Hansard

I, too, thank Margaret Mitchell for bringing this motion to the Scottish Parliament, because my constituents are experiencing many problems associated with the practice of spreading human sewage sludge. I also put on record my acknowledgement of the commitment of Douglas community council in my region and the other residents and constituents who have highlighted this concern.

In June, representatives of Douglas community council and I met Zero Waste Scotland, Scottish Power and SEPA in order to contribute to the review of this activity that I and other members in the chamber had called for. I found it heartening that the need for such a review had been recognised, and we welcomed the opportunity to express what it was really like to have this practice take place on one’s doorstep. We valued the interest that was committed, but it needs to be on-going. I was also encouraged by the willingness to listen and the acceptance that aspects of the current process should be improved. I understand that, as other members have mentioned, Zero Waste Scotland’s aim was to have its recommendations with the minister by the end of August, and I would be grateful if we could receive an update today on the timescales for the work.

The use of human sewage sludge is an emotive subject, and although I recognise that ways of handling and disposing of human waste need to be found, I believe that the general public cannot continue to be subjected to the practice certainly as it stands, if at all. Odour, road spillages, increased heavy traffic and proximity to residential properties as well as the issues that members have already highlighted must be considered in the approval of suitable locations for this activity, if, indeed, it is to go ahead at all. Margaret Mitchell has already highlighted many of those concerns. Constituents of mine who live near the restoration opencast site at Glentaggart have been subjected to all the outcomes of this activity. Moreover, Glentaggart’s location near Douglas Water and the nature of the site itself have led to serious concerns about the impact on watercourses.

Aside from the daily impositions on the local community, other wider aspects need attention and clarity. First of all, greater consistency is needed in the treatment of human sewage sludge. The public must have confidence that the sludge that is being used has been treated to remove the pathogens that pose a risk to human health. The Glentaggart site was regularly used by dog walkers; however, there has been no signage to warn the public about the spreading of sludge, and I have been unable to ascertain who is responsible for putting it up. That issue must be addressed.

In my inquiries into the sewage sludge issue, I was not reassured that the heat treatment process was being applied consistently. Can we be confident that there is a contingency for waste treatment facility outages? Waste that is not heat treated must not be sent out for use. Even in the present circumstances and with the present regulation, it is still not clear to me whether that point is being addressed.

Secondly, the review has to ensure that the correct classification is given to the practice. Its current exempt status does not reflect the agency input that I believe is required to adequately monitor it. The categorisation needs to be changed to a higher risk category in order to enable adequate monitoring by SEPA—if, indeed, the practice proceeds.

Thirdly, there needs to be more robust traceability of waste. Traceability ensures that operators are accountable for their waste management. My Douglas constituents have concerns about the volume of waste that is coming into the Glentaggart site and, indeed, where it originates from. That information has to be quantifiable and assessed. The concerns relating to the practice are wide ranging—from public nuisance, to health and safety, to accountability. The review has the scope to ensure that those concerns are addressed by tightening the guidance and legislation at every stage of the process and I hope that it will not be a missed opportunity. I ask the minister whether the process should be continuing at all in the future and, if not, whether the alternatives are being looked at.

Finally, I associate myself with Angus MacDonald’s remarks about the loopholes regarding food waste in lagoons. I am of the belief that we need another members’ business debate to cover that issue, but that is for another day. I look forward to hearing the minister’s remarks and again thank Margaret Mitchell.