Hansard

I am pleased to be here this morning to support the committee’s consideration of the Water Environment (Amendment of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990: Contaminated Land) (Scotland) Regulations 2016. The instrument is primarily a technical one, whose aim is to clarify the boundary between our legal regime for the remediation of contaminated land and that for protecting and improving Scotland’s water environment. By way of background, our local authorities and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are responsible for dealing with land that is contaminated as a result of historical activity and could pose a significant risk of harm to human health or to the environment. For instance, if contaminated land is having a significant impact on the water environment, it is normally a matter for SEPA to take responsibility for remediation at such sites, and where that is not the case it is normally the local authorities that take responsibility for remediation. That approach works well in practice. However, there is a further complexity to the legislative landscape. SEPA has responsibility for taking enforcement action to remediate pollution to the water environment arising from current activities using the provisions of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. That introduces a lack of clarity at the boundary between our regime for addressing land contaminated by historical activities and our regime for addressing pollution caused by current activities. We have just published the second round of river basin management plans, and in looking ahead to delivery of the plans SEPA and the local authorities have been reviewing the legal and policy framework for delivering improvements where contaminated land is identified as a pressure on the water environment. They have indicated that the lack of clarity at the boundary between regimes could lead to confusion about who is responsible for taking the remedial action in certain circumstances. I believe that it is essential that our legal framework is clear so that action can properly and swiftly be taken by the most appropriate authority where contaminated land is identified. I therefore recommend that the committee support the instrument.