Official Report 517KB pdf
Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012 [Draft]
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the 29th meeting in 2012 of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. I ask that members, witnesses and the public make sure that their mobile phones and BlackBerrys are not on, as they can affect the sound system.
I do, if you are willing, convener. I can clarify that Wendy Thornton is a pollution control specialist at the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and is here to support me.
Thank you. I open the session to members to ask questions. I will kick off by referring to the list that you mentioned. Are such matters as waste energy and combined heat and power plants included in the regulations?
Sites such as waste treatment plants are already covered by regulations, so the new regulations will not have a major impact on existing sites. However, any new sites will be bound by the new regulations. I ask George Burgess to explain the implications specifically for waste energy plants.
The regulations cover both conventional combustion plants and waste incineration; however, because they are already covered by the 2000 regulations, there is no major change in that respect. The waste incineration directive is one of the set of European directives that were consolidated into the industrial emissions directive; in other words, the controls are essentially the same as existing controls that have been consolidated.
You mentioned emissions into the air. Do any parts of these regulations relate to emissions into watercourses?
An unintended consequence is that, although the primary purpose for which a site has been regulated might not have such an impact, there might be other knock-on impacts and, under the regulations, SEPA will have an additional enforcement power in the context of incidents and accidents and will be empowered to take enforcement action in the event of an incident that gives rise to serious pollution, even if no permit condition has been breached. In short, if the permit for a site related to, say, waste incineration but there was a pollution incident involving the water table that was not necessarily a direct consequence of the activity for which the permit was given, that could be picked up under the new enforcement power. George Burgess might be able to provide further clarification on the water issue.
As the minister has mentioned, with regard to larger-scale installations, which are termed “part A installations”, the regulations refer to
Under pollution prevention and control legislation, we are allowed to set limits or controls on emissions into the air, directly into water and on to the land. With that kind of integrated approach, we can determine the best trade-off with regard to controls.
That was helpful.
This is not a time when any sector in society will welcome extra financial burdens and I note that certain sectors have raised on-going concerns about the initiative’s financial impacts and how they will settle with other factors that affect their long-term financial planning. How might those sectors be mollified—if that is possible?
I refer the member to the new Europe-wide approach to BATs. Business might face additional costs, but the imperative on us is to ensure that sectors such as chemicals and, indeed, agriculture engage as fully as possible with our colleagues in Europe through SEPA and Scottish Government colleagues so that their interests are represented in the setting of BATs and that, where possible, we fully inform the adopted practice that will—if you like—become the level playing field for the whole of Europe. Such an approach will ensure that businesses across Europe bear the cost equally. Indeed, I hope that it will be in line with actions that specific sectors in Scotland from the chemical industry—in, for example, the refineries at Grangemouth—through to our farmers are already taking. As our interests are reflected in the standards that are set, it is perhaps for other countries to move up to our standard instead of our having to take on additional costs to meet new thresholds. We have an interest in playing an important role in the process.
I am grateful for that explanation, but could we in any way be accused of gold-plating regulations and allowing our European partners to continue in a more competitive way than we are able to do in taking these regulations on fully?
You might well be right that in the past we might have embraced the true spirit of the regulations while individual sites and other parts of Europe were not quite so enthusiastic. As I said in my opening statement, by setting a Europe-wide standard, the new approach will allow an easier read-across from our sites and industries to those of competitor nations. There might be a language issue in looking at permits in other languages, but assuming that that can be addressed, we will be able to understand to what extent competitors have, or have not, granted permits for sites. Obviously, that will allow us to suggest to our colleagues in Europe that enforcement action should perhaps be taken against sites that are not compliant with the new regulations. The new approach should create an easier mechanism for identifying where good practice has not been followed across Europe. Indeed, if our businesses play their part in complying with the new regulations, we will have an easier means of identifying across Europe those businesses that do not comply and can then bring them up to the right standard.
Good morning, minister. I see from the clerk’s note that the consultation in September received 31 responses. Are you in a position to draw to the committee’s attention any concerns, such as about large sites, which could have a considerable impact on pollution in Scotland?
I can confirm that the consultation took place from 12 September to 24 October. In general, respondents were content with the proposed approach to transposing the IED and with the associated consolidation of the previous regulations. Nothing emerged that significantly changed the draft regulations, but concerns and more general points were made about how the changes would take effect in practice.
One concern was the staged timetable, which is to help our workload. We chose the order of the groupings in the staged timetable so that we will have the majority of applications in early. That means that, if we have any problems with an application—which happens quite frequently—we will have more time to resolve it, so that we can ensure that people have the permit by 2015, as the directive requires.
I might add that, in setting the BATs, we need to achieve something that is realistic. Rather than just agree a common baseline for everyone, we need to ensure that industry comments on what is realistic for industry, so that we take on board Mr Fergusson’s point about costs. Industry should have an opportunity to engage and to influence the decision so that we ensure that issues of cost, practicality and what can realistically be achieved within a given timescale are taken on board by the Commission.
Our clerk’s note refers to the business and regulatory impact assessment that was done, but we do not have a copy of it in front of us. Given your economic background, minister, can you tell us whether it was a positive or a negative economic assessment for Scotland as a whole, and to what degree it was such?
I regret to inform the committee that I do not have the detail of the BRIA in front of me; shortly, I will ask George Burgess to comment on it. However, as I said, the consultation exercise revealed that some sectors, such as chemicals, had concerns about the potential rather than the actual costs for them, depending on what regulations were set. Generally though, there was a positive response to the consultation. I ask George Burgess to comment particularly on the BRIA.
The regulations will have little immediate direct effect, as has been said. That makes it impossible to identify what the longer-term effect will be, whether positive or negative. It will depend almost entirely on what emerges at the European level as part of the BAT process and on whether that will bring extra costs. We can ensure that the BRIA that was done is made available to the committee, but it does not set out in great detail the costs that businesses might face, because a lot of that will simply not emerge until further down the line when we all see the BAT conclusions at European level.
We have been given a copy of the BRIA by the Subordinate Legislation Committee, so it is available for members here to read.
I take your latter point on board. My knowledge of what regimes will be in place in other member states is not extensive. However, with the new industrial emissions directive and the BATs being pan-European, we will apply pressure where we can to ensure that other countries comply with the regulations. I think that that would be entirely fair. We will ask our businesses to take on board tighter regulations in many areas, although most businesses will not be directly affected, as George Burgess said. There is an expectation that we will put pressure on the Commission to ensure that the regulations are implemented across the whole of Europe.
Good morning, minister. I note from the cover note on the regulations that you have
The coming into force of the new regulations in January will mark the start of an implementation process that will last several years. During that time, SEPA will maintain close dialogue with sectors that are affected in the interest of ensuring that any changes are practical and as smooth as possible.
I think that the term “short-lived” was one that I drafted at an earlier stage.
So they will be in force for two years.
As there are no further questions, we move on to item 2, which is consideration of motion S4M-05105, which asks the committee to recommend approval of the draft regulations.
I thank the committee for considering the proposal.
Thank you very much, minister.
Previous
Attendance