Official Report 357KB pdf
Organic Waste Disposal (PE327)
Committee members will recall that we decided to appoint Dorothy-Grace Elder as a reporter and Dr John Curno as our adviser on petition PE327. We requested them to report back to the committee on whether the health aspects of the petition were being dealt with properly. To assist her in that process, Dorothy-Grace has arranged this morning's evidence-taking session.
Good morning. Since I last gave evidence to the committee, the Blairingone and Saline Action Group's petition PE327 has made remarkable progress through the Scottish Parliament's committee system. That progress is well documented and has resulted in visits to both Blairingone and Argaty by Andy Kerr MSP, plus a report from the Transport and the Environment Committee that was published on 7 March 2002. A full debate on the matter was held in the chamber last October and a health investigation is being undertaken in our community. The willingness of the Parliament to come to Blairingone to listen to the concerns of the local residents and to consult them in their own homes has been much appreciated by the community. As I have said previously, that has brought the people much closer to the Parliament than they had ever been to it before.
Thank you. I open up the debate to questions and remind members that they will get the chance to ask questions of the EHIT later this morning.
Mr Hope, you stated your case very clearly. However, for the sake of absolute clarity, perhaps you could confirm the timing of events. You said that the Blairingone and Saline Action Group was told nothing of the setting up of the EHIT until a letter arrived on 4 April 2002, telling you that the matter was over and that the investigation team had decided not to proceed with its investigation. It was only some weeks afterwards that you received an invitation to visit SEPA in Stirling to discuss the matter. That invitation came only after the perceived finale, when the letter arrived saying that it was all over.
The invitation came seven weeks after the letter arrived and only after I had written to SEPA, asking for confirmation that the EHIT was to reconvene. We found out only through the media that the EHIT was to reconvene.
Had your MSPs been informed, given that several of them were involved?
I forwarded a copy of Dr Roworth's letter to George Reid.
But that was after the event.
Yes. We did not know that the EHIT existed. When Andy Kerr's report was published on 7 March, the action group expected the EHIT to be set up. We waited to learn the names of the people who would sit on the committee and to be passed a copy of the terms of reference. We expected to be contacted by the EHIT to be asked to provide a list of names of the people who were to be interviewed. No one contacted us, and we never knew that the EHIT had been established.
Were you given any details of the remit of the working group that undertook the investigation?
Only in Dr Roworth's letter of 4 April and in a copy of the terms of reference, which, again, I had to request. Those two documents arrived at the end of May 2002; seven months after the EHIT had first met in October 2001.
Have you any idea who appointed the EHIT?
We knew that the idea of the EHIT was part of SEPA's submission of 5 September 2001 in response to the petition, but we did not know that it had been set up. We were under the impression that, because it was recommended in Andy Kerr's report, the EHIT would be part of a parliamentary investigation, which is why we did not expect anything until after 7 March when Andy Kerr's report was published.
Have you no idea who was ultimately responsible for setting up the committee? Was it SEPA, the minister or someone else?
We never even knew that the EHIT existed until we received Dr Roworth's letter dated 4 April.
When the petition came to the Parliament and your community knew that there was to be an investigation, which stakeholders did the people of the community think would be involved in the inquiry?
Several people with alleged illnesses—well, the illnesses are not alleged; they exist—expected the team to do what Andy Kerr and his team from the Transport and the Environment Committee did when they carried out their inquiry, which was to come out to visit people in their own homes in the community. We are talking about cases of illness that should be treated as confidential, not discussed in public meetings. The community expected the team to visit, and we were going to provide a list of names for the team to aid its visit, but it never came.
You mentioned that you were invited to a meeting in Stirling with officials of SEPA. What sort of protest were you making when you decided not to attend?
We thought that we would not get a proper investigation. How could there be an investigation into, in the words of the report,
Do you think that SEPA's view might be that if you had attended the meeting and discussed the matter, it might have managed to keep you quiet?
SEPA must tell you whether that is the case. I did not go to the meeting; I refused to go.
You referred to a list of names of people in Blairingone who alleged that they had illnesses that could be environmentally related. Approximately how many were on that list?
We knew of about 30.
Given that people's problems in the village are related to particular effects on them, how were local authority environmental health people involved prior to your raising concerns about the setting up of the EHIT? Was the health board involved? Had it expressed concern?
We did not have much co-operation from environmental health officers. They came out occasionally, primarily at the beginning of the campaign, to ascertain whether there was an odour. However, neither the environmental health department nor SEPA could make up their minds about who was responsible for the odour. We had no contact with public health.
I understand that Saline is in Fife, but Blairingone must be just about on the border with Perth and Kinross.
We are in a wee corner of no-man's-land. We are in Kinross-shire, but our postal address is Dollar, Clackmannanshire. We are in the wee bit of no-man's-land between Fife, Perth and Kinross and Clackmannan, about eight miles north of the Kincardine bridge on the A977.
Which local authority showed the interest to which you referred?
Do you mean medical interest?
Yes—I am asking about the environmental health department.
It was Perth and Kinross Council.
You have obviously been campaigning on the matter since 1997, when it first arose as an issue in your local area. However, you would argue that the issue is not just a local one but that it has national implications.
Yes.
In the minutes of the two meetings that the EHIT held, reference is made on several occasions to cost and to the length of time it would take for a full inquiry into the health implications. What is your attitude to that?
I do not think that that should be a consideration at all. We are talking about people's health and their concerns about that. Why should cost come into it? We are talking about people's lives. They are real people and the illnesses are real. We want to get to the bottom of the situation.
I want to make just one point for clarification. You were eventually given the offer of a meeting in Stirling, but it is my understanding that the purpose of that meeting was not to have a discussion—as the convener said—but for you to be told why a decision had been reached.
That is correct. I was not even invited. The wording of the letter was that the EHIT had indicated that it would like to meet with me, as convener of the action group, at SEPA's Stirling office.
Thank you for your evidence this morning, which has been helpful to the committee.
I have a brief comment, which is not a statement as such. Obviously, I am happy to help in any way that I can, but I ask the committee to remember that four months have passed since I left SEPA and I no longer have any connection with the organisation. The issues raised in the petition took place in the past, so it is probable that many of the questions that you will ask me would be better answered by people who are still actively involved.
We appreciate your trouble in coming today, although, as you stated, you have left SEPA, where you were chief executive. After Dr Mike Roworth, the public health consultant at Tayside, wrote in April 2002 that the EHIT was not going to proceed with its inquiry, did you publicly reject the way the investigation had been conducted and, if so, why?
I know that we had had a lot of discussion internally, but in terms of what you call public rejection, I would need to be reminded of the sequence of events. I know that I commented on the matter—a short television interview took place at some stage last year, but I cannot remember exactly when that happened. I have a feeling that it was either late in the summer or early in the autumn.
Would it be fair to say—despite various cuttings and so on—that you were concerned about the fact that the public and the action group in Saline and Blairingone had not been involved, that people had not been visited and that you wanted something to be done about the situation? Would that be a fair summation?
Yes, that would be a fair comment.
It was rather unusual, I think, for you—or SEPA—to make a criticism after the EHIT had concluded. Would you agree?
I am not sure whether my comments would necessarily be considered as a criticism. When there is public concern about a health issue, it is important that people feel that they have had a fair chance to put their case. I recall that that was what concerned us. No matter what the details, the people involved must feel that they have had a fair opportunity to put their case.
Indeed, SEPA helped to compose guidelines on how EHITs should be used. The guidelines have a rather cumbersome title, which Ms Henton will know only too well: "Dealing with assertions of human health risks or effects from environmental exposures—a systematic approach". Do you feel that the EHIT followed the guidelines on public consultation, the necessity for which is mentioned throughout that document?
We were concerned because we did not feel that everything had been done to give the public confidence that they had been listened to properly.
The EHIT had only two meetings, which were attended by a SEPA representative, Mr Brian Roxburgh. The minutes of the meetings show that the conclusion not to proceed was unanimous—there is no sign of any dissent from Mr Roxburgh or others about that. Will you comment on that? SEPA was involved in the team through a senior representative. Why was there no dissent from SEPA at that point?
Mr Roxburgh is better able than I am to answer that question.
Did you know that the EHIT had been set up?
To be honest, I cannot recall whether I knew. You will appreciate that a great number of things go on in SEPA and, as chief executive, I would not necessarily have known about the team at that time.
Did you know of other EHITs operating in your time at SEPA?
I was not aware of any, but that does not mean to say that there were not any. Again, SEPA staff might be better able to answer that question.
Have SEPA and others learned something for the future about the way in which an EHIT's work should be conducted? Is there room for improvement?
Public bodies should always be able to learn lessons from committees that are set up to look into problems that the bodies have. I am certain that SEPA and the other organisations involved will consider the matter and ensure that future committees learn from it.
I assume that you understand that there is a wider national public concern.
Yes.
People will be inclined to wonder whether other controversial matters have been given a completely clean bill of health after only a perfunctory examination and without public involvement. The issue is not only about Blairingone; it is a national issue.
The handling of any such issue is a public matter. The issue stretched across areas of public life such as health, environment and food.
When the Blairingone and Saline Action Group began to hit the headlines and the Parliament became involved, I would have expected a case conference to be established by the professionals who had a stake in the issue. Is that a fair comment? Did such a conference take place and, if so, which stakeholders were involved? Someone, somewhere must have taken the initiative to set up the EHIT, but it is not clear who did so.
I am sorry to seem evasive again, but I am not familiar with the details of how the process was conducted in SEPA or any other organisations. I am sure that my former colleagues could help you on that. I was involved in discussions that took place at various stages, but I do not remember where they fit into the sequence of events.
Will you comment on the general principle? As Dorothy-Grace Elder said, we are considering a national issue. Who would you, as a professional, expect to be involved in the conduct of such an investigation? I am mindful of a discussion that I had with SEPA's chair, who complained that a hazard impact assessment is not made before planning permission approval is given. Such points arise when we discuss more national issues. Who would you expect to be involved in preparing a hazard impact assessment?
Two separate issues are involved. The issue back at the land use planning stage is separate from the question of how a case is dealt with. The document with the horrendously unwieldy title that you mentioned is useful in dealing with cases. It sets out well the process that can be used to deal with an issue once it has arisen. How that situation is avoided by action way back in the planning process and in the granting of authorisations is a different matter. I know that concern is felt that the present land use planning system might not take adequate account of environmental issues.
I bring you back to the fundamental question. Who would you expect to be the stakeholders who are involved? For example, there was no sign that residents were involved. Perhaps other people should have been involved, such as MSPs and local council representatives. A group seems to have been parachuted in from we do not know where.
The document sets out the agencies that should be involved, such as consultants in public health medicine, environmental health agencies and SEPA, because the issue is environmental. On page 3, the document says that the importance of having a meaningful dialogue with the community and its representatives cannot be overstated. That sentence is extremely important.
Has not a weakness just been pointed to? Being meaningfully consulted is different from being involved as an equal partner round the table.
Once the procedure is in progress, local community representatives are obviously key stakeholders. The public bodies do their job on behalf of those people.
Might MSPs and councillors have been meaningfully involved in sitting round the table with the professionals?
I will speak in generalities, because I do not want to go into the detail of the specific case under discussion, as I lack back-up and papers. In some cases, councillors, MSPs, MPs or others will be, or should have been, involved; they are public representatives, so they should obviously have a role.
Should they have been involved round the table when the discussions took place with people such as Mike Roworth and others?
In this case?
Yes.
I see no reason why they should not have been involved. I know that George Reid and other elected members were involved. That is right and proper.
You referred to a document that laid down certain guidelines. Who published that document and what is its name?
It has the wonderful title of "Dealing with assertions of human health risks or effects from environmental exposures—a systematic approach". It is a guidance document for Scotland that was published in June 2000.
Who published it?
It was published by the National Society for Clean Air (Scotland), the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health and two other organisations.
Was NHS Scotland involved?
Putting organisations' logos on a document is problematic when one cannot remember which organisations they represent.
It is hard for you to say which of those organisations would have been the lead body in putting together that document.
A group of people, the membership of which is listed inside the document, was involved in putting it together. Members of the group came from a range of organisations. As I recall, the document was produced under a research contract.
Who set up that research contract?
I think that the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research funded it. I am sorry—I was wrong: SEPA and the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health funded it.
When Mr Hope described his understanding of the situation, he seemed to think that SEPA was the lead organisation in setting up the EHIT. Are you saying that SEPA was not the lead organisation?
If you do not mind, the relevant people within SEPA would be better placed to answer that question.
I accept that, although you were the chief executive of SEPA—the lead person within that organisation. One could say that the basis of the Blairingone complaints was of national importance. I would have thought that the senior figure in SEPA would have known who set up the EHIT and what its remit was. Surely you had an important input.
As an organisation, SEPA had an important input. Later on, I was aware of what was happening and was involved in internal discussions about the conduct of the investigation. However, within SEPA, staff have a specific delegated role in dealing with dozens of issues on a daily basis. That means that the director of operations and his staff have primary responsibility for dealing with such issues day in and day out.
I can understand that situation. Many issues must be dealt with at a local level, using SEPA's local structures. Are you saying that SEPA was dealing with the issue in question at a local level, at least in the first instance?
I think that that would be fair, yes. It was a local issue initially.
Thank you.
The issue has caused some controversy in this Parliament. It led to a Transport and the Environment Committee report, and a ministerial response in the form of a consultation paper. One of the key recommendations of that committee's report was to set up the investigation team. I understand from your answers this morning that there was no ministerial involvement in the setting up of the team, otherwise that would have gone through the chief executive. Is that the case?
There was no ministerial involvement.
So this was purely a response somewhere in the SEPA organisation to the recommendations of the Transport and the Environment Committee report. There was no political involvement in setting up the EHIT.
No.
Ministers did not know that the team was being set up. They did not know its remit and they did not know who was appointed to it.
I am not aware of that. My former colleagues might be able to assist more, but I am not aware that there was ministerial involvement in setting up the team.
It would be hugely unusual for ministers to appoint an investigation team without informing the chief executive of SEPA, especially when SEPA was represented on the investigation team.
Sorry, are we talking about the Blairingone EHIT?
Yes. If it had been a ministerial initiative, as chief executive you would be expected to know about it.
If it had been a ministerial initiative, yes, I would have known.
And the fact that you did not know suggests that ministers were not involved.
Yes.
You said in your evidence earlier this morning that you could not necessarily recall the details of the EHIT being set up, and that you would not have known specifically what was going on. Do you remember receiving three letters from me on the subject and there being three telephone calls between us?
Yes, indeed.
Can you recall the content? Would I be right in saying that my main concern was not to prove a causal connection between spreading and ill health, but to ensure that the process was open and transparent, and involved the villagers of Blairingone?
Yes, I remember that.
Did you pass that information to your colleagues in the EHIT?
Not specifically within the EHIT, because I recall that at that stage we had agreed that we had to handle the situation carefully and properly, but I discussed it, I think, with my director of operations, who was handling the matter.
Do you recall a most confidential list of 30 cases of ill health being sent to you personally?
I received various correspondence. Yes, there was a list.
Was that passed to the EHIT or to your colleague on the EHIT?
I am not certain. There was a list with names on it, and there was a list of complaints, as I recall. Each name had alongside it a specific complaint. I would have discussed that with my director of operations.
Was the list passed to the SEPA representative on the EHIT, and was it passed to the other members of the EHIT?
I do not know.
Looking back, are you concerned about funding for SEPA and other organisations that perform such investigations? Is there a funding shortage? Is there a shortage of people and expertise?
As a general principle, any organisation like SEPA that has a wide public role—and SEPA has a very wide remit to protect the public and environment—could always do with more funding. However, I am certain that we had a generous settlement over the past couple of years, and it was incumbent upon us to ensure that we used the funds most effectively across all the areas that the organisation was responsible for looking after.
There is no special budget allocation for investigations of this sort, following public concern. I know that you investigate things that happen as one-offs here and there, but there is no funding for EHITs per se, is there?
I am not aware that anything is ever set aside specifically. The money would come from the organisation's day-to-day operational budget.
Does SEPA receive quite a number of requests for wider investigations rather than investigations of one-off incidents that you can cope with on the spot? Are requests made for investigations of health issues that are connected with the environment, because there is so much concern about them? Do you get a lot of requests to deal with specific national issues?
I was not aware of what one would call a lot of requests. We got perhaps one or two such requests over the course of each year—we might not have had even as many as that.
What is the relationship between the chief executive and the chairman of SEPA? Is it a close relationship, or would the chairman come in only for board meetings and therefore not be aware of the issues that we are discussing?
It is the responsibility of the chief executive to keep the chairman informed of issues that are arising within SEPA. The chairman was certainly aware of the issue.
At what stage was he made aware?
I am afraid that I cannot remember. I would have to go back to notes to answer that.
Thank you, Miss Henton. You have been very helpful to the committee this morning and we thank you for your attendance.
I am pleased to make an opening statement to the committee on behalf of my colleagues. First and foremost, there appears to be a misunderstanding about why the EHIT was set up in the first place. I will give the committee the background. The setting up of the EHIT was first mentioned by John Milne, who is the director of environment services at Perth and Kinross Council, in February 2001—at least, that was the first that I heard of it. That was a few months after the publication in 2000 of the document that was referred to earlier. To my knowledge, this is the first time that the document has been used in the investigation of a hazard or an issue of this nature.
The implication so far is that the EHIT was SEPA's. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency took the initiative to set up the EHIT based on a letter from the environmental health section in Perth and Kinross Council, as Dr Roworth said. Representatives from there were also on the EHIT, as were Dr Roworth's colleagues in Fife and Clackmannanshire.
Thank you both for attending today.
That was suggested. A number of suggestions were made, for example meeting the public and Snowie Ltd, and having a site visit.
Who made those suggestions? Are you talking about within the EHIT?
Yes. I made those suggestions.
At some stage during and not after those two meetings you suggested that the public should be brought to the EHIT?
Not necessarily brought to the EHIT, but consulted in some way about the recommendations.
What happened to your suggestion? Was it rejected?
It was not rejected out of hand. The evidence that we had—evidence that was sent to Perth and Kinross Council of medical complaints from some of the local people—was considered. However, the medical opinion concluded that there was no biological plausibility.
You will understand that we are dealing with the democratic process. Let us run back just a moment. Before the EHIT convened for the first time, in October 2001, or during the two meetings that you had, did you express a wish that the public should be represented—that a representative from the Blairingone and Saline Action Group or an MSP should be present?
Yes. That was considered.
Who, then, said no to that?
There was agreement between the medical experts who were present that that would be for a second stage. Once the evidence was considered, however, there was no plausible reason for the investigation to move to a second stage.
Yes. That would be for a second stage. However, the guideline document says that an investigation cannot be a success unless the public are involved. The guideline document—which was written partially by SEPA—infers strongly that the public should be involved right from the start.
This is a learning process, and the second edition of the guidance document, which came out in November, stresses further the need for public involvement.
It is not minuted that you asked for the public to be involved, is it?
No.
But you did.
Yes, among other suggestions. The first meeting was an exploratory meeting to summarise—
But why did the others not want someone representing the public to be there? Did they give a reason?
It was not that they did not want the public to be represented. Perhaps you had better ask Dr Roworth.
But they said no.
It was not a flat no. After listening to the evidence that we had, and after examining the biological plausibility, they concluded that that was not necessary.
How many allegations about ill health were you dealing with?
As I say, SEPA is not a health expert. The evidence went to Perth and Kinross Council.
The minutes indicate that you were considering five cases. Is that correct?
I believe that that was the initial evidence.
Were there any subsequent cases?
No. No cases were identified to me, personally, although there may have been others.
The minutes refer to trying to pin addresses on a map to see wind direction, or whatever, and the figure five is mentioned. However, the Blairingone and Saline Action Group representatives have stated that they submitted a list of around 30 cases. Did you ever see that list?
No. Not at any time.
Were you concerned to any extent that there was no involvement of the people who had originally complained?
Not at the end of the second meeting. It would perhaps have been ideal to have had such involvement, but the medical opinion was firmly that that was not required.
Was the contractor, Snowie Ltd, contacted?
Not during the EHIT process.
Not by you or by anyone.
No. We are in regular contact with Snowie over other matters, so we are aware of the types of waste and the quantity that is being spread.
But the contractor was not visited or called during the EHIT process.
No.
Why not?
That was the decision of the EHIT as a whole.
Did you find the contractor not open about what was happening?
No. The contractor is generally very open.
I am not trying to infer otherwise. We have been to see the company and we found it to be open about what it is doing. Did any member of the team visit Blairingone? Or did the team visit Blairingone?
Not that I am aware of. The team certainly did not, although some members may have done.
Did anyone suggest that a questionnaire should be circulated to the villagers?
Not to my recollection.
What would you say is the population of Blairingone, roughly?
Two or three hundred, perhaps.
So it would have been quite easy to circulate a questionnaire.
Yes.
There would be no more than about 100 houses. Did you think that you were rather short-funded to conduct such an investigation?
The funding was adequate for the initial study that was held. There was no question about that. To go into a second stage would have required considerable funding.
Did you agree with your then chief executive, Ms Henton, who stated afterwards that things should be looked at again because of the lack of public involvement?
Afterwards—yes.
You agree that Mr Duncan Hope was not invited to attend while the EHIT was functioning, nor was any representative of the Blairingone and Saline Action Group.
That is correct. They were not invited to attend during the EHIT's considerations. Afterwards, several attempts were made to invite along members of BASAG. The door was left open.
I know, but the EHIT had virtually finished by saying that it was not moving to the next stage.
Yes, but it was made clear that the door was still open.
Was that because of the public outcry? Was that basically a public relations exercise, following the controversy?
It was not to do with a public outcry. It was to do with the fact that it would have been desirable for people to meet members of the EHIT directly.
Afterwards?
Afterwards, to find out—
But just to be told why you had decided to virtually close down the study.
That is not the case. There was the chance for any new evidence to be considered.
Would Dr Roworth like to respond? Were only five cases considered? Why did you not think that there was justification for pursuing the matter? Mr Roxburgh said that a medical decision was taken, not a SEPA decision.
At the end of the EHIT's first meeting, organisations were asked to forward any statistical information or allegations of ill health to Tayside NHS Board, which had assumed the lead in taking forward the issue; that was correct, because Blairingone is in the Tayside area.
My questions are for Mr Roxburgh. If I have understand you correctly, SEPA did not consider there to be evidence that the operations posed a health risk.
SEPA is not qualified to assess health risks. That is why we were keen for an EHIT to be formed to consider the medical evidence.
As I understood it, you said that the aim was to determine whether there was a health risk. I think that you went on to say that there was not one.
That is certainly the message that we received from the medical experts.
How was that situation arrived at and what determined that there was no health risk? Did you consult the medical profession or the local general practitioners?
That is a question for Dr Roworth and the medical experts. We simply wanted a yes or no answer from the EHIT.
The information that you are giving us this morning is based on the response of the EHIT, is it?
Yes.
Dr Roworth, the information that we heard this morning suggested that two meetings took place. The decision to proceed with the investigation was made at a meeting in October and, some months later, the decision to conclude the investigation was made at another meeting. Why was that decision arrived at?
The EHIT report is, essentially, a technical document that lists a number of criteria that have to be fulfilled before proceeding to the next stage of an investigation. The information that we had gathered on the allegations of ill health—their nature and number, when they were made, the type of materials that were being used for composting and land-spreading, the siting of houses and so on—led us to believe that the allegations that were being made were not, in all probability, linked to what was happening with the land. Based on the information in the EHIT report, there was little that we could do. That was the scientific view of a technical group.
You have told us that you were not aware of any more than five reported cases of illness. However, we have evidence from Mr Reid and several others that there was a submission that suggested that up to 30 people had indicated that they had symptoms of one sort or another that could be directly associated with the activity that was going on. It seems remiss that information should come to you that suggested that there was a larger number of people with symptoms, yet you should tell us this morning that you knew of only five such people.
To clarify, I received five letters from people in Blairingone that made allegations about perhaps 15 different conditions. We considered that information. I am not aware of a list with 30 names on it. I received no names other than those of the five people who wrote to me.
You must accept that that is just the opinion of two GPs from whom you took evidence. I am suggesting that it seems strange that, three months after the establishment of a high-powered group, it should be decided that it is not worth proceeding further with the matter.
The opinion of the two GPs is supported by information that we subsequently gathered. The group considered the information that was made available to it. We asked for further information to be made available, and of course we would have considered it, but we never received any further information so there was nothing to make us change our final decision.
I want to clarify something about the visits that you mentioned. Records were looked at in July, which was after the April decision not to proceed with the investigation.
Yes.
I presume that you heard Mr Hope's presentation. He seemed to think that the representations that were made to the Parliament through MSPs and committees, and ultimately to Executive ministers after the interests of those committees had been covered, were responsible for your involvement in the EHIT. Your evidence suggests that that is not the case and that everything was set up locally. Is that the actuality?
That is certainly my understanding of what happened, and the understanding of the other members of the EHIT. We were not aware of any parliamentary inquiry. I first became aware of the issue through correspondence between Mr Hope and SEPA.
So your involvement came through a request from SEPA at local level.
No. In the light of increasing correspondence, media coverage and concerns being expressed, John Milne of Perth and Kinross Council suggested that we look at the then recently published document that has been referred to and try to assess what was going on in Blairingone using that framework. That is how the EHIT came to be. It was thought about in early 2001.
I would like some clarification. Perhaps I could put my question to Mr Roxburgh and to SEPA's director of operations, who is also here. Was there any communication from ministers that the issue was a burning issue in Blairingone?
Not at that time. I can clarify some dates. John Milne wrote to SEPA and Dr Roworth in February 2001. SEPA replied in March to say that we agree that an EHIT was a good idea, as we needed an answer. The Transport and the Environment Committee considered the matter in May 2001 and discussed the fact that a group was to be set up that could aid the Transport and the Environment Committee in its deliberations. The Transport and the Environment Committee certainly did not suggest that a group be formed or initiated in any way—it simply referred to an investigation group that was already planned.
It was about communications between Executive ministers and SEPA. To an extent, you have answered it. The Transport and the Environment Committee referred to the establishment of a group at local level.
That is correct. There was communication at a high level within SEPA with Mr Reid only in April 2002.
It appears that the Executive took forward the matter and issued a consultation paper called "Safer Sludge". Are you aware of that consultation paper?
There is a consultation paper on the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 and exemptions within those regulations. In particular, the paper refers to land spreading. There is a desire to tighten up controls and to give SEPA some real control over the application of waste sludges to land.
Did SEPA respond to the consultation?
We did: our detailed response should be with the Executive.
Given your experience, were you asked to contribute to the response?
Several members of the SEPA team contributed comments to the response. The consultation was co-ordinated by the SEPA head office. Our policy experts compiled the response, which is now with the Executive.
The point that I am driving at is that, as the Executive would be aware of the general problem, SEPA must have gained a considerable level of expertise following your involvement at Blairingone.
Not only at Blairingone. I am an area team leader and we have an on-going problem at another high-profile site at Argaty near Doune. Dealing with general waste-to-land issues throughout the Stirling area, Clackmannanshire, Perth and Kinross and west Fife has given the Stirling team direct experience of the problems with the current regulations.
Your response takes us back to an issue that Dorothy-Grace Elder raised earlier. You indicated that you are concerned about another site in your area. Are you aware of similar concerns elsewhere in Scotland? Have other EHITs been set up to investigate circumstances elsewhere in Scotland?
Application of waste to land is an issue of general concern throughout Scotland, particularly in the more populous central belt. I am not aware of the setting up of other EHITs either at the present time or in the past, although EHITs can be used as a mechanism to provide SEPA with assistance from the top experts in medical matters in Scotland.
I want to address a final question to Dr Roworth. From discussions with colleagues, are you aware of particular health problems elsewhere in Scotland that could have arisen from this practice or have such problems been highlighted only in your area?
I am not aware of any other allegations that have been made in respect of composting, sludge spreading or injection elsewhere in Scotland over and above the particular issues that have arisen in the Blairingone and Saline area.
I have a question for both Mr Roxburgh and Dr Roworth. I will start with Mr Roxburgh. It seems that you were in the chair at the first meeting and that Dr Roworth took the chair at the second one. It would appear from the minutes that the issue of communications was never considered, yet it is one of the factors that influences individual or community perceptions of risk. Given the wisdom of trying to understand those perceptions, what was your communications strategy and how did you perceive and measure that challenge?
Communications was not discussed at the first meeting, which was more of an exploratory meeting to pull together experiences of the site and learn about its history and the activities that had taken place. The purpose was to ask everyone from the health authorities, environmental health department and SEPA about the site in order to get everybody up to speed and determine a way forward.
Can you tell me why the document, which would seem to be the guidance document for the investigating teams, states that the communications strategy has to be at the top of the list of priorities? Why did you not have regard to the guidance?
We did have regard to the guidance.
In that case, why was the communications strategy not in place?
The communications strategy was to get in touch with—
It is not mentioned in the minutes.
The minute is not a 100 per cent record. There was no official professional minute-taker present; the minutes were taken by SEPA.
The communications strategy is not mentioned in the actions that are listed at the end of the minutes. I have asked you about your strategy, since the guidance document details what such a strategy should involve. However, you have not told me how you implemented your strategy.
No communications strategy was decided at the first meeting.
I want to ask Dr Roworth the same question. You chaired the second meeting, but it is not clear from the minutes, or from the actions listed at the end of the minutes, whether any communications strategy had been put in place, even though priority was supposed to be given to creating and maintaining such a strategy. Why did no one address that issue at the first or second meeting? I would have thought that communication inwards and outwards would be fundamental to the public perception of what was happening.
I cannot comment on the first meeting because I did not attend it. The minute for the second meeting states that we agreed simply to convey the outcome of the EHIT's decision to the interested parties, who were Mr Hope, BASAG and Malcolm Snowie. Over and above that, there was no specific communications strategy.
You said that you were not aware that there was a parliamentary inquiry going on until the summer of last year. Was that 2002?
Yes, I think that it was 2002.
Can I remind you that by that time there had been full hearings in front of the Public Petitions Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee? Furthermore, the matter had received considerable debate in the Parliament and extensive coverage on the front page of newspapers and on television, which involved some of the people in the EHIT. Are you saying that you were still not aware that an inquiry was going on?
I think that it was not communicated to me as a member of the EHIT. What one reads in newspapers or sees on television is a matter of chance and depends, for example, on the particular paper one reads. I was not made aware through official channels that the inquiry was going on. However, even if that was the case, it is still important to stress that the EHIT was not set up in response to any committee but instead predated any deliberations by the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Halcrow, you heard Patricia Henton confirm this morning that she had received details of at least 30 alleged cases of ill health, giving name, date, address and alleged symptoms. Will you confirm that you also had sight of those details?
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.
How did that piece of paper reach you?
According to the file in front of me, it was on the back of a letter from yourself to Ms Patricia Henton.
Does the list contain details of a case in which a child nearly died in Stirling royal infirmary, allegations of people having blisters as big as half-crowns on their backsides and so on?
Yes, it does.
Mr Roxburgh, you will remember receiving a call from me some weeks after about whether you had had sight of the document. You said that you had not.
I do not remember the conversation, but I certainly do not remember seeing a list with 30 names on it.
I return to Dr Roworth. In your investigations, you considered only five cases. What were the dates of those cases?
I would need to refer to my notes.
Can you tell me roughly? In which years were they?
I think that the complaints were made since 1998. It is important to stress that I received lists of complaints in February 1998 and again in 2000, and that they were similar, so it is difficult to say to which time period they referred.
So, did you at any point have any knowledge of a child who nearly died in Stirling royal infirmary and whose mother was a doctor?
A child with suspected meningitis.
I think that meningitis was one of the conditions that were mentioned in the letters that were sent to me.
Did you, at any point, know of doctors' files containing Polaroid photographs of people with large blisters on their bodies?
At no time did I know about such files. I had heard on the grapevine about such material, but at no time have I seen such information. I have never had any access to any individuals' medical records.
Tricia Henton said in her evidence this morning that she did not know whether the file of cases was passed on. If you had received cases containing such serious allegations, would that have coloured the investigation that you conducted?
It is difficult to say, in the absence of knowledge about what the individuals were complaining of. If more information had been given to the EHIT last spring or in late winter we would, of course, have considered it. I cannot say whether it would have influenced, or made any difference to, the outcome, but we would have considered it. That is as much as I am able to say.
You were not present at the first meeting of the year, but I presume that you read the minutes. Do you agree that, as per EHIT's guidelines, a primary principle is to work openly and transparently with the community that is involved?
I am sorry. Could you repeat the question?
In the guidelines on carrying out an investigation of that type, a prime determinant is that the work should be done in transparency and openness with the involved community.
That is a fair comment.
Is not it true that, at the first meeting, a decision was taken to contact villagers in Blairingone?
I think that that was considered.
That is not what I read from the minute. The minute says:
Thank you for correcting my memory. If that is what the minute says, that is what was agreed at the meeting. I have no reason to disagree with that, not having been there.
Is it the case that, at the first meeting, there was a discussion about cost and time, but it was suggested by the public health consultant from Forth Valley NHS Board that a quick survey could be undertaken, involving the identification of cases and such factors as location and wind direction?
That is my recollection.
What happened between the first meeting and the second meeting? Why was the proposal not undertaken?
I think that the part of the minute to which you refer was one point that was considered, but it was not one of the agreed action points. There was, to my recollection, no action agreed at that meeting to the effect that anyone would go out and do a survey. What was minuted was simply a preliminary discussion of some things that might be done.
I am aware of your expertise in this area. You will, I think, recall that the firm of Snowie Ltd issued press statements that quoted you as saying that no causal connection between spreading and ill health had been discovered anywhere. Were you aware of that?
Possibly.
The minutes of the first meeting show that it was decided that there was no need whatever to contact Mr Snowie. Do you recall that?
Yes. That is in the minutes.
Given that, when the team's decision was reached, why was it communicated to Mr Snowie—who promptly put out a press release throughout the United Kingdom—but not to Parliament?
Are you asking why we did not communicate the decision to Parliament?
Given that it was decided at the first meeting that no contact was necessary with Mr Snowie, why did you communicate with his company—which promptly issued press releases to the trade and agricultural press—but not to the clerk of the Transport and the Environment Committee or to Parliament?
We communicated with Mr Snowie after the second meeting—at which the EHIT reached its decision—to inform him of the outcome of the decision-making process. We also contacted BASAG in an attempt to be even-handed.
You did not inform Parliament.
I was not aware at that time that the EHIT had a relationship with Parliament.
Bearing it in mind that health matters that relate to the environment are very fragmented in Scotland—some bits belong to the NHS, some to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, some to planning and so on—I want to pull together the passing to and fro of information. We have heard that the list of 30 names was seen by the former chief executive of SEPA and Mr Halcrow says that he received a list of names—I think—in March 2002. When did Mr Halcrow receive the list?
I received a letter from Mr Reid, which was dated 26 March and which contained a list of symptoms and ascribed numbers of cases to those symptoms. It was not a list of names.
Right.
I submitted the letter to Miss Henton, which, as I said, was after the EHIT had completed its business.
Yes, but that was before the letter of 4 April that told the action group that the inquiry was over.
I do not think that there is any connection.
I want to clarify who saw what. Did any member of the EHIT see the list of names with various allegations, including mention of suspected meningitis and scarlatina, or scarlet fever?
We must be clear that the list that you describe is not the same as the list that we received, which was a copy of a list—
Which had no names. Thank you, Mr Halcrow.
I have not seen a list of names of individuals who had conditions, but in 1998 and in 2002, I saw a list of conditions from which—BASAG alleged—the villagers suffered. The EHIT then considered those conditions. We might be talking about the same list, but I do not know.
Did any member of the team see a list of names of people who were alleged to have conditions including suspected meningitis and scarlet fever in Blairingone village?
Yes.
Was that before the EHIT's second meeting?
Yes. We asked people to forward that information to us so that the EHIT could consider the conditions.
Are you saying that the patients were not named in the list?
As I said, the information that I received was contained in four letters from five individuals—one letter was signed by two people. The letters made allegations in respect of certain people.
Did you obtain the medical records of those people, including the children? You said that you went to the Dollar practice.
No, I did not do that. When I went to the Dollar practice in the summer, it was merely to find out whether there were any differences in, for example, the number of people who were consulting for asthma.
Was that after the EHIT investigation had finished?
Yes.
Had you contacted the Dollar practice earlier?
I contacted the Dollar practice in February 1998 and again in 2000.
Was your contact with that practice in 2000 in connection with the forthcoming EHIT meeting? Did you contact the Dollar practice at the time of the EHIT meetings or in the interval between them? Were your visits to the Dollar practice in connection with earlier studies?
The first time I contacted the Dollar practice, in February 1998, was in response to the allegations that were being made, which were similar to those that were made in 2000. I phoned and spoke to one of the GPs. It was a general inquiry.
You did not ask for patient records.
No. I asked whether I would be able to consult medical records when I saw the GPs in July last year.
That was after the EHIT meetings.
Yes.
Did you consult the Tillicoultry practice, which is the other practice that has Blairingone patients?
I did not. According to the information that I had from the Tillicoultry practice and from the Perth and Kinross practice, the vast majority of patients were registered with the Dollar practice.
Where was the scarlet fever case registered?
I do not know. I do not have such detailed information.
I can tell you that it was not registered at the Dollar practice. There are 12 practices in the area and not all of them have Blairingone patients, but did you send a circular to GPs who might handle Blairingone patients, given the fact that it is such a scattered area?
No. I did not do that. My investigation was focused on the Dollar practice, where most of the patients were registered.
Yes—it has about 85 per cent of the Blairingone patients.
Dorothy, could you wind up, please?
Yes, of course. Why did you not send a questionnaire round the village? It would have been quite a simple thing to do.
It would have been a simple thing to do, but that is not the point. Considering the evidence that was made available to us, there was no prima facie case for believing that any of the conditions were linked. You mentioned scarlet fever, which is not transmitted from sewage sludge or composting; it is a disease that is passed from person to person.
I appreciate that. However, the villagers were concerned about such things. Did you or any other member of the EHIT obtain information from the rest of Britain, Canada, America or Europe, where the spreading of human sewage on fields is also controversial? Did you obtain any overseas information?
No, we did not. It is important to realise that the EHIT was not set up to find out whether spreading practices cause this or that disease. Its purpose was to investigate the allegations of ill health that were made by residents.
Yes, but it was to investigate the allegations of ill health in the context of a possible environmental link. There are umpteen cases on the internet of allegations from America, Canada and Europe.
I have seen information on the internet, largely relating to intestinal diseases.
Dorothy, we will have to move on.
I have one last question. Are public health departments underfunded for conducting such studies? I know that, nowadays, the public want to have many things to do with the environment investigated. Would you say that your investigation was well funded or not?
If we had considered that a survey of the village was appropriate, the resources for that would have been found. Surveys are expensive, but that does not mean that we do not consider them and that we do not do them when necessary. However, they are time consuming and expensive.
Dorothy, your question will need to be quick.
I am sorry. I am straining the convener's patience. If you had to set up another EHIT, would you do it differently?
That is your final question before others come in.
It is difficult to envisage whether the medical outcome would have been any different. However, I acknowledge that there is a great deal of discontent about how we communicated the results. The points that have been made about that are fair. The application of the document is in its infancy and it is fair to say that we should probably have made more effort to speak to the various parties.
I have a general point regarding the comment on public health departments and resources. I think that I speak for public health department colleagues when I say that we would allocate resources if there were an issue of concern. The health board would allocate—it has done so in the past—additional resources for such investigations. I reassure the committee that resources would not be an issue in following up an issue such as this.
The key issue for me is the five cases that the EHIT considered and the 30 cases that were put forward by the village. Mr Halcrow said specifically—while referring to his files—that he had received a letter in March. Do you agree that two previous attempts had been made to get the same documentation into the office of the chief executive of SEPA—we have the printouts—and that somehow they were not passed on and had to be sent three times?
I am not aware that there were previous attempts.
Can I remind you of a few conversations on that particular subject that might tease your memory a bit?
I first knew that there was a list when I received your letter of 26 March. I was not aware of any previous submissions. I recall that you and I discussed the list, but that we did not have it. Your office, in fact, supplied us by fax with a large amount of supporting evidence, which was taken from the internet.
The information was not just taken from the internet, but we will come to that. I do not want to detain the committee too long. Was the tenor of my conversation with you that somehow we must manage the process and involve the village of Blairingone? Do you recall the proposal that either Parliament or SEPA could send an assessor to Blairingone to take evidence and that that might square off the issue without it becoming too public?
Yes—indeed I do.
Did you pass that information on to your colleagues in the EHIT?
Not personally and not directly, but my recollection is that Mr Roxburgh discussed all the possibilities with the EHIT. That led to the invitation to BASAG on 28 May 2002 to come to a meeting of the EHIT to hear the reasons behind the conclusions that had been drawn. BASAG was also invited to bring forward any new evidence and to submit evidence, if it wished, directly to Dr Roworth in writing. That invitation was extended on 28 May.
I have only one more question, which I address to Mr Halcrow and then to Dr Roworth. You referred to information that is available from the internet. Are you aware that the National Academy of Sciences, which has some of the most distinguished soil scientists, medical scientists and public health officials, has for two years been conducting a major study into the effect of bio-solids on the environment?
Yes, we are aware of that.
You are aware, therefore, that the study concluded that current assessment is based on "outdated science" and that it called for extensive study into communities that are exposed to bio-solids in the environment?
Yes, indeed I am. Perhaps the question is whether that information is relevant to the investigation that was carried out by the EHIT, which was done according to specific guidance relating to allegations or evidence of ill-health that could be related to the operations at Blairingone. The wider question of spreading organic matter—sewage sludge, abattoir waste or whatever—on land relates back to the study that SEPA carried out.
You are aware that the only way in Britain to get such documents is to download them from the internet.
I could not comment on that.
Are you aware of the study by the National Academy of Sciences?
No, I am not aware of the study.
I thank everyone for their evidence this morning. It might have seemed like an inquisition sometimes, but I can assure you that we are attempting simply to get the information that will allow Dorothy-Grace Elder to complete her report with her adviser.
I would like to make one point on a matter that arose early in the discussion. It is important to differentiate between communication to, and consultation of, the public. There is a specific issue—a member of the committee mentioned it—about having a member of the public, or somebody representing the public, at the meetings of the EHIT. Such a presence would seriously impair the likelihood of an EHIT functioning properly.
That is a fair point, and it is recorded.
I assume that Dr Saunders believes that the team did function properly and that it benefited from the fact that no MSP or member of the public was on it. Is that the natural conclusion?
Given that a member of the public or an MSP was not on the EHIT, it is difficult to say categorically whether that was the case. The point that I am trying to make is that having a member of the public or an MSP on such a team would, in my opinion, make it impossible for that team to function properly as set out either in the documentation that we have or in more recent documentation that has been issued by the Scottish Executive.
We are out of time. We have spent an hour and three quarters on the matter, although we intended to spend only an hour on it. All the information, including the information that Dr Saunders has just given, will form part of Dorothy-Grace Elder's report to the committee. No decisions will be made until we get a report from Dorothy and her adviser. The Public Petitions Committee will then make a decision.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Do members agree to move back to new petitions? A number of petitioners have been present for a long time and it would help them if we were to deal with new petitions now. We will return to current petitions after we have dealt with the new petitions. Is that agreed?
Next
New Petitions