Air Quality (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/Draft)
The Air Quality (Scotland) Regulations 2000 is the first affirmative instrument to come before the committee. Under rule 10.6 of standing orders, the committee is required to consider a formal motion for approval and to report to the Parliament with its recommendation on whether the instrument be approved. The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered the order at its meeting on 29 February and did not highlight any technical problems with it.
I will allow the minister to speak to the order, if she wishes. I will then open up the discussion to allow questions from members of the committee.
Thank you, convener. I apologise in advance if my voice disappears or I start to sneeze, but I will try to keep the show on the road.
I understand that the Air Quality (Scotland) Regulations 2000 is the first affirmative order to come before the committee and it is the first such order that I have dealt with. I am not sure how much detail committee members want to get into when debating the key issues, but I will make one or two introductory comments. While members have been able to ask me questions in Parliament on this issue, this meeting gives me a good opportunity to set out where we are on air quality.
The UK air quality strategy, which was published in March 1997, met the requirement of the Environment Act 1995 for a national strategy for the management of ambient air quality. In July 1997, the UK Government endorsed that strategy, but felt that much more could be done to improve air quality. It undertook an immediate review of the strategy to consider the prospects of getting cleaner air more swiftly. The Air Quality Regulations 1997 were brought into force to enable local authorities to begin the process of tackling air quality at a local level.
Air quality is one of my top environmental priorities and a new strategy, which we set out in Parliament a few weeks ago, outlines the strategic framework for air quality. The eight key pollutants that are of most concern to us all, and on which we must focus, are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particles, sulphur dioxide and ozone. The Air Quality (Scotland) Regulations 2000 set clear targets for the first seven of those pollutants. For clarification, it may be useful if I run through those targets.
Changes are being brought into force by the revised regulations. The attainment date of 2005 for benzene, 1,3-butadiene and carbon monoxide is being brought forward to 2003. The hourly nitrogen dioxide limit is to be tightened to comply with the European Union's air quality daughter directive's limit value by 2005. The date for achieving the existing objective for lead is being brought forward to 2004 and a much tighter objective will be introduced by 2008, which will halve the present objective. The hourly and daily objectives for sulphur dioxide will be brought forward to 2004 to comply with the air quality framework directive, although the 15-minute objective remains unchanged. Existing objectives for particles will be replaced with the air quality daughter directive's annual and 24-hour limit values.
Those are the key changes that we are suggesting. Members should note that the eighth pollutant that I mentioned earlier, ozone, is not included in the regulations as an objective, principally because it is a trans-boundary pollutant. It would go way beyond what we think is cost-effective or appropriate to tackle ozone at the local air quality level.
The objectives set out in the regulations are based on the work of the independent experts who sit on the expert panel on air quality standards and whose advice we have used to identify appropriate levels. In particular, we have examined the minimum risk levels for different groups in society. The elderly or people who are ill are key groups who are taken into consideration when issues of risk are drawn up.
The objectives are policy targets and are expressed as a maximum ambient air concentration to be achieved, either without exception or with a permitted number of times when the target may be exceeded within a specific time scale. When setting the objectives, we considered economic efficiency, practicality, technical feasibility and time scales for delivering better air quality.
It is important to acknowledge that the regulations are not about standards being tight dividing lines, with threat to health on one side and no threat to health on the other. The way in which the objectives are set should help to protect public health for the people of Scotland to quite a high degree.
In general, we used the World Health Organisation guideline values, which are applied by the EU. Where a national objective is derived from the EU limit value, the WHO guideline value, rather than the relevant recommendation of the expert panel on air quality standards, will form the basis of the objective. WHO also analyses scientific and medical evidence in relation to the effects of specific pollutants on health and, when it considers the wider environment, it will also consider setting minimal or zero risk levels.
Those are the background issues that have led us to set the targets in the objectives that appear in the regulations. It is important to emphasise that this is not the end of the story. Particularly in relation to sulphur dioxide, lead and nitrogen dioxide, the objectives are more stringent and give greater protection to health than those that have been set by the EU.
We do not regard this as our final action on airborne particles. The original strategy objective was set on the basis of the best knowledge that was available at that time. We now know, from research that has been carried out by the airborne particles expert group, that that target is simply not achievable, at least in the short term. We have opted for the EU limit value, which will give a significant degree of protection to public health. It is the only recognised alternative target.
We have followed the views of the WHO. We now want to move forward in considering the effect of particles on health and the costs and benefits of their reduction, and in monitoring new information on particle levels. By the end of this year I want to be in a position to review these targets, to consider whether it is possible to set more stringent objectives.
Additional pollutants may be added to the air quality strategy in the future. The expert group is currently examining the issue of fine particles and we are considering setting an objective for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, in the light of the group's most recent report. I do not intend to include carbon dioxide in future revisions of the strategy, as it is not a ground level irritant that directly affects human health. However, it has wider implications and will slot into our Scottish climate change programme, which we announced last week. That programme sets targets for the reduction of CO2 emissions because of their impact on climate change.
That is all that I want to say. I wanted to highlight one or two of the key changes that members may be interested in. They are fundamentally concerned with improving the quality of air in Scotland and the level of protection to human health and the environment. I hope that the same degree of cross-party consensus will be achieved that was evident last week, although members may want to ask detailed or searching questions this morning.
Thanks very much. We welcome the clear targets that have been set by independent experts and the Executive's commitment to minimum risk levels. I open the discussion to general questions from the committee.
I would like to know how the local authorities' enforcement powers will work, and what degree of control or enforcement the Executive will have. I appreciate that there are resource implications for local authorities. I assume that those resources are not ring-fenced, and that you expect local authorities to do what they have been funded to do. The Executive's role seems to be largely enabling. What central check or control do you envisage, and what powers do you foresee that local authorities will have to implement the programme?
The principal issue is identifying hot spots, areas in which there are particular problems with pollutants, on which we need to focus energy. That work is currently being undertaken and the authorities will report back to me later in the year. I shall then have an overview of the whole of Scotland and will be better able to identify where our key problem areas are. At the moment, we are at the stage of monitoring and identifying problems.
In those authority areas in which hot spots have been identified, the onus will be on the authorities to identify local strategies to tackle those hot spots. There is a range of measures, including congestion charging, pedestrianisation and the examination of local patterns of travel—a key factor in creating local air quality hot spots—which local authorities can implement when they have identified priority areas. At the moment, they are identifying the problems. There is good air quality throughout most of Scotland, but our task is to focus on the key areas. That is the message that we are receiving from local authorities.
I read yesterday that an assessment was being carried out of the impact of that research. The suggestion is that there are industrial sites where there might be difficulties. Would local authorities have enforcement powers in those circumstances, or would the Scottish Environment Protection Agency intervene to regulate emissions? How would that work?
It would be up to SEPA to negotiate and to set appropriate targets.
So the local authority will effectively register a concern with SEPA, and SEPA will respond to it and will enforce the appropriate measures.
I want to ask in particular about the pollutants most associated with traffic—nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and lead. On the question of how to monitor their levels, I found from my previous local authority experience that, as we moved down to tighter targets, the equipment costs tended to increase. Existing equipment had to be got rid of and replaced with different equipment to impose those tighter targets.
Has any work been done on how the setting of new targets has influenced the cost to local authorities of doing the measurement of traffic-linked pollutants? Are there any particular problems at present, especially among smaller authorities, which are finding difficulty in buying the equipment needed to monitor the existing levels?
I have another question, but the minister may want to answer that point first.
We provide ring-fenced support for the equipment that local authorities require to identify local pollution levels at hot spots. It is important that that provides a proportionate response. It is partly a question of the local authorities and us working together to identify the key areas in which we need the most effective monitoring. We have a list of sites throughout Scotland on which we have worked in conjunction with the local authorities to ensure that the appropriate equipment is in place.
Hope Street being perhaps the most famous hot spot in Glasgow.
What consultation has the minister had with local authorities and with scientists to work out how the costs of measurement would change in the context of setting different targets? Is that a factor in the decision to set the targets?
The reasoning behind setting the targets lay in what we thought was achievable. We have pulled one or two of the deadlines forward, as I mentioned earlier. We have picked the areas where we believe the targets are realisable, and the local authorities are involved in the process. They were consulted in reaching the regulations stage, and I have given them a little more time to get back to me with their first-stage identification of hot spots in their areas. That is simply to give them the time to get it right. There has therefore been a lot of dialogue between the Scottish Executive and local authorities.
People living close to landfill sites are concerned about the escape of methane gas, generated by the rotting of landfill materials. Is there a mechanism for measuring outflows of methane gas? Who monitors it?
SEPA monitors and regulates all the landfill sites. It is an area in which there is an opportunity for joined-up thinking. Local air quality issues are being addressed by local authorities, and the national waste strategy addresses how we can recover gases such as methane, which cause problems for the environment as a whole. You are absolutely right to highlight that matter: it is a question of linking the various issues.
This is a related—almost daft lassie—question. What is the obligation of local authorities to identify monitoring sites? Must they be in a specified geographical pattern or of a certain density?
There is specific guidance for local authorities on the criteria for selecting the sites. They have a list of criteria that they can look at to decide where to put their resources.
Presumably in consultation with us?
Yes. They consult the Scottish Executive on that process.
What requirement is there on local authorities to do that? Obviously, if we do not look for problems, we will not find them.
I will ask Joyce Whytock to give a detailed answer to that question.
Joyce Whytock (Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department):
Under the Environment Act 1995, there is a statutory obligation on local authorities to consult the Scottish Executive and SEPA. That is a partnership approach. We discuss the problems and draw on the expertise of SEPA. Four general guidance notes have already been issued by the Scottish Executive and we are preparing four highly technical guidance notes in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and outside consultants. Those notes will help local authorities with the new duties. They detail what the authorities should be looking for and the various steps that they should take if they discover a problem with a pollutant.
Are they required to establish a certain density of monitoring points across a geographical area?
There is no such requirement, but we would ask them to identify specific pollution hot spots. Those are the areas that they should target and monitor. There is not much point in having a monitor in the middle of a park—having a monitor in an area beside a primary school and a busy road would be much more useful. That is the sort of area that is identified in the guidance.
What additional work load is it anticipated will fall on the shoulders of SEPA and will SEPA receive additional resources?
SEPA is currently preparing its forward plan for next year. It will identify its priority work areas in light of a range of central Government initiatives.
Robin Harper has joined us. He is late because he was giving evidence to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
We can approve or not approve the SSI in its entirety.
Motion moved,
That the Transport and the Environment Committee in consideration of the draft Air Quality (Scotland) Regulations 2000, recommends that the Regulations be approved.—[Sarah Boyack.]
The question is, that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.