Subordinate Legislation
We are considering three SSIs today. The first is an affirmative instrument—the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations (SSI 2000/draft). As members know, the instrument was circulated before the recess together with an Executive covering note. Copies of the Executive's draft guidance relating to the operation of the regulations have also been circulated as paper TE/00/20/4. Members may also wish to refer to the committee covering note on the instrument, TE/00/20/1.
We will follow the standard procedures for handling affirmative SSIs. First, we will allow some time for general discussion and for members to ask questions of the minister and the officials. The minister will then move motion S1M-1047, which may be debated prior to a decision being taken. I remind members that the Executive officials may not contribute to any formal debate after the minister has moved the motion; only MSPs may take part in that debate. The debate must last no longer than 90 minutes. I invite the minister to make any introductory comments that she wishes to make.
Given the scale and apparent complexity of the instrument to anyone who is not in one of the industries that is being regulated, it might be helpful if I outline the thinking behind the regulations, which I sincerely hope the committee will be able to pass today. The purpose of the regulations is to bring us into line with European directive 96/61 on integrated pollution prevention and control.
Our existing domestic legislation in this field was used as the guide and model for that directive. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, pollution from industry is regulated under the integrated pollution control—IPC—regime for larger and more polluting processes and under the local air pollution control regime for other processes that lead to emissions to air. In Scotland, both those regimes are implemented by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
Under the current regime, operators are required to adopt what we call a proportionate response to dealing with pollution, using the best available technology and not entailing excessive costs. The acronym for that is BATNEEC. It enables the central concept of integrated pollution prevention and control—IPPC—to be put into effect. The directive adopts that approach. It requires operators to use the best available techniques, subject to an assessment of their costs and benefits, to prevent or reduce pollution from installations, whether it is to air, land or water.
However, integrated pollution prevention and control—the new regime—goes further than our existing regime and requires operators also to consider the environmental impact of their installations. In particular, energy efficiency and the use of raw materials are new issues added to the agenda as aspects of the operation of installations that the regulator—SEPA—must consider. Not only will those measures bring environmental benefits, but they could, through the more efficient use of energy and raw materials, bring financial gains to the operators, if the facilities are being used more wisely.
The IPPC directive covers the majority of installations that are subject to integrated pollution control and some that are subject to local air pollution control. It also requires regulation of some sectors that have not previously been subject to that type of regulation. To avoid the confusion that could result from operating several parallel regimes at the same time, the regulations cover all installations that are included in the directive and all other installations that are covered by part I of the 1990 act.
The regulations maintain many of the provisions of the 1990 act, but we have taken the opportunity to make some improvements to the system. For example, although the applications procedure is largely unchanged, SEPA is preparing a new set of simpler and clearer application forms and guidance. People will also be able to submit their applications electronically. I hope that that will be less onerous for the people who are being regulated.
We have also changed the review arrangements for authorisations. Under the 1990 act, authorisations for IPC and local air pollution control must be reviewed every four years. Under the new regulations, the review periods for a specific sector will be determined by SEPA. They will depend on several factors, including sectoral investment cycles and the risk that the process presents to the environment. That will enable a proportionate response for the different mechanisms that need to be controlled.
Another major change is that the directive allows requirements for some types of installations to be set out in general binding rules, which can be used instead of site-specific permit conditions. That is good news for everybody—for the environment, the industry and SEPA. Using that type of rule will reduce the regulatory effort for SEPA and, as a consequence, the fees that are paid by operators. However, it will still ensure the appropriate level of environmental protection. We are keen to develop those rules over the next few years, in collaboration with SEPA and the industry, to determine whether we can improve them further.
The PPC regulations are the result of extensive consultation over the past four years—it is important to be aware of that—involving SEPA, the industry, the trade associations, environmental interest groups and the general public. As a result of those consultations, we have managed to take a balanced approach that takes into account both environmental protection and the concerns that are being expressed by various sectors of the industry.
As Andy Kerr has outlined, these are affirmative resolution regulations and follow a commitment that was made during the passage of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 through Westminster that any changes that were made to provisions that were previously contained in primary legislation would continue to be subject to affirmative resolution, thus giving the Parliament the chance to scrutinise regulations and to have proper control over any changes to the legislative framework.
When making such substantial changes, we have a clear preference to implement European directives through primary legislation. The alternative would have been to implement the directive through the European Communities Act 1972, but that would have given us a complex arrangement consisting of three different pollution control regimes, which could have led to a lot of confusion. Neither the Confederation of British Industry nor the industry was in favour of such an approach, and we wanted to ensure that the procedure was straightforward.
The Scottish Executive rural affairs department has estimated that around 750 installations in Scotland will be subject to the directive. New installations will be brought into the regime with immediate effect. However, existing installations must be brought in only by the directive deadline of 30 October 2007. To ensure a straightforward transition from the existing regime to the new one, a phased approach is being taken to the implementation of this regime, which will start next spring. The timetable has, in part, been determined by the availability of the European guidance on the best available techniques, and reflects the existing arrangements for the periodic review of permits.
In setting that freezing regime, we have also tried to bring into play other concerns. We recognise the important role that the pig and poultry farming industries play in rural communities and we understand the potential impact of their being brought into play early. We have therefore decided to defer implementation of IPPC for pig and poultry farms until 2007, which, under the directive, is the latest possible time for doing so.
We have also supported the discussions that have taken place between SEPA and farming interests about the development of general binding rules for those sectors as well as for some of the key industries that I talked about earlier. Such development would reduce the regulatory effort for SEPA and the fees that are paid by farmers, while still ensuring a high level of environmental protection. We are working on how to deliver that.
I have one final comment on why we are bringing these regulations to the Parliament. The deadline for implementing the directives was October last year, so we are already running behind time. We are behind a number of member states that have either transposed or implemented the directives. One could say that that was embarrassing for us, because we provided the model for the rest of Europe. However, in Scotland we felt that the detailed consultations that we had carried out over the past year were important. This is a new regime. We wanted to ensure that industry understood it fully and that we were able to debate whether we could change the way in which it was implemented. We felt that the changes to the draft regulations that were made last summer in the light of the consultations were significant enough to justify further consultation, to ensure that the regulations were exactly right.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee has been involved in discussions and has sought reassurances from us about the procedure for appeal to the sheriff. It has pointed out that the detail of the regulations does not oblige determinations of the Scottish ministers to refer to the appellant's further right of appeal. The committee's view was that regulation 22 should be amended to include a reference to a party's further right of appeal. They have the right to appeal to SEPA, they have the right to appeal to Scottish ministers and, as a last resort, they should have the right to appeal to a sheriff. Although this is not necessary, I am happy to bring forward a suitable amendment to the regulations the next time that we have a chance to do so, which will probably be in six months. Such an amendment will take on board the fact that the Subordinate Legislation Committee felt that the right to appeal to a sheriff should be included in the regulations. We are happy to do that.
I hope that that gives members an idea of how we have arrived at the current position. I am aware that, to those who are not involved in implementing them in industry, these regulations may appear complex, lengthy and detailed. However, SEPA has drafted a practical guide, which has been issued jointly with the Executive. I have made that available to members and I hope that you have been able to look at it. It is important that industry and all those who may be interested in this regime have the opportunity to comment on the draft, which we intend to revise in the light of comments received. I believe that a combination of the implementation of the directive through the regulations and guidance on best practice will help to share experience throughout the UK and across Europe. It will bring about technical developments and improvements that are to the benefit of industry, the environment and local people.
I hope that members are keen to ask questions. If you have questions of a technical nature, this is the best time to ask them, because Neil Ingram will be able to respond in full. If you ask them later, you will be left with me trying to answer them.
The word of warning is taken. I had experience of the previous regulations, so I welcome the attempt to clarify them. The guidance paper, with the flow charts and detailed information that it contains, is very useful. The fact that electronic systems are to be used for submissions and so on is a step forward.
As no members seem to have questions, I assume that we are happy with the information that we have received and with the summary, which we have all had a chance to examine. I ask the minister to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Transport and the Environment Committee recommends that the draft Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 be approved.—[Sarah Boyack.]
Motion agreed to.
I thank the minister and her officials, who got off lightly this morning. We may get you another time.
You have set a lovely precedent, but I am sure that what happened this morning will never happen again.