Organic Waste Disposal (PE327)
Agenda item 4 is petition PE327 from the Blairingone and Saline action group, which, as members know, relates to organic waste spreading.
Members have received a paper from me, in my capacity as reporter on the issue, which has been circulated along with a number of written submissions that resulted from the call for evidence on the petition. The purpose of the paper is to update us on the work that was done during the recess. I will highlight some of the key issues and invite the committee to agree next steps. This is an important aspect of our work.
I thank the petitioners in the first instance for bringing the matter to the attention of the Scottish Parliament and for doing so in an organised and structured manner. The evidence that we obtained from the petitioners during the recess showed that they know how to present their case and they did that well.
When I visited the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in Stirling, I discovered several things that amazed me. I learned that I could go to a second-hand shop and buy a tractor, some injecting equipment and an articulated container, then go to an abattoir to collect blood and other products that have been mentioned. Without notifying the neighbours, I could get a piece of land, go out at 2 o'clock in the morning and spread the products on the land while someone with a torch ran behind my injecting equipment unclogging the products from it. I know that it is early in the morning to discuss such matters, but it astonishes me that I could get permission to do that.
There are mountains of regulations on other areas of waste management—transfer notes, regulations on the control of waste and regulations on hazardous waste—but no statutory guidance on this area. There is a code of practice, but some people do not know that the code exists and others cannot get their hands on a copy.
If I want to dispose of organic waste, I only have to tell the organisations, such as SEPA, that are involved in enforcing the current regulations what I am doing, why it is exempt from the regulations and where I am going with the waste. I find it quite surprising that I do not have to tell them what is in the waste. In these days of E coli, BSE, pathogens and other such critical issues, I find it surprising that we do not have greater control over the disposal of organic waste. Even if the land is frozen, it is the middle of winter and it is 2 am and dark, I can still do that work. That has led to surprising conclusions from the evidence that we took.
We have received quite a lot of detailed information. The purpose of the paper is not to pass judgment. The report has not yet been written and recommendations have not yet been made. We are trying to agree our next course of action, review the evidence and hear comments from members. We need to work with the Health and Community Care Committee on some matters in the paper.
I found the subject interesting and thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to report on it. There is a lot of national interest in the issue, which is another good example of committees being able to take evidence from communities with the aim of bringing things to a satisfactory conclusion.
I have a fair degree of knowledge about the matter, but I will not go on because I would rather hear members' views on the report. I will then invite George Reid, who has an interest in the subject, to comment. Once members have had the opportunity to contribute, I will summarise their views and add more of my views to the discussion.
Once you have gathered those views, what do you consider that the next step should be? Would it involve finding the time to have a committee inquiry and making a recommendation to the Executive?
My view is that little would be gained by taking oral evidence. The information that we have in the submissions is pretty good. The quality of information is there, and there is a degree of interpretation and recommendation to come out of it. Having an oral evidence session would mean delaying a time-critical issue. As the reporter on the petition, my view is that I should get on with the work instead of waiting for further oral evidence. That will allow us to deal with the issue more speedily.
That clarifies things nicely. Speed is of the essence and, if you feel that taking oral evidence would delay matters, I am disposed to take the course that you suggest, which is to gather our views on the evidence that we have and to proceed as quickly as possible.
I agree entirely with that position. The delay in taking action has already been too long. This is an accident—perhaps a disaster—waiting to happen; the practice should be stopped forthwith. The sooner we get to work on this the better. One of the options was to start the drafting process now—it is my view that we should do that.
I wonder whether, when we are considering the evidence, we could do something on odour pollution. Because of all the things that create a smell, the countryside is not odour-free—it never will be and never should be—but sometimes there are stenches that can make people physically sick. What is a stench and what is an odour is very much a subjective judgment. The community that I lived in was affected by something similar. By the time the environmental health people come out to investigate, the odour has gone and nothing can be done about it. I do not know whether there is any scientific method of measuring stench, but perhaps we should look into that.
You will see in the evidence from SEPA that the best mechanism for detecting odours is the human nose—two of them are needed to substantiate a case. That is a big issue. The communities that are most closely involved were concerned that by the time someone got there—including the police, if they were involved—the persistence of the odour might have declined marginally, thereby reducing the nuisance effect. That is especially the case if the activity is happening at night, because it is all the harder for anyone to get there. It is a relevant point, which we should consider.
I endorse my colleagues' view that we should try to expedite consideration of this gobsmacking issue. I would not have believed that this type of thing actually happens. It is a credit to the Parliament and its processes that we are able to consider a public petition in the committee. That is a great step forward and something that presumably would never have happened, pre-devolution. I happily endorse what other members have said and your paper, convener. You have got to the heart of the matter and done a fair bit of work over the summer. You are to be congratulated on that.
Thank you for those kind comments.
I endorse what members have been saying. There is so much material here that taking oral evidence would just slow things down. From the evidence that we have, it looks as though things are about to happen from other directions. Some of the aspects that we are concerned about will be covered by European legislation and things that SEPA is introducing. Once the convener's report pulls it all together, it will be interesting to see where the gaps are. That will inform us about where we might want to push forward.
The ball is rolling, but we need to know in which direction to give it a push. The quicker that we receive the convener's report, which will pull together all the issues, the easier it will be to see where the committee can have most effect.
Perhaps it is too early to talk about SEPA's conclusions and recommendations, but paragraph 6.9 of SEPA's report, "Strategic Review of Organic Waste Spread on Land" states:
"A charging scheme will be necessary to finance effective regulation."
We should debate and discuss that. The matter is one of public health as well as waste disposal. Elsewhere in Europe, public health matters are dealt with from the public purse rather than from industry.
You are right that we are a bit early for that discussion. The report will identify the issues and when recommendations are made, committee members will have plenty opportunity to comment.
I wanted to put down a marker on the issue.
The point is taken.
I have a more general point. If I remember correctly, the petition first came before the Parliament in September 1999. A point that could be raised at the conveners liaison group—this could apply to a couple of other petitions—is the possibility of fast-tracking some petitions. The petition has been hanging around for a considerable time. The people of Blairingone have suffered for two years and by the time that something has been done, we will realise that it could have been done earlier—that suffering could have ended a year ago.
I am grateful to the convener and members for the opportunity to join the committee. I am also grateful to the convener for the solid work that he did during the summer. In my part of Scotland, the fact that he visited Argaty and Blairingone has convinced people that the Parliament is working with and listening to people.
I am a guest of the committee. I realise that decisions are entirely for members and that some of the decisions may take time. I am anxious not to run shock-horror coverage of a delicate issue. I hope to speak once to delineate a few issues and speak again only if members have questions.
Nora Radcliffe talked about gaps. I want to delineate those gaps because the matter is complex and involves many different constituencies and regulatory bodies, the Parliament, the Westminster Parliament and the European Union in terms of past and future directives.
How do we delineate the gaps? There are three key documents and the convener's report will, I hope, become a fourth key document. The first document is SEPA's "Strategic Review of Organic Waste Spread on Land"—the OWL report—of 1998. That report had its origins in Blairingone, because the BBC film made by the environment correspondent Louise Batchelor entitled "Fields of Filth" got Lord Sewel moving.
The second key document is the statement made a few days before Christmas 2000 by Sam Galbraith, who was at that time the minister with responsibility for the environment. The statement made some progress but it was a bit like a curate's egg. The third key document was SEPA's response to Sam Galbraith, notably the letter from the chief executive, Patricia Henton, of 6 January 2001.
We have talked about gaps. The key area for the committee to consider is the gap between what Sam Galbraith said and Patricia Henton's response. By considering that, the committee can help to inform the work that is being done by the civil service; it can scrutinise that work and add value to the process. I know some of the gaps and the questions to ask about them, but I do not know the answers.
The first issue is the need for joined-up regulation within a consistent legislative framework. I welcome the Executive's proposal to place the safe sludge matrix on a statutory basis and I note that the Executive has said that the treatment plants will be in place by the end of the year, but that is not the question. The question is what sort of treatment plants they will be. Members are aware that we now have enhanced sludge. I would be happier with the American system, which has grades A, B and C—grade A is certified free of prions, pathogens and potential toxic elements.
The second issue is the fact that the Executive relies on the code of practice on the prevention of environmental pollution from agricultural activities—PEPFAA—which is voluntary and impossible to police. The Executive's research shows that only a small number of farmers possess a copy of the code and that even fewer practise it. Furthermore, even fewer contractors than farmers possess a copy and even fewer of them again practise it.
On the convener's opening remarks, the other night I was with a Swedish journalist who specialises in environmental coverage and he found it extraordinary that someone can receive a licence to handle exempt waste without having to show any proof of competence. That is a major issue as far as public perception is concerned and, at times, such perception in relation to this matter has been as important as safe sustainability.
If we examine the situation in detail, we see that there are also substantial difficulties with definitions. For example, what in law is "arable" land? No one knows. What does "free from harmful substances" mean? There is no legal definition. How, in court, does one define the key determinant, which is
"benefit to agriculture or ecological improvement"?
Finally, what is "nuisance through odours"? The definition is not written down in any law book. Frankly, we are dealing with past practice without any definitions to guide us.
The key issue raised by the Blairingone petitioners is that organic waste to land should be safe. Although I have always accepted the likely benefits of organic waste's application in terms of nutrients and soil friability—we simply cannot go on filling up holes in the ground in Scotland—I want to be sure that all the waste in the OWL strategy is safe and free of pathogens, prions and other potentially toxic elements.
I fully accept that Snowie Ltd now strives to attain the highest standards and has taken a highly responsible attitude towards the application of blood to land, but the company has been prosecuted twice in the Blairingone area and although its application talks about "reducing or eliminating" PTEs, we should remember that Professor Brian Austin of Heriot-Watt University said that he found E coli, E coli 0157 and salmonella in samples that he took there.
I do not know, but I know that this is an issue of public perception. An interesting snippet in paragraph 2.3.2 of the SEPA evidence reveals that the agency has contacted the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health and the area health boards
"with a view to forming an investigation team to address the specific concerns of the residents of Blairingone"
and to determine
"whether public health has been affected by the spreading activities in the area."
I would be most grateful if the convener could instruct the clerk to obtain the investigation team's terms of reference and a list of the work that it has undertaken to date and to arrange for the final report to be tabled here. That would go a long way towards satisfying the concerns of the Blairingone residents.
The third and final issue centres on how we can achieve sustainability. One telling area that has not been touched on in any detail by the Executive but which has been dealt with substantially in SEPA's soil quality report, which was published this year, is the repeated application of organics and inorganics to land. The report makes it clear that the fact that the output of contaminants and their impact are not largely known is one of the
"principal threats to soil quality and the long-term sustainable use of soils".
The report also notes the real threat to the aqueous environment by run-off from land drains acting largely as suction pumps and proposes the end of the practice of injection to land with field drains. I do not know how practical that measure would be for farmers, who do not like red tape. Perhaps the committee, in its on-going work on the issue, could find and speak to a working farmer who owns injecting equipment, because that would clarify matters substantially. Up to now, I have been unable to find such a farmer.
As a result of my inquiries, I am a bit attracted to the principle of land management plans, which the committee can discuss in detail. However, I know that the farming industry is fragile at the moment and I do not want to put undue burdens on it. As I said, farmers hate more red tape.
When the convener writes the report, perhaps he could ask himself a simple question, which I found helpful. As he examines each activity, he should ask whether it is a genuine farming activity that benefits agriculture or whether, in reality, it is quasi-industrial—the removal of waste by the cheapest route. That must be addressed.
There is much more to say, but I will spend the last minute on two final points. The first is Argaty and the 100,000 gallons of bovine blood. I am conscious of the convener's remarks about the fact that litigation is continuing. That blood is more than nine months old. I am not saying—and have never said—that anyone has broken the law, but the law is lax and the regulations are not joined up. I am not saying that the blood is dangerous—I do not know whether it is, although I have listened to Professor Austin—but I am saying that the public perception presents a danger to the farming industry. Members will be aware that the malting industry is beginning to refuse to take grain from fields on which sludge or blood has been spread, so public perception is an issue and there is a fiscal risk to the farming industry. As the Transport and the Environment Committee is responsible for monitoring the Scottish environment, I hope that it will agree to write to the Executive and to SEPA to ask what action they intend to take.
Finally, I have known the petitioners for four years. I deeply regret that Snowie Ltd chose to denigrate them in its evidence. The petitioners are decent people; Duncan Hope is a man committed to the land and to the safe environment of his village. Of course the core group is small—it never set out to be a mass movement. Among the signatories to the petition are more than 300 people who are resident in the immediate locality of Blairingone and Saline. That is a much higher participation rate than was achieved in the general election.
We are building a new political culture in Scotland. We are working in partnership with the people. I am grateful to the committee for its work. If the petition had been tabled at Westminster, it would simply have been paraded down the floor of the Commons, plopped in a poke behind the Speaker's chair and that would have been the end of it.
Thanks very much. Your imagery at the end was useful.
Do members wish to make any other comments? I think that we have covered the ground.
I want to ask how widespread the practice is. Do we have any idea? Perhaps that is in the material somewhere.
Part of the problem is the lack of analysis. One of the reports mentions that the practice is fairly controlled and not as widespread as might be thought from the coverage that there has been. I think that 2 per cent was the figure mentioned in the SEPA document, but that will need to be verified.
It would be best to begin concluding matters with the petitioners. They came to us and we went to visit them. Bruce Crawford and I spoke to local people—we were told about children with sores and children visiting the doctor frequently with inexplicable illnesses. Although there was no conclusive proof on the health issues, there were many coincidences.
We cannot forget that we create the waste and we need to deal with it. There are ways of doing that that protect the environment and public health, but the appropriate structures are not available to us. The report will need to examine that. George Reid's point is correct: I have some background in waste management and the waste industry and what I saw was not farming and enhancement of the land to generate better soil and improved growth of crops; it was waste disposal. That is the difference.
The waste management licence regulations were designed to give exemptions for the purpose of enhancing the land, developing the soil and so on. The process that is going on is an industrial process. Therefore, the controls do not fit with that. We need to deal with those issues. George Reid covered several points, which I will take cognisance of in the report. We will refer the health issues to our colleagues on the Health and Community Care Committee.
I met the Institute of Wastes Management and was surprised by the uniformity with regard to what SEPA has said, what the industry wants to happen and what Snowie Ltd wants to happen. We are getting round to developing good practice, but it is not enforced to the degree that it should be, which is part of the problem.
It is true that the Ayrshire study showed that when farmers where asked whether they had a copy of the PEPFAA code they said, "Maybe aye, maybe no" and just under half of them could not lay their hands on a copy. Contractors did not have copies either, so the voluntary approach clearly is not working as it should. We need a new framework. That is clear from members' comments. It is important that we demonstrate the benefit to the environment. There is concern about land management plans. The Executive initially said no to the idea, but there are good grounds for such plans and we will pursue that in the report.
The issue of field drains is difficult. They are, as SEPA says, the most direct route to the water course, but if something goes wrong, the effect on the environment and public health can be quick and dangerous. We will pursue the fact that no training or experience is required to spread waste on land. Once again, there is a gap that we need to examine.
If members agree—and I have not heard anybody say otherwise—we should not waste any more time taking oral evidence; we should commission the clerks and me to draft the report and bring it back to the committee. I thank the committee for its supportive comments.
I will take the committee through the conclusions that we have to reach so that we can structure our thoughts on the matter. Do members agree to note the evidence that the committee received during the summer?
Members indicated agreement.
Does the committee agree to seek evidence from the petitioners and SEPA to establish their responses to the Executive's submission?
Members indicated agreement.
Does the committee agree to mandate me as a reporter to begin drafting the report on the issues that have been raised by the petition and by members this morning?
Members indicated agreement.
I have two small points. On the PEPFAA code, within the farming industry—in which I declare an interest—there is accepted best practice for spreading animal waste and manure, which is adhered to by the great majority of farmers. The issue of field drains is difficult. Many farmers will not be aware that their land has field drains, because in many cases the field drains were installed 100 to 200 years ago, so maps of them do not exist and they could not be mapped. That is a tricky problem.
It is a very tricky problem. We could build in other controls—audit trails, requirements, permissions, tests and pre-treatments, as well as land management plans. The issue of land drains is important and John Scott is right to point out the difficulties.
I am happy to give any assistance that I can on practical farming matters.
Thanks very much.
The British Geological Survey has techniques that could quickly identify the position of land drains, but it might be expensive.
That is another matter, which I will consider in drafting the report. We have agreed the action that will be taken. Are there any other comments?
I have some quick points. First, John Scott pre-empted my point on land drains, which is that many of them may even be medieval. The situation will be weakened if regulations are made that cannot be enforced. It must be borne in mind that regulations must be practicable.
Secondly, George Reid talked about layering agricultural pollution on the land and about the fact that nobody is examining the combined effects of that. That is very much a topic of the moment, on which a lot of work is being and will be done. The situation will be driven by European directives. It is already being driven by nitrate vulnerable zones and that sort of thing.
My last point is to pick up on SEPA charging to cover its costs. We have to remember that the polluter-pays principle will probably apply as much as the public health principle.
I will reflect those views in drafting the committee report. We can discuss them further once the report is available.
Are members agreed that we proceed on the basis that I have indicated?
Members indicated agreement.