Public Petitions Committee, 26 Oct 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Official Report 226KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

NHS Prescribed Drugs<br />(Storage and Dispensing in Schools) (PE639)

The first current petition under agenda item 3 is PE639, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate storage and dispensing of national health service prescribed drugs in schools.

At its meeting on 11 May 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Educational Institute of Scotland and to the Minister for Health and Community Care. Responses have been received from both and have been given to members for their information. Are members satisfied that the issues have been addressed?

I am. We could close the petition on that basis.

Are members happy to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Sewage Sludge (PE749)

Petition PE749 is from Geoffrey Kolbe, on behalf of Newcastleton and district community council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to seek a moratorium on the spreading of sewage sludge, pending a full inquiry into its safety by a parliamentary committee. The petitioner suggests that, depending on the outcome of the inquiry, Parliament should as a minimum initiate legislation at the earliest opportunity to discontinue the current exemptions for spreading sewage sludge and to ensure that it is subject to planning control, including a public local enquiry.

At its meeting of 22 June 2005, the committee agreed to invite the petitioner to comment on the responses that had been received from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and from Scottish Water, which have been made available to members. We are joined by Euan Robson, who has an interest in the petition and would like to comment on it.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The committee has obviously done a great deal of work on the petition. Thank you for the time and effort that you have put into it. There are areas of concern in which we could improve the current planning and regulatory process.

I will explain briefly what happened. My constituency includes the village of Newcastleton, the residents of which one day found that heavy lorries were running through their village to a site some 8km to the north of it. They had no idea what the vehicles were, what they were doing and where they were going, because there had been no consultation of the community council or any local organisation before the activity commenced in the forest to the north of the village.

Although Scottish Water says that the site is remote from the village, it is on land that is higher than the village. Drainage passes through the site and into the local watercourses—the River Liddle is hard by the village. There are also concerns about drinking water quality, which have been addressed through local surveys by Scottish Water and the Scottish Borders Council. However, the petitioners are concerned to establish what mechanism exists to ensure and, perhaps, even to compel companies that wish to spread sewage sludge at least to inform the local community of what is happening.

There should be a regulatory or, indeed, a legislative framework to ensure that that happens because we are talking about a major activity that causes considerable concern. My community is not the only one that is affected. I see that Phil Gallie is nodding—he and Helen Eadie have been involved in tackling such issues. The forthcoming planning legislation will give us an opportunity to tighten up control of such activity.

When the practice represents legitimate fertilisation of land, there is general acceptance of it among the local community, but there is a concern about when fertilisation becomes dumping. There is evidence that some of the land at the site in question has been fertilised by application of sludge to a certain depth, but on other parts of the land, the sludge is lying to a depth that is well in excess of the depth that vegetation could grow through. It cannot be conceived that such practice enhances the land in any way; it is really just a way of dumping the material.

There is probably most concern about monitoring, not just of management of the site in which I have a particular interest and what appears there, but of the long-term implications of dumping sewage sludge at any site. On that, I am afraid that I must record criticism of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The local community has been far from convinced by SEPA's inspection activities and its failure to apply sanctions when problems were found at the site. In fact, the community's view is that had it not raised concerns with SEPA, the organisation might not have been on the site at all.

I have addressed those issues with SEPA. I acknowledge that there are difficulties in monitoring such sites, but I feel that it is imperative that public confidence be maintained, which requires application by SEPA of the appropriate regulations, constant monitoring of sites and reporting to communities, probably through their community councils.

The petitioners remain highly concerned. Through the community council, they have expressed much appreciation of the committee's work, but they hope that it will progress matters by suggesting to the Minister for Communities and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development that they consider strengthening the requirements to consult, at least. Although it might not be necessary for the ministers to go as far as to insist that planning permission be required in such cases, the committee should request that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and SEPA ensure that there is much better and more rigorous monitoring of such sites. It would also be helpful to get some official clarification of when fertilisation of land becomes dumping and of what happens in such cases. Should the site be tidied up and the material removed, for example? I hope that I have not gone on too long.

Thank you. That was helpful. Phil Gallie has some points to make.

That was an excellent explanation of the situation. I am concerned about the sites at Auchlin and Beoch in Ayrshire. There seems to be confusion about SEPA's responsibilities and, in particular, about whether it has responsibility for health matters. The issue needs to be examined thoroughly.

In my view, the specification of sewage sludge is open to question. The constituents of such sludge can vary; from time to time, it can contain different chemical compounds. There is no basic means of monitoring the constituents of sludge and maintaining that monitoring. I go along totally with what Euan Robson said.

I take Helen Eadie and John Farquhar Munro back to the committee's deliberations on Blairingone. The committee would do well to look again at some of the evidence that was taken at that time, and at the recommendations that were made by one health expert, who suggested that somewhere along the line an independent examination of the circumstances around such fertilisation should take place.

I strongly support what my two colleagues have said; they have presented the case well. Phil Gallie is right. Our inquiry on Saline and Blairingone was concluded prior to the Scottish Parliament elections, which meant that the work that arose from the inquiry was not taken forward—it was stultified at that point. Work needs to be done on the issue.

The homes of some of my constituents border on the affected Saline and Blairingone area. One of my constituents wrote to me last night. She visited the Newcastleton site recently, because campaigners throughout Scotland have linked up strongly on the issue. Her principal concern is that neither Scottish Water nor SEPA can inform the public of the pathogen or industrial chemical content of all forms—including the pelletised form—of sewage sludge cake. Nobody knows what is contained in it.

My constituent also makes the point very well that Scottish Water's response to the committee mentions its duty of care, but does not mention what its role is with regard to the health of the public when their product is put on land adjacent to homes. I raised that matter with the Minister for Communities when we discussed planning legislation. I asked him whether there could be a health impact assessment separate from the environmental impact assessment. That was the subject of a paper from the University of Glasgow. The paper stated that planning legislation ought to promote the idea that there should be a health impact assessment as well as an environmental impact assessment. That suggestion sits very well in connection with this matter.

With regard to Phil Gallie's point about SEPA's health remit, my constituent says that there is still confusion about which authority the public should contact in respect of health matters that arise from sewage sludge. She asks: Who has ultimate responsibility and what are the planning implications for the local community council and other bodies? Apparently Ross Finnie has formally confirmed that SEPA has a remit, but how seriously is it taking that work forward?

There is a real issue in respect of the inquiry that was held all that time ago. The question of how we dispose of sewage sludge across Scotland is another issue. I am working with a company in my constituency that has developed a very good way of disposing of sewage sludge in the context of renewable energy. That company can provide up to 1GW of energy from its plant. The only obstacle at the moment is the length of time it takes for it to get renewables obligation credits. If we can work with companies such as that, which can deliver 1GW of electricity by using sewage sludge, coal slurry and municipal waste, that would be a much better option for us than dumping. I whole-heartedly support that initiative. When I meet the minister tomorrow to talk about the energy side of the issue, I hope to take forward that initiative. I will then perhaps get all the sewage sludge to the Dunfermline East constituency so that we can provide energy for many people in my area and in other members' areas.

When we considered the petition previously, we suggested that when we had received responses from Scottish Water and the minister we would send the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee for its consideration. Now that I have heard the comments that have been made by Euan Robson, Phil Gallie and Helen Eadie, I think that it might also be worth sending it to the Communities Committee, which will scrutinise the forthcoming planning bill, so that it can address issues that have been raised this morning. If members agree, we could send the petition to both those committees for their consideration.

Would it be worth while looking back at the Blairingone inquiry report? As Helen Eadie rightly said, that report just disappeared. It might well contain something of value, given the length of time that has passed.

It would be quite legitimate to suggest to the committees that they consider the petition in the context of Blairingone.

Blairingone and Saline.

Yes; I am sorry.

Are members happy that we should do that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Tax Collection (Legislation and Procedures) (PE766)

Petition PE766 is by James Mackie, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the financial implications for businesses of the current system of collecting taxes by HM Revenue and Customs, and to change the legislation so that businesses have prior notification and the opportunity to address issues in front of a sheriff before a warrant is issued for the collection of taxes that are allegedly overdue.

At its meeting on 11 May 2005, the committee agreed to write to the petitioner. A response has been received from him. Having read that response, do members have any recommendations?

Could I suggest that we perhaps—no, I have changed my mind. I am sorry.

Shall we just consider this petition to be exhausted and close it?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Community Hospitals<br />(Scottish Executive Policy) (PE806)

Petition PE806 by Mr Len Wyse calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its policy on community hospitals and in the meantime to introduce a moratorium on any closures of such hospitals, which are vital to the NHS in Scotland and particularly in rural areas such as the Scottish Borders.

At its meeting on 2 February 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, the national workforce committee, the south-east regional workforce group, the national advisory group on service change and Borders NHS Board. Responses have now been received from all those organisations. Members have had a chance to look at those responses; are there any suggestions?

Perhaps we should ask the petitioner for his views on the responses.

That would be our normal course of action. If members agree, we will await the petitioner's views.

Members indicated agreement.

When would we want a response by? Mr Wyse is a constituent of mine and Borders NHS Board will come to a conclusion tomorrow on its recommendation on both Coldstream and Jedburgh cottage hospitals, which were the focus of the petition. Following that recommendation, there will be a period of public consultation, which will last until February.

I would like to advise my constituent. I presume that you would want him to get back to you fairly soon so that the committee's further deliberations can fit into the time before the board takes its final decision.

We would not take a view on the board's decision, but the normal timescale for responses is six weeks.

Thank you.

I hope that we will get a response from the petitioner. It will then be up to Mr Wyse how he responds to the board's consultation.

---

Methadone Prescriptions (PE789)

Petition PE789 by Eric Brown calls on the Scottish Parliament to take a view regarding the need for regulation to ensure that methadone prescriptions are taken by the patient while supervised by a suitably qualified medical practitioner. At its meeting on 27 April 2005, the committee agreed to write to the petitioner and the Scottish Executive. Responses have been received from each of them and circulated to members. Having considered them, what do members think?

I have written to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain because I was quite concerned by some of its comments. During the recess, I also visited various chemists at their request to find out how they give out methadone. I have been very impressed by Greater Glasgow NHS Board's initiatives. It would be a good idea to write to that board and to Lothian NHS Board. Feedback that I have received from the Lothians and Glasgow suggests that there are big differences in how methadone is prescribed. In the Glasgow chemists, I was told that if someone did not turn up for their methadone prescription within a couple of day they would be contacted. The chemists are always in touch with people.

In the light of the recent tragedy in the Leith area of Edinburgh, it is important to consider what happens in the Lothian NHS Board and Greater Glasgow NHS Board areas and to find out exactly what the differences are. We should keep the petition open.

We can write to Lothian NHS Board and Greater Glasgow NHS Board to get their views on the matter.

Yes.

Are members happy with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Food Chain (Supermarkets) (PE807)

Petition PE807, from James Mackie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to conduct an inquiry into the influence of supermarkets on the food chain and, in particular, to examine safety issues arising from the use of chemicals to extend the shelf life of products and from central purchasing and distribution, and the impact of supermarket trading on local economies and small producers.

At its meeting on 20 April 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, the Office of Fair Trading, the Food Standards Agency, the Scottish Consumer Council, the National Farmers Union Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland and the Institute of Grocery Distribution. The responses that we received have been circulated to members. I invite members to give their views on them.

Can we write to the Office of Fair Trading to ascertain and clarify the outcome of the review of its report of 22 March, and ask the Scottish Executive about its contribution to the United Kingdom Government's response to that report?

Are members happy with that suggestion and that we should wait to find out what the OFT says?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Secondary Schools (Lockers) (PE825)

Petition PE825, is from Alana Watson on behalf of Rosshall Academy students council and higher modern studies section. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that every Scottish secondary school provides lockers for pupils' use in order to prevent pupils from having to carry heavy bags throughout the school day, which could cause back problems.

At its meeting on 16 March 2005, the committee agreed to write to the British Chiropractic Association, the British Back Pain Association, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the Association of Head Teachers in Scotland, the Headteachers Association of Scotland, the Scottish Youth Parliament, Glasgow City Council and the Minister for Education and Young People. All their responses have now been received. What do members think about them?

We have received good responses from those organisations, but can we invite the petitioners to say whether they think the responses are good?

Yes. We could keep the petition open until we have received a response from the petitioners. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Disabled People (Local Transport) (PE695)

Our final current petition is PE695, from Jan Goodall, on behalf of Dundee accessible transport action group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to ensure that local authorities have affordable and accessible local transport available for disabled people who cannot use public transport, and to provide ring-fenced funding to allow local authority and/or community groups to provide dial-a-ride projects for that purpose.

At its meeting on 25 May 2005, the committee agreed to write to the petitioner and to pass the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee for information only. Responses have been received from the petitioner and from the Community Transport Association. What should the committee do?

It is good to see such an important issue being progressed. Can we write to the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications to ask for his views on the responses and to ask him when the research on the transport needs of disabled people in Scotland is due to be published?

Do members agree with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

That ends the meeting. I thank members for attending.

Meeting closed at 11:48.