Official Report 217KB pdf
Private Water Supplies (Notices) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (Draft)
Agenda item 2 is subordinate legislation. We have one affirmative instrument to consider today—the draft Private Water Supplies (Notices) (Scotland) Regulations 2006. Parliament must approve the draft instrument before it can be formally made. We have a motion in the name of the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, inviting the committee to recommend to the Parliament that the instrument be approved.
That is amazing!
I do not think that you necessarily want that noted.
I introduce David Williamson and Kirsty Stevens from the Executive.
Thank you. Members are queuing up to ask questions.
I welcome the draft regulations and in particular the grants—
I am sorry to interrupt you, but I should have said that I was inviting technical questions. We will move on to the policy debate later.
The committee has received submissions from the Scotch Whisky Association and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. SEPA suggests that a single, unified register should cover drinking water and abstraction, which seems sensible. The SWA says that under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005—CAR—regime, there is an option for commercially sensitive material to remain confidential. It asks for a similar option to apply to the private water supplies that many distilleries use. Can those two requests be met?
We are keen to be as open as possible. I am aware of the Scotch whisky industry's concern. During the consultation, we made it clear that the register of private water supplies would include details of supplies that are used for distillation purposes, although those supplies are not subject to the provisions of the strengthened regulations. SEPA will draw on that information in exercising its responsibilities to protect the wider water environment.
We are looking to work towards having a single register. Health Protection Scotland has started the ball rolling by collating information about infections from private water supplies.
I want to raise a couple of technical points on behalf of the various organisations who have approached me, which include the Scottish Tourism Forum and the Association of Scotland's Self-Caterers. They are extremely concerned that the £800 that will be made available will be nowhere near enough to cover costs, which in some cases could run into many thousands of pounds. How do you respond to that fear?
We have responded by upping to £800 the maximum grant available, which we think will meet the average costs of implementing individual solutions. Of course, costs can vary hugely and there will be cases in which the supply requires work whose costs exceed the proposed limit. In such cases, it will be the responsibility of the user to meet the additional costs. However, there is a possibility that local authorities will be able to provide support. The scheme will be administered by local authorities, which will have to agree that the expenditure is necessary. The Executive will refund local authorities for expenditure that is reasonably incurred in providing grants.
Small businesses, particularly bed and breakfasts, can employ a number of basic measures to improve the quality of their supply. For example, they can employ ultraviolet treatment, which will kill the bugs that cause the major problems with contaminated supplies, and small sediment filters to take out the sediment before the water receives the treatment. Those basic measures can be delivered within the £800 for individual premises. The Private Water Supplies (Grants) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 and the guidance that will be issued to local authorities to accompany them will encourage a number of premises to work together to deliver what I would call a whole-supply solution. Failing that, they have the fallback position of fixing the drinking water tap in particular premises.
The grant does not cover the £635 test costs, which appear to be high. Such costs will be forced on people, whether they like it or not. Could not testing be introduced on a voluntary basis?
We think that that cost is proportionate. I emphasise the potential risks that people who drink water from private water supplies face.
The ballpark figure that is quoted is the worst-case scenario, in which every chemical or biological parameter that is listed in the schedule to the regulations has to be tested for. As the minister said, we responded to the consultation by placing an increased emphasis on risk assessment in the regulations so that we ask local authorities to test only for chemical parameters that are likely to be present in the supply at a level that might be harmful. The figure that is quoted is the worst-case scenario. We expect that the on-going monitoring costs for the majority of supplies will be substantially less than that and we have done what we can to reduce them in implementing the regulations within the constraints of the drinking water directive.
VisitScotland is supportive of the regulations. It is cognisant of the increased risk that users of private water supplies have and of the fact that if there were to be an incident in which tourists suffered as a result of contaminated private water supplies, that would be potentially damaging to the Scottish tourism industry. We must be able to consider supporting people, through grants, if they will find it difficult to implement the regulations because it will cost them a significant amount of money, but we must also bear in mind the importance of getting private water supplies up to an acceptable standard.
I totally sympathise with the desire to improve water safety, which is important to everyone.
Will you clarify that a little bit more please?
I understand that many businesses have more than one private supply of water. I know of one particular case in the area that I represent—Mid Scotland and Fife—that has 14 different sources of supply. How will that be handled under the regulations?
We are interested only in water that is being used for human consumption such as drinking, washing or preparing food, cleaning teeth and that sort of thing. Are those 14 separate supplies to individual houses?
I understand that it is a small catering complex that draws water from 14 different sources within its area.
If it is a catering complex, it will also be caught by the food hygiene legislation. From the information that you have given me, I think that each of those individual premises would have to have what food hygiene legislation refers to as a clean and potable supply of water, and the potability must be in line with the wholesome provisions of the regulations. All those individual premises would have to comply.
Further to that, I wanted some clarification about how local authorities would go about implementing the regulations for different premises, as Ted Brocklebank said. I have some personal locus with this subject because, about 12 years ago, I became very ill through drinking from a private water supply. I did not own that supply; I was renting a cottage that was supplied by a landowner who had several different water supplies on his land. My concern is about how to chase up the landowners and not just the tenants. We tried to get the landowner to fit a UV filter to the water supply, but we found that difficult. How do local authorities interface with those who are responsible for the private water supplies?
If the regulations are to be successful, we have to educate and inform the owners and users of private water supplies. As the minister said, the education and awareness package is designed to raise general awareness of the various issues that you have just described.
I have had representations from a small self-catering accommodation business in the Highlands that has had to spend about £6,000 on filtration systems to reduce high iron and manganese content and get rid of fine particulate matter. Such things will not be covered by the UV treatment that has been discussed. Does the minister have any estimate of how many such jobs will have to be done on private water supplies that might not be covered by the grants that have been decided?
I do not have that information with me.
Are you talking about people having to meet the shortfall and to remove excess levels of naturally occurring minerals?
Yes.
There is provision in the regulations for the owner of the supply to apply for a temporary departure in that scenario. It is recognised that it will take a significant amount of time to resolve a specific problem such as excess levels of naturally occurring minerals.
Indeed. The business that I mentioned has spent £6,000 on trying to resolve the problem, which is far more than the amount of grant available. As the owners are still paying off that sum, they are concerned that any further costs will damage their small business. Given that much of the water in the Highlands has a high mineral content, many small businesses that have private water supplies could be similarly affected.
The regulations contain discretionary provision to allow local authorities to make larger grants when the maximum grant is insufficient to cover costs and undue hardship could justify more assistance. If the member will give me details of the case that he has highlighted, I will seek advice on whether the business in question is accessing all the available support.
That advice might well be valuable to many people who are affected by these regulations.
Yes; I am happy to provide information about the extent to which people with private water supplies face such issues. I simply do not have those details with me at the moment.
That information would be a very useful follow-up to this evidence session.
How much money has the Scottish Executive made available to local authorities for the grant arrangements?
We have made available £8 million a year for two years.
I should point out that that is just for the current spending review period.
So the assumption is that there will be a rolling programme of funding to pay for the grants.
Yes.
When the grant level was calculated, why did you decide to have a fixed amount instead of basing it on the proportionate cost of the upgrade work?
We had a number of options to choose from. Although we could have taken a percentage approach and based the amount on the proportionate cost of upgrade work, we decided that the majority of cases would involve upgrading supplies to small, single houses that, for example, might be in a valley and take their water from a burn. In such cases, £800 should be more than enough to install the required basic protection measures.
I emphasise that the economic assessment was conducted by an independent source. I should also point out that the most important health benefits are usually gained from ultraviolet filters, the cost of which varies between £550 and £650. The maximum grant of £800 was calculated on the basis that it would meet, or make a substantial contribution towards, the costs that the majority of users would face.
Is the maximum fee for a local authority inspection £630 per visit?
The maximum that local authorities can charge is £630, the bulk of which is made up of laboratory analysis costs for testing the water. Under the revised regulations, the fee that a local authority can charge to cover the time that its staff use to prepare for a visit, go to a supply, take samples and do any follow-up work is only £70.
So other assessment costs are involved.
Not necessarily, but I cannot give an exact figure because the cost will depend on the circumstances of the individual's supply and the risks to which it is exposed.
If the water supply is tested in March 2007 and is all clear, what would happen then?
What do you mean by "clear"? Do you mean wholesome?
I mean that it is all fine.
A minimum level of monitoring—which is referred to as check monitoring—will be required, the charge for which will be £75 plus the cost to the local authority of getting people out to do the sampling and so on. On the audit monitoring provisions, which account for the big lump of £435, I doubt whether all the chemical parameters that are in the schedule can be removed, but risk assessments will enable local authorities to reduce the number of tests on things in supplies that could cause risk to health.
So any inspection of a private water supply in the type A category is likely to cost £145—the £70 plus the £75—at the very minimum to ensure that it is all right. Would that be on an annual basis?
That would be on an annual basis at least. For larger supplies to commercial premises, which the regulations refer to as type A supplies, I think that check monitoring is required four times a year because people will have to look for bugs and the possibility of E coli in the water. We all know the potential consequences of such things. However, the regulations allow for reducing such quarterly monitoring if there is a history of compliance.
Going into such detail on the matter is interesting because individuals, proprietors and companies need a sense of what your calculations have been in drafting the regulations. I would certainly like to take up the minister's offer of further information, and I recognise the commitment to information education. The crucial issue of how discretionary provision could work was raised earlier.
I have a tiny supplementary question on a matter that I am grateful to Maureen Macmillan for mentioning to me. I asked about somewhere in Mid Scotland and Fife that has 14 water sources and was told that all those sources would have to comply. Does that mean that all 14 sources would be eligible for a grant?
That depends. Grants are to be used for water that is used for human consumption purposes. I do not know the details of the 14 premises that you are talking about, so I do not know the answer to your question. The grant regulations would allow each of the premises to be eligible for a grant if the water was used for human consumption purposes.
Without the specific information—
I will provide specific information.
I am sure that you will.
It sounds as if the information will wing its way to the minister forthwith.
Motion moved,
That the Environment and Rural Development Committee recommends that the draft Private Water Supplies (Notices) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 be approved.—[Rhona Brankin.]
I have come late to the matter, because I am a relatively new member of the committee, but I am concerned about the regulations. I am as keen as anybody else to ensure the wholesomeness of water from private supplies but I am concerned that the regulations would simply gold plate existing EU legislation and that what they aim to achieve would happen over a period of time in any case.
I will make a few remarks on the regulations based on representations that I have received from a number of constituents, mainly those who are involved in tourism-related businesses in the rural parts of my constituency.
Water was tested annually in the past and the increased regularity of testing will increase costs. In the Highlands and Islands, travel distances are long, which adds to the cost of taking tests, so that could affect disproportionately the areas that I represent.
I welcome the regulations and the grant assistance, because the north-east probably has the highest concentration of private water supplies in Scotland. Have the disproportionate costs that will fall on councils such as Aberdeenshire Council in fulfilling their duties under the new regulations been recognised? Has additional financial support to local authorities been considered?
The minister will sense from the nature and tone of the questions that everybody is signed up to the principle of ensuring that private water supplies are safe for people to use for drinking and health purposes. The committee very much supports that.
I am happy to do that.
The question is, that motion S2M-4300 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to.
That the Environment and Rural Development Committee recommends that the draft Private Water Supplies (Notices) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 be approved.
We will report to the Parliament on the regulations. I thank the minister and her officials.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Private Water Supplies (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/209)<br />Private Water Supplies (Grants) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/210)
Land Management Contracts (Menu Scheme) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/213)<br />Croft House Grant (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/214)
We will now consider four Scottish statutory instruments, all of which are subject to the negative procedure. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has considered the four sets of regulations and commented on the Private Water Supplies (Scotland) Regulations 2006 and the Croft House Grant (Scotland) Regulations 2006. Members have the relevant extracts from the Subordinate Legislation Committee's reports and additional information on the Croft House Grant (Scotland) Regulations 2006.
What about the Croft House Grant (Scotland) Regulations 2006?
The Executive's additional memorandum to the regulations says that
I have a note of the membership of the panel, which comprised: Mairi Ross, a member of staff at Communities Scotland; Nicholas Gubbins, a member of staff at Highlands and Islands Enterprise; Di Alexander, who used to work for Highland Small Communities Housing Trust; Dr Maggie Bochel, who was formerly employed by Highland Council and who is now with another council; and Norman MacDonald, a councillor at Western Isles Council.
The panel's work is an important indicator of the areas of most pressing need. Is there any measure of how that work is panning out?
The panel did an assessment before the scheme came into operation and produced a map that showed the areas to be targeted. It tried to gather together information to enable it to make some assessment of need, but it was not particularly successful because, although it came up with and eventually published a set of parameters and mapped them according to postcodes, that proved difficult.
Through my remarks, I am simply allowing you to realise that it is a priority for us to ensure that the targeting is accurate.
I whole-heartedly endorse the way in which the Executive went about dealing with targeting. I speak from the narrow perspective of my constituency, where the Executive got it absolutely right. Pulling together the panel to deal with all the geographical sensitivities was a very good idea.
The minister indicated that she was going to review the targeting, but she did not indicate that any other aspect of the scheme would be examined at that time.
On what basis is it assessed? What do you mean when you say that it is not meant to be a subsidy? What on earth does that mean?
We are not making a payment that is designed to meet a specific part of the cost of building a house; it is designed to encourage people to build houses. The payment is sufficient to ensure that someone who might not otherwise do so builds a house.
That is exactly the point that I am making. You can call it whatever you want: a subsidy or an encouragement—let us call it an encouragement. Why is it not possible, during the review of the geographic targeting, to assess whether the level of encouragement is sufficient to allow appropriate numbers of houses to be built?
We will do that, but the payment is not linked to the cost of the house.
That is classic civil service.
In any particular area, the cost of houses varies across the board, because the house size is determined by the person who builds the house.
Can I start again? I am obviously misunderstanding something, and I think that Mr Perrett is misunderstanding what I am trying to say. In the review that the Executive will conduct in 2007, will the Executive examine the level of encouragement, to use your word—bawbees or pounds—that will be available post-2007?
My understanding was that the undertaking was to look at the targeting, not at the amounts involved.
Is that your understanding or is it a definitive answer?
My recollection is that the minister said that we would examine the targeting in 2007. I cannot commit the minister to doing anything other than that.
I would not expect you to do so.
Given that this is one of the issues that has come up during our consideration of evidence on the Crofting Reform etc Bill, it would be appropriate for the committee, as part of its scrutiny of the Croft House Grant (Scotland) Regulations 2006, to ask the minister to consider those points. We should ask her to consider the effectiveness of the scheme in the light of the increase in building costs throughout our communities. Rather than interrogate Mr Perrett, who is not allowed to give us the correct answer—that is how I am interpreting his answers to Alasdair Morrison's questions—we should directly ask the minister to consider the issue in the light of the representations made by Alasdair Morrison. Would that help?
That would certainly be a starting point. We do not have to call it a scheme now, as I think that the civil servant called it a system of encouragement. We might get a different explanation from the minister, but the convener is right: it is ultimately an issue for the politicians to decide and determine.
Are colleagues happy for me to make those representations to the minister on the committee's behalf?
Members indicated agreement.
Does anyone have any other questions or comments?
I have one more comment. It is a welcome departure to see that the scheme is now being administered from the island of Tiree and that good civil service jobs are being relocated. Although it is not in my constituency, that relocation is part of a policy that has been hugely successful in other parts of Scotland. I am delighted for those who are getting gainful employment on the island of Tiree under this system of encouragement.
I will not ask Mr Perrett to come back in on that.
I visited the staff on Tiree to see the new building and was very impressed. People were happy to be working there and there was no sense that they had been forced to go to Tiree. They did not need crofters building grants and loans to get themselves a house.
As there are no further points, I thank Mr Perrett for coming along and answering our questions.
Members indicated agreement.
We will take up with the minister the point about the cost of building houses.
Meeting continued in private until 12:27.