We move from one area of environmental concern to another. Agenda item 4 is consideration of petition PE377, from Michael Kayes, on polluting activities in built-up areas, and of a reporter's paper on that petition. I thought that Dorothy-Grace Elder might attend for this item, but she is not here at the moment. I know that she has a strong interest in the issue, so I assume that she must be otherwise engaged.When we first considered the petition on 6 June, we appointed Fiona McLeod as a reporter. We agreed to write to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and the Minister for Social Justice on matters relating to the petition. The reporter's paper, which has been circulated to members, updates the committee on the action that has been taken so far and recommends that the committee approve the terms of reference for the reporter and the actions that are proposed in connection with the petition. Before seeking members' views, I invite Fiona McLeod to add any comments that she wishes to add to the paper.
Official Report · Committee
Petitions
Polluting Activities (Built-up Areas) (PE377)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Fiona McLeod SNP 6
- John Scott Con 6
- Bristow Muldoon Lab 4
The record
16 contributionsIt is pertinent that this matter has come after our discussion on the previous item. It is important that I attempt to perform a role similar to that which Andy Kerr performed on the Blairingone petition. It is obvious that practices in some areas of Scotland are causing concern. We must investigate how such practices are allowed to happen in individual areas.I hope that members will agree with the proposed terms of reference that Callum Thomson and I have produced. We need to find out how incinerators are allowed to be situated in places such as Carntyne and investigate the problem that SEPA has identified with the disposal of BSE-infected carcases. The site does not have to be licensed to do that; the operator can do it as long as it tests the carcases before incineration. The operator is allowed to incinerate the carcases, so it could have incinerated them inappropriately before anybody knows. The nub of the problem is the location of the incinerators and the disposal of infected carcases. Why have the regulations allowed the incinerator at Carntyne to continue to exist as it does and where it does?
Do any members have comments on the proposed terms of reference?
I congratulate Fiona McLeod on her work. I suggest, although I am not sure how relevant it is, that an element of risk assessment might be built into the inquiry. I am not sure how you would do that, but it would be helpful to have an assessment of the risks as a result of those practices.
Do you mean a risk assessment on the effect that putting the animals through the incineration process, as is being done at the moment, is having on the local community's health and the environment?
Yes. I do not know who would provide you with that knowledge or whether you want to pursue such an assessment, but I think that it would be relevant.
Perhaps SEPA could play a role in conducting such a risk assessment.
I think that John Scott is right, but the risk assessment in relation to the disposal of the carcases should already be being done.
I trust that it has been done.
The problem that SEPA is finding is that the regulations are almost post-operative.
Indeed. A definite level of risk is attached to the process. I would be interested in seeing a risk assessment. Perhaps the Executive could furnish you with the risk assessment that it has done.
This also raises an issue about risk assessment in planning. I do not think that that exists and perhaps it should.
Yes. Environmental impact assessments now exist in planning. Are they not coupled to risk assessments?
It should be the same sort of thing.
I am not well enough versed in that subject to know.
As no other members want to comment, are members happy to endorse the terms of reference as drafted in the paper and the proposed actions to take forward consideration of the petition?Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 26 Jun 2002 →- Scottish Parliament Transport and the Environment Committee Wednesday 26 June 2002 (Morning) Committee business · 2
- Items in Private Procedure · 3
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 1
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 5
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 1
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 1
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 1
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 2
- Petitions Petitions · 34
- Petitions Petitions · 16
- Rail Inquiry (Parliamentary Debate) Committee business · 13
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.