Organic Waste Disposal
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3465, in the name of Bristow Muldoon, on behalf of the Transport and the Environment Committee, on its fourth report in 2002, on petition PE327, by the Blairingone and Saline Action Group, on organic waste spread on land.
Today's debate is at the behest of the Transport and the Environment Committee and is on a report that we produced in response to petition PE327, by the Blairingone and Saline Action Group. Our report makes recommendations for action on a serious concern that affects a number of communities—the impact on the environment and on health of waste, such as sewage sludge and abattoir waste, being spread near residential areas.
Although the issue was raised by a local action group, it is important that we recognise its broader resonance for the rest of Scotland. That was why the Transport and the Environment Committee decided to undertake work on the issue. Jack McConnell, the First Minister, recently committed the Scottish Executive to the principle of securing environmental justice for the people of Scotland. Therefore, it is important that the Parliament's committees deal seriously with issues that raise environmental concerns and that legislation is introduced to address those concerns.
I will begin by outlining how the issue was brought to the attention of the Transport and the Environment Committee. Then I will highlight the committee's key recommendations. Finally, I will outline the more recent developments that have taken place since the publication of the report, in particular the Scottish Executive's response to the report, and the areas in which the committee believes that further progress must be made.
The issue first came to the committee's attention through the petition from the Blairingone and Saline Action Group, a campaigning group from Kinross-shire, which sought changes to the regulations that govern the spreading of waste on land near residential areas. The petition was submitted to the Parliament in December 2000. The report recognises that the people who campaigned on behalf of Blairingone and Saline carried out their campaign—[Interruption.]
I ask Bristow Muldoon to pronounce the word as "Salin"—I mean that kindly. I say it as a Fifer to someone who is not.
I thank Tricia Marwick for her intervention. My colleague Andy Kerr was giving me heavy whispers to that effect. I apologise to the good people of Saline, which is a village that I have not visited. I will endeavour to pronounce it correctly, as "Salin", for the remainder of my speech.
The petitioners complained that waste, such as sewage sludge and blood and guts from abattoirs was being spread near residential areas. The petitioners were concerned about the potential consequences of waste spreading for people's health, as well as about the odour pollution that was created. They also indicated their frustration with the inadequacy of the regulatory framework that governs the spreading of organic waste, which they believed was difficult to enforce effectively.
I recognise the considerable contribution that George Reid has made by bringing the issue to Parliament's attention. He has campaigned on the issue since 1999, when he became an MSP, if not since before then. In his pursuit of the issue, he has openly shared information with members of other parties, such as my colleague Sylvia Jackson and members of the Transport and the Environment Committee. If members want an example of how to make progress on an issue and gain cross-party support for it, they would be well advised to study George Reid's actions over the past few years.
I also recognise the interest that Sylvia Jackson has shown in the issue. She represents Argaty, an area with similar problems, and her involvement in the issue goes back a number of years. David Martin MEP has been involved over the years, as have many politicians from all parties, including local councillors.
The then convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, Andy Kerr, was chosen to be our reporter on the petition when it was referred to the committee. On behalf of the committee, I thank him for the work that he carried out. The report that we published was almost wholly based on the professional and well-worded report that he drafted. I know that the affected communities welcomed his visits. Through those visits and through the production of the report and its recommendations for action, the Scottish Parliament was seen to take action to deal with the problems experienced by people in Scotland.
Our report did not consider only the specific issues that were raised in the petition. We also considered the Executive's response to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's report, "Strategic Review of Organic Waste Spread on Land", and the adequacy of the regulatory and legislative framework for waste disposal in Scotland. We called for evidence from a wide range of bodies and received evidence from the Blairingone and Saline Action Group, the Scottish Executive, SEPA, Friends of the Earth Scotland and the Institute of Wastes Management. Site visits were undertaken to Blairingone and Argaty. The campaigners' recognition of the Parliament's work is underlined by the fact that, on the Parliament's 1,000th day, Duncan Hope, the chairman of the action group, welcomed the actions of a member of the committee in
"taking evidence from people in their own homes",
which, he said,
"brought the Parliament much closer to the people than they had ever been to it before."
On behalf of the committee, I recognise the contribution that the action group made by drawing the issue to our attention. Members were startled and surprised by the fact that it is legal for a large volume of blood and guts to be spread directly on land that is adjacent to housing at any time of the day or night. The committee dealt with that issue in its report.
I referred to the fact that the committee considered the SEPA report, the aim of which was to conduct a strategic review of, and to report on the practice of, spreading organic waste on land. A number of recommendations were made, including a ban on the spreading on land of septic tank sludge. SEPA's recommendations are covered in our report.
Our report recommended that proposals to amend the waste management licensing regulations should be implemented urgently. When the committee's report was published, it was thought that consultation on amendments to the regulations would be issued early in 2002. However, that consultation has yet to materialise, and the committee recently sought clarification from the Executive of the time scale for the consultation exercise.
I move on to some of the outstanding concerns that the petitioners highlighted, such as the spreading of sewage sludge and blood and guts on land, the injection of material into land with field drains, the inability of the authorities to deal with odour nuisance, the spread of waste material at night and health complaints. I am sure that George Reid will return to the health aspect in his speech, as he has raised it on several occasions.
The committee made a number of recommendations for action, including a strengthening of guidance relating to the storage and spreading of sewage sludge. The committee indicated that a review of the injection of waste into land with field drains should be established and that the review should consider possible changes to regulations, to address the health and environmental concerns that arise from the practice. The committee recommended that the Executive should investigate more effective mechanisms for substantiating genuine odour nuisances and that the spreading of material outwith daylight hours should be prohibited.
The Executive's response to the report stated that a number of new regulations—for example, regulations to ban the spreading of untreated sewage sludge on land—were being introduced to address the committee's concerns. The committee considered the Executive's response at its meeting on 26 June 2002, during which we reiterated our concerns about the spreading of untreated blood and gut content on land. Although we welcomed the Executive's intention to implement the European Union animal by-products regulation as a means of addressing our concerns, we noted that the time scale for implementation of the EU regulation had slipped from summer 2002 to the first half of 2003, because of delays in the European Parliament. We heard from George Reid about further evidence of the damaging environmental health impact of spreading untreated blood and gut content on land and we were concerned that the practice could continue for a further year.
The committee agreed to write to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to recommend that the application of untreated blood and gut content to land be prohibited in advance of the EU animal by-products regulation. We sought information on the effectiveness of the environmental hazard investigation team, as concerns had been raised that it had not engaged fully with the local community. We acknowledged that many of the health issues did not fall directly within the remit of the Transport and the Environment Committee and that the heavy work programme of the Health and Community Care Committee had perhaps militated against its taking action on some of the issues.
Progress still needs to be made on a number of the issues that arose from our report, such as the timetable for implementing amendments to the waste management regulations and the way in which the petitioners' health concerns have been addressed. However, in addressing some of the petitioners' concerns and securing movement towards new environmental regulations, the committee has achieved a great deal. The only challenge that remains is to convert the recognition of the problems that the petitioners have identified into positive action by the Executive and the Parliament that will resolve the outstanding concerns. I hope that members will support my motion and I look forward to a positive response from ministers and the Executive.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the 4th Report 2002 of the Transport and the Environment Committee, Report on Petition PE327 by the Blairingone and Saline Action Group on Organic Waste Spread on Land (SP Paper 528).
The next speaker will be George Reid. He will take both lots of SNP time in a oner, so he has eight minutes.
The people of Blairingone have been blighted for far too long. For eight years up until 1996, they had to endure the dust and noise of opencast mining. Since that time, when the land was transferred, they have been subjected to the spreading of sewage sludge and the composting of a cocktail of waste.
I do not know what Blairingone has done to deserve all that, apart from being guilty of being thought to be too small, too remote and too rural to put up a fight for environmental justice. I know that the people of Blairingone are not nimbys—they are well aware that, although their problems are local in origin, they are national in importance and will not be solved by transferring the muck to someone else's backyard.
The petition that the people of Blairingone lodged with the Parliament sought the institution of a safe, sustainable and enforceable strategy for the disposal of waste to land in Scotland and requested assurances that the environment and public health were not at risk. The way in which the environmental aspect has been handled is exemplary; the way in which the health aspect has been handled by SEPA, by the investigation team and by the Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee, which has twice batted back requests for an inquiry, is not. The health area requires further inquiry.
Andy Kerr's work as reporter to the Transport and the Environment Committee, as part of which he expressed his amazement at what was going on, was a model of its kind. It is quite proper that the committee agreed that maintaining the status quo was not an option.
Will the member take an intervention?
If Dr Simpson will allow me to develop my argument, I will let him in shortly.
Throughout the campaign, I have never denied that sludge may be useful as a fertiliser and a soil additive, but I have expressed my concerns about pathogens, heavy metals and toxic chemicals. I have been wryly amused by the ability of public relations men to rebrand excrement as beneficial biosolids. I openly accept that the big contractors, such as Snowie Ltd, strive to work to the highest standards that are set by Government.
I acknowledge what George Reid has done. Given that the issue is a public health matter, I wonder whether the public health consultants in the appropriate health board have looked at the health of the Blairingone community. It is the responsibility of those people, along with the groups that Mr Reid has mentioned, to examine such health issues.
I will deal with that point in a little while, when I move on to health.
Since the end of dumping at sea, my concern has been that the quantity of waste is rising so fast that the rate of its application to land—250 tonnes per hectare can be spread, producing 6in thick of material—amounts to industrial waste disposal rather than agricultural activity. The Executive has accepted that key principle. In future, the contractor will have to prove agricultural benefit before spreading, which will give SEPA some of the teeth that it currently lacks.
Since the petition was lodged, the Executive has accepted many of the Blairingone proposals, such as the need for a consistent legislative framework, for more extensive analysis, for an end to spreading the contents of septic tanks, for a review of exemptions and for putting the safe sludge matrix on a statutory basis. I thank the Executive for introducing measures that will make Scotland a greener and cleaner place. I just wish that the Executive had banned the application of blood to land, as SEPA wanted and as contractors have urged the minister to do.
The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development should walk through frozen fields with gelatinous red goo lying on the top, which gulls are pecking at. He should walk through silage—destroyed in the so-called process of fertilisation—which is smeared thick with blood and guts. Foxes run through it and cats bring it into the house. One hundred thousand gallons of the stuff have been lying in tanks at Argaty for almost two years.
In a letter to Bristow Muldoon in August, Ross Finnie said that, after a series of actions, that "isolated and extreme" activity was behind us. He said that it would not be appropriate to take immediate action. Is the minister sure about that? Can he tell the Parliament, categorically, that the practice in question is over? Is not it the case that the contractor has told the media that the practice is not over by a long shot? Has not the minister boasted to the media that he has built up the immunity of the local community by spreading? Is not it true, as of today, that composting continues on the Argaty site, because the site has suddenly been turned into a mushroom farm? That is simply another loophole.
In addition, is not it true that, in the past week, spreading has been transferred to Linn Mill in Clackmannanshire, where it is going on at a highly intensified rate? Is not it true that the pest control officer has notified SEPA and that Clackmannanshire Council is about to intervene? The council has intervened in the past to end an illegal scrap business on what is an agricultural site and it will do so again. Blood, guts, paunch content and now scrap are involved. I look forward to hearing how the Executive's measures have stopped such "isolated and extreme" activity.
I will turn to health measures. Duncan Hope made forceful remarks about cases of blisters as big as 50p pieces and about a child who nearly died of measles with encephalitis, viral meningitis and general metabolic breakdown. Mr Hope was clear—as I have always been—about making no causal connection between spreading or composting and alleged ill health. His position was exactly the same as that of Andy Kerr, who reported:
"Although there was no conclusive proof on the health issues, there were many coincidences."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 3 October 2001; c 2111.]
We have no wish for any shock-horror headlines; we just want the cases to be examined.
Yes, SEPA helped to set up an environmental hazard investigation team, but after that, there was a catalogue of confusion and mutual recrimination. The terms of reference were made public, as the committee wanted, only after the EHIT reported that there was no case to answer.
The EHIT appears to have considered only five cases reported to Perth and Kinross Council. The villagers were never seen. Indeed, they did not know that the inquiry was taking place until it was over. The EHIT report was delivered to the contractor, Snowie, which promptly put out a press release saying "Snowie not to blame".
SEPA then wrote to me saying that it was asking for authority for the EHIT to release the document to Parliament. SEPA then refused to accept the report until the EHIT contacted the villagers. The EHIT refused to go to Blairingone; it said that Blairingone could come to it, and so on and so forth. Now the EHIT blames Mr Hope for refusing to appear while SEPA swithers.
The first meeting was on 23 October 2001. The chairman was not there but SEPA said that
"adverse health would be difficult to identify".
However, the minutes make it clear that that was not the view of the public health consultant from Forth Valley NHS Board, Dr Anthony Breslin, who is well known to Dr Simpson. He proposed an initial study that would annotate the villagers' concerns, contact GPs and collect prescription data. He commented that such information was "easily obtainable". The minutes of the meeting record that it was agreed to conduct an initial study. That was all that was ever required for meaningful dialogue with the community.
However, the EHIT decided not to proceed. Alarm bells should have rung. As Dr Simpson knows, a medical examination was being carried out for the United States Congress by the American National Academy of Sciences, involving 16 of the most distinguished professors of public health, soil science and waste management in America. Their report, "Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices", was delivered to Congress on 2 July. It concludes that the standards that govern using untreated sludge on soil are based on outdated science.
The chairman, Professor Thomas Burke of the department of health policy at Johns Hopkins University said:
"There is a serious lack of health-related information about populations exposed to treated sewage sludge. To ensure public health protection, the Environment Protection Agency should investigate allegations of adverse health effects and update the science behind its chemical and pathogen standards".
The committee has called for improved methods of assessing health risks, new risk assessments and detailed studies on populations exposed to biosolids in their environment.
I do not think that I need to say any more apart from the following. I believe in the Parliament and its procedures. I believe in justice. I believe that the Parliament was set up to cast light on the dark corners of Scottish life, to give voice to the people and to ensure that the elites of old corporate Scotland do not determine what we should think.
The Executive has taken considerable steps forward. The Health and Community Care Committee may yet decide to appoint a reporter and ask for professional advice. However, there must be further inquiries if the Parliament is to fulfil its central role of listening to the people of Scotland.
In taking note of the recommendations of the committee's report, Blairingone reserves the right to come back to the committee. That right was given by Andy Kerr, who said that the committee should keep a "watching brief".
I see that John McAllion is present. I also reserve the right to go back to the Public Petitions Committee and ask whether the health issues that have been raised by the villagers have been adequately addressed by the Parliament.
First, I declare an interest as I am a farmer. As I am speaking in the debate, let me say that I am categorically against the spreading of blood and guts on agricultural land. I congratulate George Reid on his speech today.
Given the variety and complexity of past food scares related to the disposal of offal and spinal cord, it is outrageous that such unnecessary risks of blood and guts disposal are being inflicted on communities. It is a matter of regret that the Health and Community Care Committee has thus far refused to consider the health hazard of spreading blood and guts on agricultural land. However, on that point I take issue with the Executive rather than with the Health and Community Care Committee. There is only so much work that a committee can undertake in any one session, and the Health and Community Care Committee has, unquestionably, had more than its fair share. Perhaps in time the committee will feel able to address those issues, but it is unrealistic of the Executive to try to address every issue in the first session of the Parliament.
There is outstanding work to be done on the health impact of the practice. However, assessment and information gathering will become significantly more difficult the longer that the task is left on the to-do list.
I welcome the report, but I cannot welcome it whole-heartedly because, like Topsy, it has grown. While the original petition, rightly, wanted action on the disgusting practice of spreading blood and guts, the report has been broadened beyond the scope of the original inquiry into a review of agricultural practice generally, and the spreading of natural organic farm waste in particular.
Of course, it is not unreasonable to expect farmers to demonstrate an agricultural benefit to spreading waste products on land in the future. However, what are farmers to do with waste such as dirty water from dairy farms, which has no benefit and is 99.9 per cent water but still needs to be got rid of? Such wastes have to be stored in the first instance, given that, on SEPA's instruction, they cannot be allowed to enter the sewerage system, the natural drainage system or field drains that are found in the countryside.
I am intrigued that the member is distancing himself from the committee's report. I have flicked through the report and I cannot see any substantive dissent from the member.
I have had further time to consider the report. The member will be well aware that I did not come to the report in the first instance, and in the first months of addressing the report, I was perhaps not as confident as I might have been.
The addressing of a specific practice, which is unanimously agreed to be unacceptable, has led to SEPA seeking to move away from the voluntary and self-regulating option of the code on the prevention of environmental pollution from agricultural activity. SEPA now seeks to strengthen the guidance in the hope that that might reduce other alleged abuses of the PEPFAA code. The Transport and the Environment Committee has heard no evidence about that, but it all increases the burden of regulation and cost on the farming community.
It is unreasonable to move the burden of proof from SEPA having to prove that agricultural contractors and farmers are causing a problem, to those contractors and farmers having to prove that they are not causing pollution. Many of the farming practices that involve farmyard organic waste have been regarded as best practice for generations, and still are. The subject of diffuse pollution by farms has to be addressed, but that is already happening.
On odour nuisance, it is a fact of life that in country areas, the spreading of cattle, pig and chicken manure waste on land causes odour—it always has done and it always will do. Why should those who have done that for generations now be expected to spread such wastes without creating smells and odours?
SEPA's view that organic waste should not be spread outwith daylight hours is another contentious area of the report. The Scottish Executive has pointed out, rightly, that that would disadvantage farmers. SEPA ignores that, but the simple fact is that, with increasing wet weather in the stock-producing areas in west and central Scotland, it is essential to be able to seize the moment, in daylight or darkness, to spread manures when the weather and ground conditions are right. Conditions are rarely right now as a result of global warming.
I support the committee's report with regard to the spreading of blood and guts on land in Scotland, and its outright condemnation of that practice. I look forward to the problem being dealt with by the implementation of amendments to the waste management licensing regulations in the autumn.
I am very uncomfortable with the concept of spreading sewage sludge on agricultural land that is used for produce for humans. I disagree with SEPA that the spreading of farmyard manures and organic waste should be significantly more constrained than it already is.
I thank members for their indulgence.
The story of this petition highlights both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Parliament's petitions system and indeed of the new democracy that we are trying to build in Scotland.
First, I will speak about the strengths, which George Reid referred to in his speech. Two small local communities are determined to protect their environment and health from what they regard as the dangerous practices of a local private company in the fields surrounding where they live. They form an action group, hold public meetings, engage politicians and Government agencies, and finally petition the Scottish Parliament. The Parliament's Public Petitions Committee listens to their concerns, agrees that they must be addressed and refers the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee with the recommendation that it consult the Health and Community Care Committee about the health issues that the petition raises.
The Transport and the Environment Committee then appoints a reporter, conducts an investigation, publishes a report and pressurises ministers into action—although, as I understand from George Reid, the action is insufficient to meet the petitioners' demands. That is all excellent. It is the way that the system was intended to work, and it reflects very well on the Parliament and its procedures.
However, the petition also highlights the weakness in the system, which is of course the failure to lock the Health and Community Care Committee into the process. As well as being the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, I am a member of the Health and Community Care Committee. I was completely unaware that the petition was being batted back and forth between the Health and Community Care Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee and indeed that there had been any row between the committees. I do not think that most members of the Health and Community Care Committee are aware of the situation.
In defence of the Health and Community Care Committee, I should say that it has one of the heaviest work loads of any parliamentary committee. Not only is the committee dealing with the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill, which is the biggest and most complex bill to come before the Parliament and which recently required the committee to meet four times in a week, it is dealing with a number of outstanding petitions—on myalgic encephalomyelitis, the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, heavy metal poisoning and the impact of gaps in the health service—that it has not yet been able to bring to a conclusion. Time is at a premium and it seems that the Health and Community Care Committee simply does not have the time to deal with this petition.
The great irony is that the Public Petitions Committee has been left standing on the sidelines, powerless to intervene in the situation.
Mr McAllion will remember Duncan Hope, who is in the gallery today, talking about a boy in Blairingone with blisters as big as 50p pieces on his backside. Mr Hope spoke about that at the Public Petitions Committee, and Mr McAllion said that the matter should be investigated. However, it has never been investigated and I have now been challenged about whether it ever happened.
I want to show members a photograph of what happens when a child gets blisters as big as 50p pieces on his backside. The photograph was released by the patient and taken from his doctor's files with the doctor's consent. Surely the Health and Community Care Committee could appoint a reporter and a professional adviser who would go and take evidence in Blairingone.
Will the member give way?
Perhaps I should respond to George Reid's intervention, but go ahead.
John McAllion mentioned the Health and Community Care Committee's current heavy work load, and a number of members have expressed concerns about the amount of legislation that that committee has to consider. George Reid needs to understand that we regularly review the petitions that await the Health and Community Care Committee's consideration. I am concerned that John McAllion, given the length of time that he has been a member of the committee, has never seen the document on petitions. I assure members that the Health and Community Care Committee considers petitions, but perhaps the parliamentary authorities need to examine the committee's heavy work load.
Another great irony about the situation is that two members of the Health and Community Care Committee sit on the Public Petitions Committee. Unlike other parliamentary committees, the Public Petitions Committee does not have such a heavy work load. Our only concern is the petitions that have been submitted to the Parliament. However, because of the standing orders, we lose ownership of petitions when we pass them on to other committees.
It seems that, under standing orders, the Public Petitions Committee can
"take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate"
in relation to a petition. I ask the people who are responsible for the standing orders—for example, the Parliamentary Bureau and the Presiding Officer—to consider whether, in this case and with the permission of the Health and Community Care Committee, the Public Petitions Committee could undertake the health inquiry that George Reid has suggested is absolutely essential to address the petitioners' needs.
I do not see why the Public Petitions Committee cannot be used far more often to conduct investigations and produce reports on petitions, so long as it consults the appropriate policy committee and gets its agreement to take that action. If the Health and Community Care Committee is so busy that it simply cannot deal with the petition, I, as convener of the Public Petitions Committee, offer it the opportunity to refer the petition back to us. One of the members of the Health and Community Care Committee who sit on the Public Petitions Committee will then act as reporter and conduct the investigation that George Reid seeks.
I think that I can intervene at this point and make a ruling. My reading of rule 15.6.2(c) is that in these circumstances the Public Petitions Committee is quite at liberty to
"take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate".
If the committee wished to appoint a reporter, carry out the kind of work that Mr Reid has indicated and seek the necessary professional advice and back-up, it just needs to come to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body with the usual request to appoint an adviser. I would have thought that that was perfectly open to the committee.
However, I must not enter into the debate. The next speaker is Dr Sylvia Jackson.
I am very pleased to speak in this debate, particularly given the fact that I am not a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee. I am involved with the residents of Argaty, which is in my constituency. I welcome some of them to the chamber; I have just looked up at the gallery and seen that they are here. I am very pleased that they have managed to come this morning.
The Argaty residents' problems started two years ago in October 2000 with the spreading of abbatoir waste—which, as George Reid has rightly pointed out, is blood and guts—directly on to fields that a local farmer had leased out. The effects have been dreadful. Indeed, I might ask John Scott to come along and see what has happened at Argaty, because I do not think that he realises how bad the situation has been.
I could not have been more forthright in my condemnation of the practice of spreading blood and guts. Perhaps Sylvia Jackson misunderstood me, but I have condemned that practice from the outset.
I got the impression that John Scott was perhaps not as sympathetic as he might have been. However, I accept his comments and I am sorry if my interpretation was wrong.
The community has been affected by persistent odour from the fields; spreading in the evening and at night; enormous environmental worries; and the unsightly nature of the business operations. For example, storage tanks have been covered with graffiti and slogans about several MSPs—I see that George Reid has left the chamber.
The whole experience has been absolutely dreadful for the community. The matter was raised at a meeting of Kilmadock community council, and the residents gave evidence in the case that was brought against the tenant by Stirling Council. The situation has involved Stirling Council, Central Scotland police, representatives of the Forth valley region of the National Farmers Union, the Scottish Parliament through the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Public Petitions Committee, other MSPs—notably George Reid—SEPA and even a member of the European Parliament, David Martin. John Scott said that the matter grew like Topsy; it has had to, because the issues are important.
Until recently, when the reporter found in favour of Stirling Council's case, it seemed that, apart from the foot-and-mouth crisis, nothing was going to stop the practice happening. Of course, an appeal is now under way, but we hope that that process will not take too long.
However, we now find that other activities such as composting are taking place at Argaty. When we asked SEPA to find out whether the composting was being done correctly, we discovered that the agency does not have the necessary powers to investigate the issue. Furthermore, it seems that limited composting activity is allowed, which means that—as George Reid pointed out—another loophole has opened.
Similar things are happening in the area that Cathy Peattie represents. For example, there have been spillages, and blood and guts have been spread on to land. I am sorry, but the matter is growing like Topsy because it is so important.
I am totally against the spreading of blood and guts. However, I am also against the broadening of the report to encompass other, perfectly legitimate, agricultural practices that I do not believe it was ever the petitioners' intention to introduce. That is where I disagree with the report.
Okay. I shall conclude by saying how we should go forward, and I hope that John Scott and I will be in agreement on that.
First, SEPA's powers need to be reconsidered. We must be able to involve SEPA much more quickly to stop such activities, which, in this instance, are not taking place for an agricultural operation. Secondly, we need legislation. The European legislation will be introduced next year, but it would help if we could get going on our own legislation. As George Reid said, we have approached Ross Finnie, and we hope that the legislation will be drafted as quickly as possible. Under the ministerial code, I cannot say anything about health matters, but there are issues there as well.
I am glad that this issue has been discussed this morning, and I thank the past convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, Andy Kerr, and its present convener for securing the debate.
I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests. As a dairy farmer, I have wide experience of the production and disposal of huge volumes of what we are calling organic waste. That is not a flippant remark, as I have some experience to bring to the debate.
I shall talk briefly about good agricultural practice. It does not take a genius to work out that, in recent years, we have seen one or two examples of bad agricultural practice and what it can do to the farming industry and the country's economy. That is what we saw during the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. I call good agricultural practice the practice that I indulge in, which is ensuring that I bring as little on to my farm as I can. I do not bring in livestock—everything is home bred—and everything that enters the farm as a feed or a fertiliser is properly monitored and assessed. Many such requirements have been introduced by legislation to prevent BSE, but they are examples of good practice and should continue.
The practice of spreading blood, guts, abattoir waste or untreated or partially treated sewage sludge on agricultural land is, in my view, simply bad agricultural practice. It should not be encouraged, but it appears to be encouraged at the moment by a system that is unwilling to take action to prevent it. I refer to the Executive's failure to act in respect of the problem. We all know that, as environmental regulations are tightened, there are things that need to be disposed of and that we must find ways of achieving that. However, I bring to the Executive's attention the traps that we have fallen into in the past. Much of the waste that is being spread on fields, to which George Reid eloquently drew our attention, might also have been dried and used as an animal feed at some time in the past. It takes only a moment of thought to connect what happened when dried and processed waste was used as animal feed and what could, ultimately, happen as a result of the failure to monitor and analyse properly the materials that are being spread on land.
As a Conservative, I have been accused many times of being in some way responsible for BSE. As a farmer, I still get communications that tell me that I maliciously fed animal waste to my cattle and caused the disease. I understand why people take those views. However, we were all working on the best advice that was available at the time. That advice proved to be wrong, and the consequences became obvious as time went on. My concern is that we are in exactly the same position today and that, unless we secure better advice, better practice and a change in the practice that has been outlined, we may be here in 10 years' time dealing with a similar unforeseen problem.
I support the broad principle that lies behind what members have said. Specifically, I abhor the spreading of untreated abattoir and sewage waste on land. I will vote in favour of the motion.
Due tribute has been paid to the role that George Reid has played in bringing the matter to the Parliament's attention and making progress on it. I stress that the views and concerns that have been expressed—by all parties, after John Scott's and Alex Johnstone's statements—are reflected in the Scottish Executive. Many of us have long experience of dealing with waste disposal. In a different context, I—as members already know—organised the crews of the Glasgow sludge boats, which deposited their cargo off my constituency in Arran. Andy Kerr has a long history of professional involvement in Glasgow's waste disposal.
The Executive is critically aware that the spreading of organic wastes on land attracts strong public interest. Striking the right balance between necessary and useful activities and public amenity is an essential component of environmental justice, which we wish to see introduced. The Executive therefore welcomes the important work that Bristow Muldoon and his colleagues on the Transport and the Environment Committee have done in investigating the matter. We have been pleased to note the broad agreement between the committee, SEPA—the regulators—the residents of Blairingone and Saline and us on what needs to be done. As Bristow Muldoon and George Reid acknowledged—at least on environmental matters—much progress has been made on many of the issues. I will detail our progress to members.
The Scottish agricultural pollution group, which is made up of representatives of the Executive, SEPA, the Scottish Agricultural College and the National Farmers Union of Scotland, is currently reviewing the code on the prevention of environmental pollution from agricultural activity. In advance of the completion of that review, Ross Finnie launched a short practical guidance document in June this year. That guide has now been sent to about 50,000 agricultural businesses and their contractors. It provides helpful dos and don'ts and recommended actions that are in line with issues that are under discussion today. The group is currently consulting all interested bodies on the full version of the code. Members are entitled to give their input to that. The group is also considering how best to meet the recommendation in "Custodians of Change: Report of Agriculture and Environment Working Group" to raise awareness of the PEPFAA code.
Another important piece of work in which I have been involved in the past few months is the development of a four-point pollution prevention plan, which was first published in our bathing water strategy. That issue is of concern to me as a representative of Ayrshire.
I am grateful to hear how issues have been acted upon. I will stretch the envelope a bit more. Will the minister consider whether we need much stronger regulation of and detailed guidance on what practice is industrial and what is agricultural?
When the minister considers that—particularly the industrial practice and the large amount of waste that is being spread on land—will he review the relationship between SEPA and the contractors and ensure that SEPA has more power to deal with the waste notes that contractors provide? At the moment, SEPA relies far too much on the information the contractor gives and does not inspect or monitor enough.
I would be grateful if we can get some real work done on that and a review of it. Will the minister commit himself to that?
The case that George Reid highlighted today demonstrates in part that the system is working in so far as Stirling Council stopped the action of the contractor in the case of the mushroom farm, as it represented an industrial—rather than agricultural—activity. That demonstrates that the system can work, but I will come to the wider regulatory issues.
I alleged that the transformation of a field into a mushroom farm shows that there is a hole in the legislation. My prime concern was that Ross Finnie said that what he called acute and isolated cases did not require emergency action because what he had done had taken care of it. I gave the minister the case of Linn Mill. I gave him the case that Cathy Peattie put to him. Is the minister content that the present legislative and regulatory framework covers what Ross Finnie called isolated, extreme cases? What will the minister do about Linn Mill and about Cathy Peattie's people?
I was going to come to those precise points, but I am happy to deal with them now, since George Reid has raised them. To be fair to Mr Finnie, he explained the difficulties associated with an immediate ban. I do not believe that George Reid disputes their existence. They include a lack of treatment capacity and extra costs that would be placed on the industry. It may be that, in the SNP, no regard is given to additional costs, but we in the Executive obviously have to have such a regard.
Many of the specific additional points that George Reid raised today are new to me. The proper authorities should be alerted to such issues. SEPA and the local authority should be given the power to investigate such practices and to take action to stop them in accordance with the powers they already have.
I come now to the wider powers and regulatory issues that were mentioned by Bruce Crawford, John Scott, George Reid and others, specifically extending the relevant regulatory powers to such bodies as SEPA and local authorities, to take account of the need for wider action.
If pest control officers know about what I have highlighted today, if SEPA knows, if Perth and Kinross Council knows and if Mr Finnie says that there is no need for any immediate measures because the problem is all in the past, why does Mr Wilson not know?
Because George Reid's raising of some issues today was, to the best of my knowledge, the first time they have been raised with the Executive. I would not have known about them until George Reid chose to raise them with me.
But SEPA knew about them.
I have given a straightforward, simple explanation to the question George Reid asked me.
Sewage sludge is an important part of the issue. Scottish Water follows the safe sludge matrix, and work is continuing on related issues. The Executive continues to aim to issue consultations on amendments to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 by the end of November. Provided no difficulties come to light during the consultation period, amended regulations will be in force by spring 2003.
The requirement to demonstrate agricultural benefit is aimed at preventing the kind of environmental pollution that is highlighted in the petition. It is necessary to ensure that appropriate material is spread on the land. It would be wrong to exempt a range of specific activities simply because they are said to be legitimate. That is the point that has been made in connection with the latest examples: the protection that the requirement offers would disappear.
As regards action that may be taken in the case of an urgent environmental problem—which may or may not arise in connection with the latest examples cited—under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities can
"serve a notice (‘an abatement notice') … requiring the abatement of the nuisance or prohibiting or restricting its occurrence or recurrence".
How soon the relevant local authority might serve such a notice is for it to decide.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, but we cannot have any more interventions. The minister is already well over time.
Important matters have been raised, which require answers.
That is why I am not stopping you, minister, but I do not think that we can allow any more interventions.
Where a consent or licence exists, the 1990 act, with the Control of Pollution Act 1974, endows SEPA with powers to ensure that conditions are enforced. Those powers do not apply when waste has been spread under an exemption. That is another reason for our wish to restrict exemptions. SEPA could, however, seek an interdict to prevent an activity involving serious pollution where the circumstances might persuade the court that the pollution was on-going and likely to persist were such action not taken. The Transport and the Environment Committee has quite properly raised those issues with the Executive, and those are the answers that I am happy to announce to the Parliament.
I would, with your indulgence, Presiding Officer, like to mention other work in which we are engaged. We are considering a revision of the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 to define statutory sludge treatment processes and to update the relevant code of practice. We hope to issue a consultation paper on that in the near future, with the prospect of making a safe sludge matrix a statutory provision.
Under the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, we intend to ensure that prior risk assessment of land is carried out, including consideration of the position of field drains—which is another important matter that has been raised with us—before blood and gut contents from abattoirs is spread.
The animal by-products regulation that has finally been agreed in Brussels will end the spreading of untreated blood on land. In the meantime, as I said to George Reid, we have commissioned research into treatment methods for blood.
I freely admit to Alex Johnstone that progress may have been slower than we envisaged. That is not due to any lack of will on the part of the Executive; it arises from the necessity to come up with a coherent regime that we do not have to pull apart in two or three months' time and reconstruct because it was not right in the first place. That is the answer to the wider questions that Alex Johnstone raised on the validity of the advice we receive. If we act, we have to act on secure knowledge and safe science, rather than constantly revisit the issue if doubts are subsequently expressed about the safety of the science.
I am winding up, Presiding Officer. We should also note that while the spreading of organic waste on land is important in itself, it is part of the wider issue of best environmental practice. That is why I said that the PEPFAA code will address many of the concerns that have been expressed by the Transport and the Environment Committee and by members today, and will put important detail in the dos and don'ts of what can be accommodated in the code.
I end by referring to the broad agreement that appears to exist among all the stakeholders about the seriousness of the issue. It is an example of the Parliament's committee system working well. I whole-heartedly encourage the local community to engage with Dr Rowarth, who has offered to meet the community, although the community has not taken up that offer. Engagement is a two-way process, so I encourage the local community to take up the offer of engaging with Dr Rowarth, so that they can address their concerns.
We are working on the measures that the Transport and the Environment Committee welcomed. We will continue to do so, so that the "Fields of Filth", as George Reid described them, become a thing of the past.
We are running rather late and we have two other items of business, so if Nora Radcliffe could be brief I would be grateful.
I am sorry that I have such a short time in which to wind up, because there is a lot to say. First, I congratulate the petitioners from the Blairingone and Saline Action Group, who have mounted and maintained an excellent campaign on behalf of their communities. They have been ably and effectively backed by their MSP, George Reid, as has been demonstrated again today.
As deputy convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, I thank our previous convener Andy Kerr, who was the reporter to the committee and who did much of the work in the report, our current convener Bristow Muldoon, the members of the committee and our excellent and hard-working clerking team for their contributions to the report.
The process of producing the report highlighted some unacceptable practices, the possible health consequences and the difficulty of dealing adequately with irresponsible operators with the regulations as they are currently framed. Bristow Muldoon outlined different responses to that difficulty. The problems were outlined in SEPA's "Strategic Review of Organic Waste Spread on Land" in 1998. There has been a series of attempts to implement the recommendations of that report. They have suffered various degrees of slippage that I will not go into.
The Transport and the Environment Committee recommended seven months ago that the matter be taken forward with urgency, so I was glad to hear that we now have a time frame, such that there will be consultation in November and that amendments should be in place by spring.
John Scott rightly and responsibly articulated farmers' concerns about ancillary matters. I say to him that the proposed consultation and amendments afford an opportunity to explore the issues thoroughly.
John McAllion highlighted the Health and Community Care Committee's work load but suggested a way forward, with a helpful interjection from the Presiding Officer. The Transport and the Environment Committee has written to the Minister for Health and Community Care for information on the powers that are available to him on such public health matters.
Sylvia Jackson showed that what happened at Blairingone was not an isolated incident and described the enforcement difficulties under current regulations and powers. Alex Johnstone reminded us that good agricultural practice exists. He also talked about the practical problems that are created by the continuing development of better standards and better practices and about the necessity of better advice. I welcome the minister's response on that.
Progress remains to be made on completing the process and achieving amendments to the regulations. The Transport and the Environment Committee is not satisfied that the petitioners' health-related concerns have been addressed, but that is not in the committee's remit. I am confident that both issues will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion eventually. The matter typifies much of my work as an MSP—it creates pride in the Parliament and how it works and frustration at how long it takes to do anything.
The process has been a job well done so far and it has shown how the Parliament, the Executive, the Parliament's committees and the people of Scotland can work together. George Reid's blow-by-blow account makes it obvious that that must be done with commitment, adaptability and persistence. I commend the report to the Parliament and the Executive and look forward to action on its conclusions and recommendations.
I am grateful to the member for taking much less than her allotted time.