 Good morning and welcome to the 32nd meeting of the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee in 2022. Today we have apologies from the convener Edward Mountain. Agenda item 1 this morning is consideration of a draft statutory instrument, the Public Water Supplies Scotland amendment regulations 2022. I welcome Mary McCallan Minister for Environment and Land Reform attending on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero Energy and Transport. I also welcome the officials joining us today, Rosemary Greenhill, regulatory team leader, Luigi Prodresci, Solister and Claire Feelin, policy officer. Thank you for attending. The instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before it comes into force. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited at the next agenda item to consider a motion to approve the instrument. I remind everyone that the officials can speak under this item but not in the debate that follows. I now invite the minister to make a short opening statement. Thank you very much, deputy convener. I'm very pleased to be here today and to move the Public Water Supplies Scotland amendment regulations 2022. Scotland's drinking water is renowned for its excellent quality all over the world. We tend to take this for granted actually and very few of us appreciate how much effort is needed to treat the water in the first instance and then to monitor its quality to make sure that it's safe to drink at the tap and safe in this instance, of course, meaning that it is free from substances that constitute a potential danger to human health. In the interests of public health, we will, we are and will continue to be relentless in ensuring that drinking water continues to meet the highest standards and the draft regulations before the committee seek to do that. The main purpose of the regulations is to amend the Public Water Supplies Scotland regulations of 2014 to implement health-based standards of the EU's recast drinking water directive for drinking water supplied by Scottish Water. Those standards are recommended by the World Health Organization. The EU's recast drinking water directive came into force on 12 January 2021. It is a long and complicated directive that is designed to protect drinking water from source to tap, to put in monitoring arrangements for emerging pollutants, to drive up efficiencies and to address access to water. We are taking a phased approach and a proportionate approach to alignment with the directive because some of its requirements will rely on actions to be taken by the European Commission or will not apply until a later date. It is a vast directive and there are different timescales and there are different actions required by the European Commission before all of the provisions could be brought in. However, bearing that in mind after considerable work, particularly on behalf of the officials here, we are moving forward with those health-based standards. Today's regulations update the standards that will apply to water supplied by Scottish Water. That includes new chemical parameters for substances commonly known as PFAS, or forever chemicals, and endocrine disruptors. PFAS, we will know, is extensively used in products that have non-stick and water repellent qualities, such as waterproof jackets and cardboard that contains food and SPF creams that are found there. The regulations will require Scottish Water to check for the presence of those chemicals in drinking water that it supplies to make sure that it does not contain them at a concentration that would breach the limits specified in the regs. Of course, that is in line with the WHO. There are some additional changes made by the regulations, such as we are updating the values of existing substances that Scottish Water needs to monitor drinking water for and the methods that it will use to assess the microbiological, the chemical and the indicator parameters. It will also enable Scottish Water with the agreement of the drinking water quality regulator for Scotland to deviate from minimum sampling frequencies for drinking water. We could deviate before, but that makes the requirements to do so more proportionate, and therefore we hope to be more efficient. It also introduced the requirement that Scottish Water maintain an operational monitoring programme. Again, there was monitoring before, but that is about enhancing that. I mentioned that the directive is long and complex, but we are taking action now to implement those WHO recommendations that we can and we are the first in the UK to do so. We are also taking the opportunity to make some minor changes outwith the recast directive. For example, today's regulations update the frequency of sampling in relation to water supplied by tanker, and that is in response to an increasing use of mobile tankers by Scottish Water. We implemented that following consultation with them. The committee will also wish to note that 1 January 2023 has been selected as the coming into force date. That has been selected because the annual monitoring programme of Scottish Water begins on 1 January. That will allow a full monitoring record for 2023. Again, we have decided on that date following consultation with Scottish Water. To conclude, the approach being taken to align with the EU's recast drinking water directive, which we believe is in the best interests of Scotland, ensures that the excellent standards of Scottish drinking water that we have become accustomed to are maintained. We have done that by prioritising the health-based WHO-recommended improvements from the directive that can be made now. I have a few questions and I will move to Mark Ruskell and then to Liam Kerr. We have had Scottish Water in giving evidence in relation to their annual reports. Obviously, there may be costs involved in the SSI, so would you explain the costs and how Scottish Water will be able to manage that within its existing or proposed budget? We have estimated £10 million as being the upper limit of the cost of what we are seeking to implement today. We estimate it to be less than £10 million. Those costs arise generally in relation to the storage of chemicals at water treatment works, so that the standard in relation to chlorate and chlorine can be achieved. There will also be additional sampling costs, but we think that that all being taken into account and obviously a very stretched position as regards public finances taken into account, the £10 million is money well spent when it is so directly linked to the maintenance of the highest quality of drinking water that we have become accustomed to in Scotland. What other countries are doing in relation to this recast directive, both in the UK and in relation to other countries in the EU? We are certainly the first UK country to move to adopt those. I expect that other nations in the UK are considering how they do it. I cannot speak for the pace at which they are doing it. We certainly hope that they will because, as we were just discussing before, we came to committee what is not something that respects boundaries and we all share an environment and we all want the highest standards. Having said that, I mentioned that this is a long complex directive, with some requirements that do not come into place until the late 2020s. We know that member states and non-member states like us have had to take quite a considerable amount of time to consider it and to plan for its implementation. I expect that member states are grappling with that just now, but they are certainly positive and worthy of pursuing. Are there any implications for the SSI in relation to the retained new law bill? Yes, there are. I will certainly give my policy view, and I might hand over to Luigi for the legal perspective, but the regulations from 2014 that they amend would constitute retained EU law. Therefore, although the Government's policy position on that has been made clear by my colleague Angus Robertson, we want the bill revoked or, at the very least, devolved aspects carved out of it. However, where we are now, that would constitute EU retained law and without actions to preserve it, the UK's bill, as proposed, would fundamentally undermine it. Luigi, I do not know if there is anything that you want to add to that. I do not think that there is anything to add to it. I think that you have explained it. Okay, thank you very much. I will move to Mark Ruskell and then to Liam Kerr. Yeah, thanks, convener. I think that I am very welcome to see this on-going alignment with EU law, but one of the points that was raised in the Constitutional External Affairs and Europe Committee was just around stakeholder engagement. Obviously, stakeholder engagement in Europe is extremely detailed throughout the policy development process and the development of regulations. Now, we are sort of out of that. How have we attempted to replicate that stakeholder engagement at an appropriate level with the adoption of those regulations and indeed thinking ahead as to what else might come forward through the directive over time that you may wish to align to, minister? How are you involving stakeholders in that? We have lost that architecture of really in that stakeholder engagement. Yeah, no, you are quite right. That is one of the things that we would not want to ever see a diminution in as a result of having left the EU, so we would be keen to retain that consultation. We have sought to do that in this. Those changes do not have an operational impact on Scottish water rather than the public who will turn on the tap and water will flow and they will look to us into Scottish water to make sure that it is of the highest standard possible. The consultation that we have done has focused mainly on consultation with Scottish water, with the drinking water quality regulator. We shared draft version of the regulations with them and they were able to point us to some suggested improvements, particularly in regard to that coming into force date. That was to align with Scottish waters reporting period. We also have undertaken a series of project workshops with a suite of stakeholders on the question of alignment, the directive itself and how we best align with it. That involved again Scottish water, the drinking water regulator, WISC, SIPA and I do not think that I am forgetting anyone. That was certainly quite an involved process as well. If I can compare that to something that might come down the road from the directive, work on private water supplies, that is a much larger piece of work with a much greater impact on the public and therefore I will be looking to undertake consultation again, but in a slightly different way that it is more about public consultation because it impacts them a great deal more. On that proposed cost of up to £10 million that was referred to earlier, can you give the committee any idea of what will be the impact of that coming out of Scottish waters capital budget on any other capital projects that they have in the pipeline or is there a move ultimately to increase their budget to accommodate that extra up to £10 million? My view on it just now is that as part of the discussions and that consultation that I mentioned to Mark Ruskell that we have been having with Scottish water is that this is affordable within current budgets. You said that this would come in on 1 January 2023. How quickly does Scottish water need to carry out this remedial work to accommodate this? Does that have to be done by 1 January 2023? If so, that is a very short lead time. Does that mean incurring the up to £10 million cost before 1 January 2023? I might have to come back to you on exactly when the costs are incurred. I said that they were about storage so I can certainly update you on when exactly that will be incurred, but I might hand over to Rosemary, if you don't mind, just given some of those conversations that you've had with Scottish water about the work that has to go on to implement this on their part. Yes, thank you. The standard has come into effect on 1 January and Scottish water will be expected to meet those. They've had a lot of warning of this coming through. The directive was in its draft form in 2018, so we've seen this coming along. They've had time to prepare that those particular standards that the minister mentioned about chloride and chloride, about storage, so they've been able to address that very quickly. £10 million is the upper limit, but it's likely to be much less than that. They'll be expected to meet it. If it's been in draft for a long time and Scottish water have had time to prepare, one would assume that the question has been asked of them. Are you going to be able to accommodate that by 1 January? Has that question been asked to the best of your knowledge? This is a public health measure about protecting public health and it's in the interests of people that it's carried out. Scottish water has always recognised that public health is a major driver and that drinking water must meet those standards. To come back to that point, the fact that it was Scottish water that suggested to us that 1 January is the best date of which to begin and that we've consulted with them throughout, they haven't flagged at us any issues with implementation. Indeed, it's been a collaborative getting to this point. That's reassuring and no further questions, convener. We'll now move on to agenda item 2. It's the formal consideration of motion S6M-06537, calling for the committee to recommend approval of the draft public water supply Scotland amendment regulations 2022. I invite the minister to speak to and move this motion in the name of the cabinet secretary for net zero energy and transport minister. Thank you, deputy convener. I hope that the committee will support. I can now invite contributions from members. Do any members want to make a contribution? No. Okay, so thank you. Minister, do you wish to say anything else? Are you happy to move on? The question is that motion S6M-06537, in the name of Michael Matheson, cabinet secretary for net zero energy and transport, be approved? Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Thank you very much. The committee will report on the outcome of this instrument in due course. I invite the committee to delegate authority to the convener to approve a draft report for publication. Thank you very much, minister. We can now move on to agenda item 3. Our next item is consideration of two negative instruments. We will first consider the greenhouse gas emission trading scheme amendment number two, order 2022. The instrument is laid under the negative procedure, which means that its provisions will come into force unless the Parliament agrees to a motion to annul them. No motions to annul have been laid. Do members have any comments on the instrument? Mark? Thanks, convener. It is more a clarification. I was interested in the provision that allows a effectively free allocation under the ETS. If heat is then going to another source, so instead of heat being wasted, it is then taken out of the industrial process and used somewhere else. I was just curious as to whether there were particular standards for that. Does the heat have to go to housing or other industrial processes if there were any criteria around that? There are no other comments on the SI beyond a clarification that would be useful to receive in some form. Any other points from D? I suggest that that might be something that we can take offline and ask SPICE to give us an update on. I do not think that it necessarily affects the substance of the instrument and procedures that are in front of us. If there are no comments and there is no motion to annul, I would invite the committee to make our consideration of that. Is there anything else that we need to do on that one? I invite the committee to agree that it does not wish to make any further recommendations in relation to the instrument. Are we agreed? Thank you for that. We now consider the producer responsibility obligations, packaging, waste amendment Scotland regulations 2022. The instrument is also laid under the negative procedure and no motions to annul have been made. Are there any comments on that particular motion or amendment? I invite the committee to agree that it does not wish to make any further recommendation in relation to this instrument. Are we agreed? Thank you all. I now close the meeting.