Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 12 Feb 2004

12 Feb 2004 · S2 · Plenary

Item of business

Sewage Dumping

Ruskell, Mark Green Mid Scotland and Fife Watch on SPTV

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.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 12 Feb 2004

In the same item of business