Current Petitions

In PE749, the petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to seek a moratorium on the spreading of sewage sludge pending a full inquiry into its safety by a parliamentary committee and as a minimum—depending on the outcome of such an inquiry—to initiate legislation at the earliest opportunity to discontinue the current exemptions for spreading sewage sludge and to ensure that such operations are subject to planning control, including a public local inquiry.At its meeting on 23 June 2004, the committee agreed to invite comments from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, and to invite a response on the previous committee's second report of 2003, on the health issues that had been raised by PE327, by Blairingone and Saline Action Group, on sewage sludge spreading. The committee also agreed to write to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water.Responses have been received, together with a letter from David Mundell MSP, in which he encloses a letter of support for PE749 from Sanquhar and district community council. David has joined us this morning. Do you have any information for us or comments to add?

The papers that we have received contain helpful responses from SEPA, the minister and Scottish Water, which all indicate that the area is well regulated. Obviously, there needs to be a debate about that but, as a first step, perhaps we should send the responses to the petitioners, allow them to look at them and, if need be, come back to the committee. The responses contain a lot that will reassure the petitioners.

The responses should also go to Blairingone and Saline Action Group. Ross Finnie states in his letter:"I note at the outset that the reason your Committee has yet to receive a response to this report is that the predecessor Committee did not ask for one."I was on the committee at that time, and I am surprised that we did not ask for a response. Given that we were remiss and did not ask for a response, we ought now to send the response to Blairingone and Saline Action Group. That was a sad omission on our part.

But it would be reassuring for the action group to see the work that has gone on. Jackie Baillie made the point that the reaction has been comprehensive, and it would be reassuring to close the loop for the public, so that they know the great extent of activity that has gone on. It would require only a letter to the people involved.

Absolutely. We did a similar thing for Margaret Ewing, who had not had sight of the responses. We will send the information that we have to David Mundell, and we will welcome his comments on it. We will also send it to the community organisations that he has been in contact with, and ask them to respond.

I see no difficulty with that suggestion. It is worth asking SEPA for its view on that perception of its role. I look forward to receiving those responses. We will send that information to David Mundell and wait for his comments on it.