The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-13248, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, on sewage sludge spreading. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. Before I invite Margaret Mitchell to open the debate, I invite members who are leaving the chamber and members of the public who are leaving the gallery to do so quickly and quietly please.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the level of concern about the spreading of sewage sludge on fields in and around the Falkirk area; understands that over 1,300 members of the community have submitted letters of objection regarding the practice to Falkirk Council; notes that community councils in the Falkirk area have lodged a petition with the Public Petitions Committee regarding sewage sludge spreading; understands that the spreading of human sewage on fields in the Falkirk area has aggravated health problems among local residents, including those with lung conditions and asthma, and prevented residents from opening windows, hanging out laundry or sitting outside during the summer months; further understands that sludge has been spilt onto roads during transportation and that a local primary school sports day had to be cancelled due to the stench from the sludge making children vomit; acknowledges that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Scottish Water, Falkirk Council and the Scottish Government are responsible for oversight of the various stages of sewage sludge treatment, transportation and spreading and that the Scottish Government is currently conducting a review of waste spreading in Scotland, and notes the view that there is merit in exploring alternative ways of treating human sewage as well as ensuring that the current practice is meticulously monitored so that local communities are not adversely affected.
12:34
This debate provides the opportunity to set out the intolerable conditions that residents in and around the Falkirk area have been subjected to as a direct consequence of sewage sludge spreading in nearby fields.
At the outset, I acknowledge and pay tribute to the commitment and perseverance of the members of Avonbridge and Standburn community council and in particular the convener Jo Hirst and secretary Doreen Goldie for gathering the necessary local intelligence to address this issue.
The stench from the sludge has meant that, at best, residents have been unable to sit outside and enjoy their gardens or to hang out washing. In some areas residents are not even able to open their windows on hot days, as the smell would make the rooms inside their homes unbearable to live in. At worst, the stench has resulted in residents who suffer from lung conditions such as asthma experiencing deterioration in their conditions when sludge was spread on nearby fields.
Perhaps the most shocking incident occurred last year, when a primary school sports day in California had to be cancelled because the stench was causing children to vomit in the playground. It is astounding that even after that incident, which a local community police officer witnessed, absolutely nothing was done to address the issue, which has been on-going for not just days, weeks or even months, but several years.
All that has taken place despite members of the community council last year presenting a letter of objection signed by 1,300 residents to Falkirk Council regarding the spreading of sewage sludge in fields, and despite the local community officer who attended the community council meetings being made fully aware of those issues. More worrying still, threats were made to members of the community council when they approached an individual who was contracted by Scottish Water to treat and spread the sludge about the stench and the spillage of sludge on roads during transportation, which creates a potential hazard. Complaints were also made to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water, to no avail.
I was made aware of the situation by constituents and the community council, which prompted me to hold meetings with SEPA, Scottish Water, Falkirk Council environmental health and Police Scotland, at which the community council was represented by Jo Hirst and Doreen Goldie. Various issues emerged from those meetings. Some of the sewage had not been properly treated by those who were storing and distributing it to local farmers, which resulted in subsequent severe health issues for local residents. There is an issue about the adequacy of monitoring of the storage and processing of sewage sludge. SEPA contends that pressure on resources means that those who store and distribute sewage sludge are expected to self-monitor, which is open to abuse and error.
There has been a total failure on the part of any of the organisations with responsibility for various aspects of monitoring sewage sludge processing and spreading to take the lead in addressing the problem. Key analytical statistics and information on pricing were not readily available from SEPA and Scottish Water. The discrepancies in the storage and monitoring of the sludge have led Scottish Water to consider whether to take over the treatment and storage of sewage sludge in house. That would ensure that the sludge was treated properly before being spread in dry pellet form on to fields, which should reduce the stench.
No one is responsible for the monitoring of sewage sludge that is shipped from England, or brought in from Northern Ireland, to be stored and spread in Scotland. Reports persist of lorries carrying waste to holding sites in the Falkirk area at 2.30 and 4 o’clock in the morning.
Speaking to the petition that was lodged by Avonbridge and Standburn community council, which is currently under consideration by the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee, the petitioners noted that wet sewage sludge that has not been obtained from Scottish Water has been deposited and left on top of farmland, without being properly dug in. Given that, I hope that the Public Petitions Committee will recommend that the Scottish Government takes steps to end the practice of spreading human waste on fields, now.
Let us be quite clear that there is huge potential to make big money out of the illegal spreading of sewage sludge, with cash changing hands indiscriminately and anonymously. That presents opportunities for organised crime and money laundering. Ruthless individuals set up businesses that operate under different company names to make easy money at the expense of intolerable living conditions for local residents, and it is far from clear that there is due diligence in checking those companies’ legitimacy.
Finally, in response to a parliamentary question that I asked about sewage sludge in April this year, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment stated that there would be a report from the review group during the summer. I would be grateful if, in her closing remarks, the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform could update the Parliament on the progress of the review and, crucially, commit to a timetable for action.
The unpalatable truth is that there have been discussions, meetings and consultations on sewage sludge spreading dating back to the inception of this Parliament, but the deplorable conditions that local residents have been exposed to remain unchanged. It is for that reason that an holistic approach is needed from SEPA, Scottish Water, local councils, Police Scotland and the Scottish Government, all of whom have, by default, failed local residents, subjecting them to a totally unacceptable living environment.
12:41
First and foremost, I thank Margaret Mitchell for ensuring that this important issue has been brought to the Parliament for debate. I also thank the members who signed my amendment to her motion. I know that Margaret Mitchell has put a lot of effort into resolving the issue in Falkirk district, as have I.
As we know, the spreading of sewage sludge on farmland has come about as a result of a European Union directive banning the dumping of sewage at sea. It is an issue that has attracted a great deal of debate and a number of complaints in my constituency, not least in the Upper Braes area, which includes Slamannan and the surrounding villages.
I set up a problem-solving partnership meeting and held a number of meetings with SEPA and Scottish Water to try to ensure that my constituents were not inconvenienced in the way that they had been for a number of years. As Margaret Mitchell mentioned, more than 1,300 members of the community have previously submitted letters of objection to Falkirk Council regarding the process. As we know, Avonbridge and Standburn community council lodged a petition earlier this year with the Public Petitions Committee regarding sewage sludge spreading.
As a result of that pressure, Scottish Water has improved procedures for sewage disposal and is now transporting only dried sewage pellets to Falkirk district, which are treated before arriving for disposal in the Falkirk area. That is welcome progress indeed. However, as Margaret Mitchell said, sewage sludge is being received from firms other than Scottish Water, which is still an issue. The change in procedures at Scottish Water has significantly cut down on the smells emanating from the fields after spreading or from the heaps of sewage sludge that were stockpiled at various locations around Slamannan, but farmers are clearly still entitled to use that resource as a fertiliser.
However, there is another issue that the minister should be made aware of. Much of the waste that is currently causing inconvenience and annoyance to my constituents in Upper Braes seems to be food waste, not sewage sludge or pellets. It is being transported to a couple of local lagoons, and the gas created by anaerobic respiration during the decompression of that organic material causes an unpleasant smell that can be confused with the smell emanating from the sewage sludge.
The smell from the trucks transporting that waste can also be overpowering, and I have had reports of children vomiting in the street, not just at the local primary school, after those lorries pass through the local villages. However, SEPA has stated that that smell is not a public health issue and that soil samples of the farmland where the material is spread indicated no public health issues at all. That is a major concern of mine, following information that I received from SEPA.
I have serious concerns regarding those lagoons, which are used to store digestate from anaerobic digestion, and I believe that there is a serious loophole that results in them not being properly regulated. They do not require any type of planning permission, so they are not regulated, and they do not fall under either local authorities’ or SEPA’s remit for checking, even though the product in the lagoon is being used in the production of sludge for spreading. I have also been informed by SEPA that it is unable to test the contents as it needs to know what it is testing for in the first place.
Although waste management operators are required to keep records, and although SEPA is entitled to inspect them, if we have unscrupulous operators who do not keep accurate records, there is no knowing what is being spread on the land. That worrying aspect needs to be looked at in more detail, and I have alerted SEPA to my concerns and expect to have a meeting with senior officials soon. I am also aware that SEPA is actively pursuing a meeting with Falkirk Council to agree each other’s remits and responsibilities. In the meantime, however, the lagoons go unchecked.
Although I welcome the fact that in recent months Scottish Water has been diverting sewage sludge away from Falkirk district, I think that there needs to be a long-term strategy. We need look no further than Sweden, where only 14 per cent of sewage is spread on land, and the Netherlands, where I believe the vast majority of sewage is incinerated. In Sweden, incineration—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Presiding Officer; I have only just noticed the time. I will try to speed up.
In Sweden, incineration fits in with the larger Swedish goal of recovering the important minerals from the sludge for reuse, and currently 49.83 per cent of sludge in that country is disposed of through incineration. When sludge is incinerated through mono-combustion, the ash can be processed to extract phosphorus and other useful materials.
I will cut out the technicalities of the benefits of incineration and simply welcome the Scottish Government’s sludge review, which I hope will have the end result of more appropriate ways of disposing of sewage—preferably through incineration—and look forward to tighter regulation of the lagoons used to produce sludge that will ultimately be spread on farmland. I also look forward to the minister’s response.
12:46
I, too, thank Margaret Mitchell for bringing this motion to the Scottish Parliament, because my constituents are experiencing many problems associated with the practice of spreading human sewage sludge. I also put on record my acknowledgement of the commitment of Douglas community council in my region and the other residents and constituents who have highlighted this concern.
In June, representatives of Douglas community council and I met Zero Waste Scotland, Scottish Power and SEPA in order to contribute to the review of this activity that I and other members in the chamber had called for. I found it heartening that the need for such a review had been recognised, and we welcomed the opportunity to express what it was really like to have this practice take place on one’s doorstep. We valued the interest that was committed, but it needs to be on-going. I was also encouraged by the willingness to listen and the acceptance that aspects of the current process should be improved. I understand that, as other members have mentioned, Zero Waste Scotland’s aim was to have its recommendations with the minister by the end of August, and I would be grateful if we could receive an update today on the timescales for the work.
The use of human sewage sludge is an emotive subject, and although I recognise that ways of handling and disposing of human waste need to be found, I believe that the general public cannot continue to be subjected to the practice certainly as it stands, if at all. Odour, road spillages, increased heavy traffic and proximity to residential properties as well as the issues that members have already highlighted must be considered in the approval of suitable locations for this activity, if, indeed, it is to go ahead at all. Margaret Mitchell has already highlighted many of those concerns. Constituents of mine who live near the restoration opencast site at Glentaggart have been subjected to all the outcomes of this activity. Moreover, Glentaggart’s location near Douglas Water and the nature of the site itself have led to serious concerns about the impact on watercourses.
Aside from the daily impositions on the local community, other wider aspects need attention and clarity. First of all, greater consistency is needed in the treatment of human sewage sludge. The public must have confidence that the sludge that is being used has been treated to remove the pathogens that pose a risk to human health. The Glentaggart site was regularly used by dog walkers; however, there has been no signage to warn the public about the spreading of sludge, and I have been unable to ascertain who is responsible for putting it up. That issue must be addressed.
In my inquiries into the sewage sludge issue, I was not reassured that the heat treatment process was being applied consistently. Can we be confident that there is a contingency for waste treatment facility outages? Waste that is not heat treated must not be sent out for use. Even in the present circumstances and with the present regulation, it is still not clear to me whether that point is being addressed.
Secondly, the review has to ensure that the correct classification is given to the practice. Its current exempt status does not reflect the agency input that I believe is required to adequately monitor it. The categorisation needs to be changed to a higher risk category in order to enable adequate monitoring by SEPA—if, indeed, the practice proceeds.
Thirdly, there needs to be more robust traceability of waste. Traceability ensures that operators are accountable for their waste management. My Douglas constituents have concerns about the volume of waste that is coming into the Glentaggart site and, indeed, where it originates from. That information has to be quantifiable and assessed. The concerns relating to the practice are wide ranging—from public nuisance, to health and safety, to accountability. The review has the scope to ensure that those concerns are addressed by tightening the guidance and legislation at every stage of the process and I hope that it will not be a missed opportunity. I ask the minister whether the process should be continuing at all in the future and, if not, whether the alternatives are being looked at.
Finally, I associate myself with Angus MacDonald’s remarks about the loopholes regarding food waste in lagoons. I am of the belief that we need another members’ business debate to cover that issue, but that is for another day. I look forward to hearing the minister’s remarks and again thank Margaret Mitchell.
12:51
I commend Margaret Mitchell for bringing this motion before us. The spread of sewage sludge is an important issue that affects a great number of people in quite a large area of Scotland. It is not just confined to the Braes area or to the Avonbridge and Standburn area—it impacts on many communities throughout Scotland. I hope that, by highlighting the issue today, we will highlight to many communities throughout Scotland that this Parliament is looking at the issue with some serious intent to make sure that changes take place.
The matter has come before the Public Petitions Committee, which I sit on, as a petition from the Avonbridge and Standburn community council. The council clearly highlighted the issues regarding the noxious odours that last for days or more, sewage waste damaging soils and water in the area where it has been dumped, and the potential impact that that has on human and animal welfare. Margaret Mitchell ably identified the impact on children in the area.
As mentioned in the motion and as Margaret Mitchell highlighted, the spreading of the sludge has adversely affected people in the local area and their ability to do basic things around their own homes, such as hanging out their washing to dry or even opening their windows.
The issue is a serious environmental and social concern. I am glad that the Scottish Government has announced a review into the spreading of sewage sludge, but we must ensure that the review is an open, transparent and democratic process. Communities that are affected should be consulted and involved in the review.
There is no point in carrying out a desktop review or a review that just involves the officials who are charged with overseeing the legislation in this area at present. The review must involve listening to the communities concerned—the community councils and the tenants and residents associations—because those are the people who suffer the worst effects.
When the Public Petitions Committee heard evidence from Scottish Natural Heritage and SEPA, they highlighted that there was an inconsistency in who was responsible for monitoring, with some of the monitoring being carried out by local authority environmental services departments and some of it being carried out by SEPA. Clearly, that inconsistency has to be reviewed. SEPA said to the committee that there were inconsistencies in the legislation and in the regulations. We must look at those inconsistencies, and we must have a body that takes overall responsibility for ensuring that the sewage sludge that is being spread in Scotland is being adequately monitored.
Margaret Mitchell highlighted that it is not just a case of sewage sludge that is being produced in Scotland; it also involves sewage sludge that is transported from other parts of the United Kingdom without the appropriate monitoring and regulation being applied. That is a worrying factor for many communities throughout Scotland.
The other issue that I want to highlight is that the spreading of sewage sludge has taken place for decades, if not hundreds of years, but the difficulty that we have now is that, with the continued erosion of green-belt land and the building of residential properties closer and closer to farmland, the impact is becoming more apparent on members of those new communities, who might not be used to living close to a farm. We must ensure that the necessary regulation is in place.
I hope that the minister will tell us what action has been taken to consult the affected communities and those that are not at present experiencing an issue. We need to know whether their views have been taken on board as part of the review. We must ensure that communities are fully engaged in the process and that they know who is ultimately responsible for monitoring the spreading of sewage sludge throughout Scotland.
12:55
I congratulate Margaret Mitchell on securing valuable debating time on what is an important issue for many people. It has certainly been the subject of much correspondence to my local constituency office. I would also like to thank my colleague Angus MacDonald for the time and effort that he has put into helping to construct a considered and evidence-based approach to dealing with this controversial matter.
I am unfamiliar with the exact situation in Falkirk, but many of my constituents in the communities of Barrmill, Beith, Burnhouse and Gateside have reported similar concerns as a result of sewage sludge spreading. Although it is not a direct public health issue, as a result of the storage and subsequent spreading of sewage sludge over recent months local residents have been unable to hang out washing, enjoy their gardens, open windows or even work outdoors. As well as the nauseous odour being a problem for many, swarms of flies had a serious negative impact on my constituents’ reasonable enjoyment of their home and their local area.
Following the treatment of human sewage and industrial effluent at sewage treatment works, a residual sludge is left behind, which can be de-watered and used to produce sludge cake or sludge pellets. The industry refers to such products as biosolids. They can be used to fertilise land, but that should not be done at the expense of the quality of life of our constituents.
De-watering and the creation of pellets should tackle the issue that Margaret Mitchell raised in her motion, in which she pointed out that sludge residue had been spilled on to roads during transportation. That would seem to support Scottish Water’s commitment to making the whole process safer and more sanitary through the use of pellets, but the use of wet sewage, as Margaret Mitchell contends, should be banned.
What has concerned many of us is the failure of the regulatory response to the genuine concerns that have been raised across many communities. Although in my constituency and in Falkirk this process has clearly caused significant public nuisance, it must be remembered that up until 1998 such waste was simply dumped at sea.
I am pleased to note that, on 6 March this year, SEPA, Scottish Water and the Scottish Government began a formal review of the legislation and guidance in relation to sewage sludge use on land. In setting out the terms of the review, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, Richard Lochhead, mentioned the benefits of the process but went on to say:
“Over the last year a number of public complaints have been made. In light of that I have commissioned a review of legislation and guidance to determine what is and isn't acceptable. I am confident this review will help to ensure we strike the right balance between the benefits of using sewage sludge and the controls that protect both the public and wider environmental interests.”
I was pleased that the review was to take into account the views of stakeholders and community groups and that it would ensure that a wide range of expert opinion and local experience would be heard. I look forward to the results of the review, but surely, after almost six months, they must now be due.
I trust that stricter controls and oversight will be introduced to ensure that communities are not adversely affected in the way that many of my constituents have been. It is clear that many people felt helpless. Whether they contacted the local authority’s environmental health department or SEPA, it did not seem that anything was being done to alleviate their concerns and the difficulties that they had to endure over the summer months, and that is unacceptable.
I also note with interest the comments that Angus MacDonald made in his amendment about the merits of increasing incineration capacity to follow the northern European model. I believe that, along with the Scottish Government’s review of best practice, that has the potential to alleviate many of the problems that communities across Scotland have been facing.
12:59
I, too, thank Margaret Mitchell for securing the debate. It is an issue that gets a lot of people quickly upset and one that has come before the Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee on several occasions over the years, which just goes to show that feelings run high on the issue.
As recently as June this year, a petition was lodged on the Parliament’s website calling on Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the use of sewage sludge on land and look for acceptable alternative methods of disposal, as adopted in other European countries—countries that are not that dissimilar to the UK.
Although we need to get rid of the waste somehow, no one wants a stink at their back door or in their local area. What makes a difficult situation much worse is poor management of the spreading of sludge—such as spillage, particularly while transporting between locations—and failure to provide fair warning to local residents.
Research by the European Union into exposure to sewage sludge shows that there is no evidence that it causes health problems, aside from the impact of a strange and unpleasant smell.
We need to get this right and, when it goes wrong, apologies should be made and lessons learned. To resolve the situation, other ways of disposing of sewage sludge should be found as soon as possible. The fact that it has taken more than six months to compile the report is unhelpful. People’s hopes—particularly among those who face the problem—are for a much quicker response. I call upon the Scottish Government to take a good look at the issue with a view to finding solutions at the earliest opportunity.
I am concerned that, because of a lack of restriction, it is possible that the use of raw sewage might contaminate our land, too. We are familiar with how foot-and-mouth disease came about. If we use unsafe sewage on our land, it could be just as dangerous and have just as much of an impact on our agriculture industry as foot and mouth.
We need to take on board people’s concerns. We are not accustomed to strong odours and, when they occur, it is very unpleasant. That is particularly the case for people who live close to where the sludge is being sprayed.
What also concerns me is the lack of legislation on the use of sewage sludge. I am fearful that it may endanger people in the long term.
13:04
Like other members, I thank Margaret Mitchell for bringing to the chamber the important issue of the spreading of sewage sludge on land. I thank Angus MacDonald, too, for his amendment.
The issues that we are discussing are crucial to the quality of life of the communities and individuals affected. Margaret Mitchell talked about the intolerable conditions to which many people have been exposed. I agree that that is totally and utterly unacceptable.
For that reason I am grateful to my colleagues for their contributions to the debate. I know how tirelessly they have worked on behalf of their constituents. There is a petition before the Public Petitions Committee and there have been several parliamentary questions as well as written correspondence with the cabinet secretary. I appreciate and thank them for all their efforts in bringing the issue to the attention of the Parliament this afternoon.
As members will be aware, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and the Environment, Richard Lochhead, announced earlier this year that there would be a review of the storage and spreading of sewage sludge on land in Scotland. The debate is particularly timely as it allows that review to be informed by the points raised this afternoon.
The sludge review is being led by the Scottish Government, SEPA and Scottish Water. The purpose of the review is to find ways to promote safe sludge storage and use, and to protect local communities, public health and the environment.
The scope of the review has encompassed the use of sewage sludge on non-agricultural land for the purposes of restoration, as well as the spreading of sewage sludge on agricultural land. It has covered licensing of operators and activities, as well as treatment, testing and storage of sludge and health issues. I mention health issues because when the smell and stench get really bad it can exacerbate pre-existing health conditions, so we are looking to address that.
The review has also dealt with land classification, traceability, data management and monitoring issues. In addition, the review has considered possible improvements to legislation and guidance.
Most important of all, the review has taken full account of the needs of local communities in dealing with issues that directly affect them, such as odour and noise during unsocial hours. We know also that communication and consultation with those who live near sites where sewage sludge is used are important—a point raised by Claudia Beamish—and so we have looked at that, too.
The review team has engaged with a range of key stakeholders, including members of Avonbridge and Standburn community council, as well as Claudia Beamish and her constituents from Douglas community council, local authorities and Health Protection Scotland. That has enabled the team to hear about local experiences and concerns and the evidence on environmental and health effects.
I am aware of the experiences of the constituents of both Margaret Mitchell and Angus MacDonald in the Falkirk area, and I know that there have been other incidents in Scotland over the past couple of years that have led—rightly and understandably—to complaints. It is clear that sewage sludge has caused a significant problem in the Falkirk area, and I am pleased to see that Scottish Water has taken a number of remedial actions during the past few months to tackle those serious issues.
Can the minister give us a date for the publication of the review group findings, given that it is now six months since the group was first convened? Does she agree that those findings should include the crucial need to take a holistic approach and for one organisation to take the lead to ensure adequate monitoring?
I was going to come to that point towards the end of my speech, and I will ensure that it is included in my remarks.
Since February this year, Scottish Water has imposed a complete embargo on any of its sludge and other organic materials being recycled in the Falkirk area. There has also been an increase in auditing of contractors’ activities, including spot checks by Scottish Water, and more monitoring of material stockpiles held by contractors.
In addition, community councils in the area now have direct access to Scottish Water waste managers. I understand that those actions have improved the local situation. It is our intention, through the sludge review, to make sure that that improvement is sustained and built upon, not just in the Falkirk area but elsewhere in Scotland.
Margaret Mitchell mentioned the sewage sludge that comes from other parts of the UK. The review has looked at that and is finding a way to try to deal with that issue.
Serious points have been raised by Angus MacDonald regarding the storage of anaerobic digestate. SEPA has said that it will monitor the situation and assess whether the storage of anaerobic digestate requires further regulatory control. I am glad to hear that Angus MacDonald is meeting SEPA to discuss those concerns.
It is clear from the concerns that have been expressed by the public and reflected in Parliament this afternoon that the outcomes from the sewage sludge review are awaited with great interest. We want to ensure that, where sludge is stored or spread to land, it is done safely and does not cause nuisance or inconvenience to the general public.
We are confident that the sludge review will identify ways to avoid incidents of the kind that we have heard about today, which have been totally and utterly unacceptable. I understand that the review group will shortly submit its conclusions—it will be later this month—for ministers to consider how to proceed.
It is important to stress that we will consult on any proposed actions that may involve changes to legislation or statutory guidance. As part of our better environmental regulation programme, the Scottish Government and SEPA are working jointly to deliver a new environmental enforcement framework for Scotland that includes a range of new proportionate, enforceable measures for SEPA.
I close by reiterating my thanks to Margaret Mitchell and all the other members who have spoken in this afternoon’s debate for bringing such an important issue to the chamber. I thank them for their contributions, which have been extremely helpful in taking the review forward.
I thank you all for taking part in this important debate.
13:11 Meeting suspended.Previous
First Minister’s Question TimeNext
Policing