Plenary, 12 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, February 12, 2004

Official Report 704KB pdf

---

Sewage Dumping

The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-770, in the name of Rosemary Byrne, on sewage dumping.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament accepts that the dumping of untreated or semi-treated sewage on land is a revolting concept to the public with potentially devastating health and environmental effects; notes with strong disapproval the current practice of the dumping of semi-treated waste in various sites in the south of Scotland by a subsidiary of Thames Water plc, and considers that the Scottish Executive should ban this practice completely by ensuring safe scientific methods of disposal under both the precautionary and proximity principles.

First, I thank members for staying behind for this debate and for taking so much interest in it. I have not stopped receiving e-mails and phone calls today; indeed, it would be no exaggeration to say that I have not had a minute. The subject has generated a huge amount of interest within and outwith the Parliament. I hope that we can also reach some cross-party unity in the debate. I aim to present this as a broad-based, cross-party issue and to make it clear that we should try to support the communities involved.

The debate is extremely timely, given the proposal to dump biosolids at Coalburn near the village of Dalquhandy and the fact that the practice is already being carried out near the village of Newcastleton in the Borders. Since lunch time, I have been informed that the practice has also been carried out at Kelty in Fife and that there are now rumours of proposals for a trial at the village of Glespin in south Lanarkshire.

Six years ago, the villagers of Blairingone and Saline faced a similar problem with sewage dumping. Their hard work led to a parliamentary investigation into the practice that involved certain colleagues and resulted in a report that concluded that such events should never happen again. However, here we are again, with who knows how many more Scottish communities being dumped on.

It is a fact of life that people produce sewage. However, we must treat and dispose of it safely and effectively.

I just want to record that when I was a member of the previous Public Petitions Committee, Dorothy-Grace Elder carried out quite a lot of work on Blairingone.

I am aware of that, and I am sure that we can learn lessons from those who were involved in that work.

It appears that sewage is being disposed of in communities without their prior knowledge or consent and with little regard to any potential environmental hazards.

I want to concentrate on three main points: democracy, transparency and the environment. As far as democracy is concerned, there is none. The law allows for trials such as the six-month trial that is happening at Dalquhandy to take place without a licence. Moreover, it is not necessary for the companies involved to have planning permissions to proceed if they can obtain an exemption certificate from the local council. That means that local residents have no rights of consultation or appeal during the trial period.

Today, I received a reply to a letter that I wrote to South Lanarkshire Council two weeks ago. The reply is interesting, particularly given the fact that, at a meeting in Coalburn that I attended a few weeks ago, the discussion about permissions became very complex. For example, it appeared that people were not aware of their rights. South Lanarkshire Council's reply says that on 28 January 2003 the planning committee granted approval for the restoration plan for the site in question

"subject to, amongst other requirements, there being no importation of material onto the site for the purposes of restoration without the prior written approval of the Council."

The reply then points out:

"Scottish Coal have therefore sought the approval of the Council for the importation of the biosolids for the purpose of this trial."

It is clear that we are still in a bit of a mess as far as planning is concerned, and I will return to that issue in a moment.

As the transportation of this material is not subject to any planning permission, lorries may trundle into and out of villages and cause noise and air pollution without any restraint. Indeed, that is happening at Newcastleton.

The Executive is introducing legislation on strategic environmental assessment and third-party rights of appeal in the planning process. We must ensure that those measures are implemented in such a way that residents have the right to have a say in what happens in their communities.

On transparency, there has been none. We do not know what is going on, and Ross Finnie does not know what is going on. In an answer to a question of mine, he said that he did not know where in Scotland the practice went on and that it was a matter for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. I have written to SEPA and am still waiting for a reply. I have also written to all councils in Scotland to ask whether the practice goes on in their areas. I urge others to do the same. We must find out what is being dumped in our communities.

The communities at the heart of the issue have also attempted to find out what is going on. They have asked what sort of waste is involved, how it will be transported and how it will be treated. They have received either no answer or evasive half-answers. In the case of Newcastleton, the community was not even given the chance to ask questions, as people did not know that dumping was taking place until the lorries started to drive past the village.

Why is the material being transported from England all the way up to Scotland to be dumped? We do not know. That brings me on to my third point, which is on environmental benefits. Because we do not know exactly what is going on, we cannot know what environmental benefits, or hazards, there may be in the proposals. Doubts remain as to the safety of dumping human sewage on land. The National Academy of Sciences carried out an extensive investigation into the issue of sewage spreading. Its main conclusion stated that it was "outdated science".

There is a danger of seepage of the material into local watercourses, especially in the spring when there can be flooding. The residents of Newcastleton have already voiced their concerns on that issue.

In the case of Dalquhandy, correspondence from Scottish Water has indicated that it had thought of using the sewage-to-land option for the disposal of sewage but could find no suitable land in the local area. It is therefore somewhat surprising that both Scottish Coal and Terra Eco.Systems feel that the site at Dalquhandy is suitable for that practice. Further investigations must be undertaken into that.

Even if the proposals are environmentally friendly, they lose that benefit because of the lorries that have to transport waste around the country. Whatever happened to the proximity principle whereby a problem is treated where it arises? Communities throughout the country are suffering the noise and air pollution that is associated with lorries and the transportation of biosolids from one part of the country to another. That is ludicrous.

We must find a way of treating and disposing of our sewage that is environmentally friendly and poses no risk. However, that must be done in a manner that is democratic and transparent. The communities of Scotland cannot and must not be used as a dumping ground in this way.

I congratulate Rosemary Byrne on securing this debate and on raising a very important issue in the chamber. I also congratulate the Upperward against pollution campaign group on its work in highlighting this issue. Members of the local community have been in to talk to SNP MSPs this week. We were—as I am sure everyone in the chamber will be—stunned to learn the details that lie behind this debate.

There is an understandable tendency towards bad puns when discussing this matter, but a number of very serious issues arise—not least the potential threat to the health and quality of life of the communities affected.

Before I go on, I want to say that I recollect that the former Transport and the Environment Committee did a great deal of work on this issue in the previous session of the Parliament. The members of that committee should be commended for their work. The present Presiding Officer of the Parliament, George Reid, worked very hard on behalf of the community at Blairingone when it was dealing with the same problem. The problem is not new.

I would be the first to argue for the extension of biomass projects in Scotland. They have an important contribution to make to the mix of renewable energies. However, I sincerely regret that a very sensible scheme to grow willow trees, ultimately for electricity generation, has become embroiled in this farce. In fact, I am really not sure why willow has to be fertilised to this extent; in my experience, all that is needed to get willow to grow is to stick a bit in the ground. I suspect that what has been important has been the public subsidy that is available to Scottish Coal to take waste off the hands of English authorities.

Another aspect that has to be addressed is the community right to be heard. It is simply unacceptable for thousands of tonnes of untreated or semi-treated sewage waste to be dumped in Scotland without any input from the planning authorities, leaving local communities with no say.

On a range of problems, communities' right to be heard is beginning to be a problem throughout Scotland. That is a serious issue that we must face up to, not only in the present context, but in connection with many other areas. The fact that communities feel that they are simply not being heard needs to be examined seriously.

It is worth considering that Thames Water would not be allowed to dump its sewage south of the border in the way that it is doing in Scotland; the fact that it can cart it up here to be dumped surely cannot be right. I see that the minister is looking puzzled, but that is the information that we have been given as part of our preparation for the debate.

Does the member accept that that information might not be right? Thames Water deposits solid wastes in the Thames valley.

A great deal of investigation has been carried out in the past 48 hours on the reasoning behind the situation. The advice that we have been given is that the regulations in England would not allow the form of waste in question to be dumped there. The minister may have information that we do not have, but our information is that the practice would not be allowed in England.

To add insult to injury, a very bizarre comment from a representative of Scottish Coal is quoted in this morning's Daily Record. They said that the sewage that the company got from Thames Water was of a

"higher quality than what was on offer in Scotland".

I am rather nervous about going too far down that road, but some explanation is surely required. The situation is entirely unacceptable and the Executive must act to stop Thames Water in its tracks. Frankly, I do not care how much perfume the operators of the sites spray in the air—the whole thing still stinks and the communities are right to complain.

I congratulate Rosemary Byrne on securing the debate. Although I do not agree with the entire content of her motion, it is important that we are able to debate the subject in the Parliament.

I say that for a number of reasons. Unlike Roseanna Cunningham, I have not spent the past 48 hours researching the issue; I have spent the past two and a half months meeting the organisations involved—SEPA, South Lanarkshire Council, Scottish Coal and Terra Eco.Systems—to try to obtain the information that I think my constituents deserve.

There are some common threads that we need to consider, one of which is community consultation on such issues. The failure of organisations to communicate effectively with local constituents allows misinformation and lies to become the truth; I found out about the proposal for Dalquhandy through newspapers and television. We need to deal with that important factor.

It is regrettable that a full planning application was not required for the Dalquhandy site. If no planning condition had been attached to that site on 23 January 2003 in relation to its restoration, no planning permission at all would be required, because the activity in question is exempt under the Waste Management Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/171). The fact that South Lanarkshire Council had the foresight to attach planning conditions to the restoration of the site at Dalquhandy means that a full planning application will be required, should the trial go ahead and be successful.

I have discussed the trial with the council, because I believe that a planning application would have been preferable. I understand that the council will allow a trial involving 10,000 tonnes to go ahead—subject to further discussions with SEPA and the companies involved—for precisely the reasons that members have mentioned, which relate to the need to ascertain how the smell affects people and what the environmental impacts will be.

It is unfortunate that the issue has become one of constitutional shite—if you like—and where it comes from. It is clear that, if there is Scottish waste to be disposed of, it should be disposed of here in Scotland. The proximity issue is important and I have raised it in my meetings with the companies.

I hope that other members will take up the offer to go to meet people and discuss the issues with them, rather than come to the chamber perhaps not as fully informed as they could be. I do not want my constituents to be more concerned as a result of the debate than they were before it because members do not have the correct information.

Will Karen Gillon elaborate on what she means by saying that members are not fully informed?

I ask the member if she has met SEPA to discuss the issues that she has raised and, if so, what answers SEPA gave. I had a two-and-a-half hour meeting with SEPA to discuss the issues that people had raised with me about the environmental impact and problems with sewage getting into watercourses. SEPA took me through the issues and I made its answers available to the local community. Clearly, SEPA's view is that the activity is in line with existing regulation and will not pose a risk to the environment or the health of local communities.

Can I answer the member's question?

I am afraid not.

I must take SEPA at its word. The minister will have to ascertain whether there is a problem with the regulatory regime in relation to SEPA. It is important that we reconsider how consultation prior to the commencement of such activities takes place, given that the problems in my constituency arose because of the consultation.

I congratulate Rosemary Byrne on instigating the debate. She has done a great deal of work on the issue, such as lodging questions and raising issues in Parliament. I was surprised when I opened today's Daily Record to find Roseanna Cunningham grandstanding on the issue. While Rosemary Byrne was at the most recent public meeting to be held in the Coalburn miners welfare club along with my good self and Ms Gillon, the SNP was not represented by an MSP. It is unfortunate that a party-political approach should be taken simply to raise, as Karen Gillon said, the issue of nationalism. In my view, the issue is not about where the substance comes from; it is about the nature of the substance and the consultation or lack of it.

None of the organisations that has been involved to date deserves a great deal of credit because they all pressed ahead without involving the local community. The result was inevitable—those organisations have suffered a backlash, at enormous public cost, I am sure, given the resources that must have been deployed to deal with it. South Lanarkshire Council has not dealt with the matter particularly well. Certainly, the local councillor, Councillor Meikle, has an individual style when dealing with issues that has not always proved productive. Scottish Coal has not dealt with the issue helpfully either—I cannot believe that it did not anticipate the public concern about the issue.

SEPA's approach is disappointing. In my early months in the Parliament, I wrote to Andy Kerr, who was then the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, asking that committee to look into SEPA. I feel that SEPA faces the wrong way in carrying out its business. SEPA is reactive; while it assures us about the steps that it will take if something goes wrong, it does not reassure people that it has vetted the process and that nothing will go wrong. At this stage, people require proper information because a great deal of misinformation about the process exists. Information must be put into the public domain and, once it is there, the local communities should ultimately determine whether the scheme goes ahead.

It is clear that, at present, the community is not reassured about the process. There is conflicting information from all sorts of organisations. We must get information to the community and, at the end of the day, if the community is not satisfied, full-scale use of the substance should not go ahead. We have to learn from the approach that has been taken and consider how the work of the various organisations involved can be co-ordinated, so that the matter will not be handled in the same way again.

We need to examine the planning system. At the last public meeting on the issue, we got into a very detailed discussion about statutory instruments relative to the planning process. We need to consider all the issues under the promised national review of the planning process, because people feel that it is possible to dump sewage sludge without such an extensive planning process as applies to people who want to add a dormer window to their house.

I thank the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development for his permission for me to say a few words on a constituency matter. The village of Newcastleton, which is in my constituency, has been mentioned several times this evening. The issue of the spreading of waste on forestry land first came to my attention last November, and I have been in correspondence and discussion with SEPA since. To put the record straight, SEPA has been on site on at least three occasions, if not more, and I think that two of its visits were completely unannounced. SEPA has reported to me that it is "satisfied" with the operation of the site at Hewisbridge which, although not very remote, is still remote, in particular from Newcastleton and from immediate human habitation. The nearest inhabited building is a holiday home.

SEPA has involved itself and Scottish Borders Council in the issue. SEPA stated in a letter to me in November:

"it has been confirmed to SEPA that the sludge is not ‘raw'",

as has been claimed in a number of places.

The letter goes on to say that the sludge

"has been treated to reduce the number of viable pathogens and is regularly sampled for metal content. It is worth noting that such material can also be legally spread on agricultural land in accordance with the pertinent legislation … the risks to human and animal health are considered to be low and the overall benefits of re-using/recovering the sludge outweigh any localised and temporary detrimental effects."

Scottish Borders Council informed me that its advice from SEPA was similar. It stated that the smell of the sludge at the site in question

"cannot be deemed a nuisance in terms of Section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990."

That said, there are some areas of legislation that need to be examined and I am grateful to the minister for his help in identifying those in recent correspondence. I appreciate his remarks and his assistance.

To echo what Karen Gillon said earlier, the matter has to be addressed in a measured manner. One does not wish to heighten alarm among one's constituents, but there are pertinent issues involved. The first is prior consultation. It would be enormously helpful to consider ways in which to involve communities in the relevant decisions, so that some of the fears that are spread about could be removed. That would help to address some issues that have been raised in Newcastleton. A large volume of forestry traffic already goes through the village and to add to that traffic would present a difficulty. Therefore, the routing of vehicles to any site is a particularly important consideration.

There are other issues in respect of the treatment of odour on vehicles, on which there appears to be a gap in the regulatory regime. When material is being transported—if it has to be transported—it should be treated. One of the interesting things that constituents have told me is that the odour tends to come from the empty wagons, presumably because treatment takes place only for full wagons. Those detailed points need very much to be investigated.

I return to the importance of prior consultation, which would make it possible to explain to people what is happening. One of the issues that was raised in Newcastleton was how long the consultation would take. From discussions with the company involved, I have found out that the first phase will be over later this month or early next month. I am now discussing with the company what might happen in the future.

The issue is difficult and can be emotive. It is important that small remote communities in particular are not left to deal with such issues by themselves. Prior consultation would be immensely helpful, particularly in relation to work on potential sites.

I, too, congratulate Rosemary Byrne on securing the debate. I tick off David Mundell, who knows perfectly well that my colleague Alasdair Morgan has taken a close interest in the issues in Dalquhandy and that he has met people there. I have taken an interest from more of a distance, not least because there have been a number of developments in Ayrshire.

Given the limited time that I have, I will focus on what I think are the key issues. I hope that the minister will respond to what I say when he sums up.

It is quite right that sewage sludge can no longer be dumped at sea, so we must find alternative and environmentally friendly methods of disposal. Landfill is not an option. As a result, mixing sludge with industrial slag on derelict brownfield sites to create a growing medium that will allow that land to be restored could be regarded as a viable option, provided that the justifiable concerns of communities about the safety of the process and the control of pollution—including smells—are properly addressed.

If sewage sludge is to be used in such a way, it must first be properly treated to ensure that biological hazards are not introduced into the environment. There is a strong case for the establishment of an inspection regime that checks outgoing loads from water companies to ensure that safety standards are guaranteed. I suggest to the minister that SEPA's role in that regard needs to be strengthened.

Secondly, the proximity principle should apply. As there is a panoply of area waste plans and a national waste plan, a duty should be introduced on sludge producers to the effect that they must dispose of waste within its area of origin; perhaps a code of practice could be drawn up. There should be no scope whatever for the dumping of English waste in Scotland, or of Scottish waste in England for that matter.

Thirdly, local authorities and—more to the point—communities must be fully involved and empowered in respect of local environmental control. I know about the circumstances in South Lanarkshire, but the fact that Scottish Coal did not require planning consent before going ahead with its trial at Dalquhandy exposes gaps in current planning laws and guidance that badly need to be filled. Those gaps have visited environmental injustice on communities such as those in Clydesdale, Cumnock and Doon Valley, with which I, as an MSP for the South of Scotland, am particularly concerned. Those areas have been scarred by derelict industrial sites, opencast mining sites and, of course, landfill sites. It is time for the Executive to live up to its rhetoric on environmental justice and to do something to redress the impact of such developments on the communities concerned.

I congratulate Rosemary Byrne on the motion and on her work in raising the profile of the issue that we are discussing.

There are three problems. First, sewage sludge is not being treated properly and it is smelling. I am told that the stench last summer at Auchengray was sometimes absolutely appalling. That is not acceptable—it is not acceptable that anyone should have to live with the stench of sewage right next to them.

Secondly, the sewage is being transported too far and the transport frequently smells, as we have heard from people throughout the south of Scotland. There is absolutely no argument for transporting sewage over large areas of the countryside. It is not a Scotland-England matter; it is a localised matter. Sewage sludge should be treated near where it is produced and disposed of near where it is produced. Thirdly, there has been no local consultation, which is a problem that has to be looked at.

Given that we cannot dump sewage sludge at sea but must dispose of it somewhere, we must find a solution. In connection with this debate, I have been sent a possible solution that we should consider. I hold in my hand a properly composted sewage sludge cake. It is mixed in the south of Scotland with straw, green waste or wood chips from waste wood from a forestry area next to Langholm and it is then turned into compost. It has been biotested by the Roslin Institute, the University of Edinburgh and the University of Strathclyde, and it has been found to be entirely pathogen-neutral, although it may well still contain heavy metals for which the leach rate has to be worked out. I am delighted to say that it is also entirely free of smell and it does not smell unpleasant under wet conditions or when heated. It looks rather like an exclusive Dutch rolling tobacco. That is the sort of direction in which we ought to be going. The cake is made by a gentleman called Billy Little, who is based in Langholm and who has received money from Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway to develop the process.

If a two-person operation in Dumfries and Galloway can compost the material properly, why cannot RWE Thames Water or the others who are dumping it process the material properly? Why do we have to live with material that smells? Chemical treatment is not the answer—adding extra chemicals to the material does not help. We suggest that composting is a possible way forward, and we hope that that suggestion is considered. We have a problem with sewage smell and we must find a real solution to it. I commend the sewage cake as a possible solution and a possible way to go.

A short extension to the time allowed for the debate would enable me to call the few remaining members who wish to speak. I am minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders that the debate be extended by five minutes.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by five minutes.—[Alasdair Morgan.]

Motion agreed to.

As a member of the Environment and Rural Development Committee, I was made aware of the issue slightly later than the local members. Concerns have been raised by people who are worried about the fact that it has been difficult to get views from Scottish Coal, Thames Water, South Lanarkshire Council and SEPA.

Only three weeks ago, I brokered a meeting with Scottish Coal, Thames Water and Terra Eco.Systems to which representatives of the Upperward against pollution group were invited; however, they pulled out two hours before the meeting.

I am glad to hear that some attempt has been made. We are trying to find means of having these communications out in the open at an early stage, but the evidence does not suggest that the authorities have been very speedy in seeking to speak to the local community.

The issue of willow coppice being used as a rotational crop is of considerable interest to us. Because it is a rotational crop, the trials may be repeated regularly. It is possible, then, to ask whether more of the sewage sludge will be imported at every stage in the replanting or prior to new trials. Part of the problem seems to be that quite a large amount of sludge is required. We understand that between 5,000 and 7,000 tonnes would be laid per hectare, in comparison with 250 tonnes per hectare in Blairingone. That demonstrates the size of the issue and shows why people in Upperward were concerned. I would like the minister to say whether he expects trials of this kind to lead to the continual importation of sludge to enable the growing of willow coppice.

I ask the minister to reflect on the fact that there must have been conditions in the planning applications for opencast sites that meant that the restoration of topsoil should be done by the companies concerned. If that is so, would that not be quite adequate for growing willow coppice? The renewables activity that is supported by the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament to grow willow coppice is a separate issue from the issue of sewage sludge. That being so, is this a trial for willow coppice, the biosolids that are being transported to the site or the soil itself? Some answers about that are necessary.

Because the issue relates to transport—and other members have questioned the means by which that will take place—will the Scottish Executive tell us what ordinary people will experience if they come into contact with the lorries, given that the materials have to be loaded on to the lorries by people wearing what are, in effect, spacesuits? Further, what happens at the point at which the sewage sludge is produced in Dalquhandy?

Like others, I congratulate Rosemary Byrne on securing a debate on this controversial topic. The use of human waste as a fertiliser is controversial not only because of the environmental management regulation issues but because it involves cultural issues. In many societies, the use of what is termed night soil in farming is a tradition that goes back thousands of years. In our society, however, the use of human waste as a fertiliser is less of a cultural tradition and more of a taboo.

In principle, sewage sludge should be seen not as waste but as a resource to replace fertilisers used in, for example, forestry, land reclamation and agriculture. Dumping at sea was rightly banned in the 1990s and the incineration of sewage sludge is the worst environmental option. However, the use of sewage on land is only as good as the treatment and quality control mechanisms that are put in place to protect people, soil and watercourses. One of the problems with the regulation of sewage sludge products in general is that they are dependent on a Victorian sewerage system and are subject to the many varied forms of pollution that enter that system. For example, heavy metal contaminants, which are a concern, come not only from industry but from domestic sources. We need to point industry in the direction of creating innovative, high-quality products of the type that Chris Ballance keeps wafting under my nose and which are low in contaminants, are easy to apply, have good environmental performance and have no odour. The application of wet and relatively untreated sewage sludge should be avoided at all costs and processes such as composting need to be adopted further by the industry to ensure that quality products are in use in agriculture.

However, even with those developments, we are still going to be left with some sludge cake that needs to be put on to land and it is in that regard that there is a danger that environmental injustice will occur. People near Blairingone in my constituency and Auchengray in the south were not adequately consulted in relation to how, where and how much sludge was to be put on to the land. At Auchengray, local people were assured that there would be no smell but, of course, it stank last summer. Local people were not consulted and were told that the scheme would be extended beyond its original timescale. That has led people to distrust such sewage schemes and the private operators who run them. The scheme at Dalquhandy has not started, but it has already attracted controversy, as we all know. From what we have heard of the proposal, we know of concerns about leachate, odour, transport impact and the breach of the proximity principle.

The Executive needs to show leadership, address the concerns and answer some of the serious questions that communities are posing. For example, what monitoring of the leachates is SEPA undertaking? How is that monitoring being enforced? Will the material that goes on to any site have independent testing? How are the technologies that the private companies use to treat sewage sludge being regulated? How are the emerging technologies, such as the technologies that produced the material on Chris Ballance's desk, being monitored and developed?

We should address those questions and ensure that we have a way of returning nutrients to the land that does not represent a form of antisocial behaviour by private companies.

Public consultation on the issue has been significantly lacking. At the well-attended meeting in Douglas to which I went, many people did not know what was going on. Much information was available to them, but whether that was all the information or was the correct information is another matter. The concern is genuine. I understand that some people did not attend the meeting that Ms Gillon organised, which may suggest that attitudes have become so entrenched that there is no way forward.

We can understand why communities that have been affected by opencast mining for many years, which is fairly unpleasant and does not necessarily bring much benefit to communities, feel that they have another disbenefit once that has ceased in tidying up the situation that they are in.

From dealing with all sorts of planning applications, we all know that smell is one of the most difficult matters to deal with. Councils impose many conditions, but it is the devil's own business to make anything happen if a smell appears after permission is granted. It is almost impossible to do anything about that.

I wrote to SEPA about the subject and it said:

"The issue of odour from such projects is clearly a relevant matter",

but,

"Obviously, assessment of smell nuisance is to some degree subjective and … it would be highly inappropriate for SEPA to resist the proposed project at Dalquhandy purely on the perception that there was a potential for some degree of unpleasant odour to be created."

That does not fill people with much confidence. Scottish Coal says that there will be no smell, but experience of planning applications means that one does not readily believe that 100 per cent.

I suspect that many members were, like me, surprised that no consent would have been necessary for the Dalquhandy project other than SEPA's registration of it as an exempt activity if South Lanarkshire Council had not fortuitously—I am sure that the council would say that it was by good design—put in planning consents. In other areas, such consents may not apply and no consents will be necessary. SEPA's interpretation of the regulations might be correct, but we must ask whether the regulations are correct.

As for transportation, the problem is that if no planning permission is required, we have no chance to examine lorry movements. We can understand why that is, because we do not license every lorry movement on our roads. That is reasonable, but long lorry movements are different. We have more confusion, because Scottish Coal told me that as sewage sludge is a low-value item, it would not be transported huge distances, and it referred to the central belt or Carlisle at the furthest. That seemed intrinsically acceptable. However, other people have informed me that a Department of Trade and Industry-subsidised trial is bringing sewage sludge from Manchester to the village of Forth. I do not know which statement is true; all I am saying is that different stories are going around.

As for risks, Euan Robson is right that the sludge is treated, but I understand that the most basic treatment has been applied to the sludge. We are dealing not with Mr Ballance's tobacco but with fairly nasty semi-solid or semi-liquid sludge. People have every right to ask why, if dumping such material at sea is forbidden, it is okay to dump it up the road from them. We must accept that people hold that concern genuinely.

In conclusion, if the small-scale trial that is proposed now goes ahead, it is essential that not only councillors and MSPs but the local people themselves are involved in seeing the monitoring arrangements that are put in place and in evaluating the results.

I call the minister to wind up. He has seven minutes.

I will be as brief as I can, but these are serious issues.

I add my congratulations to Rosemary Byrne on securing tonight's debate, because the Executive acknowledges that the Parliament has taken a consistent interest in the disposal of sewage sludge and other organic waste. As has been mentioned, in the previous parliamentary session, the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Public Petitions Committee carried out inquiries into the issue. The first of those inquiries led to a debate in the chamber in October 2002, which I remember vividly.

That parliamentary interest has had important consequences. In March last year, in response to the concerns that were expressed in the Parliament and elsewhere, the Scottish Executive amended the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. In the debate of October 2002, I promised that I would introduce those amendments, which have greatly strengthened controls on two uses of organic waste, including sewage sludge. Those uses are: the spreading of sludge on agricultural land; and the use of sludge for reclamation and improvement of land. The latter is particularly relevant to what is happening at Dalquhandy and elsewhere.

It would take me too long to correct all the inaccuracies that appeared in this morning's Daily Record—usually a very reliable journal—and I do not have time to do so. However, I will make a number of important points. As was repeated earlier, the paper claimed that the stuff would not be dumped in Shropshire. In fact, a great deal of Thames Water's sludge is used in land restoration in the Thames valley. An interesting point is that the regulatory regime in England is weaker than the one in Scotland. In Scotland, ecological improvement must be demonstrated in advance in accordance with the statutory procedures.

The Daily Record also claimed that Scottish sludge is of lesser quality than English sludge. That is rubbish and Thames Water has told me that it is absolute nonsense. In fact, Scottish Water was offered the contract, but it did not have enough sludge available. Nevertheless, good, old-fashioned Scottish sludge is being used in land restoration.

The amendments that we made to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 mean that sludge may be used only for the purposes of ecological improvement or agricultural benefit. The amended regulations set out a rigorous procedure for demonstrating to SEPA, which is the regulator, that the improvement is being delivered. The regulations also include general provisions to protect the environment. If the conditions cannot be met, SEPA will not register the activity and the activity may not be carried out.

If untreated sludge were to meet the requirements, that would be only because its use was demonstrably safe. In any event, I understand that the sludge that will be used at Dalquhandy will be treated. It will need to be treated sufficiently to ensure that the requirements in the regulations can be met. In that context, it is simply unhelpful for Alasdair Morgan to suggest that there is some undefined category of semi-treated sewage. If sewage is treated such as to meet the regulatory requirements only partially, it may not be used.

As David Mundell mentioned, Roseanna Cunningham was quoted as saying:

"To pretend that spraying untreated human excrement on to open countryside is environmentally friendly is a sick joke".

Frankly, that would be the case if we had said that.

I hear what the minister is saying, but does he recognise that there is inconsistency in the way that the water companies treat sludge at the point of production, as it were? SEPA has indicated to me that it has more problems at that point in the process than with material that is injected into the land. What can be done about that?

Unlike his colleague, Adam Ingram made a balanced contribution to the debate and I was about to come to some of the points that he made.

I repeat that, if sewage is treated such as to meet the regulatory requirements only partially, it may not be used. In Dalquhandy, the sludge is being spread, not sprayed. It is in pelletised rather than liquid form. The sludge is not untreated and it is being spread in a former opencast site, not in open countryside. Every part of what Roseanna Cunningham is quoted as having said is, quite simply, wrong.

Will the minister answer the point about the proximity protocol that almost every member in tonight's debate has made? Why has that protocol been broken? Will the minister also confirm whether any risk assessment has been carried out in relation to the transportation issues and whether there will be seepage in the places where the sewage will be used?

There have been many balanced contributions on the proximity principle. It is important, but there are more brownfield sites to be restored than there is available sludge. The Green contribution on how we should deal with the matter in future was very balanced.

There are some circumstances in which untreated sewage may be used. An exemption from the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 allows it to be used on non-agricultural land, such as forestry. Those activities are not uncontrolled. The regulations allow exemptions only where the objectives of protecting the environment and human health can be met. A range of environmental legislation also applies to the activity, such as that protecting the water environment, including groundwater.

Notwithstanding that, the Executive has consulted recently on subjecting the exemption for non-agricultural land to the same rigorous standards that apply to agricultural land and land restoration. We intend to introduce amending regulations to Parliament later this year.

I make it clear that the dumping of any kind of sewage sludge on any kind of land is a criminal offence, like the dumping of any other sort of waste, organic or inorganic. The Executive is taking strong measures, notably through the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, to penalise the dumping of waste. Sewage sludge may be used on land only in accordance with the applicable environmental regime. All applicable environmental regimes contain conditions to protect the environment and human health.

It is important to give members that categorical assurance. As Mark Ruskell said, we have had to consider issues in the round, in the light of public interest. We are 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.

Before I conclude, I focus members' attention on those wider issues. We have a national waste plan, which members supported as recently as 21 January. We cannot stop sewage sludge coming—waste minimisation does not apply in this instance. Therefore, we must devote our attention to recovery and recycling. I am sure that colleagues will agree that land restoration and application to agricultural and forestry land are legitimate forms of recycling, and Mark Ruskell said as much. Where those activities may be carried out without harming human health or the environment in accordance with the regulatory regime, they represent the best practicable environmental option.

If we do not recycle sewage sludge beneficially, the least attractive environmental option—disposal—is the only one left. I ask members to think about what that means. We can no longer dump at sea, and I know a lot about that because I used to organise the sludge boats that dumped off the island of Arran in my constituency. We all want to protect bathing water quality, and I do more than most. That leaves us with landfill or incineration. No doubt those options ought to be kept open to us in dealing with sludge but, as the previous debate showed, there are questions about both.

We cannot stop sludge coming. In keeping with the national waste plan and the views expressed by Parliament, the Executive is trying to encourage recycling of all wastes, including sewage sludge. However, we are clear that all recycling must be carried out in a safe and environmentally just way.

I ask the minister to address the important issue that Rob Gibson raised about protective clothing and the spacesuits that are worn by SEPA officials. Will he indicate his understanding of the type of protective clothing that will be worn at Dalquhandy?

Mr Gibson's contribution was balanced with one exception. I understand that SEPA officials are obliged by health and safety law to wear certain protective clothing on most field and work sites. In most situations, that rarely amounts to more than a hard hat, safety wellies and a high visibility jacket. That is likely to be the case at Dalquhandy, so the mention of spacesuits was a distraction.

Will the minister give way?

The minister is just finishing.

That is why we have already tightened up the regulations for dealing with sewage sludge and other organic wastes and are about to tighten them still further. I assure members that no one should be in any doubt about the Executive's commitment to bring the way in which we deal with all wastes in Scotland into line with the best practices of the 21st century.

I end by giving members on all sides of the chamber, particularly Karen Gillon, an assurance. I will raise the issues of the planning process, to which most members referred, and the identified loopholes with my planning colleagues in the context of the current consultation on and review of the planning regime. We will make efforts to ensure that any loopholes are closed and that there is community consultation. I fundamentally agree with Mark Ruskell that that is the key to getting greater acceptance of the recycling effort that we must make if we are to dispose of our sewage sludge in an environmentally friendly manner. I give Karen Gillon and other members my commitment.

Meeting closed at 18:06.