Environment and Rural Development Committee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday 9 June 2004 (Morning) Session 2 £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2004. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Licensing Division, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by The Stationery Office Ltd. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office is independent of and separate from the company now trading as The Stationery Office Ltd, which is responsible for printing and publishing Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body publications. CONTENTS Wednesday 9 June 2004 Col. PETITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 1013 Waste Water Treatment (PE517 and PE645) .................................................................................... 1013 SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION.................................................................................................................. 1043 Framework Guidance on Preparing a National Park Plan (SE/2004/98) .............................................. 1043 Horticultural Produce (Community Grading Rules) (Scotland) Revocation Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/245) ............................................................................................................................ 1043 ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 15th Meeting 2004, Session 2 CONVENER *Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) DEPU TY CONVENER *Eleanor Scott (Highlands and Islands) (Green) COMMI TTEE MEMBERS Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP) *Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) *Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab) *Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con) *Maureen Mac millan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) *Mr Alasdair Morrison (Western Is les) (Lab) *Nora Radcliffe (Gordon) (LD) COMMI TTEE SUBSTITU TES Alex Fergusson (Gallow ay and Upper Nithsdale) (Con) Janis Hughes (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) Jim Mather (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Jeremy Purvis (Tw eeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) Mr Mark Rus kell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) *attended THE FOLLOWING ALSO ATTENDED : Susan Deacon (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) THE FOLLOWING GAVE EVIDENCE: Duncan McNab (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department) Mrs Mary Mulligan (Deputy Minister for Communities) Allan Wilson (Deputy Minister for Env ironment and Rural Development) CLERK TO THE COMMITTE E Tracey Haw e SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK Mark Brough ASSISTANT CLERK Chris Berry Catherine Johnstone LOC ATION Committee Room 1 1013 9 JUNE 2004 1014 Scottish Parliament Members will be pleased to learn that I do not propose to reiterate the entire history of statutory nuisance policy development, as it has already Environment and Rural been comprehensively covered. However, the Development Committee major point must be stressed that, although the Executive is fully aware of the issues that have been raised in the Public Petitions Committee and Wednesday 9 June 2004 the Environment and Rural Development Committee, it is not the Executive’s role to enforce (Morning) legislation—that is clearly the role of the regulatory authorities, principally the Scottish Environment [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 10:03] Protection Agency and local authorities. That said, the Executive has considered various options for improving the current situation with the Petitions Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. To underline the Executive’s position, I would like to discuss some occurrences so as to Waste Water Treatment (PE517 and PE645) address the committee’s specific concerns. The Convener (Sarah Boyack): Good morning The Executive did not follow DEFRA’s lead in everyone. I welcome members of the committee launching, in December 2002, a consultation on and other members, witnesses and members of odour controls, because an English High Court the press and the public. Apologies have been appeal on the applicability of the statutory received from Roseanna Cunningham, who will nuisance legislation to waste water treatment not be at the meeting, and from Eleanor Scott, works was lodged in January 2003. The Executive who will leave early. I remind everyone to switch decided to await the outcome of that case, as it is off their mobile phones so that we do not have an not necessary to introduce new legislation in a embarrassing interruption. particular area when adequate legislation is Under agenda item 1, the committee has two already in place. However, the Executive petitions to consider—PE517 and PE645—both of contracted a consultant in March 2003 to produce which relate to noxious odours from waste water a draft regulatory impact assessment for odour treatment works. Background information on the control at waste water treatment plants in Scotland petitions has been circulated. We discussed the in preparation for a consultation or other course of petitions on 21 April and we wanted to bring the action, if required. Members probably know that matter back to the full committee and to discuss it the English High Court decided on 23 May 2003 with the ministers with responsibility for the that the current legislation was applicable to waste environment and rural affairs and communities, as water treatment works. That judgment would be they have an interest in the topic. persuasive in any case on the point before a Scottish court. We are delighted that the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Allan The water company that was involved in the Wilson, and the Deputy Minister for Communities, appeal case—Thames Water—then sought leave Mary Mulligan, are here. I welcome them and their to appeal against the decision to the House of officials to the meeting. I ask the ministers to Lords. The Executive again decided to postpone introduce the officials whom they have brought holding a consultation until a definitive ruling from with them and to give the committee brief opening the House of Lords on the applicability of the statements in the light of our previous current legislation was made. It must be noted that correspondence. DEFRA also decided to withhold the results of its consultation until the House of Lords delivered its The Deputy Minister for Environment and opinion, and it has still to announce its results. Rural Development (Allan Wilson): Thank you, convener. I will start, if that is okay. I apologise in In the interim, the Executive decided with advance for my fairly detailed opening statement, DEFRA that a voluntary code of practice on which is considerably longer than usual because nuisance control from waste water treatment of the complexity of the legislative background and works should be produced, which could be utilised because I am aware that there are problems regardless of whether further legislation was relating to odour nuisance with a small number of deemed to be required. Officials from the sites in Scotland. Executive and Scottish Water sit on the steering group and a feasibility research study was I am accompanied by Kevin Philpott and Duncan commissioned from consultants. McNab from the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department. Mary Mulligan will On 5 March 2004, Thames Water’s appeal to speak about planning concerns. the House of Lords was withdrawn—I presume 1015 9 JUNE 2004 1016 that the committee knows that. The English High Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). The legislative Court’s decision therefore stands. provisions for regulating odour from w aste w ater treatment plants are governed by several factors. These include the In respect of the current status of the voluntary capacity of the plant, w hether sludges are disposed of or code of practice, things have taken longer than recovered, and w hether the s ludge is imported from expected as a result of technical difficulties in the another plant. production of the initial consultant’s report. That The respective roles of SEPA are as follow s: led to new consultants being contracted to Certain categories of waste w ater treatment plants (e.g. produce a more constructive report, leading to the those w ith a capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day that production of draft best practice guides and, import non-hazardous w aste which then undergoes ultimately, a voluntary code of practice this treatment and the resultant sludges are disposed of) w ill fall summer. w ithin the scope of the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000. In these cases SEPA w ould On receipt of the United Kingdom code of be able to impose the odour control provisions contained in practice, Executive officials will work with industry the PPC Regulations. regulators, enforcement agencies, Scottish Water Other w aste w ater treatment plants (e.g. those w ith and whoever is working for it, and the consultant smaller capacities or those that do not dispose of sludges) who produced the original RIA, to produce a draft w ill not fall w ithin the scope of the PPC Regulations. It is voluntary code of practice, fit for purpose in the Executive’s understanding that most w aste water Scotland, which will be subject to public treatment plants do not dispose of sludges. Some sludge goes for recovery under an exemption from the Waste consultation later this summer. Management Licensing Regulation 1994, as amended, in