European Pollutant Emission Register

– in the Scottish Parliament at 5:00 pm on 10 September 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative 5:00, 10 September 2003

The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-106, in the name of Dr Sylvia Jackson, on Scotland's European pollutant emission register. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite those members leaving the chamber to do so as quickly and quietly as possible.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament welcomes the publication of the Scottish European Pollutant Emission Register by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; recognises that this is an important component of a strategy to deliver environmental justice in Scotland; notes that all communities have a right to know about chemical emissions in their environment; further notes that, in the United States, the introduction of the Toxic Release Inventory resulted in emission reductions of over 40%, and looks forward to the rapid development and publication of a comprehensive and easily accessible system that includes contextual health and environmental impact information.

Photo of Sylvia Jackson Sylvia Jackson Labour 5:06, 10 September 2003

I am pleased to see Roseanna Cunningham here. That means that there are two of us on crutches at this debate.

I am delighted to be given a second opportunity to debate a member's motion about the development of a Scottish pollutant emission register. I thank Friends of the Earth not only for its campaigning on this issue, but for its support and for the information that it has collected and provided.

I have read the previous debate on this issue, which took place last year. I am aware that a plethora of terms and acronyms is used in pollution registers and that many chemical terms appear on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's website. Being a chemist, I am not particularly worried by those terms, but I am sure that other people may find references to phenols and other benzene compounds disconcerting. We must overcome that problem.

The key issue today is the development of a register that details the emission of pollutants and the making of that information available to the public so that people are encouraged to become involved in public debate and Government decision making. The register was established following the Aarhus convention, an international agreement that came into force on 30 October 2001.

I will summarise briefly the history of the register, because it is ably described in a Scottish Parliament information centre paper of October 2002. The Aarhus convention led to two important European directives and the creation of the European pollutant emission register—the EPER. The SEPA website shows the evidence that is being collected in Scotland for the register. Evidence is also being collected in England and Wales.

The European directives require that such information be collected and that results be monitored and appear in an inventory that identifies principal pollution sources and emissions. There is provision for reporting at European level in 2002, 2004, 2007 and every year after that.

I want to consider the current position in more detail. England and Wales are a wee bit ahead of us: through the Environment Agency, they were able to establish an online database before we did. The database provides information about 150 chemicals from 2,000 factories. Information relating to postcode areas, towns and regions can also be accessed.

At the previous debate on the issue, we asked Allan Wilson—who is still the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, which is good news—to ensure that the Scottish Executive, via SEPA, works with the Environment Agency in England and Wales. We thought that that expertise would be useful and could be built on. In fact, they have been working together and, in February this year, the Scottish Executive announced that SEPA would also be creating an online inventory of information on environmental emissions.

In May this year—many of us will remember that it was election time—SEPA published its EPER details. We are told that, by 2005, there will be a full online register. As part of the process of developing that register, a consultation is taking place. It is important that we should feed into that to ensure that the inventory is as comprehensive as possible. That is along the lines of what I said last time, so I am pleased that our work is developing in that way.

In his concluding remarks in the previous debate on the subject, Allan Wilson said that he was hoping not only to take on board the 150 pollutants on the list in the English and Welsh system, but to work towards the 600 pollutants on the list of the north American system. We hope that that is still true.

Emission data should also include contextual information on health and environmental impacts. On its website, SEPA says that a list with that extra information is being developed at the moment. That is needed, and will give local communities a lot of usable information. Friends of the Earth has said that other information that would be useful on a comprehensive site would include: how a company in an area compares with others of a similar nature; the cumulative effect of emissions from various sources in that area; whether releases were routine or accidental; and the past record, including any prosecutions, of companies in the area.

I want to talk about another piece of work by Friends of the Earth—its briefing on the link between pollution and poverty. Other members may want to talk about this as well. The data that have been used for the research have come from the Environment Agency. They cover a range of chemicals emitted to the air, water and land by large factories. Information on the locations of factories and the levels of emissions was then considered alongside the Government's index of multiple deprivation and it was revealed that deprived communities bear the brunt of factory pollution. The study focused on emissions to air of chemicals that are recognised as being carcinogenic—that is, cancer-causing. The results are alarming. Of the 11,400 tonnes of carcinogenic chemicals that were emitted to air in England in 1999, 66 per cent were in the most deprived 10 per cent of wards and 82 per cent were in the most deprived 20 per cent of wards. Such information is very useful. Time is too limited to go into that study, but I ask that we do a comparable study here in Scotland.

Members will remember that, in February last year, the First Minister not only pledged his support to sustainable development, but stressed the importance of everybody's taking responsibility for Scotland's environment. I believe that he was the first person to use the term "environmental justice". That is now part of Scottish Executive policy. He said:

"At the moment there is a real injustice in that people who suffer the most from a poor environment are those least able to fight back."

I was very heartened at the Scottish Executive's recent response to a new report on measuring deprivation in Scotland. Members will know that that report has been in development for quite a while. In its response, the Executive has accepted the need for consideration of the physical environment. The response says:

"There are links to developing measures of environmental justice which need to be considered."

I hope that things go further and that measures are not just considered but become part of policy, now that there appears to be a direct link between pollution and poverty.

In conclusion, we still have a long way to go, as we need to have a comprehensive register online, but good work is being done. Please can we continue with that.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

I will be able to call all the members who have asked to speak.

Photo of Roseanna Cunningham Roseanna Cunningham Scottish National Party 5:15, 10 September 2003

I apologise to members in advance, as I will have to leave at 5.45, which might be before the end of the debate. I congratulate Sylvia Jackson on securing the debate. In our respective current circumstances, she will understand the constraints that restricted mobility places on one's ability to get from A to B in reasonable time.

Like Sylvia Jackson, I welcome SEPA's publication of the Scottish European pollutant emission register. It may or may not be SEPA's role to act as some sort of bureaucratic Erin Brockovich but, as the motion states, it is an important aspect of access to information that all communities have a right to know about chemical emissions in their environment. It is extraordinary that we have come so late to absolute recognition of that right and that we still have communities that are struggling to find out what the position in their area is.

However, a little caution must be exercised in responding to the publication of the register's data. SEPA makes it clear that the register is purely a factual reporting of data as required by European legislation and that inclusion in the register does not imply that companies have breached their limits for emissions. The very nature of their work is bound to put some industries higher on any register than other industries and that will always be the case. We must guard against regarding the register data as some sort of polluters' league table—I worry greatly that the media will jump to that conclusion. Instead, we must learn to use it as an information baseline for ensuring that emission levels are reduced.

Sylvia Jackson made pertinent comments about other, in particular comparative, information that might be useful. That is a way of commending best practice and sharing expertise.

I suggest that the Executive, either through the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development or the minister who is responsible for external relations, could have a word with the people who are responsible for the European Commission's web page on the European pollutant emission register, which has links to EPER information pages in member states. The link to the UK EPER home page, which is marked with a union flag, is a link to the site of the Environment Agency, which is responsible for England and Wales. The fact that there is no obvious opportunity to get from there to SEPA's information on the subject is an important internet access issue. The present situation is far from helpful for individuals, communities or companies that seek information about pollutant emissions in Scotland. At best, the failure to realise that there are two different registers and set-ups in the United Kingdom represents ineptitude on the part of those who compile the website; whatever the reason for it, the relevant web page needs to be corrected.

I commend Sylvia Jackson's motion and I look forward to hearing the minister's remarks at the end of the debate, if I am here.

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative 5:18, 10 September 2003

Caring for the environment is as central to Conservative party policy as it is to the policies of any of the other major parties, because it would be wrong to limit the ability of future generations to meet their needs or to pass on to them heavy environmental costs. Therefore, caring for the environment must continue to be a priority.

Any new innovation that will help us to achieve a cleaner and safer environment for every member of society is worthy of support. However, we are wary of forcing on businesses policies that might add unnecessary costs, as they are already suffering from high business rates and crippling water bills. Furthermore, we would not want to see the creation of a register as the only answer to cleaning up businesses' emissions. It is essential that different approaches are adopted, that diversity is always allowed and enabled and that we do not think that the register is the sole solution to the problem.

Sylvia Jackson's motion suggests that the introduction of a toxic release inventory in the United States resulted in an emission reduction of 40 per cent. That is proven fact. However, that is a very high figure and it raises questions about the behaviour of companies that led to the results. Is it really possible to reduce emissions that quickly, in a way that is safe and legal? Was there a reduction in total tonnage? If that was the case, which chemicals saw the greatest reduction—the toxic or the non-toxic ones? We appear not to have answers in some cases.

In addition, since the US introduced its inventory in 1986, the progression in European and international environmental law means that, 17 years later, we are in a much more advanced position. Therefore, it is unlikely that the introduction of such a register would have the same effect here as it did in the United States.

A further concern about the foreseen effectiveness of the register is that many companies in Scotland already openly reported their emission levels every year without being forced to do so. For example, BP at Grangemouth, Shell and many other companies are committed to reducing their overall emissions as part of their corporate social responsibility programmes. Credit should be given to those companies for having to some extent jumped the gun against the register.

Although we look forward to the effects that the register might have, we must also be careful to keep in mind the additional problems that may be highlighted. One example is incineration, which is often considered as an option for disposal of material that currently goes to landfill.

Photo of Sylvia Jackson Sylvia Jackson Labour

Several years ago, there was a lot of concern in my constituency about the Rechem Ltd incinerator, but I hope that the register will allay such fears. The siting of an incinerator may be helped by the fact that it would be more closely monitored.

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative

I was going to make that point. Many of us are contacted by constituents who are concerned about the risks from proposed incinerators and from equipment that is designed to recover power from waste, so we must be in a position to be able to give some guarantee that emissions are being monitored. I believe that the register will be the first step in guaranteeing that such monitoring is taking place.

Photo of Karen Whitefield Karen Whitefield Labour 5:22, 10 September 2003

Like other members, I congratulate my colleague Sylvia Jackson on securing this debate on an important issue, about which I welcome the opportunity to speak.

I support Sylvia Jackson's call for further research into the link between our poorest communities and the areas that are most blighted by toxic emissions. In a parliamentary debate just before the summer recess, I welcomed the launch of the online pollutant register. I also voiced my concerns about the fact that Shanks Waste Services Ltd, which operates the Greengairs site in my constituency, was identified as Scotland's seventh biggest emitter of toxic waste.

It is vital that we have easy access to information not only about who is polluting, but about what types and levels of pollutants are being emitted. We need information on the effects of emissions on the health and well-being of people who live nearby. I hope that the publication of the information on the SEPA website will put considerable pressure on all companies that discharge waste into the environment to ensure that they do all that they can to prevent risk to surrounding communities.

I have some sympathy with Friends of the Earth's call for an increase in the number of pollutants on the inventory. Increasing the number from the current 50 to 200, to match the figure in England and Wales, would be an important first step. However, as Sylvia Jackson said, we should strive to match the American toxic release inventory, which reports on the emissions of more than 600 pollutants.

People such as my constituents in Greengairs have to live with the consequences of the discharge by companies of toxic waste into the environment. Whether people are concerned about the day-to-day grind of living with noxious odours or the more serious health consequences that are associated with the discharge of high-level toxic materials, the register will enable them to monitor toxic emissions more easily in and around their communities. It will also help them to have a better understanding of the type of pollutants that are discharged, including the possible health effects of the emissions.

I welcome the publication by SEPA of the European pollutant emission register and urge the agency to continue to develop and enhance that valuable public resource.

Photo of Mr Mark Ruskell Mr Mark Ruskell Green 5:25, 10 September 2003

I echo my colleagues' comments and thank Sylvia Jackson for securing the debate. The topic will resonate with my constituents and Sylvia Jackson's constituents, especially the people in the eastern villages, who face many years of uncertainty and concern over some of the industry in that area. I am thinking particularly of the Caberboard plant at Cowie.

Over the years in which I have had contact with communities working on environmental justice issues, I have noticed one common thread, which is the search for the truth. Many of those communities just want to know the truth about what is happening. They are not necessarily against industry; in many areas, the local industry might be the biggest employer. However, they want to know the truth about what is happening. They want to know what emissions are being allowed into the environment and how those emissions are affecting their health and local environment.

We welcome the implementation of the European pollutant emission register, despite the fact that it has been somewhat delayed in comparison with what has happened in England and Wales. However, we have to ask whether the register represents the whole truth. The answer is that it does not.

There are four main flaws, although I hope that, over time, we can remedy them. First, the register is compiled on a three-year basis. The register that came out in May therefore refers to emissions in 2001. The next report will come out in 2006 and will refer to 2004. That means that there are two lost years—2002 and 2003—for which we will not have any data. I hope that that situation will be remedied by the introduction of annual reports from 2007. However, we must be vigilant about that.

The second flaw is that the register takes account only of total annual emissions. Some emissions occur on a low frequency and over a short period, but the discharges can be significantly high—they are often called spikes. If those discharges are of a particularly low frequency, the annual reporting threshold may not be met. Therefore, those spikes or incidents of high pollution will not require to be reported on as part of the register. That is a technical issue, but we must clear it up.

The third flaw is that the responsibility to return data about pollution emissions lies with the companies. I question whether SEPA has the resources and the remit to check the information that is going into the register. We are somewhat reliant on companies' honesty and it seems to be possible for an unscrupulous company to underestimate its emissions and thereby slip below the reporting threshold.

The final flaw is that we are considering only 200 chemicals. I gather from Sylvia Jackson's comments that that is more than is being considered in England and Wales, but the number is still low number compared with the 650 toxic chemicals that are reported on as part of the US toxic release inventory, which has been successful in reducing emissions. We have to get the complete picture of pollution in the environment.

The register is an important tool for communities, but only if it is completely transparent, robust and properly resourced. We owe it to the communities that are suffering from environmental injustice to give them the whole truth and not just half-truths.

Photo of Allan Wilson Allan Wilson Labour 5:29, 10 September 2003

I am pleased to respond to the motion. I congratulate Sylvia Jackson on securing the debate, because the subject is close to the heart of the Executive's environmental justice agenda, to which she referred. When we debated the issue in January 2002, much work remained to be done to complete Scotland's contribution to the European pollutant emission register.

As Sylvia Jackson said, publication of the EPER data earlier this year marked a step change in the availability of emissions information in Scotland. The next step will be the launch next week of a website that presents the EPER data in a geographical format. I hope that members will be patient about the two to three week delay in launching the map-based inventory, as I am reliably assured that the product is well worth the wait. Publication of the EPER data at the European level has been delayed by several months to February next year, so Scotland remains well placed in relative terms. However, I acknowledge the point made by my colleague Roseanna Cunningham and I assure her that the link to the Scottish site will be added. I commend her for her close attention to detail.

I stress that the EPER is not an end point, but a starting point. In February, I announced that a more comprehensive pollution inventory would be in place by August 2005. The priority that the Executive affords that objective is shown by its inclusion in the partnership agreement.

As Sylvia Jackson said, when I spoke in the debate in January 2002, I set out an aspiration that the Scottish pollution inventory should match the best in the world. That remains our aspiration. The proposals for the inventory will allow us to match the rest of the United Kingdom and to be among the best in Europe by 2005, but that is not the end of the process. I want the inventory to go further—like Scotland in Europe, we want to succeed. SEPA has signalled its intention to expand the inventory to cover emissions from a further 2,000 or more installations; I support that intention, subject to the outcome of a cost of compliance study.

The protocol on pollution release and transfer registers under the Aarhus convention sets a common baseline standard for reporting emissions information. I am confident that Scotland is in a strong position to have a compliant inventory in place in good time before the protocol becomes legally binding, which we expect to happen in 2007.

Comparisons have been drawn with North American pollution inventories, which green pressure groups consider to be the model to aspire to. As I have said, I share the aspiration that the Scottish inventory should be among the best in the world, but the comparison should be made not only on the number of chemicals, because larger amounts of information that is difficult to interpret will not necessarily take us to where we want to go. As Roseanna Cunningham said, putting the data in context is a more important short and medium-term objective. I am glad that that priority was reflected in the motion and in most of the speeches.

Analysis of the reaction to publication of the EPER data makes it clear that the public—if journalists are included—do not find it easy to relate mass emissions data to effects on humans and the environment, as Roseanna Cunningham said. Indeed, even the normally reliable Press Association appears to have deserted us. An important first step to address that problem will be the addition of contextual information that describes the environmental and health impacts of the substances that the inventory covers. SEPA and the Scottish centre for infection and environmental health have worked together to develop that information, which I assure members will be launched alongside the map-based version of the website to which I referred.

Mass emissions and substance data are only part of the information that people need. We also need more information on the exposure to the chemicals experienced by people, as well as by the environment. SEPA has a water classification scheme that provides a quality measurement of water bodies in terms that are easy to understand. Those data will be added to the inventory in 2004.

Like Karen Whitefield and others, I support SEPA's approach of giving priority to improving contextual information and links to information on environmental quality. I also support its view that that is a higher priority than expanding the list of chemicals in the short and medium term, important as that might be.

As the motion recognises, the pollution inventory is not just a public information service; the EPER has set an important baseline against which to measure progress and set targets for reducing emissions in the future. Setting targets in terms that measure environmental outcomes is important. Equally important are the tools to regulate and reduce emissions, which are already well developed.

Pollution prevention and control regulations provide a stringent regulatory regime for activities that have the greatest environmental impact. The regime is being phased in over the period to 2007 and has been supplemented by specific controls on waste incinerators, an issue that I know arouses much public concern. The revised large combustion plant and national emissions ceilings directives will further limit emissions of several key air pollutants over the next few years. The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 provides a comprehensive framework for protecting the water environment from harmful emissions.

I believe that the combination of emissions information, regulatory controls and market incentives provides a powerful set of tools that can be used to pursue reductions in emissions, as has been done in North America. Such a set of tools ensures that we build on the generally good environmental quality that Scotland currently enjoys but that we want to make better. We also want to use those tools to address problem areas more effectively than has been done in the past.

In summary, the motion is a timely reminder of the progress that has been made and of the work that needs to be done to fulfil our aspirations for the inventory. Sylvia Jackson talked about environmental justice. I say to her that the Executive is considering work in that area as part of its environmental justice agenda. When that work is developed, it will be brought back to the chamber.

I hope that members and others will take the opportunity, as Roseanna Cunningham has done, to visit the new user-friendly version of the website when it is launched next week and that they will contribute to the SEPA consultation on the content of the 2005 inventory.

Meeting closed at 17:38.