Meeting of the Parliament 03 September 2015
I congratulate Margaret Mitchell on securing valuable debating time on what is an important issue for many people. It has certainly been the subject of much correspondence to my local constituency office. I would also like to thank my colleague Angus MacDonald for the time and effort that he has put into helping to construct a considered and evidence-based approach to dealing with this controversial matter.
I am unfamiliar with the exact situation in Falkirk, but many of my constituents in the communities of Barrmill, Beith, Burnhouse and Gateside have reported similar concerns as a result of sewage sludge spreading. Although it is not a direct public health issue, as a result of the storage and subsequent spreading of sewage sludge over recent months local residents have been unable to hang out washing, enjoy their gardens, open windows or even work outdoors. As well as the nauseous odour being a problem for many, swarms of flies had a serious negative impact on my constituents’ reasonable enjoyment of their home and their local area.
Following the treatment of human sewage and industrial effluent at sewage treatment works, a residual sludge is left behind, which can be de-watered and used to produce sludge cake or sludge pellets. The industry refers to such products as biosolids. They can be used to fertilise land, but that should not be done at the expense of the quality of life of our constituents.
De-watering and the creation of pellets should tackle the issue that Margaret Mitchell raised in her motion, in which she pointed out that sludge residue had been spilled on to roads during transportation. That would seem to support Scottish Water’s commitment to making the whole process safer and more sanitary through the use of pellets, but the use of wet sewage, as Margaret Mitchell contends, should be banned.
What has concerned many of us is the failure of the regulatory response to the genuine concerns that have been raised across many communities. Although in my constituency and in Falkirk this process has clearly caused significant public nuisance, it must be remembered that up until 1998 such waste was simply dumped at sea.
I am pleased to note that, on 6 March this year, SEPA, Scottish Water and the Scottish Government began a formal review of the legislation and guidance in relation to sewage sludge use on land. In setting out the terms of the review, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, Richard Lochhead, mentioned the benefits of the process but went on to say:
“Over the last year a number of public complaints have been made. In light of that I have commissioned a review of legislation and guidance to determine what is and isn't acceptable. I am confident this review will help to ensure we strike the right balance between the benefits of using sewage sludge and the controls that protect both the public and wider environmental interests.”
I was pleased that the review was to take into account the views of stakeholders and community groups and that it would ensure that a wide range of expert opinion and local experience would be heard. I look forward to the results of the review, but surely, after almost six months, they must now be due.
I trust that stricter controls and oversight will be introduced to ensure that communities are not adversely affected in the way that many of my constituents have been. It is clear that many people felt helpless. Whether they contacted the local authority’s environmental health department or SEPA, it did not seem that anything was being done to alleviate their concerns and the difficulties that they had to endure over the summer months, and that is unacceptable.
I also note with interest the comments that Angus MacDonald made in his amendment about the merits of increasing incineration capacity to follow the northern European model. I believe that, along with the Scottish Government’s review of best practice, that has the potential to alleviate many of the problems that communities across Scotland have been facing.
12:59