriate standards for playing
field provision. Do we agree to write to the Executive on that issue, which
sportscotland raised and which Bruce Crawford has highlighted? Do we agree
to consider the petition further once we have received a response to that
question and once the correspondence concerning section 77 has been
circulated to members?

Members indicated agreement.

Telecommunications Developments (Planning) (PE425)

The Convener: Petition PE425 concerns planning procedures for
telecommunications developments. We considered the petition before the
summer recess and raised a number of issues arising from it. The Executive
has since responded to us on those issues. The Public Petitions Committee
is now asking the Transport and the Environment Committee whether we would
welcome formal referral of the petition to us.

I remind members that we have agreed to take evidence on the planning
procedures for telecommunications developments. We could consider the
issues that the petition raises at the meetings that we have scheduled over
the next few months and advise the Public Petitions Committee that we have
already decided to review the planning process for telecommunications
developments and will be happy to advise it and the petitioners of any
thoughts that we have once we have completed that process.

Angus MacKay: What does a formal referral of the petition mean?

The Convener: The Public Petitions Committee has not formally referred the
petition to us for detailed consideration. The Public Petitions Committee
is asking us whether, on the basis of the Executive's response, we want the
petition to be referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee. We
could then consider the petition by taking evidence, appointing a reporter,
corresponding with the Executive and taking whatever other action we deemed
fit. We are agreed that we will conduct a review of the committee's work on
the subject and of the experience of implementing the new regulations that
the Executive has introduced. I suggest that that work overlaps with the
issues that the petitioner has raised and that we should continue with the
work that we envisaged carrying out. We should agree to advise the Public
Petitions Committee of that and say that we will advise it of our
conclusions. The petitioners can then be advised in due course.

Angus MacKay: I am happy with that approach if it means that we will carry
out most of the activities that we would have to do if the petition was
formally referred to us anyway. It is a preamble, at least, to gathering
evidence.

Have we already informed the petitioners that the committee intends to take
evidence? If not, it would be sensible to write directly to the petitioners
to inform them of that and to tell them that we will consider whether the
petition should be referred formally to us subsequent to that
evidence-taking process. We could invite them to consider giving evidence
during that process.

The Convener: Yes.

Robin Harper: Will we give early consideration to what evidence we are
going to seek? I am thinking in particular of evidence on mast sharing.
Will we write to telephone companies and local authorities to ask whether
any progress has been made on that? That should be done well in advance of
the committee taking evidence so that we can be prepared.

The Convener: We are delving into the areas that we will review when we
consider the implementation of the new guidelines. We do not have to do
that at the moment.

Robin Harper: I was not saying that we should do it now; I was asking
whether that should be scheduled.

The Convener: Later today, we will consider our approach to the review and
we can discuss those issues then.

It has been suggested that, instead of the approach that I proposed, we
should ask for a formal referral of the petition so that it becomes part of
the evidence that we consider in our review of the developments in
telecommunications. That seems to be a sensible approach. Are we agreed
that that is what we should do? We can then advise the petitioners that
their petition will be considered as part of our overall review of
telecommunications developments and that they will be kept abreast of our
conclusions.

Angus MacKay: Does that mean that we have to ask for a formal referral?

The Convener: If we ask for a formal referral, the petition becomes part of
the evidence that we consider as part of our review.

Fiona McLeod (West of Scotland) (SNP): My remarks have been pre-empted. I
wanted to speak in support of the recommendation that we seek a formal
referral. You have just outlined my reason. Earlier, you said that we would
just inform the Public Petitions Committee of our inquiry, but it is
important that we have a formal referral so that the petition becomes part
of our telecommunications inquiry. Then it will be able to inform the
questions that we ask during the review and we will be able to satisfy
Angus Mackay's request by keeping the petitioners informed. By making the
referral formal, the petitioners have to be kept informed of what we are
doing. I recommend that we ask for a formal referral and do not just make
an announcement to the Public Petitions Committee.

The Convener: Are we agreed on that?

Members indicated agreement.

Planning Process (PE508)

The Convener: That brings us to petition PE508, on the implementation of
environmental impact assessments. This is the first time that we have been
asked to consider this petition, which calls for Parliament to review the
implementation of environmental impact assessments and policy advice note
58 guidelines. The petition derives from the petitioner's experience of the
applications by West of Scotland Water and Scotland Water for a water
treatment plant in Milngavie. The committee's stance on petitions that
relate to local issues is not to consider specific incidents. We consider
such petitions only if they raise issues for the wider planning framework.
I ask members to comment on the recommendations that were circulated with
the covering note. I would like to know what course of action members would
prefer us to follow.

10:45

Bruce Crawford: It is tempting to get dragged into the original issue
raised in the petition, because it was so tortuous. There are lessons to
learn about how consultation should and should not be carried out.
Particular elements of the community in the area around the Milngavie
development proposals rightly have a grievance about the consultation
process. I hope that the appropriate bodies have learned something from the
harsh lessons of the recent past.

The convener has rightly asked us to consider the wider strategic issues.
Strathblane community council's petition asks us to examine two issues that
are not specific to the Milngavie application, but which are of wider
significance. The first is a statutory requirement to consult appropriate
community councils. I was surprised that that requirement does not exist. I
thought that it did, but there you go. The second is the fact that
developers who pay consultants to do environmental impact assessments also
set the consultants' remits. The petitioners rightly ask whether it might
not be more appropriate for local authorities to set a consultant's remit
and, indeed, choose the consultant. Developers should still pay the costs,
because it would not be appropriate for local authorities to do so. Those
two issues are strategic in nature and are not associated only with the
water treatment plant for Milngavie.

I was a bit surprised by the Executive's blunt refusal to re-examine those
particular issues. I would have thought that it is reasonable for
appropriate community councils to be statutorily consulted about planning
applications and that we could re-examine the whole issue of choosing,
paying and setting the remit for consultants in relation to environmental
impact assessments, particularly as there is no third-party right of appeal
for parties who want to object to a development going ahead.

The Executive might not want to consider such issues in isolation, but a
planning review has been promised and, for the life of me, I cannot
understand why the Executive could not consider those particular aspects as
part of that overall planning review. The Executive will have to open the
Pandora's box of planning anyway, so surely we should examine every aspect
of it. We should have proper consultation on whether community councils
should be statutory consultees and on who should choose, pay and set the
remit for consultants who do environmental impact assessments. It is only
fair that we go back to the Executive and ask whether it is prepared to
re-examine those areas as part of its wider planning review; otherwise what
is the point of having such a review?

Robin Harper: Bruce Crawford took the words out of my mouth. I agree with
everything that he said, particularly about consultants. I agree that
developers should pay for them, but it would be much more sensible, and
signify greater transparency, if a local authority committee appointed the
consultants.

Fiona McLeod: If we state in our recommendations that it might be
appropriate to conclude the petition now, what does that mean? Would we not
write to the Executive with Bruce Crawford's suggestions, which Robin
Harper supported? PE508 refers to a specific case, with which I have been
heavily involved for over a year, so I have a degree of insight to back up
Bruce Crawford's request that we should bring the issue to the Executive's
attention for any future review of planning. The Executive states in its
response that it does not intend to review either the process of
environmental impact assessments or the PAN58 guidelines; it is being
blinkered, and we must remove those blinkers and ensure that it reviews the
guidelines.

I am involved in the case and with another local issue regarding the
extension of a quarry, and it has become apparent that environmental impact
assessments are not being accorded the status, weight and priority that
they should be in the preparation of planning applications. The committee
must review the EIA process to ensure that my opinion, which is gained from
my experience with two local cases, is not generic to all planning
applications.

As the environment committee, we are concerned that all planning
applications take the environmental impact into consideration, and it would
be useful to consider how the process works and whether EIAs are being
accorded the status that they should enjoy.

John Scott: I agree with everything that has been said. It is vital that
consultation is seen to be done. That is where the process has broken down.
Like Bruce Crawford, I thought that community councils would be one of the
statutory consultees and I am surprised that they are not. It is right that
all those matters, especially the weighting, should be considered. In fact,
the weighting that environmental impact assessments have in the new
planning bill should, perhaps, be a matter for parliamentary debate.

The Convener: A degree of confusion may have arisen. The Executive's
response on the question of consultation states:

"In accordance with the EIA Directive, the legislative requirements for
public consultation in relation to the EIA process are tied to the
submission of an environmental statement. Environmental statements must be
advertised and the public given an opportunity to comment. These
arrangements are in addition to the normal public consultation requirements
associated with planning applications, which include neighbour notification
and consultation with community councils. PAN 58 recommends even earlier
consultation with the public in relation to EIA, at the scoping stage for
example."

The question of consultation may have caused confusion, but it does not
seem that community councils are excluded from the process.

John Scott: That they appear to feel that they have been excluded is bad,
and, according to the correspondence, they appear not to have been aware of
the consultation process until the decision was taken.

Bruce Crawford: I understand your point, convener. You are right to say
that community councils are consulted about the process, but statutory
consultation requires that the appropriate community councils be contacted
directly by developers as part of the notification process. I am not sure
that PAN 58 covers that aspect of the process, and that is the distinction
that must be made.

The Convener: It seems likely that major planning legislation will be
introduced in the new session, and it is unlikely that major planning
changes will be effected between now and the dissolution of Parliament.
Therefore, perhaps several of the issues raised by PE508 would best be
addressed when the Parliament is considering what changes it intends to
make to planning legislation in general.

However, if we want to explore any of those questions, we could do so at
the meeting that we have scheduled with the minister and the head of
planning on general planning issues. We could notify the minister that we
want to explore those issues as part of that meeting. Once we have talked
to the minister, we could decide whether there is anything further that we
need to do in relation to the petition.

Bruce Crawford: That seems reasonable. When has the meeting with the
minister and the head of planning been scheduled for?

The Convener: The date has not been fixed yet. The clerks and the minister
are negotiating.

Bruce Crawford: Will we get a paper that outlines the areas that we will
discuss at that meeting?

The Convener: Yes.

Bruce Crawford: That is fine with me, then.

The Convener: Do we agree that we should explore this matter in the meeting
that we have scheduled with the minister and the head of planning?

Members indicated agreement.

Water Treatment Plants (PE517)

The Convener: Today's final petition deals with the environmental and
planning issues relating to water treatment plants. This is the first time
that we have considered the petition, which calls on the Parliament to
investigate local authority regulation of water treatment plants as regards
environmental protection and planning legislation, to investigate possible
solutions to the problem of noxious odours and airborne bacteria from such
plants and to investigate the level and method of investment needed to
prevent the release of noxious odours and airborne bacteria.

I ask members to note that Susan Deacon, who is unable to attend the
meeting today, has indicated an interest in the issue and members should
have before them comments that she has submitted by e-mail.

Maureen Macmillan: This is an extremely important petition and deserves a
lot of study. My concern is that we do not have time in this session of
Parliament to do it justice.

The petition addresses the problem of odour, which seems impossible to deal
with. We have come across it in relation to the spreading of organic waste
and the burning of animal carcases in the Carntyne incinerator. We have to
get to grips with the problem.

It is suggested that we write to the Executive for further information,
particularly on how to achieve odour control. I have had personal
experience of similar cases and I know that it is difficult to get local
authorities to agree that there is a problem. In this instance, however, it
seems that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is not taking
responsibility either. The review of SEPA's responsibilities has not yet
concluded and I hope that, when it is concluded, the gaps surrounding the
issue of odour control are identified.

As the matter needs a great deal of investigation and input, which will
take time, I think that we should also refer the petition back to the
Public Petitions Committee so that, after the election, the petition can be
picked up again by whatever committee has transport within its remit.

Angus MacKay: It is unfortunate that, because of her family bereavement,
Susan Deacon cannot be here as I know that she has thrown herself into the
issue energetically. She has sympathy with the position of the petitioners
and has an informed view of the matter, given the particular interest that
she has taken on the issue.

Trying to reflect Susan Deacon's views and the broad concern that members
of the committee no doubt have, I would say that the number 1 priority is
that this issue should not be lost simply because we are approaching the
election. We need to find a way of parking it effectively so that we can be
reasonably confident that it will be dealt with by the appropriate
committee after the election.

My heartfelt sympathies go out to the petitioners and the people living in
the area. While it does not form part of the Edinburgh constituency that I
represent, I know the area reasonably well. The petitioners must be at
their wits' end, as it is particularly difficult to persuade people who do
not live in the immediate environment that there is a problem or that
something needs to be done about it. Like noise caused by nuisance
neighbours, the nature of odour means that it is not necessarily always
present. Residents in those circumstances have difficulty persuading
appropriate public agencies that there is a problem because people from
those agencies are not there when the problems occur. Odours can
consistently occur at certain times of the day or week and can make
people's lives a misery. I hope that the committee will take a proactive
stance on this petition, as the matter pertains not only to the people
living in the affected part of Edinburgh, but is replicated across
Scotland. Effective action must be taken.

11:00

Bruce Crawford: Angus MacKay's final point is correct: this issue affects
all of Scotland. As Maureen Macmillan pointed out, we have come across the
problem before in relation to cattle incinerators, chicken litter and
sewage plants. As Angus MacKay said, the folk involved must be at their
wits' end. In Kirkcaldy, in the region that I represent, a sewage plant is
causing a similar problem and the people are at a loss as to what to do
about it.

As far as I am aware, the only legislation that has any effect is that
which enables local authorities to act in relation to a nuisance of odour.
However, the problem is that it is difficult to measure odour. It is down
to the particular environmental health officer, together with the
complainants, to take an action in court. The only successful case that I
know of involved chicken litter in Kinrosshire. I was one of the
councillors involved in the prosecution on behalf of the community. Odour
is extremely difficult to control and it is difficult for local authorities
to deal with. The legislation is difficult to enforce because you cannot
measure odour.

The best way of keeping the petition alive might be to ensure that it gets
to the committee whose remit includes transport after the election. That
committee could give detailed consideration to the complex and wide-ranging
issues that are involved. If we began a process of investigation, we would
not be able to complete it and the job would be left half done. We need to
ensure that a committee can present a recommendation to the Executive that
will strengthen the legislation and give some succour to people who live in
the affected areas.

The Convener: If we initiate action, that would not stop us ensuring that
the petition is referred to the relevant committee that is established
after the election. It would be difficult for a reporter to complete the
work in the time that is available, but we could raise the issue with the
Executive. At a subsequent date, we could refer all the correspondence to
the Public Petitions Committee, which would then refer the petition and the
accompanying correspondence to the relevant committee after the election.

Robin Harper: We must remember that there are technical ways of solving the
sewage odour problem. The documentation that accompanies the petition gave
us the details of that. The question is whether Scottish Water can be
convinced to introduce the updated equipment or whether the Parliament will
need to legislate to force it to do so.

John Scott: I agree with everything that has been said. This is an
important issue and we should either refer the petition to the Public
Petitions Committee now or do so after getting a response from the
minister.

I would like to know what the European position is on the matter of
nuisance odours. Without meaning to be uncomplimentary, I would suggest
that the issue is more of a problem in Europe, where temperatures are
higher, than it is in Scotland. If European countries have come up with a
satisfactory way of dealing with the problem, the Scottish Parliament,
following a report by a committee, might want to consider introducing
legislation to require minimum standards to be introduced by Scottish Water
and so on.

There is a huge amount of work to be done on this. For example, the Health
and Community Care Committee might need to consider what the health
implications are. We can only scratch the surface prior to the dissolution
of Parliament. Nonetheless, we should write to the minister and try to
start the process by gathering as much information as we can because, as
others have said, this is a problem that affects people across Scotland.

The Convener: I hope that your party leadership has authorised your
suggestion that we look to Europe to provide an answer.

John Scott: I am not too bothered about that.

Maureen Macmillan: When we write to the Executive, we should ask about
SEPA's responsibilities. As far as I am aware, SEPA does not have
responsibility for sewage works. As I said earlier, the review of SEPA's
responsibilities has not yet concluded. We could ask when the review will
be concluded and whether the outcome will include consideration of odour
control.

The Convener: There is broad agreement that this issue must be addressed
and recognition that it would be difficult for this committee to conclude
consideration of the petition before the dissolution of Parliament. Do we
agree to write to the Executive about the issues that are raised by the
petition and the points on SEPA that Maureen Macmillan raised?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener: Once we have got that response, we will formally refer the
petition back to the Public Petitions Committee in order to keep it live
over the election period.

Rail Inquiry

The Convener: Agenda item 6 concerns consideration of a motion for the
debate next week on our report on the rail industry. The debate will last
two hours. The proposed motion, which members have before them, is
straightforward and reads:

"That the Parliament notes the 15th Report 2002 of the Transport and the
Environment Committee, Report on Inquiry into the Rail Industry in
Scotland."

Do we agree to submit the motion as drafted?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener: We now move into private session to consider a paper on a
possible approach to the committee's examination of developments following
the publication of its report into telecommunications developments in
2001.

11:09

Meeting continued in private until 11:50.


This work is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The SCOTS Project and the University of Glasgow do not necessarily endorse,
support or recommend the views expressed in this document.

Document source:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/x-transport/or-03/tr03-0101.htm

Information about document and author:

Text
Text audience
General public: Audience size: 1000+

Text details
Method of composition: Wordprocessed
Year of composition: 2003
Word count: 11026
General description: Committee Report. See http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/index.htm

Text medium
Web (webpages, discussion boards, newsgroups, chat rooms): 
Text publication details
Published: Publisher: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body
Publication year: 2003
Place of publication: www.scottish.parliament.uk

Text setting
Government/politics: 
Text type
Report: Written record of speech (e.g. hansard, legal proceedings, minutes of meetings): 

Author
Author details
Author id: 908
Surname: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body