Hansard

As the convener said, if, for example, amendment 46 is agreed to, it will pre-empt many of our amendments.Members have an important choice. To follow on from what Fiona McLeod said, we have indeed accepted the committee's views and lodged amendments to substantiate the provision. That was done in response to the committee's wish to expand the provision that is made in the bill for public participation. That is important background. We have considered whether we need to do more in the bill to deliver our policy objective of having a network of advisory groups in each river basin district. Members will recall that Ross Finnie and I gave a commitment to consider that matter during the stage 1 debate on the bill. I can now say that we agree with the committee that we need to do so.We have also lodged amendments to make it clear that advisory groups will no longer be required to have a pan-district remit, which is an important provision. The amendments will provide for a network of groups covering the whole district, but not in themselves overlapping. The amendments on advisory groups make it clear that SEPA will determine the remit of each group and that the remit can be fixed by reference to sub-basin plans. We shall discuss the strengthening of advisory groups when we discuss a later group of amendments, but that is important background information for the committee's deliberations on the amendments.Fiona McLeod is wrong about differences. There are differences between amendments 36, 36A and 139, which I will come to, but it is wrong to say that there is any difference in relation to the discretion given to SEPA. Both sets of amendments properly give discretion to SEPA.Amendment 147, which replaces amendment 58, is the main amendment in the series. It is designed to address concerns raised in relation to sub-basin plans in the committee's report. I am conscious of strictures to be brief, but the section is long and important, so if the committee does not mind, I will deal with it in detail.We had originally planned to lodge amendments at stage 3, but we have managed to prepare them more quickly than we had expected and have been able to lodge them at stage 2—I hope that that will be helpful. Amendment 147 inserts a requirement in the bill for SEPA to establish sub-basin plans for the entirety of each river basin district—there is no difference in that respect from what Maureen Macmillan and Nora Radcliffe proposed. Therefore, SEPA will be responsible for determining the precise number of sub-basin plans and the areas to which they relate. That is the approach that the committee asked us to take and SEPA has made it clear that that was the way in which it intended to proceed. Therefore, it makes sense to include such provision in the bill. I hope that members will appreciate that change.The bill as introduced had an important flexibility that amendment 147 does not remove—the ability of SEPA or a responsible authority to prepare a sub-basin plan relating to a particular aspect of water management within the district. The fact that amendment 147 makes such provision distinguishes it from other amendments. It means that it will be possible to draw up thematic sub-basin plans that deal with a range of cross-sub-basin planning issues, such as diffuse pollution and sustainable flood management, where such plans would add value to the process. It is important for SEPA to retain that flexibility. We want SEPA to be able to consider thematic, as well as catchment-based, sub-river basin planning. Amendment 59 is consequential to amendment 147—it tidies up the changes resulting from that amendment. Amendment 148 makes it clear that the examples of issues that could be covered by sub-basin plans that are given in section 15(2) apply to the discretionary, thematic sub-basin plans that I mentioned. Amendment 149 makes it clear that the areas to which such thematic sub-basin plans relate need not be limited to the areas that are defined by SEPA in relation to the compulsory geographic sub-basin plans. We are leaving that option open. For example, it might be deemed necessary to prepare a plan for a smaller area with more acute problems—such an area could be described as a sub-catchment area. It is important for SEPA to have that option. I would argue that that provision adds value to the process of sub-river basin management planning.In addition to catchment-based sub-river basin planning, there will be the opportunity to prepare thematic sub-river basin management plans to deal with issues such as diffuse pollution and sustainable flood management.Amendment 150 seeks to stop any problems arising from those arrangements by requiring that any sub-basin plans that are prepared under new sections 15(1)(a) and 15(1)(b) must not be inconsistent with anything that is contained in the river basin plan that they supplement. That is an important clarification, which I know members were in favour of. Amendment 150 also specifies that sub-basin plans prepared under new paragraph (b) that relate to a particular area must not be inconsistent with the geographic sub-basin plans prepared under new paragraph (a). That is also a useful provision. In that context, it is probably opportune to consider amendment 106. At present, Scottish ministers and every public body and office holder must have regard to the river basin management plan in exercising any functions that affect a river basin district. Amendment 106 would require that regard would also have to be paid to any sub-basin plan for that district. I sympathise with those intentions and I am prepared to accept amendment 106 in principle. However, I would like to give further consideration to the drafting. In conjunction with Des McNulty and the committee, I undertake to lodge an amendment to that effect at stage 3. Therefore, I ask Des McNulty not to move amendment 106.I hope that that gives the committee all the assurances that it needs, which Fiona McLeod and others have mentioned. The proposed alterations represent a significant strengthening of the role of sub-basin plans as laid down in section 15 and, as such, represent the fulfilment of a commitment that Ross Finnie and I gave at stage 1.Amendment 61 is intended to require SEPA to consult such river basin district advisory groups as it thinks fit about proposed sub-basin plans, and to take into account their views. It does so by requiring SEPA to consult such other persons as it sees fit under section 11(6)(i), in addition to those already referred to in paragraphs (a) to (h) at present. Amendment 62 is designed to achieve the same effect for responsible authorities; that is, they must consult those they think fit on any proposed sub-basin plans. In practice, it is envisaged that these amendments will require SEPA, or another responsible authority, to consult such river basin district advisory groups as it thinks fit about proposed sub-basin plans and to take into account their views. Again, that is another important consideration. I recommend that the committee accept amendments 61 and 62, given the enhanced role that the amendments will then offer advisory groups and the link that will be established between sub-basin plans and advisory groups. That, taken in conjunction with the commitment to come back at stage 3 on ministers, public bodies and others having regard to the sub-basin plan for the district in question, completes the picture. Amendment 69 amends section 19(2)(d). Currently, ministers can use the regulation-making power in that section to require SEPA to consult or consider the views of specified persons before taking any procedural step in relation to a river basin management plan. The amendment would allow ministers to require SEPA to consider the views of specified persons before taking any procedural step in relation to sub-basin plans. The amendment also ensures that, where a responsible authority establishes a sub-basin plan, ministers can make regulations requiring it to consult and involve others, in the same way that ministers can make such regulations in relation to SEPA. I hope that the committee will support amendment 69. Amendment 36 would compel SEPA to divide each river basin district into sub-basins, which are defined as "areas designated by SEPA"—again, there is no conflict between us there—"comprising a particular catchment or geographical area, including relevant bodies of groundwater, surface water, wetlands and bodies of coastal water."We have given considerable thought to the issue of sub-basin plans and advisory groups. In that context, and in order that our amendment can provide for the thematic approach as well as the compulsory geographic sub-basin planning, which is an important distinction that adds value to the process, I ask Nora Radcliffe, Maureen Macmillan and John Scott to withdraw amendments 36, 36A and 36B because they have already been covered. Our approach is holistic and meets all the committee's objectives. Amendment 46 seeks to compel SEPA to designate sub-basins within each river basin district, and to prepare a plan for each sub-basin. That would be unnecessary duplication, as the effect of applying section 10(2) to sub-basin plans is that those plans would require to address all of the matters covered by the river basin management plan. There is already provision in section 10(2) to require that sub-basin plans address all of the matters already covered by the river basin management plans, so there is nothing that is considered at river basin management level that is not subsequently provided for in the sub-basin plans. Amendment 46 would remove some of the current flexibility from the bill, as it would remove from SEPA the ability to create the thematic, rather than simply geographic, plans that I want established. For example, as we have discussed at length, SEPA could create a thematic sub-basin plan on water resources or, if necessary, flooding. That important consideration is not provided for in amendment 46. As we know, if amendment 46 were passed, it would negate all the rest of our provisions, including SEPA's ability to create thematic sub-basin management plans on sustainable flood management. With that very important consideration in mind, I ask Maureen Macmillan not to move amendment 46.Given the Executive's amendments, I would argue that amendment 127 is not necessary. It also raises difficulties in so far as it requests"a sub-basin management plan for each sub-basin district"without making clear how the districts would be defined or what a sub-basin management plan is intended to cover. Given that I have set that out in the Executive's amendments and that the Executive is going along that road, I ask John Scott not to move amendment 127.Amendment 91 is also unnecessary. The purpose of the amendment is to establish sub-basin plans, which the Executive is going to do, but the amendment uses drafting that is inappropriate to the rest of the bill. I ask Maureen Macmillan not to move amendment 91. If she does not agree, I would have to ask the committee to reject that amendment, as it does not define the boundaries of the sub-basins to which it refers, nor does it make clear what the boundaries are intended to cover. I suggest that the Executive's amendments to section 15 address those issues.Although I appreciate the intention behind amendment 92, I do not think that it is helpful. It would create an undue burden on those who are preparing sub-basin plans, by making them report on issues that are better left to the river basin management planning.Amendment 92 would force sub-basin plans to include"A summary of the characterisation of the river basin district"It would also force them to include"A summary of significant pressures"on, for instance, surface water or groundwater for the entire river basin district. I think that it is self-evident that that is not appropriate for sub-basin management plans. Given the impractical consequences of the nature of amendment 92, and the fact that the Executive has lodged the amendments to which I have referred to require sub-basin management plans to incorporate everything that is already provided for in the river basin management plan, I ask Maureen Macmillan not to move amendment 92.Amendment 128 is similar to amendment 92, in that it requires that a sub-basin plan must include the same matters that a river basin management plan must include, which are set out in part 1 of schedule 1. Amendment 128 differs from amendment 92 in one important respect. It treats references in part 1 of schedule 1 to the river basin district as if they were references to the area that is covered by the sub-basin plan. That would avoid the problem of sub-basin plans having to contain information that pertains to the entire river basin district, which was the case with amendment 92. However, we continue to have significant concerns about amendment 128 as it is drafted. Executive amendment 147 makes provision for two types of sub-basin plan—the compulsory geographic plan and the other, optional thematic plan to which I have referred.However, amendment 128 contains the wording"as if references in that Part of that schedule to the river basin district were references to the area covered by the sub-basin plan."That does not make sense in the context of the existence of sub-basin plans that deal with thematic issues, although it does so in relation to those that deal with geographic issues. I do not think that it would be useful to be so prescriptive in determining what is included in a sub-basin plan. Like amendment 92, amendment 128 could create an undue burden for sub-basin plans to report on issues that are better and more appropriately left to river basin management planning. The Executive does not wish to see that happen. I ask Nora Radcliffe not to move amendment 128, on the basis that amendment 147 does what she seeks to do—with added value, as it makes provision for the thematic as well as the compulsory geographic approach.Amendment 93 would require sub-basin plans to contain such maps, diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matter as Scottish ministers may direct or as SEPA thinks appropriate for the purpose of explaining any matter in the plan. I understand the reasoning behind the amendment, but I do not think that it is necessary. The amendments that we have lodged make provision for two types of sub-basin plans—geographic and issue-based plans—but seek to maximise the flexibility that SEPA has in preparing them. I see no benefit in our being unduly centralist in our approach to sub-basin plans at this stage. If, in the light of practical experience, it becomes necessary for Scottish ministers to impose an obligation on SEPA along the lines of that proposed by Maureen Macmillan, we can do so by making the appropriate regulations under section 19.The river basin management plan must meet certain statutory requirements. The powers of guidance that Scottish ministers have under section 10(3) are appropriate to the river basin management plan. Sub-basin plans will be much more flexible documents on which SEPA and/or the responsible authorities will take the lead. I recommend that the committee reject amendment 93.Amendment 98 seeks to replace the requirement in schedule 1 for river basin management plans to include"Information as to any sub-basin plan."with a requirement for them to include"A summary of all sub-basin plans."That is unnecessary, as the existing requirement would result in information pertaining to the sub-basin plans being included in the river basin management plan. I made that point in relation to amendment 106. Under section 10(2), ministers already have the power to specify any additional matters that they wish to see included in the river basin management plan. We have discussed that issue at length in relation to sustainable flood management. Amendment 98 is superfluous and I recommend that the committee reject it.Amendment 132 seeks to amend paragraph 8 of schedule 1 to the bill. At present, that paragraph requires that a summary of the publicity and consultation steps that have been taken"under subsections (3) to (6) of section 11 in relation to the plan and of changes made to the plan in light of the views and representations received on it"be included in the river basin management plan.The subsections in question relate directly to the publication and consultation aspects of the river basin management process. Amendment 132 seeks to insert a reference to section 15(1) in paragraph 8 of schedule 1. I argue that such a reference does not sit well there. Section 15(1) gives SEPA the ability to establish sub-basin plans, but paragraph 8 deals with views and representations. Paragraph 7 of schedule 1 requires that the river basin management plan should include information about any sub-basin plan. That provision is wide enough to address the concerns behind the amendment. I ask the committee to reject amendment 132.As the convener indicated, for it to make any sense amendment 139 must be read in connection with amendment 140. It seeks to remove the requirement in section 15(3) that SEPA or responsible authorities"must consult such of the persons specified or referred to in section 11(6)(a) to (h) as it thinks fit about a proposed sub-basin plan and must take into account any views expressed by those consulted."In any other context, such a provision would be ridiculous, but it is not what it appears to be. Amendment 140 would insert a new section in the bill after section 15. The new section would require SEPA or the responsible authority to establish a sub-basin advisory group for each designated sub-basin, with the function—