| Allan Wilson:
Due tribute
has been paid to the role that George Reid has played in bringing the matter
to the Parliament's attention and making progress on it. I stress that
the views and concerns that have been expressed—by all parties, after John
Scott's and Alex Johnstone's statements—are reflected in the Scottish Executive.
Many of us have long experience of dealing with waste disposal. In a different
context, I—as members already know—organised the crews of the Glasgow sludge
boats, which deposited their cargo off my constituency in Arran. Andy Kerr
has a long history of professional involvement in Glasgow's waste disposal.
The Executive
is critically aware that the spreading of organic wastes on land attracts
strong public interest. Striking the right balance between necessary and
useful activities and public amenity is an essential component of environmental
justice, which we wish to see introduced. The Executive therefore welcomes
the important work that Bristow Muldoon and his colleagues on the Transport
and the Environment Committee have done in investigating the matter. We
have been pleased to note the broad agreement between the committee, SEPA—the
regulators—the residents of Blairingone and Saline and us on what needs
to be done. As Bristow Muldoon and George Reid acknowledged—at least on
environmental matters—much progress has been made on many of the issues.
I will detail our progress to members.
The Scottish
agricultural pollution group, which is made up of representatives of the
Executive, SEPA, the Scottish Agricultural College and the National Farmers
Union of Scotland, is currently reviewing the code on the prevention of
environmental pollution from agricultural activity. In advance of the completion
of that review, Ross Finnie launched a short practical guidance document
in June this year. That guide has now been sent to about 50,000 agricultural
businesses and their contractors. It provides helpful dos and don'ts and
recommended actions that are in line with issues that are under discussion
today. The group is currently consulting all interested bodies on the full
version of the code. Members are entitled to give their input to that.
The group is also considering how best to meet the recommendation in "Custodians
of Change: Report of Agriculture and Environment Working Group" to raise
awareness of the PEPFAA code.
Another important
piece of work in which I have been involved in the past few months is the
development of a four-point pollution prevention plan, which was first
published in our bathing water strategy. That issue is of concern to me
as a representative of Ayrshire.
Bruce Crawford
(Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP): I am grateful
to hear how issues have been acted upon. I will stretch the envelope a
bit more. Will the minister consider whether we need much stronger regulation
of and detailed guidance on what practice is industrial and what is agricultural?
When the minister
considers that—particularly the industrial practice and the large amount
of waste that is being spread on land—will he review the relationship between
SEPA and the contractors and ensure that SEPA has more power to deal with
the waste notes that contractors provide? At the moment, SEPA relies far
too much on the information the contractor gives and does not inspect or
monitor enough. I would be grateful if we can get some real work done on
that and a review of it. Will the minister commit himself to that?
Allan Wilson:
The
case that George Reid highlighted today demonstrates in part that the system
is working in so far as Stirling Council stopped the action of the contractor
in the case of the mushroom farm, as it represented an industrial—rather
than agricultural—activity. That demonstrates that the system can work,
but I will come to the wider regulatory issues.
Mr Reid: I
alleged that the transformation of a field into a mushroom farm shows that
there is a hole in the legislation. My prime concern was that Ross Finnie
said that what he called acute and isolated cases did not require emergency
action because what he had done had taken care of it. I gave the minister
the case of Linn Mill. I gave him the case that Cathy Peattie put to him.
Is the minister content that the present legislative and regulatory framework
covers what Ross Finnie called isolated, extreme cases? What will the minister
do about Linn Mill and about Cathy Peattie's people?
Allan Wilson:
I
was going to come to those precise points, but I am happy to deal with
them now, since George Reid has raised them. To be fair to Mr Finnie, he
explained the difficulties associated with an immediate ban. I do not believe
that George Reid disputes their existence. They include a lack of treatment
capacity and extra costs that would be placed on the industry. It may be
that, in the SNP, no regard is given to additional costs, but we in the
Executive obviously have to have such a regard. Many of the specific additional
points that George Reid raised today are new to me. The proper authorities
should be alerted to such issues. SEPA and the local authority should be
given the power to investigate such practices and to take action to stop
them in accordance with the powers they already have. I come now to the
wider powers and regulatory issues that were mentioned by Bruce Crawford,
John Scott, George Reid and others, specifically extending the relevant
regulatory powers to such bodies as SEPA and local authorities, to take
account of the need for wider action.
Mr Reid: If
pest control officers know about what I have highlighted today, if SEPA
knows, if Perth and Kinross Council knows and if Mr Finnie says that there
is no need for any immediate measures because the problem is all in the
past, why does Mr Wilson not know?
Allan Wilson: Because George Reid's raising
of some issues today was, to the best of my knowledge, the first time they
have been raised with the Executive. I would not have known about them
until George Reid chose to raise them with me.
Mr Reid: But SEPA knew about
them.
Allan Wilson:
I
have given a straightforward, simple explanation to the question George
Reid asked me.
Sewage sludge
is an important part of the issue. Scottish Water follows the safe sludge
matrix, and work is continuing on related issues. The Executive continues
to aim to issue consultations on amendments to the Waste Management Licensing
Regulations 1994 by the end of November. Provided no difficulties come
to light during the consultation period, amended regulations will be in
force by spring 2003.
The requirement
to demonstrate agricultural benefit is aimed at preventing the kind of
environmental pollution that is highlighted in the petition. It is necessary
to ensure that appropriate material is spread on the land. It would be
wrong to exempt a range of specific activities simply because they are
said to be legitimate. That is the point that has been made in connection
with the latest examples: the protection that the requirement offers would
disappear. As regards action that may be taken in the case of an urgent
environmental problem—which may or may not arise in connection with the
latest examples cited—under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local
authorities can "serve a notice ('an abatement notice') ... requiring the
abatement of the nuisance or prohibiting or restricting its occurrence
or recurrence". How soon the relevant local authority might serve such a
notice is for it to decide.
Dr Jackson:
Will
the minister give way?
The Presiding
Officer: I am sorry, but we cannot have any
more interventions. The minister is already well over time.
Allan Wilson:
Important
matters have been raised, which require answers.
The Presiding
Officer: That is why I am not stopping you,
minister, but I do not think that we can allow any more interventions.
Allan Wilson:
Where
a consent or licence exists, the 1990 act, with the Control of Pollution
Act 1974, endows SEPA with powers to ensure that conditions are enforced.
Those powers do not apply when waste has been spread under an exemption.
That is another reason for our wish to restrict exemptions. SEPA could,
however, seek an interdict to prevent an activity involving serious pollution
where the circumstances might persuade the court that the pollution was
on-going and likely to persist were such action not taken. The Transport
and the Environment Committee has quite properly raised those issues with
the Executive, and those are the answers that I am happy to announce to
the Parliament.
I would, with
your indulgence, Presiding Officer, like to mention other work in which
we are engaged. We are considering a revision of the Sludge (Use in Agriculture)
Regulations 1989 to define statutory sludge treatment processes and to
update the relevant code of practice. We hope to issue a consultation paper
on that in the near future, with the prospect of making a safe sludge matrix
a statutory provision. Under the Waste Management Licensing Regulations
1994, we intend to ensure that prior risk assessment of land is carried
out, including consideration of the position of field drains—which is another
important matter that has been raised with us—before blood and gut contents
from abattoirs is spread.
The animal by-products
regulation that has finally been agreed in Brussels will end the spreading
of untreated blood on land. In the meantime, as I said to George Reid,
we have commissioned research into treatment methods for blood.
I freely admit
to Alex Johnstone that progress may have been slower than we envisaged.
That is not due to any lack of will on the part of the Executive; it arises
from the necessity to come up with a coherent regime that we do not have
to pull apart in two or three months' time and reconstruct because it was
not right in the first place. That is the answer to the wider questions
that Alex Johnstone raised on the validity of the advice we receive. If
we act, we have to act on secure knowledge and safe science, rather than
constantly revisit the issue if doubts are subsequently expressed about
the safety of the science.
I am winding
up, Presiding Officer. We should also note that while the spreading of
organic waste on land is important in itself, it is part of the wider issue
of best environmental practice. That is why I said that the PEPFAA code
will address many of the concerns that have been expressed by the Transport
and the Environment Committee and by members today, and will put important
detail in the dos and don'ts of what can be accommodated in the code.
I end by referring
to the broad agreement that appears to exist among all the stakeholders
about the seriousness of the issue. It is an example of the Parliament's
committee system working well. I whole-heartedly encourage the local community
to engage with Dr Rowarth, who has offered to meet the community, although
the community has not taken up that offer. Engagement is a two-way process,
so I encourage the local community to take up the offer of engaging with
Dr Rowarth, so that they can address their concerns.
We are working
on the measures that the Transport and the Environment Committee welcomed.
We will continue to do so, so that the "Fields of Filth", as George Reid
described them, become a thing of the past.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
