Official Report 279KB pdf
I welcome members and our first panel of witnesses to this meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee. Willie Halcrow and Martin Marsden are from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and are here to give evidence on the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill, which the committee is considering at stage 1. We will give the panellists the opportunity to make an opening statement. Members will then follow different lines of questioning. I believe that Willie Halcrow will make the opening statement on behalf of SEPA.
Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence to the committee. Our opening statement will be short. We have said much on the subject before.
Thank you for that opening statement. The first question is from John Scott.
Are you happy that the bill integrates with other Scottish Executive strategies on agriculture and forestry and with the development of an aquaculture strategy? Are the links with the developing European marine, soil and integrated coastal zone management strategies clear?
The bill requires that ministers and all public authorities take account of the requirements of river basin district planning. We believe that that will allow full integration with all other policy areas. It is perhaps a higher level of policy, which is not for SEPA but for the Executive, but we believe that, with careful implementation, the provision will succeed in achieving integration.
Are you happy with the way in which the bill treats agriculture and forestry?
Another important point is that the basin planning process that the bill introduces will provide a forum to allow integration to happen. It is difficult for legislation to prescribe how policies should interact, but the bill provides us with a national forum to discuss how national priorities should be incorporated into setting environmental objectives for the water environment.
How does the bill interact with the emerging European regimes for coastal zone management and soil?
We think that the process that is starting off in Scotland is entirely compatible with the process of river basin management planning; we think that they will support each other. We see coastal zone management as a process that will manage a component of the water environment, for which the basin planning process will be generally responsible. Coastal zone management can identify many of the important issues associated with coasts and can feed that information into the basin planning process. That is a valuable link.
Mr Halcrow used the word "hopefully" in relation to integration with planning. Does he agree that, if the bill does not provide for integration between all land-use policies and all water-use policies, there is a strong danger that different branches of the Executive will end up working against each other?
Does Maureen Macmillan want to come in on a similar point?
I have a similar point about, in particular, agriculture and aquaculture. There are perhaps two problems in agriculture: diffuse pollution and the maintenance or restoration of marshes and flood plains. As far as I can see, unless we quickly do something about our agriculture policy—the common agricultural policy reforms are in the offing—we will not achieve an integrated approach to river basin management. I am also keen that we regulate aquaculture as quickly as possible. That means that we must transfer planning powers in relation to the Crown Estate to the local authority. That is not in the bill. Is there a lack of power in that respect?
I will first deal with Robin Harper's point about my use of the word "hopefully". I said "hopefully" only in so far as the bill is not yet an act—we hope that it will become an act. We believe that proper integration will require a great deal of thought and work by us all. It is very early to say how everything will work. As we said, integration at national level is perhaps a matter for the Executive. We hope that production of river basin district plans—or a single plan—will bring things together in such a way that water takes it proper place among all the other priorities. It is essential that that should happen. We will have to wait until we see the plan to confirm whether it has, but we believe that the foundations of the necessary mechanisms are there to allow it to.
On integration with aquaculture, the basin planning process will provide the objectives and those objectives will drive the regulatory regimes. We believe that that interaction will work quite well. The normal regulatory process for controlling aquacultural activity is linked to basin planning. That link seems relatively straightforward.
All the evidence that we have taken suggests that SEPA should be the lead organisation in implementing the bill. Are you confident that you can deliver?
We have every confidence that we can deliver the bill. It is difficult to see the way ahead beyond 2006, as we have much to learn before then. We believe that, by that time, SEPA will have all the resources, skills and external relationships to implement the bill successfully. We have some 40 people working on the technical aspects of the bill and we are progressing into more critical matters, such as how SEPA will relate to all the other parties to make the bill successful. We have no doubts.
My question follows on nicely. I had planned to ask about the time scales for your new staff. Did you say that you are working towards 2006?
Yes. The reason for choosing 2006 is that the water framework directive binds the United Kingdom, and therefore Scotland, to produce a pressures and impact report by 2004. By 2006, the monitoring regime must be in place to establish the basic facts that underlie any action. Those two immediate milestones drive us. As I said, they are well in hand. We have some 40 people working on those matters.
That is interesting. By the end of today, we will know the answer to my next question. Do you have the necessary resources? You say that you have made the case for the resources that you need.
That is correct. We made the case and we hope that we will receive those resources. Any public sector body has general resource issues, but the bill is so vital that we have already diverted resources towards it. We have no doubts about the matter.
I was interested that you said that 40 people are working on technical aspects. One concern that has been expressed to us is about whether SEPA, as an environmental regulator, will cope with considering the social and economic impacts of the water framework directive. Do you think that it will?
Yes. We are a regulator and a main plank of our work is assessing environmental quality. We already work closely with local communities and local authorities. We took the opportunity of our restructuring last year to create units that we dispersed throughout Scotland. Their primary tasks are to face and interrelate with local authorities and to address overlapping issues, such as air quality, contaminated land and land-use planning.
On our skills base for assessing economic issues, we should point out that by 2004 we will have to have produced a report on the economic issues that are associated with the water environment, as well as the environmental issues. Scotland has to produce those two major reports. That will be important in ensuring that we develop our skills base for dealing with economic and social issues. It will be the first stepping-stone leading towards basin planning. In bringing together those views of the economic and social issues and of the environmental issues, we will allow the basin planning process to proceed.
I will pursue the financial aspect. We have been concerned about whether there is a conflict in the fact that SEPA will act as both a regulator and a policy setter. What is your view on that? SEPA is funded according to the principle of cost recovery and the Executive has said that it would like SEPA increasingly to move in that direction. I wonder whether the cost recovery principle fits in with the policy advisory role that SEPA will have to take on.
The policy and practice issue occurs in all the regimes that we regulate already. Our division between the two elements is simple. Policy is a matter for the Executive and we provide technical support. We also make suggestions to the Executive when we think that new measures are required. It is for Government to set policy.
I was thinking about the issue in relation to the development of river basin management planning, in which your role is not merely regulatory. Your function is to consider what the big idea is and to set the objectives.
Good ecological status is one of the many things that the directive requires of us. The objectives are set with that in mind. There is considerable scope within the objectives for consideration of such issues as how waters are classified. Decisions on those issues will produce the objectives that drive expenditure. That is a planning process. It will not be SEPA's role to say, "Here are our objectives." We expect that the objectives will emerge through the process. Any plan requires ministerial approval—there are checks and balances.
No one doubts the good intentions of SEPA or of the bill. We are faced with an enabling bill, which will be followed up with various pieces of secondary legislation that will give effect to some aspects of the bill. I am interested in whether SEPA has carried out any kind of practical assessment of how it will operate the charging regime that it will have to implement, for example. Do you have a model for how that will work? Have you identified areas of difficulty? I presume that you will advise the Executive on the practical issues as well as on the policy issues. Have you carried out such work?
I did not quite complete my answer to Ms McLeod's question, which dealt with how the funds are raised. At the moment, in any licensing or control regime, SEPA is required by statute to recover its costs—only those costs that are directly relevant—through a charging scheme that is approved by the minister.
I want to come in with a supplementary question. I will allow Des McNulty and Fiona McLeod to come back in after that.
I think that Mr Marsden can answer that question better, because he will have the detail that is required. The up-front costs that are referred to are those that we hope will be dealt with through the current spending review. We are very certain of our needs until 2006, but once the new process begins, we will all have much to learn. At that point, we could be less certain. We are bound to ensure that our own costs are minimal. We also fully intend to minimise the costs to any water user.
By the end of the current spending round, we think that we will need an additional £2.5 million to allow us to deliver what is required. I return to the point that Willie Halcrow made, which is to emphasise the fact that this is the second spending review in which we have made a bid under the water framework directive. As I remember it, the previous bid that we made reached the maximum of £1.7 million. Our forward projection on that bid was entirely accurate. We were able to do what we had proposed to do with the money. We anticipate that the projection for the current spending round will be equally successful in respect of delivering what is necessary under the water framework directive.
The issue is fairly concrete. We are talking about participation and the involvement of business and other interests. Have you had practical discussions with business about charging regimes and how they will operate? Is business participating in the process? I assume that that would be appropriate.
As Willie Halcrow said, we have begun to think about the charging scheme. By December, we should have a provisional view of the options and issues. By the beginning of next year, we intend to start a dialogue on the creation of the charging scheme. We have not talked to industry specifically about the details of the scheme, but we intend to do so. At present, rather than identifying the options, we are identifying the issues that we must consider in designing a charging scheme. I think that industry will be satisfied with the process.
You say that you have not talked to industry, but that industry will welcome the additional cost burden simply because it is transparent. That is somewhat naive.
Industry recognises that changes in the environmental regime in Scotland are necessary. For example, it is clear that abstraction controls must be introduced. We cannot continue without such controls because we are under pressure from Europe over our failure to control abstractions in certain sectors. Given that additional costs are inevitable, industry welcomes the process, which ensures industry's involvement in setting the objectives.
That is different from welcoming the costs.
Yes. I did not mean that industry looks forward to spending money, although it recognises that that is inevitable. Industry welcomes the fact that the bill will involve it in setting objectives. Until now, setting of objectives on the water environment has been internal to SEPA and industry has not seen objectives until they have been issued. In future, that will be different.
You said that setting the objectives is a policy matter for the Executive.
No. That is not quite what we meant. We meant that Government will set the general policy context. By objectives, we meant standards for particular rivers. Those standards will not be determined by Government, but by the basin planning process. Setting the standards for particular rivers will become an objective process and will no longer happen behind closed doors. Industry will have input to those discussions.
I will let Fiona McLeod come in, because I realise that several of us have been hogging the supplementaries.
My question follows on from previous questions. Martin Marsden said that public authorities should be clear of the costs of the WFD until after 2006, but he also said that SEPA does not yet have a charging regime. How can organisations such as Scottish Water know how much the WFD will cost them if they do not know how much they will be charged?
The current projection is that the regulatory regimes will not be introduced until some time in 2005. It is possible that additional costs may come in at the end of 2005, but it is more likely that they will come in much later than that. The regulatory regimes will start in 2005, when we will progressively license activities. Most of that licensing will be to identify work that is required by 2012. Therefore, the actual capital costs will not come in until much later, but the cost recovery of regulatory costs will build up during the latter half of 2005 and into 2006.
Finally, is cost recovery still the most appropriate way to fund the new regime in the new landscape of which SEPA will be part?
There are always arguments about cost recovery for what is seen as a public service, but the principle that the polluter pays—that those who make use of the environment, whether by discharge or by extraction, should pay for the administrative costs of their regulation—is well established. The principle sits reasonably well, so it seems sensible to use it in future, not so much because we are used to it but because it works and is well understood.
Most of us would endorse the principle that the polluter pays, but that principle is obviously much easier to apply in tackling point-source pollution than in dealing with pollution from diverse sources. How can that circle be squared?
That is a very difficult question. Obviously, every one of us contributes to diffuse pollution.
I cannot add much to what Willie Halcrow said. A small working group is considering charging schemes and we are trying to think through options for diffuse pollution, but we will not have a large list at the end of the year. I think that we will sit down with the industrial sectors and say that things are clear in respect of point-source pollution, abstraction, impoundment and engineering, but that they are much more difficult in respect of diffuse pollution. For diffuse pollution, cost recovery mechanisms will have to wait until we see the regulatory tools that are developed. Once they are developed, it will be much easier to understand what cost recovery means in respect of diffuse pollution.
Given the costs that have been projected, it is clear that there must be a mechanism for dealing with costs that arise from diffuse pollution. From what you have said, I am not clear how that will be done.
It would be wrong to say that we are clear about the matter. There are two cost elements. With diffuse pollution, remediation costs are difficult to see. As Martin Marsden said, we must see how regulation develops and examine the regulatory mechanisms that will exist, which may give a guide as to how costs could be recovered.
I want to move on; we are far behind with our questions. Robin Harper has the next question.
I have some questions about river basin management planning. SEPA's written evidence states:
I think that the bill and the directive behind it demand that we do so. It is important that we are close to the land-use development planning process, that things interact effectively and that the three key principal factors—social, economic and environmental—are brought together so that we are successful.
The policy memorandum gives us indications of what the regulatory regimes will be like. We will have new tools that will allow us to take proportionate action and that will ensure cost effectiveness. We will not have to license everything. Things that do not have an environmental impact will just be registered. General binding rules will be used as an intermediate tool between licensing. That is one mechanism that will deliver cost effectiveness.
You want between three and nine smaller regional components under the national plan. Are you suggesting a three-tier system with a national river basin district or three to nine regional bodies and sub-basin plans at a lower level? Should SEPA be required to implement sub-basin plans rather than just having the power to do so?
SEPA's original proposal was that there be three river basin districts for Scotland not simply because that mirrored the way in which SEPA administered itself—which has, in any case, changed—but because we felt that those would be small enough to allow for the vital feeling of local identity and would give people units that they can recognise and want to participate in. Such units would also be large enough to operate as effective planning units. However, all our consultees said that they would prefer to have only one river basin district—we respect that. In acknowledging that it is likely that there will be only one, we believe that it will be necessary to have between three and nine sub-basin plans if we are to create that feeling of local identity. Those sub-basin plans would feed up into a national river basin district plan. That arrangement has some advantages.
Should you be required to implement the sub-basin plans or just have the power to do so?
The logic of the situation will emerge. Rather than having prescriptive legislation that says that the future will take one form and everyone must stick to it, the permissive power—combined with consultation, advice and direction that SEPA will receive—will give the optimum solution. It is worth bearing it in mind, however, that nothing is necessarily forever. We will learn a great deal during the process: the structure that we have a few years from now is not necessarily what we will have 20 years from now.
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution said that the confusion and fatigue that is engendered by the large number of plans that are produced by various bodies at different times might make the environmental planning system less effective than it could otherwise be. How can there be synergy between various plans and strategies if they have differing review types?
As it so often does, the royal commission has made a good point. Over-consultation and lack of participation are big issues. It is sometimes difficult to engage with the public and with other bodies. Such factors might be among the determinants in a number of sub-basin plans. The process must not be burdensome and bureaucratic. We must ensure that we engage the population before we ask them to participate. I am not saying that we should market the benefits, but we should ensure that the population knows what they might be and how they might affect them.
In the light of your answer, do you think that it would be better for SEPA to be required to implement the sub-basin plans rather than simply to have the power to do so?
Martin Marsden is ready to answer, but I will answer first. We believe that Scottish legislation is generally permissive and that there is a more evolutionary process. We also believe that, prior to compelling, it is sometimes better to allow evolution and growth. We would prefer the provision simply to be permissive, rather than compel us.
We acknowledge the danger of consultation fatigue. One of the ways in which we hope to deal with that is to work with local authorities. We consider that to be important, because local authorities have a lot of experience in consultation. As far as possible, we will try to ensure that our consultation processes link in with theirs.
In your submission, you say that you consider advisory groups to be central to river basin plans. Will they have any teeth? Why should interested stakeholders seek ownership of an organisation in which they feel they will have no power?
Basin planning will build up a process that will require involvement. As we envisage the process, sub-basin planning—in which the advisory groups will be involved—will end up making the decisions that will inform the ultimate basin plan.
I question that view. The advisory groups cannot make the decisions and I question whether they will feel compelled or hugely motivated to give advice when, as you said, the policy, objectives and Europe will call the tune.
That will be the case only at high policy level, but not on what will happen with the river in which an advisory group is interested.
Are you saying that the users of a river basin will be able to make up their own laws?
No. The ultimate decision will rest with SEPA and ministers—in that order: SEPA will be responsible for producing the plan and ministers will decide whether the plan is appropriate. However, the participatory process that leads to that decision will be valuable.
Mr Scott asked, I think, why an advisory group would own an organisation when they had no power to influence it. I would like to think that advisory groups will be able to feel that they own the plan because it relates to them and that they own the objectives because they have been arrived at by consensus. Such a consensus may be driven from the top down—the fact that all of Scotland should have good-quality waters, for example—but there is a great deal of scope for determining at local level how and how quickly objectives are achieved.
Yesterday, the Finance Committee said that the bill should not go beyond stage 1, because its costings are not thought through.
I must correct the member. The Finance Committee did not say that the bill should not proceed beyond stage 1; it said that the Transport and the Environment Committee should consider its concerns before deciding whether to recommend that the general principles of the bill be approved.
I thank the convener for that correction.
As we have said, the costings up to and including 2006 are essentially administrative and are well known. They relate to data formation, reporting and data gathering. Beyond 2006, the downstream costs—the most vital costs, which impact on water users—can emerge only as the plan emerges. There are cost projections, which Martin Marsden can explain in greater detail. Those costs cover a wide envelope and are less well known. We made the point that early implementation of the controls will allow business and the public sector to prepare for the directive carefully and over time, so that overall downstream costs are minimised. Those costs could be phased over a number of years to minimise their immediate cash impact.
Do you accept that that statement will not exactly fill with confidence a potential investor who is considering bringing an industry to Scotland?
I will perhaps leave that to Martin Marsden.
I will make two brief points. First, it is clear that the benefits for Scotland will outweigh the costs. Secondly, I believe that the policy implications of the water framework directive have been well thought out. Throughout Europe, all the European Union states and the accession states are going through the same process. Scotland has a good reputation for the progress it has made in thinking through the implications of the directive.
Are you happy with the bill's definitions of pollution and substances? Are they as clear as they could be? If not, do you have issues to raise with us?
I am perfectly content with the bill's definitions, but Martin Marsden might have more detailed comments to make.
The issue that is typically raised in this context is whether sea lice should be included in the definition of pollution. We feel strongly that they should not. We want to ensure that our responsibility to protect the environment in the context of the bill should be separate from fish health and fish disease issues, which are more properly dealt with by the Executive and the marine laboratories.
In your written submission you commented in relation to sustainable urban drainage systems—SUDS:
That is an important issue for us. We have made considerable progress in dealing with pollution from urban areas. The pollution of more than a third of our most polluted water is caused by urban drainage. It is vital that the maintenance of SUDS is dealt with soon. The progress that the SUDS working party has made over the past few years will be compromised if the issue is not dealt with. Whenever developments are proposed, there will be continual arguments among the various authorities that may end up with responsibility for the issue, so we would prefer an early legislative solution.
The number of SUDS is increasing; I understand that there could be 1,600 by 2006. For their long-term management, should a co-ordinating framework be incorporated in Scotland's river basin management planning process? SEPA's involvement in that would be crucial.
The responsibilities should be clearly defined legally. There is no longer any real question about who should hold that responsibility. All parties involved in the discussions, including Scottish Water, consider that Scottish Water should take over responsibility for SUDS. All the key partners have a common view of how to progress the matter and it is just a matter of finding the legal mechanism.
The time scale for the bill's passage, including subordinate legislation, means that there will be a gap between the passing of the bill and the implementation of the regulatory schemes. Scottish Natural Heritage and Scottish Environment LINK have raised concerns that deterioration will occur between the bill being passed and the introduction of the full schemes. How can such deterioration be prevented?
The prevention of deterioration has always been one of our key responsibilities, and we feel that we have been successful in delivering that. Once the new powers come in, we will be able to do a better job, particularly in areas for which we are not currently responsible, but as far as our current duties and powers allow, we will ensure that deterioration does not occur.
Although we do not have powers in certain areas, our colleagues in the local authorities do. We have prepared specific advice, which our officers can give when they are consulted. We have taken all the reasonable steps that we can to ensure that deterioration does not occur.
I think that my other two questions can be dealt with in correspondence, convener.
Okay. Our final set of questions focuses on flooding and natural systems.
There are clear links between the regime proposed in the bill and the management of flooding in Scotland. Do you support the view that local authorities should retain responsibility for flood management? Would not it be better for the body that is resourced to protect the environment to be given the lead role? Furthermore, should the bill contain specific reference to the use of wetlands as a flood defence and pollution filter?
If you are asking whether SEPA should be a flood prevention authority and undertake river works such as restoring a natural environment or walling off potential flood waters, our answer is that that would give the agency a particular conflict of interest. In the future that the bill envisages, SEPA will be the regulator of engineering works. It would be inappropriate if it were also the constructor of such works.
That is fine. You are essentially saying that you do not want to take the lead role in flood prevention management.
That is right.
Flood control will have a different impact on the budgets of different authorities. For example, money to use wetlands and different forestry management systems to control river basins upstream will come not from local authorities but from the CAP or forestry grants, but the cost of constructing a flood defence in a town will come out of the local authority's budget. When the river floods, that flood defence will impact both upstream and downstream. How can responses to such situations be co-ordinated if the matter is left in the hands of the local authorities and the river basin management plans? Someone should be in overall control, from the source of the river to the estuary.
I hope that the river basin management plan will be the vehicle for flood control and that it will be integrated across the local authorities and private landholders who are responsible for flood control outside urban areas. The plan will point the way to the better solutions that Mr Harper mentioned, such as the management of land to minimise the risk of flooding and not canalising short sections of a river, which could have severe upstream and downstream consequences. I hope that the planning process, supported by advice from SEPA, will solve those problems.
You say that you hope that the river basin management plans will address the problem. Would giving SEPA explicit responsibility for flood management ensure that that happened?
It is much more than a hope. I do not see how an effective river basin management plan can avoid the issue of flood control. It must address that issue, although how it does so depends, to an extent, on the reality of the risk and on the locale. I am not sure that it is necessary to give SEPA a specific duty in relation to flood management. Personally, I lean much more towards permissive, developmental regimes than I do towards compelling, prescriptive regimes. Perhaps Martin Marsden has a different view.
We want to be clear that the idea of giving SEPA responsibility for engineering works is a non-starter. There is a range of alternative approaches that may be more appropriate.
John Scott and Maureen Macmillan both want to come back into the discussion. I ask them to make their points together, as we are overrunning a little and I want to finish on this point.
Given that much of the scope of river basin management plans will fall on rural and agricultural areas, do you agree that a good agri-environment scheme needs to be in place to help people to carry out the necessary works?
In England, the Environment Agency takes charge of flood control. Why do you have a different view of SEPA's role?
There are two parts to our answer—perhaps the convener will allow us both to have a go.
That brings us to the end of our questions. We did not manage to get round to one or two questions because we overran on others. We will probably follow those up in writing and we look forward to your written responses. I thank Willie Halcrow and Martin Marsden for their evidence this morning.
Thank you, convener.
We will suspend the meeting for about two minutes while the minister and his officials take their places.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I ask members to take their seats and prepare for the second round of questioning. I welcome to the committee the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie. I also extend a welcome to the three officials from the Scottish Executive, William Fleming, Elspeth MacDonald and Michael Kellet.
Thank you. I am relieved by the theological underpinning of the last being first and the first being last. I am not sure that that will get me terribly far with your erudite committee.
Thank you for your opening remarks. You have identified the issues that the committee has been studying in evidence sessions. I am sure that members will want to probe you on some of those issues.
The bill claims to take a holistic approach to water and river basin management. How does it integrate with the Executive's strategies on forestry and agriculture, the UK biodiversity action plan and the development of an aquaculture strategy?
We have tried hard not to develop the strategies entirely on their own, and without those strategies, we would not have been in such a good position to know what water strategy to pursue. However, the strategies are detailed and deal with specific problems in, for example, agriculture, aquaculture and forestry. The bill provides the opportunity to take the higher-level strategic objectives from those strategies and meld them into the kind of thinking that is required in an ambitious piece of legislation. We have not quite managed to do that yet, although we have tried hard not to think in silos. We could draw on all the strategies at the strategic level, and they could play a fundamental part in ensuring that the delivery of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill meets our final objectives.
The EU water framework directive is closely related to other actions that are being taken at the European level, such as integrated coastal zone management and marine and soil strategies. Have you had regard to those developments in drafting the bill?
We are well aware of those developments. The difficulty is that three or four years' work will be required before we will be able to implement the bill. Conceptually, it is very different from any bill that the Parliament has had to handle before. We must not ignore those issues, but meld them into the process. Michael Kellet may wish to add something.
The marine and soil strategies are still being developed at the European level. We are confident that those strategies will, ultimately, aim in the same direction as the EU water framework directive and the bill. There should be no problem in ensuring the proper integration of the bill, for which we are aiming, when those strategies are agreed.
Maureen Macmillan has a specific question on agriculture.
It is good that the minister is responsible for agriculture as well as water, because it means that one department can have an overview of how integration might happen. I have been told that there is a lot of rhetoric around agri-environment schemes, but that the subsidy to encourage farmers to get involved in the restoration or preservation of wetlands is going in the wrong direction. It has been suggested that that work will have to be done before the CAP reforms come in, otherwise we will find ourselves with agri-environment schemes that do not integrate well. It has also been suggested that land management contracts should be the vehicle for the schemes, provided that they do not contain only less-favoured-area funds, but all agricultural support, including that for the environment.
Gosh. I return hotfoot from the agriculture and fisheries council in Brussels. My speech would have gone down better if I had made those points in it—it might have stopped everyone in their tracks. You make an extremely good point and I know that Robin Harper has made it too.
Maureen Macmillan surprised me by asking an unexpected supplementary. I will pursue the supplementary that I expected her to ask, on aquaculture and planning powers. The minister will be aware that the committee previously expressed the view that the bill is a good vehicle for transferring the planning powers for the aquaculture industry from the Crown Estate to local authorities. The Executive is of that view and has consulted on the matter for several years. There seems to be broad agreement on the issue among all parties. I realise that planning is not within your portfolio, but on behalf of the Executive can you indicate why it was deemed not practical to use the bill to advance the matter? Is it possible to introduce provision for that at stage 2?
It is always tempting, once we have a bill in front of us, to try to include everything in it—particularly if we perceive a connection, no matter how tenuous, between certain activities. The Executive's view remains that there is a need to transfer planning powers from local authorities. However, we believe that a planning bill would be the most appropriate legislative vehicle for that. If we change the scope of the bill and introduce a range of other planning provisions, it will become rather messy. The convener's question is quite specific, but to proceed as suggested would be to open the door to a different regime.
I want to take you back to Maureen Macmillan's question. You spoke eloquently about the need for an enhanced agri-environment scheme, but you spoke little about how such a scheme might be funded or what the costs might be. Have you calculated the costs of an enhanced scheme? Where would you expect to get the funding, given that the current scheme is underfunded?
As John Scott is aware, we are talking about the movement of resources within the common agricultural policy between pillar one and pillar two. We are talking about trying to use, differently and better, elements of the £450 million in support that comes to the rural community under the common agricultural policy. There are key issues that every stakeholder must appreciate. This is part of creating a Europe-wide level playing field. However, there is increasing recognition both from the industry and from politicians across Europe that there must be a clear return on agri-environment schemes. It is not enough for Europe just to provide support.
Are you saying that you will not seek new money from Europe, but will seek to redistribute existing funding?
That is the reality. Discussions are currently under way on the mid-term review. The Commission and the overwhelming majority of member states are not minded to interfere with the Berlin agreement, which set the current ceiling for the common agricultural policy.
What do you suspect the cost of introducing an enhanced agri-environment scheme may be? From which sector of the CAP budget that is currently allocated to Scotland would you take the money?
At the moment there is a slight disparity in the way in which modulation operates. Money is taken from a broad area—especially the cereals sector—and redistributed more narrowly. That is why I want broader prescriptions. I do not know what method we will use to move resources from pillar one to pillar two. However, once we have moved resources to pillar two we must have both a range of measures to address the issues that Maureen Macmillan raises and equitable redistribution of money. A broader range of people involved in agriculture should be able to apply for that money and to participate in agri-environment schemes. I cannot be precise. If I knew the answer to the member's question, I would know the outcome of the mid-term review.
Scotland struggles to comply with existing European water directives. Why should this one be any different? How will it join up existing water regulations, many of which have different time scales?
One of the advantages in this case is that we are moving at the right time. One of the great criticisms of ourselves over the years is that we have tended to wait until European directives had to be implemented tomorrow, by which stage we had neither done the preliminary work nor properly addressed the issues. We often struggle to implement European directives and therefore often struggle to comply. In this case the long time scale is an important consideration. We will have had four or five years of preparation before we reach the point at which the measures bite. That gives us a far better chance of being able to comply with the requirements of the directive. I say in direct answer to your question that, although the situation creates a rather unusual bill—it is very much an enabling bill—it will be one of the few occasions when we have genuinely had the time to prepare for the proper implementation of a European directive.
My point follows John Scott's question. Article 7.3 of the water framework directive explicitly requires that
I ask Michael Kellet to deal with the detail. I understand that we have the powers under section 9 to make regulations where that is not catered for in the outline of the bill.
I think that that is the case. Section 9 of the bill gives ministers the power to make regulations about the content of the environmental objectives. We understand the provisions of article 7.3 of the water framework directive to be an environmental objective under the bill, so regulations made under section 9 would make provision for that objective in respect of sources of drinking water.
What kinds of catchment management processes do you envisage and what regulatory framework do you see those processes being constructed within?
The importance of the design of the catchment programmes is why the next four years are so critical. Those programmes will be designed to ensure that in individual areas we have a far better assessment of the potential causes of degradation to the environment. In some cases, the potential causes of degradation might be obvious; in other cases the situation might be disappointing, as we are not fully aware of them. What is important is that we have that mapping process. When we come to sub-basin management plans, we will be able to say that we know what the potential sources of degradation to the water are. The plan must be designed to mitigate those effects and to deal directly with the requirement under article 7.3 of the water framework directive.
That process might also influence investment decisions that you might make in due course about the amount of water purification that is required, so if you go down that road it will be a successful saving process.
Yes, indeed.
The minister will be aware that there is considerable concern about whether the bill is robust enough in respect of integration and overview on policy, river basin management planning and flooding. I have three questions on river basin management planning. According to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution:
I have followed with interest Robin Harper's consistent line of questioning on the integrated process, and I have read the royal commission's report on the matter.
Given the fact that the Executive has consulted twice on the matter, why does not the bill specify the number of river basin districts that Scotland will have? In addition, why is a duty placed on SEPA to develop sub-basin management plans? Will the Executive be required to consult on draft orders for river basin management plans? What parliamentary procedure will be used in the creation of such plans?
We will certainly consult. I can say that without even looking at my notes, but Michael Kellet will deal with that matter.
The bill states explicitly that ministers have the duty to designate the river basin districts in Scotland. Ministers will need to do that by 2003 to comply with the requirements of the European directive. We felt that it was not appropriate to specify the boundaries of the river basin district on the face of the bill because the boundaries would have to be specified in great detail, which is difficult to provide for in primary legislation.
So the boundaries will be specified in regulations?
Yes.
Finally, concern has been raised that the bill is not specific enough in setting out the arrangements surrounding the lines of communication between river basin management plans and sub-basin plans, or between advisory groups and SEPA in the context of the total development. How will that happen?
SEPA's role is an issue that Fiona McLeod has been pursuing, but it seems to me that SEPA does not have a big-p policy role. SEPA will have two functions: it will both co-ordinate and bring together the relevant parties because of its crucial role as the regulator. Much of the evidence that the committee has received shows that many people have confidence in SEPA as the body that has the knowledge and understanding of the workings of the bill. I agree that SEPA is the appropriate body to act in that role. However, much will depend on how many sub-basin arrangements are set up.
The committee has heard evidence about what SEPA thinks would be a sensible arrangement of sub-basins and how regional or major-catchment level basins could be put together to constitute the national plan.
It would be appropriate for me to ask one of my questions at this stage. What arrangements will there be for SEPA to oversee or to work with the other competent authorities that must be involved in the river basin planning process? Will there be a hierarchy, with SEPA at the top?
SEPA will have a crucial role in bringing together the several authorities that will be involved. If that is not done, there will be a vacuum. The overarching policy within which SEPA will operate will be set by primary or secondary legislation and will therefore, in essence, be governed by the Parliament. That is an important point. We all have confidence in SEPA, but no one wants it to invent policy. The Executive and the Parliament will set the strategic policy objectives. Given that SEPA will have the hugely important role of discharging the requirements of the bill, it is the appropriate authority to act as the co-ordinating body.
You said how important it is that the Parliament is part of the process. What parliamentary procedure do you envisage for the secondary legislation?
Anything that affects another bill or that has the capacity to change policy will have to be subject to a resolution by the Parliament. I think that one or two regulatory matters are covered in the bill.
That is right. The bill makes explicit provision about the various mechanisms for the regulatory regimes. It specifies regulations that should be subject to the affirmative procedure and those that should be subject to the negative procedure. If it would be useful to the committee, we can provide a brief written summary of those provisions.
We should do that, because the matter relates to other legislation and policy objectives. Clearly, parliamentary scrutiny should apply.
I might return to the issue of SEPA later.
Given that policy is to be set by the Parliament and that the bill centralises power to SEPA and Scottish ministers, what importance or relevance will the advisory groups have? How will you ensure the participation of local stakeholders?
As always in such matters, a balance must be struck. It is crucial that Scotland has a uniform objective and basis for tackling the degradation of our water, river basins and wetlands. It is entirely justifiable to have an overarching framework for river basin management. However, that is not to suggest that the detailed implementation and management in individual areas will not involve the range of stakeholders. In modern legislation, one must understand and expect that stakeholders will be crucially involved in the detailed implementation and one must make provision for that.
If policy is to be uniformly implemented throughout Scotland, what value will the stakeholders have? If policy is pre-set, what will be achieved? How will you enthuse the stakeholders to attend? Will you have statutory powers to make them participate? Many stakeholders are already over-staked, in a manner of speaking—or staked out, even.
I cannot deal with over-staked and undercooked—we have a series of mixed metaphors in which we are in danger of drowning. A stakeholder that believes that they have simply been ignored has the opportunity of raising that in the Parliament or elsewhere. Section 17 is clear that SEPA has to have regard to an advisory group's advice. People say that "have regard to" means that SEPA can always ignore that advice, but the fact that the provision is in the bill means that the person who is not listened to has grounds for grievance. SEPA cannot say to that person, "You made the point and we just ignored you." It has to listen to the advisory groups.
You cannot have it both ways.
I am sorry to pursue this point, because it goes over ground that John Scott has covered. Does the minister agree that present stakeholders will have much more confidence in the development of the bill if they can see at the beginning that the advisory groups will have teeth?
The stakeholders must believe that they have a role to play. I am not sure what teeth we would give an individual group. We always have to strike a difficult balance. The advisory groups represent a general interest and might include people with a specific, special interest. They will be able to make their point through the advisory groups.
There are different orders of regulatory requirement. The Loch Katrine management issues, which are particularly pertinent, are a classic example. How do you envisage that tight catchment management processes and frameworks will be introduced for a sensitive environment such as Loch Katrine? How does that contrast with the management for a much less sensitive area?
That is the difficulty of a bill that is as wide in its scope as the one that we are considering. An advisory group within the Loch Katrine catchment would not be discharging its duties if it did not acknowledge that, in the present circumstances, it has an extremely sensitive and difficult problem. An advisory group would not be discharging its duties properly if it did not have regard to serious issues that affect it. We can take account of such issues when formulating the regulation for the control of the advisory groups. The bill allows us flexibility to give regulation that is appropriate and proportionate to the risk of degradation or the risks to the environment generally.
Not every witness has indicated that they agree that the bill allows sufficient flexibility.
Yes, I am. You cited an extremely sensitive issue. However, we must be careful not to deal in absolutes. Even if the bill were to operate perfectly, it would be impossible to eliminate all risk of degradation. There must be regard for problems such as the one that you highlighted. However, across the piece, there are sufficient powers for us to tackle seriously the risk of degradation and so reduce the requirement for purification at a later stage. However, all risk will not be eliminated nor will all the matters that require to be properly processed in a water treatment plant.
John Scott has a brief supplementary question.
I will leave it for now.
Does Fiona McLeod want to come back with any further issues on SEPA?
May I pursue the issues from earlier about the financing of SEPA? SEPA's role is changing and it must take on additional and new kinds of staff. SEPA submitted a financing bid to the Executive to cover the effect on it of the WFD. Given the accuracy of its previous bid, SEPA thinks that the present bid will be accurate. Can you tell us whether SEPA's financing bid will be successful?
Neither Fiona McLeod nor I would want to break parliamentary protocol; I know that we share that view. My deputy minister has a parliamentary question to answer this afternoon on the SEPA bid. We will wait with anxious anticipation for that answer. All that I can say is that we are providing additional resources for SEPA and I am reasonably confident that SEPA will be satisfied.
Given SEPA's extended role, is it still appropriate for the agency to be pushed to be a cost-recovery financing organisation?
There are issues about appropriate and inappropriate charging. However, we sometimes forget that you get nothing for nothing. People who incur a charge often appreciate what is being delivered for that charge. Charging sets standards for an organisation and encourages it to deliver an accountable service.
Witnesses from Scottish and Southern Energy plc stated in evidence to us that they were anxious about the financial implications for their organisation and that they did not envisage any benefits being incurred. They were worried about the impact on the hydroelectric schemes. They pointed out that Scottish and Southern Energy plc is an important part of the Executive's drive for renewable energy. However, they felt that the balance was wrong and that if the Executive wanted to pursue renewable energy, it should not hammer the hydroelectric schemes. I wonder whether you are having any discussions with Scottish and Southern Energy plc.
Yes, I met Scottish and Southern Energy plc some time ago at the advanced stage of preparing the bill. It is right to highlight that organisation's concerns. However, I must direct the committee's attention to the actual purpose of river basin management planning, which is to apply the water framework directive's generic environmental objectives to local circumstances. We must arrive at achievable measures.
Every person or organisation that has given the committee evidence has spoken of the increased cost burden that they are likely to face; the minister spoke about that, too. However, no one—the minister included—can quantify that additional cost.
We want to cover a couple of other issues before we talk about costs, so I ask John Scott to hold his fire. Before Des McNulty speaks, do you want to pursue any agri-environment issues? You asked about them earlier.
I have asked about those issues, but I will go with the question on the briefing paper, if that is what the convener prefers.
For the reasons that I gave on widening the prescriptions in the rural development regulation, many agri-environment schemes—particularly those that are close to rivers, burns and lochs, where we are trying to restore field margins—are designed to stop the drift of livestock close to and into rivers, lochs and streams in the past 10 to 15 years.
Therefore, you will take more seriously the funding requirements for those agri-environment schemes.
That is the view that the Government must provide every penny for everything that is done. Agricultural support has been given £450 million. It is difficult to think that that sum should not produce a greater benefit than it does.
So you will fund the requirements via increased modulation.
I have reasons not to be terribly happy about using modulation. Philosophically, it is difficult to say that although I say that I will give a subsidy to Des McNulty, I mean not to give it to him, but to modulate it and give it to you.
In your opening remarks, you made great play of how the bill is unique in the context of implementing the European water framework directive. The approach that you have adopted is to have an enabling framework shell that will be fleshed out by a series of secondary legislation. Do you accept that the fact that you are adopting that approach does not preclude the requirement for more detailed financial information, and perhaps some more indication of how the secondary legislation would operate, than you have been able to give in the policy memorandum or the financial memorandum?
The honest position is that we have tried to provide a policy memorandum and a financial memorandum that cover the bill.
I do not want to get into the costing issue just yet. I wanted to highlight the fact that this method of approaching the legislative process has an impact on accountability.
The obvious difficulty was set out at the beginning of the discussion. The crucial phase is the first four years. When SEPA and other bodies give us a handle on the state of our river basin management and sub-basin management planning, we will have a better handle on the scale of the problem. There is a lot of work to do; it is just not in any co-ordinated statement.
On natural systems and flooding, some stakeholders have told the committee that they think that wetlands have been overlooked. That is surprising, given that healthy natural systems underpin the water framework directive. Given that wetlands have a recognised beneficial impact on flood management, why was the decision taken not to include in the bill specific recognition of that?
There will be a register of protected areas that will reinforce the standards that are set out in European legislation. We recognise that wetlands play a protecting role in the ecology of the water environment and that the conditions of our wetlands in Scotland vary according to the aquatic ecosystems. We are not ignoring wetlands and we do not intend to exclude them from the scope of the bill; I acknowledge that many people have highlighted their importance. The register of protected areas will enable us to include specific areas such as nitrate vulnerable zones or areas designated under the habitats or wild birds directives.
The bill does not propose to change the institutional arrangements for dealing with flooding. Given that SEPA and others maintain that flooding can impact on the ecological quality of water, why is not the flooding regime specifically covered in the bill? What scope is there in the bill to extend the principle of planning gain, for example, to encourage a wetland upstream of a vulnerable urban area?
Again, I acknowledge that the integration of the river basin management plans and the sub-basin management plans, particularly in areas around towns, which used to be the areas where water was collected, is important. We have issued guidance to planning authorities that discourages them from granting development permissions where that would affect them.
We do not have a lot of time and we have yet to deal with the substantive issue of cost that was raised in the report of the Finance Committee. I ask Robin Harper, Fiona McLeod and Maureen Macmillan to ask their questions one after the other and allow the minister to respond to them together. I hope that they are all complementary.
Do you consider that there is room in the bill for a commitment to integration with the common agricultural policy and other such policies?
I am concerned about flooding. We have heard SEPA and the Executive say this morning that they "hope" that river basin management plans will provide the integrated answer to flooding. If we "hope" that those plans will do it, can we legislate to ensure that it happens? We also hear that we should leave dealing with flooding to local authorities. However, local authorities said in evidence that they manage flooding by building concrete defences, but not by taking the long-term and evolutionary measure of mitigating flooding.
What is the minister's view on whether sites of special scientific interest should be included in the protected area list, as an example of policy integration? Should biodiversity commitments be included in the bill and, if so, how?
The questions were nearly complementary.
Almost.
In answer to Robin Harper, I say that it is difficult to be prescriptive about integration. Whatever emerges from the CAP mid-term review needs first of all to have a pan-European application. One of the major issues that was not developed sufficiently in the 2000 review is that much more should be made of national envelopes. Member states should have greater ability to take the general CAP policy and apply it to their local circumstances. It is disappointing that the national envelope concept has not been developed more fully. We are pressing for that to happen—indeed, I wish that it would. If national governments had those powers, they would be able to merge policies in order better to meet their obligations.
Do we not need to make it more explicit in the bill that that is what is to happen?
We come back to the point that the bill is an enabling bill. Fiona McLeod's question is whether we need to make certain requirements more explicit. I appreciate that point, but river basin management is an expressed requirement and objective of the bill. That requirement and the plans that will be produced to underpin the bill will mitigate the effects of floods and droughts—more likely floods than droughts in our case. I do not wish to be pejorative about droughts, but flooding seems more likely.
As Des McNulty has finished his questions, we will move on to costs. You have received a copy of the Finance Committee's report on the financial memorandum for the bill—you mentioned that in a response to a question by Des McNulty. I invite you to respond to some of the key comments that the Finance Committee made. The Finance Committee makes comments on the financial memorandums for all bills and, in my opinion, its report on the financial memorandum for the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill is the most critical report that it has produced on a financial memorandum for a bill.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond. It was good to escape from Brussels yesterday afternoon, but not so good to be handed a copy of the report. I have read the report and it raises several important issues. We are disappointed with the report's conclusions—it would be wrong to say otherwise. In my evidence this morning, I will respond to some of the questions that are asked in it. We will also treat the issue seriously by producing more detailed responses.
My question and the minister's answer probably trampled over the question that Maureen Macmillan intended to ask, but I will give her the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
I intended to ask about savings rather than costs. Have potential savings that could arise from implementation of the bill been considered, for example in relation to flooding, insurance costs and improved land management practice?
Such questions are always difficult. We invited Professor Nick Hanley, who is a leader in the field, to assess benefits and he has produced results. Costs and benefits are a serious issue. There are references to value and to evaluation of benefits in the financial memorandum and the policy memorandum. Real concerns have been expressed and we will make available to the committee the relevant details, which are—I am afraid—rather long. However, it is important for the committee to have access to such details so that it can address the issue.
I appreciate that, because I spent my days studying medieval literature rather than economics.
I am sure that both are useful subjects.
I assure the minister that I well remember opportunity costs.
I welcome the minister's indication—if I understood him correctly—that more financial information will be made available to both the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Finance Committee. There was a good deal of concern about the evidence that we took and the information that was available to us at the time. Those points are flagged up in the robust report that the Finance Committee produced.
We must marshal the information that is available. When we introduced the bill, we made a genuine attempt to present an estimate of the total costs across the piece but, in doing so, we may have inadvertently given the impression that those costs were annual or biannual. That caused a lot of confusion, so we must be clear about the number of years over which we believe the costs under the individual headings will arise. We undertake to provide that clarification to both the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Finance Committee.
We have heard from representatives of a number of the industries that you mentioned, and none was clear about what the impact of the bill would be on their particular industry. There is an information gap.
I understand that. People who are involved in industry, quite properly, want to raise with the committee the prospect of horrendous cost burdens.
That would certainly be acceptable. I point out to members that we are overrunning and that the minister has said that he will provide in writing a comprehensive response to the Finance Committee's concerns. However, two other members have supplementaries on this matter. I ask them both to be brief.
I am interested in the minister's comment that the bill will ensure water quality for a millennium. Nonetheless, does he accept that every contributor has expressed fears about the bill's cost? None of them has been able to quantify that cost; indeed, the minister himself cannot do so. Does he therefore accept that the burden will fall ultimately on the taxpayer and consumer? Will he make some attempt in his long letter to the committee to quantify the short, medium and long-term costs of the bill? That would at least put his bill for the millennium into some perspective.
There is a danger in suggesting that the only cost to be incurred will be an additional cost to a particular commercial operator. We face a very real cost if we do nothing. If we do not take river basin management seriously, we will face the real cost of living in a polluted Scotland. I am not talking about some one-sided equation. I was not being entirely frivolous when I referred to the basis on which the Scotch whisky industry enjoys a worldwide reputation. If someone were to discover 10 or 15 years from now that the quality of our natural water supply was, by international comparisons, far from being as high as we narrowly and parochially believe it to be, the Scotch whisky industry would face a huge cost.
I think that committee members have been reassured by what the minister has said so far about his willingness to come back to us with further information and to address head on the question of costs and savings. The concerns of many who have come to the committee have been not so much about a fear of huge bills but about a feeling of being in the dark and not knowing whether there will be huge bills or not.
Having read the Finance Committee's report last night, I think that we have to do two things. We have to separate the information out. We cannot have, in a single paragraph, costs that refer to a life of 10, 20 or 40 years and costs that refer to things that start tomorrow. It was not intended, but confusion has arisen. We have to separate out the information and consider who is affected and over what time.
Will such information be available before the end of stage 1?
We will first have to organise all the information that we have learned from reports, and make full reports available. In line with the requests of the Finance Committee and this committee, we will try to assemble the information on people affected, time scales and future progress.
Finally, we will ask some questions on part 2 of the bill.
Last week, we heard that £41 million had been allocated to renewing connections in rural areas, but what is happening with social housing developments in remote rural areas? How will their infrastructure be funded?
The bill gives us powers to use a new regulatory regime, which is necessary because there are imbalances in the costs to developers of providing adequate supplies. Differences arise, although not always, between urban and rural projects. The ad hoc arrangement that has continued for many years—which means that Scottish Water makes a one-off contribution of £1,500 to the developer irrespective of where they are and irrespective of whether the money will make any difference to whether the supply is provided—does not seem to me to be sensible. We want to produce criteria that will take account of the differing circumstances in rural areas and town and city developments.
There are concerns about town and city developments and developers will require clarity as to whether money will be available to them to connect up new developments. Do you think that a reduction in public funding for new connections will discourage development?
I doubt it. I do not want to be facetious, but it would be interesting to try to sell a city dwelling in the middle of Edinburgh with no water supply. Some might find that tempting, but it would not happen. If the public purse is to make a contribution, we must be clear about what we are trying to do. This is not just about connection. In major developments there are numerous opportunities for cost saving that are not available in rural areas. The criteria for public support ought to reflect that.
Scottish Water seems not to be very happy. It has said that if there is an onus on it to fund water and sewerage for new developments—presumably that includes developments in rural areas—it will not be operating on a level playing field with competitors in England and Wales. Do you agree? [Interruption.]
I do not know—I think that John Scott is about to receive additional briefing over his mobile phone for his next question.
Scottish Water's point does not relate to the current problems. If in future there were an element of competition in domestic water supplies, Scottish Water might be subject to a burden to which its competitors were not subject.
That is a very hypothetical question. Eighteen months ago, competition was much higher up on the agenda. At that time people in the private sector saw all utilities in the same way. They saw water companies as a cash cow. Since then, the equation has changed dramatically. The pages of the financial press indicate that there are real concerns about profitability in the water industry.
Are you saying that you have not yet decided whether new rural connections will be paid for by Scottish Water or by the Executive?
I have not reached a final conclusion on that issue. We will get powers that will allow us to draft the new regulation, on which we will have to consult. We have estimates of the number of places that will require connection. At the moment there is an unnecessary burden on Scottish Water in some cases, and we must address that problem. However, we must also deal with concerns about connections in rural areas, which Maureen Macmillan was right to raise.
There are disputes about connection. There is a particular dispute between Glasgow City Council and Scottish Water about new developments. More generally, there are disputes involving local authorities, developers and Scottish Water about the cost of maintaining sustainable urban drainage systems. That issue has been raised repeatedly in the evidence that we have taken. There is concern that the bill does not address the issue of maintenance, even though flooding is recognised as a source of water pollution. What does the Scottish Executive propose to do to rectify the problem?
One interesting fact about SUDS is that in many respects we are ahead of other parts of the UK. We take the issue seriously. I have read the evidence carefully and I concede that the maintenance of SUDS gives rise to the biggest problem. I want to address that problem, which relates to roads, homes and business premises. We are working with SEPA, Scottish Water and the development industry to determine the best approach. The matter has been raised frequently in the evidence to the committee and we will have to return to it. When we set out, it was not intended to ensure the use of SUDS in new developments, but it is now clear that the arrangements are not satisfactory. I concede that we will have to address the matter.
You might want to consider section 28, which refers to the
As I said, given the volume and weight of evidence that the committee has received on SUDS, we must keep an open mind about the most appropriate solution for ensuring that the maintenance costs are borne equitably. We will consider your proposition as one of those solutions.
That brings us to the end of the questions. We have run considerably over time, which reflects the importance of many of the issues that we have been discussing. I welcome the minister's commitment to supply further information to the committee, which will be important to us in completing our consideration of the bill at stage 1. I am sure that the clerks will liaise with Executive officials on that. I thank the minister. That concludes our evidence taking at stage 1.