 Good morning, and welcome to the Public Petitions Committee, and could I ask everyone to switch off their mobile phones and electronic devices as they do interfere with the sound system. No apologies have been received, so we'll move on to agenda item one, which is consideration of current petitions. There are four current petitions. The first is PE1105, by dreams occasional. Mae'r byw yn ddiolch i g Division i ddechrau'i wrth bandw sydd yn braf i utilio gwaith a ffudio'r puutigion i ddyddai'n draf. ein bod yn ei wneud gyda ni faith rhan o'r puutigion am gaeloedd a'r gwyl-parys yn MSP yn enwedig yn peikwyd dod yn y gwrthobeid. Mae'n rwy'n dda i ddefnyddoeth yng Nghymru, mae'r diwrnod hefyd i'r blaesau i ddechrau perochau gennymai cysylltiadol yn ei gyrwch i'r current actor yng nghaer ac mae'n ddais i ddefnyddio'r gyrddwch y fwrdd yng nghymru i mwyaf. antwyr, nid oes byw i'r cyddiogledaeth angen, ac nid oes byw i gael dal pwysig a gael dwybodaeth fel t'r gydag yma, unrhyw fyddion yn nhw'n rhaid i gael ddiogledaeth yma yn y torgym. Mae'n wedi ddibelod mewnfu hefyd o'r cynnigol a wneud wrth byw hynny i gael gael, naad i hynny. Rhaid i ddifent gyda siŵr i ddefnyddio, ym Gweithio Gwyll yn ychydigrannu, mae eu stryd gennymol i ddifunoafio ar Gweithio Gwyll, Maen nhw'r gyffrein eich llwyr o'r pethol yn cynyddaeth eich clyw yn ffordd. Felly, mae'n sgol i marvelig, eich cyffrein eich clyw yn ddamfodol yn ffordd, a'i gweld eich clyw yn ddamfodol yn mynd i chi, oherwydd, ond mae gennym yn ddadfod llehau amser, a lawer, rwy'n i'pwylltoneg gael ar y llwyddoch i sylfaenais, ac mae'n fawr i'r phethau o'ch gael, a ddefnyddio'r llwyddoch i'r llehau amserion. Rwy'n na'n dda i, The next petition is PE1539 by Anne Booth on Housing Associations and the Freedom of Information Scotland Act 2006. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions, and the after papers were issued an email received from the petitioner, so may I invite contributions from members as to what action the committee should take on this petition now? I would propose that we keep this petition open and in doing so that we write to the Scottish Government to seek their views on the special report that was laid before the ministers from the Scottish Information Commissioner, who is clearly indicated in the submission that they are supportive of the concept of Housing Associations coming under, or the register of social landlords coming under the Freedom of Information legislation. In writing to the Scottish Government, I would seek their views on the information commissioner's report, which commissioners have the right to lay down special reports, and I think the information commissioner made their views known on this issue, and it would be interesting to find out what the Scottish Government and how the Scottish Government will respond to the report laid down by the information commissioner. It would also be useful, convener, at the same time as we are writing to the Scottish Government to ask the Scottish Housing Regulators' view on the issue of FY inclusion for Housing Associations and others at the present time, so that we can actually get a rounded picture in relation to how we take this petition forward. I am not the first to write in there, but it seems to me to some extent that the purpose of the petition has been achieved. I think what we have to do is to get some assurance from the Government about where they are going. It seems to me that further changes in FY, which I think we all accept are going to happen, should be done, probably contemporaneously rather than piecemeal. I think it would be important to make it clear to the Government that there appears to be clear support for this, but the next stage for further FY should not be a bit to do with RSLs and a bit on something else that should move forward across the board, widening and deepening the organisations that are FY-able. David. Thank you. I am quite happy to close this petition as well, considering that the Scottish Government will shortly go out to consultation with us, so I am happy to back. I agree that there is no point in duplication. The fact that the Government is going to carry one out anyway, that would probably be a hand in glove in terms of the petition, so I am quite happy for it to be closed as well. Are the committee in agreements that we should close this petition? Could perhaps the committee agree that we might go forward with joint suggestion and then we could bring it back at a later date with a view of closing angus? I think that is the way forward. It would be good to hear from the Scottish Housing Regulator before the petition is closed. I think that is the way forward. I would be happy to second John Wilson's recommendation. Jackson. I am agnostic on the way forward, but if a colleague has a particularly strong view, I am quite happy in the circumstances to allow that to dictate the way forward on this occasion. The fourth and final current petition today is PE1482 by John Wumsley on isolation of single rooms and hospitals. Members have a note by the clerk and a submission from the Scottish Government. Can I invite contribution from members and what action to take on the petition? I am quite happy to defer the petition, convener, to allow the Scottish Government time to publish its reviews and consider its findings, and we could continue from there. It is not clear that the Scottish Government, from the letter from Mr Browning, had in fact detailed any timetable for any review that they might initiate. I note that the Scottish Government is going to undertake research. They are very strong in detailing their presumption rather than it being a no obligation choice. I am not sure that this petition has not now brought the issue to our consideration for debate. We have kept it open for quite some time. It seems to me from the letter that we have received that the issue is something that is now going to be part of an on-going review. I am not therefore sure what more the petition or this committee would achieve. I would be happy to see it close if that is not what colleagues want to do fine, but I am not quite sure when, specifically, we would expect to have any evidence. I imagine that if the evidence was compelling in a particular direction, the Scottish Government would then take account of it. In a sense, the ambition of the petition has already been fulfilled. Having read the report, I have noticed that a preliminary copy of the review and the Scottish Government are now seeking expert views on that. We will, of course, write in due course once again. We have obtained that expert opinion on its findings and we assess the Scottish Government policy in the light of this evidence. That was in the Scottish Government letter dated 18 February. My understanding is that review confirms that they have had nothing to do with the impact of single rooms. It then goes on in paragraph 4 to say that, in light of the lack of research on this issue, we recognise that it will be important to gather evidence from our own facilities to measure the impact of single rooms and consider any implications for our current policy. We will take steps to address this through on-going surveys as well as formal post-occupancy analysis. There is nothing in the review that the Government have already looked at that. They have already concluded that there is nothing in the review that is going to illuminate us any further on the issue of single rooms. The only way that is going to happen is through further analysis, which they are saying that they will undertake, but not to any specific timetables, so far as I can see. The start of paragraph 2 in the letter we received in 18 February is the letter outlines. They have attached a preliminary copy of the review and are seeking expert views. While Jackson Carlaw is right, there is no timetable attached to this correspondence that we could write to the Scottish Government and ask them what the timetable is to seek those expert views. We can consider that at a later date once the Scottish Government respond, because I think that it is quite clear that there is still some ongoing work being done by the Scottish Government on this issue. I think that it would be wrong for us at this time to close the petition until we get further information from the Scottish Government as to how the intent to carry out the review and the timescale for that review. I think that once we get that information we could move forward in closing the petition. I would agree with those sentiments. I think that it is important for two aspects, one from the petitioner's point of view as well, that they are obviously wanting to see a conclusion and that would be helpful. That is the whole point of bringing a petition to this committee in the first instance. The second, it will perhaps allow the Government to focus more clearly in terms of a timetable scale. I think that is important as well. I think that it is important to keep it open at this stage to allow that to happen, but I think that we need to press the Government to try and come up with some sort of timescale because I think that it is important to show the petitioners that work is actually being done and that there is an end to the tunnel at some stage. I agree that we should give the Scottish Government time to publish the review but certainly contact them to find out what the timetable would be. Members agree with that approach? I now move on to agenda item 2, which is consideration of new petitions. We have three new petitions and the committee agreed to hear from the petitioners on all three. The first new petition is PE1553 by Councillor Andrew S. Wood on rendering industry regulations. Members have a note by the clerk and a space briefing and the petition. May I welcome Councillor Wood to the meeting? I also welcome Dr Sue McLeod and from Enviro Source Ltd, a Norman Watt from Bandas chemical company. I will now invite Councillor Wood to speak for around five minutes and I do believe that you want to share perhaps some of your presentation with Dr McLeod. So I'll hand over to you and then we'll move to questions. Thank you. Before I start though, I would like to first open up by applauding the petitions committee for the most recent workshop that they held within Dumfries about a couple of months ago and an excellent experience and gave local people the opportunity to engage in your whole system and process. What I would ask though is for the petitions committee to give consideration to rolling it out to our senior schools because young people are now engaging far more in politics and as you'll see from the audience they are engaging. We have a lot of young people here today so if you could take that on board I would really welcome that as an elected member from Dumfries council. Anyway to move on with the petition I would like to thank the convener and his committee for giving consideration to having the petition heard on rendering regulations and the differentials within an interpretation and governance thereafter between north and south of the border. Please be assured that this is not about seeking to have standards within Scotland or anywhere else for that matter, Lord. This is about the financial burdens and within a very competitive market this is very much about finding and ensuring existing legislation is both equitable and sustainable within a set of regulations that now apply for all operators within UK while ensuring security of the Scottish rendering industry for the long term and future. Now as a farmer I recognise the national importance of rendering industry and have endured foot and mouth on two occasions there's been avian flu and anthrax and it's very important that we retain the national rendering industry from a biosecurity perspective but anyway that's enough for myself this is very complex and I'm very very keen that we get as much teased out here today as possible so I would like to now bring in Dr McLeod if that's agreeable. Thank you I'm going to set the scene a wee bit about what rendering is and the regulatory background that's caused the issue that we're bringing to you today. Renderings are very important part of the recycling industry in Scotland and in England supplying tallow for the production of biodiesel and meal for pet food manufacture and as Andrew's already said it's over the years it's played an important role in biosecurity for example in the BSE and foot and mouth crises. It's a cooking process it's essentially liquid is driven off and produces a highly odorous gas as part of that process and it's really this vapour that causes rendering to come under environmental scrutiny. Since the mid 2000s all rendering plants in the UK have been regulated under the pollution prevention and control regime PPC which is transposed from Europe into Scottish and English law. To understand our concerns you need to understand the fundamental philosophy of PPC and understand how it was transposed in England compared to Scotland. So PPC at the core of it the requirement that environmental issues should be addressed in an integrated way across all media so that's soil, air and water and it requires that an installation uses best available techniques to achieve this so BAT. Europe provided guidance on BAT for different processes in the form of BAT reference documents but it was left up to Member States to decide how to implement this guidance in their own permits and for rendering the implementation has been different over the years in Scotland compared to England. In Scotland we have a single regulator the Scottish Environment Protection Agency CEPA who regulates all rendering plants. In England a rendering plant is regulated usually by a local authority so except for an accident of geography each site will have a different regulator so you can argue that Scottish regulation is a lot more consistent. In Scotland a rendering plant is not particularly complex process in the spectrum of CEPA's regulatory responsibilities whereas in England a rendering plant is often a local authority's most complex plant amongst much simpler setups such as petrol stations and dry cleaners. In Scotland CEPA applies a risk-based approach to its definition of BAT best available technology whereas in England local authorities use DEFRA guidance in the form of the rendering sector guidance note a document that CEPA gives cognitions to but has not adopted as guidance. In our experience these things mean that PPC permits in Scotland are more robust than their English counterparts the compliance bar is higher and regulator scrutiny more detailed and because of the way BAT is applied there are circumstances where a compliant English plant would not be compliant in Scotland. These differences mean that compliance costs more in Scotland and we've produced a document that highlights some of these costs including a significant difference in permitting scheme charges between CEPA and the English local authority and there was this document that formed the basis of the petition. We're concerned that a nationwide industry should be treated so differently in England compared to Scotland but we believe that recent changes in environmental legislation provide an opportunity to narrow this gap. These changes are the European industrial emissions directive which recently been transposed into English and Scottish law an important part of this is that the European BAT reference documents those documents giving guidance on best available techniques are going to be reviewed for each sector updated and summarised into a set of conclusions and emission limits which Member States must then use as a basis for setting and revising permit conditions. Work in the rendering sectors in the early stages at the moment and as expected to be completed by 2018 we would like Scottish Government to ensure that at the end of this process CEPA and DEFRA who provide guidance to the local authorities agree on the same definition of BAT for the rendering industry in the UK and that the same emission limit values apply in England and in Scotland so levelling the currently unlevel playing field. Thank you. Questions from the committee? Angus? Thank you very much for the presentation. You present a good case. Can I ask if there are a local dimension to this? Is there a renderer within Dumfries and Galloway? Yes, the local renderer is Dindas chemical company with an operation here in Dumfries and also an operation in Motherwell near Glasgow. Okay and are there any other operators in Scotland just these two? There is only one other site which is not operational at the moment and that's in Contour near Aberdein. Okay given from the evidence that you've given just now that the compliance bar is higher in Scotland than in England. Are the prices paid in Scotland lower than in England due to the strict environmental regulation? It's not possible to when facing a meat plant to negotiate price is not possible to use that as any kind of leverage at all. They're interested in the best price and they're similar prices. No difference. I'm just thinking about hides and skins for example you know presumably there's a higher price paid in England than in Scotland. Not particularly it'll depend entirely on logistical costs and the influence of legislation will not have an effect on that. Okay thanks. Could I just before take any further questions it's important to understand when we talk about the rending industry here we're talking in terms of our petition to do the red meat rending industry. There are other two sectors which is the rending of fish and the rending of poultry and these are not included in the dialogue today. Okay thanks. Jackson. So there's an education for me listening to all of this because it's not a subject about which I am familiar. What I wasn't clear in Tallinn I think perhaps Dr McLeod was trying to take me there but I wasn't clear from the petition what remedy it is that you are urging be followed to achieve the result of your petition. So I wasn't clear what you were I understand what you would like but how would you see a process towards that being achieved? I think that's what I'd quite like to understand. As Dr McLeod highlighted currently there's a change coming in terms of legislation at this point in time we as an industry feel in Scotland that we are disadvantaged against the English operators. In order to achieve a level playing field it's very difficult to do that mid legislation so because of this change coming around there's an opportunity to do something about it and what we'd like to do is to use the resources of the Scottish Government to influence these upcoming discussions which will be between CEPA and DEFRA and the European legislator. So which Parliament is it that is initiating a change in legislation? The European. So it's through the European Parliament that a change in legislation is forthcoming and in the context of that change of legislation you would like to see this issue brought to the fore there and so in that sense you're asking this committee towards the Scottish Government to be proactive in that process. Absolutely. Right okay thank you. Any other questions? Thank you good morning it's just to try and expand some of the differences that exist you've made reference to local authorities in England and Wales and the regulatory regime that they apply under the Environmental Protection Agency and you've referred to CEPA's regulations. What is the real impact of the differences that the and how the regulations are applied because as I understand it it's the same regulations that are supposed to apply throughout Europe you know the regulations are different and principal but that's not the case in practice. Could you expand on that? So just to get an idea of what the issues are and why you feel the rendering industry in Scotland is being more disadvantaged than the rest of either the UK or the rest of Europe? I think a lot comes down to the regulator at the end of the day. CEPA regulates all industry on an environmental perspective in Scotland and there is a consistency. There is a level of expertise that you wouldn't get in an environmental health department of a local authority. So it really does come down to the regulator at the end of the day and the resources that are available to a regulator I think. I steered away from some of the detail of what happens but in England the environment agency which is CEPA's counterpart in England will regulate those industries that are perceived to have the biggest cross-media impact and rendering we have part A and part B processes in Scotland. In England they have a part A1 and a part A2 which would be the equivalent of our part A processes and then part B processes. All part B processes things like your petrol stations and your dry cleaners come under local authority regulation and A2 processes also sit there and that's where rendering sits in England as an A2 process. So though it does have cross-media impact it's perceived to have less than some of its counterparts within the A group and so it sits with the local authority and local authorities tend not to have the same resources. So the whole application process in Scotland is based around a risk process for that individual plant whereas in England a permit is based more or less on the DEFRA guidance with the sector guidance note that DEFRA has produced. I appreciate Dr McLeod's response but what I was trying to try and draw out as well is the issue about this is European commission regulation regarding rendering plants and it's while we talk about and you've made reference to the difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK it would be useful to find out whether or not you're aware of the differences that may exist in the rest of Europe because this is the European commission make regulation not just for the UK they make regulation for Europe and it's how it's being applied in other parts of Europe and whether or not we could actually use examples of how the regulations are applied in other countries within Europe that could then influence how we look at the regulations that are applied by SEPA in Scotland and how that affects the industry in Scotland. I think the issue for the UK rendering industry in itself isn't so significant in relation to other member states and how it's interpreted. The primary problem we have is that the way the same piece of legislation at European level is interpreted down through the member states. There is an interpretation in the UK terms and as Dr McLeod highlighted there is a brief note which is the effect related to guidance to be able to interpret that. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency interpreted it at a higher level than does the local authorities in England who are using DEFRA guidance notes. SEPA are aware of DEFRA's guidance notes but don't use these in any form of legislative control on Scottish rendering plans. So there are real real real differences and they come down to operational costs in terms of monitoring of emissions, acceptance levels, potential legal action can be taken in the Scottish context which would not be the same in England. Therefore it's possible for operators to draw material out of Scotland for processing because it's easier to process that material in England than it is in Scotland and that's the issue for the Scottish rendering industry. If that continues then what will happen is that Scotland will be disadvantaged and that point will move south of the border because it's easier to be processed there and that's the hub behind this. Thank Mr Wat for his explanation. It would be possible to advise the committee, I know you've been in dialogue with Alan Smith MEP who said obviously this is an unfair issue. Can we have an update as to what he said recently? At present no, I'm still awaiting a response from him and it's all down to my fault for not continuing the communications it should have. So yes I will seek a follow-up from that but what we would like and it was asked earlier and that is what we want from the committee and that is open working partnership so that we can give you the information because there's an awful lot of behind the scene work has been taking place that I feel that as a committee you should get an over view of and I think it'd be extremely helpful especially with what's taking place at present with legislation changing it as we speak. I thought I saw a clear course of action initially but I'm afraid Mr Wat's explanation has now thrown me back because it seems it's nothing to do with the European Union it's all now to do with the agency or organisation within the United Kingdom that has been appointed to apply the regulations. Presumably the Scottish Government asked SEPA to be the regulator in Scotland. I'm not quite sure therefore through how European legislation that position would be remedied. I mean in a way you're almost uncomfortable within the UK context which you've now set apart from the rest of the European Union with the fact that the advice through the appointed regulator in England as to how the regulation should be applied is different to the one in Scotland and I can't quite see how you would remedy that now through the European Union because that's now really a matter for the Scottish Government to determine whether or not they think a convincing enough case has been made by the argument that you present to request SEPA to look again at the way in which they choose to enforce the regulation. Apologies, I've confused things but I'll maybe try to answer your point here. The issue regarding the European Union is that over the next two to three years there is going to be a change in how the legislation is updated. We're living with the current set of circumstances from the European Union and the current interpretation which is to the disadvantage of Scotland. Our intention and behind our petition is to seek help that during this review of the legislation which is going to happen over the next three years that your influence can be brought to bear through SEPA and DEFRA in the UK to bring everything back on a level playing field. Does that help? Well, sort of I suppose. I think I'll have to hear various, get some help at all I think with some of the submissions we might receive. I think I understand your concern. However, what even I'm feeling to understand or grasp is the actual difference. What is it that's actually going to be that is going to disadvantage us in Scotland with the legislation and also your concern about SEPA and what is it that SEPA hopes intends to do, what you feel they're intending to do that are going to disadvantage you. If you could just focus into that in itself would be helpful. If I take the first point, our concerns are our current concerns which we'd like to see answered in the future. Our current concerns are at this point in time that the way the legislation is interpreted in Scotland is different to that in England. We don't have an issue regarding SEPA's interpretation. Is that the difference I'm seeking? Yeah, we don't have a concern because we believe that SEPA are interpreting in no different way than they should. Our problem is the interpretation that English authorities have on the same piece of legislation which is an advantage to our competitors and creates that on a level playing field. So that's our current concern. How to resolve that would be difficult under normal circumstances but because of this new change in legislation that's coming about over the next period of time then that's what we would like to have the assistance of the Scottish Government to be able to ensure that when the breath notes are set for the industry going forward it's done on a uniform basis across the Holy United Kingdom. Does that help? Well I think it helps in the sense that I'm willing to have another look at it chair because I haven't quite understood the 100% argument but nevertheless there is a concern and I'm happy for the fact that you have a concern and you've brought it all attention. I'm willing to have a look at it again chair. Any further questions? Right, could I ask the committee then what action it would be prepared to take on this petition? David? Thank you convener. I'd like to continue it. Can we write to SEPA asking them on their views and the Scottish Government so we could continue the petition? Members agreed? John? Can I also suggest we write to DEFRA because clearly the local authorities in England and Wales aren't operating under guidance that they've developed. Guidance has been issued by DEFRA and it would be useful to find out from DEFRA why the interpretation of the same regulation from Europe has been applied differently in Scotland as it is in England and Wales. So I think it might be useful to actually write to DEFRA and seek clarification on how they came about in taking the rules differently from SEPA. Angus? I'm just wondering if it might be advisable at the present moment to also write to the environment minister just to make her aware of the situation that Dundas chemical company found themselves in. Clearly any input at that level would be helpful. So on something, does the committee then agree that we will write to SEPA, DEFRA and the environmental minister possibly to complete a circle? Could you perhaps forward to the committee any information you received from Alan Smith? Thank you councillor Wood, Dr Macleod and Mr Watt for their attendance. I will now respond for a couple of minutes to change over. Moving on, the next new petition is PE1558 by John Thom on behalf of the RNBCC crayfish committee, candy catchment on American signal crayfish. We'll now offer you opportunity Mr Thom to give a short presentation to the committee and then thereafter we'll answer questions. Thank you very much. As thank you ladies and gentlemen for letting me get this far with what we've managed to do, we're a small little organisation, we haven't got any financial backing really from anyone and we're using SEPAs and Scottish National Heritage's reports and our own reports here to contradict and to try and get a change in the law which at the moment stands only scientific trapping may be continued or considered. In that situation, Scottish National Heritage and SEPA do not have the finances to carry out a large trapping experiment that is totally out of their budget. So what we're suggesting is a change in the law be carried out so that commercial industries can come in working along with Scottish National Heritage and SEPA to carry out a large trapping scale programme, as in Galway Fish's trust report of 2009 carrying out a four months experiment which was to carry out and find out which method was the best in actually trapping the crayfish. This came to the conclusion that a three-year trapping programme should be started immediately but was turned down due to not being financially economical due to the restrictions of finance on these two agencies. We've also got the reports here from the National Research Council of a 10-year trapping programme which was carried out from 2001 to 2009 stating that the biosphere and environmental crustaceans of the rivers trapping over that long period increased and the numbers of crayfish did decrease and that having juveniles being left in the water which is not part of our plan did breed earlier but most of the eggs were actually infertile that they're reducing actual numbers of population and there is more research needed and required into that. That's from the West report on the Lake Lanark. We've also got the other reports here which actually support my major long-term trapping and also with the crayfish population increasing it causes the algae blooms in the lochs and rivers and now that they're in the tributaries of the river Tey, the tweed and the rest of it won't belong until they move down into the actual tweed itself and ruin the salmon fishing in these areas as well. The whole biosphere and catchment areas here in Loch Ken is costing after the survey carried out in the 19th by one of our other members is £533,000, £500 per annum that is not including the loss from Scottish power generation and the new flood bankings that have to be prepared every year and the loss of land which is approximately eight and a half acres at the moment along the side of the Loch which at £500 an acre is quite a substantial bit of money and lost to farmers. That's really all we've got a day. Thank you Mr Thom. I'm now open to questions. Angus? Yep, well thanks convener, just for clarification. In what way are Scottish power affected by this, what damage has caused them? Well, when the crayfish burrow into the bankings of approximately a metre deep and into the generation and the flood tide and that coming in, well going down the river, with the burrowing into the bankings the Scottish bank is to collapse, the trees then to come in which builds up at the bridges which then floods the farmer's land so they have to cease the generation to alleviate the floods which is a lot of money and it's been economically the environment of them being hydroelectric and that was something else we're going to remember. The by-products of the trapping programme, the shells can actually be used as a non-chemical slug repellent which then seems to be a hedgehog in certain areas, so I forgot to mention that then. Takes a lot of boxes. As it happens, I happen to see a reporting Scotland feature last week I think when they were showing us these crayfish and they seem to be extraordinarily invasive, a very successful species, incredibly resilient and altogether quite tasty as well by all accounts. It's how you deal with it. Now Scottish national heritage in their response to the petition are very aggressively of the view that the licensing of this commercially would act as an incentive for their illegal introduction into all other waterways around Scotland because people would then see that they could be licensed to fish the product there and make a nice return from it so that in fact licensing would act as a catalyst for the extension of the invasive species rather than as a method of containment. I'm interested in your reaction to that. I have to say I'm slightly, I'm not advocating it because I'm slightly then unimpressed by Scottish national heritage's argument because ultimately it seems to me that they say that the only way to stop this is to fall back on what I think the least successful policy option in almost any instance in political life that I could remember it being urged upon which is to educate people and raise awareness which hasn't worked in alcohol, hasn't worked in seatbelts, didn't work in tobacco and I can't think of any instance when raising public awareness as of the slightest effect at all. So if that's all Scottish national heritage can say by way of a remedy I'm not terribly impressed but I would like to understand your reaction to their fear about what licensing might do. Well we're actually come around that problem by making it if we are licensed as to work with Scottish national heritage and SEPA and it wouldn't be a general overall licensing it was to allow funding to be brought in on a scientific method with SEPA and SNH with a commercial company on a non-profit basis so the profits that were made covering expenses would then be plowed back into the teaching and scientific side of the students going through Glasgow University to learn more about biodiversity this way any land on their thinking about or any other business thinking about interfering and putting them somewhere else would not be able to be any profit so there'd be no incentive for them to do this as it would have to be a non-profit commercial adventure whereas the profits would be taken in by the teaching of students and covering the costs of that. Right so you would see a very specific restriction on the commercial exploitation of a profit by it simply being an operation that effectively allowed a business to operate but for those profits then to be reinvested into education and community benefit of some sort. Yes so that there is no actual the business that come in. Yeah I mean right I mean because it's certainly I think Scottish national heritage is response to the proposal is predicated in the basis that the only way in which a license would operate would be on the basis that somebody was then going to be able to commercially sell the product all over the place for a private gain and you're challenging that as being what a licensing need inevitably lead to. Yes but as I've stated in my other one there it's no private company is going to come in and throw millions of pounds or thousands of pounds at a project without actually covering their costs whereas we have had been asked and approached by a company in Lanark and in England from China and Norway to come in and actually do this trapping as long as they can receive the product and they will cover the costs which would approximately according to the figures employ 50 people directly in that actual trapping and that and not including the students coming in and that then would build into about 130 full-time jobs in the hotel and trade industry with the increase in tourism and that again that has been lost as commented in the CPI and SNH reports on economic impact in the area. And not with sort of fine point not with standing the the current regulations I'm told that we're out to visit friends in the area I might find one or two of these crayfish had found their way into the kitchen is that is that something that the problem is at the moment being I'll say non-existent as in on teaching the public there is in the 13 mile length of the Loch there is six signs on an S4 sheet of paper saying please do not trap as these are a non-invasive these are invasive species do not take them away. Now in a five minute news broadcast there's not actually I think constitute a campaign of education the public why no means does it stretch that far so further them to turn around and say they're having a public educational programme is not oh sorry and one meeting in the cross case hotel we didn't have that for 10 minutes. Thank you. Any other questions? John. Just to try and draw out from Sir Tom the issue about his mentioned students on a couple of occasions how would you see the tie in with the academic world in relation to any commercialisation of the trapping methods used and how would that tie in with academia? Students from Glasgow University comes down and traps the Loch and doing studies that as we sit state list here now we've got the biosphere the Loch is in such a state that it doesn't actually exist anymore in some parts as it's been destroyed these students with the large trapping programme involved can actually monitor and do their own scientific studies on how the environment improves and this them giving the practical experience instead of just theory set in the classroom and writing the same reports each time and oh it's getting worse it's getting worse it's getting worse that's what's happening they can actually then sit back and actually instead of on the same report come in the same students every year and firm the same findings they can actually show the then increase of the lily beds the crustaceans and if there's a natural biosphere the Loch returning and this year improving the scale so it gives a total different and the tutors a chance to read something fresh instead of going yes that's okay it matches up with the same reports we had last year on the but it's actually we have given no practical experience in the trapping methods instead of just reading reports and pay for a contract I'm like Jackson Carlaw I'm rather concerned at the SEPA SNH response to this petition because what effective way they're saying is we don't have the money to do anything in terms of large-scale trapping but therefore we're not going to do anything about it but at the same time we're actually seeing the increase of a non-native invasive species in terms of population growing and not only growing but spreading throughout other tributaries and logs in Scotland the the issue for me would be whether or not there would be an issue in relation to you mentioned scottish power and the damage that's in terms of the banks that are being done to the flood plains in the logs has there been any discussions with scottish power and to get scottish power to try and invest in some protection methods to ensure that they could actually provide some support financial support that would be to ensure that they could actually either control or eradicate the signal crayfish population in the log they are supplying at the moment to lock in management committee who runs a ranger on the lock a few thousand pounds at the moment per annum that goes with the support into his wages to monitor the boats on the lock not into not into the because at the moment they can't get involved in it because it's not a commercial product and as it's it's not commercial and they're a commercial company and after having tried to last six years to find a backup that would come in and finance and support we even approached the RSPB and the Hedgehold Charities Society to see if we could get the meat products and that would be produced and sell to them at a cost price but this then was not backed by SNH I mean in Glasgow as that then would put a commercial value on the crayfish which everyone knows there is a commercial value on so as they're sold in aldeys Tesco's you know we're all in we're important at the moment eight and a half tons per weekend to Scotland from abroad which is quite a substantial loss in industry here in Scotland and if we are as a nation of the whole UK or just Scotland if it does go independent the only way the country will survive is by business and export and this is the whole thing I'm looking at it is it's not just a rural community thing it's the whole country that's involved in this and at the last count there's been 47 different areas confirmed with invest with invasive species in it and it's just going to hit the whole economy of the country right thank you very much computer in your petition the mr tom you are you are asking for the the license to be changed and if that does not happen what do you you know what's a foreseeable future then for the industry we can basically write off scotland as a salmon fisheries place or the extreme cost it's going to cost the regional and local authorities with the local flooding and ditches and that collapsing in and the whole environment change will lose our dragonflies or great gresid newts the whole frog system spawning areas and that this is what the crayfish eat the lily pads they're really just like I don't have you ever seen in nature programmes of a locust swarm going to a cornfield that is what the crayfish are like they just devastate everything and you live for the muddy pond it is not a pretty sight it's not very nice there is sorry and one one final question from me is that you said that sheeper doesn't have the finance to support this have they gave you any particular reason is because they don't have the finance or they don't see this as being a priority for them to invest in it's all we give it two seconds i'll quote from the letter i've got here from s nations in the sepa i'll just get the right specs on here sorry for this i can't wear bifocals as i try and walk in the carpets and it's you know it's really down to financial they do not have the financial backing or that or resources did they put any figure on that no they didn't they did the figure on it no but okay if they cost a rough estimate from when i phoned the tay fishery board or it cost up it abington i don't know if you know where abington is with six water pumps and closing off a piece of stream for three weeks was the raise of 60 000 pounds so two actually and that was just a three weeks our allocation for a couple hundred meters so you're talking large large sums that are not sustainable to these agencies they would banger up them in two minutes and cost the tax better than the government a lot of money okay any further questions angus just one point convener um you mr tom you mentioned um that there may be a significant environmental impact and you mentioned a salmon fishing as well and your your submission actually goes further it's as other costs include the destruction of salmon sea trout and brown trout spawning beds the loss of river walks farmland dragon flies nesting areas wildfowl and the complete destruction of the marine biosphere in the affected area you that that's not as over dramatising this you know that's actually escaration sepa's own reports are saying that okay okay i'm actually taking using their reports and the national reserve council and the galway fishes trust and marine environmentally forest forestry directive and lake taho like in reports they're all scientific reports i'm getting all my information from okay and you mentioned also that there's 47 areas confirmed with american signal crayfish yes there is that's not including the ones that haven't actually been confirmed as yet which is there is a few in the pipeline okay i don't we don't have that list i don't think it'd be good to get hold of it can we now think it's easy enough to find so you can go on the internet and all goes on the snh and sepa's site where they're all the time in the different reports that have come in from these so that's where i've got all my information from is carrying on through in different meetings from snh and sepa thanks is there any further questions from the committee can i then ask the committee what action it decides to take on this petition david convener i definitely think this is the remit the rural affairs climate change and environment committee i would like it to pass it on to them to take on board jackson actually i disagree i this seems to me precisely the sort of petition that the petitions committee could do something useful with it does seem to me that there is a recognised problem which has somehow managed to stay underneath the search light of focused political intervention which we might be able to give some assistance to it may ultimately be that it's referred but in the first instance i think i would like to hear the Scottish government's views because they do seem to have been involved and i'd like to understand where they think the whole thing has got to but i'd be very much in favour then of taking evidence from Scottish national heritage and sepa on the issue and if if there is some viability in a not-for-profit enterprise as has been suggested to take the work to a certain stage and then potentially at that stage potentially give it over to the rural affairs and climate change committee with some suggestion as to how we might move forward because it does seem to me at the moment that it's been something of a an unproductive circle of recognition of the issue but a disinclination to actually agree on any solution and in the absence of anybody making a fuss about that nothing happening angus yes thanks convener i would agree with jackson carlaw i can see where david torrance is coming from with regard to referring it to rural affairs committee particularly given that that committee is currently looking at the wild fisheries review group's report however i agree with mr carlaw that we should seek the Scottish government's views first and foremost prior to deciding what next course of action the petitions committee should take so happy to go with that recommendation from mr carlaw i'm happy to go along with the recommendations could i ask mr carlaw if you include in the evidence session because you mentioned snh and sepa are coming to give evidence to the committee whether you'd consider the minister i'd be invited at that same session to give evidence as well well i i actually angus mcdonald i think i'd probably an agreement here i'd like to hear the Scottish government's view first i don't preclude evidence thereafter i'm not necessarily saying i would go that route but i can see that i might and yes in those circumstances i'd be quite happy to hear from the minister then too but i think the first instance since the Scottish government obviously has some understanding of the issue i'd quite like to get to groups with what they think their understanding of it is committee then agreed to the Scottish common party's good petition yeah i'm just sorry you didn't bring any of them with you first of all i've imported them we brought them here already dead and we could have had a excuse me we were actually nice with garlic a lot about the time managing actually uh advising the rules committee as well of what's been in front of us just for information at this stage only i don't think it would it would go amiss they may in fact want to add to any evidence themselves or not i think probably in the first instance why don't we write to the Scottish government asking for the views and then we'll take them okay okay okay committee i'm happy to informally bring it back into to the committee okay then good man and mr tonkin i thank you for attending i will now suspend for a couple of minutes for a change of okay the third petition today is pe 1557 by davidar slater on behalf of save our white sands car parts and river views on scottish government funding for white sands flood scheme members have a note by the clerk in a spice briefing of the petition and may i welcome petitioner david slater to the meeting and i also welcome his colleague john dowson mr slater will invite you to speak around five minutes to your petition and thereafter we'll move on to questions okay well first of all i'd like to thank you all very much for inviting me here today along with my colleague mr dowson uh this is a very emotive subject i must admit from the town of donfries but i'll give you the reasons why uh donfries and galway council have proposed a flood prevention scheme for the white sands area of donfries the council have stated the start of construction works will be between depending on funding being available from the scottish government i'm calling on the scottish government to rule out providing specific funding for this project for the following reasons local opposition the strength of feeling from so many people prompt the media razor petition against the flood defense system proposed by donfries and galway council the petition has gone from strength to strength and now has uh has four thousand signatures the opposition comes from local businesses and the general public including visitors to donfries the main people don't want to lose their river view and their important save car parking within easy reach of the main post office banks and many local businesses the people fear the time this is going to take to build approximately two years no one wants to see the bus route altered to make the buses go up a narrow street where there are many many pedestrians the cost the council said the cost would be 12 million in just a few short weeks has increased to 15 million and rising i have researched other flood defense companies with designs that would keep our river views and important save car parks at a much lower cost and build times have the council considered they're spoken with any other flood defense companies as the only one petition on the table for councillors to consider why is this i invited the cco or another flood defense company to come to a public meeting in the place to demonstrate their designs and products and show the people how they could build flood defences at a considerable less cost and build time and save our car parks and river views over 150 people attending my public meeting the council are having to buy a private car park with money from the public purse to try and find room for 230 cars that will be displaced if this scheme goes ahead a car park it is normally full most days already this is my previous actions i have written to scotland's first minister an environment minister ask questions at the minister's question time at east of book hall and peace after after the recent government cabinet meeting the environment minister dr aileen mcleid informed me at the meeting she would be looking into the proposed flood prevention scheme and may visit the town of cockermouth to view their flood protection including the floating wall i had meetings and dialogue with council officials i have raised the issue with in the media about this flood project it started at 12 million pounds now it's just a few short weeks now 15 million i have spoken with several councillors about this proposed flood prevention scheme as well the photos and design plans the council put out to the public don't show the true image of the finished project in particular the height of the proposed grass bank that will block our river views it will destroy our river views views of our river forever and part of the build will have walls around two meters high with glass panels on the top the walkway on top of these earth bankings doesn't show that any safety railings on the top of it has an incline of 30 to 35 degrees of around eight meters of grass to the base of it the river from the road will be blocked off from public view what is if something happens beside the river someone falling or worse at the moment there is a clear view of the river from the roadway and the shops shops side have the emergency services been spoken to as regards access to the river if any and that includes inshore rescue the buses will have to go up bank street where there is a sharp right turn and is a busy area for people walking the buses then face a multi-road system that does create traffic jams the loss of our public toilets with no decision by council if it will be rebuilt and where the build time for this project excessive two years will turn our river front into a building site and what happens if forever floods in that time scale most business inform me that they are very concerned about this project especially in these times of austerity the cost project is rising or i said cost is 12 to 15 million the council want to turn the green area into a riverside car park to help find space for 230 proposed place parking spaces this proposed green area is further out of and has very difficult access in and out and a range it would fare that comes to a time twice a year will be lost forever it's been coming here for seven generations at least has the council engaged properly with the public about the proposed flood prevention scheme as some of the information they're using appears to have been collated in 2013 if the council are democratic why are they continuing to push a flood scheme through a system through the system that thousands of people don't want and they won't even basically speak to us and feel as many do this is not the way to treat the people who with a hard day and money pay for these these projects and their salaries through the public purse they are coming across as being driven by ego to push this poor thought out design through the system and have it built in our town the people fear another dg1 scenario at the name of our flagship leisure centre that costs at least 17 million pounds and just a few years has been plagued with thoughts and now so bad it's closed apparently until the end of 2016 and possibly beyond to be perfectly honest people would rather have nothing rather this hill conceived and poorly thought out design thrust upon them at an ancient market town all the bushes and flowers on their design on their steep earth and bankings when flooding comes they will pick up all the debris and contaminates also it will be trapped between the railings and the grass bund who will be cleaning this as council don't clean clean it already earth buns are for the country not in the centre of towns a special town of Dumfries and says I have campaign for years to have flood defences but certainly not this one thank you very much thank you mr slater questions david thank you convener um somebody who was a local councillor before an nsp is this still going through the consultation process where council and is it still going through the planning process well they say they're still looking at it but what happened was last november november was it december was it john december december last december i think it was the 14th my my campaign was gathering pace and they had a large meeting in st george street hall where around about approximately 100 people turned up but and he presented a power point presentation at the end of it uh the company that built the cockamish floating wall scheme the kind of the week he said it wouldn't work in Dumfries it was too cost for Dumfries and uh they couldn't cope with the drainage but mr kelly who owns this worldwide company uh uk flood barriers uh he came i invited him to Dumfries and he brought his systems to Dumfries his ability systems worldwide and he also wrote to the council and refuted what they'd actually said at that meeting and since then our i have some photographs here i can leave you obviously have time to look at today i can show you the car park and this is obviously a walk up of what they intend to build but now they're saying that they're still looking at it and they said they've engaged with uk flood barriers but only on the morning that mr kelly came here to do the meeting before that there was no real contact for at least two years mr slater you're saying your evidence here they'd only talked to one company but surely a council under european law when a project is sizes of a certain they've got to put out to tender to different companies and different designs well i've actually done sir i've actually i asked for a freedom information act for the council to produce all that evidence back to me i've done that just a few days ago and hopefully i believe that they have 20 days to respond to it 28 i'm thinking this well actually gave them 28 but they came back and said they could do it in 20 so i'll live with that but once the final plans are drawn in their past by council that has got to go out to tender i must have well i must admit i wish if the council actually spoke to us like the they spoke to the people in penrith where they sat down around the table with the environment agency the the local people and the local council eventually all these things were actually put together and i think the total cost of the one at penrith was 4.4 million with the government paying the environment agency sorry paying just over 3 million of it the council paid just over a million and i think that 400 something thousand was raised by public donations so and i hope to say the scheme here mr kelly said he could probably do for half the price and keep our river views and a very very important car parks the council want to move the cars of the white sands but the perfect one is for the this is a hub of our town this is the safest place in our town to park our cars there's not a safer place the police will actually tell you it's very very open it's very good it could do with a massive tidy up i grant you that which i can leave these photographs to show you but i think that they're going down the road wrong road with this design most big towns open the river up nowadays people to see it if you have a river in a town it's it's just good to have that most big towns would love a river we have one but we're not you know looking after him we're also going to box it in by 3.5 meter walls and i think that's not acceptable can i ask mr slater um what the environmental impact would go be if the defences didn't go ahead and i'll give you an example um i represent the cory constituency we've just had to spend 11 and a half million building a new seawall beautiful views but we had to raise it so high to protect all the houses behind it and the community accepted it because the defences they were in place to protect their high street and the house in there well can i say that this wall system i've studied it for some time and they built a part of it in cockermouth this wall actually uses river water it's a bit like jekyll and hide i suppose the river tries to flood the town but the wall the river also lifts the wall as well and it can lift it and the highest it can lift it at the moment it depends on the area what the river levels are but it can lift as much as 2.5 meters they're built over the world this company covers the washington museum it covers dunry a new coo reactor station and many many put just a zoo in malaysia recently and they're actually looking at stone haven a stone house is it in abardinshire there's a big project there come possibly being looked at and in some of the design that wall system appears that maybe we use because what it does in cockermouth the houses are only from here firstly here to the river and when that wall was built it never disturbed the houses so the build time is much much less it's less disruption and the views are left to the people and when the river rises and actual fact the houses are starting to sell next to the river now so that's a regeneration process it's certainly working and believe it or not many people have been to view this wall because it's very unique and it's become a bit of a tourist attraction believe it or not so as regards regeneration i think it would possibly help them please as well as people would come to view it a wee bit of context about the actual flooding in them please is that it tends to only happen for about two or three days a year on the high tide and most times it's actually quite a modest level i think you know it's about once in every 30 years that you really get a big flood the problem with the current proposal from the council is they're proposing a 365 day barrier for a flood that only comes for probably about 40 hours a year whereas the solution that david's talking about because it reacts to the river only comes up for that critical 40 hour period time and disappears the council have consulted in but partly in terms of your previous question but the consultations so far are really splitting the community and what we're finding is that more and more people are signing the petition against the current proposal the council have indicated that they cannot carry out their proposal without funding from yourselves from the scotish government they're looking for 80% of say 15 16 million you know we're well over 10 million pounds they'll be looking for from the scotish government so this petition is really asking you asking the government not to fund that particular scheme quite happy to look at alternatives that there are some there but i think it's important to put it in that context we believe that i'm a previous councillor of dumfries and galloway council in fact i led the council for four years up till 1999 and during that period we had a number of schemes brought forward about flood prevention all of which were rejected what we feel has happened here is that the council has appointed gillespie's consultants who are largely known for landscaping are as landscaping consultants and what we do not need in dumfries is a landscaping solution we need an engineering solution and i think that that's where part of the problem has occurred so we're just urging the scotish government on this occasion not we're trying to save you money isn't that marvellous no yep we think it's right and proper that scotish government has created a flood prevention fund for scotland but i'd have to say that my limited knowledge of other areas of scotland would suggest that there are other areas of scotland that would merit this money far more than dumfries i think probably i mean today i mean your your issue is really a local issue and i think probably where you need to be as you have your local representatives sitting down around the table because i'm looking at the petition and you're absolutely right it's going you know signature day after day after day but i'm also looking at the evidence here saying that the local council has actually done a consultation you know with a number of people and that's why they've actually come up with this new vision you know to protect the you know the area so i think probably from our point of view we would encourage everybody you need to get back around about the table for you know to have this dialogue discussion how best you're going to go forward but we'll make a decision you know when we're finished the question but one thing i'd also like to point out to you is that i've been advised that the Dumfries and Galloway the White Sands project has been one of the unsuccessful applications this year 15 and 16 and that was in a question by Sarah Boyack and answered by Paul Wheelhouse and it's so the so the funding for for White Sands in years 15 and 16 has been unsuccessful and that was a question sorry that was a question last last May that was a question the last time yeah yes i have to say i believe that the fund they did put in funding request sorry they did put a funding request in but it was flawed apparently because i wrote to Paul Wheelhouse and i think the time was running out and by the time they put it in it was still flawed and it was that's probably the reason it's been rejected yeah absolutely the White Sands the White Sands appeal project is actually is further to an ongoing appeal and so that i've still been discussed is there any further questions could i maybe ask the committee what their course of action would be in this petition could you please ask the council for a more detailed view i mean presumably they didn't arrive at a scheme to cope with flood prevention just because they thought it was a lovely idea there must have been something a little bit more fundamental under pinning that investigation and i think i would like to know what that was and have a broader understanding because i imagine there'll be lots of people seeing it's not an issue but it may very well be a very considerable issue for some and therefore i think i would like to just have the council's perspective and all of that and then it maybe have from ask them also why it was they did a light on this particular solution of the ones they considered and if in fact they haven't been successful funding what they think they're likely course of action now might be David I'm happy to agree with Jackson that we'd write to council get information from him but i feel this is a real local issue that are still dialogue out there needs to be taken ahead with the local community out there engage with the local community and the council and sit round the table because from what i can see that plans aren't finalised yet either have not been passed through full council so dialogue's important and maybe we could resolve this by doing that happy to have more meaningful dialogue with the council i've reminded them of the your own document about the principles of community engagement where there are 10 guidelines that councils or authority should follow it's our feeling then don't recent gallery that they have not followed that properly although they've had some consultation meetings they have pushed one scheme you know that the exclusion of all the other options and people like myself and davids later when we make representations are simply rebuffed in fact they won't even speak to us they don't want to talk to us now um and i think any pressure that can be brought by yourselves to require the council to meet those principles or those guidelines of community engagement in the locality we'd be very grateful for i think it's also important that you must involve your local representatives in this yes you must get the empty beach up and down you know the plan department stores saying that you wish to be be consulted with them yes i think as john saves i must admit that we haven't had no dialogue with us and yet our campaign is a reasonable size and i believe if the campaign hadn't been started i believe it would still be pushed on to this particular design which i think is business people at everybody walks alive visitors on that cannot believe that they want to build something like that but you can't see a river i'll leave these with you you can obviously look at them i think the white sands is a very important area it feeds to me and it feeds the fryer's vinyl and it feeds bank street but people stop there and they're talking about taking lines of the street to create more parking but the perfect line is we don't first try all the needs more parking but not to move the parking that's what's really an issue here but when you're driving up the street you see a space we've we've agreed mr slater we'll write to the local council and the local council yes so can i thank mr slater and mr dowson for attending that concludes the formal business of the committee today and can i on behalf of the committee thank everybody into presets been a an extreme pleasure being here today and the committee intends to now stay for at least another half an hour so those members of the public would like to stay behind for a q&a please feel free to do so and i'll now formally close the meeting thank you