Transport and the Environment Committee, 06 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, June 6, 2002

Official Report 316KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Polluting Activities (Built-up Areas) (PE377)

We now come to the final agenda item, which is consideration of four petitions. All the petitions were on our agenda about a month ago, but we postponed consideration of them because we were overrunning.

PE377 is from Michael Kayes and is on polluting activities in built-up areas. Dorothy-Grace Elder MSP contacted me a month ago to express her concern about the urgency of the issue. At the time, I took the view that we should try to initiate some action and wrote to a couple of the key public bodies, Scottish Water and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, to ask for their views on the issues raised in the petition. Copies of the letters that I sent to Scottish Water and SEPA and the organisations' responses are in members' papers. Our intention today is to decide how to consider the petition. Before I give members the opportunity to comment on how we should proceed with the petition, I will allow Dorothy-Grace Elder to make some introductory comments about how she views it and how she thinks that the committee should deal with it.

Thank you very much indeed, convener, for the urgency with which you sent off the letters. At that stage, Scottish Water was proposing granting—and indeed has now granted—consent to discharge into the sewers. I regretted very much that that was being done just a fortnight before the committee was to meet. Unfortunately, Michael Kayes is on holiday and there is a full council meeting of Glasgow City Council on a Thursday, so the councillors cannot be here. Nevertheless, they are happy for me to present the case, which is a sign of the unity in Glasgow against the burner. I ask your indulgence while I pass to committee members some other submissions, including maps and photographs. Is that appropriate?

That is fine.

Thank you very much.

I shall briefly update members on the situation. It is regarded as an outrage by local people and their representatives that the incinerator should be situated in the midst of Glasgow, but the case raises several national questions. In fact, it raises the question of who is running Scotland: elected representatives—councillors and the Scottish Parliament—or unelected quangos? MSPs of all parties in Glasgow, including the MSP for Glasgow Baillieston, Margaret Curran, want the incinerator closed. The Gartcraig and Baillieston community councils, and indeed all the east end community councils, want the incinerator closed. Glasgow City Council refused planning permission, but is still being ignored. The council's refusal of planning permission was overturned on appeal by the Scottish Office, just prior to devolution. The two quangos—SEPA and Scottish Water—have shown that they have much more power than do the people or elected members. We fear that the First Minister's wide-ranging policy on environmental justice is being flouted and that there is no joined-up thinking at all when quangos just pass the buck one to another.

SEPA and Scottish Water have granted discharge permission, which means that cattle blood and dirty water will go into the public sewers, despite knowing that a percentage of cattle entering that incinerator will later be proven to have had BSE. There is no doubt about that, and I ask members to refer to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs letter about fall in stock. The BSE prion can survive the sewerage system, and we know that it has even survived the sterilisation of hospital instruments, leading to the death of a patient from variant CJD.

Excessive dumping is another issue of national concern in certain areas, and the east end of Glasgow would definitely claim that. Baillieston already has Paterson's, the highest level toxic dump in the whole of Scotland, within its boundary. That dump is licensed to take up to 500,000 tonnes a year, or 4,000 lorry loads. It is even licensed to take cyanide and arsenic. On top of that, SEPA has permitted the cattle incinerator. Since last July, it has been opened, started and shut, and it is due to reopen in mid-June, after umpteen pollution problems.

That animal crematorium is the stuff of nightmares for the thousands of people who live nearby. It is the only one in the city or in any urban area, as you can see from the maps. It belches black smoke over the area, and that smoke has been only five feet above the rooftops at times. It operates 24 hours a day, including the cooling-down period. SEPA has closed it several times and has served more than 20 enforcement notices and two prohibitions in just 11 months. Do we need a limit on how many strikes there should be before they are out?

SEPA's brief includes balancing the interests of business with those of public health and safety. Many of us believe that SEPA has lost its balance and tumbled too far on to the side of business, pursuing industries that are totally unsuited to city areas. To Glasgow people and to many MSPs, SEPA has proved a toothless watchdog. It passes the parcel endlessly until the music stops. It says, as it did in letters to the convener, that location is a planning matter for the council, but it knows that the council refused permission and is still against the incinerator. Margaret Curran MSP discovered that SEPA did not even lodge an objection when planning permission was first sought.

I turn to the question of openness. The letters that SEPA and Scottish Water sent to the convener do not tell the full story; indeed, they conceal it. SEPA has not informed the committee that the incinerator is not licensed to take cattle with BSE—it is not one of the few specialist incinerators. Its burners go up to only 850 deg C, but specialist BSE incinerators must go up to 1,400 deg C and they should not be in built-up areas.

Perhaps we should revisit the planning laws. A play on words is being used. Paragraph 6 of the planning appeal document states that

"animals clinically confirmed or diagnosed as suffering from BSE"

cannot be burned at the plant. When that protective clause was written in 1998, it was never suspected that fallen stock cattle would one day be regarded as high risk and that the EU would order them to be burned at incinerators under the BSE surveillance scheme, after first having been decapitated to discover whether they have BSE.

SEPA chose to interpret that clause in favour of the incinerator owners and not the public. I wonder how often they have done the same elsewhere. If, after partial decapitation, the animals at Carntyne are proven to have BSE, that is all right with SEPA—but I do not think that it is all right. Letters from DEFRA show that BSE will be present in a number of those animals. SEPA should have the power to refuse a licence even when planning permission has been granted. We know that, in this case, planning permission was granted through only one person—a Scottish Office reporter—when an entire council did not want planning permission to be granted.

I will end soon, as I do not want to try the convener's patience. SEPA and Scottish Water operate under outdated pre-devolution rules. For those quangos, the Scottish Parliament hardly exists. The guidelines on BSE-infected material were written as long ago as 1997, which was before much was known about the deadly BSE prion. Other legislation includes the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968, which was drafted before BSE was even dreamed of.

Scottish Water is willing to risk discharge into the public sewers and thence some into the fresh water of the River Clyde. From October this year, all sludge will be incinerated, but Scottish Water could not wait. No matter how much the prion is diluted, it will not be destroyed and it can escape. SEPA, in its letter, had the nerve to say that it used a precautionary principle. To SEPA, that means seeking improvements here, there and everywhere, whereas it should mean that polluting enterprises are not allowed to start up in the first place. That is what the precautionary principle has often meant in European law, which is one reason why I am taking another petition to Brussels.

The local people and their representatives have been disgracefully ignored. They have been refused statistics about how many cattle with BSE have been burned at Carntyne. On behalf of other MSPs, councillors, community councils and the local people, I call on the committee to condemn the incineration of animals in any built-up area, to appoint an investigator or reporter, to call for new rules on the positioning of incinerators and to ask for the closure of Carntyne in the meantime. I also ask the committee to study how environmental justice is being denied in Glasgow and in other parts of Scotland.

I thank Dorothy-Grace Elder for bringing such a well-prepared case to the committee. The map that she submitted suggests that the incinerator is probably on the worst possible site. Even without the issue of the cattle, the site would have inspired a Friends of the Earth environmental justice campaign. It is environmentally unjust that an incinerator should be in area that has such dense housing. The issue of the cattle is also persuasive. The whole issue should be referred to the Executive as a matter of urgency.

Robin Harper is right that Dorothy-Grace Elder has presented us with an almost cast-iron case for ensuring that the incinerator does not reopen. I know that we, as a committee, do not like getting involved with such individual planning matters, but the evidence that Dorothy-Grace Elder and the community have brought before us is similar to the evidence that we heard in the Blairingone and Saline case. Although the evidence is based on a local matter, it raises issues that we should consider to ensure that similar situations do not arise elsewhere.

I want to pick out a couple of points that I think the committee should examine. It concerns me that Scottish Water has said that the trucks can be cleaned and that water put into the watercourse without the prions entering it too. I would like us to take more evidence on the number of places where that is happening. I am also very concerned that SEPA has said that the incinerator can go ahead burning at 800 deg C instead of 1400 deg C—I am sorry, but I cannot remember the exact figures—and can burn cattle that could be infected with BSE. I want to clarify what rules and criteria SEPA is using and whether it has used them similarly elsewhere in Scotland. Using this case as an example, we must ensure that we investigate how organisations such as Scottish Water and SEPA are reacting to similar problems throughout Scotland. It is incumbent on us to investigate the situation in more detail.

Members will be aware from reading the papers that I was involved in this matter when I was on the Public Petitions Committee. At that time I found the whole situation unattractive. It is ridiculous that such a site has been situated in the east end of Glasgow.

I am particularly appalled at what Dorothy-Grace has just said—that the authorities will not state the number of BSE-infected animals that the plant has burned. Given the spirit of openness to which we all apparently subscribe, I am surprised that those figures are not available. I am not sure that they would necessarily help to allay public fears, but they should be available and a decision should be made on the basis of them. As I understand it, the incidence of BSE infection must be falling off and therefore the burning of BSE-infected animals will ultimately stop being a problem. Nonetheless, I do not think that the smoke and smell levels that are associated with the plant are acceptable.

The issue of BSE prion destruction is huge. I am not sure what powers the committee has to deal with it, but I welcome the fact that Dorothy-Grace Elder has brought the petition to us and I support the petitioners, as I did when the petition was before the Public Petitions Committee.

There is a general problem in knowing what to do with fallen animals. I sympathise tremendously with what is happening in Carntyne. I used to live about a mile from a knackery that stank to high heaven because of the rotting carcases that were dumped in the forecourt and because of the smoke from the incinerator. It took us ages to get it closed, because the environmental health people refused to believe that there was a problem. I wonder what criteria are being used, particularly with regard to odour. Reaction to odour is personal and where I used to live the problem was that by the time that the environmental health people came out to smell the odour it had gone.

A lot of the problem has to do with good and bad practice on behalf of the operator and relates to bodies, such as SEPA, using criteria that are up to dealing with the problem. I would like to know just what those criteria are. There seems to be a cavalier attitude on the regulatory side and on the side of the people who are operating the facility. I want to know what they should be doing and whether they are doing it. I know that we cannot get involved in planning decisions, but as Fiona McLeod said, given that this issue has cropped up a couple of times and that it might crop up again, we should consider the criteria.

I was really shocked when I heard you say 800 deg C because that has implications in relation to the level of cattle dioxins.

It is 850 deg C.

I would like to know what the dioxin levels from the plant have been in the past and what they are projected to be in the future. Rather, I do not want to know what the future projection is because I would prefer that the plant were closed.

Could I comment on that? I have a picture of what the plant used to look like, when the residents were assured that it would not happen again. It has happened again. There is video of it happening. I was not able to bring the video to the committee because Mr Kayes has the tape.

In the past, the operation had to close because there were umpteen complaints and the plant lost a DEFRA contract. Nobody knows why it is still getting taxpayer's money through DEFRA because they have not burned that many cows.

On Maureen Macmillan's point about the smell, the problem is not just the smell when the chimney erupts, as it is doing in the picture—SEPA comes out, stops it and the plant is allowed to reopen after another enforcement notice—it is the smell from dead cattle on their way to the plant. The lane is narrow and there are two primary schools nearby and two other schools not far away. As members will see from the map, there is the same density of housing in all directions—the mighty housing schemes of Ruchazie, Baillieston and Mount Vernon. The vehicles, which are not refrigerated, travel down a narrow lane. In some cases, the animals are too disgusting to describe—they can explode.

Yes, I have seen it.

That smell is appalling for local people. It is not there all the time, but that dreadful dead smell is there and little kids have to pass through it on their way to school.

When the chimneys erupt, as they are doing in this picture, they emit a terrible smell as the particles fall. It is a case of constant firefighting by SEPA: it comes out and calls for improvement on this and that. How many strikes before the plant is out? A person persistently lighting a bonfire in their back garden could not get away with it—they would be done after two or three strikes. Yet the plant can get away with eruptions such as those in the picture time and again.

I am not in a position to judge the degree to which there is a genuine health risk. However, the issues that the petitioner has raised are significant issues of concern and it would be appropriate for us to investigate them. We should try to come to a conclusion about the degree of risk arising from processes at the plant. Even if the risk is very low, it is a commonsense approach to planning issues to say that where one has to have incinerators for purposes such as the disposal of BSE-infected cattle they should be located well away from heavily built-up areas.

In the past, Lothian Health proposed building an incinerator smack in the middle of Livingston to deal with clinical waste. That proposal was withdrawn in light of a huge degree of public concern. Incinerators have a role to play in the disposal of certain types of waste. However, there is an issue to do with ensuring that the incinerator is working at the appropriate levels recommended by scientists to destroy risk material, as well as an issue to do with a hierarchy of where such incinerators are allowed to be located.

In its initial consideration, Glasgow City Council took the commonsense approach in rejecting the proposal. I do not understand why a different approach was taken after the issue was referred to the Scottish Executive reporter. There is an issue to do with proximity, an issue to do with the safety of the emissions and disposal in the water systems and an issue to do with transparency. If the animals are being tested for BSE, we should know what proportion have subsequently been found to be infected.

There are a number of important issues for us to address. Suggestions have been made about how we should proceed. We have a heavy work load over the coming month, but this matter is significant enough for us do some work on it. From the evidence that we have received today and in the past, it seems appropriate for us to raise issues with Margaret Curran, who is responsible for planning, and with Ross Finnie, the Minister for Environment and Rural Affairs. We may also want to appoint a reporter to progress the matter. A member of the committee would have to volunteer to serve as a reporter, if the committee agreed to appoint one.

I ask members to indicate what course of action they would like the committee to take.

I endorse the course of action suggested by the convener. Although it is difficult for us to examine a specific planning issue—

In line with previous decisions that we have made, we would want any inquiry to address more than just the specific planning issue that has been raised with us. We can refer to that, but we want to focus on the general issue of incinerator proximity and planning.

I suggest that we consider the question of the disposal of BSE-infected stock, as it is of major concern. We should also consider the planning aspect of the issue. How is it possible for such an incinerator to be located in a built-up area? Have we received or asked for information from the Executive about why it upheld the planning application for the Carntyne incinerator? Presumably it did so on the basis of the criteria that have been established, which means that the same thing could happen elsewhere. We need to get to the bottom of that.

There are two approaches that we can take to this issue and we may want to pursue both. If, as in the case of Blairingone, we want to address the local issue, we should appoint a reporter, preferably someone who lives within a reasonable distance of Carntyne. However, in the not-too-distant future—perhaps before Christmas—we may want to take evidence on the general issue of incineration. Such an inquiry would not be restricted to cattle incineration, but would address hospital incineration, the proposals for new incinerators that are being made in area waste plans and the problems that are associated with our existing stock of incinerators.

I note the broader issue that Robin Harper raises. However, given our tight agenda, I caution the committee against endorsing the approach that he suggests. It is appropriate that we focus on the specific issues that have been raised in relation to the disposal of BSE-infected cattle, and on the planning and location issues associated with those.

We should focus on the disposal not just of BSE-infected cattle, but of fallen cattle in general. Dealing with such cattle is problematic.

I think it was suggested that we write to Margaret Curran and Ross Finnie; we should also write to Malcolm Chisholm because the principal issue is to do with health. The smoke and the smells, although disgusting and unpleasant, may not cause huge damage to people but, if there is a risk of BSE prions being deposited on housing in Scotland, that is totally unacceptable—as were the funeral pyres in Dumfries and Galloway. I said to the minister at the time of the foot-and-mouth outbreak that a few of the cattle on those pyres would have BSE, so prions were being chucked up into the atmosphere to fall where they would. We should write to all three ministers and see what response we get.

The health issue is important, but I suggest that we write only to Ross Finnie and Margaret Curran. If we wrote to the Minister for Health and Community Care and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, we would likely get pretty much the same answer on the health issue, whatever that answer was. We know that there is a risk from BSE material in general, but the question is how to destroy it safely. That question should be directly addressed to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development. However, we should indicate that the health implications of disposing of such material are of key interest and importance to the committee.

The people in the east end of Glasgow do not want the burning of any cattle there, whether infected with BSE or not. For the foreseeable future, the contracts are under the BSE surveillance scheme—which SEPA did not reveal to us a year ago when we had our first public meeting. The constituency MSP, Margaret Curran, is as angry and frustrated over this as anyone. She and I and others have had meetings with the burner owners. They are not the problem, because people will always try to make money out of things; the problem is SEPA and the water board. There have been endless efforts to shift the blame, with people saying that the council should do something. The council did its best back in 1998. It may still have a legal route to enforce paragraph 6 of the planning appeal document.

SEPA thinks that it is right to do things retrospectively—one can burn the cattle and find out later whether they had BSE. Any normal person would interpret paragraph 6 as meaning that cattle should never be burned there. We never knew that fallen stock would be investigated; we thought that one just dug a hole in the field and that was it, with nothing especially suspicious.

I wonder whether we should ask Mr Finnie—there is no need to ask Mrs Curran because she would be only too ready to agree—whether the animals can be moved to another burner. The maps prove the point: the Glasgow burner is here and the other burners are at a reasonably safe distance—a very safe distance in many cases—from housing. The location is important. What would happen in Glasgow when things went wrong would not, were another burner being used, affect human beings. Could we ask—right away—why the cattle cannot be shifted to another burner?

Sacone Environmental, which owns the Carntyne burner, owns another one at Brechin. It proposes to burn 400 cattle a fortnight at Carntyne. That is far too many for a built-up area, so why can the cattle not be taken to the other burner? The area of the Carntyne burner was meant for light industry and not this type of industry. This matter has slipped through the hoop—and I wonder how many others have done the same—on a recommendation of officers from the Scottish Office before they knew that this category of cattle would be suspect.

The previous owners of the burner were burning cattle that were over 30 months. Those cattle were not being decapitated to find out whether they definitely had BSE, so people could get away with it but, with the new cattle, existence of the disease will be proven. I am sure that only a tiny minority will prove to have the disease, but one is enough. The estimate is between one and two a fortnight. We will not know which one or two. The men will have handled them, but the results of the tests will not be back until the cattle are incinerated. That is very alarming.

Originally, back in October, the water board told me that it was worried about its sewerage workers. A water board official said, "If the prion survives, what about our sewerage workers at Dalmarnock?" I said, "Indeed, but you would not think of granting consent, would you?" The water board said that it would need to look at the matter. At that time, an application for consent had not even been made, but an application has now been made and consent has been given. It seems to be a no-win situation for the poor old public.

We seem to be agreed that we should raise the issue with the relevant ministers. We are also agreed in principle that a reporter should be appointed. Is a committee member willing to volunteer to undertake that role?

I do not really want—

I thought that Robin Harper had his hand up, but he was pointing at John Scott.

In all honesty, I feel that I have more than enough to do.

Given our time limits, appointing a reporter would probably be the most effective way of investigating the issue. It would be difficult for us to schedule time for the whole committee to deal with the issue. Appointing a reporter as we did for the Blairingone petition would be an effective way of getting a detailed insight into the issue at an early stage. Would any member be prepared to take that on?

John Scott would probably bring a lot more knowledge to the subject than I would, but he feels that his work load is too much. I think that the issue is important, especially given the fact that the burning of these things will be restarted in July.

It will restart in mid June, not July. At the moment, the incinerator is closed yet again.

Fiona McLeod is volunteering. Is it agreed that we appoint Fiona as reporter?

Members indicated agreement.

Perhaps Fiona McLeod and I can consult Alastair Macfie on the drafting of the letters that are to be sent to ministers.

Is the committee prepared to write to Mr Finnie to ask that the cows be moved? Did I catch that right?

We can incorporate that within the letter.

I thank the committee for listening.

---

School Playing Fields (PE422 and PE430)<br />Playing Fields (PE454)

Finally, we must consider three other petitions, all of which relate to a similar issue. PE422, from Mr James Docherty, is on the protection of school playing fields and PE430, from Mrs M Glendinning, and PE454, from Mr Peter Watson, are both on the sale of playing fields. The petitions are all concerned with the adequacy of current procedures for the safeguarding of playing fields. Two of the petitions are concerned about a potential conflict of interest whereby local authorities both sell land that they own and grant planning permission for the development of such land.

I seek members' comments on the petitions and on the options for action.

I am familiar with the petition from Ayr. The petition concerns the constituency that is next door to John Scott's. There is a lot of public concern about what is seen to be a conflict of interest whereby the local authority advertises for sale for housing development a playing field that is designated in the local plan as an area for recreational use. We need to consider those issues to maintain public confidence in the system.

The other aspect is that local authorities are supposed to set an example by conserving open spaces such as playing fields. In their local planning procedures, local authorities should take a lead in maintaining recreational land. However, it would appear that local authorities are under such financial pressure that they are looking to sell off such assets. That goes against all the planning guidance that has been issued by the Executive.

I believe that we must write to the Executive on the matter and I suggest that we consider option B of the options for action, which suggests that the current procedures are not particularly adequate for safeguarding playing fields.

I agree with Adam Ingram. The situation is unattractive because South Ayrshire Council is set to benefit from the sale. I point out that the council is not in my constituency and Adam is more qualified to comment than I am. Nevertheless, the council is setting itself up as the judge and jury. It makes the sale, then grants planning permission and will benefit to the tune of £1.6 million. That is worrying.

Adam rightly raises the point that the draft national planning policy guideline 3 states:

"Furthermore, local authorities should lead by example by resisting the development of open space and playing fields in their ownership."

That could not be clearer, although I am not sure when that draft guideline is due to come into action. I am not sure that it is acceptable that—as I understand it—all that is required in that situation is that the Scottish ministers should be notified. That position should be reviewed and responses sought from ministers. I concur with Adam that option B is the one that we should pursue.

One of the biggest postbags I have received in the past three years was from people registering their concern over the way that the planning system is working. Letter after letter was about councils allowing open space to be used for building and other developments.

The Parliament and the Executive should be taking up urgently the general issue of planning. The City of Edinburgh Council, for example, has its own development subsidiary, and I wonder whether the Scottish Executive could even tell us how many playing fields have disappeared over the past three years, let alone over the past 10 years. I know that a substantial number have disappeared over the past 10 years.

We should tell the Executive that it should be writing to local authorities, pointing out what NPPG 3 says and indicating that where that advice is contravened, the Executive will be calling the local authorities to account on it.

I have no problem with the committee taking the route that has been suggested, which is that we write to the Executive and ask for its views and clarification on the planning guidelines and processes.

I note that NPPG 11, which is referred to in one of the letters from an Executive officer to Steve Farrell, says that disposals of recreational space

"should only be entertained if open space analysis demonstrates that the land is surplus to requirements, taking account of its recreational and amenity value."

The same letter later says that

"any development that a planning authority considers to be a significant departure from a structure or local plan"

must be referred to ministers. That then puts ministers in a position to call in particular applications if they feel that that is appropriate.

It seems to me that the Executive is addressing some of the issues. However, I have no problem with writing to the Minister for Social Justice to seek clarification of the Executive's position. We could also raise questions as to how many such applications have been made in recent years so that we can have an idea of the scale of the issue.

It is death by a thousand cuts.

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the end of the meeting. I thank those members of the public who have just come in—I am sorry that we are not going on a bit longer for you—and thank the members for their attendance.

Meeting closed at 13:45.