Water Framework Directive
Colleagues will recall that on 11 September 2001 the committee agreed that we should consider the scope for a different implementation of the water framework directive. I understand that the Executive will introduce that directive soon as the water environment and water services bill. My understanding is that, on the bill's introduction, a lead committee will be identified and the bill will begin its parliamentary process. The committee could add value to the overall scrutiny of the directive and the bill. We have been discussing that in our past few meetings; it is consistent with our role of considering how to implement EC and EU legislation.
The briefing paper that is before members sets out where the Parliament might consider implementing the original directive's provisions differently in Scotland. Although the paper's main audience will be members of the lead committee when that is appointed, it will perhaps interest other MSPs who have an interest in this subject. I ask Stephen Imrie to take us briefly through the report's main point.
I should record my thanks to the committee's legal advisers for the bulk of the work on the paper. As I am in no sense an expert on environmental matters or on community law in this area, I am indebted for that advice, even though the paper is in my name.
The main point of the paper is to explain where flexibility is possible in EC/EU directives and other forms of European legislation and to indicate specifically where there might be flexibility in the implementation of the water framework directive. The second page of the paper sets out the nature of a directive and how it allows member states discretion in certain areas as to how they achieve the directive's objectives.
The water framework directive is broad in nature, but it has an unusual stress on achieving water quality and quality standards. Assessment of quality is different from setting targets, standards and other forms of emission control, and that aspect of the directive allows some flexibility.
On a general level, the paper points out the possibility not only of derogations and exemptions from directives, but of going beyond their provisions. In other words, we can put things in or do things differently instead of taking things out. For example, a desire for higher environmental standards could lead to a policy decision to move beyond the minimum standards expressed in the directive.
As I said, the water framework directive stresses water quality. The technical detail is set out from paragraph 25 of the paper onwards. The directive emphasises a river-basin approach to improving water quality standards and contains a series of basic and supplementary measures that member states can decide to introduce. Paragraphs 36 and 37 detail control measures, and paragraphs 38 to 41 deal with the recovery of costs for water services.
The directive also strongly emphasises participation with and consultation of not only people who will be affected by it but people who have an interest in the area. There is also a degree of flexibility over sanctions, as paragraphs 47 and 48 set out. Furthermore, tables in the paper detail the quite long timetable for implementing certain aspects of the directive.
I am happy to provide further technical information if members so wish and to answer any questions that they might have. I am sure that my colleagues will do the same.
Directives usually allow for flexibility, but the water framework directive is fairly unique, in that its emphasis is on water quality rather than on specific targets and standards. Going beyond the minimum standards would be possible in many areas, but that would be a policy decision, which the lead committee will want to consider when the bill is introduced.
Do we have any information about the likely timetable for the bill's introduction? Will it be introduced in mid-May?
I believe so.
I assume that the lead committee will be the Transport and the Environment Committee.
That is likely, but the Parliamentary Bureau must decide. I would not be too surprised if that committee is chosen, but the matter has not yet been decided.
Could the Scottish Parliament information centre provide us with a map of the geographic areas that will be affected by the proposals? There is much talk of river basins, but I want to know where we get our water from and where it goes.
I am aware that Scotland has a huge number of private water sources, which were not addressed by the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill. I would be interested to know whether the water framework directive will cover such water sources and how they will be affected.
When the lead committee has been identified, it will find the information in the paper on the water framework directive very useful. Perhaps the paper could be supplemented with more detail. For example, it refers to the visit that some members made to Islay and to the north-east of Scotland. I took part in the visit to Islay.
I wondered who that was.
We met representatives of the whisky industry, which is important not only to the Islay economy but to the whole Scottish economy, as it has many implications for jobs and for the balance of payments. As far as I can gather from my discussions with people on Islay and elsewhere, the whisky industry is unanimously of the opinion that the water framework directive could have a detrimental effect. The industry claims that the directive would bring additional costs and bureaucracy with no great advantage either to the industry or to the consumer. Paragraph 37 of the paper states:
"The WFD allows Member States to exempt abstractions or impoundments from these controls, but only when these have no significant impact on water status."
The lead committee could consider whether some accommodation could be made for the whisky industry. I do not know whether, under the terms of the directive, it is possible to exempt an entire industry or to let each distillery be examined on its own merits. I suppose that one would need to bear in mind the local water table and so on. However, we should certainly draw the attention of the lead committee to the effect that the directive and the bill could have on one of our most important industries.
Thanks, Dennis. That is an important point. Although I did not take part, I know that several members participated in the Islay visit. As well as Dennis Canavan and Hugh Henry, did Colin Campbell go on that visit?
Yes, I did. Despite the fact that the distillery—whose name escapes me for the moment—takes its water from its own land to make its whisky, it will be obliged to pay an extraction tax. The abstraction tax seems far more suited to countries where rain is less plentiful than it is in Scotland.
Since our visit, I have also attended a presentation by another industrial group—from memory, I think it produced paper—that is a great user of water. Again, that group felt that the imposition of an abstraction tax would make an already marginal industry even more marginal.
Given the fact that the committee met representatives of the whisky industry during the visit, it is important that members' views about the visit are recorded. I think that Dennis Canavan's suggestion is quite right. Perhaps we need to expand our paper a bit more so as to inform discussions with the lead committee.
The paper is exactly the kind of thing that I have been wanting the committee to produce. It is a very good document, and I thank the legal team, because they have had to look through directives that make most people's minds boggle. I notice that the water framework directive draws together 11 directives. At the previous meeting, I raised my worries about the nitrates directive—covering nitrate-vulnerable zones—which I see is incorporated under the water framework directive.
I would be interested to know whether the lead committee realises—I am sure that it does—that the water framework directive is in fact 11 directives in one. It is a huge piece of legislation. The clerk has raised some points about the possibility of going
"beyond the requirements of the WFD".
Another way to describe that is gold-plating, against which we should be on our guard. The environmental lobby is often, or at least sometimes, at the forefront of gold-plating. It seems from the document that there are three points of further investigation, for either the lead committee or this committee. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency should be asked whether it has followed the technical specifications that are contained in the appendix to the directive to define the areas or river basins that are vulnerable. Have even those technical specifications been gold-plated? If so, have the necessary tests been carried out to define the various regions?
The new nitrate-vulnerable zones map shows that the area concerned is huge. I cannot imagine that SEPA has tested across the 700 square miles of the zone—or whatever it is—in the past year in accordance with the directive. The scrutiny of SEPA and of its role in defining those areas ought to be vetted. It is the interface that either this or the lead committee should investigate. I would certainly recommend that the lead committee get one of the documents that has been produced for us. That is exactly what this committee should be about.
I think that Ben Wallace is quite right—this is the kind of thing that the committee has been wanting to get involved in. Given that the lead committee has not yet been identified in this case, we could do some preliminary work so as to pass over to the lead committee an informed paper. I think that the recommendation is for us to revise the paper and elaborate on it a little. In so doing, we can reflect the comments made by members today.
I agree with Ben Wallace that the briefing paper is excellent, as it gives us an understanding of what the water framework directive is all about. Given the all-encompassing nature of the directive and the extent to which it requires an holistic approach to be taken in Scotland, the paper is useful in that it helps us get a sense of the choices that will have to be made when the Executive puts a bill together.
A couple of things struck me following some of the comments that members have made. One relates to the cost and pricing of water. The document says:
"By 2010, Member States must have water-pricing policies in place."
I cannot believe that that will be a straightforward issue, which everyone will be happy about. The Water Industry (Scotland) Bill, which will bring us a new, unified water authority, is currently going through Parliament, but the committee that picks up this matter will need to explore issues such as pricing and give them quite a lot of thought in relation to fairness, justice and economic factors. The costs and benefits of doing things in different ways will need to be explored.
It is vital to consider the points that Stephen Imrie made in his introduction about participation and consultation. A piece of legislation such as the water framework directive, which specifies actions that must be taken by 2010, 2013 and so on, always seems to be very remote, but if businesses know that actions are required over such a time scale, they need to understand what changes are involved and will have to take place in other European countries. The issues of cost and participation are vital, and the lead committee needs to get a handle on them at an early stage so that people get involved in the process.
An issue relating to the water framework directive that is mentioned only in passing in the briefing paper is flooding. Scotland does not lack water, but our problem is flooding. In river-basin management planning, there must be a focus on flooding, which is a huge economic problem. If we get a new development wrong, a generation will have to suffer. Flooding and climate change need to come on to our agenda.
My last point is about Ben Wallace's comments about gold-plating. The briefing paper mentions sanctions and article 23 of the water framework directive. It says that there is no requirement on member states to impose a specific form of sanction to keep people in line. However, paragraph 48 of the briefing paper mentions an issue that Europe has taken more seriously over the past few years, especially with Margot Wallström as EC commissioner for the environment. That issue is ensuring that directives are implemented.
The balance of how sanctions will operate is critical. It is not enough to say that we have a framework; we have to convince Europe that we have a sufficiently robust framework. That is why Ben's points—I know that Nora Radcliffe, too, has an interest in the issue—about how and how often water quality is measured, and nitrates, must be discussed in the context of ensuring that what is done in Scotland will satisfy European requirements.
It is important to argue a case effectively. However, there are many difficult issues for different constituencies buried in the directive. We will not be able to fix that, but highlighting that for the committee progresses the argument and I would like the report to tease out such issues.
It might be helpful if we or our staff could tease out the issues and perhaps advise the lead committee that is going to deal with the proposed bill on the scope for flexibility. This is one area of policy where Scotland is different to the rest of the EU.
Paragraph 49 of the briefing paper, on the implementation strategy, points to the need for member states "to work together". There are good reasons for that because, on continental Europe, even small amounts of abstraction or pollution accumulate and do terrible damage upstream or downstream or wherever. Scotland is not quite like that. Therefore—to pick up Dennis's point—it would be dotty to impose gold-plated requirements on water abstraction or discharges from a distillery in Islay, which would make no difference at all.
We should look for any scope for flexibility to take account of the circumstances on our islands and more remote coastal communities in ways that could avoid unnecessary cost without compromising the environmental imperatives. It would be useful if we could help our colleagues in that direction.
That is a valid point.
Two words that the convener said struck a chord with me—preliminary work. We are talking about the proposed bill, but there is a stage before the bill. Rather than waiting for the lead committee for the bill, the committee might find it interesting to discuss with the minister the Executive's thinking on how the bill will implement the water framework directive. Where does the Executive think there might be opportunities for flexibility and where does it feel constrained? It might be a useful exercise to explore why the bill arises from the directive and what the ministerial thinking is on that.
It occurred to me to invite some written comments that could be incorporated into the committee's revised report. We have to be a bit careful that we are not treading on the toes of the Transport and the Environment Committee. Having said that, although we expect that that committee will be the lead committee on the bill, that has not yet been confirmed. There is an opportunity for us to undertake some preliminary work that could assist and inform discussions in the future and help the lead committee in its deliberations. It could ensure that the views of the industry and SEPA are taken into account.
Can we agree that we will bring a revised report back to the committee, taking account of the points that members raised today about costs and participation? We will have another look at the draft report before we agree it as a final report and send it to the lead committee. Is that a sensible way to proceed?
I think that it would be worth while to incorporate into the revised report comments from the industry and ministers. John Home Robertson's point about flexibility is important. We should ask ministers and representatives of the industry to reflect on flexibility.
The briefing paper makes it clear that we should find out the scope for derogations or exceptions or exemptions—whatever the correct term is—for particular geographical areas. It is worth teasing that out to discover what can be done and whether a fair framework can be set up.
Could we write to SEPA to extract from it its set of technical standards? The EU's set of standards is attached in appendix A. Although it is not our job to compare those figures, if we send both sets of figures to the Transport and the Environment Committee, it will be able to compare them.
Do members agree to write to SEPA and the Scottish Executive on the matter to ask for comments? We will at least append those comments to the report. John Home Robertson is correct that we must find out what flexibility there is on regional implementation and expand that section of the report.
I want to make a plea that we ask specifically about the nature of private water supplies both for industry and for those that are not related to business. I understand that there is an extraordinary number of such supplies in the Aberdeen area. That is an interesting subject.
That is a big growth area. Because of the increased charges for water supplies, many businesses and, I suspect, an increasing number of private households, drill wells. If the directive covers private supplies, people should be aware of it.
The key point is that the directive requires certain standards, which will apply to the many hundreds of separate supplies. Will it be viable for people to maintain those supplies? As Sarah Boyack said, 2010 is not that far away in business terms.
Sarah's point was a good one. Given the lead-in planning time that businesses require, 10 years is nothing. The sooner that we distribute information on the matter, the better.
The situation in the north-east is peculiar because it is a rural area with people in it; other rural areas are empty of people. The thousands of houses and farms with private water supplies in the north-east are an historical feature that is peculiar to that area. We should flag up that problem.
Perhaps we should enlist the assistance of SPICe to research some of the issues that have been raised and to ensure that the results are incorporated in the revised draft report.
The discussion has been useful. The revised draft report will be brought back to the committee.