Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Transport and the Environment Committee, 20 Nov 2002

20 Nov 2002 · S1 · Transport and the Environment Committee

Item of business

Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Wilson, Allan Lab Cunninghame North Watch on SPTV

There is an element of groundhog day to this. I reassure Nora Radcliffe that preventing the deterioration of our water bodies is a key part of the bill, and that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency employs the principle of no deterioration in its work. That is part of the culture of environment protection in Scotland.Although the wording has changed since last week, the amendment is potentially damaging and many of my comments from last week still apply. The amendment would include in the bill a date from which the objective of no deterioration would kick in. Whereas last week's amendment 23 provided that the date should be the same as the date of royal assent, amendment 108 provides for the date to be at the end of the characterisation process for each body of water covered under section 5. As members know, section 5 requires characterisation to be carried out by 22 December 2004. For that reason, I believe that amendment 108 is unhelpful. It would set Scotland apart from the rest of our European partners.As I said last week, the water framework directive does not set a specific date from which a status of no deterioration becomes effective. I believe firmly that doing things in isolation from the rest of Europe would not be helpful. The same argument would apply to whatever date was proposed by an amendment. Any Scottish benchmark that is set separately from the rest of Europe risks putting our water users at a disadvantage to their competitors elsewhere in the European Union. At stage 1, in response to questions from Alasdair Morgan and others, I gave assurances that I would not put Scottish business, industry and commerce at a competitive disadvantage. I intend to adhere to that principle.Let me cover in more detail why 22 December 2004 would not be a sensible date at which to draw a line in the sand in this regard, as Nora Radcliffe proposes. Characterisation will improve considerably our knowledge about the condition of the water environment throughout Scotland. That is not the end of the process, however—in fact, it is not even the beginning of the end. As I said last week, the results of the characterisation will be subject to review and updating. In particular, the enhanced monitoring regime that we provide for under section 8, to which we will come shortly, will provide vital further information about all bodies of water, particularly those that are identified as being at risk during the characterisation process, and those are the ones about which Nora Radcliffe and other committee members will be most concerned. Members will be aware that the water framework directive requires the new monitoring regimes to be in place by December 2006.The 2004 date fails to take into account what is known as the intercalibration of biological monitoring results, as provided for under paragraph 1.4 of annexe 5 to the water framework directive. That process is designed to obviate the question of competitive disadvantage and to ensure a level playing field across Europe in terms of agreed environmental objectives. The process should ensure that good ecological status in one part of Europe is of an equivalent standard to what applies in the rest of Europe. Technically, that is not an easy job, as members will understand, but it is a very important job if we are to ensure a level competitive playing field.That process will start next year, with the provisional identification of reference sites. It will not be complete until halfway through 2006, two years after Nora Radcliffe's prospective date for the conclusion of the internal characterisation process. On that basis, amendment 108 would set a premature date. The Commission has, in any event, agreed to produce guidance on the date on which the no deterioration obligation takes effect and it would be premature for us to pre-empt that guidance from the Commission. For those reasons, we ask Nora Radcliffe to withdraw amendment 108.

Search Hansard contributions

Transport and the Environment Committee, 20 Nov 2002

In the same item of business