European Committee, 26 Mar 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 26, 2002

Official Report 252KB pdf

---

Water Framework Directive

Item 3 is on the water framework directive. Members made a number of suggestions at a previous meeting, when we considered the report in great detail. Today, we have brought the report back to the committee, having made the amendments that members requested. Several issues were raised on matters such as abstraction charging, flood protection and private water supplies. I want to check with members today that they are satisfied with the amendments as we have drafted them.

Can we make a small change to page 11? Although a part of our visit to the north-east was based on the water framework directive, another part of it was not. Our meeting with representatives of Huntly business centre was not connected with the directive.

That is fine. Do members have any other comments?

I note the point that we should have more involvement with other committees when the water services and environment bill comes before the Parliament in May, or at least assist them in examining policy options. I want to make that point more strongly. When the bill is passed, there will certainly be scope for a more imaginative policy of Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. Perhaps we should make it clearer to the subject committees where they can or cannot pressure the minister to consider alternatives.

When I speak to other committee conveners today, I certainly intend to say that the committee wants as far as possible to provide advice and support on European matters. The report is a good first step towards that aim. When the lead committee on the issue is identified, it will find that the report is helpful and provides a good start to its work.

Paragraph 57 refers to the visit to Islay, in which I participated, and mentions the people that we met. Paragraph 58 then says:

"Firm representations were made … on the Water Framework Directive".

I am not sure that that is strong enough. All the representatives of the whisky industry to whom we spoke expressed great concern about the directive's potential detrimental effects on that industry. Our report, which I hope will be read by members of the Executive and MSPs before the stage 1 debate in the chamber, should more accurately reflect people's concerns, particularly those of the representatives of the Scotch whisky industry.

Would it tighten matters up if we added something to paragraph 57?

Yes. Instead of the phrase "firm representations were made", we could say that "concern was expressed".

Okay.

I want to mention something that I noticed about this particular directive. The Executive could be criticised for its consultation procedure prior to the bill's introduction in May. In most of the consultation documents, the distinction between what is and what is not up for consultation is not made clear. I know that I always talk about nitrate-vulnerable zones, but Nora Radcliffe and I have many constituents in the north-east who are not aware of which elements in the document they can influence and which are simply a fait accompli because the water framework directive already enshrines them in law. In any future consultation documents—on this or any other topic—the Government should make it clear which aspects are subject to EU directives, because it is no good blaming the Commission for something that the member state has signed up to.

Furthermore, what is the Executive's room for manoeuvre? For example, once the Executive is satisfied that a distillery's water extraction does not contribute to pollution, it is able to say whether the need remains for a testing regime or for subscriptions towards policing the matter. The Commission is not forcing the Executive into that position.

We have to try to stop the practice whereby the Executive or Government wriggle out of their responsibility by blaming a directive that often turns out, when you read it, to be pretty loose and to offer a fair amount of discretion. This is the first example of consultation coming a bit too late down the line. The Executive has tried to merge the directive and the draft bill and I am sure that a number of us will be raising points when the bill comes to Parliament. We should set a precedent for further directives.

There is sometimes room at the margins for negotiations. Sometimes it is difficult to be firm and fixed because you want to keep as many doors open as possible. However, I understand what you say.

The directive has been agreed to and we are discussing legislation that has resulted from it. Directives are usually very clear about what is permitted and what is being asked for. Once that has been agreed by the member state, there is nothing that we can do to change it. What we can do is ensure that the Executive's responsibilities are made clear.

I draw members' attention to paragraph 39, which states:

"The WFD allows Member States to exempt abstractions or impoundments from these controls".

Part of the European water abstraction legislation was designed for southern mainland Europe rather than for the wet climate of the west of Scotland, which is, of course, totally different. However, it is clear that liability for running things lies with member states. Exemptions can be made—that is what the whisky industry is looking for, and the paper industry in Scotland is in a similar position.

There will be a long and on-going debate on this issue but I think that we have provided a useful start. I know that members will continue to participate in the debate throughout the stages of the bill, regardless of which committee is the lead committee. I hope that our committee will continue to have role.

We are running a little ahead of schedule and the minister is not due to arrive until 3 o'clock. It would be helpful if we could push ahead, so do members agree that we should now take item 5, which is the convener's report?

Members indicated agreement.