Subordinate Legislation
Water Environment (Consequential and Savings Provisions) (Scotland) Order 2006 (Draft)
Agenda item 5 is subordinate legislation. We have a draft order to consider under the affirmative resolution procedure. The Parliament must approve the draft order before it can be made formally. A motion in the name of Ross Finnie invites the committee to recommend to the Parliament that the draft order be approved. The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development will move the motion; I therefore welcome her and her officials back.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee has considered the draft order and has made no comments. Before we debate the motion, our practice is to have a discussion to clarify any purely technical matters or to allow explanation of detail while the officials are at the table. Once the motion has been moved and we begin the formal debate, the officials will not be able to participate.
I invite the deputy minister to introduce her officials and to make any opening remarks that she wants to make. Colleagues will then be able to ask for factual clarification or raise questions about the draft order.
With me are Judith Morrison and Susan Shaw, from the Scottish Executive.
I am pleased to present the committee with the draft Water Environment (Consequential and Savings Provisions) (Scotland) Order 2006. The draft order is made under sections 36(3) and 37 of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003.
As members know, the 2003 act was passed by the Parliament to provide a framework for the protection of the water environment in Scotland and to conform to the requirements of the European Union water framework directive, which came into force in December 2000 and established a framework for European Community action in water policy. The directive requires EU member states to put in place systems for the protection and improvement of the status of all their natural water resources, including rivers, lochs, estuaries and coastal waters as well as underground water, with the aim of achieving good status for most waters by the deadline of 2015.
The 2003 act places Scotland in an excellent position to achieve our environmental objectives while safeguarding the social and economic needs of a wide range of water users. During the past year, we made significant progress in that regard. The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005—the CAR regime—will take effect on 1 April and will provide a single, consistent framework for the control of all activities that pose a risk to the water environment. For the first time, we will have flexible tools to ensure that a sustainable balance is struck between the protection of water resources and the use of those resources. Last week, we laid before the Parliament the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (Designation of Responsible Authorities and Functions) Order 2006, which is a key step in ensuring that public bodies consider the water environment when they carry out their daily duties. I look forward to having an opportunity to update the committee on wider aspects of the implementation programme as part of our annual report to the Parliament on the matter, which will be produced next month.
It might be helpful if I described the context for the draft Water Environment (Consequential and Savings Provisions) (Scotland) Order 2006. The draft order is part of a range of measures to ensure that existing legislation is updated to take account of the 2003 act and the CAR regime. The CAR regime for the protection of the water environment will supersede disparate controls on pollution prevention and abstraction, such as area-specific controls on irrigation. Therefore, we have carried out a full review, to avoid duplication of regulation. In assessing the steps that would be required, we had the principles of the better regulation agenda firmly in mind.
The draft order is the first product of the review process that I described. It addresses the principal amendments to primary legislation that are required to reflect and integrate the CAR regime. Provisions that are superseded by the new regime are repealed. For example, the provisions in part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 that regulate pollution of waters and discharges, including the requirement for consent for discharges of effluent from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, will be repealed because such activity will be regulated under the CAR regime. If legislation is repealed, we update references in other pieces of legislation. Savings provisions are also made, to preserve certain activities under the pre-CAR system of controls over the water environment or to preserve cross-references to terms used in the enactments that are being repealed, where appropriate. One such example is the preservation of the definition of "tidal waters" in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951, for the purposes of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, because a change in the definition would alter the nature and extent of provisions in the 1984 act and is not required for the purposes of the water framework directive.
Two further statutory instruments, which achieve key aims, were laid before the Parliament last week. The first instrument repeals the Groundwater Regulations 1998, which established the regulatory tools to prevent the pollution of groundwater and implemented the requirements of the EU groundwater directive. From 1 April, such matters will fall within the holistic approach of the CAR regime. The instrument also tidies up various references as a result of changes that we propose in the draft Water Environment (Consequential and Savings Provisions) (Scotland) Order 2006.
The second of the two instruments that were laid last week amends the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 to take account of the 2003 act and the CAR regime. The amendments reduce the regulatory burden and ensure parity of treatment for all water users.
In addition, an order that is being laid before the Westminster Parliament under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 makes provision for the integration of the CAR regime with certain reserved matters. The purpose of the order is to ensure that duplication of regulation will be prevented and that legislation that relates to different aspects of the same operation will be consistent and coherent.
The draft Water Environment (Consequential and Savings Provisions) (Scotland) Order 2006 is part of a range of measures that we are taking to prevent duplication of regulation and to ensure an integrated and transparent approach to regulation of all activities that impact on the water environment.
As members have no comments or questions on technical matters, we will move on to the debate on the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Environment and Rural Development Committee recommends that the draft Water Environment (Consequential and Savings Provisions) (Scotland) Order 2006 be approved.—[Rhona Brankin.]
I welcome the draft order, which I am happy to support. I will raise a related matter.
The minister will be aware that Scotland's scientific expertise plays a significant role in examining the relationship of our water environment with wildlife and the environment generally. Will she comment on the disappointing news that the council of the Natural Environment Research Council has announced that, as part of its restructuring of the centre for ecology and hydrology, it will close its Banchory centre in north-east Scotland? That is bad news for the staff first and foremost and for the community in Banchory and the north-east, but it is a big blow for Scotland, given that we should be building and not dismantling our expertise in climate change.
I know that the minister opposed the proposal in the past, but now that NERC has made its decision, will she take action to resist its implementation? As I said, closing the Banchory centre would be a blow for Scotland as well as the staff. We would lose much expertise. A cross-party delegation of MSPs visited the centre just a few weeks ago and was highly impressed by its invaluable work, which relies on its location—it is not just that the centre exists but that it exists where it exists. Will she continue to make representations to NERC and have the decision reversed?
I endorse what Richard Lochhead said. NERC's decision is regrettable because of the quality of the science at Banchory and because that science is on many occasions site specific.
The potential loss of a sequence of data is also regrettable. Especially now that we are concerned about the effects of climate change, long sequences of data collection are extremely important to establish trends and understand changes.
The closure of the centre is to be deplored. If there is any way to reverse the decision or to find a way to continue the work that is done at the Banchory centre, it should be pursued.
I associate myself with those remarks. In a previous existence, I worked closely with that scientific establishment. I have every reason to support what Richard Lochhead and Nora Radcliffe said and I support strongly the campaign by Dr Adam Watson, who is a previous distinguished director of that organisation, and his colleagues. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Executive might see reason and change its decision.
I will discuss another aspect of Aberdeenshire—the River Dee. I totally support the draft order and the intention to protect and improve the ecological status of Scotland's water environment while protecting social and economic needs, but sometimes those matters directly contradict each other. I refer to the distressing scenes of salmon that could not get up the Dee two summers ago because, it was alleged, of a combination of factors: climatic forces, and too much water being taken out of the Dee for the expanding communities around it. Does the minister know about that and can she guarantee that it will not happen again?
It is entirely appropriate that members agree to the motion on the draft order, which is important to the raft of policies that need to be in place to protect the water environment. Given that, last year, we had an extensive debate on the matter that included local members who were concerned about the process, I am pleased to see that things are moving on to the next stage. I strongly support the motion.
Like others, I was concerned by NERC's proposals for the centre for ecology and hydrology and for climate change work; I understand that they also have major implications for the staff not only in Banchory but in Midlothian. Their jobs are not guaranteed. Along with many others, I have made representations to NERC, because I think that responsibility lies with it rather than with the Scottish Executive. In response to Ted Brocklebank, I should point that this was not a Scottish Executive decision. I realise that the point is slightly tangential to the discussion but it is relevant because, as Nora Radcliffe has pointed out, we are talking about the research that underpins the Executive's work on such statutory instruments. That is my tuppence-worth on the matter.
As members have no other comments, I invite the deputy minister to wind up the debate and respond to members' comments.
First, I should point out to Mr Brocklebank that the centre for ecology and hydrology is funded not by the Executive but by NERC, which is not under the Executive's control.
At the request of ministers, Environment and Rural Affairs Department officials contacted NERC to express some concern about what will happen to the research that we sometimes commission from the centre for ecology and hydrology and about discussions on the proposed collaboration between the centre and the Rowatt institute at University of Aberdeen. We recently received a formal letter, stating NERC's intentions, but ministers have not responded to that letter yet. I believe that we have already provided the committee with a copy of our original response; if we have not, I am more than happy to do so. I will also keep the committee up to date with any subsequent responses that we receive. Like everyone else, we have only just heard the news and I have not yet made any response. As I have said, I will keep the committee informed.
In response to Ted Brocklebank, I am concerned by the news that salmon are failing to get up the Dee, and I hope that the CAR regime will deal with such matters. However, if it helps, I will seek further information on the matter and pass it on to him.
On the motion itself, the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 and the new CAR regime for protecting the water environment supersede previous disparate controls on pollution prevention and abstraction. The draft order is one of a series of instruments that, together, will ensure that we regulate in a simpler, more consistent way activities that pose a risk to our water environment. Given that the CAR regime will take full effect on 1 April, it is right that we now remove the controls that it will supersede. The proposed measures will prevent duplication of regulation and ensure an integrated approach, which I believe will be of clear benefit to all water users.
I commend the motion to the committee.
Motion agreed to.
That the Environment and Rural Development Committee recommends that the draft Water Environment (Consequential and Savings Provisions) (Scotland) Order 2006 be approved.
I thank the deputy minister and her officials for attending the meeting. I welcome her comment that she is happy to pass on to the committee her representations to NERC, which will be circulated to members in due course. Some of us have already received responses from the minister as a result of representations both to her and to NERC.
Meeting continued in private until 12:50.