Chamber
Plenary, 12 Feb 2004
12 Feb 2004 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Sewage Dumping
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.
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.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
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 he...
Ms Rosemary Byrne (South of Scotland) (SSP):
SSP
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; ...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
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.
Ms Byrne:
SSP
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 communit...
Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP):
SNP
I congratulate Rosemary Byrne on securing this debate and on raising a very important issue in the chamber. I also congratulate the Upperward against polluti...
The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Allan Wilson):
Lab
Does the member accept that that information might not be right? Thames Water deposits solid wastes in the Thames valley.
Roseanna Cunningham:
SNP
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...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
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 deba...
Ms Byrne:
SSP
Will Karen Gillon elaborate on what she means by saying that members are not fully informed?
Karen Gillon:
Lab
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 S...
Ms Byrne:
SSP
Can I answer the member's question?
Karen Gillon:
Lab
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....
David Mundell (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
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 Parl...
Euan Robson (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD):
LD
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 Newca...
Mr Adam Ingram (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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 ...
Chris Ballance (South of Scotland) (Green):
Green
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, sewag...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
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 unde...
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by five minutes.—Alasdair Morgan.
Motion agreed to.
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
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 raise...
Karen Gillon:
Lab
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...
Rob Gibson:
SNP
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 evid...
Mr Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green):
Green
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...
Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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 g...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
I call the minister to wind up. He has seven minutes.
The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Allan Wilson):
Lab
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 ackn...
Mr Ingram:
SNP
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 produc...