Environment and Rural Development Committee, 08 Dec 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 8, 2004

Official Report 221KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Plant Health (Phytophthora ramorum) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/488)<br />Sea Fish (Marketing Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/498)

Item 2 is subordinate legislation. We have two instruments to consider under the negative procedure. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has considered both instruments and members have an extract from its 41st report. It commented only on the Plant Health (Phytophthora ramorum) (Scotland) Order 2004. Do colleagues have any comments on the instruments?

Members indicated disagreement.

Is it agreed that we are content to make no recommendation to the Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

Super.

---

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and Sustainable Development, Statutory Guidance to SEPA made under Section 31 of the Environment Act 1995 (SE/2004/257)

We move on to consider draft statutory guidance to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency made under Section 31 of the Environment Act 1995. The guidance is subject to annulment in the same way as a negative instrument, so we could recommend to Parliament that the guidance should not be given. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has considered the draft guidance and members have a copy of that committee's 42nd report. Do members have any comments on the draft guidance?

As I understand it from the guidance, SEPA has two roles. It has a regulatory role, but it also has a role in promoting environmental excellence beyond the compulsory regulatory standards. In reading the guidance, I was a little concerned that in some ways that role is capped because SEPA has to consider costs—and the need to avoid imposing excessive costs—all the time and I wonder whether that holds it back in pushing for environmental excellence. Although we strive for the best available technology not entailing excessive costs, or BATNEEC, I am concerned that we might end up with CATNIP: the cheapest available technology not involving prosecution.

I notice that option 8 in the guidance states that voluntary environmental improvements that are in excess of the regulatory requirements can be promoted, but that is dropped in the summary. I want to be reassured that we will make progress with the environment, not just using the basic environmental regulations but ensuring that the guidance gives SEPA a free hand to push environmental standards even where they lead to extra cost.

We can pass that on to the minister.

I had a very positive feeling when I read through both the main report and the summary of actions at the end. The guidance is specific about the kind of things that SEPA needs to do to raise environmental standards and it is also quite crunchy in its thinking about how SEPA should implement sustainable development.

An aspect of the guidance that I am particularly keen on is the reference to SEPA working with industry and with local institutions to try to help them to raise their game. We have not seen SEPA do that previously. The guidance picks up issues such as odour and noise, where those are subject to regulation. Odour has been a big concern of the committee in our discussion of the petition that we received on sewage treatment works.

I was glad that it is made explicit that SEPA should have links with planning authorities

"to ensure that land use planning and environmental protection controls work coherently together."

We have had concerns about that in respect of, for example, the wider environmental impact and health impact of opencast coal mining. Some issues cut across the two systems.

The other issue that is worth drawing to people's attention is the specific requirement that SEPA should provide advice to planning authorities to avoid development in areas where flooding risks make it unsustainable. That topic has been sitting around on the committee's agenda. We have certainly picked it up in the annual review of the implementation of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. The fact that there is now a much greater emphasis on the matter is important.

Mark Ruskell made a point about cost effectiveness and whether SEPA should go for the cheapest solution. I would pick out action 24, which is about SEPA trying to think about how it is organised to deliver sustainable development. Action 24 suggests that SEPA should demonstrate best practice on matters such as waste, energy and travel, and report publicly on its progress.

The guidance moves SEPA forward. What interests me is whether such guidance might roll through to other Government organisations that have sustainable development as one of their statutory responsibilities.

I take Mark Ruskell's point that we can be critical about some of the guidance, but in other ways it represents a big step forward. We should keep a close eye on where it goes. There is an 18-month timetable for a plan to be produced. I hope that the committee will examine the plan.

I endorse everything that the convener said. SEPA will have to publish its own internal guidance on the assessment of cost and benefit, so it is a conscious and transparent process. There are safeguards.

Much of the guidance is laudable. I would be interested in having more information from the minister. I would like to know how, under action 14, SEPA will use its statutory powers to protect vulnerable communities from excessive environmental burdens. It is all very well to say that on paper, but what does it mean in practice? I would welcome more information on how those powers will be implemented. People who read that will see the use of powers in that way might help their community, but exactly what it means for them is less certain.

I picked up on action 18, on planning authorities. That is an example of how that might be done in practice through making the link between environmental planning and environmental health.

I have a follow-up point on that issue, in relation to problems that exist in identifying housing sites in very rocky areas. There must be the best possible co-operation between the planning authorities and SEPA in order to identify sites at an early stage. The provision of affordable housing in remote areas is hindered by the difficulty of finding suitable sites. We want SEPA to be proactive on that matter.

Are you suggesting that SEPA should identify geological constraints?

I think that it should. Examples from Lochinver and Assynt spring to mind, but there are many others. In order that people can live in parts of the world where the rocks are at the surface and there is very little soil, we must look to SEPA to be proactive in helping ahead of time. That co-operation with the planning authorities is essential.

Action 15 states:

"SEPA will seek to encourage and inform public participation in decisions affecting their environment and sustainable development."

That could be a useful tool to address some of those concerns. As Rob Gibson said, the Highlands are either a rock or a bog and it can be difficult to find a place for a house between the two. However, do not quote me on that.

My suggestion is that we ask the clerks to send ministers a copy of the Official Report so that they have our comments for their information. It will be helpful if they can then get back to us on any issues that have been raised.

Are members happy to note the draft guidance and not to make any recommendations on it to Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.