European Committee, 23 Apr 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 23, 2002

Official Report 213KB pdf

---

Water Framework Directive

We move on to item 4, which is on the water framework directive. At a previous meeting, we agreed to ask the clerk to present a revised version of our paper on implementation. We now have pretty much the final version. I hope that colleagues do not want to make major changes to the paper, but I draw to members' attention an omission that we might want to make. I noticed that the last sentence of paragraph 11 points out that both approaches to the regulation of water are quite relevant. We headed the paragraph "Emission standards v quality objectives", but, rather than setting one against the other—given that both are relevant—I wondered whether members might want to remove that point. We have discussed the paper thoroughly. It is a good piece of work.

In paragraphs 45 and 46, the paper deals with the environmental objectives under article 4. The paper alludes to the alternatives, which are highlighted in bold and which include the fact that periods can be extended in specific circumstances and the possibility that less stringent objectives can be set. Is there any way that we can provide more detail on that? Funnily enough, we have done so for abstraction exemptions. Is there any way that paragraphs 45 and 46 could be expanded on?

We are close to publication, which is why I hesitate to suggest making changes, because it might put back the timetable.

I have consulted our legal adviser. If the information to be inserted is factual, in the sense that it fleshes out and explains the objectives under article 4, the committee would not necessarily be stating an opinion; it would simply be saying, "These are the environmental objectives that could be considered with this flexibility." If the committee were comfortable with delegating responsibility to the convener and me to insert such a paragraph into the report, I am sure that we would be happy to do so.

Would that be agreeable, Ben?

That would be great.

I have another point, on paragraph 67, which is about nitrate-vulnerable zones. I have cracked on about this issue on numerous occasions. I have done more work on the matter and will meet the Minister for Environment and Rural Development about it in May. I wonder why the number of alternatives is reduced. The European Court of Justice has ruled on NVZs, which suggests that there are differences. I wonder why the issue is reduced to a paragraph.

Is it reduced from the previous version of the report?

I am not sure, but the report does not reflect the concern that I have raised on this matter.

The clerk has confirmed that the paragraph is no shorter than the previous version. I am reluctant to change the report at this stage, because we have had a number of opportunities to revise it, and we are just about set for publication. The report is for guidance and much more work will be done by the lead committee. Is it possible that your concerns could be taken into account then?

What is the urgency? Why must the report be completed this week as opposed to next week?

To be fair, at the last two meetings we asked for any final points to be made, and said that we would bring back the report with the final amendments.

I raised nitrate-vulnerable zones on both occasions, but that is not reflected in the report. I am not asking for a complicated thing. We have considered the parts of the report relating to whisky and visits, but the points that have been made about NVZs have not been reflected in the relevant paragraph. Currently, the Executive is consulting on this matter, which is why I felt it was important to raise it on two occasions previously.

What amendments were you looking for in the previous version that were not incorporated into this final version?

The point is similar to that which I made earlier about paragraphs 45 and 46. The directive sets out time scales for testing and retesting, and specifies circumstances in which the test period may be suspended or not included. Those conditions have been set and have been interpreted on two occasions by the European Court of Justice. The ruling on a case that the National Farmers Union took to that court referred only to instances in which agriculture was deemed to make a considerable contribution to pollution, and not to the blanket application of a condition to all farms. The point is that there are circumstances in which the directive says, "Once you have tested, if you find the level to be below a certain level, you do not have to test for another four years or seven years or some other period." The report should refer to those circumstances.

Is that a point that you have already raised?

Yes. I have raised it twice before.

I understand the point that Ben is making. Paragraph 67 seems to be saying that the water framework directive does not overrule the nitrates directive. They are two separate instructions from Europe. We could have a long debate about what is in the nitrates directive, how it should be implemented and what the recent case law is. However, is that strictly relevant to paragraph 67, which is saying that the nitrates directive is separate from the water framework directive?

I think that, after failing to be implemented, the nitrates directive is due to be implemented at the same time as the water framework directive. I am not too sure whether it is coming in separately.

Could Christine Boch inform us about that?

The nitrates directive is a 1991 directive, which should have been implemented a long time ago. At the moment, I do not have the exact date in my mind but implementation is well overdue. There have been a number of cases and the UK has been asked by the Commission to designate additional nitrate-vulnerable zones, as Sarah Boyack pointed out.

The issues of the water framework directive and the nitrates directive are separate. The water framework directive attempts to bring into a single framework all the EC environmental legislation that relates to water protection. All the points relating to nitrate-vulnerable zones are to be dealt with under the nitrates directive until the water framework directive comes into operation. I have to refresh my memory as to the exact date on which the new regime takes over. I think that it is December 2006 but I would have to check that.

December 2007.

However, at the moment, the UK has to comply with the instructions on nitrate-vulnerable zones.

Ben, would it satisfy you if we say something like "although the debates should be separate, concerns have been raised regarding the matter"?

It would. I am not sure whether, while the water framework directive repeals some previous directives, it also incorporates current directives, including the nitrates directive.

Yes.

It is therefore not separate from the water framework directive. It is part of it. The water framework directive brings everything together.

Does that change the nitrates directive?

It does not change it. The water framework directive puts on to a new timetable the implementation of all those directives within it that deal with water protection.

Yes.

So in effect it puts the foot on the accelerator for implementation of the nitrate-vulnerable zones.

The water framework directive does not change the date of implementation of the nitrates directive.

No.

So it does not put the foot on the accelerator.

It has forced the nitrates directive to be refocused.

It is just that the approach to water is different. It is an overall approach and plans in relation to quality of different types of water have to be put together in a holistic way. It does not change anything for the nitrates directive.

I am aware of that. The water framework directive does not change every directive within it. It repeals some, some are unchanged and some are changed.

The nitrates directive is not one of the directives that is being changed.

That is not what I am trying to point out. Within the water framework directive, which covers nitrate-vulnerable zones, there is scope for different implementation, which is what the report concerns. Is that right?

Scope for different implementation of the nitrates directive must be assessed by reference to the nitrates directive.

Rather than the water framework directive. The matter is becoming complicated.

I do not think that the matter is as complicated as you make out. There are two separate directives.

Christine Boch seems to be talking about incorporation.

Perhaps I should discuss the issue with the clerks afterwards.

I do not have a problem with a sentence that expresses Ben Wallace's concern, but it is up to members to decide.

I do not have a problem with saying that concerns have been expressed to the committee. That is different from saying that the committee unreservedly agrees with those concerns. The proposal would not be a substantive change to the paragraph.

I suggested that and think that Ben Wallace agreed with me. Is that right, Ben?

Yes.

Consensus seems to have broken out.

On paragraph 58, the redraft is an improvement on the original draft, but I am still not satisfied that it sufficiently emphasises the concerns that were expressed to Colin Campbell, Hugh Henry and me during our visit to Islay. Hugh Henry has been translated to another status and is no longer a member of the committee. However, I hope that Colin Campbell agrees that representatives of the whisky industry expressed strong concerns. An extra sentence at the end of paragraph 58 might be appropriate. I have drafted the following:

"In particular, representatives of the whisky industry were very concerned about the potentially detrimental effect on the industry and those employed in it, especially in remote rural areas where the industry is vital to the local economy."

I do not ask the committee to share or agree 100 per cent with those concerns, but I have heard first-hand concerns expressed by representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association and those who are employed in the distilleries. We have a duty to report their concerns so that those concerns may be addressed by the appropriate committee or by the Parliament as a whole.

It is important that we should reflect the concerns of industries and groups, so I have no problem with the addition of Dennis Canavan's proposed sentence.

I endorse that. Concerns were strongly expressed. A distillery that has its own water sources all over the place and that does not take water from any source other than from the land that it owned was particularly concerned. It strongly felt that it would be taxed for what belonged to it in the first place. The paper-making industry is also terribly worried. We should agree with Dennis Canavan and stress what he says. A safety valve as opposed to a get-out is mentioned in paragraph 63, which refers to basic minimum measures in respect of registering, taking and collecting water. One does not necessarily need to be charged. There is scope for special concessions to be made.

I think that members agree about that. I do not know whether the clerk has a note of the full text of Dennis Canavan's amendment, but perhaps after the meeting, they could agree it.

Are colleagues happy to agree on the report with the amendments and issue it? We will not reconsider it.

Members indicated agreement.

Paragraph 71 should be updated with information that the clerks will produce.

Yes.

There are one or two updates, are there not?

We will tidy it up.