Environment and Rural Development Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Official Report 232KB pdf

---

Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

We move on swiftly to our next agenda item—I see the Minister for Communities is arriving quietly at the back. This is our last evidence-taking session at stage 1 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill. I again welcome Ross Finnie, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, and Malcolm Chisholm, the Minister for Communities. You have brought various officials with you, whose name plates are being set out. The officials have very big files, so they must be the bill team. I invite the ministers to introduce their officials and to give us brief opening statements.

I am accompanied by Elspeth MacDonald from the solicitors division and Jon Rathjen, who is the bill team leader.

I am accompanied by Cara Davidson and Michael Lowndes from the planning division.

Malcolm Chisholm and I are pleased to be present at the committee's final evidence-taking session at stage 1 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill. From reading the Official Reports of all the committee's evidence sessions so far, I am struck by the broad and—if I might say so without any sense of bias—at times almost fervent support for the bill's principles that has been enunciated by some witnesses. I believe that that is largely because there is widespread agreement that the bill will enhance protection of Scotland's environment, encourage public participation—which I regard as being very important—and make a substantial contribution to plan making and policy making.

There has been support for the Executive's having widened the scope of what was envisioned in the original European directive and for our strategic environmental assessment gateway, the templates and our pathfinder exercises, which have been developed in collaboration with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. All are designed to ensure that, if the bill is passed, it will result in satisfactory implementation and an effective and efficient regime.

I will address a few of the issues that were raised in evidence, because it might be helpful to members to hear our reflections on them. Concerns were expressed about the bill's potential for increasing bureaucracy. We are clear that the bill's provisions are designed to keep bureaucracy to a minimum. We believe that, by having pre-screening and screening, we will ensure that SEAs will be targeted only at plans that could have significant environmental effects. Advice will be provided not only by consultation authorities, but by the gateway and through guidance.

The fact that we are building on existing good practice in the current regulatory regime means that the bill's provisions do not constitute entirely new burdens. In a sense, the introduction of SEA has been measured, in that the bill has been preceded by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Scotland) Regulations 2004, which implemented the European directive last July. There are opportunities for SEA to offer savings because up-front identification of environmental problems will allow for earlier and less expensive preventive or remedial action.

I turn to issues that arise from pre-screening. I note the view that pre-screening might not be sufficiently transparent because there will be no public notification of cases that are screened out. The point of pre-screening is to reduce bureaucracy by empowering responsible authorities to screen out of the SEA process plans that have no, or minimal, environmental effect. I must stress that pre-screening is a limited provision—it applies only to additional plans to which section 5(4) relates which have no, or minimal, environmental effect, so it is not a get-out-of-SEA-free card, as some people have suggested. However, in the light of what was said in evidence, I will be glad to give further consideration to the operational aspects of pre-screening, including notification and registration of cases.

The committee's witnesses expressed views on quality control and enforcement. I consider that the bill, along with administrative initiatives such as the gateway, the guidance and the templates, provides a robust framework for compliance and consistent high quality. The bill has a sharp set of enforcement teeth. The Scottish ministers can call for sight of any plan to direct that an SEA must be performed. In addition, no qualifying plan may be adopted unless it complies with the bill.

Some witnesses offered views on the need for case evaluation of strategic environmental assessment. That will be achieved by the pathfinder project that we are currently undertaking with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. My officials are working actively with COSLA to agree the project plan and I expect the project to begin this summer, which means that it will be dealing with actual cases—not theoretical cases—that come within the ambit of the statute and will provide ample evidence to test the process. That project will begin in the summer, so we will be able to get results from it soon.

Regarding civil emergencies, national defence, financial and budgetary plans, I stress that the bill does not exempt the Ministry of Defence per se but exempts some types of plans for which the MOD might be responsible. Indeed, for reasons of safety and national security, the bill will not apply to national defence or to civil emergency plans that any authority develops.

The bill will also not apply to financial plans. That exemption is for sound practical reasons, as there would be no practical or meaningful outcome from a strategic environmental assessment that examined the top line of a budget figure. Rather, we want to examine plans that have an impact on the ground. Proposed strategic actions that arise from financial plans could give rise to significant environmental effects; therefore, strategic environmental assessment is more meaningful at that point.

As has been discussed in the committee's meetings, the bill excludes plans that relate to individual schools because the bill is targeted at strategic level. I am satisfied that plans that relate to individual schools do not constitute strategic matters but would be addressed by individual plans, which are under the control of planning legislation.

As has been pointed out, the bill does not provide for an independent strategic body. My view, which the majority of consultation respondents supported, is that the strategic environmental gateway offers by far the most cost-effective option for advice provision, quality support, liaison with consultation authorities and information management systems. Therefore, I consider the gateway to be a more than adequate method of supporting strategic environmental assessment.

Although some details of the bill will benefit from further consideration, the value, validity and good sense of the underpinning principles have been widely endorsed. The bill aims to protect the environment and improve public decision making with the absolute minimum of bureaucracy. The effect is to ensure that the environment is better protected and that Scotland will take the lead in embracing the principles of strategic environmental assessment more broadly. I am determined that Scotland should not repeat many of the environmental mistakes of the past, and I believe that the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill is a good way of ensuring that.

I am happy to respond to questions, but Malcolm Chisholm might wish to say a few words first.

Thank you. I invite Malcolm Chisholm to give the planning perspective.

Like Ross Finnie, I enjoyed reading the evidence and noted the degree of consensus on the principles of the bill. I share enthusiastically in that consensus generally and with particular reference to the planning system, which is what you wish me to discuss.

As members know, a white paper on planning reforms will be published soon. We have been open about the fact that we want to enhance the role of development plans and the national planning framework, so I will talk about those two in my opening remarks, because both will be subject to strategic environmental assessment. As Ross Finnie said, that will allow us to avoid the mistakes of the past and it will enhance the role of planning as a key part of environmental protection.

All levels of plan—local, city-region, which is what we propose for the future, and national—will require a strategic environmental assessment. The key stage, about which the committee knows but which is worth repeating briefly, is the publication of an environmental report alongside a consultative draft plan as the basis for public consultation. I regard public consultation as being a particularly important part of the wider planning agenda of improving public involvement. Alternative options must be assessed and a statement must be made about how environmental considerations have been taken into account, which is crucial.

The requirements will also apply to future versions of the national planning framework. Therefore, SEA will play an important part in the preparation of the second national planning framework by ensuring that environmental considerations are taken into account at the highest level in the planning system. The precise details of the process are yet to be finalised, but all the key stages in the SEA process, which I mentioned, will be involved. The method will build and draw on the experience of environmental appraisal that was gained during preparation of the first national planning framework, which of course happened prior to the introduction of the SEA regulations. The SEA process that will be adopted for the second national planning framework will be tailored specifically to the national spatial scale; it will address key strategic spatial choices and it will involve, again, full public consultation. NPF 2 will draw on and pull together other strategic policy statements and documents, for example national strategies on transport or waste, which will themselves be subject to the requirements of the bill. SEAs that have already been prepared for such strategies will contain a considerable amount of material on which the NPF assessment will be able to draw.

I acknowledge that a principal concern of the committee is to assess the effect of extending the SEA regime through the bill. First, we should acknowledge that consideration by planners of the likely environmental consequences of their development plans is not an entirely new concept. Such consideration was the normal practice in the planning system prior to implementation of the SEA directive. SEA formalised the process and gave it a clear structure by introducing into the planning system new requirements to undertake environmental assessment systematically and transparently. The introduction of the SEA regulations in July 2004 put planning authorities at the forefront of development of the techniques and methods that are required. Prior to July 2004, planning authorities could take highly varying approaches to assessing the environmental impact of development plan policies. The regulations introduced a common basis for such work.

Planning authorities are already applying the requirements of the regulations. Furthermore, more than half the SEA cases that are in progress concern development plans. The planning system is therefore something of a pioneer in Scotland in the implementation of SEA. To assist authorities, we issued guidance that relates specifically to the application of SEA to development plans. We do not therefore expect enactment of the bill to add significantly to the existing SEA requirements that apply to planning authorities.

I entirely welcome the new requirements that the SEA regime introduces. The requirements to carry out environmental assessment systematically and to engage in early and effective public consultation accord closely with the principles that underpin our proposals for modernisation and reform of the planning system.

Thank you. Your opening remarks were helpful in setting the context and it is good to know that you have been reading the reports of our evidence sessions. I particularly welcome the hint that the Executive's position on pre-screening is moving—we will follow that up and reflect on the matter.

How do the ministers envisage the SEA process applying to decisions on whether to go ahead with new nuclear power stations in the UK or Scotland?

Which minister wants the first stab at that question? There is nothing like a closed question, is there?

We should be clear about the fact that there is no proposal in the bill to repeal the provisions of the Electricity Act 1989 and I am not aware that my colleagues are contemplating any such proposal. Nuclear development will therefore continue to require planning permission, which means that it will come within the mischief of the bill. A strategic view can be taken, but plans would still have to be adopted locally. The answer is simple; the bill's provisions will apply.

I repeat what I said at question time last week about the planning aspects. There are no proposals in anything that we are considering in relation to planning reform to change the arrangements that exist at present for approval of nuclear power stations. We need to get that off the park, because it has been bandied about for the past month or so and it is an absolute fabrication that is based on absolutely no evidence. There are many issues to discuss in relation to planning reform, but nuclear power stations are not affected by anything that we are doing on planning reform.

There are clearly difficult decisions that must be taken on nuclear power, and decisions will have to be taken at some level. My question is this: will SEA apply to such decisions? Will the decision on the balance of different types of technologies that we need to produce our electricity be subject to SEA at that strategic level?

There were two questions there. The phrase "strategic environmental assessment" is one that will now have two slightly different meanings. One will be governed by legislation that is the subject of the Westminster Government—the instrument that that Government passed to bring into effect the European directive on strategic environmental assessment. That is in place, and the decision to which Mr Ruskell alluded on the balance of electricity generation is a reserved matter. The decision on developing energy policy—the nature and determination of the balance of the energy need and therefore the nature and the recommendation of that energy policy—is a reserved matter. However, whether it is reserved or not, you still have in place in the Westminster Parliament a statutory instrument that brings into effect the European directive on strategic environmental assessment.

Will that apply to the decision on whether to go for nuclear generation or some other mix of generation? That decision will clearly have an impact on Scotland. Will the UK legislation apply to that decision?

It would be improper for me as a minister in the Scottish Executive to pronounce on that with absolutely clarity. I am quite clear that that legislation is in force and I am quite clear that, in determining the mix, which is reserved, ministers will have to bear in mind the considerations that you raise. The legislation will apply at two levels: I agree that it will apply at the level at which strategic decisions are taken, but even if a view is reached at that level, pronouncements on any particular project will fall within the mischief of both the Scottish planning system and the bill.

So the decision at UK level will be subject to SEA.

It is not for us to presume on that matter, as the minister said, but I can confirm that there are UK-wide regulations that apply also to plans for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We cannot prejudge assessment of the situation and it would be improper for us to do so, but legislation that is equivalent to our existing legislation is in place in the rest of the UK.

I am just trying to get some clarity on the matter, because it is pretty important to understand where the bill stops and starts. The decision on different types of energy generation will clearly have an impact on Scotland, so it is important to understand at what level that decision will be made.

I think that we are aware of the level at which it takes place. It would be disingenuous not to acknowledge that the determination of energy policy is a reserved matter. The matters over which we have powers in Scotland are matters such as the promotion of alternative energy. The Scotland Act 1998 does not give us responsibility or powers over the determination of energy policy per se, so that is a reserved matter. If the question is how the reserved matter will be determined, the answer is that it will be determined by the Westminster Parliament. I can add only that the Westminster Parliament has passed the statutory instrument that brings into effect the European directive on strategic environmental assessment. As you are aware, the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill goes beyond that and will apply only to matters that are within the purview of the Scottish Executive.

Before I take an avalanche of questions on this issue, I ask you to reflect on whether you want to give us that information—on the limits of our bill and of the UK legislation—in writing. It is important for us to work out how widely the bill will have effect and there are clearly requirements on you, as the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, as to how the bill will actually kick in. I do not want the committee to spend all morning discussing the boundaries of the legislation.

I am happy to put that information in writing. I am quite clear about the distinction that I have drawn. Determining the shape of policy is a reserved matter for the Westminster Government. Will there be consideration of strategic environmental assessment? It is for the Westminster Government to apply the provisions—

May I interrupt you, minister? I do not want to spend all morning discussing this because your helpful clarification—

Okay. Well, neither do I, but I do not want there to be an impression that we are unclear about the matter.

Yes, but equally I can sense the rest of the committee wanting to come back and explore the issue in more depth.

Okay. I am happy to produce that information in writing.

It is a major issue.

I am not disputing that it is a major issue. I am disputing whether we should spend the whole morning debating the limits of the legislation. If we can get straightforward evidence in writing from the minister, we can look at it before we return to the matter next week.

May I make a helpful suggestion in relation to the points that were raised by Mark Ruskell? First, I suggest that he writes to his local member of Parliament, who sits at Westminster. Secondly, I suggest that he writes to the UK Minister for Energy, Mr Malcolm Wicks MP. I understand what both ministers have said and, frankly, I do not see that there is a need for anything to be put in writing. What has been articulated here is perfectly clear from my perspective.

The next person on my list is Alex Johnstone.

Successive Governments have been accused of gold plating European directives—indeed, I have accused Ross Finnie of doing so many times. In his opening remarks, he referred to "widening the scope" of the directive. Is the minister confident that that is not simply gold plating? Further to that, will the minister comment on whether he believes that the bill will put further financial and administrative burdens in the way of achieving the aims that he has often set out to the committee? I give the specific example of the programmes that Scottish Water is conducting. Are the terms of the bill proofed against adding cost, administrative burden and delay to such programmes?

In answer to the first part of that question, I hope that members are well aware that the provisions of the European directive call for plans to come within the mischief of strategic environmental assessment only if they stem from a regulatory requirement. The Executive's view is that there is no logic to that. A major plan or proposal may emanate from any source. What is the difference between a plan that comes from a regulatory requirement and a plan that comes from a policy requirement of a Government that is concerned about the environment? I see no logic in such a distinction, and it is to remove that illogical approach that we are widening the provision. That is why the bill says that plans do not have to emanate from a regulatory requirement to be subject to it; it applies to all public policies that are developed by all public agencies. That gives us a logical framework and not a situation in which a plan arising from a regulatory requirement comes within the mischief of the bill but any major policy that is developed by Government falls outwith it. That illogical situation is why we introduced the bill.

On the question about cost, I am bound to say that I note the language that Alex Johnstone uses, in which anything that seems to be of an environmental nature is just a burden. That approach is wholly wrong; we can all think of example after example of attempts to remedy major environmental damage long after it has happened. When we embark on major plans that are of strategic significance, our first thought when we put pen to paper should be, "What, if any, will be the strategic environmental impact of the policy that we are about to develop?" That is the mindset that we must create. Once we have that, we will remove great burdens of cost and inefficiency that are inherent in our policy development process.

The Scottish Water programme is obviously designed to achieve aims that we have discussed many times. A further layer of administration, bureaucracy and regulation might slow that process. Is a balance sought?

As Scottish Water starts more often than not from the policy aim of delivering an environmental benefit and not causing a problem, it will be much better able to meet the pre-screening and screening tests. It will also be much better placed for an environmental assessment, if required, because a heavy environmental burden is placed on those who develop the policy by the legislation that governs and regulates Scottish Water.

I understand that some aspects of plans and programmes that relate solely to national defence and civil emergencies and financial and budgetary plans and programmes will be excluded from the bill's scope. I am interested in the idea of high-level resource allocation as a starting point. When the Government decides on an allocation, it suggests that a policy is about to be applied. How does the Government machine take that allocation decision to the point at which we find out when strategic environmental assessment will kick in?

Are you talking solely about national defence issues?

No.

Are you talking about all financial plans?

Many matters are excluded, but we are talking about your powers over cash decisions in the Scottish budget—about items for which you as a minister have full responsibility.

That applies not just to me.

The question applies to both ministers.

The whole Executive is involved, because of collective responsibility. If a matter is described purely in budgetary terms, it does not fall within the mischief of the bill. If a financial allocation is first expressed purely as a reserve—an allocation of funding—nothing kicks in. The minute that preparation and proposal start of a plan that will use that resource and will have a strategic environmental impact, the plan will fall within the mischief of the bill. If a plan is made before finance is allocated, it is caught anyway. However, while a resource is simply a provision of finance for an undeveloped possibility, it is not subject to the bill. As soon as it gives rise to a practical proposition that is being developed as a policy instrument, it falls within the mischief of the bill.

If you decide to allocate cash to a plan, in which part of the Executive does the process to apply strategic environmental assessment start?

That happens in the part of the Executive that draws up the plan that will use the financial provision for practical implementation.

Scottish Enterprise gave evidence that the SEA process should be implemented in the context of the new planning legislation. Will the minister who is responsible for planning comment on how what I have asked about relates to the planning process?

You will have to go into more detail, because I thought that I answered your question in my opening statement. How the bill applies to development plans is fairly clear—SEA already applies under the regulations, so the bill will not make an enormous difference to the existing position under the regulations, although there will certainly be more clarity on the need for a full SEA of the national planning framework. That is an important development and we intend it to enhance the status of the framework. The SEA will draw on SEAs that may already have been developed for the constituent parts of the framework. If I have missed your point you will have to ask your question again.

I am trying to take this step by step. Leaks have suggested that some things will be designated as being of national importance. The Executive may therefore decide not to put some bits of the budget through the same process as other more regular bits of the budget. Are there items in the national planning framework that will not follow the process that we are discussing this afternoon?

Certainly not. The reason that I so much welcome SEA is that it will be an enhancement. The whole point of SEA is to improve the environmental aspects of plans and to improve public consultation. SEA is therefore completely the opposite of what has been said in the spin that other groups have put on planning issues. The national planning framework will lead to more consultation and more environmental assessment. The status of the framework will be enhanced.

I therefore cannot see anything that would bear the interpretation that you are putting on it. What you are implying about the budgets is not clear to me. I do not follow your line of argument.

I wanted to understand the process if you have a budget and decide to spend money on a particular project. However, you have just confirmed that the national planning framework will be subject to SEA and I was very pleased to hear that. It is essential that the public are involved as early as possible. That was the point that I wanted to be clear on.

I want to follow up on Rob Gibson's other question on finance. From what the ministers have said, it sounds as if a spending review—which will allocate money for projects and particular budget lines—will be covered by SEA. Is my interpretation right?

If all we are doing—and I mean all—is allocating finance and making a financial provision, then that is not covered. Rob Gibson approached the question from the direction of allocating finance; he was concerned about what would happen when there was a simple allocation of finance. However, you could approach the question from the other direction. You could declare that X was a matter of policy and you could start to prepare a plan. In that situation, the first thing that you would be doing would not be sorting out the finance but committing yourself to a policy development. That development might be a Scottish Water plan, or a waste plan, or whatever. If you come at the question from that direction, you are within the mischief of the bill as soon as you start to develop a policy that will have a strategic environmental impact. You may not have made your financial provision and you may not have a budget line, and that is a matter that you would have to deal with. However, making the financial provision does not, of itself, come within the mischief of the bill. What comes within the mischief of the bill is the development of a policy—by any Government body or department—that could have a strategic environmental impact.

So the SEA will have been done before you get to the spending review.

In many cases, yes. Rob Gibson envisaged the situation in which we might simply be making a financial provision. In that situation, we would not be within the mischief of the bill. However, as soon as we say that we will use the finance for a particular purpose, we are within the mischief of the bill if that purpose is being developed and will have a strategic environmental impact.

Okay. I just wanted to tease that out from both angles.

Perhaps we could consider some details of the bill that have confused people who have given us evidence. For example, there seems to be a lack of clarity about the role of the responsible authorities. The main concern was whether private bodies that exercise public functions will be required to carry out SEAs on plans and programmes that qualify under section 5(4) of the bill, which is our gold-plated section. Private bodies are included in section 2(1), so why are they not included in section 5(4)?

Elspeth MacDonald will listen carefully to my response. The fundamental distinction is that, where a private company carries out what we might previously have regarded as a regulated public function, that function will come within the mischief of the bill. Any other function that that company takes upon itself to perform will not come under the bill; a similar function carried out by any other private company would not come under the bill either. I will use a utility as an example. If a private company conducts a regulated activity, matters that come under that activity will come within the mischief of the bill. Any other service that the company has developed and provides, and which comes within its private and unregulated activity, will not come within the mischief of the bill, as it would not for every other private company.

Will clear guidance be given with the bill about that? The public utilities did not seem to be aware of the distinction.

Yes.

In your introductory comments, you talked about the overwhelming support that there has been for the bill, but there has also been a lot of nervousness about how it will be introduced and how people will implement it. I want to focus on two related things: the gateway and training. We have received a lot of evidence on the need for flexibility with the gateway and for it to monitor the impact of the application of strategic environmental assessment. Will you say a little more about the long-term need for a gateway? We have debated whether the gateway needs statutory effect in the bill and how it relates to the guidance that will be used to implement the bill, but almost everybody who has appeared before the committee has highlighted its importance and the need to see it as a long-term means of implementing the legislation, although its character may change over time. Will you comment on that?

A related issue to improving the understanding of those who must apply the legislation is that it has perhaps taken a little longer than we had hoped to get the pilot projects running—I think that COSLA's evidence mentioned those—but, as I have said, we are much closer to that occurring. I suppose that there is a slight advantage in the delay, in that the exercise will not be theoretical but will deal with applications that have arisen from the introduction of the statutory instrument. There will be general piloting and an attempt to inform people who must apply the legislation this summer; I hope that that will benefit not only me, but everyone, including the committee and potential users and applicants.

With all due respect to Elspeth MacDonald, I am reluctant to have lawyers trying to define the exact nature of the gateway. If it has a dynamic and develops, it seems to me that it would be better to allow that to happen rather than putting it in the straitjacket of a legislative framework. I totally accept that we must change people's thinking and I acknowledge that there is hesitance about how the bill will impact on people, which is why we have been at pains to develop the material that we have.

Members will have seen the guidance on the existing statutory instrument that we prepared jointly with DEFRA and other Administrations. We plan to produce a revised and updated version that will encompass all the provisions in the bill. We will address the issue through a combination of preparing further material, dealing with and informing the people who will have to apply SEA and ensuring that the gateway works. I am reasonably confident on the matter, although I in no way diminish the initial need for us to improve the level of education and understanding. I am confident that, once we have the tools in place, we will have an effective implementation.

What role do you envisage for the gateway in training? It is fairly obvious from the evidence that we have had that expertise exists in the planning community. Are there proposals to learn the lessons from the past year of implementation of SEA through the existing regulations? I have seen the guidance on those regulations—it is pretty extensive, but if I was a mainstream officer in an organisation, I am not sure that it would help me to apply the legislation, unless there was a coherent programme to take me through it. The issue is about changing the culture. Communities Scotland was up front about the need to change the culture and the need for a long-term programme for all staff. Do you have any comments on that?

We regard the gateway as embryonic, even in its present state, and we are committed to developing its role and to responding to the lessons that have been learned from the operation of SEA in practice. The Executive is committed to the bill's implementation, because we regard the bill as an extremely important change in the way in which we approach such matters. Therefore, we cannot simply drop the issue after the bill has been passed and say that we have ticked that box; instead, we will have to ensure that the gateway continues to develop.

The guidance is comprehensive, although I accept that, for certain issues or policy development areas, authorities will want the guidance to be amended, developed or produced in various subsets. We envisage that there will be a dynamic, but all that we can claim at present is that we have set down a framework that should enable us to implement the bill. However, we are conscious that, as time moves on, we will have to be alert to any need to develop the material.

You said that you did not want to define the exact nature of the gateway in the bill. I understand the reason for that—you want to build in flexibility for the future—but do you agree that we need to define the monitoring of the SEA gateway in the bill? There are concerns that the gateway's role will change over time, which may disadvantage some responsible authorities. Surely a robust monitoring process might address some of those concerns.

Obviously, I am happy to reflect on that point. However, once we have the principles of a bill and some details of how it will be implemented, I am always slightly reluctant to commit to the bill every aspect of the matter. As the convener said, we are dealing with changes in behaviour and in the way in which those who are currently charged with the heavy responsibility of developing policies approach that task. I am not sure that human behaviour is always best addressed through legislative wording. We need to get the detail of the bill right for matters that will arise. However, although I am open to argument on the notion that we should include in the bill measures on how we provide material assistance for and develop the gateway, I am reluctant always to determine human behaviour through administrative burden.

I understand that point, but my question was about how we monitor the cultural change and ensure that the gateway helps to develop it. It might be useful to include a provision in the bill to ensure that adequate monitoring takes place.

I take that point. We have expressed our views. We shall soon know whether we have major problems with attitudes not changing. That would make it difficult to process the applications, because it would become difficult to determine them if the mindset and approach are such that people do not provide adequate answers to the questions about environmental impacts. I hear what you are saying.

I would like to raise one of the issues that the Finance Committee asked us to explore with you at this stage. It is a question for both ministers. The Finance Committee stated in its report that

"there is an urgent need for work on this Bill and on planning reform to be co-ordinated in terms of assessing the overall implications for local authorities."

That committee was particularly keen to examine the changing relationship between local authorities, and it was looking for integration between planning reform and strategic environmental assessment. What has been done to date to help that integration and to ensure that it happens?

SEA is certainly being taken fully into account in planning reform. We know what is already required by the regulations and we obviously know the contents of the bill as well. The Finance Committee was concerned that that was not happening, so all that I can do is assure the committee that it certainly is happening and that I very much welcome SEA. It enhances the planning system in the directions that I have suggested by placing more emphasis on the environment and on additional public consultation, and that is something that I welcome in the planning system. I do not think that there is any question of those of us who are involved in developing the planning reforms being unsighted of that or in any way ignoring it. In general terms, that is the answer, but I do not know whether people are seeking more specific reassurance.

A specific issue that was raised with us directly was the shortage of qualified planners. Do you have a view on that?

We put out some money recently for extra resources for planning. We have also recently commissioned research to examine comprehensively the level of financial and staff resources that are devoted to the planning service, and we shall also examine training and supply issues. We shall use the evidence from that work to determine whether further resources are required. It is obviously an issue, and that is why I recently announced some funding for improving capacity in the planning system. That was a more general announcement, but it certainly covers the area of planning as well.

One of COSLA's main concerns during the first evidence session was about the funding and resources that will be available to implement SEA. Given the role that local authorities are likely to play as responsible authorities, have disagreements over funding been clarified or resolved?

I am well aware of the evidence that COSLA gave to the committee. I am also well aware of the meetings that we had with COSLA in the preparation of the bill. I can understand that COSLA remains nervous that the bill will give rise to a huge burden of work, and we are sympathetic to that. We need to ensure at the outset that local authorities and other producers of planning at all levels understand the points that the convener articulated about needing to change mindsets and attitudes when beginning the process of producing a plan that has regard to the potential for strategic environmental impact.

We believe that if people address those issues at the outset, they will realise that the new process does not require them to do everything completely differently, but it does require them to start thinking, "Might this have been subject to an environmental impact assessment?", rather than waiting until the end of the process when it is too late and they have to revisit the whole process. There are opportunities not only for doing a bit more at the outset but for relieving oneself at the end of the process of the need to go back to the very beginning to address issues that should have been considered at the start. The bill completely turns on its head the way in which people have to approach those issues.

We are not agreed, but we are not falling out either. I appreciate the evidence that you have taken. The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform is well aware of the request. Malcolm Chisholm has, as he has just pointed out, commissioned work on planning and its impacts and he will obviously reflect on that work, which will also help to integrate the bill and the planning bill that he will introduce.

I have a supplementary question for the Minister for Communities on his responsibilities. The current responsibilities for administrating and monitoring EIA lie within your department. What actions have you taken to ensure that SEA and EIA complement each other successfully?

The dividing line between the two is fairly clear. EIA has been going for several years now and questions have been raised about the quality of some of that work. However, the research on that was Europe-wide rather than focused specifically on Scotland, so we have commissioned our own research to examine the implementation of the EIA regulations in Scotland, how they are working in practice and the extent to which they deliver on environmental issues. We are not complacent about EIA—we want to ensure that the regulations are operating effectively and we want to enhance the quality of environmental statements—but we do not think that the dividing lines between EIA and SEA are unclear.

It is just a general question. Because of your department's competence, it is your responsibility to ensure that those strategic and tactical approaches mesh and complement each other. If you do not think that there is an issue, that is fair enough, but we shall see when we monitor it ourselves.

That is a notice of intent for the committee's future work programme.

There seems to be confusion about the relationship between SEA and EIA. We took evidence on that. Scottish Water was worried about duplication of effort and Historic Scotland did not think that there would be any efficiencies from SEA being the first line of defence for the environment, although other witnesses thought that the introduction of SEA would mean that there would be no need to have such wide-ranging work done for EIAs. What guidance will accompany the bill to clarify those matters?

Some guidance might be required, but the discussion is starting to go round in a circle, as we are now focusing on the need for the individual parties that will find their plans subject to SEA to think slightly out of the box about what they do. When it comes to individual planning applications or individual plans and processes that are part of them, I find it difficult to believe that it will not become immediately apparent to a body—it does not matter whether it is Scottish Water or another body—that addresses properly the bill's provisions and meets its requirements in producing plans, as it will have to do, that having gone through the overarching process of fulfilling the bill's requirements will have significantly improved its ability to meet the requirements of an environmental impact assessment. We might have to produce some guidance, and I would be happy to do so, but I would be very disappointed if it was not easier for a body that had gone through SEA to fulfil some of the detailed requirements of an EIA.

If SEA was applied to a strategy for transport infrastructure development and it was found that the developments led to conflict with a national target on, for example, traffic stabilisation, would you expect the responsible authority to amend the strategy in light of the conflict?

You need not respond by making reference to any particular project, minister.

So, just to clarify, the question is what would happen if a responsible authority came forward with a transport plan that was in conflict with—

A national target.

It seems to me that your question is not a trick question, but gets to the heart of the matter. In the past, the various proposals, including transport proposals, were not integrated. Under the bill, if a responsible authority is promoting a plan and has set some other strategic objective, which might also have been subject to SEA, it seems to me that SEA will highlight matters in a way that might not have been done properly under the previous process and procedures. I think that the result will be that the conflict has to be resolved in the strategic environmental assessment.

So, SEA could be a way of ironing out potential conflicts.

Yes, I think that it could be—I certainly hope that that is the case.

One of our previous witnesses said that, although SEA would neither provide solutions nor give the environment more weight than other considerations such as economic and social factors, it would ensure that environmental considerations were heard and taken account of in the decision-making process. Do you agree with that interpretation?

SEA will give a far greater focus on the sustainable development agenda in all our policy and planning processes. It will ensure that environmental impact is given the equal weight that it ought to be given. If the bill is approved, we will have a statutory basis on which to ensure that that is the case.

I thank both ministers for coming before the committee and for being prepared to be grilled by us this morning.

I seek members' agreement to take our discussions on the committee report on the bill in private until such time as we are ready to publish the report. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, colleagues. Our next meeting is at 9.45 am next Wednesday.

Meeting closed at 12:37.