Plenary, 30 Jan 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 30, 2002

Official Report 374KB pdf

---

Pollution Inventory

I invite members who are leaving the chamber to do so as quickly and quietly as they can.

The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-2302, in the name of Dr Sylvia Jackson, on the introduction of a pollution inventory. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

I think that we can risk opening the debate now.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament congratulates the Scottish Executive on its proposals to cut particle air pollution by more than 50% by 2010; notes the detrimental effects on health that air pollution can have; recognises the need for the introduction of a pollution inventory system in order to make information on releases of pollutants from industrial processes available to the public in a clear, easily understandable and accessible format, and believes that the Scottish Executive should support the progressive introduction of a pollution release and transfer register as required under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's Aarhus convention.

I thank Friends of the Earth for circulating its report "Counting Chemicals", which is most informative. I also thank Melanie Swan, who is a politics student, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's representatives Bob Sargent and Fiona Birkinshaw for their contributions to that report.

When I refer to pollution release and transfer registers, I will call them simply PRTRs. Other countries use different terms—for example, Australia calls such a document a national pollution inventory—but they all relate to the same issue.

What are the key issues raised by the introduction of a register or inventory in Scotland? Under the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000, which implement a European Union directive, from 2003 SEPA must produce an inventory of 50 chemicals from regulated processes. However, that inventory does not have to be available on the internet.

Under the Aarhus convention—the document that I mentioned contains more information on it—such an inventory would most likely have to cover 131 chemicals, and another 113 chemicals would be optional. An inventory would have to be updated annually, whereas the EU directive will initially require an inventory to be updated only every three years. The Aarhus convention would also require an inventory to be available on the internet.

Scotland is moving in the right direction. We should be pleased that we are holding many environment debates—I think that even Robin Harper would be pleased with the number of such debates recently. However, we must move quickly and go far enough. We need a system that covers at least the 244 Aarhus chemicals, reports annually and is available on an easy-to-use internet site.

What good is a register or inventory? It lets SEPA know how much of each substance was released. By comparison, the present arrangements mean that SEPA knows only whether certain limits have been breached. Importantly, a register empowers communities, by letting them see what their local factory is up to, whether emissions are increasing or decreasing and how the site compares to other similar processes elsewhere.

A register can raise the alarm when companies are performing badly and allay concerns when they are doing well. Cathy Peattie is not here this evening, but several months ago a newspaper report raised the alarm about cancer scares connected with releases around Grangemouth, which is in her constituency. A register would have been useful in that situation.

A register can help good companies by highlighting their year-on-year improvements in performance and their position in the top part of the league table for their industry. A register will help SEPA and the Scottish Executive by allowing an accurate check on chemicals that are subject to national and international reduction agreements.

I would now like to quote from a statement by Bill Clinton. I know that we do not always agree with everything that he does and says, but this is very apt. He said:

"since the Community Right to Know Act has been on the books",

in the United States,

"reported reductions in toxic emissions are about 43 per cent for the whole country. Now that's a law worth passing. No new bureaucracy; just power to the people through basic knowledge. This has kept millions of pounds of chemicals out of our lives. It has helped people to stay healthy and live longer … it's also helped to spur innovation to help businesses work smarter and cleaner and become more profitable, not less profitable."

What, then, are the objections? They are often about the cost to the Government, to SEPA and to industry. However, most large companies already collect the information that is needed and many small companies will be allowed to provide estimates of their emissions based on their use of specific substances. On the basis of Australian figures, it is projected that the cost of the inventory procedure will range from £75 to £3,800. As every other country in Europe will be introducing such a system, there will be no competitive disadvantage.

What about league tables? Some firms might argue that a register would lead to league tables, which might damage their competitive position. It could be said that a company at the bottom of a league table deserves to go out of business. Good companies have nothing to fear from a register.

Why should we bother with a register? Scotland is obliged to produce a register under the PPC regulations and European directive and will be required to do much more under the Aarhus convention, when it comes into force, although we do not yet know the details of the obligations. As we have to do it anyway, let us do it right.

Finally, I have a few comments on the report on the way forward, which I mentioned earlier. The report states that the biggest challenge to SEPA now appears to be the creation of the public access database system. SEPA is aware of the need to construct a user-friendly format, and I gather that it is still waiting to hear about funding from the Executive. Perhaps the minister will say a little about that when he winds up. However, we should be aware that Bob Sargent, speaking on behalf of SEPA, has said that he does not envisage SEPA going beyond the minimum requirements. SEPA's immediate aims are to get a database operating and to make it a public access tool that is available on the web and which leads to a map-based system that can be accessed by key word, postcode or company name.

I accept that Sylvia Jackson is probably the most professionally qualified person in the chamber on this matter. As a mere layman, I wonder what her feeling is about how easily understandable and accessible such a database would be to the public. I support those aims, but does she envisage any aspects in which it would be almost impossible to meet them?

I do not think so. As I was going to say, England and Wales have already gone quite a long way towards establishing a register and there do not appear to be great difficulties. My question for the minister is whether there might be a joint initiative with England and Wales so that we can build on that expertise and move forward with them. Not only would that get the inventory up and running quicker, but it would give us a common system in England, Wales and Scotland, which would be very useful.

I whole-heartedly support a joint approach with the Environment Agency in England and Wales and would welcome the minister's comments on that. England and Wales are ahead of us and it seems sensible to build on their expertise as soon as possible. However, it is important not to restrict the register. We should consider what the Aarhus convention asks. We should develop a register that will empower communities to know what emissions there are locally and what effect they have on health—such data can also be on the database—and that will allow people to take action where necessary.

I congratulate Sylvia Jackson on securing the debate. She has long advocated her proposals and has trailed them for some time. She has done sterling work in that area.

The main purpose of the motion is to apply pressure on the Executive to introduce a pollution release and transfer register, which is right. I shall follow Sylvia Jackson's convention and use the acronym PRTR.

I hope that Sylvia Jackson will discover from the minister that a door is ready to be pushed open and that the Executive's position is to push forward at speed. It would be incredible if the Executive was not prepared to introduce a register. As Sylvia Jackson said, information for England has been on the internet since May 1999. Why on earth are we so far behind in Scotland? Why has there not been more progress to date? As Sylvia Jackson said, we have made some progress. We have an integrated pollution control system, but we need to go further and introduce a PRTR.

I will return to the motion's substantive point shortly, but it would be wrong not to comment on the motion's introductory sentence, which

"congratulates the Scottish Executive on its proposals to cut particle air pollution".

That seems all good, well and reasonable. However, if one digs underneath that, one finds that the congratulations are perhaps somewhat misplaced. In a press release following the previous minister's statement on air pollution, Friends of the Earth Scotland stated:

"The new target on particulates is still not as tough as the one Labour inherited from the Conservatives in 1997 … A real target to protect health should be something tough that we need to work hard to meet. The proposed standard is unambitious because it will be met with little effort and long before the 2010 target date".

That is what we face. The targets that have been set by the Executive are far too lenient, because they are already being met in most of Scotland's cities and large towns.

We need to challenge the Executive on the introduction of a PRTR and to reconsider its air pollution targets. The Executive should introduce more meaningful, stretching and demanding targets.

The Executive has the perfect opportunity to enshrine in statute the requirement for a pollution register. On 17 January, during the debate on the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill, I asked the Minister for Justice to incorporate article 5 of the Aarhus convention into the bill. If that was done—and I hope that it will be—it would ensure that a full and easily accessible pollution register would be required by law and would have to be produced. I hope that the minister will confirm that that will happen, as I have received no confirmation from the Minister for Justice.

Why are the proposals necessary? It is not simply a matter of providing MSPs or councillors with appropriate information about pollution levels, or providing non-governmental organisations with more information with which to beat the Government about the head. It is much more important than that—it is about the fundamental rights of individuals and communities to access information about matters that affect their health, their environment and their quality of life. That is what this is about—a fundamental point of human rights.

I refer to an example from Westfield in Fife, where I was last week. The community held a public meeting about a proposal regarding a possible landfill site together with a recycling facility. The people of that community would have grabbed the opportunity for such a site with both hands 10 years ago, because it would have meant jobs. Quite rightly, they are now asking what a landfill element means. They have heard in the press about all the health scares that landfill will bring about and they are asking whether they want jobs at that cost.

If people had access to information about the real impacts of landfill on their communities and on their lives, that would enable them to make clear decisions about what they want to do in their communities. That is a prime example of why we need to have the register. We have to give people the information and empower them so that they can make the decisions that will affect their quality of life in the future.

I congratulate Sylvia Jackson on securing the debate today.

In speaking in the debate, I give a cautious welcome to Sylvia Jackson's motion and commend her for bringing it before the Parliament. That is not because it would be difficult to disagree with Sylvia Jackson and her eloquent argument, but because there is a need for pollution release and transfer registers. However, Sylvia Jackson will not be disappointed to know that the element of caution on my part comes from the increased cost to industry that the proposals would bring.

There is no doubt that the argument for PRTRs is well made; that is evidenced by their adoption all over the world. The Aarhus convention of 1998 and EC directive 96/61/EEC on integrated pollution prevention and control are moving us towards the development of PRTRs and a publicly accessible register, which has to be a good thing.

As Sylvia Jackson pointed out, Scotland lags behind the rest of the world in that respect, and lags significantly behind England and Wales. The fact that Scotland is using only the integrated pollution control system tells its own story. Of course, the upgraded integrated pollution prevention and control system, which will be introduced in 2003 and will report on only 50 substances, will be important. However, that only emphasises how far behind we are, worldwide, in best practice and in making such information publicly available.

In America, as has been said, the toxic relief inventory system website reports on more than 600 substances. As Sylvia Jackson said, Australia has a successful national pollution inventory. Sylvia Jackson also pointed out—we all seem to be referring to the same briefing paper—that, significantly, the first-year costs to industry of setting up the inventory ranged from £75 to £3,800. Nonetheless, a PRTR in Scotland will, and must, come about as a result of the Aarhus convention and the EC directive; in honesty, it cannot come quickly enough.

SEPA's broad shoulders will have to be broadened further. The Scottish Executive will have to provide new funding to support data gathering and auditing and the development of a public access database. I look forward to the minister's comments on that.

If we are to catch up with England and Wales, never mind the rest of the world, SEPA will have to establish protocols and research programmes and the Executive will have to establish criteria and time scales for compliance. I see yet more work looming for the Transport and the Environment Committee.

A lot of hard work lies ahead, but I welcome SEPA's realistic attitude—attributed to Bob Sargent by Friends of the Earth Scotland—that it does not intend to collect data over and above what will be required to compile our PRTR. That attitude is in contrast to the attitude of the Environment Agency in England, which apparently records more pollutants at lower thresholds than is required by IPPC. Nonetheless, there is a possibility of SEPA working in conjunction with the Environment Agency, which would, in effect, allow Scotland to catch up with our colleagues in England and Wales.

If costs to industry can be kept to a minimum, I look forward to the development of a publicly accessible PRTR—with data collected annually—which operates under clear and consistent rules and is backed up with the minimum of regulation. I look forward to the minister's comments on those matters.

I warmly congratulate Sylvia Jackson on securing the debate.

I congratulate previous speakers, who made thoughtful and eloquent speeches on an important subject. While I warmly support what has been said so far, I will take a different view. It is worth remembering that considerable progress has been made in our lifetime. I remember the municipal dump that was at the end of the field close to where I lived as a child. In those days, everything was flung into the dump and a match was put to it. I remember the stour and the reek of it. How different things are today.

I took an induction course today with Bovis. Members will be thrilled to know that I am now qualified to take people round the Holyrood site. The induction course was thorough, and one of the aspects that was covered was pollution. We were told that diesel should not be spilt and that mess should not be left on building sites. I contrast that message with 1981, when I joined Wimpey as a humble stores clerk. In those days, there was no formal induction and it did not matter if people spilt rubbish on the site. Progress has been made since then.

From that seemingly light-hearted point, a more important point can be made. I hope that everything that was advocated by Sylvia Jackson and other speakers will be put in place in due course, because that would be good. However, what happened in the past is behind us. In a way, the Executive will find it tricky to audit the sort of municipal dump that I remember as a child, or other such sites.

The Executive should look to the example of the nuclear industry. At the moment, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is embarking on the decommissioning of the Dounreay site. The authority is developing a raft of expertise, including techniques to allow its workers to enter the famous shaft and discover what it contains. The authority is throwing a considerable amount of money at that undertaking.

I pay tribute to the UKAEA, which is at the cutting edge of decommissioning. The authority's information and expertise, if they are used constructively, could be used in other fields. I recommend strongly that Government, whether in the UK or in Scotland, co-ordinates with agencies such as the UKAEA to understand and develop techniques for use in what could be described as non-nuclear rubbish tips. We can be creative if we work with industry.

I noted with interest the cogent remarks that were made by John Scott. However, he expressed hesitancy about the proposals, because they will put a burden on industry.

Maureen Macmillan has left the chamber, but she would remember that, some years ago, the former Highlands and Islands Development Board conducted a survey into the meaning of the word "Highland". It found that the general public thought of the word as synonymous with clean air and water and an unpolluted environment. The board discovered that "Highland" was an incredibly powerful marketing tool. A selling point was achieved by adding the word "Highland" to, for example, the words "spring water" to give "Highland Spring Water". The image of a clean, unpolluted environment worked in the favour of business. If we can sell a positive message to business, that will help.

I hope that Jamie Stone appreciates that I welcomed the proposals nonetheless. My point was a philosophical one. Given the problems that industry is facing in Scotland, and the unemployment levels in parts of Scotland—including my own—industry does not need to have further burdens of excessive regulation or costs imposed upon it. I accept the need for the register, but one has to be cautious about it.

I accept that John Scott's intervention was balanced. I remind him of the sea change that is taking place. If Robin Harper is called to speak, I am sure that he will point out that our youngsters today are more pollution conscious than ever before. The market is going that way—look at organic foods and advertisements for products that do not cause pollution. A tide is turning in the affairs of business. If we go with that tide, we will do okay. The motion contains positive aspects for industry.

I would like to underline a few of the recommendations that were included in the Friends of the Earth report "Counting Chemicals". I believe that we need to reflect accurately the total chemical loading on our environment. The institution of a pollution inventory will go a long way towards that, but some things might be missed out.

An idea of the scale of the problem comes from the mouth of the Rhein, near Rotterdam, where a proposal to remove the toxic sludge that had accumulated over a century ran into difficulties when it was realised that no one knew what was in the sludge. The authorities knew that there were at least 500 chemicals in the sludge, many of them lethal, and they decided to leave it where it was. Excavating more sludge than was necessary to allow ships in and out was not an option.

The Friends of the Earth report recommends that the database should

"contain basic health and environmental information to make it meaningful to those using it."

That relates to the point about education that Jamie Stone made. There is no point in producing reams and reams of figures if people cannot understand what they mean. If a figure is included in the database, there must be other information, such as the fact that the chemical is known to have cardiovascular effects or effects on the liver.

Of course, those examples relate only to the effects on human health; indeed, the benefits of the inventory in relation to human health have been stressed. However, we must remember that the inventory will help us make up our minds about threats to the environment in general. For instance, frogs are disappearing in the south of England and no one knows the reason why. If a pollution inventory were immediately available, that might allow people to guess the cause of the problem.

I worry about the frogs that Mr Harper mentions. The symptoms sound like those of foot-and-mouth disease, but I hope that they are not.

If they are and if the disease spreads through our frog population as foot-and-mouth disease spread through our farm animal population and myxomatosis spread through the rabbit population, we will face quite a problem. However, the cause of frogs' death might be chemical.

The Friends of the Earth report says that

"The public must be informed about the availability of the data".

There is no point in producing all these lists if people do not know about them. How many planning applications go ahead with only a few announcements being stuck on lamp posts and without people getting letters through their doors to inform them that there is going to be a change in their environment in the near future? Far too often, not enough information about what is happening in our environment, even at a basic level, is made available to people.

The report goes on to say that, when measurements or estimates are taken,

"it is vital … that the industry states whether this amount released is released in one large burst or gradually over the course of the year."

There is a great difference between releasing a chemical in one large burst, which can be extremely damaging, and doing so gradually, which, while not benign, might not be as harmful.

The report also says:

"The system needs to be more comprehensive that that required by either Aarhus or the European Directive. Fifty chemicals is not sufficient in comparison to the thousands of chemicals actually in use, particularly when other register systems are operating which analyse between 200 and 600 chemicals."

I know that it will be difficult to analyse more than 50 chemicals, but we should try to do so because the cumulative effect of chemicals is important. We might be releasing chemicals in small quantities into our atmosphere, land and rivers that, allied with similar chemicals, will produce an unacceptable loading on our environment that we do not even know about.

I thank Sylvia Jackson, who has put much work and research into the debate.

It is about three decades since the United Kingdom Clean Air Act 1968 was passed. At that time, there were umpteen protests that it would be the end of business as we knew it in Britain if we ended what used to be called pea-souper fogs in cities in which the atmosphere was so polluted with particles that people could hardly see where they were going. Of course, the Clean Air Act 1968 was forced through, largely by the minister's party, and countless thousands have been saved since. Lives have been protected and people have been saved from early death. New horizons opened up for business. Not only could cities be made much more attractive for tourism, but a massive programme of stone cleaning began for the first time since most British cities were built. Good businesses have nothing to fear. Our problem—as Sylvia Jackson alluded to—is that, since passing the 1968 act, we have not done much about the second stage.

What is in the atmosphere? That is often not definable for ordinary people. A register would provide the only real point of clarity for the public. It is extremely difficult for the public to discover what is happening in their areas. We fall between far too many stools, for a start. Pollution is covered by SEPA, but the local planning authority has some input. The water companies, councillors, MSPs and MPs also have input. That is confusing for the public. In proposing a pollution register, Sylvia Jackson is proposing a good yardstick.

I work in the east end of Glasgow and tomorrow night I will have yet another meeting involving the constituency MSP, Margaret Curran. I am delighted that, having had a rather lonely battle for a number of years, we have total cross-party support in Glasgow for stopping the burning of cattle in the east end of the city. That is how bad the situation is. We talk about particulate pollution while a cattle burner is working at the test stage right in the heart of the east end. It is next to playing fields and a heavy concentration of houses and is near two schools and a hospital.

The east end of Glasgow is the only area in any city or town of Britain in which a cattle burner is known to be operating. It is operating under the BSE surveillance scheme. SEPA and others did not reveal that to us at a public meeting in May when the incinerator was first suggested, but it is definitely connected with BSE. We in the east end of Glasgow are not prepared to have that inflicted on us much longer. We do not know what is in the air. There have been constant complaints. The burner had to be closed down by SEPA between October and Christmas, but it has now reopened.

Can members imagine the fear of people throughout the east end of Glasgow who are already dumped on? The east end of Glasgow is the most dumped-on area of Scotland. For instance, Paterson's dump stretches for many miles. People approaching the city can smell it. I hope that Sylvia Jackson's proposals will focus on smells, because smells can be broken down chemically.

Paterson's dump has been the cause of several reports. Greater Glasgow Health Board's director of public health reported in 1999. The smells are at times literally breathtaking. The dump is unlined and has been going for 40 years in the east end of Glasgow. Its licensed intake is up to 500,000 tonnes a year. We talk of air pollution. Members ought to see the stuff that goes into the dump daily on truck after truck.

The dump is licensed to take 27 different poisons, including arsenic and cyanide. What is happening to all that stuff? People do not know what they are living with. We are terribly reluctant to use the European precautionary principle. That is an excellent principle, which says that, when anything is being set up, we do not need to prove 100 per cent in advance how hazardous it is; we take the precaution of putting public health first. We tend not to do that in Scotland or throughout Britain. We must learn how to say no in many languages. We must learn how to protect the public when we know that something is likely to be wrong. Sylvia Jackson has shown us an excellent path for which I thank her again.

I join other members in congratulating Sylvia Jackson. I thank her for giving me the opportunity to state the Executive's commitment to improving air quality and access to environmental information. Those are important subjects that have a wide resonance in Scottish communities.

Air quality in Scotland is generally good and it continues to improve year on year. In recent years, as new policy measures to reduce emissions from industry and transport take effect, there have been significant reductions in the levels of air pollution. The Executive intends to ensure that that positive trend continues.

Evidence from our health experts shows that we cannot afford to be complacent. I agree with Robin Harper that the pollution inventory needs to include information on health and other impacts. We recognise the detrimental effects on health that air pollution can have, particularly for the more vulnerable members of society. We take those concerns very seriously. Improving the quality of the air that we breathe will have positive benefits for our health and our quality of life.

I accept the sincerity of the minister's explanation. Does he accept that the targets that have been set—particularly those that were set for the 24-hour periods—are already being met in Edinburgh city centre and have been breached only four times since 1998 in Glasgow? In what way do the targets that the Executive has set lay down new, stretching goals for local authorities to meet the requirement to improve Scotland's air quality? The targets that have been set do not do that.

That is the first reference to local authorities that I have heard tonight, which is interesting, given their responsibility for improving air quality.

Bruce Crawford's reference was mean-spirited and broke what was otherwise a consensual approach to the issue. The original particle targets were not as tough as they might have been. They were based on a different measurement technique from the new targets, which are based on extensive research. The new targets are at least as tough, in my opinion, as the old ones.

On air quality, I am pleased that the motion recognises the Executive's proposals to set an objective for particles that is more than 50 per cent lower than the current objective. The Executive's recent consultation also proposed a significant tightening of the objectives for benzene and carbon monoxide in the air quality strategy. In addition, we propose to introduce a new objective for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Those proposals, to answer Bruce Crawford's point, reflect the generally high standard of air quality that we enjoy and signal our intention to keep improving that high standard.

A key aspect of our air quality strategy is to give out clear and up-to-date information on levels of air pollution. Daily summaries of air pollution have been issued since 1990. That information is easily accessible to the public via freephone, teletext, the internet and local media. The service also tells people who are susceptible to the effects of air pollution, such as those with asthma and other respiratory diseases, what they can do to mitigate that air pollution. In addition, we publish in a free booklet statistics on various forms of pollution and other environmental indicators. That information is also available online.

From 2003, and periodically thereafter, SEPA will report emissions of 50 key pollutants from processes that are covered by the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000. That will contribute to the European pollutant emissions register that is to be established by the European Commission.

There is already a substantial amount of information in the public domain on site-by-site emissions from various industries and processes, for example, on the public registers that SEPA maintains for its regulatory regimes. However, I understand the expectation that the accessibility of that information should be improved, as it can be accessed at present only by visiting the relevant SEPA office. John Young, John Scott, Dr Sylvia Jackson and Robin Harper referred to the importance of that information being accessible and easily understood.

There are various options for improving access to environmental information, but most have at their centre the provision of more information via computerised databases and the internet. The motion highlights the importance of the Aarhus convention in that respect. The UK is a signatory to that convention and the Executive is committed to playing its part by implementing it in Scotland. Through the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill, the Executive is proposing to revise the current environmental information regulations to ensure that they meet the requirements of the Aarhus convention.

Does that include article 5, which covers information on pollution?

I think that I am safe in saying no. The necessary administrative tools are already at hand through the existing legislation.

We fully support the need progressively to establish a coherent, nationwide system of pollution inventories on a structured, computerised and publicly accessible database.

The detailed requirements for PRTRs under Aarhus are still being negotiated in international forums. The number of pollutants, reporting thresholds, industries to be covered and exact time scales are not yet finalised. Negotiations are being led for the UK by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the Executive is actively contributing to the UK negotiating line to ensure that the proposals can be implemented in Scotland at reasonable cost and risk.

That brings me to the second part of the substance of the motion in the name of my colleague Sylvia Jackson. I reiterate that I support increasing the amount of online information on emissions that is available to the public. Those are not just warm words from me. We are actively considering the practicalities of putting industrial pollution data online. SEPA has been in discussion with the Environment Agency about using the next generation of its pollution inventory software and tailoring it for Scotland. Until consideration of that and of other options is further advanced, I cannot commit to specific dates. I want to make it clear that the Executive is pursuing that option and is discussing with SEPA what is required to get online emission information systems up and running.

I wish to emphasise and to get the minister's feedback on the point that many people are saying that we ought to go beyond the 50 pollutants that are covered in the EU directive. If we are to develop a system such as that described by the minister with the Environment Agency in England and Wales, it might be sensible to think of the bigger picture instead of having to add things at a later date.

I am happy to offer that assurance. Dr Jackson's point makes sense. Indeed, I hope that everything that I would do in this job would make that commonsense linkage. I understand that the English and Welsh system covers 200 to 250 pollutants, and we want to replicate that here, if not match the North American system, which covers many more—600 or thereabouts. I give the Parliament that assurance and hope to undertake that work in the weeks and months ahead.

Meeting closed at 17:48.