Ms. Mactaggart's position seems to be one of contradiction, whereby she accepts that there are concerns and potential dangers from the mass burn incinerators, yet does not accept much of the scientific and anecdotal evidence presented to her, preferring to rely upon the recent and discredited DEFRA report. Ms. Mactaggart also argues that nothing can be done to stop the construction and operation of Grundon's plants. SAIN whole-heartedly dispute this defeatist idea, and many of the arguments used to support it.

There were three main points of interest:

1. Ms Mactaggart disputed the evidence presented to her by both Dr. Jerry Thompson and many others, instead relying on the recent DEFRA report and insisting that the Royal Society endorsed that report. However, the Royal Society stated that it had "significant limitations that restrict its usefulness to those making policy decisions". The report also contains much out of date information, and SAIN point out that new evidence is available and worrying. In addition to this, Ms. Mactaggart cited the fact that scientific evidence regarding implications of incineration is still contested by some scientists. Of course, these are exactly the same arguments we have heard time and time again to support the continuation of practices that were later 'discovered' to be harmful. From asbestos to DDT, the level of danger appears to have gone from 'safe', to 'potentially harmful' to 'dangerously toxic' over the years. This lack of caution in the first place has led to huge human tragedies and health costs we simply cannot cope with. So, SAIN would like to ask Ms. Mactaggart, how many scientist must agree, before we err on the side of caution?

2. Fiona Mactaggart MP explained her feeling that having two, much larger, new incinerators was better than one small old incinerator due to the supposed advancement in technology. However, this argument does not hold water in this case. Firstly, we know Grundon are in fact NOT using best technology. Secondly, size alone will cancel out the effects of better technology. Promises of monitoring do not inspire confidence either, as hundreds of cases of incinerators exceeding limits have been seen, yet only one of those cases was prosecuted. The argument that the new incinerators will be better, surely implies that old incinerators are dangerous. Yet Ms.Mactaggart stated that her support for the new plants was based on the 'fact' that the old incinerator couldn't be shut down. This begs an obvious question; if the old one was dangerous, yet couldn't be shut down, what confidence can we have that a new incinerator would be closed were it found that it was harmful? SAIN has pointed out that polluting industries often start by achieving a small plant, and then increase it over time, knowing that political leaders will fall for these arguments. Eventually, there must be a time when we say enough is enough, and this must be sooner than later.

3. Ms. Mactaggart has given us her assurance that she will continue to listen to any evidence presented to her, and will not try to hamper our efforts. In addition to this, Ms. Mactaggart agreed to investigate the case of a proposed incinerator in Hull, which was denied permission on the grounds that it would not be 'best available technology' and that she would talk with her House colleagues John Randall MP and John McDonald MP, who are both publicly opposed to the Colnbrook incinerators and have stated their support for our campaign.


SAIN.