Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
I encourage members to be as concise as possible so that we can make progress with the amendments that we are to consider.
Des McNulty has been promoted to a ministerial post this week and I am sure that we all want to send him our best wishes and hope that he will be successful. As he is now a minister, Des will not move any of the amendments that he has lodged but not yet moved. When we reach those amendments in the marshalled list, any other member may choose to speak to and move them. If no member chooses to move them, they will fall at that stage. For information, the amendments are, in the order in which they appear in the marshalled list: 142, 94, 96, 97, 130, 99, 101, 102, 103, 143, 104, 144, 145, 146 and 106.
Section 9—Environmental objectives
Amendment 12 is grouped with amendments 43, 13, 14, 124, 90, 15, 125, 126, 16, 142, 17 and 18.
I seek clarification on one point. Although I will oppose amendment 142, I would nevertheless like to speak to it, but I will not do so unless it is moved. If it is moved, that might expedite proceedings somewhat.
Are you asking whether another member needs to move amendment 142?
I am seeking your indulgence. If amendment 142 is moved, will I be allowed to speak to it?
I am happy to allow that. I am advised that you should speak to that amendment when you speak to the other amendments in this group. Of course, any other member could choose not to move an amendment in their name, so the same situation could arise for any amendment.
I would be happy to move amendment 142.
Robin Harper has indicated that he intends to move amendment 142.
That clarifies my point. I was not trying to be difficult; I was trying to be helpful.
I shall begin with amendment 12. Section 9 requires the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to set an environmental objective for each body of water in each river basin district. Amendment 12 would add to section 9 the requirement to prepare programmes of measures. As members know, such programmes are an explicit requirement of the river basin planning process in the water framework directive. They are the means by which the environmental objectives set for each body of water are to be achieved. The amendments in this group would place a duty on SEPA to prepare the programmes of measures. By virtue of sections 10 to 17, SEPA would do so through the participatory river basin planning process.
Amendment 13 would make more explicit the link between characterisation of the water environment—the process under section 5 through which a full picture of the state of the water environment and the human pressures on it, alongside the economic analysis of water use, is obtained—and the rest of the river basin management planning process. Article 11 of the directive specifically requires member states to take account of the results of the characterisation in establishing a programme of measures. In particular, it is clear from annexe 2 of the directive that the results of the characterisation must be taken into account when the environmental objectives are set. Amendment 13 would make that link explicit. It would aid transparent implementation of the directive by ensuring that the objectives and programmes of measures take into account the evidence that is gathered by the characterisation process.
Amendment 14 is consequential to amendments 12 and 13. It would amend section 9(2) to reflect the wider ambit of section 9(1).
Amendment 15 would make it clear that ministers may make regulations, further to the aims of section 9, on environmental objectives and programmes of measures. In respect of the setting of environmental objectives, the amendment makes it clear that regulations may provide for the type of environmental objective that may be applied to particular types of body of water. It is intended that that would allow the Executive to make regulations about the circumstances in which the flexibilities in the directive—for example, designation as a heavily modified body of water—may be used. Such flexibilities are additional to the issues that regulations may already cover, which are listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 9(3).
Amendment 16 would specify the aspects of a programme of measures for which ministers may make provision through regulation, including the type of measures that must or may be included in the programme, the date by which the programme must be prepared and the methods and procedures that are to be followed in preparing the programme.
Amendments 17 and 18 are consequential to amendment 12. Schedule 1 requires that a summary of the programme of measures that is to be applied to achieve the environmental objective be provided in each river basin management plan. The amendments make it clear that the "programme of measures" to which schedule 1 refers is that prepared under section 9.
For those reasons, I recommend that the committee agree to amendments 12 to 18.
Amendment 43, in the name of Fiona McLeod, would amend section 9(1) to require the programme of measures summarised in the plan to include the basic and supplementary measures that are set out in article 11 of the directive. I hope that the Executive amendments that I have outlined address that issue and make clearer the relationship between the programme of measures and environmental objectives. I do not support amendment 43 because, if amendments 12 to 18 are agreed to, it would no longer be necessary and would not be appropriate.
I will explain why. Section 25(3) makes it clear that the expressions that are used in the directive and in the bill and that are not otherwise defined in the bill have the same meaning in the bill as they have in the directive. Because the bill does not define the "programme of measures", the effect of section 25(3) is that that expression must be defined with reference to its meaning in the directive. Article 11.2 of the directive makes it clear that each programme of measures must include the basic measures that are specified in article 11.3 and, where necessary, supplementary measures. Therefore, each programme of measures must include as a minimum the basic measures and, where appropriate or necessary, the supplementary measures. Members will agree that that is entirely appropriate.
In contrast, amendment 43 would require the inclusion of every basic and supplementary measure that is set out in article 11 in the programme of measures to achieve the environmental objectives for each body of water. I am sure that members agree that that makes no sense. The point of the planning system is to determine the most appropriate means of achieving the environmental objectives that are set for each body of water. We should not pre-empt that system by providing that all basic and supplementary measures should be implemented on every occasion. What Fiona McLeod sought to achieve with amendment 43 would be covered by the Executive amendments, which would provide a more appropriate means, or methodology, of achieving what I believe was the motivation behind amendment 43.
Amendment 142 would require SEPA to review annually the programmes of measures set for each body of water in the river basin district and to make the changes it believes are necessary to achieve the objectives. Amendment 142 should be considered in light of the Executive amendments to section 9 that I have already described. Those amendments make clearer the close relationship that exists between the environmental objectives and the programmes of measures. For example, amendment 15 would make it clear that regulations may make further provision for the preparation of a programme of measures. That could, if ministers desired, enable us to make regulations that would deal with the review of a programme of measures.
On that basis, I ask Robin Harper not to move amendment 142. The amendment would establish an annual review to make sure that we hit targets for the achievement of the environmental objectives for each body of water. However, such a scheme would be very much along the lines of the work that we would envisage happening in practice.
It is already clear from section 9 that the Scottish ministers may—it is intended that they will—make regulations to set the dates by which the environmental objectives must be achieved. Obviously, some environmental objectives will be easier to achieve than others, but by requiring an annual review of the programme of measures, the amendment would be unduly restrictive.
Review of the programmes of measures for bodies of water that are most at risk of failing to meet the objectives will be almost constant. SEPA will focus its monitoring regimes on such bodies of water. On the basis of that regular monitoring, SEPA might require to adjust the programmes of measures in order to ensure that we are still on track to meet the environmental objectives. In those circumstances, an annual review would not be enough.
Conversely, of course an annual review will not be necessary for other bodies of water because they meet the environmental objectives and are already of a high status. We will put in place regulatory regimes that will ensure that SEPA will be aware of any new pressures that might affect the body of water. Where there are no such pressures, SEPA can be reasonably confident that the good, or high, status is not threatened. On-going monitoring would provide a check, but an annual review would not be necessary.
Given the amendments that we have lodged and the explanation of how the monitoring regime would work in practice, I hope that members agree that the flexibility in the bill would provide us with better options. Regulations made under section 9, as amended by amendment 15, would allow us to ensure that review of the programmes of measures is targeted where it is most needed—that is, towards the bodies of water that require action to bring them up to good or high ecological status.
I turn to Bruce Crawford's amendment 90. Section 9 requires SEPA to set environmental objectives for each body of water in a river basin district. Section 9(2) states:
"Such objectives may be set so as to apply with modifications in relation to particular descriptions of body of water or in particular circumstances."
That provision would enable SEPA, when it is setting objectives, to take advantage of the flexibility offered by article 4 of the water framework directive in relation to particular types of water or particular circumstances. In some cases, article 4 allows the setting of a lower objective. For example, article 4.5 allows the setting of a lower objective where the body of water is so affected by human activity that the achievement of a higher objective would be infeasible or disproportionately expensive. In other provisions, such as paragraphs 6 and 7 of article 4, the objective stands, but non-compliance is allowed provided that certain conditions are met. Amendment 90 would expand that by adding:
"(including circumstances attributable to the impact of climate change)."
It is not entirely clear what amendment 90 seeks to achieve—it could be further dilution of the ecological impact, but I suspect not.
The intention may be to enable SEPA to set objectives for us to apply, with modifications, in the circumstances that are referred to in the amendment—that is, climate change. In that case, the amendment would be unnecessary because, as already noted, the bill would enable SEPA to take advantage of the flexibility conferred by the directive on when lower objectives can be set or the circumstances in which non-compliance with objectives will be permitted. Article 4.5 in particular enables the deadlines established for the achievement of the objectives to be extended in certain cases, including where "natural conditions" do not allow the timely improvement of the status of the water environment.
Section 9(2) is already wide enough to cover such eventualities. Amendment 90 would be unnecessary because section 9(2), in setting objectives that will apply, with modifications, to particular descriptions of water in particular circumstances, is sufficiently wide to cover climate change.
I turn to amendments 124 and 126—this will be fun. I understand that Maureen Macmillan is an English honours graduate and a former English teacher. She may be able to assist me and to correct the Executive if we are wrong.
This is an important issue, but we believe that the use of the singular is correct. The term "body of water" is being used in section 9(2) and (3)(d) in a generic sense. For example, one would say "types of car" or "breeds of dog", not "types of cars" or "breeds of dogs". Likewise, we think that it is right to say "particular descriptions of a body of water", not "particular descriptions of bodies of water". I hope that that is clear, and I hope that John Scott will not press those amendments.
Our ears pricked up there. We thought that something interesting had come up at last.
I can assure you that we had a very interesting discussion among ourselves about amendments 124 and 126. I have been convinced that "body of water" is the appropriate term, but I am open to alternative suggestions.
I hope that, in light of Executive amendments 12 to 18, which I have already discussed, John Scott will agree that amendment 125 is now unnecessary. The amendment would amend subsection (3) of section 9 to enable ministers to make regulations also on the methods and procedures to be followed in achieving environmental objectives. The Executive amendments render that unnecessary because they would provide for regulations on programmes of measures—that is, the critical achievement of the objectives—to be made by ministers. However, the power to make regulations on how objectives are set is also crucial. The Executive amendments would retain that power. For that reason, I hope that the committee agrees that they are a better option than amendment 125.
I move amendment 12.
I ask Helen Eadie to confirm that she is present as a substitute for Elaine Thomson.
I confirm that. I apologise for being late.
It is nice to learn that the minister and I are in sympathy in what we are trying to achieve through our amendments in relation to the water framework directive. I want to ask the minister a few questions to clarify his comments to ensure that our amendments really are going to achieve the same result.
Amendment 43 would ensure that we clarify the programme of measures that is to be set out. I want to ensure that Scotland has the best toolkit possible for implementing the water framework directive—it should be a toolkit rather than a list of prescriptive measures. That was why I referred to article 11 of the water framework directive, which includes basic measures as well as supplementary measures, as the minister pointed out.
The minister referred me to section 25(3) and said that section 9 includes all the explanations in the water framework directive. I refer him to Executive amendment 16, the end of which specifies article 4 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 7 of the directive. My amendment specifies article 11. I want to ensure that, in not accepting my amendment, we will still ensure that all of article 11, especially paragraph 3, will be included in the programme of measures. I ask that because amendment 16 specifies two articles, but not article 11.
Yes. I did say that, though in a fairly lengthy manner. Without repeating the question, the answer is yes. I can go into detail if you wish.
Are you satisfied with that, Fiona?
Yes.
In that case, do you intend to press the amendment?
Is now the time to do that?
This is Fiona's opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I thought that it might be of benefit to other members to know what she intends to do.
I shall allow the debate to continue.
Amendments 124 and 126 are a matter of plain English, which, of course, amendments should be. As Maureen Macmillan pointed out to me, the provisions do not read well, and I agree with her. During my primary school days it would have been said that they do not scan properly.
I was prepared to accept that a "body of water" might be a technical term, which would be used to describe a single amount, or several amounts, of water. If that is not the case, I suggest that amendments 124 and 126 are only a matter of grammar.
Amendment 125 would give Scottish ministers the ability, should they wish it, to exercise powers to establish procedures by which environmental objectives might be achieved. In the light of the minister's statement, I am prepared not to press amendment 125.
I do not envy the minister's position in having to deal with amendments before he has heard the arguments. I listened carefully to his remarks about amendment 90 and I think that I understood them, but it may be useful for the minister to hear my reasoning.
The minister rightly identified article 4 of the water framework directive as dealing with issues of non-compliance and lower objectives. The intent of amendment 90 is to build on the directive and ensure that longer-term planning for expected changes in weather patterns is part of the environmental objectives. The directive does not advise or give guidance on that area, especially with regard to climate change.
The directive should give such advice for several reasons. Inland flooding costs approximately £20 million, and the Executive has predicted that by 2050 that figure will have risen by 68 per cent and that by 2080 it will have risen by 118 per cent, which is a steep rise. Also by 2080, which may seem a long way away, rivers such as the Clyde could see a 50 per cent increase in flood risk.
Those predictions are based on climate change and global warming. The Executive's climate change scoping study identified several key economic sectors as being especially vulnerable to flooding. They include transport, domestic areas, water supplies, waste water management, commercial premises and tourist facilities.
Given the bill's environmental objectives, I assumed that there would be a requirement to ensure that climate change is included. If it is not sufficiently covered under article 4, it should be included in the bill to ensure that SEPA does the long-term planning to deal with issues such as the Executive's scoping study and to ensure that measures are applied when introducing environmental objectives.
I am interested in hearing what the minister has to say about article 4. Will article 4 deal specifically with the issue that I have raised? If so, I will feel a bit easier.
Would you like the minister to respond to that point?
I do not mind—it is up to you.
The minister has indicated that he will deal with the issue when winding up.
Earlier Robin Harper indicated that he wished to move amendment 142, in the name of Des McNulty. I invite him to speak to the amendment.
The minister indicated that he thought that amendment 142 was both restrictive and superfluous. However, the amendment is carefully worded. It states that there should be a review
"at least once each year thereafter".
That does not preclude continuous review.
The minister has explained that the provisions of amendment 142 are implicit in the amendments that the Executive has lodged. I am not convinced that it is entirely superfluous to refer explicitly to yearly review. It could be useful to have such a reference on the face of the bill. If in winding up the minister is able to persuade me that amendment 142 is superfluous, I will not move it. If he is not, I shall do so.
I want to speak to amendment 126. It is not clear what is meant by "body of water". If it is being used as a term, perhaps it should appear in inverted commas. Is it intended that section 9(3)(d) should refer to "particular descriptions of the term ‘body of water'"? I realise that we cannot conduct a dialogue about the issue, but I believe that clarity is needed.
I will join in this grammatical warfare. I am trying to read through section 9 to determine whether the Executive's argument is consistent. Section 9(2) states:
"Such objectives may be set so as to apply with modifications in relation to particular descriptions of body of water or in particular circumstances."
If the Executive's argument is correct, I do not understand why the word "modification" is not used in the section rather than "modifications". There is a lack of consistency.
I have also tried to read amendment 126 differently in the context in which it applies. Section 9(3) begins:
"The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision as to—".
If we replaced that phrase with the words, "The First Minister may by regulations make provision as to—", and replaced the term "body of water" in section 9(3)(d) with "ministers of water", "ministers of water" would make more sense than "minister of water". I do not understand why the term "bodies of water" does not make more sense than "body of water". Perhaps the minister can enlighten us about why the Executive has adopted the stance that it has on this grammatical point. This is a matter of concern that needs to be clarified.
John Scott has indicated that he wants to speak before we move to the minister's wind-up.
Will the convener indicate what he means by wind-up? I want to respond to the argument that the minister has made. After attending a dog show, one would not say that one had seen several kind of dogs—one would say that one had seen several kinds or types of dogs. After attending a car show, one would not say that one had seen several type of car. We would not usually say that, although people in Kilmarnock might do so. Rather than using the singular, one would refer to several types of car and several kinds of dog.
One would refer to several types of ministers.
Indeed—that illustrates my point perfectly. The term "body of water" exists in both the singular and the plural, and it needs to be defined clearly. In this case, it should appear in the plural.
As no other member wants to take part in the open debate, I will ask the minister to respond to the various amendments.
I will take the last one first. There are indeed several kinds of dog and breeds of dog, but there is only one body of water.
That is the problem.
That said, I am happy to accept John Scott's amendments if the committee believes that they clarify the intent. I suspect that we could discuss semantics and the correct grammar for ever and a day. I think that "body of water" is the correct term in the context but if members feel that "bodies of water" or "bodies of waters" is better—
No. The term has a particular meaning.
The three words describe an entity.
The provision could say, "descriptions of the term ‘body of water'".
There is no need to do that. It should just be put into plain English.
That would make it plain.
Then you would have to have a definition of—
If we had some inverted commas—
I call the meeting to order. We cannot have a dialogue.
The basic point is that, in the context of the bill, the term "body of water" is being used in a generic sense, so it is perfectly appropriate.
But, as it stands, it is not clear whether we are using the singular or the plural.
John, let the minister continue with his response.
I am happy to concede John Scott's amendments.
Well, I am not.
Excuse me. You can choose how you want to vote on the amendments, but the minister is indicating that he is content to accept them.
I am saying that the terms in the amendments have the same meaning however they are used. We are relaxed about whether the committee accepts or rejects amendments 124 and 126.
On the more serious point of amendment 90, on the application of the directive and its impact on climate change, section 2 already imposes a duty on all Government departments, public bodies and responsible bodies to have regard to the impact of the implementation of the water framework directive on all their activities, including those related to climate change. Article 4(5) particularly addresses the points that Bruce Crawford has raised. Section 9(2) of the bill is drawn up sufficiently widely to provide for what he seeks. Without getting into the debate again, I repeat that amendment 90 is unnecessary. There is ample and specific provision in the bill, which transposes the directive, and in the directive itself.
Bruce Crawford is looking for further clarification.
I do not have the advantage of having paragraph 5 of article 4 in front of me. Does it mention specifically climate change and changes in weather patterns?
It is an extensive paragraph and I do not intend to quote it. I said in my preamble and hopefully made it clear subsequently that paragraph 5 refers to natural conditions, among other things. That covers climate change.
On amendment 142, and on the points that Robin Harper and Angus MacKay raised, the regulations would set the date by which improvements are to be achieved. That would be the means of ensuring that the monitoring regime secures improvement, which is, ultimately, the environmental objective that I think we are all trying to secure.
In that sense, the monitoring regime that we impose on SEPA will require to have direct regard to the achievement of objectives, which will vary from body of water to body of water. To impose amendment 142's provisions is unnecessary; they will be provided for under section 9, as we propose to amend it.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment 43 not moved.
Amendment 13 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 123 not moved.
Amendment 14 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 124 moved—[John Scott].
The question is, that amendment 124 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 0, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 124 agreed to.
Amendment 90 not moved.
Amendment 15 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 125 not moved.
Amendment 126 moved—[John Scott]—and agreed to.
Amendment 16 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 142 not moved.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Section 10—River basin management plans
Amendments 127, 91 and 92 not moved.
Amendment 128 has been debated with amendment 36. Does Nora Radcliffe wish to move amendment 128?
Yes. If we are to have meaningful sub-basin plans, it is important that either amendment 92 or amendment 128 be agreed to.
I move amendment 128.
The question is, that amendment 128 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Against
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 128 disagreed to.
Amendment 93 not moved.
Section 10 agreed to.
Schedule 1
Matters to be included in river basin
management plans
Amendment 94, in the name of Des McNulty, has been debated with amendment 109. Does any member wish to move amendment 94?
I might move it.
We need a moment to read the amendment.
The amendment says:
"In schedule 1, page 25, line 5, at end insert—
".
Amendment 94 moved—[John Scott].
On a point of order, convener. If amendment 94 is agreed to, will that have consequences for other amendments?
I do not believe that amendment 94 pre-empts any other amendments.
I am not sure about that.
I do not believe that it will pre-empt.
I understood that amendment 94 was consequential on amendment 85, which was not moved.
Is amendment 94 a consequential amendment?
The amendment is consequential on amendment 85.
In order to clarify the matter, I propose that we suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
For members' information, amendment 94 is linked to amendment 85 and it is clear from the minutes that amendment 85 was not moved. Therefore, it may make sense to withdraw amendment 94, although that is obviously up to members.
In the light of that clarification and as my memory has been jogged, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 94, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 95 moved—[Bruce Crawford].
The question is, that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 95 disagreed to.
Amendment 44 has been debated with amendment 32. Does Nora Radcliffe wish to move the amendment?
Yes. Amendment 44 is in a string of consequential amendments. As amendment 32 has been agreed to, amendment 44 will make the bill consistent.
Amendment 44 moved—[Nora Radcliffe].
The question is, that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 44 agreed to.
Amendment 96 not moved.
Amendment 97, in the name of Des McNulty, was debated with amendment 109. Like other amendments that we have discussed, it could create an inconsistency if it were agreed to. Again, it is up to members to make up their minds on the matter.
On a point of order, convener. An inconsistent amendment is different from a consequential amendment. Are you saying that amendment 97 is consequential or that it is inconsistent?
The point is that the amendment on the register of flood-prone areas was not agreed to, so amendment 97 would relate to something that is not in the bill.
Amendments 97 and 45 not moved.
Amendment 17 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendments 129 and 98 not moved.
Amendment 130, in the name of Des McNulty, was debated with amendment 86. It falls into the same category as amendment 97.
Amendment 130 not moved.
Amendment 131 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 131 is self-explanatory. The amendment seemed to be a helpful addition to make easier for people the whole process of participation that the water framework directive requires.
I move amendment 131.
I am happy to accept that some information will be technical and to say that we think that a non-technical summary would be useful to aid wider comprehension of the provision.
Nora, do you wish to respond?
No. I just add that the amendment would be a sensible addition to which I hope the committee will agree.
Amendment 131 agreed to.
Amendment 132, in the name of Nora Radcliffe, was debated with amendment 36. Nora, do you wish to move amendment 132?
No.
I move amendment 132.
The question is, that amendment 132 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 132 disagreed to.
Amendment 133 is grouped with amendments 140 and 63 to 68.
Amendment 133 asks for a summary of the changes that are made to the river basin management plan in the light of the advice that is received from advisory groups under section 17(2). The amendment would strengthen the role of the advisory groups and ensure that they were not only taken seriously, but were seen to be taken seriously.
I move amendment 133.
Amendment 140 would set up sub-basin advisory groups. The committee and the minister agree that we should have sub-basin plans, and we have now passed amendments to ensure that. The bill talks about a river basin advisory group. We now know that the river basin for Scotland will be Scotland and that therefore there will be only one national advisory group and national planning. As we have agreed that sub-basin plans will produce the ownership of that planning and ensure that there is local delivery to achieve the aims of the water framework directive, it is important that we have sub-basin advisory groups for each sub-basin that we establish. Only by having such advisory groups will we empower all interested parties at the local level and ensure that everybody buys in and, in the technical jargon, takes ownership of the sub-basin plans. That is how we will achieve the co-operation, the integration and the change that the water framework directive is asking for.
Amendment 140 is in line with the recommendation in our stage 1 report that only by ensuring local change will we achieve the aims of the water framework directive. My amendment to set up sub-basin advisory groups is simply consequential to our agreement on the need for sub-basin plans.
A few days ago, we touched on my amendment 139, but we did not really talk about it because it is consequential to amendment 140. Amendment 139, which we have not yet voted on, ensures that the advisory groups on sub-basin plans are included in schedule 2. In summary, amendment 140 sets up sub-basin advisory groups to deliver the aims of the water framework directive at a local level, and amendment 139 ensures that those groups are included in the bill.
I correct Fiona McLeod on an important aspect of river basin management. Although the bill certainly provides for an advisory group, it also provides—more certainly—for advisory groups, which will be established under the provisions that we have already debated. That is the also the case for sub-basin advisory groups. We have lodged six amendments to make that provision explicit.
Executive amendment 63 adds a new subsection to section 17, making it clear that each advisory group will be assigned a remit and that, within that remit, an advisory group can advise on any matter relating to the preparation of the river basin management plan for its district. It provides for a situation in which not all advisory groups will be required to have a pan-district remit. That reflects the policy to which I have just referred, in relation to the Scotland-wide river basin district. We want that provision to extend to sub-river basin districts, so that a network of advisory groups will cover the river basin district. The amendment retains the flexibility to allow for groups with a pan-district remit, which provides for thematic advisory groups—for example, on diffuse pollution, which I mentioned at the previous meeting—to be established where that is useful, in addition to the advisory groups for geographical or catchment-based districts.
Amendment 64 follows on from amendment 63. It provides for SEPA to determine the remit of each advisory group, which will vary according to their establishment.
Amendment 65 stipulates the way in which the remits of the advisory groups are to be fixed. It enables them to be established by reference to sub-basin plans or geographical areas—including catchments—as well as by reference to any other aspect of water management in the river basin district.
The combination of amendments 63, 64 and 65 provides maximum flexibility to ensure that advisory groups can be best used to meet the desire for active participation and involvement in the preparation of the river basin management plan and the sub-basin plans that flow from it.
Amendments 66, 67 and 68 require to be considered together. Importantly, they amend section 17(4) to ensure that SEPA must seek appropriate representation of the interests that are described in section 11(6). The bodies and persons that are named in section 11(6)(a) to (i) bear a resemblance to those that are named in Fiona McLeod's amendment 140, with one important exception that I will speak of later. Amendments 66 to 68 ensure that, in determining the number, membership and remit of advisory groups for each river basin district, SEPA will be referred to section 11(6).
The Executive's amendments represent a significant step forward in ensuring the effectiveness of advisory groups, and provide for the thematic groups that I have described. I recommend that the committee accepts amendments 63 to 68.
Consequently, amendment 133 is unnecessary. It seeks to insert into part 1 of schedule 1 the requirement for a
"summary of the changes made to the plan in light of the advice received under section 17(2)",
which is advice that is given by an advisory group. That is unnecessary, as section 12(2)(b) already requires SEPA, in submitting a river basin management plan to Scottish ministers, to submit an accompanying statement
"containing a summary of the views and representations referred to in subsection (9)"
of section 11
"and of any adjustments made to the plan in light of those views and representations."
More important, perhaps, paragraph 8 of schedule 1 requires every river basin management plan to include a
"summary of the steps taken under subsections (3) to (6) of section 11 in relation to the plan and of changes made to the plan in light of the views and representations received on it."
As advisory groups fall under section 11(6), the information that Nora Radcliffe wants in the river basin management plan will be available. The existing provisions are adequate; therefore amendment 133 is unnecessary.
Amendment 140 is a long amendment that would insert a new section into the bill. The new section would require SEPA or the responsible authority to establish sub-basin advisory groups for each designated sub-basin, which would have the function of advising SEPA on any matter relating to the preparation of the sub-basin plan. In determining the membership of the advisory groups, SEPA would have to ensure appropriate representation from the organisations and interests that are listed in amendment 140.
Although I sympathise—and, indeed, agree—with the intention behind the amendment, I hope that Fiona McLeod will accept that it is no longer necessary in light of the amendments that we have lodged—in particular, amendments 63 to 68. Those Executive amendments will allow advisory groups to be established by reference to sub-basin plans—which, as I have indicated, will cover the entire extent of the river basin district—or to any other aspect of water management within the district, such as sustainable flood management or diffuse pollution.
Amendments 63 to 68 make it clear that SEPA will be required to seek appropriate representation of the interests that are described in section 11(6) when determining the number, membership and remit of advisory groups for each river basin district. In that regard, there is one important distinction between the Executive's intentions and those behind amendment 140. Section 11(6)(h) specifies that the membership shall include
"such persons as appear to SEPA to have an interest in the protection of the water environment within the river basin district,"
which might loosely be described as environmental non-government organisations. Amendment 140 fails to make provision for their inclusion. That is a significant omission, because environmental NGOs should be incorporated within the advisory groups. That sets amendment 140 apart from the Executive's amendments. I remind committee members that our amendments relating to advisory groups should be read in tandem with the amendments on sub-basin plans that we have already lodged.
I hope that the committee will agree that our amendments on those two areas satisfy its concerns about the need to ensure full participation in the river basin management planning process. We combine a geographic approach, which includes a catchment-based approach, with a thematic approach to river basin and sub-river basin planning. Our provision for advisory groups specifies the inclusion of environmental NGOs, whereas amendment 140 fails to specify their inclusion. Therefore, our approach is much better.
I will deal with the minister's point about the involvement of NGOs in the advisory groups. The minister's advisory groups will deal with the whole of the river basin district, which is an all-Scotland situation. Amendment 140 deals with advisory groups for the sub-basin plans. It specifies the involvement of
"such other persons as SEPA thinks fit."
There will be a considerable number of river sub-basin plans for the whole of Scotland. Although it would be great if NGOs could be represented in the advisory groups for all those plans, at this stage of development it would be difficult for them to find enough people. That is why we want to ensure that SEPA can pull in such people as it thinks fit in the circumstances.
There is no conflict between amendment 140 and what the minister is trying to achieve—the provisions complement each other quite well. Rightly, the minister has talked about sub-basin plan areas and thematic responses—his amendments deal with those issues. However, amendment 65 states:
"SEPA may determine the remit of an Advisory Group for any river basin district"
by reference to sub-basin plans. Fiona McLeod's amendment would require advisory groups to be set up for sub-basin plans. That is an important distinction.
I return to the issue of the culture that we are trying to achieve through the directive. Do we, like the minister, seek a process that is based on consultation, or do we seek a process that is based on participation? Through amendment 140, Fiona McLeod is seeking a process that is based on participation. For me, the directive is all about participation—people being involved in the process from beginning to end in a proper, meaningful way. Fiona McLeod's amendment seeks to achieve that. Participation is stronger than consultation.
I welcome the Executive amendments. I hope that they will achieve what we want—a network of sub-basin plans across Scotland that will enable people to become involved locally and will be far more meaningful than the Scotland-wide river basin plan. However, I am not sure whether the Executive amendments alone will achieve that to the extent that we want.
Amendment 133 adds weight to the advice that the advisory groups will give, as it would require river basin management plans to indicate where the advice of an advisory group had been taken. Amendment 140, in the name of Fiona McLeod, makes clear what sort of sub-basin advisory groups we seek. I will press amendment 133.
The question is, that amendment 133 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 133 agreed to.
Amendment 18 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 11—River basin management plans: publicity and consultation
Amendment 99, in the name of Des McNulty, is grouped with amendments 100, 101, 102, 134, 103, 135, 143 and 136. In Des McNulty's absence, it is open to another member to move amendment 99. Angus MacKay has indicated that he wishes to move the amendment. I invite him to do so and to speak to the other amendments in the group.
I will speak briefly to amendments 99, 102 and 143, all of which are in the name of Des McNulty.
All the amendments are straightforward. Amendments 99 and 102 are about how we ensure that the publicising of and consultation on river basin management plans is transparent, and that there is active involvement in the process. I would like to hear whether the minister is prepared to accept the amendments. If not, can he guarantee that the objectives of the amendments will be achieved through another course of action?
Amendment 143 tries to ensure that the publicity and consultation involve not only a range of organisations and interests, but ordinary members of the public, who would be at the sharp end of the consequences of a failure to deliver this policy. Those people should have the opportunity to engage and to have their concerns heard.
I would like to hear the minister's views on those three amendments.
I move amendment 99.
I have sympathy with Des McNulty's amendments, which Angus MacKay spoke to, and I will listen carefully to the minister's response.
I turn to amendment 100. The bill as it stands outlines the process by which SEPA will consult with the bodies that are listed in section 11(6). The bill does a good job of explaining the consultation process: it deals with the measures that are to be taken in preparing a river basin plan, the time periods that are involved, how statements, summaries or draft plans will be published and how comments will be sought. The bill describes a good consultation process, but, to return to a point that I made earlier, it does not describe a process of full participation.
To achieve a participative process, the bodies that are listed in section 11(6) must be involved earlier in the process. SEPA should seek the views of interested parties before it lifts a pen to draft a statement. It is important that interested parties feel part of the process from the beginning, which would have two distinct advantages. First, those parties would have greater ownership of the final outcome and would be more accepting of it. Secondly, SEPA would have a greater understanding and a better perspective, which would ensure that statements, summaries or draft plans better reflected the reality as seen by interested outside bodies.
The intention of amendment 134 is to ensure that the level of publicity that is given to a statement, summary or draft plan is at least equal to that required for structure plans under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The wording of amendment 134 reflects section 8(1)(a) of that act. It is important to ensure that Scottish ministers require the resubmission of a river basin plan under section 12(3) of the bill. At present, there is no standard for publicity, but amendment 134 remedies that.
It is important that water users are consulted as well as those organisations that exist to protect water bodies. That is the aim of amendment 135, which would also support Maureen Macmillan's amendment 27. At this point, I should declare an interest as a farmer because I am thinking primarily of mining, forestry and farming interests. It is important that those interests are consulted because, as the minister has said, much of the cost of implementing the regulations will fall on those groups. In the interests of balance, it is vital that users and consumers of water are represented.
Amendment 136 is a further suggestion to allow as wide a group of people as possible to be consulted. The amendment would give a power to ministers to make suggestions about consultees, should SEPA, for whatever reason, overlook certain individuals or groups.
I agree strongly with Des McNulty's amendments 99, 102 and 143, to which Angus MacKay spoke. It is important that the bill should contain a commitment to the ethos of active participation.
I support Des McNulty's amendment 143. We accept that flooding should be covered in the bill and the amendment would enable bodies such as flood appraisal groups to be part of the process. It is useful for the bill to state that such groups will be included.
I think that section 11(6)(g) already covers the people that John Scott wants to involve through his amendment 135.
Amendment 99, which was moved by Angus MacKay, seeks to amend section 11(1) to include a requirement that the statement to be provided by SEPA, three years before the river basin plan, should include measures to encourage active involvement. I support the incorporation of the principle of the act of involvement in the bill, but I am not sure that amendment 99 represents the best way of doing so. However, I am pleased to accept the amendment in principle and undertake to introduce an appropriate amendment, suitably worded to provide for the encouragement of active involvement, at stage 3. On that basis, I hope that Angus MacKay will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 100, which would require SEPA to have a consultation three years in advance of the actual production of the river basin plan, is unnecessary. The wording in section 11(1) is clear that there will be consultation, and that is emphasised in section 11(5). Therefore, it makes no sense for SEPA to consult in the form of a consultative statement. Much as I am in favour of active involvement, participation and consultation, I hope that Bruce Crawford sees the sense of what I have said and chooses not to move amendment 100. Adequate provision is made for extensive consultation, participation and active involvement of all the persons specified in section 11, from the preparation of the consultation through to the production of the river basin plan.
Amendment 101 has not been spoken to.
Amendment 102 seeks to amplify the provisions of section 11(5)(a) about how SEPA should publicise the statement, summary or draft plan. Again, I do not disagree with the thrust of that amplification, but we must bear in mind that extensive provisions in section 19 give ministers powers to make regulations about that very issue. That said, I am prepared to accept amendment 102 in principle and to bring forward an appropriate amendment at stage 3 that will deliver the purpose of amendment 102, but retain the flexibility to make use of new means of communication, as technology develops, to publicise the statement. That will be in addition to newspapers, because there are other forms of mass media communication that we would incorporate.
Amendment 134 seeks to do similar things to amendment 102, but in a slightly different way. On the basis of the undertaking that I gave in relation to amendment 102, I hope that Bruce Crawford will not move amendment 134. The same applies to amendment 99, in the name of Angus MacKay.
Amendment 103 was not spoken to.
Amendment 135 seeks to amend section 11(6)(h) to include those who have an interest in the use, as well as the protection, of the water environment. Although I support the policy intention behind the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. As Nora Radcliffe pointed out, users of water are adequately covered by section 11(6)(g), as well as by subparagraphs (b), (d) and (e) of that section.
Amendment 143, which Angus MacKay will move, seeks to amend section 11(6) by adding another category of person whom SEPA must consult at various stages in the river basin planning process. That category is those who
"appear to SEPA to have an interest in the promotion of sustainable flood management".
That was supported by Robin Harper, among others. Amendment 143 fits with amendment 109, which, if members recall, we agreed to last week. Amendment 143 is sensible and I am happy to support it.
I should say that by
"persons as appear to SEPA to have an interest in the promotion of sustainable flood management"
we envisage that SEPA would have to consult other public agencies and representational groups, but we would not want to burden SEPA with having to consult individual householders in an area that has been affected by flooding. With that caveat, I recommend that the committee accept amendment 143.
Amendment 136 is unnecessary. The provisions of section 11 and the rest of part 1 are structured to make it clear that the responsibility to ensure that there is effective involvement and consultation rests with SEPA, therefore it should be for SEPA to determine who else should be consulted. The check that John Scott seeks is provided by the powers in section 19, which I have referred to, which enable ministers to make regulations covering consultation and active involvement.
May I ask the minister for clarification on one of the amendments that he said he is accepting in principle?
Certainly.
On amendment 102, in the name of Des McNulty, the minister said that he accepts the principles of publishing documents and placing notices. Des McNulty has worded the amendment to include "the river basin district", which covers the whole of Scotland. Amendment 102 states that notices are to be published in at least one local newspaper. I hope that the minister agrees that it is inadequate to publish in the Milngavie & Bearsden Herald what he expects everybody in Scotland to read. I hope that there will be more extensive coverage than is required by the amendment.
The short answer is yes, there will be. That is one of the weaknesses that we identified with amendment 102. The use of new mass-communication technology would supplement and complement the provision of the information in the newspaper medium.
I seek a helpful answer before we get to amendment 100, which I will have to move if I do not hear some firm information from the minister. The intent behind amendment 100 is to ensure that there are no unpleasant surprises from SEPA when the draft statement or summary is put to the interested parties. Does the minister accept that he could lodge an amendment to address that situation in a more successful way—in his opinion—than I have done?
I will consider that. The advisory groups that are referred to in section 17 will provide for full and active participation. I would expect those groups to provide advice in the process. If our proposals are accepted and all the people who are listed in section 11(6), at river basin and sub river basin level, are incorporated, there will be more than adequate provision for the active involvement of, and participation in consultation by, all those interests, including environmental NGOs, in the sub-river basin planning process.
Sorry, I do not want to have a conversation on this point, but that will occur after the documents have been drawn up. I am trying to ensure that the advisory groups and those with an interest who are listed in the bill will be involved in drafting the documents. If the minister could consider that, that would help.
We have given consideration to that. I thought that I had made it clear that it is not the case that the advisory groups would be involved in advance of the preparation and publication of the original consultative draft. There is no need to consult on a consultative draft.
Okay, thanks.
I am happy to accept the minister's views on amendment 99 and welcome his intent to submit an alternative proposal. His comments about amendment 102 make sense for the broader media, and I intend to press amendment 143, with which the minister is comfortable.
Amendment 99, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 100 moved—[Bruce Crawford].
The question is, that amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 100 disagreed to.
Amendments 101 and 102 not moved.
Given the minister's assurances to Angus MacKay that other amendments will be lodged, I will not move amendment 134.
Amendment 134 not moved.
Amendments 103 and 135 not moved.
Amendment 143 moved—[Angus MacKay]—and agreed to.
Amendment 136 not moved.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Section 12—River basin management plans: submission for approval
Amendment 137 is grouped with amendments 104, 144, 145, 138, 105 and 146.
Amendment 137 would give SEPA a degree of latitude with its timescales for the publication of plans. I am interested to hear the minister's views on that. Amendment 138 was lodged in the spirit of openness in order that the public can see that the Executive's approach to rejecting plans is reasonable and can stand up to scrutiny. Publishing the reasons behind decisions to reject plans may help others to avoid making similar mistakes.
I move amendment 137.
Amendments 104, 144, 145 and 146 are in the name of Des McNulty.
It is important that integration of river basin plans and sub-basin plans be delivered with the other planning frameworks, and amendment 104 would provide for that. Amendment 144 is slightly different. There are currently no appeal or scrutiny procedures for river basin management plans. An "examination in public" facility is available for structure plans. It has not been used widely, but the Executive has recommended that, as part of the proposals that are outlined in the review of strategic planning, it become mandatory for strategic development plans.
The process that is proposed in amendment 144 would allow ministers to consider objections or concerns that were lodged by those participating in the process of river basin management plans without such objectors having to resort to legal challenges. Amendment 144's proposal would fill a gap in the bill's appeals process. I think that someone queried whether the bill would be compliant with the European convention on human rights if it did not have an appeal mechanism.
No member wants to speak to amendment 145, which is in Des McNulty's name. Therefore, I ask Angus MacKay to speak to amendment 146.
On a point of order, convener. I want to understand what is happening. We are jumping to amendment 146, but according to the list, amendment 105 precedes amendment 146.
I am taking all Des McNulty's amendments together. Nora Radcliffe wanted to speak to two of them and Angus MacKay wants to speak to one of them. I will come to you next.
Okay. I understand.
I will not detain Bruce Crawford for long.
Amendment 146 seeks to delete part of section 13 to try to ensure clear opportunities for access to information by members of the public and organisations and so to have as much transparency and public involvement in the process as possible.
I would be grateful for the minister's comments on amendment 146. I acknowledge that part of the amendment bears an uncanny resemblance to an earlier amendment about which he made a point about other media. He might want to repeat that point and to develop it in respect of the rest of the amendment.
I hope that the intent of amendment 105 is clear. I think that we all expect the river basin management plan to be a hugely significant document for Scotland. The plan will deal with a wide range of issues, from environmental and economic impacts to issues around watercourses throughout Scotland. Given the plan's significance to Scotland, amendment 105 would ensure that, as part of the approval process, ministers would lay the plan before Parliament. That would ensure transparency, accountability and the involvement of Parliament; it would also strengthen the role of parliamentary scrutiny and, given the plan's importance to Scotland, enhance democracy. I hope that the minister will be able to accept amendment 105 as a reasonable amendment.
I will deal first with amendment 105. We would not make express provision for its proposals in the bill, but ministers would inevitably do what amendment 105 wants them to do. Amendment 137 is also unnecessary; it would amend section 12(1) to require SEPA to publicise both its submission of the plan to ministers and the plan within a reasonable time from the time of the submission. However, section 12(1) already provides that SEPA must ensure that publicity is given as soon as it has submitted the plan. I argue that sooner is better than later in that context and so I cannot support amendment 137.
Nor can I support amendment 104, which Nora Radcliffe spoke to, which seeks to require SEPA to prepare and submit a report about how the plan integrates with wider policies of ministers
"in relation to planning, agriculture and water"
at the same time as SEPA submits the plan to ministers. That would put SEPA in an invidious position. It is not for SEPA to ensure that ministers' wider policies integrate with the plan—that is ministers' responsibility. The general duties in section 2, which we discussed at length, are the mechanism to ensure that our overall policy framework will comply with the river basin management plan.
Section 16 plays an important role and we have discussed it extensively. That section will ensure that Scottish ministers, SEPA, and every public body and office holder of every public body must have regard to the river basin management plan when exercising functions that affect their river basin district. That is the mechanism by which we will ensure that all those bodies work together for the effective functioning of river basin planning. As if that were not enough, I remind members that we passed Robin Harper's amendment 30—against my advice—which inserts a requirement that Scottish ministers, SEPA and the responsible authorities ensure that an integrated approach is followed when they perform their duties under the relevant enactments. There are three precise means by which we will ensure that that integrated approach is followed and it is not for SEPA to ensure that ministers' wider policies integrate with the plan—that is our responsibility.
John Scott's amendment 138 seeks to change one word in section 12(4) to the effect that ministers would have to publish rather than to state their reasons for returning the plan to SEPA. Amendment 138 is unnecessary because in that context, "state" means the same as "publish". The amendment would involve making the reasons available publicly. If we state what those reasons are, they are publicly available, so we reject amendment 138 on those grounds.
Amendment 145 was not spoken to.
Amendment 144 seeks to amend section 12 by adding two new subsections that would give Scottish ministers the power to require the holding of an examination in public in respect of views and representations about the river basin management plan that have not led to adjustments in the plan. That would happen when the ministers received the plan, but before the stage at which they had the chance to return the plan to SEPA for further work in terms of section 12(5). Ministers would also be given the power to make regulations about the procedures to be followed in such an examination. When we considered amendment 144, I examined the provisions of sections 12(3) and 13(2), to which I refer members now. As members will note, section 12(3) enables ministers to return the plan to SEPA if they believe that further consultation requires to be conducted and to direct SEPA on the steps that must be taken.
In addition, section 13(2) provides wide powers for ministers to seek further information, conduct investigations and consult further before deciding whether to approve a plan. Therefore, on the basis of sections 12(3) and 13(2), amendment 144 is unnecessary.
We should be clear about the procedure for submission and approval of river basin management plans. After SEPA and its partners in the river basin planning process have drawn up the plan, SEPA will be required to submit the plan to ministers with a statement setting out how it has involved and consulted others and what changes to the plan have been made in the light of that consultation and active participation. If ministers believe that further consultation is required, they can return the plan to SEPA and ask for that consultation to be done. Ministers can then approve the plan as it stands, approve it with modifications, or reject the plan and return it to SEPA. Before they do that, ministers can use the provisions of section 13(2) to seek information, to investigate or to consult on the submitted plan. I am sure that members agree that the process is comprehensive.
Provisions in sections 12(3) and 13(2), which empower ministers, are extensive and comprehensive. An examination in public could already have been held by ministers under section 13(2). As a consequence, there is no need for amendment 144.
As I have said, section 19 contains extensive powers for ministers to make regulations about how the plan is put together and about the approval process. I assure the committee that more than sufficient provision is made in all those sections to cover the policy intent behind amendment 144.
Another difficulty with amendment 144 is that it would restrict public examination to issues in relation to which views have been expressed but
"in respect of which adjustments to the plan have not been made".
The effect of that would be that an examination in public would be constrained to the issues in dispute. I can envisage—as I am sure can the committee—circumstances in which ministers might want to see an examination of issues beyond those that might have been in dispute. The examination would be required to look at the whole picture. Under amendment 144, the examination could not consider the whole plan. The provisions in sections 12(3) and 13(2) are more than adequate for that purpose.
Another difficulty with amendment 144 is the sequence of the examination in public for which it would provide. It would provide for the examination to take place after the plan and the statement had been submitted, but before ministers had had the chance to return the plan to SEPA for further action, if that is what they wish to do, under section 12(3). If members think about it, that does not make sense. Section 13(2) would provide for the investigation to take place after the plan had been submitted to ministers and they were satisfied that no further work on it by SEPA was required. That is a more logical and chronological sequence of events.
Amendment 146, to which Angus MacKay spoke, bears more than a passing resemblance to the amendment that we discussed in the previous section. Its intention is to strengthen the duty that will be placed on SEPA to encourage public knowledge of the approved river basin management plan and to allow general access to the approved plans. Similar arguments to those that we employed in the previous debate apply to this one.
I ask Angus MacKay not to move amendment 146, on the basis that we will lodge a suitable amendment that will do all that and, in addition, provide for copies of the plan to be available for sale at a reasonable price—that is an important point—to enable public consumption of the plan. As with amendment 102, amendment 146 is unduly prescriptive about the means by which the publication of a plan will be made known—again, I refer to the issue of notices being placed in national or local newspapers. We have the same concerns about utilising new technology and more user-friendly means of mass communication. We will produce an amendment that will provide for all those things to ensure that the plan is on sale at a reasonable price and that there is wider electronic distribution. We will pick up the points that have been made about newspapers.
The minister said that ministers would inevitably do the things that I am trying to achieve with amendment 105. Does that mean that he supports my amendment?
I think that the minister said that he did not support your amendment and that it was unnecessary. Can the minister confirm that?
I said that it was unnecessary. The drafting would not work very well either. I am giving Bruce Crawford the policy assurance that he seeks that ministers would inevitably do what amendment 105 wants them to do.
The present minister might do that, but another minister might not.
I want to press the minister on the matter. Surely the laying of the river basin management plan before the Parliament is inevitable only if that is stipulated in the act. Can the minister refer to another provision in the bill that will ensure that the inevitability of parliamentary scrutiny will be achieved?
I undertake to bring that forward.
If I may, I ask the minister how he defines a reasonable cost for a published river basin management plan. I will withdraw amendment 137 and not move 138 on the basis of what the minister said.
Amendment 137, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 104 not moved.
In the light of the minister's assurance that a mechanism for appeal exists for those who are not satisfied with river basin management plans, I will not move amendment 144.
Amendment 144 not moved.
Amendments 145 and 138 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
Section 13—River basin management plans: approval
Amendment 105 moved—[Bruce Crawford].
The question is, that amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Abstentions
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 105 disagreed to.
Amendment 146 not moved.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
Section 15—Sub-basin plans
The next group of amendments consists of two amendments to amendment 147, which has already been debated. Given that there was some confusion over such amendments last week, I will explain to members how we will proceed with the debate so that they know when they will have the opportunity to contribute.
I will first ask the minister to move amendment 147, but not speak to it, because it has already been debated. I will then call Nora Radcliffe to speak to her amendments to amendment 147 and move amendment 147A. Other members will then be able to speak in the general debate, after which I will ask the minister to respond to the amendments to amendment 147 and Nora Radcliffe to respond to the whole debate. Are members clear about the procedure that I intend to follow?
Yes.
I also point out that, if amendment 147 is agreed to, amendment 46 will be pre-empted and will not be called.
Amendment 147 moved—[Allan Wilson].
Amendment 147A is grouped with amendment 147B.
I welcome amendment 147. Amendment 147A relates to how we define sub-basin plans or areas. For those to be meaningful, we should think in terms of catchments or groups of catchments that would form a geographical area. It would be helpful to define a "geographical area" as a catchment, as I propose in amendment 147A. The argument against doing so is that such a definition could not pick up thematic plans. However, it seems to me that the thematic plans could be picked up under the overarching river basin management plan. It is important that the sub-basin areas should be clearly defined as catchments. We cannot have geographical areas that may or may not be a catchment or catchments; if we did, we would lose the whole force of the holistic intention of the water framework directive.
Amendment 147B simply seeks to ensure that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is required to provide the maps that define the sub-basin areas, so that people are clear about what the sub-basin areas are. Those are the reasons for my two amendments to what is a very welcome Executive amendment.
I move amendment 147A.
Do other members want to speak to the amendments?
I want to ask the minister one small thing. Will the minister assure me that thematic plans and catchment plans are not mutually exclusive?
If no other members wish to speak in the open debate, I call the minister to respond.
I can give Maureen Macmillan an absolute assurance that thematic plans and catchment plans are not mutually exclusive. Our proposed thematic plans, which would cover sustainable flood management, would be complementary to the river basin management plans or sub-basin plans. That is important, because the plans take forward our provision for the promotion of sustainable flood management both nationally and in each catchment/geographical area.
I welcome Nora Radcliffe's support for amendment 147, but I cannot support her amendments to it. Let me explain why, because the issue is important. I do not dispute that the geographical area would not be a catchment or catchment based. However, another option under consideration is the creation of a system of compulsory sub-basin plans that would consist of catchments inland, with coastal waters being divided separately into sensible management units. Members will, I am sure, accept that coastal waters are not always sensibly divided on the basis of catchments—the Minch is probably the best example that we can think of in that context. Forcing coastal waters into a catchment or catchment-based approach would not be helpful. We want to give SEPA the flexibility to develop its planning on a catchment/geographical basis to include the coastal waters.
Quite apart from that, a technical difficulty with amendment 147A is that it would require river basin districts to be subdivided into catchments. River basin districts extend 3 miles offshore and include coastal waters, whereas "catchment" seems to us to be a land-based concept. If amendment 147A was accepted, we are not certain that SEPA would be able to allocate coastal waters to appropriate catchments. In order to have an integrated approach to river basin and sub-basin planning management, we require to make provision for coastal waters because, among other things, such provision is important for sustainable flood management and for the problems of diffuse pollution in coastal areas. That means that the concept must extend beyond a simple catchment or catchments approach. We need to use the term "geographical" precisely to provide for our coastal zonal management.
Amendment 147B is also problematic, in that it would mean that a sub-basin plan area would need to be identified on the map that is required under section 4(4)—if members can cast their mind back to the debate that we had on that subsection. That would be effectively unworkable and overly restrictive. The amendment would require sub-basin boundaries to be fixed at the same time as the boundaries of the river basin district are fixed. We know where the prospective boundaries of the river basin are so, in that sense, amendment 147B is premature.
A more important consideration is that amendment 147B does not provide for flexibility to adjust sub-basin boundaries in light of subsequent experience. That will be important. In addition, Scottish ministers prepare the section 4(4) plan, whereas SEPA sets up the sub-basin areas, so I do not see how the ministers can identify the sub-basin areas in the section 4(4) plan. Clearly, the two things do not match. We should not confuse the sub-basin plan areas, which are designated by SEPA, with the river basin districts, which are designated by ministers. The two things are different.
I presume that, with amendment 147B, Nora Radcliffe is seeking the publication of a map that shows the sub-basin districts as and when they are agreed. I am happy to concede to that, but it should not be done under section 4(4), because that refers to the river basin district and not to sub-basin districts.
I hope that the committee will accept amendment 147 but I cannot accept the two amendments to that amendment for the reasons that I have given.
Thank you, minister. Nora, will you respond to the debate and indicate whether you wish to press or withdraw amendment 147A?
I accept the technical arguments that the wording would not deliver the holistic answer that we are all trying to get at. I would still be happier if there were some way of indicating geographical areas and whole river systems with their coastal adjuncts, but I do not know whether there is a way of doing that tidily. I accept that amendments 147A and 147B do not achieve what I want, but perhaps we can put our heads together and see whether there is a way of making the issue explicit at stage 3. We have had a useful discussion and, in light of what the minister has said, I will not press my amendments.
Amendment 147A, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 147B not moved.
Amendment 147 agreed to.
As I indicated, amendment 147 pre-empts amendment 46. I will therefore proceed to amendment 59. At this point, I indicate to members that I do not intend to call any more debates on groups of amendments today, as we have other business to conduct. However, I hope that we can get through a series of votes so that we can conclude today's business.
Amendments 59, 148, 149 and 150 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 139 is in the name of Fiona McLeod. If amendment 139 is agreed to, amendment 61 will be pre-empted and so will not be called.
Why would amendment 139 pre-empt amendment 61? I want to understand what is going on.
Amendment 139 seeks to leave out section 15(3), to which amendment 61 subsequently refers.
Thank you.
Amendment 139 moved—[Fiona McLeod].
The question is, that amendment 139 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Abstentions
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 139 disagreed to.
Amendments 61 and 62 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
After section 15
Amendment 140 moved—[Fiona McLeod].
The question is, that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Can I have a minute to consider?
No, you can either vote or abstain.
I am in favour of the amendment. I do not wish to abstain; I want to vote for the amendment.
Votes in favour have already been taken. You are too late.
Abstentions
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 140 disagreed to.
Section 16—Duty to have regard to river basin management plans
Amendment 106 not moved.
Section 16 agreed to.
Section 17—River Basin District Advisory Groups
Amendments 63 to 68 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Before section 18
Amendment 107 moved—[Bruce Crawford].
The question is, that amendment 107 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 107 disagreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
Section 19—General regulation-making power
Amendment 69 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
Section 20—Regulation of controlled activities
Amendment 47 was discussed with amendment 32.
Amendment 47 moved—[Nora Radcliffe].
The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 47 agreed to.
Amendment 141 not moved.
Amendment 48 was also debated with amendment 32.
Convener, amendments 48 to 54 are consequential to amendment 32. Do you want me to move them en bloc?
We are not taking them all together. We would prefer to take them individually.
Amendment 48 moved—[Nora Radcliffe].
The question is, that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 48 agreed to.
Amendment 49 moved—[Nora Radcliffe].
The question is, that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 49 agreed to.
Amendment 50 moved—[Nora Radcliffe].
The question is, that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 50 agreed to.
That brings us to the end of our consideration of amendments today. Next week, we will start with amendment 70, which concerns the regulation of controlled activities. I hope that we will be able to conclude our consideration of the bill at next week's meeting. I thank the minister and the Executive officials for their attendance and their contribution to the meeting.
The next item is preparation for consideration of agenda item 5. We will move into private session and return to discuss the Cairngorms national park issue in public in a few minutes. Members of the press and public who are interested in that issue should not wander too far away.
Meeting continued in private.
Meeting continued in public.