Petition
Polluting Activities (Built-up Areas) (PE377)
Agenda item 4 is consideration of petition PE377, on polluting activities in built-up areas. We have received responses from the Executive, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to a reporter's paper that Fiona McLeod produced on petition PE377, which we will consider with a view to producing a draft final report for our next meeting. That report will be based on Fiona McLeod's interim report and will take into account subsequent developments. We will consider it in private at our next meeting, but there is an opportunity today for members to raise issues that they think the clerks should take on board in preparing the draft with Fiona McLeod. At the next meeting, there will be an opportunity for members to make alterations to the draft report that is put before the committee.
I will give Fiona McLeod the opportunity to comment on the responses, after which other members may make comments.
I want to highlight four points from paper TE/04/03/7, but first I thank Ros Wheeler for all her hard work in keeping the matter going and ensuring that questions were asked that needed to be asked and that we received all the answers.
We probably now have a fairly complete set of answers from SEPA and the Executive. The four areas that I want to highlight are planning, BSE, the regulator and the European Parliament Petitions Committee's report, which we have received since we discussed our concerns in December.
On planning, members will note from paragraph 18 of the paper that we accept that the Government has understood that we have concerns about the need for the planning regime and the environmental regime to work more closely together when considering whether to allow buildings such as that at Carntyne to go ahead. I have stated that getting a study under way is urgent and I hope that the committee will support that statement. From discussions with the Government about other planning areas, we know that it will consider such issues. If a study is carried out in the immediate future, it would certainly inform the planning bill in the next Parliament.
On paragraphs 33 and 34, I am concerned about the minister's response to us on SEPA's role in the regulation of BSE and the disposal of BSE-infected cattle. He said that BSE regulation is animal health policy, but, as I have said in paragraphs 33 and 34, we must point out that the disposal of BSE-infected carcases has an environmental impact. Therefore, I suggest that the environmental regulator—in this case, SEPA—has a role to play and that the issue is not merely an animal health issue that should be considered by the Rural Development Committee.
On paragraphs 29 and 37, we had looked for more information on the time that it takes to get the results of a BSE test in the United Kingdom, as opposed to in Europe. We were given information rather than evidence that such tests are carried out more quickly in Europe as well as information on the temperature that is necessary to incinerate a BSE carcase. The minister's letter says that, to his knowledge, our 14-day test result lag is no greater or shorter than that in any other country. We have explored that issue as far as we can.
I am assured that the appropriate committee's advice is that 850 deg C is the correct temperature. I was pleased to learn that that is the temperature that SEPA expects to be used at all cattle incinerators, to ensure that the BSE prion is destroyed, should it get into the chain.
SEPA has made it clear that it would be useful if it received information about where BSE-infected cattle are incinerated. As members know, only two incinerators in Scotland deal with known cases of BSE, but, as we found out, it can be discovered later in the chain that a BSE-infected carcase has been incinerated at another site. SEPA says that it would be useful if it had information about the end incineration of such cattle to allow it to deal with, among other issues, the disposal of ash from those sites.
In December, the minister gave a commitment to provide to SEPA information for a six-month period on the end incineration of BSE-infected cattle. In his latest letter, he said that he would be "prepared to consider" a request from SEPA for that information to be provided regularly. SEPA made that request many months ago, but it was only as a result of letters from the committee that the minister finally gave the information to SEPA and committed to a six-month continuation of the procedure. Our report should recommend, as paragraph 37 of my paper states, that now that the Executive can obtain the information, it should be given to SEPA at all times and for as long as is necessary, to allow SEPA to do its job as an environmental regulator to the fullest.
We have concerns about the robustness of our environmental regulator and the manner in which the regulations are prosecuted in Scotland. We have had evidence on the Environmental Protection Act 1990 from the minister, who said that he has the power to direct SEPA but would be unhappy to do so in many circumstances. Although the minister's letter states:
"Persistent breach of environmental regulation will not be tolerated",
one incinerator is now on its fourth enforcement notice. The letter states that, if action is required following persistent breaches,
"One such action perceived as ‘required' may be revocation"
of the original licence. We must impress upon SEPA that the committee expects Scotland's environmental regulator to be robust and to use all the tools at its disposal to protect the environment in Scotland, preferably without ministerial intervention. I hope that SEPA has learnt lessons from Carntyne and will apply those to similar situations should they arise with other operators.
The European Parliament's Petitions Committee report contains conclusions similar to those in my paper but goes one step further and recommends the closure of Carntyne. However, the report does not explain how a Government organisation or the Government could effect that closure. I reiterate for the record that it is not our practice to make recommendations on specific sites. We have tried to consider what lessons can be learned from specific issues and applied for the betterment of environmental regulation throughout Scotland. I realise that our practice is frustrating for petitioners who have come to us with specific concerns in the past four years, but one advantage is that our evidence taking and the work of reporters has often provided evidence that has allowed individual petitioners to pursue their case further.
I have thought long and hard about this, and I think that it is probably appropriate that the committee took the decision to examine the generic rather than the specific, because we could be involved continually in petitions, and the Parliament would be making decisions for which we are not democratically accountable. In planning, local authorities and local councillors should make the decisions, but we often provide them with further evidence that they could not have obtained by any other means.
I will take other members and I will also take Dorothy-Grace Elder.
I would like to record my personal appreciation of the enormous amount of work that Fiona McLeod has done on this matter, and of the quality of her report.
I, too, congratulate Fiona McLeod and Ros Wheeler on the huge amount of work, and on their diligence in pursuing all the questions. I agree with many of Fiona McLeod's conclusions. Planning and environmental impact assessment decisions should be taken as one. I am surprised that they are not, and have not been in the past. I would be interested to know why they have not been taken together. I also agree with Fiona McLeod that the disposal of BSE carcases should not just be an animal health issue. In this case, and I am sure in other cases across Scotland, it is an environmental impact problem.
I am relieved to hear that 850 deg C is being pursued and effected as the temperature to destroy the prions. I am surprised by the Minister for Environment and Rural Development's continuing reluctance to divulge the number of BSE-infected cattle that are disposed of at plants across Scotland. I would have thought that that figure was readily available. He may not be willing to disclose it, but I am certain that the figure is readily available.
I am also concerned that the recommendations of the European Parliament Petitions Committee, which visited Scotland, can be so lightly brushed aside. We do not appear to have adequate regulations in place. That boils down to the fact that SEPA does not have the teeth to effect what it wishes to do. We might have to examine that, because if the planning system is failing at the beginning, and the regulatory framework at the end in effect has no teeth, we have a problem. It may be that by the Government applying pressure—and probably not much else—we will be able to ensure that the plant works properly, but if we cannot, what will we do?
I will let Dorothy-Grace Elder know the state of play, because she came in as we began the item. We are considering the response to Fiona McLeod's initial report—we have responses from a number of bodies. I am sure that the member will have read them carefully. Today, we are just looking for comments from members on those responses. As a committee, we will consider our final report at our next meeting, which will be in private, so this is the opportunity to comment on the responses.
I thank you, your committee and Fiona McLeod for the large amount of work that has been put into this issue, but I do not agree with Fiona McLeod on the point that the matter should be seen as a local issue. She said that it was the practice of the Transport and the Environment Committee not to consider issues that are too local, but the siting of an incinerator in a heavily built-up area—indeed, in an area of ill health and poverty—is a national issue. In fact, the Europeans saw it that way. I urge the committee to be stronger on that line, because if there is any wobbling on the issue, people will dive in. The issue will keep on going for ever, and that will be interpreted as backing by the committee, although I know that that is not the true feeling of the committee.
Unfortunately, Ms Margaret Curran, who is intensely interested in this matter as the constituency MSP, cannot be here today, because we realised rather too late that the committee was considering the issue today, but I am sure that she will give you a submission. The timing of the letters is unfortunate, as is the date when Fiona McLeod's extra submissions were written, which was around 9 January. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development's reply is from early February. Notably, SEPA and the minister totally ignore the European decision of 23 January, although the minister's letter is from February.
What the European Parliament Petitions Committee said—members will all have the report—was strong: the closure of the Carntyne incinerator plant is to be considered as an urgent priority. That committee talked of the absurdity of hauling dead cattle from the countryside into the east end of Glasgow; it appealed for consideration of the health of the people; it pointed out the poverty in the area; and it did its duty in seeking to protect the public most thoroughly. It also mentioned a large number of European directives and amendments. For the minister or us to ignore that in any way would be devastating for the people of the east end, as well as wrong for the whole system.
The issue is under separate investigation by the European Commission, and Margot Wallström, the European environment commissioner, has written to me, to Bill Miller MEP and to others, asking about our interest in the situation at Carntyne. It is a huge concern. The minister's letters ignore the fact that everything has moved on. They reply to Fiona McLeod's original report, but by the time they were written, the minister surely knew what Europe had decided.
The President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, is coming here to address us next week. Many people in Glasgow want to thank Mr Cox, who was among the first people to reach out to us and who wanted to protect us. However, what can we say? "Mr Cox, the European Parliament has put enormous effort into this investigation. There is a better relationship between the Scottish Parliament and Europe because of the European Parliament's concerns and hard work. However, we have decided to do nothing at all, and we are ignoring all your work." We cannot do that. We cannot give the impression that we are content to allow the burner to operate.
Neither can we allow SEPA to be the be-all and end-all on this matter. The people of the east end of Glasgow have no faith whatever in SEPA, and nor do some of the elected members who have been involved with the issue for 18 months to two years. Our experience is that SEPA has been a poodle, not a watchdog. Indeed, the documentation that we have reveals the major cause of the whole problem. SEPA says that it played an important role in the original planning appeal, but it then admits what that important role was: it did not make an objection at the time. That was SEPA's important role. It said that the burner could work out all right and that the technology would function. It did not ever consider the area, which is not only home to 67,000 people, but is in a valley. That was what caused the problem. Had there been a watchdog organisation that pointed out the geography of the area, we would not be in this situation. Indeed, the Scottish Executive would not be in this situation.
In reading the letters from SEPA, which, oddly enough, mirror Mr Finnie's line, let us imagine the worst-case scenario. Is Mr Finnie thinking that, by spinning the issue out, replying to comparatively old mail and ignoring the new European development, he can put off acting until the Parliament ends, so that the burner will continue for ever and a day? We are running out of time. Some of us are not prepared to let that happen, because we have a deep and sincere interest in protecting the health of the people of the east end of Glasgow.
The European Parliament has backed action, and we cannot buck that. The decision of the European environment commissioner is also coming up. The European Parliament Petitions Committee has stated that the closure of the burner is an urgent priority and has called for a meeting between the interested parties, including the burner's owners. It has pointed out that the owners of the burner would move it and that no one, including Glasgow City Council, is in favour of the burner remaining where it is. The owners have said that they will move the burner if they get a suitable piece of land. The European Parliament has called for that piece of land to be found for them and for the interested parties to get together on the issue. Has that meeting taken place? No. The minister has not said anything about it.
I am sorry, but we cannot stand for this matter to be swept under the carpet. We must move ahead. I ask you to back the European Parliament Petitions Committee's report and to thank that committee sincerely for putting the public of Glasgow first—something that the environmental watchdog, SEPA, most certainly has not done.
We will note all the points that have been made by members today and consider them at our next meeting before we produce our final report. Our consideration of the draft report will be in private but, given your interest in the matter, we will ensure that you receive a copy of it as soon as the document becomes public. Our next meeting will be on 4 March, when I hope that we will conclude our consideration of the matter.
Would it be possible for Ms Curran, myself and others to make written submissions to you?
Any letters that are sent to the committee clerk will be circulated to committee members for their consideration.
In the meantime, would you be kind enough to write to the minister, asking him whether any meeting of the interested parties has been arranged in view of the European Parliament's recommendation? Members of the European Parliament have written to Westminster and the Scottish Executive, saying that, if no action is taken here, they are prepared to debate the issue in the European Parliament and to use legislation.
If members are agreed, we can try to clarify that point with the minister in advance of our next meeting.
Thank you very much for your patience.
I certainly see no harm in an exploratory meeting taking place between the minister or Scottish Executive officials and the owners of the plant, to see whether—if all parties were agreed—another site could be found for the burner. That would be in everybody's best interests. Until Dorothy-Grace Elder told us, I was unaware that the owners were prepared to move elsewhere. The difficulty for them will be getting planning permission elsewhere.
The burner could be sited in the countryside. If expense is involved, it should be remembered that it was SEPA that dumped everybody in this mess in the first place.
We will clarify those points with the Executive in advance of our next meeting. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our consideration of the issue at this meeting. We will return to it at our next meeting. I thank Dorothy-Grace Elder for her attendance.
Meeting continued in private until 12:49.