Official Report 227KB pdf
Sarah Boyack has had to rush off, which is why I am in the chair. I do not know whether she will manage to get back, but we will carry on anyway.
I am pleased to be here to present the committee with the first annual report on the implementation of the water framework directive in Scotland. As at least some committee members will know, the submission of an annual report to Parliament was a provision that was agreed to during the process that led to the passing of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. The report highlights the considerable progress that has been made since the passing of that act a year ago. It focuses on achievements during 2003 and touches on key issues for 2004.
I invite questions from members.
What progress has been made on flood management? Do current schemes take the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 into account? In Moray, significant schemes are being prepared and concerns have been raised that they are not being prepared in the spirit of the act. Will you comment on that—without focusing on particular schemes unless you feel that that is appropriate?
I understand the point that Maureen Macmillan makes and obviously I do not want to comment on the flood alleviation proposals in Moray. We have set up a national advisory committee to consider various issues pertaining to sustainable flood management. I have met members of that committee, and their priorities are to produce a definition of sustainable flood management—surprisingly enough—that is appropriate for Scotland, and to produce guidance for local authorities, which will be responsible for implementing sustainable flood management. The committee will report to ministers in December and a consultation paper will be issued subsequently.
I just wanted some reassurance that, where flood management proposals are being worked up, cognisance is being taken of what might be announced in December. I would not like flood management proposals to be tabled if there had been no consideration of sustainability—not that I am saying that that is going to happen.
I would be very surprised if that were to happen; I have no knowledge of it happening anywhere. Obviously, the process of designating responsible bodies for flood management is under way. It is no secret that local authorities will be so designated and I do not imagine that any local authorities are not aware of the duties that will be imposed on them as responsible bodies for the furtherance of sustainable flood management.
Some environmental non-governmental organisations have criticised the proposals for flood prevention.
We would have to consider the individual plans to see whether the proposals satisfied the approved definition of sustainable flood management, when we have that definition. Different people may have different views on what constitutes sustainable flood management. We have yet to agree a definition.
I can see that we are going to go round in a circle, so I will desist.
What a pleasure it is to be dealing with European legislation on the front foot and not on the back foot. I appreciate having an annual report so that we can check on progress and see where we are going.
I will deal with wetlands first. We have been making considerable progress on the inclusion of wetlands in the provisions of the 2003 act. SEPA has been working in conjunction with Scottish Natural Heritage and environmental NGOs on a strategy to ensure that all such provisions are fulfilled. The Executive proposes to provide SEPA with extra funding for further research on the protection of wetlands. Further, in the Executive's consultation paper on the regulation of controlled activities, we propose to extend the protection of wetlands to include abstraction and building and engineering works.
On private water supplies, we are talking about abstraction licensing for small private abstractions. Will that go right down to very small, private water supplies that serve a handful of houses, or will such licensing come later?
I do not know.
That issue will be raised in the consultation paper that we are about to issue. There are different tiers of authorisation, depending on the perceived risk to the water environment. At very low levels of risk, registration might be required merely to inform SEPA where the various private water supplies are located, principally with a view to enabling them to be better protected.
There is a huge issue in the north-east in particular, where we have a vast number of private water supplies, not all of which are known about.
SEPA will have such reports. I am sure that I can get examples sent to the committee.
That would be helpful. We know what such reports are for, but seeing a real one would be helpful.
I do not want you to run away with the impression that there is an unlimited supply of Executive cash out there simply waiting to be expended, because that is not the situation. As you probably know, we are reviewing expenditure on all our services as part of the budgetary review. We are not able to splash resources about willy-nilly. I hope that the committee will appreciate the fact that we have been able to secure extra resources for additional wetlands protection, given the discussions that we had this time last year.
That point is well made.
I will request more information.
SEPA will be working on that during coming years. Work is in hand, but we are at only the early stages.
Thank you again. It is a pleasure to be ahead of the game.
It is indeed.
I am keen to discuss planning permission for fish farming. Are you content with the progress that is being made towards democratisation? After this first year of the implementation of the directive, given concerns about fish farming, are we moving rapidly enough towards having more democratic control?
We are certainly moving much more rapidly than we were this time last year. I appreciate that you were not a member of the Parliament then, but—
I was a member of the public and was listening to the producers.
I was not trying to be disparaging in any way. Your seat was obviously occupied by someone else.
We all wish that to be the case and we underline your faith that the process will improve our aquaculture industry.
The minister might be surprised to hear that I was going to ask about planning permission for fish farms as well, and that I planned to commend him for demonstrating considerable caution. I notice that the report says that a consultation exercise will take place in advance of the publication of legislation in 2005. That concerns me, because when there is consultation on such issues the Executive usually keeps a comfortable distance from influencing how it runs. Would not it have been more advantageous in this case if the Executive had put itself in a position in which it could send out clear signals to ensure that the industry could, in the interim, develop in a way that would be conducive to the eventual legislation that will be introduced?
We have issued revised locational guidelines, which I think perform such a function in the interim. As you know, the Crown Estates commission effectively devolved its rights of planning de facto to planning authorities—at least, it did that so that planning can be done in consultation with terrestrial planning authorities. Processes were and are under way that address some of those concerns. Obviously, it will be better once everything has been properly consulted on, approved and implemented. We are working as quickly as Government processes allow.
You have said that a consultation will take place, but are you confident that the Executive has given an adequate steer that will protect the industry from any radical decisions that might emerge from an open-ended consultation?
I am not sure what you have in mind, but obviously we do not want to prejudice the outcome of the consultation by trying to predict its ultimate shape. I am talking about what we do in the interim to ensure that the industry and local interests can co-exist; I am sure that they can co-exist.
I am interested in the progress that has been made in relation to regulations on diffuse pollution and the likely timescales for those.
We have, of course, made considerable progress more generally in the area of the regulation of controlled activities since 2003. A consultation paper is scheduled to be issued in April 2004, which is next month. The regulations will cover point-source pollution, abstraction and impoundment and building and engineering works in or in the vicinity of a water body.
Therefore, can I assume that there is a medium-term timescale rather than a short-term timescale, given the potential work that is involved?
We are talking about a period of months. As I said, the consultation paper is scheduled to be issued next month and a working group will be established over the next few months that will specifically consider diffuse pollution. Such pollution is not included only because of the CAP reform discussions.
I forgot about another issue that I wanted to raise. The report is the first such annual report. We are still at the high-level stage on all the preliminary work that must be done on characterisation, typology and so on. Are you thinking about the stage at which we will involve people in sub-river basin management and planning? How soon will we come down to levels in which there is local involvement, which we thought would be a strength of our approach to the water framework directive?
To a certain extent, that is already under way. Last year, SEPA carried out a roadshow to discuss river basin management with interested stakeholders. As you know, the stakeholder forum, which encompasses everybody who has an interest and a few more besides, is having meetings and there are bilaterals between SEPA and individual stakeholders across the board. There is no doubt that that work includes the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Landowners Federation, Scottish Water, the clean coast Scotland campaign and other bodies that are involved with SEPA in taking forward river basin management planning and—as I said earlier to Maureen Macmillan—defining the responsible bodies, not that there is a statutory link between the two issues.
I presume that when risk assessments have been done, the particular water catchment areas that are most at risk and on which the most work needs to be done will be defined as sub-river basins for management purposes.
I understand that SEPA plans to issue a consultation paper in the spring—that will be fairly soon, given that I see the crocuses sprouting—on that specific issue.
I am interested in how you see the matter integrating with other Government priorities, particularly the biodiversity strategy. How will they work together, pull together and have a sustainable future together?
There are clear and obvious links between them. I mentioned wetlands, which have important implications for the preservation and conservation of species. A lot of that work is done interdepartmentally as well as between the relevant agencies. As I said, the national stakeholder forum comprises everybody that you might expect to be involved in the development and implementation of the biodiversity strategy. I would expect officials to be speaking to one another about those matters. Perhaps Joyce Carr will confirm that.
Scottish Natural Heritage is involved in a lot of our working groups and it will be designated as a responsible authority, so it will be required to have those links.
I have a question on the no deterioration in status obligation—I have trouble saying that—in the water framework directive. What progress has been made to implement that obligation? Will its implementation be tied up with the publication of the final characterisation report in December?
Neither the water framework directive nor the 2003 act defines when that policy will come into force, but we believe that it is appropriate to take the characterisation report that is due in December as a baseline for it. Therefore, it is proposed that SEPA will regulate on that basis from the introduction of the controlled activities regime in October 2005. However, that policy will apply only to new activities and it is also proposed that existing activities will be regulated on the basis of the status quo until 2012. Those proposals and others like them will be set out in the consultation paper on characterisation that we will issue in April.
As there are no further questions, I thank the minister and his officials.