Transport and the Environment Committee, 04 Mar 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 4, 2003

Official Report 262KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (draft)

For item 2, I welcome Allan Wilson, who is the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development. I also welcome the Scottish Executive officials Kevin Philpott, Fiona Mackay, Alison Crowe, and Elspeth MacDonald.

The first instrument that we will consider is the draft Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003. As with previous practice, I will give the minister the opportunity to make some introductory remarks, after which members may ask questions. I remind members that they should only ask questions at this stage, as there will be an opportunity to debate the instrument later.

As members will know, last week we launched Scotland's national waste plan. Sustainable waste management demands that as a nation we reduce the volumes of waste that we dispose of at landfill and that we manage waste disposal safely. The regulations are an important step in ensuring that the disposal of waste does not threaten human health or our environment. The Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 will also fulfil Scotland's obligation to implement the European landfill directive. Members will be aware of the importance that is placed on the expeditious implementation of our European Union obligations.

The regulations will ban the disposal of corrosive and liquid waste to landfill. They will also classify landfills to ensure appropriate management of sites that accept hazardous waste and improve the standard of landfill to avoid the escape of harmful gases and liquids. Everybody would agree that all those measures clearly advance environmental protection. Since last summer, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has worked with the commercial landfill sector to prepare for the onset of the regulations.

The regulations will also bring agricultural waste into the regulatory framework for landfills as the first element in a series of measures to bring such waste within the mainstream waste regulatory regime. We have sought to minimise the disruption to farmers by, for example, allowing the longest possible transition period. We have also initiated research by independent consultants on how best to bring farm dumps within the regime and how best we might inform farmers of the changes and of their implications for farmers and for farming practices.

I am grateful for the contributions that representatives of farming and land-owning interests have made to that process. We have set up a working group specifically to deal with those interests as that process continues. That is all that I will say at this stage, but I will be happy to answer any questions that members may have.

Thank you. Have members any questions?

I, too, have concerns about some issues. In particular, I am concerned about sites that are nearing the end of their life and sites that, because of financial difficulties, may go out of business. The new regulations with their increased on-going costs will put many more sites in jeopardy.

The minimum aftercare period is to be 30 years, which is a huge liability and potential burden. As most landfill operators are limited liability companies, what will happen if an operator goes out of business? As the land will be contaminated land, no one will want either to own the land or to take responsibility for it. What will happen to such contaminated land if an operator goes out of business? Who will have responsibility for the land on abandonment and for the period thereafter until it has been classified as safe by SEPA?

Obviously no one wants anyone to go out of business. We intend that landfill sites should be run professionally.

Often, smaller landfill operators are less likely to comply with the full range of environmental protection requirements. However, we acknowledge that sending waste from remote areas to larger landfills could have negative environmental consequences. We will therefore make full use of the permitted derogations for island sites and more remote areas for example.

One of my officials will pick up John Scott's point about the doomsday scenario.

SEPA will require that all operators prepare financial outlooks and risk assessments that take account of the aftercare and how the operators will pay for aftercare provisions. If operators were not able to make such provisions, it would be SEPA's responsibility to provide aftercare of a site if it had accepted the operators' financial outlook and risk assessment.

It would be SEPA's responsibility. Rather than face the increased burden of cost and regulation, many of those small limited companies will go out of business and SEPA will have to pick up the tab for looking after those sites for the next 30 or 60 years. Is that correct?

We are discussing possible scenarios with representatives of the farming community, the Scottish Landowners Federation and the Crofters Commission. I do not recognise the scenario that you are painting, but obviously the Executive, SEPA and any other agency involved will be taking a very close interest in any small landfill operator who sought to move away from their obligations to protect the environment by those means.

With respect, I am not thinking of farming site operators but of small landfill operations outside farming. The farming operations will just close down rather than face the £4,000 or £5,000 cost of the regulation. You and farming will have to accept that that is going to be a burden of £1,000 per farm.

You are drifting towards debate rather than questions. If you have a further question, I will allow it.

If I may, I will come back with another question.

Do any other members have a question? Members will have a chance to debate the issue when we move into the debate on the motion.

I want to tease out the issue that John Scott picked up on because it is very interesting. Setting aside the farming community, any company—whether small or large—involved in landfill, could declare itself bankrupt. If that were to happen, who would pick up the tab?

SEPA requires a financial and risk assessment from the operators. It will not give permits for those operators who do not have the relevant insurance. Operators will have to be covered or they will not be given the permits in the first place.

Are you talking about insurance or will a bond have to be put down?

We have decided against bonds. The operators will take out insurance policies.

How will those insurance policies operate? What kind of company gives that kind of cover?

I do not have that information to hand. I could send it to you later, but one of my colleagues might have more information.

I am not exactly sure either how the insurance will work. Presumably it will work in the same way as a 10-year building guarantee for a house or a 15-year guarantee for double glazing. In the same way, landfill operators will be able to obtain insurance for their landfill sites. The smaller landfills must decide whether to go through all that or whether to give up their business now. If they give up their business now, without being bankrupt, they will have to pay the necessary restitution costs.

The question of who picks up the tab arises only when the landfill operator does not have a permit that includes the insurance and other financial provisions and is bankrupt now. It is difficult to determine who would pick up the tab in that situation. One suspects that in extreme cases the usual organisations that engage in environmental clear-ups, such as SEPA and local authorities, would have to take action.

We should not discount the role of the planning process in this matter. Landfill operators will need to obtain planning permission from local authorities, as well as permits from SEPA. I suspect that, in return for granting planning permission, local authorities would seek to impose the conditions to which the member refers. They may already have done so.

You are right, particularly about applications that are made once the regulations are in place. However, there are 263 landfill sites in Scotland that already have planning permission.

John Scott asked whether, because of these stringent regulations, a raft of sites would go out of business. Planning departments will have considered that matter when deciding whether to grant initial planning permission.

Some of the older sites were established before regulations were tightened. I refer to places such as Paterson's dump and the landfill site at Greengairs. The planning guidelines for those sites are not as tight as the guidelines for more modern sites. Has a budget allocation been made to deal with situations in which, to avoid incurring additional costs that would eat into its profits, a landfill operator intentionally puts itself into liquidation or bankruptcy? In such instances the usual authorities—the local authority and SEPA—might have to pick up the tab. I accept that I am talking about hypothetical situations, but it is important for us to ensure that proper arrangements have been made.

The national waste plan foresees a reduction in the number of landfill sites. I presume that the Executive, as a conscientious Government, will have made provision for that. What provision has been made?

It is a matter of public record that we have increased substantially the resources that are available to SEPA and local authorities to implement the national waste plan. We envisage a reduction in the number of landfill sites because we envisage an overall reduction in landfill. We are moving away from a reliance on landfill and are tightening up regulations to improve health and safety and to protect the wider environment from the dangers of landfill. The national waste strategy provides resources that are more than adequate for dealing with eventualities such as those to which Bruce Crawford has referred. There is a danger that we will enter into hypothetical discussion of a hypothetical situation that is unlikely to arise as a result of these regulations.

I remind the committee that big landfills such as Paterson's dump are unlikely to close down if the regulations are approved. Smaller landfills tend to be operated by local authorities, so the situation that the member has described would not arise.

I would like to make a small point.

You must ask a question, rather than make a point.

Regulation 19 does not include the Scottish law entity of partnerships. Can the minister and his officials make the situation clearer, for the avoidance of doubt in the future?

Yes, as we have indicated, ideally the regulations should have made provision for partnerships. However, we feel that they are not defective in not so doing, in so far as individuals within a partnership will become liable. It is our intention to tidy up the situation at the first available opportunity. Indeed, it may be possible to do so in advance of or during the period of purdah that is about to be imposed. An oversight was made, but it should not preclude the passage of the regulations per se, as members of the partnerships are individually liable. We want to tidy up the situation as quickly as possible by amending the regulations following their passage through the Parliament.

What would the process be for doing that during the period of purdah, as the minister puts it? Would a statutory instrument be used and if so would it be made by the negative procedure?

We would have to check that, but I think that, because the instrument creates or amends an offence, it would be introduced by the affirmative procedure. That is what the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 states. The instrument could be laid during purdah, as that period would not count in terms of parliamentary procedure, but it would mean that it was before the Parliament when it returns. To do that would enable as much expedition as possible to be attached to the amendment.

We will move into the debate on the affirmative motion in the name of Ross Finnie. I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion.

We are interested in the points that the committee has raised. As colleagues said, we will perhaps come back to the committee on the detail. I welcome what I detect is the committee's general support for the regulations. I think that everybody can see the beneficial effect that they are liable to have in protecting the environment and improving the regulation of landfill sites. As members have mentioned, there has been a greater laxity in such regulation in the past.

I accept that regulation 19 makes no reference to partnerships, but I confirm again for the record that proceedings can still be taken against individuals in the partnership. That provision will ensure the proper enforcement of the regulations. Regulation 19 is therefore sufficient for the purpose although, as I said, we would wish to introduce amending regulations at some future point following the outcome of the events in May.

I move,

That the Transport and the Environment Committee recommends that the Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (draft), be approved.

Do members wish to speak to the motion?

I thank the minister for his answers to the points that I raised. In addition to those concerns, I am also concerned about the cost to waste producers, which represents yet another burden on industry. The cost of compliance ranges from £17.5 million to £112 million and the construction industry will be particularly badly hit.

If the minister will forgive me for saying so, it is not good enough for the Executive to say that where an industry faces a huge increase in costs due to regulation, those costs provide a stimulus and even an incentive to reduce or recycle waste. It is self-evident that most of the cost is not going to go away and that all businesses, from offices through to farms, face extra costs.

Once again, an additional layer of cost to industry is being added by the Government's implementation of an EU directive. Although the minister might rightly say that that is unavoidable, I repeat that the Parliament is once more heaping extra costs and red tape on to businesses and industries that can ill afford it.

The regulations will lead to more fly-tipping in more parts of the countryside and I ask the minister to tell the committee who will be liable for the additional burden of fly-tipping. What provisions will be made to stop an increase in a practice that, as the minister and his officials are well aware, is already a problem at the moment? What will be done to address fly-tipping?

I support the regulations. They are an inevitable consequence of the EU landfill directive, which was signed up to by a Conservative Government that, quite rightly, decided to introduce measures to protect the environment.

Nobody can deny that the costs are real. We have a choice: either the polluter pays or the taxpayer pays. Does John Scott suggest that the taxpayer should pick up the bill for the elements that the regulations will introduce? That is the only way in which the costs could be avoided. The taxpayer would have to bear the burden over the greater part of the UK. We do not have the power to do anything about that.

What John Scott said about fly-tipping might be the case if all landfill sites were to close, but I guess that larger landfill sites will gradually be used as the smaller sites that are surrounded by less technical engineering close. Perhaps we will need to examine that as part of strengthening regulation on fly-tipping. It will be interesting to see what arises from the Executive's consultation on litter. We might need regulation on fly-tipping to be strengthened, greater fines, an attitude much more of zero tolerance and a climate in which we take pride in our country.

If we are to implement the regulations to improve our environment, a cost will be incurred. Taxpayers or business and consumers will have to pay. We cannot escape that fact.

I, too, warmly welcome the regulations. For too long, landfill has been allowed to continue unchallenged. The situation is unsustainable. Although John Scott talked about cost to farmers—

I am not—

Excuse me, John—you have had your say.

We all recognise that the industry will incur costs, but communities and people have incurred costs from environmental pollution, and some of us believe that their health could be affected by the spin-off from landfill sites. In our patch—Mid Scotland and Fife, and Dunfermline East—Bruce Crawford and I are dealing with the fact that the poorest communities always seem to be dumped on. I am glad that the minister and politicians throughout Scotland are beginning to recognise that, for social justice, we must do everything that we can to minimise the use of landfill sites and to ensure that more recycling takes place, because that allows local villages and local people to enjoy a better environment. I argue that their health is at risk in some instances and that benefits could accrue in the longer term from what is proposed. I welcome the regulations.

I will briefly add a few comments, although I do not normally do that when we consider statutory instruments. I warmly welcome the regulations, because they are part of an overall strategy in which most members believe, which involves a move away from landfill and towards better control of the pollution that arises from landfill sites. I think that the measures that the Executive has introduced will have widespread support in the Parliament and throughout the country. Like other members, I have experience of difficulties in dealing with landfill operators who might not have adhered even to lax controls in the past. The regulations are to be welcomed and I think that they will receive a widespread welcome throughout communities in Scotland.

I welcome your support, convener, and that of Bruce Crawford and Helen Eadie, who put the issue into perspective. I do not think that John Scott's contribution, which might be paraphrased as, "Landfill is good for you," would be recognised by the average Scot. We certainly do not subscribe to that point of view, and Bruce Crawford was correct to propose that, if the taxpayer is not to pay, the polluter should pay. As members know, we subscribe to the view that the polluter should pay. Helen Eadie was equally correct to point out that environmental pollution itself is a cost to the nation and we must recognise that dumping waste also has an environmental cost. I welcome the broadly based support that has been expressed for the measures, which will tighten up the regulation of sites in the public interest.

Fly-tipping was one of the issues raised. We are considering an environmental resource management report on the present regulation of littering and fly-tipping in general, and we will comment shortly on that, as we said that we would when we were in Aberdeen. There will, necessarily, be costs to SEPA arising from the guidance on assessing the site-conditioning plans of small operators and others. In the main, those costs will be recovered from the fees charged to the polluters. We have provided for a flexible approach for the small operator, and we have extended the derogation on bringing forward plans. The regulations will ensure that the fees charged by landfill operators cover the full cost of running sites to the new standards laid down by SEPA.

We have adopted that flexible approach for small operators such as the farmers to whom Helen Eadie referred. At the same time, we have ensured that the regulatory costs and additional burdens are recovered in fees charged to the polluter.

Motion agreed to.

That the Transport and the Environment Committee recommends that the Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (draft), be approved.

I thank the officials who were assisting the minister on that instrument. I understand that there will now be a change of team for the second instrument.

---

Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (draft)

The second instrument is the Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (draft). We will follow a similar procedure to that which we followed for the first instrument. I invite the minister to make some introductory remarks, after which I will give members the opportunity to ask questions.

I am happy to answer any questions that members might have on my introductory remarks.

The regulations will provide local authorities with powers to help them to reduce the number of polluting vehicles on Scotland's roads and, in so doing, will help to improve air quality. The powers are optional. Glasgow City Council has used them successfully in a trial and we hope to encourage a number of other local authorities to use them.

The regulations will provide two sets of powers. The first will enable local authorities to carry out vehicle emissions testing at the roadside and to issue fixed penalties to drivers of vehicles that do not meet prescribed standards. The offence of failing to meet emissions standards already exists, so the regulations will impose no new burdens in that regard. They will simply allow a much higher proportion of vehicles to be tested than is possible under the current arrangements.

At present, compliance is checked only at the annual MOT test, or as part of the limited programme of random testing that is undertaken by the Vehicle Inspectorate. Unfortunately, many drivers pay little attention to the maintenance of their vehicles until it is time for their MOT. The National Audit Office estimates that, at any given time, up to 20 per cent of vehicles on our roads exceed legal emissions limits.

We hope that the threat of roadside tests and the possibility of a £60 penalty will encourage more drivers to take proper care of their vehicles. The purpose of that provision is not to target unnecessarily the vast majority—the 80 per cent—of law-abiding motorists. Anyone who has a defect corrected within two weeks and who is in possession of a valid MOT certificate will have the fixed penalty waived. That is in recognition of the fact that some people might be driving around in vehicles that they believe to be compliant, but which have deteriorated since the MOT test.

Local authorities will be required to give wide publicity to the new powers and the Executive will issue comprehensive guidance on how penalties and other aspects of the scheme should be operated. The result will be that no driver should be surprised at being stopped for an emissions test or be in any doubt about how to avoid the fixed penalty charge that could be levied.

The publicity that local authorities give to the scheme should act as an incentive to vehicle owners to look after their vehicles better; we hope that few fixed penalties will need to be issued in practice. That was the case with the trial scheme that was run in Glasgow. The effectiveness of Glasgow City Council's publicity meant that people complied with the regulations and did not incur penalties.

When we consulted on the proposals for emissions testing, there was a widely held view that Executive funding would be essential if the powers were to be widely used. Therefore, we will provide additional financial support for local authorities—£0.5 million will be available for each of the next three years. Interested authorities will be invited to bid for a share of the money.

In England and Wales, where similar schemes have been introduced, the powers have been restricted to local authorities that have declared air-quality management areas. Under our regulations, the power will be available to all local authorities in Scotland.

The key aim of the scheme is to provide authorities with an additional tool for managing air quality. We believe that local authorities are best placed to decide whether the powers will be appropriate for their particular circumstances and we want to give them as much flexibility as possible in making that decision. Eight local authorities have already expressed interest in making use of the powers and it is clear from what they tell us that they welcome the regulations.

The second set of powers will enable local authorities to request drivers to switch off engines that are left running in parked vehicles and to issue fixed penalties in the few cases in which people might refuse to co-operate with a reasonable instruction to do that. Examples of drivers who leave their engines running for a variety of reasons are coach drivers in busy town centres or people who are waiting outside schools or railway stations. The cumulative effect of that is detrimental to our air quality and is unpleasant for the people who experience it or who live nearby. That second set of powers is also important.

We expect both sets of powers in the regulations to make a valuable and welcome contribution to improving air quality in Scotland. On that basis, I trust that members will welcome them.

Bruce Crawford and Maureen Macmillan can ask the first questions.

I welcome the regulations, but I have a few questions about them, one of which is about testing. The MOT test is the only time of year that domestic cars or other vehicles are tested, but I believe that the traffic commissioners regularly test output from lorries by stopping them at the side of the road. If that is the case, what consultation has been held with the traffic commissioners to ensure that the regulations complement the commissioners' work?

The issue of parked vehicles is interesting. Will a traffic warden or another named person from the local authority have the power to tell lorry drivers or other people to switch off their motors while the vehicles are parked? I want to understand more about how that matter will be dealt with.

The minister mentioned £0.5 million of extra resources. I realise that there is not a bottomless pit of money and I suppose that not all local authorities will want to be involved in the scheme, which will be voluntary. However, if all the local authorities became involved, even if we assume that each local authority will require £20,000 to implement the scheme—I am being as conservative with a small "c" as I can—more money will be required. The figure would certainly be closer to £650,000 or £700,000. If local authorities employed one person to carry out the activity, £20,000 would not be enough to pay them and to provide a uniform and travel expenses. How will the scheme be rolled out? Will the authorities in which there is particular congestion be able to secure the resources ahead of those in more rural areas?

I asked my officials about the division of resources. It is self-evident that we wish to prioritise the areas in which there is the greatest threat to air quality. That could involve testing on the fringes of the cities in which we have declared air-quality management zones. As a consequence, it is important that we extend to local authorities the power to test outwith those areas.

We costed the proposals at about £120,000 a year for each authority on the basis of 200 days of testing each year. Consultation with local authorities suggested that they were likely to test for only a fraction of that time, possibly for as few as 10 to 20 days. That comes down to a number of factors, such as the availability of personnel. Costs are therefore liable to be lower than estimated, but they could be reduced further if local authorities were to share equipment and organise their affairs to minimise cost. That would release more resources to other local authorities to carry out further testing. The funding will enable testing to be extended significantly beyond the existing levels.

As Bruce Crawford mentioned, the existing testing is undertaken by the Vehicle Inspectorate. The inspectorate currently tests through random roadside checks but, as Bruce said, it focuses mainly on heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles—only about 0.5 per cent of private vehicles are tested in that way. The regulations represent significant extension of testing of private vehicles and we expect local authorities to co-operate with the Vehicle Inspectorate on that matter.

The question of who is responsible for telling drivers to switch off idling engines is obviously for consultation between local authorities and the Vehicle Inspectorate. David Wallace might want to give members more detail on that matter.

Currently, the police can ask drivers to switch off idling engines. The new regulations will allow local authority personnel to do that, who will follow common sense in applying the regulations. If an engine is idling for a short time, local authority personnel might let it lie, but if it continues for longer, it will affect air quality so there will be a reason for the local authority to ask people to switch off their engines. There are parts of cities and towns where buses tend to congregate and leave their engines idling. There is, perhaps, no reason for that, so in such situations local authority personnel could go in and ask the drivers to switch their engines off.

The questions that I was going to ask have been answered. I wanted to know about the mechanics and Bruce Crawford's questions have dealt with that.

My question is about engine idling. Will there be exceptions? I imagine that, for example, most bus drivers who leave their engines idling want their buses to be warm. If drivers have to stay with the bus, they want to keep themselves warm. An extreme case of that happened on the M11 recently, when drivers were stuck in snow and kept their engines idling to keep themselves warm and preserve their lives. Can you comment on that? I assume that you do not mean that in such cases people should be forced to switch their engines off.

We certainly do not envisage any bus drivers dying of hypothermia as a consequence of the introduction of the regulations.

There could be grounds for debate between officials and bus drivers if the bus drivers say that they are cold and that they want to keep their buses warm when they have to stay with it.

As David Wallace said, common sense would be exercised in the unlikely circumstances that John Scott outlines. We will obviously publish guidance on that issue and on other aspects of the powers. We envisage that the vast majority of motorists, bus drivers and others will be co-operative and will understand the rationale behind the request to switch off an idling engine. As I said, I do not envisage many bus drivers being affected by hypothermia as a consequence of the regulations.

The minister will not have to sit in one of those buses.

In a similar situation, a friend of mine was killed by exhaust fumes while trapped overnight in a snowdrift at the Lecht. Dangers are also involved in keeping engines running.

I have a question about a problem in my constituency, where train engines are left idling overnight for very long periods, which causes air pollution and noise pollution. Does the minister plan to introduce similar legislation with regard to diesel train engines being left idling?

Are the engines left idling to keep the train drivers warm?

Yes. That is probably why the whole engine is left running. I dare say that if the minister was sitting through the night for two or three hours he would keep his engine running.

My engine is currently running, but I will ask David Wallace to answer that question.

There are two points in John Scott's question: one is about air quality and one is about noise. All local authorities review and assess their air quality and have started another review and assessment exercise. If there is a problem in John Scott's area, the review and assessment should pick that up. That issue has not been raised with us before, but now that John Scott has mentioned it we will look out for it when the report comes in from the relevant area.

A new directive on noise has just been agreed and we are taking steps to implement it. It will cover noise from a variety of sources, such as roads, railways, ports and airports. If the running of the railway engines is causing too much noise, that should be picked up in the mapping exercise that all local authorities will have to carry out under the directive. We have noted the point and we will look out for it as we implement the directive.

I undertake to discuss with officials the issues that John Scott has raised. We will, in the guidance that we produce, aim to strike the right balance between the health and safety of the individual bus driver—in the case of the regulations—and the public interest in improving air quality in our city centres, the immediate environment of schools and other built up areas.

We will end questions before John Scott comes up with a more widely drawn question. I invite the minister to move the motion, which is in the name of Ross Finnie.

Motion moved,

That the Transport and the Environment Committee, in consideration of the draft Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (Scotland) Regulations 2003, recommends that the Regulations be approved.—[Allan Wilson.]

Do any members want to contribute to a debate on the motion?

I welcome the regulations because I understand that more people die because of the effects of air pollution from motor vehicle emissions than die in road traffic accidents. That is an issue that has not previously been fully considered. When people understand that, they will understand the need for the regulations.

Motion agreed to.

I thank the minister and the Executive officials. I look forward to taking evidence from the minister in the future.

---

Domestic Water and Sewerage Charges (Reduction) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/65)<br />Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Aberdeen City Council) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/70)

---

Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (Aberdeen City Council) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/71)<br />Parking Attendants (Wearing of Uniforms) (Aberdeen City Council Parking Area) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/72)

We have four negative instruments to consider. No members have raised points on the instruments and no motions to annual have been lodged, so do members agree that we have nothing to report on the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.