Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
Resumed debate.
I remind those who were taking part in the debate that the screens were cleared, which means that they have to start all over again and press their request-to-speak buttons.
Mr Scott, you have the floor.
We welcome amendments 30, 79 and 80 because they accede to the committee's view that planning powers for fish farming and aquaculture should be transferred from the Crown Estate to local authorities. In general, the Parliament is not happy with the lodging of significant amendments at stage 3; however, I am sure that we are all content to make an exception in this case.
That said, we are taking the matter on trust, because the amendments were not debated in committee at stage 2. Our particular concern centres on the likely cost of such a transfer of powers to local authorities, which has not been considered by the Finance Committee. We must ask whether local authorities have the resources and expertise to deal with such applications. Will resources be made available to them or will the costs have to be borne by council tax payers in affected local authority areas?
Another concern is how fish farms that are already in operation would be dealt with under the new planning structure—and, in saying that, I assume that they would not be affected adversely by amendment 30. However, that still leaves the thorny problem of fish farms that might be sited in the wrong place. How will the Executive deal with them? Does the minister intend to introduce a planning advice note or an NPPG on the matter? Those questions need to be answered and I would be grateful if the minister would address them when he winds up the debate on this group of amendments.
Some of the points that John Scott raised are relevant, particularly the point about NPPGs, planning advice notes and finance. Normally, finance is sorted by the Executive in the orders it gives local authorities about how much they can charge for granting applications for planning permission. It will be interesting to hear the answer to that.
I hope that amendment 30 is competent and complete. I recognise that the minister is trying to give power to local authorities through the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to grant planning permission for fish farms. However, does that legislation permit local authorities to operate outwith their boundaries, which were drawn up under the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994? Should there not be a requirement to adjust that act to ensure that it deals with fish farms that are not located within the exact boundary of a particular authority—especially fish farms that are located offshore? It would be difficult for a local authority to deal with such situations and I see nothing in the amendment that would do so. The Executive may be intending to adjust that legislation later, but I would have thought that that approach would require primary, not secondary, legislation.
I will respond as best I can to the points that have been made.
In response to Jamie McGrigor's point, I repeat for the record that, as with more general planning controls, the new controls will sit beside, rather than duplicate, other control regimes. That includes those administered by SEPA under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in respect of discharge consents or by SEERAD under the Diseases of Fish Acts 1937 and 1983. Similarly, the requirements of the Coast Protection Act 1949, to which Bruce Crawford referred, would be unaffected, as would be the Crown Estate's rights and interests as the owner of the sea bed.
Therefore, I propose that the general order-making power in subsection (5) of the new section that would be introduced by amendment 30 should not provide for a general extension of planning powers to all offshore activities, or extend planning authority boundaries seaward as was suggested. Rather, it would allow the Scottish ministers to make orders to apply the 1997 act to fish farming operations in transitional or coastal waters. Ministers would be required by subsection (7) of the new section to consult every planning authority, SEPA and such other persons as they think fit, before making an order under subsection (5). Subsection (6) of the new section would make provision for the Scottish ministers to allocate by order particular areas of such waters to particular planning authorities. The amendment would not, therefore, change the areas covered by planning authorities.
I have not addressed the general point about the lodging of significant amendments at stage 3. Amendment 30 reflects an amendment that Maureen Macmillan lodged at stage 2 and, as John Scott knows, there was extensive debate about that amendment. In connection with the Transport and the Environment Committee's wider work on aquaculture and aquacultural strategy, there have been substantial consultations with local authorities, the Crown Estate, SEPA and other players on the proposition that planning controls would transfer to local authorities. We would all accept that there is widespread consent among the stakeholders—SEPA, the Crown Estate and the local authorities—that our proposal is a welcome transfer of those powers.
To answer Maureen Macmillan's question—and for the benefit of the BBC—when the bill receives royal assent, the provisions will not immediately affect existing fish farms. Regulations have to be made and will set out how existing fish farms are to be brought within the new regime. The regulations will make suitable transitional arrangements for such farms after consultation with all interested parties. Members will wish to note that the regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure and will be debated by the Parliament before they take effect. I hope that that addresses the question of whether the new powers apply retrospectively to existing fish farms.
Amendment 30 agreed to.
After section 24
Amendment 24 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 24 would introduce a new section to the effect that the Scottish ministers must provide an annual report to the Scottish Parliament on progress made on implementation of the bill and achievement of the environmental objectives. The amendment fulfils a commitment that I made at stage 2 to ensure that an annual report would be laid before Parliament. The report will summarise the action taken during the year by the Scottish ministers, SEPA and the authorities responsible for securing compliance with the requirements of the directive. It will also summarise progress made towards achieving the environmental objectives that we have set out in section 9. I trust that members will agree that that delivers the promise that we gave at stage 2.
I move amendment 24.
I am extremely grateful to the minister for lodging amendment 24. My first brush with European legislation was a fairly bruising encounter with the nitrates directive at the outset of this Parliament. That was the first European directive that we implemented from scratch in the Parliament, and I certainly did not want to repeat the experience in years to come. Amendment 24 should mean that the water framework directive is implemented in Scotland in an orderly way and in good time to fulfil its various obligations, so that we do not find ourselves smack up against deadlines and unprepared in future.
When I lodged my stage 2 amendment on the matter, it occurred to me afterwards that I may not have included a proviso that an annual report would be required only until the end of the implementation period of the directive. However, that is not until 2015. If the fact that annual reporting could cease at that point is not implicit in the amendment, I am sure that there will be plenty of time to deal with the matter later.
Members will wish to note that, although the first environmental objectives will be set in 2009, they will be subject to review. Generally speaking, they will be reviewed at six-yearly intervals thereafter. It is therefore intended that the reporting obligation will apply to the environmental objectives that are set from time to time. That will address the period from 2009 to 2016.
Amendment 24 agreed to.
Amendment 25 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 26—Duty to provide water and sewerage services
Amendment 31 is grouped with amendments 32 to 78 and amendment 81.
This group of amendments provides for sustainable urban drainage systems—SUDS—and for Scottish Water to have responsibility for maintaining them once they have met specified construction and design standards. Successful SUDS implementation is currently hampered by uncertainty over the legal position on responsibility and maintenance. SUDS are not covered in sewerage legislation, which can result in disputes over responsibility for them among authorities and in confusion for developers. In many cases, good SUDS designs have been compromised by the need to employ techniques that cause the least dispute rather than the best outcome.
In its stage 1 report, the Transport and the Environment Committee identified the current legal uncertainty surrounding that responsibility as an issue that the bill should address. The committee report included a recommendation to the effect that amendments should be lodged to clarify the position. We agreed entirely with the committee on that point, and we regret that we were unable to have amendments ready for stage 2. I am pleased to introduce them now. The amendments clarify the position by providing for Scottish Water to assume responsibility for maintaining any SUDS that meet the construction and design standards that ministers will set.
There are two substantive amendments. Amendment 78 provides a definition of SUDS for insertion in the interpretation section—section 59(1)—of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968. Amendment 45 is to section 27 of the bill and allows ministers to specify in regulations the design standards that SUDS must meet if they are to be vested in Scottish Water.
The remaining amendments achieve three main aims. They include public SUDS in section 3 of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 and make it a duty on Scottish Water to provide SUDS where it can do so at reasonable cost. They ensure that the provisions in section 27 of the bill—which relate to conditions for connection, takeover, construction standards and connection agreements—also apply to SUDS. In addition, they make consequential amendments throughout the 1968 act to integrate SUDS fully into the existing legislation on the provision of sewerage services by Scottish Water. The amendments reflect expert and technical advice from Scottish Water and SEPA.
In addition to the support offered by SEPA and Scottish Water, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities flooding task group recently highlighted the problem of the lack of agreement among developers, local authorities and Scottish Water on who is responsible for the future maintenance of SUDS. The group called for the Scottish Executive to address the issue of responsibility for SUDS maintenance.
The main benefits that will arise from the amendments are less pollution as a result of urban drainage, fewer flood problems, a reduced risk of sewer flooding and less pressure on the sewerage system infrastructure. I believe that there is widespread support for the amendments and for what they will achieve for the water environment. Therefore, I invite the Parliament to endorse them.
I move amendment 31.
I certainly endorse the amendments. However, the minister mentioned the provision of systems by Scottish Water at reasonable cost. There is an issue about what reasonable cost means to different people. I do not expect the minister to give me a specific definition of reasonable cost today, but I hope that he will find a way of giving Scottish Water guidance on examining the best environmental options and undertaking cost analyses of the long-term environmental and economic gains. If that can be done, many more SUDS may be constructed in Scotland.
The group of amendments introduces SUDS into the bill and we welcome that. However, we have concerns about the long-term costs of SUDS and who will eventually pay for the increased costs that are likely to be incurred. Those costs will probably fall on developers and consumers and it is important to keep a close watch on them, as others have mentioned.
We recognise and welcome the long-term benefits of such schemes, but we think that it may be a little premature of the Executive to talk about cost savings at this stage. We welcome the clarification that Scottish Water will take responsibility for the maintenance of SUDS, provided that maintenance is delivered at a reasonable cost.
It is interesting that John Scott is calling for reasonable costs as opposed to unreasonable costs and that Bruce Crawford is simply asking for a further definition of reasonable costs. The meaning of reasonable must be within the definition and spirit of the bill. The bill has an environmental objective and reasonable must be construed in those terms.
Amendment 31 agreed to.
Section 27—Private sewers and sewage treatment works etc: conditions for connection or takeover
Amendments 32 to 77 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
After section 29
Amendment 78 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 31—Orders and regulations
Amendment 79 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 26 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 26 is a straightforward amendment. It is consequential to an amendment that was agreed to at stage 2, which allowed Scottish ministers to uprate by order the upper limit on fines for offences committed under regulations made under section 20.
That amendment provided that such an uprating could be made only to reflect inflation or deflation. It was not clear after stage 2 to which parliamentary procedure the power was to be subject. Amendment 26 clarifies the position by making it clear that any such order will be subject to negative parliamentary procedure.
I move amendment 26.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
Amendment 80 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Schedule 1
Matters to be included in river basin management plans
Amendment 84 not moved.
Amendment 27 is grouped with amendment 28.
Amendments 27 and 28 deal with schedule 1 to the bill, which sets out the matters that must be included in a river basin management plan. Paragraph 8A, which is to be deleted by amendment 28, was introduced by an amendment at stage 2. It was explained when the amendment was moved that the intention was to ensure that the river basin management plan contained a report of the changes made to it in the light of advice from any advisory groups established under section 17.
Amendment 27 retains what I believe Nora Radcliffe was looking for at that stage. In fact, it makes more explicit the fact that it is advice from river basin district advisory groups that we require to be reported on in the plan. It also makes what I understand is a more appropriate reference to subsection (1A) of section 17 rather than subsection (2).
Amendments 27 and 28 are tidying-up amendments. I hope that they will gain members support.
I move amendment 27.
Amendments 27 and 28 are to be welcomed, as they further increase the detailed reporting of views and matters to be considered in the development of river basin management plans. We welcome amendment 27 and the consequential amendment 28.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Amendment 28 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
After schedule 2
Amendment 81 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
That concludes the consideration of amendments.