Subordinate Legislation
Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Glasgow) Designation Amendment Order 2002<br />(SSI 2002/187)<br />Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Edinburgh) Designation Amendment Order 2002<br />(SSI 2002/188)
The fourth item on the agenda is our consideration of two statutory instruments that are subject to the negative procedure. As members have not raised any points on these orders and no motions to annul have been lodged, I seek the committee's agreement that the committee has nothing to report on either of these orders. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Air Quality (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002 (Draft)
Item 5 is the draft Air Quality (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002. I welcome Ross Finnie to the meeting to speak to the regulations, which are subject to the affirmative procedure. I should point out for the record that the minister has other engagements and has to leave by 12.50. As we have to get through this and two other agenda items, I ask members and the minister to be as concise as possible in their questions and answers.
A note on the regulations has been circulated to members. Following the usual procedure, I will give members the opportunity to put questions to the minister and the officials before we have a substantive policy debate on the regulations. The minister will then move a motion asking us to approve the regulations. However, before I invite members to ask their questions, I give the minister an opportunity to make his opening remarks.
Thank you very much. I am pleased to speak to the regulations, which set tough new limits for three pollutants: benzene, carbon monoxide and particles. I want to stress that air quality in Scotland is generally good. However, evidence from our health experts shows that we cannot afford to be complacent. Indeed, the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants reported last year that the health effects of long-term particle air pollution might be at least 10 times greater than the short-term effect of day-to-day changes in particle levels that was reported in 1998. The committee concluded that cutting particulate air pollution is likely to be much more beneficial to health than we had previously thought. That message is important.
As a result, the requirement for local authorities to undertake a review and assessment of air quality in their areas is at the core of the air quality strategy. We must ensure that most local authorities are able to meet all the objectives by the required dates. That leaves only the hotspots in our city centres in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow where air quality management areas have been declared on the basis of transport-related nitrogen dioxide emissions.
The current objectives for benzene, carbon monoxide and particles are likely to be met by the prescribed dates. In the case of benzene and particles, the policy aim of the new regulations is to give local authorities additional long-term targets to move towards. However, the progress that has been made towards meeting the current limits for carbon monoxide means that it can be directly replaced by a more stringent objective.
A new, long-term annual target is proposed for benzene, and is to be met by the end of 2010. It is based on the recommendation of the expert panel on air quality standards and supplements the current objective. A tougher objective for carbon monoxide replaces the current one, but has the same target date of the end of 2003. That is based on the limit value in the second European Union air quality daughter directive. New, long-term 24-hour and annual objectives for particles are being introduced, which are to be met by the end of 2010 and will supplement the current objectives that are to be met by the end of 2004.
Last year, we completed a range of reviews that we have used to inform our proposals, which will set tough, long-term objectives for particles. As the research and modelling work showed that we could set tougher targets, we have decided to adopt that approach. The new objective will be more than 50 per cent lower than the current one. The fact that it will also be tougher than the objectives proposed for the rest of the UK and for London reflects the high standard of air quality that we already enjoy in Scotland.
Furthermore, we will be reducing the number of exceedences allowed of the 24-hour mean particles objective from 35 per year to seven. That will make the 24-hour objective at least as tough as the one in the original 1997 strategy. The new objective will be challenging, but our modelling work suggests that it will be no more so than the less stringent objectives elsewhere in the UK. That will be the first departure from a UK-wide approach to the strategy. Due to the trans-boundary nature of our air pollutants, it is appropriate to have an air quality strategy presented in a document covering all parts. Nonetheless, our air quality is a fully devolved issue and we feel that we are free to advance policies that reflect our own specific circumstances, which are reflected in the new regulations.
Thank you for those comments, minister. Robin Harper has the first question.
We were told last week that the long-term objective for traffic control, rather than traffic reduction, was to achieve traffic levels in 2020 that are limited more or less to the present traffic levels. If controlling traffic levels, rather than reducing traffic, is the sole overall objective in Scotland, how can that feed into achieving the reductions in air pollution and the targets that you are now setting for 2010?
As you said, that is the only published standard that we have set at the moment. I have made it clear in all the contributions and discussions on setting targets and indicators that it is an evolving process. A range of measurements are used to measure the effects of pollution but not to show the impact from some of the sources of pollution. Governments throughout Europe have acknowledged that we need measures not only of the level of pollution, but also of the sources of pollution and their contribution to the overall targets. We believe that setting standards for air quality measurement and testing for benzene and carbon monoxide particles as outlined in the strategy can be achieved within the current programmes.
I whole-heartedly agree with Robin Harper that there is a lot more to be done on measuring pollution produced by road traffic, and the overall aim of stabilising car use is but part of that. However, the air quality strategy puts greater impositions on the regulations for traffic in towns and on local authority controls of heavy vehicle emissions. The strategy places an obligation on local authorities to take action against those over whom they currently have control and to exercise that control more strictly. If local authorities do not do that, they will be in breach of the regulations.
I have a rough figure that shows that about 80 per cent of pollution comes from 20 per cent of vehicles, which consistently break emissions regulations through poorly maintained engines. Has there been any discussion about how to address that problem?
I am aware that the imposition of the regulations has certainly opened up discussion as to how that can be achieved. As I said, that will not only create a much heavier obligation to test for emissions, but will create a fallback position in which a failure to reduce emissions will constitute a failure to impose the regulations, as set out in the EU directive. In a sense, the stick that has been absent will come into play with the coming into force of the regulations.
We are talking about PM10s, referring to the size of the particulate matter. I believe that there is evidence that smaller particles are actually more hazardous. Is any work being done to investigate whether we should be considering smaller particulate matter in tightening up the regulations as we progress towards better air quality?
Antje Branding (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department):
You are right to say that medical evidence has emerged recently to show that it is particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micromillimetres that causes the worst health effects.
The expert panel on air quality standards looked into the matter of whether the measurement based on PM10s—particles slightly bigger than PM2.5s—would still be adequate to protect human health. After considering all the evidence, the expert panel concluded that a particles objective based on the PM10 measurement would be the best standard. Although the health effects of PM2.5s are recognised, there are also the effects of those particles in the range between PM2.5 and PM10. By setting the standard at PM10, all those particle sizes can be encompassed and better protection of human health can be achieved. The expert panel on air quality standards will keep the matter under review as new evidence is produced.
Thank you. That is helpful.
Most of the policy measures to reduce particle emissions are targeting the small fraction of PM2.5s. It is that fraction that will be reduced.
Are these particles emitted from the internal combustion engine, or are you talking about pollution more generally?
They are particles emitted from vehicles and industrial processes. Particles are also re-suspended from the roads while vehicles are passing, by the rub of the tyres. We are targeting all those particles.
Minister, You said that most local authorities would be able to deal with the emissions. You then said that city centres were exceptions and would be exempted from air quality management areas. Is that right? I am not quite sure what you were describing, minister.
I do not think that we are exempting such areas. We have had to change the compliance dates for city centres, as they are hotspots. We have declared them air quality management areas to bring them up to speed. Regrettably, we may have to extend some of the deadlines, but we have not lost sight of the imperative to control pollution or the need to designate air quality management areas. Over a period, we have not been meeting the targets, but we are determined that we will establish the conditions in which we can meet the targets. That is why we have established these air quality management areas.
I am interested in the pollution from benzene that is given off from petrol. I understand that a new type of petrol pump is being introduced to address that problem, which will incur a considerable cost to filling stations. Will you do anything to help more remote, rural filling stations to meet the costs that the new standards will incur, or is that not part of the regulations?
There is nothing in the regulations that requires Scottish ministers to provide subsidies to the international oil companies.
With respect, I am not talking about the oil companies. I am talking about the operators of small, rural garages.
Yes, but who imposes a price for general consumption?
The Government.
Well, is it? We are now talking about something slightly different. Taxation is not within my remit. My purpose in introducing the regulations is to set standards. I hope that all producers of materials that emit particles during their use will have regard to the need to meet those standards. If someone engages in the provision of materials that cause emissions, they must have regard to the impact on the economy of unnecessarily imposing additional cost. I will have to look at the details. You refer to the possible cost, but I will have to investigate the matter before I can give a definitive answer on it.
As members have no other questions, I ask the minister to move motion S1M-2984.
Motion moved,
That the Transport and the Environment Committee recommends that the draft Air Quality (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002 be approved.—[Ross Finnie.]
Motion agreed to.
Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) (No 2) Order 2002<br />(SI 2002/800)
Item 6 concerns the Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) (No 2) Order 2002 (SI 2002/800), which is subject to the negative procedure. Members are aware that Fiona McLeod has lodged a motion to annul the instrument. A covering note on the order has been circulated with the papers for the meeting. That note sets out the procedure for a debate on a motion to annul.
Prior to debating the motion, I will give members the opportunity to raise any points of clarification or other questions with the minister and Executive officials. I ask members to keep to questions. You will have the opportunity for a full debate once we are past the questions. I also remind members that the officials who are here to advise the minister have the opportunity to give answers during the question and answer session only. They will not have the opportunity to answer once we move into debate.
I ask the minister to comment on the instrument.
I direct the committee to section 93 of the Scotland Act 1998, under which the order has been made. That section enables Scottish ministers to make agency arrangements for any of their specified functions to be exercised by a minister of the Crown, and vice versa. The arrangements are, in effect, agreed contracts between Scottish ministers and the ministers of the Crown. They are tailored to reflect policy objectives and are the most efficient and effective way of conducting business.
I stress, and draw the committee's attention to, section 93(2) of the Scotland Act 1998, which expressly states:
"An arrangement under this section does not affect a person's responsibility for the exercise of his functions."
It could not be clearer or any more black and white that nothing in the three elements of the order—on air quality limit values, the processing of applications for releases of genetically modified organisms and dealing with certain aspects of ozone-depleting substances—in any way changes the responsibility of the Scottish ministers for taking decisions on any of those matters.
In practice, the order allows us to take advantage of certain agency arrangements, some of which have been in place for a long time and which we believe are good value for money and expedient for us to continue.
The arrangement on the Air Quality Limit Values (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/224) relates to who monitors air pollutants. Those services are provided by a firm with over 1,000 stations throughout the United Kingdom. We take advantage of that firm's expertise by using it to provide the monitoring so that we can comply with the regulations.
On the release of GMOs, the order specifies certain administrative functions—I stress that those functions are administrative—to be carried out under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. There are persons at the UK level who have the expertise to deal with the initial handling of applications for the release of GMOs. That does not affect the final independent advice in any way, nor does it affect the Scottish ministers' decision.
The order also specifies that functions that are devolved to the Scottish ministers under the Environmental Protection (Controls on Ozone-Depleting Substances) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/528) in relation to the control and regulation of certain ozone-depleting substances will be carried out on an agency basis.
The section 93 and agency arrangements are relatively common practice across the Executive. There are six separate section 93 orders in force. I believe that they are a sensible use of resources. Without agency arrangements, Scottish ministers would be required to provide the services themselves, incurring unnecessary costs and duplicating expertise that is already available. On those grounds, we have laid this order. We have been clearly instructed that it in no way transfers any powers to any part of the United Kingdom. Following the well-established law of the principal and agent, the principal is still required to take the decisions. That is what Scottish ministers do and that is why we have laid the order.
I would like to go through a number of the items in the order and ask why you are going down this route.
Paragraph (a) of the schedule to the order deals with section 111(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which is about applications for the release of genetically modified organisms. Why do you think that a Scottish minister would not want to be able to seek further information from an applicant?
Paragraph (b) of the schedule deals with section 122(1) and (2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which is about maintaining the public register. I am interested to know why a Scottish minister would not want to keep the register on GMOs in Scotland. If it is not in Scotland, how do you propose to make provision for ease of access to the register? The Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it clear that people have to have ease of access to the register.
When we were debating the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill last week, we were told that our legislation is much tougher than that which is proposed down south. Will our Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill impact on the UK secretary's keeping of the register and the way in which they deal with applications for access to the register from residents in Scotland?
Paragraph (d) of the schedule deals with regulation 14 of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/3280). I cannot see why a Scottish minister would not want to be involved in the specification for forwarding to the European Community a case for either accepting or rejecting an application for a release. Why would a Scottish minister not want to be involved in evaluating the risks and carrying out the tests and inspections that set the criteria for them?
Paragraph (e) of the schedule deals with regulation 16(1) of those GMO regulations. As you will be aware, Scotland is a European competent authority for GMOs. Why would a Scottish minister not want to retain that status for Scotland? Regulation 16(1) is about Scotland becoming the first European market for a GM product. That suggests to me that Scotland should continue to be a European competent authority for GMOs.
Paragraph (f) of the schedule talks about the Air Quality Limit Values (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/224), which the Executive said were designed to reflect Scotland's particular circumstances.
I know that your department has had difficulty in obtaining disaggregated data on pollution because it has been difficult to get disaggregated Scottish information in answer to parliamentary questions, particularly on non-terrestrial pollution. Given that difficulty, why do Scottish ministers want to give away the ability to set the criteria for monitoring? You talked about the location of monitoring stations and having access to all the stations. Given Scotland's circumstances—to which you referred previously—surely it is important that ministers should be able to set the criteria, for example, for the location of monitoring stations?
Why do you want to pass over to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the responsibility for disseminating information? I understand that when an alert threshold is exceeded, information must be disseminated to the relevant bodies. Why is DEFRA better equipped to disseminate throughout Scotland the information that an alert threshold has been exceeded? The issue takes me back two years, when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food failed to tell the minister that there were GM-contaminated seeds among seeds that had been planted in Scotland. MAFF forgot that you might have an interest in the matter and did not tell you about it for a few weeks.
Can we stick to questions?
I was explaining the background to my question.
Finally, why will the importation of ozone depleting substances still be controlled in Northern Ireland, but not in Scotland? That completes my questions.
The issue that ran through four of the five questions—the fifth was on involvement with Europe—is whether Scottish ministers wish to be involved in setting standards, criteria or levels of involvement. An agency agreement is just that—an agreement. Implicit in such agreements will be the standards that the agreement sets. Admittedly, that is not spelled out in the order. The order seeks to give ministers only the power to enter into agency agreements. In setting an agency agreement, Scottish ministers will be extremely concerned about its terms and conditions.
The arrangements that we seek to have the power to enter into have historically been in place. Fiona McLeod asks why a Scottish minister would not want further information. If a Scottish minister wants further information, he or she can still seek it. Entering into an agency agreement does not preclude ministers from requesting further information, given that they have not given up the power. That is the essential feature. Such agreements are made for administrative convenience—they provide a more effective and efficient way of dealing with administrative arrangements. They do not preclude ministers from exercising powers. So, on Fiona McLeod's first point, if Scottish ministers believe that further information is required, they can address that matter. The order does not preclude Scottish ministers from seeking additional information. At the end of the day, Scottish ministers must be satisfied with the information that is given to them. If they are not satisfied, they can seek additional information.
I concede that if there was a suggestion that Scottish ministers did not have the responsibility or that they were not taking the decisions, clearly the effectiveness of agency agreements could be called into question. If Scottish ministers are not satisfied that the information that they request to allow them to take a final decision is adequate or has been researched properly, they can call for further information.
I ask Paul Cackette to deal with the question about the UK position on keeping an overall register of releases and about access to that information in terms of freedom of information.
Paul Cackette (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department):
That is right. It is a fair observation that lower standards in relation to freedom of information should not apply as a result of such an arrangement. As the minister says, it would be appropriate to include that kind of thing in the memorandum of understanding that the order empowers the Scottish ministers to enter into. I expect that the standards that would have applied had the order not been passed would apply in those circumstances.
David Williamson (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department):
The register that will be maintained by DEFRA on our behalf is necessary to satisfy the regulatory requirements that certain information is put into the public domain within a defined period. Members will be interested to know that we have a copy of the public register available for public consultation; it is held at Victoria Quay. We are considering the possibility of putting an electronic version of the register on our website.
That takes us to the second part of Fiona McLeod's second question, which has a similar answer. In relation to taking matters to the EU or liaising with the EU, if they will involve a decision by Scottish ministers or the commitment of the Scottish Executive to a decision, that process must be exercised by Scottish ministers. The agency agreement permits people to be involved or engaged in evaluating risks only within the confines of the agency remit. It does not remove the responsibility of Scottish ministers to be involved and engaged at the top level in decisions that affect the Scottish Executive or the Scottish Parliament.
I want to re-emphasise the point on testing air quality and the agency that currently deals with testing. At present, there are some 100 automatic and 1,500 non-automatic testing sites throughout the United Kingdom; there are 12 automatic and 200 non-automatic sites in Scotland. There are two issues. First, under the new standards, there will be a need to increase the number of such sites. Secondly, there is an issue about the data that have been assembled—my colleague Antje Branding spoke about that. We need to have a bank of reliable data from across the UK that we can access and from which we can benefit. The standards by which measurements are set and the way in which the data are organised must be uniform. It would not be beneficial to set up a new series of data. It is preferable for us to have access to a continued series of testing across the UK. That improves and enhances our ability to draw on and analyse comparable data from which we can properly determine whether the results from Scotland show anything peculiar.
I will ask Alistair Montgomery to deal with Fiona McLeod's question about a curious peculiarity in the rules on and control of the import of methyl bromide.
Alistair Montgomery (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department):
There was a suggestion that Northern Ireland was not covered by the UK rules and regulations on imports.
My question was not whether Northern Ireland was covered by the rules—it is—but how Northern Ireland could reserve the decision about importation.
The UK regulations cover importation issues for Northern Ireland. The UK regulations apply to England, Wales and Scotland and they also apply to Northern Ireland in relation to importation.
I apologise—I read that the wrong way round.
I emphasise to members that we need to deal with this issue promptly if we wish to progress to the final agenda item and hear evidence from the minister.
It all boils down to one question, to which Fiona McLeod alluded. Is the minister happy with DEFRA's being responsible for genetically modified crops?
It is not. Let us be clear. We are dealing with the initial assessment of an application. We are dealing with a group of people who have scientific experience. An analogy would be a major developer handing in a planning application to somebody with no experience or knowledge of planning law. We need people who have sufficient experience, knowledge and understanding of the regulations and the science that is involved that they can assess the application, evaluate whether all the relevant information has been included, say precisely what further additional information ought to have accompanied the application and determine whether the evaluation that has to be included meets all the requirements. People should know when they pass that information to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the Food Standards Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage or any other organisation that, as far as they can assess at the point of application, it is complete. That is not to suggest that the other bodies might not request other information, but there should be people with knowledge and understanding.
I have no reason to believe that the agencies that, or persons who, perform that function are other than knowledgeable and skilled. They are specialists in a particular field and we find that helpful in dealing with the initial siftings. However, they do not give independent advice to ministers on whether scientifically objective tests in respect of threats to environmental health, the environment or health have been met.
I do not doubt the theory, but the practice has been that DEFRA has not necessarily served Scotland well in the past. Are you happy that it will do better in the future, particularly with regard to GM crops?
I understand perfectly the point that Fiona McLeod made, but I am bound to say that one cannot take one example and impugn the reputation of every person who works for DEFRA—that would be to carry things too far. We know that the persons have relevant experience, knowledge and understanding of the issue. Applications have tended to be for sites throughout the United Kingdom and we have no evidence or complaints from the FSA or ACRE that the information that has been passed to them has not been of the requisite standard.
As there are no more questions, we will move to the formal debate on Fiona McLeod's motion. I invite Fiona McLeod to speak to and move the motion.
The question-and-answer session was useful and interesting, but it has not taken us much nearer to understanding why Ross Finnie, as a Scottish minister, will give away the powers in question or the control of so many issues. Receiving and examining applications is the first step and possibly one of the most important steps in the GM crops process. I thought that the minister would have wanted the ability to set the criteria for applications and evaluating risks.
A memorandum of understanding was mentioned. The minister should forgive my ignorance, but the order will be passed or not passed today. I think that it came into force five days ago. Does the memorandum of understanding exist at the moment? Perhaps knowing exactly what arrangements have been made with the agencies down south would have eased our minds in making a decision.
A question occurs to me when I hear the minister say that similar administrative arrangements exist or have existed in the past. If they exist or have existed in the past, why do we need this order now? Why does the minister now want to say publicly, "It's not my department that will be doing this, but a department furth of Scotland"?
The minister spoke about the ability of the team down south. John Scott and I are not impugning that whole department, but in a recent case it did not have in place administrative arrangements to take full cognisance of the situation in Scotland. This order may be putting the cart before the horse.
I understand that the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department has a GMO team. Why do we have to go to Westminster to find the expertise to process the applications when we have a GMO team here, which would obviously consider the applications from a Scottish viewpoint?
We have heard a lot of answers, but we have not heard solutions to the problem of our passing these arrangements over to the UK Parliament.
I move,
That the Transport and the Environment Committee recommends that nothing further be done under the Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) (No 2) Order 2002 (SI 2002/800).
I will give the minister an opportunity to respond to Fiona McLeod's remarks and then give other members a chance to speak.
I repeat that we are talking about agency arrangements; we are not talking about the passing on of powers. Section 93(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 makes it clear that any arrangement that is entered into does not affect a person's responsibility for the exercise of his functions.
If the sum total of the argument for not having these arrangements comes down to a pejorative use of the phrase "down south", that is not especially helpful. It is not in the spirit of devolution to use that phrase pejoratively. The argument holds no great weight in respect of the agency arrangements concerning, for example, air quality regulation or the monitoring and control of ozone depleting substances.
The terms and conditions of agency arrangements will have to satisfy me—on behalf of the Scottish Executive—that I will have adequate access to information to allow me to discharge my responsibilities. A memorandum of understanding will accompany the order and it will set out exactly how we wish to exercise our responsibilities. We simply seek from Parliament agreement that allows us to exercise powers under the Scotland Act 1998 to enter into an administrative arrangement. That is what it is—an administrative arrangement. It does not relieve Scottish ministers of their responsibilities, and it does not relieve me—as the minister particularly concerned—of my responsibilities. I will have to be satisfied that I will have adequate information to allow me to make decisions.
Do any other members wish to participate?
Members indicated disagreement.
I offer Fiona McLeod the opportunity to respond and to indicate whether she wishes to press her motion.
I would simply say that what is pejorative is for a Scottish minister to make arrangements for the minister's specified functions to be exercised on his or her behalf by someone not controlled by the Scottish Parliament. I will press my motion.
The question is, that motion S1M-3012, in the name of Fiona McLeod, on the Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) (No 2) Order 2002 (SI 2002/800), be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Against
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
I would like to confirm the committee's agreement to the contents of our report on the instrument. Do we agree to record the outcome of the debate, which is that the committee will not draw the instrument to the Parliament's attention?
Members indicated agreement.