Domestic Water Supply (Bo'ness)
I make my usual appeal to members who are leaving to do so quietly and quickly—and, on this occasion, to take their coats with them. We now move to the members' debate on motion S1M-189, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the pollution of the domestic water supply in Bo'ness.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the on-going pollution of the domestic water supply in parts of Bo'ness with heavy metals; notes that East of Scotland Water has failed to publish scientific reports into the extent of the pollution and has not operated in an open and accountable manner; notes the potential health risks to the local community and calls for an urgent review of East of Scotland Water's handling of this matter and for related scientific reports to be placed in the public domain.
I welcome the opportunity to raise this important matter here this evening. I thank the minister and the First Minister for staying behind to debate this important issue. That is extremely gratifying, and I am sure that it will be noted by the constituents and residents of Bo'ness.
I also welcome the residents who have come here this evening, along with local councillors who are concerned about the issue. Particularly, I would like to highlight the efforts of Mr Grant, who has pursued this issue for some 10 years. Unfortunately, as he is unwell, he cannot be with us this evening.
I am sure that the problems of the domestic water supply in the Bo'ness area are new to most of the members who are here, but for the residents of Bo'ness and the Angus Road area, the issue has been a long-standing concern. Although both members and ministers may be unfamiliar with the issue, I am sure that they appreciate that it is important to have a safe and reliable water supply. It is something that we often take for granted.
Unfortunately, in Scotland—or perhaps I should say fortunately, in Scotland—we do not suffer from a lack of water. We have so much of the stuff that we are in the proud position of being able to export it to our very good neighbours. However, the residents of Angus Road in Bo'ness have had their confidence in their domestic water supply undermined considerably. The authorities that are responsible for the water supply have been nothing short of secretive, and obstructive to residents who have tried to raise complaints.
The problem did not start just a few months ago, or just last year. It started on 17 July 1989. At that point, Mr Grant in Angus Road contacted his
district and regional councillor to complain about discoloration to his domestic water supply. Tests were undertaken by Central Regional Council district water and drainage department, which found that there was a high level of iron in his domestic supply. However, at that stage, the department did not consider the problem worthy of any action.
The residents in the area continued to have persistent problems with their water supply and continued to complain to the authorities about it. Throughout that period, residents were particularly concerned that they were being exposed to heavy metals such as iron, manganese and aluminium in their household water supply.
I emphasise that, at that point, the residents had no confirmed knowledge about whether they were being exposed to such heavy metals continuously, because they were unable to find out the facts of the case. However, they held a natural suspicion that they were being exposed to them at some point, if not every day. We must also recognise the uncertainty that the residents were experiencing at that time, which naturally eroded their confidence in their domestic water supply.
We need only consider the incident that occurred at Camelford in 1988, where some 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphate were poured into the domestic water supply. Although that case is by no means comparable to the problems in Bo'ness, I draw members' attention to the study that was undertaken by the British Medical Association, the results of which were published last September. That study highlighted the fact that residents in the Camelford area suffered from health problems that included brain damage resulting from exposure to aluminium in the water supply.
Aluminium is one of the metals that have been identified in the water supply to the Angus Road area of Bo'ness. I point out to the Minister for Transport and the Environment that Tony Blair, when in opposition, committed himself to a public inquiry on the Camelford incident. The residents of Camelford continue to wait for that public inquiry. I hope that the residents of Angus Road in Bo'ness will not have to wait as long for a review of what happened there.
This week, I received a letter from Forth Valley Health Board, which referred to the finding of aluminium in water sample tests. It states:
"Dr Breslin has been told that around the time of the sample East of Scotland Water were scouring the local supply pipes, which could have resulted in raised iron and manganese levels. It would not explain the aluminium levels as East of Scotland Water have indicated to us that they were not using aluminium during the treatment of water supplies in that area at that time."
In June last year, a resident had complained about continued discoloration of the domestic water supply. After persistent complaints, the tests to which Forth Valley Health Board referred were undertaken. The tests reveal that in one case there was a high level of aluminium, iron and manganese. The laboratory report states:
"The Iron, manganese and aluminium are above their respective ‘Significant Medical Risk Value'."
Two further tests highlighted the fact that iron levels were also above the statutory limits.
When one of the local residents contacted Falkirk Council environmental health department to request copies of the sample report, the council responded:
"we consider if you had been given a copy of the sample results you might have misrepresented them and caused yourself and others undue harm."
East of Scotland Water took a further four samples at the end of last year. One of the residents requested a copy of the laboratory reports but was given copies of only two. The two he received showed that the water supply was fine. When East of Scotland Water was contacted for the other two, it said that the matter had been discussed with Falkirk Council and with Forth Valley Health Board and that there was no significant risk to public health.
One of the residents then asked the Scottish Office for copies of the two missing reports. The next day an official from East of Scotland Water turned up at his door with the two reports, which— surprise, surprise—showed that there were levels of iron above the statutory limits. Once, one of the residents found freshwater shrimp in their water supply. Another filled his bath with water, drained it and used a magnet to collect the metal that was left.
The whole affair has gone on for 10 years. I ask the minister to undertake a review of the matter for several reasons. It should establish whether East of Scotland Water and the other authorities have dealt with the matter adequately. Given the prolonged nature of the problem and the residents' lost confidence in East of Scotland Water and the other authorities, it should try to restore their commitment and residents' confidence in the service. It should ensure that no other community in Scotland has to suffer the same problem. I ask the minister to use this opportunity to draw a line under the issue by undertaking a review and by doing so to restore the confidence of residents of Angus Road in Bo'ness.
As the constituency MSP for Falkirk East, I was somewhat surprised when I heard that this debate was to take place. It would have been a good idea if Michael had spoken to me. I am sure he agrees
that on other issues, such as European funding, I have contacted him and kept him up to date. I would have expected the same courtesy.
Cathy, you had several meetings with Falkirk Council that you did not inform me of and it was Falkirk Council itself that informed me about the European funding. I understand that Michael Connarty MP was dealing with it—I would like to think he kept you informed.
I had one meeting with Falkirk Council and suggested that at the next meeting we invite Michael along. It would have been a good idea to speak to me because I too have gathered information on the issue. None of my constituents has approached me on it, however, although I have held a number of surgeries in Bo'ness.
In early October, I was contacted by the local press, who had spoken to a local resident—I believe it was Mr Grant. Right away we organised an investigation, contacting East of Scotland Water, Falkirk Council and other bodies. Michael quoted from some of the information that I also have. I also spoke to Michael Connarty, who had been looking at the matter for some time and was under the impression that it had been dealt with. I understand that he asked East of Scotland Water to monitor the issue and to keep him up to date on it.
I understand from East of Scotland Water that work on installing new pipes in that part of Bo'ness has been completed, that
"this will ensure the supply of a clear, normal supply of water", that £3 million has been spent on upgrading the mains supply in the area and that spending of £3.7 million is planned for the current year.
There are lessons to be learnt. It is vital that people know what is happening. When water is contaminated, the investigation should happen as soon as possible and people in the surrounding area should be kept informed. In line with another constituent's clean water campaign, it is important that there is rigorous testing. I ask the minister to examine the way in which water is tested at present and to ensure that it is done in a way that addresses all health concerns.
From time to time there will be problems with water supplies, particularly while standards are being raised, but is important that problems are dealt with as soon as possible. We must ensure good consumer liaison, clear information, immediate testing to find a remedy when a problem arises and, when the remedy is found, continuous monitoring of the remedy. It is vital that the folks in Bo'ness, the rest of Falkirk East and the whole of Scotland have a water supply that is clear and clean, and which is a credit to the country.
I have a great fondness and high regard for Bo'ness that goes back to a time a number of years ago when I was elected on the same day as Councillor Harry Constable. We got together the day after we were elected and the connection remains. I am pleased to be speaking in this debate tonight.
It is disturbing that the situation that Michael Matheson referred to has gone on for 10 years and that the people in Bo'ness have lost confidence in the authorities because of a saga of misinformation and through being ignored. The situation would be bad enough if a private business were involved, but it is not on for public bodies to treat the people who own and finance them this way. The practice of giving bad information seems to be the norm in some situations. A similar problem exists in the village of Greengairs. Although the problem is not connected with water pollution, the circumstances are almost identical.
Greengairs village is surrounded by the Shanks & McEwan landfill site. The gas arising from it is overpowering at times and can cause nausea and headaches in local residents. Recently, the smell has been much worse. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has admitted that the facility for dealing with landfill gas at the Greengairs site is struggling with the quantity of gas that is being produced. Four additional engines were needed to burn the excess gas, but implementation was delayed until the site could be connected to the national grid and Scottish Power could start work at the site.
Where I am leading to will become clear soon.
In addition to the smell, the local spring became polluted with ammonia as a result of leachate seeping from the landfill into the water supply. SEPA's reaction to the revelation was to dismiss it as not serious. While levels of ammonia may not have been high enough to cause major concern, the fact that contamination occurred was more of an issue.
Despite a sustained letter writing campaign and representations being made by local Councillor Sandra Cox, which was similar to the situation that Michael Matheson referred to—
I hope that you will return to the subject of Bo'ness fairly quickly and that you are providing an illustrative example.
I guarantee it.
The answers that Sandra Cox received were
unsatisfactory. It is unacceptable that authorities are being underhand and secretive and are rubbishing people's concerns. There are many parallels between what happened in Bo'ness and at Greengairs. Both areas suffered as a result of unnecessary and unacceptable pollution. Both areas sustained a campaign to reverse the situation that they found themselves in and were fobbed off and belittled by those to whom they complained. Both groups of people were not given the full facts. Both groups of people suffered reduced confidence in something they should have been able to take for granted.
Both areas need comprehensive and public reviews to put at ease the minds of those concerned and to close the matter and alleviate other concerns. I am pleased that Michael Matheson has promoted this debate as it will bring the plight of the people of Bo'ness to the attention of the Scottish Parliament and highlight the lack of action to stop the pollution of the water supply in the Angus Road area. It raises concerns felt in many places in Scotland about the need to make public bodies more accountable and responsive to the needs of the communities they are supposed to serve.
Public confidence in water is critical. I hope that the minister will ensure that the confidence of the people of Bo'ness is restored by whatever means are necessary.
I will raise two general issues. I understand that East of Scotland Water says that making an improvement for the residents in Bo'ness is not high up its list of priorities, as other areas have even greater need, so it cannot attend to the matter quickly. That raises the issue of investment in public services in Scotland. Wherever we look, every service needs more investment. We must tackle how we obtain more money to invest in all the public services, including drains, schools, hospitals and buses.
The other issue is the accountability of the water boards. Before the 1997 election, the Labour party promised a bonfire of the quangos. That did not occur—as with many political promises, it was not well thought out. Merely replacing some Conservative councillors on water boards with Labour councillors is not the answer, with all due respect to the people involved, many of whom are excellent. We must consider how to make the water boards more accountable to the public, so that legitimate concerns, such as those raised by the people in Bo'ness, can be answered more satisfactorily.
congratulate Mr Matheson on bringing the issue to the Parliament's attention and to the minister's attention. One of the benefits of this Parliament is that issues such as this are now raised and aired, whereas at Westminster they are never dealt with. The Parliament will be judged by the extent to which action is taken as a result of the debate. Debate in itself is not good enough—we need action. I say to the minister that we need action from her now.
I am reminded of Ibsen's play, "A Public Enemy", in which somebody cries foul and that person becomes the public enemy in the eyes of the authorities. Ibsen's play was about a swimming pool and its water supply. In this case, we are talking about the water supply for domestic purposes, which is even more important.
I agree with three substantive points raised by Donald Gorrie. First, we must address long-term investment in the water supply, especially in situations such as this, where it may not be part of the mainstream investment programme but where something has gone wrong and is a potential if not an actual threat to public health.
Secondly, we must make the water boards much more accountable to the people they are supposed to serve; to the clientele. I agree with Donald Gorrie that the present structure is not accountable enough.
Thirdly, we must ensure that such problems receive a far faster response. As Michael Matheson pointed out, this is not a new problem. It has not arisen in the past six months since the Scottish Parliament was elected—it has existed for at least 10 years.
When she addresses the issue, I hope that the minister will take this as a template for the way in which to deal with situations where a much faster response than 10 years is needed. While the matter raises much bigger issues and exemplifies many of the bigger policy issues in relation to the water boards, I would make two points to the minister. First, I ask her to take action now on the Bo'ness supply. Secondly, we should learn the lessons for the future from this matter so that no other community in Scotland has to undergo a 10year wait before its domestic water supply gets back to normal.
I would like to thank the members who have remained in the chamber to listen to the debate. I would also like to thank Michael Matheson for raising the issue, as the debate has highlighted some important
questions that I would like to address. I want to make it absolutely clear at the outset that public health is a key concern for the Scottish Executive and for the water authorities.
That said, I want to talk through some of the points that Michael made. There has been a full study into the particular issue that he raised and an exchange of letters. Michael quoted from one of those letters, but he did so selectively. A series of samples have been taken and analysed. A consultant on public health medicine, who came into post only in February 1999 and can, therefore, be regarded as independent on the issue, examined a total of 30 samples. Only two of those gave unusually high readings—the original sample, to which Mr Matheson referred, and another taken in April this year. It is the consultant's view that, because all the other samples yielded normal results, the sample that was identified as not meeting standards might have given a false reading.
There has been a great deal of research into the issue and action has been taken.
Will the minister give way?
No, I have only a few minutes and there are many points to answer.
I have a very important point to make.
The minister has declined to give way.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was very patient when listening to Mr Matheson. The letter to which I am referring is that of 15 November, which, I assume, is the same letter from which the member quoted.
The press release that was issued after the survey was carried out stated that
"there is no known harmful effect on health of the consumption of drinking water which has intermittently high levels of iron, manganese or aluminium".
The consultant spoke to a number of local residents and gave them the same information.
The critical issue that today's debate has raised is the need to ensure that people understand the process and have confidence in it. The issue of water supplies in Bo'ness has a long history, but it is not true to say that nothing has happened to address it. The water authority has acted to tackle the problem of water discoloration by scouring the pipes.
Donald Gorrie, Alex Neil and Cathy Peattie are right about the need to ensure that there is high investment in our water facilities. There have been attempts to deal with sediment that has built up by reorganising the pipe layout on Angus Road.
I am struck that Michael Connarty has taken up the issue on more than one occasion. Anyone who knows him will be aware that he is not the sort of person who can be fobbed off—he is a persistent character. Information that he has chased up has reassured him that there is no risk to public health, the only evidence of contamination being the sample that was taken in November 1998.
I would have hoped that the explanations that Mr Matheson has received, both from East of Scotland Water and from Forth Valley Health Board, would have reassured him that there is not a big problem with the water supply in Bo'ness.
Mr Neil is right to welcome the fact that we have had an opportunity to debate the issue. I should add that the matter was followed up by the Scottish Office after a series of complaints were made both to the local authority and to East of Scotland Water. The health authorities have been fully consulted. It is not just the water authority that has to account for itself—Forth Valley Health Board is involved, as well as the local authorities. There is a procedure that must be followed.
The water authorities are under a statutory obligation to produce an annual report on water quality in their area, and to submit that both to the local authorities and to the Executive. I stress that, if members of the public have concerns about their water supply, the water authorities will take samples from their tap and analyse them to ensure compliance with regulations. Customers will be informed of the results of that analysis. We also produce an annual report on the quality of drinking water, which was submitted to the Parliament's information centre and which I announced in a press release. I encourage members present to study that statement and to identify issues that they may wish to raise with me in the light of it.
Local authorities have a statutory duty to keep themselves informed about the quality of water supply in their areas. The water authorities are required to notify the local authorities, the health board and the Scottish Executive of any event that affects or is likely to affect the water supply in their area. There is a clear set of procedures.
I agree with the points that Donald Gorrie made about investment in public services. Significant investment is being made in East of Scotland Water to meet the requirements that are set by Europe and the Scottish Executive. However, I would dispute his comment that we have replaced Conservative councillors with Labour councillors. There is a process of applications, and local people—not just councillors—can apply to sit on water authorities. The appointments that were made this year showed an interesting mix of political backgrounds—the appointees were not all Labour members. The Water Industry Act 1999
gives us the transparency that Mr Gorrie and Mr Neil are looking for. We are in a period of transition: we have a new Parliament, new water legislation and a new water industry commissioner. We have the opportunity to get things right.
It is important that we make sure that when complaints are raised, they are followed up. The specific case that we are discussing today was checked by the Scottish Office earlier this year and officials have told me that they are satisfied that the correct approach was taken.
Water authorities have to hold regular meetings with consultants in public health medicine from the health boards in their supply area—it is not only people in the water authorities who are involved in discussions. If a water quality issue is thought to pose a threat to public health, those consultants have to advise the authorities on whether it is safe to continue using the water. If a hazard is thought likely to affect more than a small number of people, the consultants in public health medicine will advise that a multi-agency incident control team be set up to co-ordinate the investigation and management of the hazard. The primary aim of the incident control team is always to protect public health.
Operational support and advice is provided by the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health, which is frequently consulted by consultants in public health medicine and by local authority environmental health departments. The centre is satisfied that there is a clearly defined and effective mechanism for providing medical advice on water quality issues within Scotland.
Cathy Peattie raised a point about the way in which we test water. In this case, a problem with the way in which we test water has led to the debate. A water sample was collected and tested, but it was not collected in controlled circumstances. I am told that there must be a chain of custody. For instance, if someone was being tested for drugs, neither they nor any sample that they were required to provide would be left unsupervised. The same applies to testing for water quality.
We can never be complacent, but I am satisfied that the facts of the case that we are discussing have been examined and that there is no on-going pollution problem with the domestic water supply, nor is there a risk to public health. I am also satisfied that East of Scotland Water operated in an open and accountable manner and that there is no need for a review further to the review that has already been carried out.
I thank Mr Matheson for raising the issue because there is a need to ensure that local issues are dealt with effectively and through the correct procedures.
Meeting closed at 17:44.