PE1988, lodged by Sue Wallis, calls on the Scottish Government to review the process for allowing raw sewage discharge from homes into Scottish coastal waters; provide additional funding to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for enforcement; and introduce legislation to ban households from discharging raw sewage.
The SPICe briefing states that financial responsibility for the provision of private sewage treatment rests with the individual home owner or community. The Scottish Government response states that there are no plans to provide additional funds to Scottish Water to provide connections to households with private sewerage arrangements during the current investment period but households have the option to connect to the public network at their own expense and Scottish Water will make a reasonable contribution towards the costs of that project, should a new main be required. The submission states that the current register of septic tanks held by SEPA is incomplete and the number of unauthorised discharges is likely to be high. The Scottish Government notes that SEPA is reviewing its regulation of private sewerage systems.
The petitioner highlights the difference in approach to unauthorised disposals compared with that to dog fouling, where fines are issued to those who do not clear up after their dogs. She shares her experience of reporting issues to SEPA in 2019 and expresses concern that nothing has changed in almost four years. The petitioner questions the method of registering private water discharge with SEPA at the point of house sale: in her experience, several of the properties have been sold, but no change has happened as a result.
Do members have comments or suggestions for action?
The petitioner makes some valid points. It is apparent that things have not really changed in that time. It would be useful to write to SEPA to highlight the issues that have been raised by the petitioner, seek information about the review of the regulation of private sewerage systems and ask whether consideration has been given to alternative approaches for identifying and authorising private sewage discharges. As I said, the petition makes some valid points, and I would keep it open in order to ask SEPA to clarify those issues.
Are there any other comments? I have to say that, because the dog fouling issue was before the public eye, it led to a change in practice. I cannot help but feel that, if every member of the public was similarly subjected to the voiding of raw sewage into water, there would be much more public concern and engagement on the issue. The parallel that has been drawn is certainly valid. It is quite a visual parallel, and it leads me to believe that we should pursue the issue quite a bit further to see where we get with it.
I agree with what both you and Mr Stewart have advocated. I add that I am slightly puzzled about how properties without a connection to either the main sewerage system or to a private septic tank can be sold. In house conveyancing in Scotland, it is standard for there to be a series of conditions about this without which it is difficult to see how anyone can purchase a house or, indeed, get a mortgage over a house. That might be of concern to lenders because there may not be a valid security.
I wonder whether, in addition to writing to SEPA, we could write to the Law Society to ask for its guidance about how, in practice, properties in this category are dealt with. I would be interested to see what is happening out there. If houses have no access to a sewage facility, I am not sure how they can be transacted on the market. I think that the petitioner refers to some properties having been sold.
That is helpful. Thank you for the suggestion. Having seen that concern, I was not sure where we would write to to resolve it, but that is a good suggestion.
Are members of the committee content to proceed on the basis of those recommendations?
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.