Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Official Report 445KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (Modification of Part 1) Regulations 2015 [Draft]

The second item on the agenda is to consider the draft Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (Modification of Part 1) Regulations 2015. The instrument has been laid under affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before the provisions can come into force. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider the motion to recommend approval of the regulations under agenda item 3.

I welcome Dr Aileen McLeod, Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, and Neil Ritchie, from the environmental quality division of the Scottish Government. Minister, do you wish to speak to the regulations?

Yes, I do. Thank you very much, convener. Good morning.

I am pleased to be here to support the committee’s consideration of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (Modification of Part 1) Regulations 2015.

The regulations are primarily technical. They embed the overarching requirements of three recent European directives—the priority substances directive 2013, the groundwater directive 2014 and the biological monitoring directive 2014—into primary legislation that transposes the water framework directive.

The requirements of the priority substances directive 2013 must be transposed by 14 September this year. Although the groundwater directive 2014 and biological monitoring directive 2014 are not required to be transposed until the summer of 2016, we are taking the opportunity to transpose the three directives together in the interest of reducing the number of changes to our legislative framework.

I assure the committee that the early transposition of the 2016 requirements will have no adverse implications for Scottish interests, as the directives reflect, in essence, the latest international best practice in monitoring and assessment practices, and we already apply those practices in Scotland.

On first reading, the requirements of the priority substances directive are potentially more challenging. It requires certain hazardous substances to be banned or phased out with the aim of significantly reducing their harmful effects on our freshwater and marine environments, and it places a strong emphasis on product control rather than increased treatment at waste water treatment plants. The good news is that many of the substances have already been banned at a European or United Kingdom level. The use of others is already declining and less harmful products have emerged on to the market.

We will continue to press the European Commission and UK Government, as appropriate, to take action to ban the remaining substances. Meanwhile, I have tasked the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water to work together to identify any pollution hotspots that are caused by the residual effects of the substances and to consider where additional waste water treatment may be necessary, feasible and proportionate to prevent them from causing, or at least to limit, any further harm to our precious freshwater and marine environments.

I ask the committee to recommend approval of the regulations.

Good morning, minister, and thank you for your introductory remarks.

The policy note that we have been given says:

“All 3 Directives introduce revised monitoring and assessment provisions”,

which you just explained. However, you also described that as potentially more challenging.

The note goes on to say:

“These high level amendments will be of limited interest to stakeholders”.

If they are high level and challenging, why are they not of great interest to stakeholders? It will largely be up to stakeholders to ensure that the new challenges are met. Will you assure us that there is unlikely to be an increased regulatory burden on stakeholders as a result of the changes?

Yes, I give you that assurance. The impact of the changes will be fairly limited in Scotland because, as I said in my opening remarks, many of the substances have already been banned or are being phased out at the European or UK level. Others now have limited use in Scotland. The exception is tributyltin, which is TBT in its compounds. We are in the early stages of discussion with the UK Government regarding a possible ban of that.

The implications for business are minimal. The vast majority of the substances have already been withdrawn from use and the other products have been replaced on the market. There were submissions on cypermethrin—one of the pesticides that has, historically, been important in dealing with sheep scab—but it is not actively used in agriculture and was effectively phased out through the market 10 years ago.

Thank you for that explanation.

Let me follow that up a little. Inevitably, any list of substances will include one or two that people do not think much about but suddenly discover have a use. Have your officials, perhaps with the Commission, analysed each of the substances, including how many there are and their uses? Nobody objects to the regulations, but I am concerned that lurking in that list could be a substance that someone discovers is essential for their work, and that would cause some difficulties.

That is a good point. Two or three years ago there was an extensive period of negotiation on the priority substances directive through European Commission working group processes. Many more substances were originally on the list but have either dropped off or been identified as ones that we need to watch rather than priority substances that need action now. We have been through that process at European level and in informing the development of guidance to SEPA, which has the bulk of the additional work as part of its monitoring programme. We have engaged with key sectors to understand the impacts of the directive and to warn them about future changes.

How many substances are there?

There are 20 on the list.

Would it be possible, without adding greatly to your regulatory burden, to have a list of the substances and their uses? The committee might want to consider whether any stakeholders are adversely affected.

I would be happy to supply that. The substances in the current list include pesticides, industrial combustion products, biocides, and products for metal and shipbuilding, as well as the maintenance of public toilets. We are happy to provide that list to the committee.

Thank you convener. Good morning minister. My question has the same sort of ethos as the previous two. It is important to have pristine water for all sorts of reasons, both per se and for a range of industries that are related to food products. If new substances are added to the list, will they be considered in the future or will they need to come back to us? Sometimes things come back under a different name—I am thinking of neonicotinoids on land and so on.

The priority substances are kept under regular review at European level, and I understand that reviews of potential impacts are carried out before new products can be placed in the commercial marketplace.

Good morning minister. You mentioned 20 substances, some of which are used in toilets or shipbuilding or as pesticides. You said that there are no adverse implications, and the explanatory notes state:

“These high level amendments will be of limited interest to stakeholders, therefore we have not consulted widely on our proposals”

Which organisations did you consult and how widely?

First, it is worth reiterating that the Scottish Government did not identify the substances; they were proposed by the European Commission. During the passage of the directives through Brussels, there was significant stakeholder engagement in Scotland, particularly with Scottish Water given the implications of the directive for it. There was also significant involvement from European Union-wide organisations, such as, Copa-Cogeca, which represents farming unions.

One of the responsible authorities that we consulted was Scottish Water, and it was content with our proposed approach.

09:45  

As there are no further questions, we move to item 3, which is consideration of motion S4M-13314, that the committee recommends approval of the affirmative instrument.

We now move into the formal process, which I hope will not take the 90 minutes that are allotted for the item. People in the public gallery may be happy to know that it is unlikely to take as long as that, but we never know.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recommends that the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (Modification of Part 1) Regulations 2015 [draft] be approved.—[Aileen McLeod.]

Motion agreed to.

We thank Aileen McLeod and her official.

---

Rural Development (Scotland) Regulations 2015 (SSI 2015/192)

---

Rural Payments (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2015 (SSI 2015/194)

The fourth item is for the committee to consider two negative instruments. Are there any comments?

My reading of SSI 2015/194 is that it simply replaces the current appeals system and puts it into the new common agricultural policy support system. Is that also your understanding?

Yes, that would be my understanding.

In that case, I have no problems with it at all.

The business and regulatory impact assessment for SSI 2015/192 is being prepared, but is there a timescale for that? If it is worth making such an assessment, it is worth having it available because there are quite a lot of regulations, even though many have already been enforced.

We can write to the minister and ask for an explanation about that.

I have a brief question about the implications for the Scottish Land Court and how appeals are expected to operate. I note the reference to legacy schemes. Has any analysis been made of capacity in that court and the time it takes to deal with the appeals?

We should also ask for answers about that. I notice that the Scottish Land Court seems to be coming into focus and is being required to do more work.

I am concerned about resources and skills.

It would be good for us to know about that. If there are no further points on the two instruments, are committee members agreed that they do not wish to make any recommendations on the instruments, apart from writing to the minister for clarifications?

Members indicated agreement.

09:48  

Meeting suspended.

09:52 On resuming—