Official Report 163KB pdf
I welcome members of the press and public to the fourth meeting in 2002 of the Transport and the Environment Committee. I have received apologies from Nora Radcliffe.
Section 49—Directions
Amendment 104 is grouped with amendment 109.
Amendment 104 is a technical amendment. It expands the power of Scottish ministers to give directions under section 49 of the bill. Amendment 104 makes it clear that the directions can allow for appropriate reference to decisions, for example approvals of particular activities, by third parties, so as to ensure the flexibility that is required.
I hope that we manage to finish stage 2, otherwise the business programme that is about to arrive on our desks may not be achievable. We should try to keep this as short as we can.
My understanding is that the minister distributed the directions in a letter to committee members before Christmas. A copy should be available.
That is fine. I shall get a copy.
I support what Bruce Crawford said. There is still considerable disquiet about the protection that the bill affords against creeping privatisation. The clear intention of amendment 109 is to give ministers the flexibility to relieve the water industry of undue pressures from outside and to do so in a proper manner. It would allow ministers to say, "Right, that is far enough." I cannot see that amendment 109 would add unnecessary detail. I would say that it adds necessary flexibility.
Bruce Crawford said that amendment 109 would provide powers that ministers want to have. In fact, the powers are already provided for in section 49(2)(b). As I said, we have issued to the committee the general powers and corporate governance directions, which make it clear that contracting out is one of the many activities on which Scottish ministers may direct Scottish Water. Amendment 109 adds nothing useful, as the directions would be legally binding on Scottish Water even if the bill were passed without the amendment. Ministerial approval is required under the directions. I ask Bruce Crawford not to move amendment 109.
The question is, that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 0, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 104 agreed to.
I will move amendment 109 because, whereas the minister wants to include the provision in regulations, I want to include it in the bill, which is the appropriate place for it.
The question is, that amendment 109 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 109 disagreed to.
Amendment 33 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 49, as amended, agreed to.
After section 49
Amendment 114 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 114 is a probing amendment. I think that the minister previously agreed that there should be a code of practice for Scottish Water in relation to consultations connected with significant capital construction, renovation or upgrading. The amendment sets out not only to identify the need for such a code of practice, but to indicate the principal elements that the code should include. It sets constraints on what Scottish Water can do without the specific consent of ministers. It also deals with consultation and the water customer panels. I am pleased that the minister has accepted the principle of a code of practice and I am anxious that the particular elements that I have identified in the amendment be included.
Thank you. Judging from the reactions of members, I think that you were giving us too much detail about the smells in any case.
Property prices in Milngavie have fallen by about £10,000 a house.
I hope that Des McNulty will press amendment 114, because it is at the core of what the Parliament expects in the way in which we go about our business and the way in which we expect other organisations to go about their business. As Scottish Water will be the largest public organisation in Scotland, it must have codes of practice governing the way in which it consults the public.
I am sorry, but we cannot excuse such an appalling pun.
Several amendments have attempted to strengthen community representation at all levels in the running of Scottish Water. Not all those attempts have been successful. This amendment is important, as it is the backstop. It is important that we incorporate it in the bill. I agree with everything that Des McNulty and Fiona MacLeod have said.
I believe that this is a worthwhile amendment. I agree with everything that Fiona MacLeod said; there is no point in my going over the points again.
We discussed the principle behind the amendment when we discussed Des McNulty's amendment on the objectives. I am on record as saying that we propose to create a duty on Scottish Water to prepare and act in accordance with a code of practice on how it consults local communities. An outstanding direction is in place, but the proposed duty will require Scottish Water to produce a more detailed code of practice on community consultation, to address the concerns that have been expressed by the committee and, in particular, by Des McNulty. I have been at pains to pick up on those concerns and to work with the committee—and particularly with Mr McNulty—to ensure that the provisions are made. I have taken on board all the representations that have been made to me.
I am pleased that the committee has reached consensus and that the minister has accepted that a code of practice should be established. Since I drafted amendment 114, I have decided that I would like the provisions to be strengthened. A couple of matters have been left out, such as a provision to enforce adherence to the code of practice. As Fiona McLeod and I said, water companies have at times not abided by their commitments. We need a mechanism for ensuring that a company adheres to the code of practice.
Des McNulty has indicated that he wishes to withdraw amendment 114. Does anyone else want to press the amendment?
I wish to press amendment 114.
The question is, that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 114 disagreed to.
Section 50—Information and reports
Amendments 29 and 30 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 115 moved—[John Scott]—and agreed to.
Amendment 74 not moved.
Section 50, as amended, agreed to.
Section 51 agreed to.
After section 51
Amendment 34 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 52—Private legislation
Amendment 110 is in a group of its own. I invite Bruce Crawford to speak to and move his amendment.
Oh, goody! That gives me the chance to sum up if I want to.
I agree with Bruce Crawford. Amendment 110 is quite a neat way of highlighting the doubts that I also had but did not press further. I am keen to hear why Scottish Water apparently cannot promote private legislation in the UK Parliament. Amendment 110, which would insert the words "or support", is a neat way of allowing Scottish Water to do both things.
Two issues are involved. Amendment 110 is inappropriate. Existing legislation at Westminster makes provision for the procedures that are to be followed in promoting private legislation in the UK Parliament. That is the point that was made by John Scott. The standing orders of the Scottish Parliament provide equivalent procedures for the Scottish Parliament.
I am trying to understand what the minister is saying. In his evidence, he kept using the word "promote", but that is a different concept to using the word "support". He asks me to withdraw amendment 110, but that is difficult for me to do. I make the distinction that if someone promotes something, they are involved actively in pushing their own particular idea. However, if someone supports something, they could be involved actively in supporting someone else's idea.
Is Bruce Crawford not confusing support with promote?
I am not.
As I indicated, the general power to support is in the bill. Scottish Water's general powers will enable it to do that.
Does Scottish Water also have the general power to oppose?
To support—
No, is there also a general power to oppose?
No, its specific powers are to promote or oppose.
If it has general powers to oppose—
As I said, is Bruce Crawford not confusing support with promote?
You should stop talking over each other.
I apologise.
Right. Minister?
No, I think—
The minister said that Scottish Water has the general power to oppose. I will ask the minister the question directly through you, convener. Does the general power exist for Scottish Water to oppose?
Section 52(1)(b) of the bill—
No. I am talking about the general powers that the minister spoke of earlier, when he talked about support.
Scottish Water's general powers enable it to support private legislation, but that is the purpose of amendment 110.
In that case, does its general powers allow it to oppose? I am talking not only about the bill. The minister is talking about something else when he talks about general powers.
The bill gives Scottish Water specific power to oppose private legislation. It gives Scottish Water general power to support and specific power, with the consent of Scottish ministers, to promote private legislation in the Scottish Parliament. That is where one would expect a body whose powers are exclusively devolved to promote private legislation.
Will you help me one more time? Where does the bill give Scottish Water general power to support private legislation?
That would be an exercise of Scottish Water's ordinary function, under the general powers provision.
Under that provision, does Scottish Water have the same power to oppose private legislation?
I have answered that question three times.
Is the answer to my question yes or no?
Scottish Water has a specific power to oppose.
You have not yet answered the question.
That is only answer that Bruce Crawford is going to get.
My question has not been answered.
I invite Bruce Crawford to indicate whether he wishes to press his amendment.
I am trying to be helpful. The minister has told us several times that a general power to support exists, although that does not appear on the face of the bill. However, a general power to oppose does not exist, because the power to oppose is written into section 52(1)(b) of the bill. I do not understand why the power to support and the power to oppose are being treated differently. I have not received a satisfactory explanation for that from the minister, so I will press my amendment.
Does Bruce Crawford understand the difference between promoting, opposing and supporting private legislation?
Yes. That is why I lodged my amendment.
The question is, that amendment 110 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 110 disagreed to.
Section 52 agreed to.
Sections 53 and 54 agreed to.
Section 55—Register of trade effluents: confidential information
Amendment 116 is in a group of its own.
This is a probing amendment that seeks to establish why such a short time scale—of 14 days—has been put in place for a determination to be made. I believe that that is unreasonably short, given that key people reasonably take holidays of 14 days or longer. I look forward to hearing the minister's reasons for making the time scale so short.
I am inclined to agree with John Scott that 21 days is more reasonable than 14 days as the period within which Scottish Water must respond to applications under new section 37C of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 that is inserted under section 55 of the bill. I recommend that the committee agree to amendment 116 in the name of John Scott.
I thank the minister for that.
Amendment 116 agreed to.
Section 55, as amended, agreed to.
After section 55
Amendment 117 is grouped with amendments 105 and 106.
I will concentrate on amendment 117, as I have not yet thought about the other amendments in the group.
I cannot support amendment 117. It would appear to be intended to require agreement with a landowner on such matters as consideration for the use of their land. That would unnecessarily frustrate the current provisions, which allow infrastructure to be laid quickly. I am confident that the existing provisions are fair and work well in practice, for example, compensation must take account of disadvantages to landowners such as loss of proven development value. The provisions allow a procedure for an owner or occupier to make objections to proposals and for those to be heard by a sheriff.
I considered amendment 117 with interest. I live in a farming area and appreciate farmers' concerns. However, I must come down on the other side of the issue. I would be worried that if the amendment were successful it would hold up developments in rural areas. For example, I know rural areas that are in desperate need of improved water mains and sewerage services. I would not like those developments to be held up because one particular farmer was reluctant to allow water mains or sewerage services to cross his land. We have to consider the balance of public good. I am sorry, John, but I cannot support amendment 117.
I hear what the minister and Maureen Macmillan say, but this is part of the necessary consultative process. We all support the principle of public consultation, but it is as important to consult owners and occupiers of land about new developments. Landowners have a right to be properly consulted too. I do not accept Maureen Macmillan's argument about holding up developments, as compulsory powers exist. We have already debated at some length the compulsory powers that Scottish Water will have. I would have thought that compulsory powers could be used, but perhaps they are not adequate.
The question is, that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 117 disagreed to.
Sections 56 and 57 agreed to.
Section 58—Orders and regulations
I invite Fiona McLeod to move amendment 24.
Given that amendment 24 was consequential on an earlier amendment that I lost, I will not move amendment 24.
Amendment 24 not moved.
Section 58 agreed to.
Sections 59 to 61 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6
Amendments 105 and 106 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 80 is in a group of its own.
Amendment 80 is a minor consequential amendment that will amend the Water (Scotland) Act 1980. Section 50 of that act sets out the premises to which water authorities can be required to supply water only by meter. Amendment 80 seeks to add an order-making power to allow the description of additional premises to which Scottish Water can be required to supply water only by meter. That power could be used in cases of uncertainty over whether the requirement applies to a particular premise or type of premises, principally domestic premises that are used for non-domestic purposes.
Why does the minister think that it is necessary to go to the length of giving himself powers to specify in orders domestic premises that must be metered? He is giving himself the power to insist that Scottish Water meters all domestic premises, but we have not debated that yet. I met representatives of Scottish Water yesterday, and they understand that it does not require a change in the law for Scottish Water to put meters in commercial premises, so if a domestic premise is being used for non-domestic purposes, Scottish Water has the ability to put a meter in as it stands.
I asked precisely the same point in relation to the proposition. The problem only arises in a small minority of instances. It is best described as Chinese restaurant syndrome, whereby a domestic premises may be used for commercial purposes. In our view, it is not clear that the existing powers provide for the meterage of those premises. Argument may ensue over the exact nature of the premises. We would be happy to delineate domestic and non-domestic premises for the purposes of section 50 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980, but there is no intent on our part or that of the company to extend meterage to domestic premises, as Fiona McLeod infers. In the light of that assurance, perhaps she will accept the amendment.
I think that Fiona McLeod wishes to probe you further.
I have made inquiries along those lines.
I do not doubt your intent, but the point is that proposed new section 50(1)(e) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 gives you the ability to tell Scottish Water to meter domestic premises without the Parliament debating it. It is subject to negative procedure and is therefore not debated; the Parliament can only say no to the instrument. Although you say that that is not your intention, amendment 80 gives you that ability.
Before the minister replies, I will clarify the matter of the statutory instrument. If a member moved a motion to annul a negative statutory instrument, it would be debated in the chamber. The difference between a negative instrument and an affirmative instrument is that the latter is required to be approved by the chamber. A negative instrument only goes to the chamber if someone moves to annul it. It would therefore be possible to have a debate if a motion to annul were lodged by a member.
My problem with that, as we have discussed before, is that a member can only say no to the whole instrument. We can have a debate about not having it, rather than about amending it. We cannot amend it.
That is correct. We could not amend it; we could only reject it.
I had previously directed attention to the point that Fiona McLeod has raised. The premises in question could be designated both domestic and non-domestic and we would require the power to meter the non-domestic premises accordingly. That is the reason for amendment 80.
The question is, that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 80 agreed to.
Amendment 81 is grouped with amendment 82.
Amendments 81 and 82 are minor amendments to ensure that the drinking water quality regulator is informed of water quality problems about which the local authorities notify Scottish Water and that the drinking water quality regulator is informed when local authorities notify Scottish ministers that Scottish Water has not remedied a water quality issue satisfactorily. I ask the committee to support the amendments.
Amendment 81 agreed to.
Amendment 82 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Section 62 agreed to.
Long Title
Amendment 25 moved—[Fiona McLeod].
The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 25 disagreed to.
Long title agreed to.
To the relief and pleasure, I am sure, of all members present, we are at the end of stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank all those who have participated, including the minister and the Executive team that has supported him.