Petition
Polluting Activities (Built-up Areas) (PE377)
Item 3 is consideration of petition PE377, on polluting activities in built-up areas. The purpose of the item is to consider a paper that Fiona McLeod has prepared as reporter on behalf of the committee, with a view to asking the committee to endorse or amend it. It is proposed that we then submit the paper to the Deputy Minister for Social Justice, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and the chief executive of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to respond to the comments and recommendations in the report.
I invite the committee to consider the report's conclusions and recommendations in respect of the role of SEPA and planning authorities in assessing planning applications for incinerators, the regulation of incinerators, particularly in relation to the potential incineration of BSE-infected cattle, and the respective powers of SEPA and the Executive with regard to the regulation of incinerators. Before I invite members to comment on the paper, I invite Fiona McLeod to make additional comments or highlight specific points.
I will highlight a few areas, but I begin by thanking everyone involved—SEPA, the ministers, Sacone Industries and the petitioners—for their help and for the openness with which they shared information. Most of all, I record my thanks to Ros Wheeler for her superb support.
PE377 first came before the Public Petitions Committee in June 2001; it is now December 2002. For petitioners and others, the process will seem to have taken a very long time. I assure all those involved that that was because we wanted to treat the petition with great care and to ensure that we produced sound results. In many ways, the time factor is as it is because for almost every question that we asked, the answer raised yet more questions, which highlights the complexity of the issue.
I adopted the Transport and the Environment Committee's practice of considering the generic implications of the specific examples that were brought to the committee. That is reflected in the remits that the convener reiterated and in paragraph 16 of my report, which highlights three key areas that I felt that the committee should consider.
It may be helpful to elucidate some of the things that we have learned in the three key areas. When considering the role of planning authorities and SEPA, we referred to the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999. Those regulations state that a local authority decides whether an environmental impact assessment needs to be done for a planning application and, if the decision is that an assessment is necessary, the local authority carries it out. SEPA does not have a specific role in environmental impact assessments.
My recommendation is that SEPA should be made a statutory consultee to that process, because the current arrangements seem to be deficient.
I remind the committee that before the introduction of the 1999 regulations, we adhered to the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988, in which an animal carcase is not considered a controlled substance. The committee will agree with me that since 1988 the situation regarding animal carcases has moved a long way.
Therefore, my second recommendation for the role of planning authorities and SEPA is that a retrospective review should be carried out of the six incinerators in Scotland that incinerate animal carcases under the 1988 regulations rather than the 1999 regulations. I am suggesting that because we have learned from the minister that national planning policy guideline 10, on planning and waste management, which is relevant to this situation, is not a priority in the review of planning regulations.
To sum up, I would like SEPA to become a statutory consultee; there should be environmental impact assessments for planning; and we should carry out a retrospective review of incinerators that dispose of animal carcases under the 1988 regulations.
The second key area attracted the most information. It refers to the current system for the disposal of BSE-infected cattle. The disposal of BSE-infected cattle is monitored under the auspices of the Rural Payments Agency. SEPA has no particular role in the disposal or incineration of BSE-infected cattle. We must bear that in mind throughout.
There is currently a test for BSE-infected cattle. The test is specified by the European Commission and results take 10 to 14 days to come through. In a letter of 26 June, Mr Finnie stated that, when the monitoring scheme was put in place, it was decided that it would not be economic to await the test results before the incineration of cattle.
There are two incinerators specified by the Scottish Agricultural College for cattle under the BSE fallen cattle scheme. That would lead one to think that BSE-infected cattle are going to specified incinerators. However, with a wait of 10 to 14 days for the test results, and the fact that those results are not waited on, we can take no comfort or assurance that the other incinerators that can handle animal carcases are not incinerating BSE-infected cattle.
The issue went backwards between the minister and me. In July, Mr Finnie stated that he could not state whether BSE-infected cattle had been burned in the specific instance of Carntyne, although that comment can be transposed to the other six incinerators. I had my doubts about that answer, given that we knew how the RPA scheme followed cattle from the farm all the way through the chain. The minister must also have reconsidered those doubts because, in September, he said that he had instructed officials to go back over the paperwork. From that, the minister ascertained that two BSE-infected cattle had been burnt at Carntyne in a specified period.
The minister said that that had taken much effort and work and that he had done it as a one-off because he realised that the local environment community and we were concerned about what was happening at Carntyne. He thought about it again and, in October, said that he would continue to have that work done in relation to Carntyne and the information would be given to SEPA, as the environmental regulator, for six months after the incinerator reopened.
I make it clear to members that planning condition 6 of the planning permission for the Carntyne incinerator to incinerate cattle stated that it must not dispose of or incinerate BSE-infected cattle. We are in a situation where we know that a planning condition has not been met. It took quite a long time for the minister to work through the process to find out that the information for that planning condition was available, but he is prepared to give it on a conditional six-month basis.
I want to make a reassurance about what is happening at Carntyne. Based on technical advice from SEPA, the burning of BSE-infected cattle at a minimum of 850 deg C destroys the BSE prion. None of SEPA's enforcement notices on the Carntyne incinerator has concerned the temperature dropping below 850 deg C. BSE-infected cattle are being burnt at Carntyne, but from the technical evidence that I have been given, we can be reassured that it is done as safely as possible.
I want you to clarify one point. You draw attention to planning condition 6 for the Carntyne incinerator, which states:
"No special waste, clinical waste, remains from animals clinically confirmed or diagnosed as suffering from BSE … shall be burned at the plant."
Who set that condition? I recall that the local authority rejected the application.
The rejection was overturned by the Scottish Office. Glasgow City Council set the condition.
The Scottish Office reporter set the condition just prior to devolution.
The planning condition is enforced by the local authority and is regulated by SEPA. Neither of those organisations had the information to ensure that the planning condition was being met. They are now being offered that information for six months. I recommend that the review of the RPA's paper trail of BSE-infected cattle should not be limited to six months. Now that the Executive knows that it can review the matter, it should do so for as long as is necessary for all the incinerators that are burning cattle.
I turn to the regulation of incinerators by SEPA. The third bullet point of paragraph 16 is best characterised in layman's terms. The committee is considering a specific instance in relation to all regulatory enforcement situations. I kept returning to the question of how many notices must be issued before we say enough is enough. Should we pursue a policy of "three strikes and you're out"?
When SEPA is concerned about the environmental impact of an operation, it may produce enforcement notices. In the case of Carntyne, four enforcement notices have been produced, one of which was technical. The plant is closed while the operators bring their equipment up to the standard that the enforcement notices demand. However, it is clear from one of Mr Finnie's letters that both the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and the regulator are concerned about operators against which enforcement notices are continually issued but which fail to meet the conditions that are set down in those notices. In layman's terms, when can we say that enough is enough?
The minister and I debated the Executive's position on this matter. Although SEPA is the environmental regulator for Scotland, the minister can direct its operations. The minister stated clearly that he believes that that would be inappropriate. He knows that he has the power to direct SEPA, but he would be reluctant to use that power for fear that it would mean the Executive's interfering in the regulatory process. The minister is worried that if he issues guidance to SEPA he might cut across different Government portfolios.
I was not entirely satisfied by the minister's statement. Members will have read my exchange of correspondence with the minister on the issue. SEPA must have a firmer belief in its powers as a regulator and its power to enforce regulation. That firm belief must be backed up by the knowledge that the Executive expects the regulator to pursue the implementation of all regulations to the furthest extreme and as rigorously and robustly as the evidence that it possesses on any case requires. I recommend that the minister and SEPA should have a clearer understanding of their roles and of how they should exercise their respective powers.
That brings me to an issue about which the committee has raised concerns. We received evidence from SEPA about the enforcement of regulations and the prosecution of regulatory infringements. We found that SEPA sent a good percentage of depositions to the Crown Prosecution Service, but that a large number of those cases were not taken up. The committee had recommended previously that the Crown Prosecution Service needs to examine how it trains its staff to ensure that environmental regulations are adhered to. I hope that the committee will look at the final recommendation as part of that earlier concern.
I hope that I have taken the committee as clearly as I can through the difficulties that have been encountered in that specific situation. I also hope that we, as a committee, will want to consider the wider impact on other situations throughout Scotland. If anyone wants to question me, I will do my best to answer.
Before I invite comments from members, does anyone have any points for clarification?
Are the recommendations for retrospective review on all planning permissions with a view to having them retrospectively rescinded, or is it the intention to monitor whether planning permissions are being adhered to or whether regulations need to be tightened? I am concerned about retrospective legislation.
I was aware of that when I recommended that we, as a committee, decided not to consider retrospective reviews. Six of the large incinerators in Scotland that are currently licensed to dispose of animal carcases do so under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988, in which an animal carcase is not considered a controlled substance. The minister responsible for planning has told us that it is not a priority to review NPPG 10, which is the relevant planning guideline. The fact that backs up those general assertions is that we discovered that two BSE-infected cattle have been incinerated at Carntyne. Therefore, the other six incinerators must be reviewed to see how it all ties up.
I do not know whether Fiona McLeod will know the answer to this question. Do most incinerators achieve the required temperature of 850 deg C for burning cattle? The practicalities of the 10 to 14-day delay cannot be avoided if that is how long it takes for the tests to be carried out.
That is the EC-specified test.
But some tests require a waiting time to see whether things develop. The pragmatic thing seems to be that there is less concern if all incinerators are at that minimum temperature than if they are not.
I will add to Nora Radcliffe's point, which also refers to a point that was made by Dorothy-Grace Elder in the e-mail that has been circulated. Dorothy-Grace Elder raised concerns about the delay, stating that European Commission officials were surprised that the tests were taking 10 to 14 days to produce results.
Fiona McLeod might not know the answer, but does the EU require us to operate in that manner or is it because of the way that the UK or Scotland has implemented the EU requirements?
Until I received that e-mail, I did not know that the tests could be completed in a shorter time. The minister's answer stated that the tests that we are obliged to use are specified by the European Commission.
We can debate that issue later. It may be an issue that we need to clarify in correspondence with the minister. Dorothy-Grace Elder might want to comment on that specific point.
As a result of the petition that I took to Brussels in July, a European delegation is going to Glasgow to inspect the incinerator. When I spoke to the Commission officials who deal with the BSE surveillance programme, it was made clear that it is up to member states to decide where incineration takes place. No one in the European Commission has ever said that incinerators should be located in built-up areas.
When I said that it takes 10 to 14 days for the results of BSE tests to come through, the officials queried that and found it hard to believe. They explained that test results in Germany and France are rushed through the night to laboratories by courier, e-mail or motorcycle. To protect the workers in abattoirs and incinerators, the result must be available in a few hours. Similar protection for workers in Scotland does not exist. The 10 to 14-day tests are shocking.
Of course, Germany and France are better provided with laboratories to do the testing. They test according to the over-30-months scheme, and, if the stock is passed as safe, it is released back into the food chain within a few hours. On the other hand, we incinerate all the OTMS as well as fallen stock. Therefore, the fallen stock content in Germany and France, which is more dangerous than the OTMS, speeds up the testing process because it has led to the establishment of many more laboratories. Members must not forget that Carntyne deals with fallen stock.
The authorities in Germany and France are not willing to take the risks with human life that we are clearly taking.
The French and German authorities will not risk putting the OTMS back in the food chain. That would really change the parameters of the tests.
If the OTMS is negative, it goes back in the food chain.
As I understand it, OTMS means over-30-month-scheme animals. Is Dorothy-Grace Elder perhaps referring to SRM, which stands for specified risk material?
No. Specified risk material is from the fallen stock. Britain decided to destroy the OTMS, and the fallen stock programme was introduced in July 2001.
The 850 deg C refers to the temperature enforced by SEPA based on the BSE Monitoring (Scotland) Regulations 2001, which were based on advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.
I am happy to accept that that is the right temperature. I do not know whether normal incinerators burn at that temperature, and, if they do, we would have less reason to be concerned.
SEPA will ensure that an incinerator burns at the temperature necessary to destroy the waste that it is burning. Therefore, given that most incinerators would not be burning animal carcases, I do not imagine that all incinerators burn at 850 deg C.
I want to know the normal range of temperatures at which a bog-standard incinerator would be capable of burning.
I do not know. I do not think that there is such a thing as a bog-standard incinerator. I have learnt that incinerators are specialised and are awarded licences and conditions based on the waste that they are burning.
To clarify that, incinerators that burn animal carcases do so at a temperature of 850 deg C.
SEPA's licence states a minimum temperature of 850 deg C.
As Fiona McLeod rightly stated, 850 deg C is the temperature at which SEPA believes prions are destroyed. The medical profession no longer re-uses surgical equipment because, following operations such as tonsillectomies, it is impossible, no matter how much heat is applied, to destroy prions. I am sure that the regulations state that 850 deg C is the correct temperature, but other evidence suggests that prions can never be fully destroyed.
That might be SEPA's view, but I wonder whether Fiona had the chance—perhaps it was not appropriate on that occasion—to take evidence from other sources on whether prions can indeed be destroyed through incineration or by any other method.
No, we did not. The advice that I was given by SEPA was that, in adopting the precautionary approach, 850 deg C would render the prion as far as could be achieved and that the risk was therefore acceptable.
Perhaps applying that temperature to the medical instruments would damage them. I do not know the answer to that, but perhaps that is an issue.
I wanted to clarify Bruce Crawford's point. If temperatures of 850 deg C were applied to metal, it would melt, so there would be no point. The instruments might be rendered sterile, but they would be valueless.
That is true.
Does Fiona McLeod think that it would be appropriate to press the minister to keep lists of every incinerator, particularly if they are disposing of BSE-infected cattle?
That is why I think that the retrospective review of the six other incinerators is important. I understand from all the correspondence that if an animal is identified as BSE infected, and if that is why it is disposed of, it has to go to the two SAC incinerators. The majority of BSE-infected cattle and suspected BSE-infected cattle go to those two incinerators, which are for that purpose. What we have discovered is that, because of the 10 to 14-day test and the wait for the results, cattle that turn out to be BSE infected, but which were not suspected to have BSE, are going to the animal carcase incinerators. We therefore have a problem. We are burning animal carcases, which we have now established can include BSE-infected carcases, in incinerators that are not licensed to do that.
That is a very valid point.
The minister has said that SEPA will be sent that information for six months after the reopening of Carntyne. Members will have read in the report that SEPA initially asked for that information and was told that it could not have it. We have to say to the minister, "You worked out how to find the information. Now you must do it, and do it on a regular and on-going basis while this is still a problem."
I agree totally. That practice should be put in place for every incinerator. Indeed, the—
We want to stick to questions first before we get into the debate.
If John Scott does not have a further question, does Robin Harper have one?
No. I have no questions, but I would like to speak later.
I would like to take Fiona McLeod back to Maureen Macmillan's first question, which was about the recommendation for a retrospective review. I understand why that recommendation is being made and I understand the concerns that underpin it. What I am not clear about is what you are really recommending after such a review has taken place. Are you recommending that some kind of retrospective action should or could be taken against the planning permission? Or are you saying, "Let's at least find out what the position is in those places"?
You know that my view is that we should always base everything on the evidence. We have to review what is happening and then decide if that has given us the evidence to say that an incinerator cannot burn animal carcases under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988.
Are you saying that, in the light of that concern, the reporter recommends that a review be carried out on all planning permissions? If you say "retrospective", what you are implying is that you want to revisit the planning permission that was granted with a view to revoking or changing it. However, I think that what you want to say is, "Let us look at the planning permission and see what licences were granted and what the position is." That is what I am trying to clarify. The two are quite fundamentally different in import.
Do you think that they are?
Yes.
I said that we have to review the planning permissions for the incinerators because we have identified six incinerators with planning permission granted under the 1988 regulations. The planning permission was based on regulations that say that animal carcases are not a controlled waste.
I understand why you want to do that, but what would be the consequences? Are you saying that we should review the planning permission with a view to revoking it so that those incinerators cannot function, or do you want to examine the conditions attached to the planning applications to ascertain the basis on which the incinerators are functioning?
We have to proceed one step at a time. Let us find the evidence and then work out what we have to do next. We know that a planning condition 6 was placed on the incinerator that is named in petition PE377, under which the plant cannot burn BSE-infected cattle. However, we also know that the plant has done just that.
Given that the plant was granted planning permission under the 1988 regulations, under which an animal carcase is not classified as a controlled waste substance, all the incinerators in Scotland that are incinerating animal carcases should be looked at to find out the regulations, planning consents and other conditions under which they operate. A wider review would allow us to discover whether the subject needs to be revisited. We may find that there is not a problem in respect of the other incinerators.
Could we try to move on to our consideration of the report? I ask members to indicate whether they are content with the report or whether they want to comment on it and suggest amendments. We need to do that before we submit the report to the various organisations to which we are to pass it. I ask members to be clear about their suggestions for amendments, so that I can pull together the proposed changes to the report. I will give committee members an opportunity to comment, after which I will bring in Dorothy-Grace Elder.
The issue is remarkably complex. I visited the site on a couple of occasions and spoke to the people who are involved in petition PE377. I did that on my own volition. I was struck by the commitment of the community and the complexity of the issue with the number of different agencies that are involved. Considering the difficulty of the subject, Fiona McLeod has undertaken a remarkable piece of work. She has managed to prepare a concise report.
I turn to the last point, which was raised by Angus MacKay. Planning permissions may have to be re-examined and consideration may have to be given to other measures such as the planning guidelines that apply to such plants or the powers that are available to SEPA under the planning regulations. The extent of the consideration would depend on the terms of a long-term review of the issue, if such a review is conducted. We do not want to be too prescriptive at this point about the outcomes of such a review. The right way forward is to establish a process that allows us to re-examine where legislation should go in future.
I remain to be convinced on the 850 deg C issue. Evidence suggests that that level is not safe, but the Government has taken a line on that. I want to draw members' attention to one section of the report, in respect of the disposal of BSE-infected cattle. The Executive has got the issue completely wrong. Fiona McLeod makes a couple of recommendations, the first of which is that
"SEPA should have a statutory role in the process for regulating BSE"
specifically with regard to
"the conditions regarding the incineration of BSE infected cattle."
That is needed because of the pollution that results from such incineration. She also recommends:
"SEPA should assume that all animal carcass incinerators in Scotland may be burning BSE infected cattle and license and regulate incinerators on that basis."
SEPA is involved as the environmental agency and it must consider the polluting effect of what is going up the stacks of those incinerators.
I draw members' attention to paragraph 32 of the paper, which states:
"The Minister notes that it is the Executive's policy, for control and economic purposes, that rather than store carcasses and await tests results, it is more efficient to incinerate the carcasses quickly."
Frankly, that is an astonishing statement by the Executive. In Scotland, 180,000 tonnes of BSE-infected rendered cattle has been stored since the beginning of the BSE crisis, when the 30-month scheme began. Much of it is stored in a warehouse in Glenrothes. If the Executive can store that material for two to three years—in some cases, for four years—before final disposal, the statement that I quoted, which sets out the Executive's position, is incredible. It strengthens my view that Fiona McLeod's recommendations must be taken on board, as the Executive's position just does not wash.
I know that fact because it was confirmed recently in a letter to me from Ross Finnie, following a number of parliamentary questions that I asked regarding the rendering process for BSE-infected cattle. If the Executive can store 180,000 tonnes of rendered cattle for that length of time, there must be a storage issue about containing the cattle to allow the tests to be undertaken before they are burned.
I think that we are talking about two different things. We are talking about disposing of rotting carcases, but Bruce Crawford is talking about 180,000 tonnes of rendered cattle. Once an animal has been rendered, it is no longer in carcase form or decomposing form.
It is in pelletised form. I am aware of that. All that I am saying is that there is an on-going process that allows for storage over a long period of cattle that have been infected with BSE.
If cattle were stored for longer than 14 days, it would be difficult to get them into an incinerator, as they would be falling to bits.
If that was the case and there was going to be a problem, it may be that the existing regulations would require the cattle to be rendered and pelletised before they were burned. At least that would allow the process of examination to take place before the cattle were finally incinerated. That is the crucial issue. If BSE-fallen cattle are going up the stack, regardless of how few they are, that is a danger. We cannot allow that to happen. The procedures must be made to work to ensure that that does not happen, and that is exactly what Fiona McLeod is trying to achieve. To me, that is one of the main things to come out of this report.
I congratulate Fiona McLeod on an excellent report. It is very detailed and well researched, and I support all the recommendations in it. However, I would like to make some further observations on the siting, regulation and operation of incinerators.
Let me begin with the operation of incinerators. A large, state-of-the-art incinerator was built at Edmonton, in England. To date, that incinerator has breached regulations in one way or another more than 100 times. The safety of any incinerator depends largely on the way in which it is operated. Clearly, the incinerator at Carntyne has been operated safely, by and large; however, its operators have belatedly had to install some equipment to ensure that they keep within the particulates regulation. That gives rise to the whole question of regulations and sanctions. The only sanction that has been imposed on the company is that it has been closed down while it fits the equipment. If the incinerator had been in Norway, the company would have been fined at least the amount of money that it had saved during the years before it had installed that piece of equipment. That would have been the minimum fine and the minimum sanction to be imposed.
The Executive should be beginning to think about the operation of incinerators, by encouraging their safe operation and ensuring that the equipment that is installed is up to date. As the bottom line, fines could be imposed according to those criteria. Where it is clear that breaches are the result of carelessness and poor supervision, further fines and impositions should be imposed on incinerators. Taking those points into account, the siting of the Carntyne incinerator is still very much in question. Should it ever have been built and operated in that situation?
I am sorry—I thought that we were looking to make amendments, rather than just making general statements.
No. You can do either.
I want to go back to the paragraph on retrospective—oh heavens, I am sorry; I cannot find it.
Do you mean paragraph 21?
Yes, that is right. I would be happy if the paragraph said, "a retrospective review be carried out on all the conditions attached to planning permissions", so that we are clear that we are looking at the conditions, rather than at whether planning permission should have been granted. Is that acceptable?
I would be reluctant to do that, because we are talking about incinerators that are operating under the 1988 regulations, which we now know are not accurate.
Yes, but those are the relevant regulations. I presume that you are, in the review, hoping to find that some BSE-infected animals have been incinerated at Carntyne, and that you want to ensure that the regulations are changed so that such animals are burned at a higher temperature, but that you are not looking at rescinding the planning permission.
I will put it another way; I will put it as a question to you. What would we do if we carried out the review and found that the six incinerators that are operating as per their planning permission and as per the 1988 regulations are burning BSE cattle at lower than 850 deg C? Are you saying that if we find such evidence we will just have to leave them to get on with it?
No, we should change the regulations, but we would not close the incinerators down. We should not say, "Right, we're going to rescind your planning permission." I presume that regulations would be changed in light of the circumstances that were discovered.
No. I hope that those who operate the incinerators would be told that they must operate under the 1999 regulations; that would address the situation. However, that would not have to be done, because the planning permissions state that the incinerators must operate under the 1988 regulations. There would have to be review and we would have to say that although the planning permission might previously have been fine, we now have evidence that suggests that allowing the incinerator to continue to do what it has been permitted to do would be harmful.
I have a useful point of information about the process. Local authorities can, when there has been a change in regulations, initiate a process to rescind planning permission in order to allow an applicant to submit a new application to bring themselves up to standard. We might find at the end of the review that there was a requirement to rescind the planning permission in order to allow a new application to be submitted. The only way in which a local authority can properly apply new regulations is for a new application to be submitted, which can be done only after permission has been rescinded.
I will take views from a range of members, and we will try to move forward from there.
I congratulate Fiona McLeod on the depth and complexity of the report. One issue that was touched on only briefly is the Health and Safety Executive. It appears that if incineration that conforms to the SEAC recommendations is taking place, emissions should not be dangerous. However, I am concerned about people who are handling cattle in that situation. I would be interested to know whether the workers at specified animal carcase incinerators are protected if the cattle that go there are BSE suspects. Even if they are protected, it appears from what has been said that there is little or no protection for the staff at the incinerators at Carntyne and probably elsewhere in Scotland. If a number of the cattle are BSE suspects—it does not matter how small the number is—there should be special protection for staff at the incinerators.
I agree that the planning conditions need to be reviewed, as has been discussed. I welcome Bruce Crawford's comments. After the analysis has been carried out, the process that he suggests might be a way of amending the planning situation.
On Robin Harper's point, I think that it is utterly unacceptable—as I said in evidence when I was on the Public Petitions Committee—that an incinerator was sited at Carntyne in the first place. I thought so a year and a half ago and I still believe it to be the case. Glasgow City Council is right—health studies should be carried out on the potential implications of what I think could be a disaster for public health. A similar incinerator somewhere near Stirling back in the 1980s also affected animal and public health in that area. I am extremely concerned that the incinerator has been allowed to discharge into human populations.
On paragraph 21 in Fiona McLeod's report, if changes had to be introduced into the disposal of OTMS cattle as a result of a review, I would sound a note of caution to the effect that such changes would have to be introduced gradually because there is a huge problem of disposal of that type of cattle. Nonetheless, I think that we should work towards that. I confine myself to those comments.
I am, with one or two caveats, perfectly happy with the report—it is a good report. I agree with Bruce Crawford that the issue is complex and that the information and conclusions are presented in a way that is lucid and helpful to someone who is coming fresh to the issue.
I said that there are one or two caveats. There is a danger that we might lose sight of our objective for the want of a slight amendment to one of the recommendations—I refer to the word "retrospective" in paragraph 21. We can carry out a review without calling it a "retrospective review". We should see where the evidence takes us in the review of all the facilities that Fiona McLeod suggests. If the review throws up areas of difficulty, a number of options are open to us.
I take Bruce Crawford's point about the possibility of rescinding planning permission, although I think that that option depends on individual circumstances. It might not be the case that that is the easiest path forward. Ministers might consider taking action centrally, if the problem merits that, whether by legislation or whatever. We should require all such facilities to become compliant with a new minimum threshold. That might be one way forward. There are a number of different ways of skinning this cat. Perhaps the use of the word "retrospective" would not help us to reach our objective of getting as much evidence as possible about the risk and danger.
There are two separate issues; one is the problem that arises from the disposal of BSE-infected cattle at Carntyne, and the other is the wider problem of the very existence of the Carntyne incinerator. It seems to be evident that the vast majority of people who have expressed opinions—whether in the committee or outside it—feel that the incinerator should not have been sited there in the first place and that it should not remain there. That is one issue. The second issue is whether the incinerator should be allowed to dispose of BSE-infected cattle. We should deal with that issue and let the broader issue develop.
I will comment on the e-mail from Dorothy Grace-Elder, which has been submitted to the committee. The way I read it, Dorothy suggests that Fiona McLeod's paragraph 49 should be one of the specific recommendations. I think that it is one of the recommendations—it is highlighted in black.
My point is about where the heading comes in.
I agree with Dorothy-Grace Elder's second point, which raises an interesting issue about the lines of demarcation between ministers and executive agencies or arm's length agencies in relation to the way in which powers are controlled and executed. That is a good point to make, as is the point that Fiona McLeod raises in her report. When dealing with legislation and policy issues in other areas, we have seen that there is no point in there being both ministerial powers and executive agency powers when there is not sufficient delineation of when those powers should be used. That results in failure to implement powers fully when it is appropriate to do so. A response from the Executive on that point would be welcome. The issue is a good one on which to punch up how powers play across different agencies.
Fiona McLeod made a point about the exchange of correspondence between her and Ross Finnie on the release of information. It looks like that is a textbook example of a department and a minister being dragged into putting information in the public domain only once they have been jabbed repeatedly with a pointy stick. There are lessons to be learned about that. If the information is held—information certainly should be held on the Carntyne situation—and if putting it in the public domain can help to minimise public alarm, to maximise transparency and to inform debate, that information should be made available. It is worth pursuing that point. Again, we have a specific example that represents a good way in which to raise a broader general principle.
It is hard to come to a conclusion on Dorothy-Grace Elder's third point about the incinerator's not being allowed to reopen. In my view, we should deal with the burning of BSE-infected cattle rather than with the broader issue. However, I understand why Fiona McLeod made her point.
The practice of the Transport and the Environment Committee has been not to take views on individual planning applications. If we follow our previous practice, we will make general points about the management of such incinerators, but leave specific points to the appropriate authorities to deal with.
If a review resulted in regulations being introduced, the Executive would need to address compensation matters. I am not referring to any specific planning case.
We do not need to second-guess the outcome of the review and what the consequences of any changes would be.
I want to congratulate Fiona McLeod on a good piece of work. I endorse what Angus MacKay said about the removal of the word "retrospective" from her recommendation in paragraph 21, which would mean that we would lose only some unnecessary connotations. The omission of "retrospective" will not weaken the report in any way and might prove helpful.
We should establish some factual matters. Are all animal carcases, or only ones that are suspected to be BSE infected, disposed of at 850 deg C? It would be useful to obtain that information. We might also want to consider the test, which takes 10 to 14 days to generate a result. Some tests involve the growing of cultures. It might simply be the case that the test in question takes 10 to 14 days and that sending the results by courier would not make any difference. Although there might be some crossing of wires, we should be able to establish whether the period of 10 to 14 days is the time that it takes to grow the culture to get the result or whether that time is a result of pressure on the laboratories. Such pressure could mean that tests are not started until 12 days after the material is received, although it might take only two days to get it.
My third point relates to incinerators that were established under the pre-1999 regulations. I wonder whether the fact that the material that those incinerators are disposing of is now controlled waste—it was not previously classified as controlled waste—brings with it a whole set of regulations, because controlled waste would still be picked up under the old regulations. I am not sure that members see what I am getting at.
If a set of planning conditions says, "You can do this, this and this with waste, but controlled waste has to be dealt with differently", the identification of waste as controlled waste brings with it a whole other set of regulations. It might be useful to establish whether protection is afforded by waste's being designated as controlled waste, which does not exist before such designation.
I would like to make a point for clarification. I am worried about the direction that the debate could go and the perception that could be created. We, as individuals, might all think that Carntyne should be closed down. Anyone who has visited there and talked to people in the community would understand that the incinerator should never have been built at that location. However, there is a danger that our discussion could give the impression that the committee has the power to change that. I want the convener to clarify that that is not the situation. Our remit would not allow the closure of the incinerator to be an inevitable conclusion of the committee's work. The only groups that could be involved in such action would be the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or Glasgow City Council. They must make a decision in the light of Fiona McLeod's evidence. This committee could never come to that conclusion because it never set out on that road.
Nor, indeed, does the committee have the powers to do so.
I want to ensure that everyone is clear about that.
That is useful clarification. I invite Dorothy-Grace Elder to comment. I apologise for taking so long to get to you, but it demonstrates members' interest in the issue.
Indeed, I am grateful for their interest. I thank Fiona McLeod for taking on this special case despite a very heavy work load.
I cannot propose any amendment, but perhaps a member of the committee can propose an amendment to add to Fiona McLeod's points that incinerators that are not licensed to burn BSE-infected cattle should not be allowed to take any animals that are in the high-risk categories, including fallen stock. Fallen stock is currently the most high-risk category. That is an official phrase; it might mean only two cows in a hundred, but they will still be categorised as that.
I do not think that any of us approve of the fact that a burner that was never licensed to take BSE-infected cattle is now taking such cows. However, it is known before the animals enter the incinerator that fallen stock is a high-risk category. No one ever envisaged that that category would be investigated. Those animals used just to die in the fields; a hole was dug, and that was it. However, the EU rightly insisted that those animals be studied in relation to the beef ban in order to establish the incidence remaining in herds in the member states. However, the burner at Carntyne was never licensed.
We have a major problem. There is a definite democratic deficit, which could conceivably happen in other areas because one must set the matter in a Scottish context. First, four years ago, elected councillors in Glasgow City Council turned down planning permission at the site, but it just got through on appeal before devolution—one persons' word did it at the time. The burner then got a few contracts under the OTMS, but there was so much pollution that it had to close down and the burner lost the contract. The new owners, Sacone Environmental Ltd, took over but the burner was still not licensed to take BSE-infected cattle. From July 2001, the burner was suddenly taking cattle that were at high risk of BSE.
The one good thing that the appeal reporter from the Scottish Executive did was to include planning condition 6 in the report. That was meant to prevent any BSE-infected animal from being incinerated at Carntyne; the condition states that cattle that have been clinically confirmed or diagnosed as having BSE cannot be incinerated. SEPA chose to interpret that to mean that it was all right if the animals were diagnosed after they entered the plant and the test results were returned. One must ask whether SEPA, as a watchdog, should do that. We should forget about people who own burners and simply want to make money—we must consider the fact that the environmental watchdog chose to err on the side of the company and to interpret the planning condition in that way. Any normal person reading the report's planning protection clause would assume that no BSE-infected animal had ever been incinerated. The public were not informed that the incinerator was connected with BSE in any form. There was another democratic deficit in that the public were not informed that the burner was in any way connected with BSE.
I was present at the public meeting on 29 May 2001. SEPA was on the platform, along with the burner's owners. There were repeated reassurances to the public who were present that the burnings would have nothing to do with BSE. The owners said that the burner could not take BSE-infected cattle and SEPA said that the incinerator was not licensed to burn BSE-infected cattle, which was completely true. However, it was another play on words. We found out for ourselves that the burner was going to take cattle in the category that was at high risk of containing BSE.
Let me move on a wee bit to address the question of the 850 deg C safety requirement. I am sorry to say that it is one of the few points on which I do not agree with Fiona McLeod. I tend to support the view that Bruce Crawford has expressed. I have documentation that says that burners need to burn at 1,000 deg C to destroy BSE. Unfortunately, as I saw Fiona's report only in the early hours of the morning, I have not managed to bring that information with me. However, a number of scientists believe that to be the case. In response to Nora Radcliffe's query, we should find out at what temperature the special burner that is purely for destroying BSE burns matter. I do not mean the Carntyne incinerator, but the special one in Scotland.
When I was in Brussels talking to people who are concerned about the incineration of the cattle, they queried the required temperature's being only 850 deg C. When the delegation comes, it will tell us much more. It must be borne in mind that the burners cool down during the night, although there is still material in them. We must think about how well managed a plant might be and what mistakes could be made. If 850 deg C is the top temperature of a burner, is that good enough? The local MSP and others do not think so—we do not regard that temperature as being safe for Carntyne. Of course, we regard the whole enterprise as not being safe.
Fiona McLeod has at last dragged out with forceps the figure for the number of BSE-infected cattle that have been discovered at the burner. It was only two, which reminds us that the incidence of BSE is infrequent. Nevertheless, I wonder about that figure. A figure has not been revealed for the total number of cattle that have been burned there, and I am not surprised that a half-fact was given after great effort had to be made to get any figure at all.
As I say in my written statement, the burner has been closed many times. The two cattle that were tested positive for BSE went through between September 2001 and March 2002. I know for a fact that the burner was closed between October 9 and Christmas 2001, so it was not operating for very long between September 2001 and March 2002. We would like to know how many cattle in total went through the plant before as many as two were discovered definitely to have BSE. We must get the proper facts and figures out of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and from all those who are involved. I do not know whether the burner's cattle licence has been renewed by the Rural Payments Agency. The burner has been stopped so many times because it has caused so much pollution, so I do not see the point in renewing its contract—the taxpayers are paying for it.
I have another terrible concern about the water situation, which Fiona McLeod has not had time to go into. Scottish Water has granted permission for the burner to discharge into the public drainage system. The drainage system in the east end of Glasgow has worsened since the floods of 30 July, but it was bad before then. Raw sewage was coming up in streets quite near the burner. That sewage was not from the burner, but it showed that there were problems deep down in the drains. I do not know whether the burner has been discharging, because it has not been burning for the past two months. Nonetheless, it has permission to discharge into the public sewers, which is quite shocking.
The BSE prion cannot be killed off in the public sewers. Bruce Crawford spoke about sterilisation, but in that case the sterilisation was of hospital instruments with chemicals, and the instruments later infected a mother with new variant CJD. I spoke to the official from the European Commission who deals with the veterinarian side of the BSE surveillance scheme and I told him that the burner owners had put a fine mesh over the outlets—finer than they had needed to. However, he said that no mesh will stop the prion if it is there. If the prion is present in the sewerage system, it will go into the Clyde eventually. It will be diluted with a lot more sewage, but who wants to take that risk?
The population of the area around the Carntyne incinerator is 60,000. It is the only incinerator in Europe that is in the middle of a city. Before I went to Brussels, I checked that fact endlessly and when I was in Brussels, I asked as many officials and MEPs as I could whether they knew of another cattle incinerator in a built-up area. The answer was always no. It took some time for the MEPs to realise that the incinerator is in an area as big as Carntyne and some of them were visibly shocked. When they found out about the discharge into the sewerage system and that it takes 10 to 14 days for test results to come back, some of them wondered what sort of people we are.
If there were a "Dirty Man of Europe" competition, Scotland would definitely come close to topping the poll. We are taking unnecessary risks with human beings.
I thank the committee for allowing me time to speak. If there are any questions, I would be pleased to answer them.
Dorothy-Grace Elder's comment about the role of reporters in the planning system concerns me. As she said, although a planning authority may have made a decision on an application, one person can override it. I hope that that will be picked up in the proposed planning bill, but perhaps the committee should highlight it as a general issue.
That issue is probably best left until we consider the review of planning.
It is a general issue that we should perhaps mention.
The other point about a reporter's report is that it is signed off by the relevant minister before it is implemented.
Dorothy-Grace Elder spoke about the countrywide cattle statistics, which must be available. I am surprised that the minister has found it so difficult to tell members where the cattle were and where they have been burnt. We should have that information—given the tracing systems, it is merely a matter of punching data into a computer. I do not accept the minister's argument that it is difficult to maintain records. Those figures should be readily available for each incinerator in the country.
During the foot-and-mouth epidemic, I raised the matter of cattle aged over 30 months being burnt on funeral pyres. Many of those carcases were burned at temperatures that were well below 850 deg C; in fact, given the conditions in which they were burnt, that temperature could not possibly have been reached.
I pointed out to the minister then that I thought that he had been cavalier in his approach to the way in which those cattle were disposed of, but he pointed out to me that that was a pragmatic approach, which, under the circumstances, was the only option. Nonetheless, the minister has been a bit cavalier with public health, and the situation at Carntyne must be investigated further.
Fiona McLeod's report states that the incinerator could operate at temperatures of up to 1,000 deg C. Therefore, it is open to the committee to recommend to the Executive that when the incinerator is started up again, it should be operated at that temperature, pending any further decisions that the Executive might take.
If members are satisfied, I will conclude our discussion of the report. Angus MacKay suggested that paragraph 21 be amended to delete the word "retrospective". Some members suggested that the committee should receive more clarity on the 10 to 14-day test. Is it feasible for the test to be carried out in a shorter time? That is fairly non-controversial and likely to have the support of all members, so perhaps an additional paragraph seeking that clarity could be inserted after paragraph 32. Robin Harper and others suggested that the committee should seek further information on the burning temperature and whether 850 deg C is robust enough. At an appropriate point in the report, we could insert a paragraph requesting further information on that matter from the Executive and SEPA. Those seem to be the key issues that have arisen. Do members wish to pursue other issues?
The statistics on all incinerated cattle are readily available.
We agree with that.
The figures have been available since 1996 because they were used for predictive studies on the distribution of the disease. It beggars belief that the minister has said that he cannot supply those figures.
Further to the recommendations on the regulatory process, I would like the Executive to consider sanctions.
Do members wish to take me up on my point that the committee should consider stating that incinerators that are not licensed to take BSE-infected cattle should not be allowed to take animals that are in the high-risk category, which include fallen stock? One wonders why on earth we have a special incinerator for BSE-infected cattle if people can get away with burning such cattle in incinerators that are regarded as unsuitable for that purpose.
Assuming we receive confirmation that 850 deg C is the correct temperature, what should we do with the cattle if we prevent them from being burnt in that way? Dead cattle will still come forward like a wave of soldiers to be disposed of.
Dorothy-Grace's point is that, if an incinerator does not have permission to burn BSE-infected cattle, it should not be allowed to burn fallen stock or high-risk stock.
That applies to nearly all incinerators in Scotland.
Yes. Only two incinerators are licensed to take known BSE-infected cattle.
The SAC incinerators are tiny—they incinerate only around eight animals a day.
So the issue is one of capacity.
The capacity does not exist. Although we might not like it, there does not appear to be a problem as a result of burning cattle, assuming that 850 deg C is the right temperature. However, there is a problem in relation to the safety of the operators who dispose of animals and put them into incinerators. There might also be a problem with water supplies.
In one case, blood was being put into the streets.
Brussels did not allow an ordinary domestic incinerator in a village called Drogenbos, which is a few miles from the centre of Brussels, simply because it was too near. If something is not good enough for Brussels, it is not good enough for Glasgow. People in Glasgow suffer from poor health already.
I want to draw the discussion back together. We should make general recommendations, not ones that are specifically about Glasgow, which would be outwith the committee's remit.
I ask that we include in the report the point about the safety of workers who operate the plants in Scotland.
That goes back to the issue of tests and how quickly the results are available. Your point could be incorporated into that part of the report. Before I ask Fiona McLeod to respond in general and to say whether she is comfortable with John Scott's suggestion, I will allow Angus MacKay and Bruce Crawford to make their points.
I appreciate Dorothy-Grace's point about approvals to burn BSE-infected animals and fallen stock. However, our report should not say that incinerators that may not be used to burn BSE-infected animals should not be used to burn fallen animals. Instead, we should say that there appears to be a contradiction. The Executive—or the appropriate body—should attach a condition to incinerators that are used to treat fallen animals to ensure that they treat those animals acceptably, whether by increasing the heat threshold or by some other means. If that condition could not be met, one might conclude that there would be a danger in allowing the use of incinerators to dispose of fallen animals. However, we should try to find an enabling way forward.
I want to concentrate on that point as well. I understand why Dorothy-Grace Elder raised the issue. John Scott just told me that very few fallen animals would be infected with BSE. We need to ensure that there are guarantees that BSE will not get into the system. If we can get guarantees beforehand on some of Fiona McLeod's recommendations, it would not matter what the incinerator was burning as far as BSE was concerned. We must try to get to that stage rather than allow the beasts to be put into incinerators that cannot deal with them appropriately.
I will let you respond to those points, Fiona. It would be helpful if you, as the reporter, were prepared to accept the amendments that members have suggested. If you are not, we will return to those issues. Perhaps you could give us an overview of the debate.
You are confusing me, convener. I thought that the recommendation in paragraph 21 was the only one to be changed.
Yes, but additions to the report were also suggested.
I will go with what Angus MacKay said and take out "retrospective". My recommendation is about reviewing what is happening in the six incinerators that are licensed under the 1988 regulations. In undertaking that review, the Executive could start to get evidence for some of the questions that have been asked subsequently to my questions.
I should have thought of the point that John Scott made—but I did not—about whether workers are handling BSE-infected carcases at non-BSE licensed premises. I will ask for that to be looked into as part of the review. The review should include a review of temperature, handling conditions and everything about which the 1999 regulations are more stringent than the 1988 regulations. We now know that BSE-infected cattle will be burned at non-BSE licensed sites. However, the committee wants to ensure that, when that happens—and we know that it will happen—it will not pose an unacceptable risk to the workers, the local population or the environment. I take it that that encapsulates what we are looking for from the review.
We want the Government to learn lessons from the review and to decide whether it is sufficient to rescind or change planning permissions, or whether it has to start from scratch. The first point in the remit was to consider planning guidelines and reviews of planning guidelines. The Executive has told us that a review of NPPG 10 is not a priority. I hope that the evidence that it will get from the review of what is actually happening will inform its decision as to whether that should be a priority.
Everything has become tied up together as the debate has gone on. We are talking about the collation of BSE information, not the collection of it—I am sorry, but I am an information professional. There is no way that the minister could not have given those answers at any point. Information on BSE-infected animals is collected and stored. We simply have to question it to get the answers that we need. Therefore, as part of the review, the minister must produce evidence on a continuing basis on the number of BSE-infected cattle that are being incinerated at non-BSE licensed facilities. That will enable him to undertake a risk assessment as part of all the evidence gathering that we are asking him to do to inform us. It will also inform him whether he needs to review planning permissions and the way in which BSE is handled altogether.
Okay. We have broad agreement to endorse the report, with minor amendments.
On a point of information, convener. The petitioner is concerned about animals of any kind being burned at the plant. Naturally, the pollution risk from particles is just as bad whether they are BSE-infected or not. The local people do not want any animal burning in the area—it does not happen anywhere else.
I also have a small point to make about the regulations. Perhaps the committee would also consider the sewerage regulations. The plant is operating under the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968, which was passed long before anyone had heard of BSE. The guidelines on BSE and the contents of abattoirs getting into drains are from 1997, which was quite a long time ago, and we now know an awful lot more about BSE. All the regulations and guidelines on BSE are either totally outdated or rapidly becoming outdated because of more recent legislation.
The Health and Community Care Committee, rather than this committee, has a remit to cover the health impacts of BSE. I do not want to continue the debate. Fiona McLeod's report has received broad support from the committee, with the minor amendments that we have talked about.
I recognise the fact that the petitioner does not want the plant to be there. However, it is outwith the powers of the committee to decide its location. The committee can consider the regulations and guidelines that apply to such plants—as we have done—but that is as much as we can do. If any further action is required, the matter must be pursued with the appropriate authorities.
I appreciate that, convener. I have been stressing the issue of BSE all along, but the plant will cause pollution whether it is burning BSE-infected carcases or not. That is the nub of the petitioner's argument. The fact that the plant is handling animals in the high-risk category just makes the problem very much worse.
I understand that.
On a point of information, convener. For the benefit of the Official Report, I advise members that the plant to which I referred earlier, which caused such consternation in the 1980s, was ReChem International. It certainly got a very bad press 15 to 20 years ago.
Let us conclude. We endorse the report, as discussed. In addition to the organisations to which members suggested that we should send the report, perhaps we should send it to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for comment. We have already agreed to send it to SEPA and the two departments. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Did you say that we would copy it to the Health and Community Care Committee?
I did not. I would be happy for that committee to receive a copy of it, but I suspect that it will not be able to undertake any substantive work on it, given its work load on a range of other issues. However, that will be for that committee to decide. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank members for their attendance and participation on that item. We now move into private.
Meeting continued in private until 13:34.