The Committee reports to the Environment and Rural Development Committee as follows—

Introduction

1. Under Standing Orders, Rule 9.6, the lead committee in relation to a Bill must consider and report on the Bill’s Financial Memorandum at Stage 1. In doing so, it is obliged to take account of any views submitted to it by the Finance Committee.
   
   
2. This report sets out the views of the Finance Committee on the Financial Memorandum of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill, for which the Environment and Rural Development Committee has been designated by the Parliamentary Bureau as the lead committee at Stage 1.
   
   
3. At its meeting on 19 April, the Committee took evidence from Scottish Executive officials. Oral evidence for this meeting can be viewed by clicking here. In addition, the committee received written submissions from COSLA, Historic Scotland, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). These submissions are attached as an appendix to this report.
   
   
4. The Committee would like to express its thanks to all those who submitted their views.

Objectives and the Financial Memorandum

5. The Bill implements a commitment made in the Partnership Agreement ‘to legislate to introduce Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) across the range of all new strategies, plans and programmes developed by the public sector in Scotland’. The legislation builds on existing provision to implement European Directive 2001/42/EC and the Policy Memorandum of the Bill states that this legislation will enable Scotland to become ‘a leader in this field.’
   
   
6. The Bill requires all public bodies (the “Responsible Authorities”) to carry out an environmental assessment on all ‘qualifying’ strategies, plans or programmes. The Bill establishes a set of criteria to determine which strategies, plans or programmes should be subject to an environmental assessment and provides for Consultation Authorities (Scottish Ministers (through Historic Scotland), SEPA and SNH to have statutory roles in the assessment process (Part 1). It sets out the requirements for ‘scoping’ assessments, to ensure proportionality (Part 2), and establishes arrangements for announcing strategies, plans or programmes which have been subject to an assessment (Part 2). The Bill also sets out monitoring arrangements for implementation, as well as forward monitoring and remedial action for unforeseen effects (Part 3). Finally, the Bill revokes the current legislation (The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/258)) which implements Directive 2001/42/EC (Part 4).
   
   
7. The Financial Memorandum sets out the estimated additional costs of the Bill. There are already costs being incurred as a result of the secondary legislation enacted to implement the Directive. The bulk of the additional costs will arise from the provisions in Section 5, which set out the types of plan and programme which will qualify.
   
   
8. The summary Table 3 (following paragraph 102 of the Financial Memorandum) sets out the costs of the Bill. The Environmental Assessment regime is already in operation under regulations; the Financial Memorandum has identified some areas where Bill costs will be additional. Those areas where uncertainties remain relate to the costs on ‘Consultation Authorities’, which are Scottish Ministers (Historic Scotland), SEPA and SNH. The Financial Memorandum states that current regulation costs were taken into account in spending plans for SEPA and SNH as published in “Building a Better Scotland”. Additional Bill costs are not separately identified, although total costs for Consultation Authorities are estimated at £1,650,000 per annum, with a margin of error of =/- 25% (ie in the range £1,237,500 to £2,062,000).

Summary of Evidence

Consultation Authorities

9. In its submission, SEPA questioned the estimate of £1.65m which represents the total annual cost for Consultation Authorities. It stated that £675,000 of this amount would be attributable to SEPA and that this was “rather less than SEPA’s own £0.9m estimate of total cost”.¹ In addition, SEPA expressed concern that it would be expected to provide wider support than merely carrying out its statutory duties and that this was not reflected in the estimated costs.
   
   
10. Executive officials responded that they believed SEPA was in agreement with the figure of £1.35m quoted for both SEPA and SNH and any disagreement may arise from SEPA feeling its funding allocation was lower than it expected. On the issue of additional duties, the Executive responded that work regarding the provision and explanation of data was already undertaken and that additional work arising from giving advice about the process was part of the existing relationship SEPA has with stakeholders.²

Responsible Authorities

11. The Financial Memorandum states that the Scottish Executive and Local Authorities will be the Responsible Authorities who will have the largest number of Strategic Environmental Assessments to deal with. In its submission to the Committee, COSLA stated that “it does not believe that the assumptions made accurately reflect the cost to responsible authorities, specifically local authorities.” COSLA goes on to say that “it is demonstrably difficult for local authorities to anticipate the likely costs involved…..however, given the scope of the legislation and our suggestion as to the scale of the resources likely to be required, we believe that the financial assumptions are unrealistic.”³
    
    
12. When questioned about this, the Executive responded that they have tried to show the maximum, gross costs in the Financial Memorandum and that the maximum figure of around £14m is at the top end. Therefore, the Executive stated that “we do not share COSLA’s concerns that we are underestimating costs.”⁴
    
    
13. Whilst the Committee recognised that COSLA has not produced alternative figures, it was concerned that the bill appears to create a right for assessments to be carried out and therefore, creates an expectation that may be difficult to meet. The Partnership Agreement made a commitment to introduce SEAs for all policies, plans and programmes however, the Executive believes that Responsible Authorities will be able to determine that only cases where there is a reasonable argument that there will be significant environmental effects will be taken forward. However, the Executive also says this will involve “significant work for local authorities”.⁵
    
    
14. COSLA also suggested that the Executive should not rush into extending SEA beyond the regulations and that a more measured approach would be more beneficial for Responsible Authorities. Additionally, COSLA stated that they had offered to trial SEA across council service in two or three local authorities but that such a pilot exercise had not started. The Executive confirmed that they have met with COSLA to discuss suitable cases and have put together a project plan.⁶
    
    
15. The Committee was also concerned that further financial burden could be placed on councils where SEAs are developed across local authority areas or parts of local authority areas. One example given was that of Scottish Water which might produce a plan for its water infrastructure investment and such a plan would impact on a number of local authorities. In addition, private developers could have an interest in such a plan but the onus is on local authorities.
    
    
16. The Executive responded that in such situations it can be difficult to identify a specific individual private sector developer who would create a development under a particular project. Further, the Bill is specific in that there must be one identified responsible authority for each plan. The Executive did say that it hoped people would work in collaboration to develop SEAs, but the Committee remains concerned that the financial burden will have to be picked up by local authorities.
    
    
17. The Committee recommends that the lead Committee pursue this matter with the Minister. In addition, the Committee recommends that the lead Committee seek further information from the Minister as to whether disagreements between COSLA and the Executive over the total costs have been resolved in discussion between the two bodies, outlined in evidence.

Relationship with the proposed Planning Bill

18. The Committee noted that a planning Bill is likely to be introduced later in the year and the likelihood is that the Bill could have a significant impact on the planning process. However, this Bill will make changes which will impact on the planning system and which will be implemented before the introduction of the planning Bill. It was put to the Executive that “the planning process is likely to be disturbed significantly when the legal elements of the application of SEA come through.”⁷
    
    
19. The concern is that this will present further burdens for local authorities and that there is an urgent need for work on this Bill and on planning reform to be co-ordinated in terms of assessing the overall implications for local authorities. The Executive officials confirmed that there had been close working between this Bill team and planning officials in the Executive and that “there is no doubt that the full consequences of SEA will be taken into account in the planning bill.”⁸
    
    
20. The Committee recognises that this Bill’s impact is wider than planning but it believes this is why it is essential that there is co-ordination between various departments, both in the Executive and local authorities and notes that there is no specific requirement for such co-ordination contained in the Bill.
    
    
21. The Committee suggests that the lead Committee seeks further clarification on this issue from the Minister.

Conclusions

22. The Committee recognises that the Executive has sought to quantify all costs associated with SEA and understands why the research, upon which the figures in the Financial Memorandum are based, included a +/-25% margin for error.
    
    
23. However, it is very concerned that local authorities, upon whom major costs will fall in their role as Responsible Authorities, appear to have deep reservations about the costs outlined in the Financial Memorandum and about future burdens that may be placed on them. The Committee is also concerned that the situation could be further exacerbated by a gap between the implementation of this Bill and the introduction of a planning Bill.
    
    
24. The Committee therefore recommends that the lead Committee pursues these issues with Ministers and urges the Executive to reach agreement with COSLA on the financial implications of the Bill.

APPENDIX 1: WRITTEN EVIDENCE

SUBMISSION FROM SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE (SNH)

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL – FINANCIAL MEMORANDUM

Response by Scottish Natural Heritage to the consultation by the Scottish Parliament Finance Committee on the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill – Financial Memorandum

Responses by Scottish Natural Heritage to the Questionnaire on the Financial Memorandum for the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill

Consultation

Did you take part in the consultation exercise for the Bill, if applicable, and if so did you comment on the financial assumptions made?

SNH responded to consultations by the Scottish Executive on the implementation of both the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Scotland) Regulations 2004 and the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill 2005. In responding to these consultations SNH welcomed the considerable benefits that it saw arising from the introduction of SEA, which include “downstream” resource savings arising from the proper consideration of environmental factors at the plan-making and programme design stages. We did, however, draw attention to the fact that the effective implementation of the proposals would place significant new demands on the consultation bodies. The measures would represent a significant step-change in our current involvement in strategy, plan and programme making, for which we would have to find additional resources.

Provisional estimates of the scale of the effort likely to be required to implement both the Regulations and the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill suggest that to meet its new obligations, SNH will, at a minimum, require the equivalent of four members of staff at an approximate cost of £173,096 per annum (assuming one E and three D grades). Although we have not sought to allocate this resource between the Regulations and the Bill, we have no doubt the greater part of this new need will arise from the Bill, which will bring us in contact with a far wider range of strategies, plans and programmes than hitherto.

As indicated, we would hope that this additional resource requirement would be to a greater or lesser degree offset by savings arising as the more environmentally sensitive plans and programmes that should result from SEA generate fewer problematic projects. But our involvement in SEA would in the short-term be an addition to our overall workload and it is difficult to predict just how soon the offsetting savings will be realised.

We recognised that a number of factors will influence the level of total resources required to undertake Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). These include the volume of strategies, plans and programmes submitted to us; the relative proportion that will be pre-screened out or which will only require screening; the additional information requirements generated; and whether or not we are currently involved in developing or commenting on the preparation of the strategy, plan or programme.

In relation to the wider costs of implementing the SEA proposals, SNH considered that the creation of a freestanding administrative body would incur considerably greater costs. We preferred proposals for central administration of SEA, supported by strong working relations with the consultation authorities and central access to sources of information, advice and guidance on approaches to SEA perhaps through a dedicated website. We considered that this approach would provide the most effective and efficient mechanism for the implementation of SEA in Scotland.

Do you believe your comments on the financial assumptions have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

As one of the three designated consultation authorities for SEA in Scotland, SNH has worked closely with the SE Bill Team and was consulted by them on the financial implications of the legislation. We consider that our comments on financial assumptions have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum.

Did you have sufficient time to contribute to the consultation exercise?

SNH considers that sufficient time was given to the consultation exercise on the Bill, especially as this consultation followed on from extensive consultation on the implementation of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Scotland) Regulations 2004.

Costs

If the Bill has any financial implications for your organisation, do you believe that these have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum? If not, please provide details.

SNH considers that the financial implications for the organisation have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum, which clearly identifies the uncertainties and possible variances in the complexity of SEA and their relevance to each Consultation Authority. We agree with the statement in paragraph 82 of the Financial Memorandum that the exact number and grades of staff required by Consultation Authorities will not be entirely clear until we have more experience of the SEA procedures in operation.

Are you content that your organisation can meet the financial costs associated with the Bill? If not, how do you think these costs should be met?

In the short term, SNH will ensure that it prioritises work so that it meets its responsibilities under the Bill. As to the future we would hope that the Scottish Executive, in allocating funds to SNH, would recognise the additional resources that will be required for ongoing delivery of these responsibilities. We would welcome a review of this situation once we have experience of the demands placed on us under the new legislation.

Does the Financial Memorandum accurately reflect the margins of uncertainty associated with the estimates and the timescales over which such costs would be expected to arise?

SNH considers that the Financial Memorandum reflects the margins of uncertainty associated with the implementation of the Bill.

Wider Issues

If the Bill is part of a wider policy initiative, do you believe that these associated costs are accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

The implementation of SEA is closely related to the Government’s programmes for sustainable development, open government and freedom of information. We agree with the statement in paragraph 57 of the Financial Memorandum that an increase in requests for data/advice is likely to become part and parcel of the evolution of new information provision regimes developed in response to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004.

Do you believe that there may be future costs associated with the Bill, for example through subordinate legislation or more developed guidance? If so. Is it possible to quantify these costs?

The preparation of guidance and the introduction of monitoring regimes for SEA may well give rise to future costs. At this stage we do not believe it possible to quantify these costs.

Scottish Natural Heritage
March 2005

SUBMISSION FROM SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (SEPA)

Thank you for your letter of 9 March 2004 inviting SEPA to provide its view to the Committee on the financial issues raised within the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill.

Under the existing Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Scotland) Regulations 2004, SEPA is identified as a Consultation Authority, giving the Agency new statutory duties⁹ to provide guidance and information at key stages in the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process. The Bill also identifies SEPA as a Consultation Authority and confers similar statutory duties. In addition to these duties, SEPA will also require to act as a Responsible Authority when undertaking SEA for its own plans, programmes and strategies that fall within the scope of the Bill.

The purpose of the Bill is to extend the scope of SEA to account of a broader range of public plans programmes and strategies, beyond that required by the EC Directive and the consequent 2004 Regulations. SEPA strongly supports the Bill and very much welcomes the desire of Ministers to bring environmental considerations into the heart of Scottish plan-making. The effect of the Bill will significantly increase SEPA’s SEA activities as both a Consultation Authority and a Responsible Authority and, accordingly, there are resource implications for the Agency.

SEPA’s response to the specific questions detailed in your letter are set out below:

1. Did you take part in the consultation exercise for the Bill, if applicable, and if so did you comment on the financial assumptions made?

SEPA responded to the draft Bill and made extensive comments regarding the resource impact that it would be likely to have on the Agency. At the draft Bill stage, there was only basic information about the financial implications upon which to comment.

2. Do you believe your comments on the financial assumptions have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

The Financial Memorandum now includes much more detailed assumptions regarding the costs of the Bill. Many of the assumptions regarding cost and number of SEAs per year were derived from research commissioned by SEPA (undertaken by Babtie Group) to inform our own resource planning activities. We are concerned that the interpretation of this work set out in the figures in paragraph 84 and table 2 may be light (see Question 4 below).

3. Did you have sufficient time to contribute to the consultation exercise?

Yes.

4. If the Bill has any financial implications for your organisation, do you believe that these have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum? If not, please provide details.

As noted above, SEPA commissioned Babtie Group in January 2004 to provide an assessment of the likely number of plans and programmes that would be subject to SEA, under both the Regulations and the Bill. This assessment was then used to estimate the likely cost for SEPA in fulfilling its Consultation Authority and Responsible Authority duties, in order that it could effectively resource plan.

From this work, SEPA estimated that the total cost to the Agency for statutory activities proposed in the Bill would be around £1.25m (+/- 25%) per annum. When factors such as diminishing costs over time, efficiency gains and taking account of similar work already undertaken (eg planning liaison) were accounted for, it was estimated that the additional cost to SEPA would be around £0.9m (+/- 25%) per annum. This figure accounts only for statutory duties set out in the Bill and it has been SEPA’s experience, thus far with SEA, that we are generally expected to provide much wider support to Responsible Authorities beyond the statutory SEA stages.

Para 84 states that the total annual cost for Consultation Authorities may be up to £1.65m (+/- 25%) of which £675,000 is attributable to SEPA. This is rather less than SEPA’s own £0.9m estimate of total cost, which was derived from the same work.

With respect to duties as a Responsible Authority, the Memorandum states that the cost of preparing an Environmental Report may be £20k - £60k. SEPA considers that this is probably a reasonable range, although it would be useful to keep this figure under review since there are examples that have cost considerably beyond the upper figure. Given the complex nature of many of the SEPA plans which will qualify under the Bill (eg River Basin Management Plans, National and Area Waste Plans), it is anticipated that the cost to SEPA of its duties as a Responsible Authority will often be within the most expensive 10% of plans cited in para 61.

Paras 86 – 91 set out the miscellaneous and administrative costs to the Scottish Executive. The Finance Committee should note that such costs will similarly apply (albeit to a lesser extent) to SEPA and the other Consultation Authorities. Like the Executive, each Consultation Authority operates a gateway to administer the consultations and to provide a one stop shop for the Responsible Authorities. In addition, there are other miscellaneous tasks for consultation authorities, such as staff guidance to ensure consistent and quality-assured responses, awareness raising/capacity building within SEPA and partner organisations, and the development of SEA policy and procedures.

In summary, SEPA considers that the estimated costs provided in the Financial Memorandum do not fully reflect the estimated costs projected by SEPA. The committee should note that the actual confirmed allocation of funding for SEPA’s SEA duties over the next three years falls well short both of SEPA’s projected cost and the lesser figure given in the Financial Memorandum (see Question 5)

5. Are you content that your organisation can meet the financial costs associated with the Bill? If not, how do you think these costs should be met?

As part of SEPA’s 2004 spending review settlement £187,000 (2005/06), £266,000 (2006/07) and £377,000 (2007/08) was allocated to resource SEA activities. While welcome, this is clearly short of both SEPA’s estimate of total resource need and the estimate set out in the Financial Memorandum. Accordingly, SEPA resources to meet SEA duties under the Bill will be considerably stretched. While experience will provide a clearer signpost to actual resource requirements, it is possible that SEPA will have to prioritise its Consultation Authority activities to match available resources. This may include:

• prioritising consultation resources to those plans and programmes most closely aligned to SEPA’s core business or greatest environmental risk;

• adoption of “do minimum statutory requirement” in some cases or when casework loads dictate – this has already had to be adopted in the early stages of SEA when no resource was available;

• greater utilisation of standard letters and standing advice; and

• limiting or prioritising wider non-statutory duties.

From experience to date, it is clear that Responsible Authorities are very keen to involve the Consultation Authorities at very many stages in the SEA process. While this is very positive and enables closer working with partner agencies, the resource constraints upon us may mean SEPA is not able to maintain the level of service both we and our Responsible Authority partners aspire to in this regard.

SEPA would reassert the point made in its response to the draft Bill, that if the Ministers’ objective of making Scotland a world leader on SEA is to be achieved, then appropriate resources will need to be put in place. Recognising the high degree of uncertainty about the level of resources required to implement the Bill, SEPA considers that it would be prudent to undertake a thorough review as experience develops over the first year or two of the Bill coming into force. If it is found that SEA practice is compromised due to resource constraints then it should be incumbent upon the Executive to make available appropriate resources. The proposed SEA pathfinder project involving CoSLA, the Scottish Executive and the Consultation Authorities will assist greatly in this regard.

6. Does the Financial Memorandum accurately reflect the margins of uncertainty associated with the estimates and the timescales over which such costs would be expected to arise?

There is considerable uncertainty regarding the estimates. This is reflected in the +/- 25% uncertainty figure attributed to both the volume of SEAs and the likely costs. SEPA considers such an error margin is sensible. SEPA does not, however, consider there is great uncertainty regarding timescale – it is clear that the volume of plans and programmes to which SEA will apply will increase markedly pretty much as soon as the Bill is enacted and in force.

8. Do you believe that there may be future costs associated with the Bill, for example through subordinate legislation or more developed guidance? If so, is it possible to quantify these costs?

As noted above, SEPA considers that a review of costs should be undertaken as experience develops in order to ensure that the right resources are available to the right authorities at the right time.

Specific Issues

Para 53 – The term “lesser costs” is used to describe those attributable to other public bodies such as SEPA. As noted above, SEPA considers that its Responsible Authority duties will be significant – SEPA may have a substantial number of plans and programmes that may fall under the Bill: eg National Waste Plan and Area Waste Plans (14), River Basin Management Plans (2), Sub Basin Plans (9 or 10 and potentially more) and strategy documents and policy frameworks (10-20).

Para 57 – This section identifies the likely increase in requests for data and advice as a result of the increase in SEA activity brought forward by the Bill. It suggests that such additional work is likely to become integrated into the wider context of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004. While this is true for data requests, it is less so for the provision of advice. As noted above, experience suggests the Consultations Authorities are expected to engage in non-statutory activities connected with preparation of screening reports, scoping reports and environmental reports and these, when multiplied by the volume of plans, programmes and strategies under the Bill, represent a considerable body of work. While SEPA understands that the Financial Memorandum only relates to the statutory provisions of the Bill, it would wish to assert to the committee that the success of SEA will, in part, depend upon these wider areas of work.

Table1 – It is surprising to note that the projected additional Bill provisions applicable to the Scottish Executive amount only to 4 plans. SEPA would question this figure given the wider range of qualifying plans, programmes and strategies prescribed by the Bill.

Para 90 – 92 - As noted above, such administrative and miscellaneous costs also apply, albeit to lesser degree, to the Consultation Authorities for SEA administration, capacity building, guidance preparation and research work.

I hope that these comments are helpful to the Committee in their consideration of the financial implications of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill. I would reassert SEPA’s strong support for the Bill and the very positive benefits it will bring for protecting and enhancing the environment in Scotland. For SEA in Scotland to realise its true potential, however, there are resource issues which do need to be fully assessed and addressed. If you have any queries regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact Neil Deasley on 01786 452431 in the first instance.

Dr Campbell Gemmell
Chief Executive

Response by Historic Scotland to the consultation by the Scottish Parliament Finance Committee on the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill – Financial Memorandum

Historic Scotland

As in the SEA Regulations, the Scottish Ministers are identified as one of the Consultation Authorities under the SEA Bill, and have designated Historic Scotland to represent their interests in matters relating to the historic environment. Historic Scotland is an Executive Agency within the Scottish Executive’s Education Department and is directly responsible to the Scottish Ministers for safeguarding the nation’s built heritage and promoting its understanding and enjoyment.

Consultation

Did you take part in the consultation exercise for the Bill, if applicable, and if so did you comment on the financial assumptions made?

Two consultation exercises have asked for views on the Bill. The first (2003/31), in Autumn 2003, considered Bill principles and the second (2004/12), in Autumn 2004, considered the details of the Bill. Historic Scotland has responded to both consultations. A copy of each of our responses is attached.

Do you believe your comments on the financial assumptions have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

Please see the response to Question 4.

Did you have sufficient time to contribute to the consultation exercise?

A response period of approximately 6 weeks was allowed from the date of publication (15 September - 29 October 2004). After agreement from the SEA Team, Historic Scotland responded on 5 November 2004.

Costs

If the Bill has any financial implications for your organisation, do you believe that these have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum? If not, please provide details.

Historic Scotland will have two roles in the SEA regime, as a Responsible Authority and as a Consultation Authority. As a Responsible Authority we anticipate Historic Scotland’s plans/programmes will be subject to SEA, the costs of which can be absorbed into the cost of plan/programme preparation.

As a Consultation Authority, additional costs will accrue to Historic Scotland. These have been identified to the Scottish Executive’s SEA Team, and we are satisfied that these are reflected in the Financial Memorandum.

Are you content that your organisation can meet the financial costs associated with the Bill? If not, how do you think these costs should be met?

As an Executive Agency, Historic Scotland’s budget is allocated by Scottish Ministers.

Does the Financial Memorandum accurately reflect the margins of uncertainty associated with the estimates and the timescales over which such costs would be expected to arise?

Yes.

Wider Issues

If the Bill is part of a wider policy initiative, do you believe that these associated costs are accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

The Bill is part of the wider Sustainable Development initiative being taken forward by Environment Group. HS’s understanding is that the other costs associated with this initiative are not part of this Financial Memorandum.

Do you believe that there may be future costs associated with the Bill, for example through subordinate legislation or more developed guidance? If so. Is it possible to quantify these costs?

No.

Historic Scotland
March 2005

SEA Bill Consultation
Sustainable Development Directorate (SEA Bill Team)

Strategic Environmental Assessment A Consultation On The Proposed Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill (Paper 2004/12)

Herewith please find Historic Scotland’s response to the above consultation. This is provided on a question-by-question basis and reflects our historic environment interests and role both as a Consultation Authority and a potential Responsible Authority for certain of our own strategies, plans and programmes under the proposed Bill.

Definitions

In addition to the ten questions posed by the consultation paper, there is an issue about the definition of “plans”, “programmes” and “strategies”. HS’s response to consultation 2003/31 has already raised concerns regarding the definition of plans and programmes, and the need for additional guidance on the interpretation of these terms. HS’s concern about definitions in the Bill is that the widening of the scope of SEA to include “strategies” (as set out in the Partnership Agreement) is not reflected in the wording of the Bill. It is not made clear to Responsible Authorities that the requirements of the Bill also capture “strategies” and “policies”. HS would therefore seek additional definition and/or clarification within the Bill regarding “strategies” and “policies”, as well as guidance on interpretation. Our original request for guidance on the interpretation of “plans” and “programmes” is also reiterated.

Q1. Should we have pre-screening?

It is possible that the need for SEA of some plans/programmes will not be recognised due to a misunderstanding of their potential environmental impact. The work undertaken on SEPA’s behalf by Babtie Group asked Local Authorities to identify which of their plans/programmes would be captured by the Bill. Examples of those which could benefit from pre-screening include strategies on drugs, plans for women’s equality, children’s services and literacy and numeracy. However, some plans/programmes identified as unlikely to be subject to SEA may indeed have environmental impacts e.g. winter gritting and/or winter maintenance plans, and strategies for replacement and disposal of computer equipment.

HS therefore consider that a reporting mechanism should be introduced to the pre-screening process to resolve this potential difficulty. This could involve notification by the Responsible Authority to the SE SEA Gateway that a plans/programme is deemed not to have significant environmental effects. After consultation with the Consultation Authorities, SE could then consider whether it would be necessary to direct that SEA be undertaken of any of the identified plans/programmes.

It seems that one of the purposes behind pre-screening is to avoid an unnecessary administrative burden on both the Responsible Authorities and the Consultation Authorities. It is worth noting that another way of so doing would be to amend the requirement that a screening report for all plans/programmes screened be prepared and sent to the Consultation Authorities. For plans/programmes deemed to require SEA, this requirement could be removed to allow the Responsible and Consultation Authorities to move straight to the scoping stage. Thus the Consultation Authorities would only need to be concerned about screening issues for those plans/programmes which were deemed not to require SEA, or where there was some doubt over its requirement.

Guidance on the proposed pre-screening process will be helpful.

Q2. How should we administer screening and other elements of the SEA system?

HS supports the continuing of Option 1, particularly in the interests of maintaining continuity between the Regulations and the Bill.

Option 2 is a free standing administrative body. It is not clear how this would work when most of the issues arising from SEA are of a professional and subject-specific rather than an administrative nature. There would be no clear benefits over the current system.

HS agrees with the consultation paper discussion on the disbenefits of Option 3 in terms of poorer tracking of cases, and lack of clarity/consistency in administrative processes.

We do not see a role for HS in Option 4 and would not support it.

Option 5 would not be cost-effective or workable. It implies a loss of staff from HS who deal not only with SEA but other issues. It would militate against a consistency of approach between consultation on the SEA and on the plan itself, and would result in much duplication of effort. HS could not afford to lose staff in this way and we suspect that would also apply to the other Consultation Authorities. In addition, it is unclear what standing or authority such a specialist team would have: only HS can speak for matters relating to Ministers’ role over the historic environment, and we expect SEPA and SNH would say the same for their areas of interest.

Q3. What plans etc should be subject to screening?

HS support the proposed approach of screening on a case-by-case basis, whilst at the same time building up an indicative list of plans/programmes which will require screening. We believe that the combination of these two approaches will prove most effective.

Q4. Should there be a timescale for screening?

HS agree that a timescale should be set for this. Whether or not 28 days proves feasible will depend on the number of screening reports submitted to the Consultation Authorities and the resources available to deal with them.

Q5. Should Scottish Ministers determine in cases of dispute?

HS agree that Scottish Ministers are best placed to exercise the function of determination in the case of disagreement between the Responsible and Consultation Authorities on whether full SEA is required.

Q6. What should be in environmental reports?

HS agree that scoping will assist in achieving high quality reports. As in our previous consultation response, we suggest that advice on Annex I be included in the Bill Guidance. Guidance should include information on scoping, as well as setting out what the Consultation Authorities will expect from the Responsible Authorities in the way of a scoping report.

In theory the adoption of a standard set of environmental indicators for the SEA process may be useful in achieving a consistency of approach across the different sectors, and be of assistance to some Responsible Authorities. However, given that indicators are a means of measuring progress towards the achievement of objectives, this implies a standard set of environmental objectives to be used by all the public bodies. The objectives used by the Responsible Authorities will relate to the individual plan/programme under review and the characteristics of the geographical area affected. HS therefore takes the view that the Responsible Authorities should develop their own objectives and indicators, with assistance provided in the Bill guidance including examples such as those provided in the extant Interim Planning Advice.

If the view is that a standard set of indicators should be established, HS considers that a consultation exercise would be required as part of this process to identify both environmental objectives and indicators, and gain some agreement. Adoption of the Scottish Sustainable Development Indicators as they currently stand would not provide the environmental focus required by the SEA process.

Q7. Should environmental reports also include social and economic information?

HS agrees with the position set out in the consultation document that environmental reports should not include social and economic factors. It is our view that inclusion of these factors will place an undue burden on the Consultation Authorities in trying to “tease out” the environmental issues from the social and economic issues.

The purpose of SEA is to identify the environmental implications of certain courses of action, so that this information can be considered in the decision-making process. Inclusion of social and economic factors may cloud the issue, and work against fulfilling the requirements of the Directive. However, on occasion, SEA is confused with Sustainability Appraisal and HS consider that advice on the role of SEA should be provided in the Bill guidance to provide clarification.

Q8. What should be the arrangements for monitoring?

HS concur that the provision of information on monitoring data and contingency measures to the Consultation Authorities and the public would be useful, particularly as a means of identifying unforeseen impacts and ensuring that those identified are being addressed. However, reliance on the Environmental Information Regulations may not be the most appropriate vehicle. HS consider clear requirements for information provision should be included in the Bill.

We note that the SEA Directive makes monitoring the responsibility of Member States, as well as the identification of unforeseen adverse effects, and being able to undertake appropriate remedial action. Whilst this responsibility has legitimately been passed to the Responsible Authorities, we are of the view that Scottish Ministers should be in a position to provide information on monitoring to the European Commission as and when necessary, to fulfil the requirements of the Directive. Inclusion of requirements for passing such information to the Scottish Executive and the Consultation Authorities in the Bill would secure this position.

In terms of administrative arrangements, HS is of the view that information should be provided to the SE SEA Gateway and then circulated to the Consultation Authorities.

Q9. Should we have additional exemptions?

HS would find it difficult to identify additional exemptions at this time. However, we take the view that a list of plans/programmes to be exempt from SEA could be prepared at the same time as the list of plans/programmes to be subject to screening, to assist in pre-screening.

Q10. How can we improve the administration and operation of SEA?

As noted in preceding answers, HS is of the view that guidance on the Bill is essential.

We consider that the Bill should set out clearly its requirements of the Responsible Authorities, the Consultation Authorities and the Scottish Ministers. The “non-statutory” administrative arrangements can be included in the Bill guidance. As experience is gained of undertaking and administering SEA, the guidance can be changed if this is considered necessary.

Amanda Chisholm
Strategic Environmental Assessment Team Leader
Historic Scotland
5 November 2004

Strategic Environmental Assessment
Scottish Executive Consultation Document 2003/31
Comments From Historic Scotland

Historic Scotland (HS) has the following comments to offer on this consultation document which cover our potential dual role in the SEA process as both a responsible authority and a consultation authority. We wish to highlight two principle points, and append more detailed comments below on some of the specific questions raised in the consultation paper. In this we have not attempted to provide an answer to every question, but only to those where we felt we had a contribution to offer.

Principle Issues

HS Role as a Responsible Authority

We simply accept that that will be the case, though we currently have some difficulty in determining precisely how many, and which, of our plans and programmes might be caught by the proposed Regulations, and additionally, strategies under the proposed Bill. We suspect that numbers in the former category are likely to be extremely small, and might not extend much beyond our Corporate Plan, though any major management and development plans for significant regional groups of monuments in State Care might also fall within this category. The widening out of the SEA remit under the proposed Bill to also include strategies, and the very broad definition currently offered for that term suggests that considerably more of our output might be caught. We have highlighted our difficulties in interpreting the various terms in our more detailed comments below, and would in general welcome more guidance. However whatever the final outcome, we would wish to be seen to be adopting best practise in that role.

HS Role as a Consultation Authority

We welcome, in principle, the identification of HS, through Scottish Ministers, as a consultation authority for the purposes of SEA. We see this as a positive opportunity to mainstream historic environment issues into the work carried out by the public sector. However we must also record our very real concerns about the resource implications for the Agency of the significant levels of new work which would arise from this role under both the proposed Regulations and Bill. We very much doubt that we would be able to engage fully with the process under current staffing levels.

Detailed Comments

The Proposed Regulations

Definition of Plans and Programmes

Q3. As a potential producer of SEAs we do have some difficulty in applying the definitions to our own work and in determining clearly which potential plans/programmes might be subject to SEA. That may be a problem wider than HS, and might suggest that the screening process might, at least initially, be overwhelmed by submissions from responsible authorities who are simply uncertain but wish to err on the side of caution. We do not necessarily see any clear answer to this, or any way in which the definition offered could be made clearer, given the terms set out in the Directive. This is perhaps an issue which the proposed further guidance might help clarify: alternatively it might settle down in due course, and in the light of further experience. However we feel that at present it adds to the uncertainties of the resource implications which lie at the heart of our concerns, wearing our other hat, as a potential consultation body. The potential problem as we see it is not the potential for authorities to contrive through a potential loophole to fall outside the scope of the SEA process, but that it has the potential to draw in too much. We also feel that this problem will be exacerbated by the introduction of “strategies” within the Bill - see answer to Q 34-36

The Screening process

Q6. As noted above, for the screening process to be “largely driven by the responsible authority” (para 4.12) we feel that further guidance is required on the nature of plans and programmes, outside the obvious contenders covered by the issues discussed in para 4.11. We are concerned that the screening process may, at least initially, be overwhelmed.

We welcome the proposition that cases sent for screening must be accompanied by a short report prepared by the Responsible Authority.

As discussed at an earlier meeting on this issue, we do not believe it should be necessary, or that it will necessarily be possible, for the consultation authorities to reach agreement or a collective decision over the need for SEA. SNH, SEPA and HS (and any other identified body) will be dealing with very different environmental concerns, and all will not necessarily be significant in all potential SEA cases. It should be sufficient for one of those authorities to determine that there will be significant environmental effects for an SEA to go ahead (subject to appeal to Scottish Ministers).

Q7. We have had the benefit of sight of SNH draft comments on this paper, and should indicate that we support their position on the need for a secretariat within SE to act as a single gateway for all cases, to co-ordinate the views of the consultation bodies, and to notify that decision to the responsible authority. We also think that such a unit should be responsible for bringing in other organisations as necessary, beyond the consultation bodies identified in section 3. Taking our own area as an example, as noted in HS response to Q24/25 below, although in principle (and putting aside our resource concerns) we welcome the opportunity for historic environment issues to be at the forefront of the SEA process, we recognise that our statutory remit only covers part of the wider term “cultural heritage” used in both the Directive and the draft Regulations. For certain types of SEA it may well be necessary to seek views from other consultation bodies to cover gaps not dealt with by the 3 identified consultation authorities.

Q9. HS has yet to give this detailed consideration. Much depends on how the resource implications are to be met. In principle we envisage that at least a specialised gateway will need to be set up to develop the necessary expertise and co-ordinate HS corporate response.

Q10. To address some of the potential problems we have identified in our answers to Q3 above, we believe that a combination of both approaches outlined in para 4.16 may be necessary, rather than simply relying on a case-by case approach.

Q11. Our concerns about the likely impact of solely relying on a case-by-case approach are set out in our answer to Q3: - uncertainty amongst responsible authorities, and overwhelming consultation bodies at the screening stage.

Q13. We agree that a timescale should be set for this. Whether or not 28 days proves feasible will depend on the number of screening reports submitted to the consultation authorities and the resources available to deal with them.

Q14. If factors do change substantially within any intervening period, them in principle further screening should be required. It is not clear what measure or process would determine whether there have been substantial changes. That would not necessarily relate closely to any specific lapsed period of time. Significant change could occur within a very short time scale if the nature of the plan changed within that period. Self assessment may need to be relied upon.

Environmental Assessment

Q16. In order to avoid uncertainty about the precise nature of the items of information to be provided, additional guidance will almost certainly be required on the information set out in annex 1

Q17. On analogy with the EIA process, the scoping requirement set out in draft Regulation 13(5) is likely to be a particularly significant procedure for ensuring that the final report meets the requirements of the process as a whole, and in preventing abortive work on an unacceptable report. We suggest that further guidance is required to highlight the importance of this step. As with the screening procedures we would recommend that a request for a scoping opinion (and it is unclear whether that will be mandatory) should be accompanied by a Scoping Report prepared by the responsible authority.

Q18. The EIA Regulations require the provision of further information to make good any uncertainties or failings of any submitted ES. That might be an issue which requires to be considered here.

Q21. We consider that the avoidance of duplication of assessment is a key issue in ensuring that best use is made of what may prove to be limited resources. We are also concerned that SEA should be meaningful and add value, and not simply be carried out for forms sake. In this regard there will be a level at which there is insufficient information or certainty to carry out any meaningful SEA. Thus a less detailed SEA at a very strategic level might add nothing if the same subject matter is to be subject to SEA at another level.

Q22. For the same reasons set out in our answer to Q14, we do not believe that setting a fixed time limit will be meaningful.

Q23. We do not believe that the introduction of such provisions would be feasible: they would simply add to the bureaucracy. We consider that the consultation mechanisms in place should be able to address this.

Consultations and Decision Making

Q24 - Q25. We agree with the proposition in para 4.39 that Historic Scotland, as the primary body dealing with the area defined in both the Directive and draft Regulations as the “cultural heritage including the architectural and archaeological heritage” should be identified, through Scottish Ministers, as a consultation authority. We also welcome in principle the opportunity this presents to ensure that historic environment issues are fully integrated into the work carried our by the public sector. However we do have two caveats.

1. The most significant is the resource implications of undertaking this work. Clearly the resources required will ultimately depend upon the number of potential plans/programmes under the Regulations, and strategies under the Bill which will require SEA, and the work required to undertake the necessary scrutiny at the points identified in para 4.35. Initial indications are that the additional work load is likely to be considerable, and that seems to be born out by the findings of the research commissioned from Babtie by SEPA. On this basis we must conclude that HS will be unable to engage meaningful with the SEA process on the basis of current staff resources. As already indicated this is a significant concern to the Agency.

2. The definition used in Annex I of the Directive, and Schedule 2 of the draft regulations - “cultural heritage, including architectural and archaeological heritage” – whilst subsuming our statutory interests, also goes beyond them into other areas which we do not cover – see for example, the wider definition which attaches to the term “cultural heritage” in the National Cultural Strategy, and the definition included in the National Parks Act. In general HS will deal with those issues which comprise the historic environment – a term defined in National Planning Policy Guideline 18 Planning and the Historic Environment, para 1. HS remit also overlaps into the other Annex 1 criterion of “landscape”, where our remit covers the historic dimension of the landscape. I have already set this issue out at greater length in a response to a query from Charles Gorman specifically on HS remit. The implications of this is that whilst HS might be the primary body, we are not the only body which covers cultural and wider built heritage issues, including modern architecture and design. There may thus be a need to undertake consultation in addition with other bodies should those areas outwith our specific remit be significant factors in any proposed SEA. There must therefore be provision within the Regulations to require consultation with other bodies beyond those already identified, and a mechanism which will identify when this might be required, and which additional bodies will require to be consulted. This issue is touched upon in our response to Q7.

Q26. From our experiences of EIA we do not believe it is possible to select which consultation bodies need to be consulted in individual cases. Whilst it will be the case that some SEAs will only affect some interests, that is often difficult to predict or pre-select without detailed knowledge of the consultees subject areas, and the nature of the submitted SEA. Current practise in the case of EIA is that HS is consulted, through Scottish Ministers, in every case, and it is for us to determine whether our interests are affected. We see no way of avoiding this in the case of SEA.

The Proposed Bill

Q30 - Q35. As indicated in our answer to Q2 we have had some difficulty within HS in understanding how these various terms might apply to own strategic documents. The potentially very wide scope of the term “strategy” and the removal of the qualification that they set the framework for future development consents of projects compounds that difficulty and suggests that potentially most strategic documents could be caught. Without fully understanding the intentions behind this proposal within the Partnership Document we find it difficult to offer any guidance on how the term “strategy” should be defined. However without further refinement we are concerned that this has a very real potential to overwhelm the screening process.

Q36. We do not foresee any need to modify the criteria in Annex II

Q37. We do not see any need to modify the screening process adopted for the regulations in the case of the Bill, though we do have some problems with the detail of that screening process: comments on that are already set out in comments above.

Q38. We have some concerns about the additional burden on the consultation authorities of a pre-screening process, whist recognising the problem it is intended to address. That problem is inherent in the very wide definition of “strategy” and perhaps could, in part, be tackled though its tighter definition, and the provision of further guidance on the types of strategy which are unlikely to require SEA, and those which are not.

Q39. We would not wish to see a separate regime in operation for plans and programmes under the Directive and strategies, plans and programmes under the Bill, and that perhaps confirms our view that a pre-screening process in the case of the Bill is undesirable.

Q43. We support the approach set out in para 4.66 that the SEA report should only contain environmental factors.

Q47-Q50. We have no meaningful information to provide, either in our role as a responsible authority or as a consultation authority. As already noted we have had considerable difficulty in determining how many, and which of our strategies, plans and programmes are likely to require SEA under the current definitions and there has been some split in opinion within the Agency. As a potential consultation authority we have just received a copy of the Babtie Report for SEPA and have no reason to depart from its findings.

Lily Linge
11 March 04

Response by COSLA to the consultation by the Scottish Parliament Finance Committee on the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill – Financial Memorandum

COSLA

1. Did you take part in the consultation exercise for the Bill, if applicable, and if so did you comment on the financial assumptions made?

COSLA did take part in the consultation exercise, commenting on both the financial assumptions made and the resource implications in terms of staff time. COSLA has made direct representations to the Minister for the Environment and Rural Affairs on the implementation in Scotland of the European Directive on SEA, as well as the Minister’s ambitions under primary legislation to extend the scope of the SEA process beyond that envisaged by the Directive.

2. Do you believe your comments on the financial assumptions have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

COSLA does not believe that the assumptions made accurately reflect the cost to responsible authorities, specifically local authorities. It is demonstrably difficult for local authorities to anticipate the likely costs involved, since these will change on a case by case basis and will depend inter alia, on the ability to resource the purchase of relevant datasets, as well as a level of knowledge on the delivery of the SEA process, as yet to be achieved in many council departments and services, other than in development planning. Councils have been unable to plan for this process in terms of staff time and associated resource requirements because there has not been enough clarity as to the types of plans and programmes that might be subject to the SEA process.

However, given the scope of the legislation, and our suggestion as to the scale of the resources likely to be required, we believe that the financial assumptions are unrealistic.

3. Did you have sufficient time to contribute to the consultation exercise?

Frankly, given the nature of the Minister’s ambitions to put Scotland forward as a ‘world leader’ on this matter, and given the confusion already occurring as to what requires SEA scrutiny, COSLA would suggest that far more time should have been spent working with local authorities and others affected by this proposed legislation, to determine what can realistically be achieved within current resources. Had such action been undertaken, the proposals for primary legislation would have been better informed and more positively accepted.

COSLA welcomes the principles behind SEA and believes in the longer term that this will become a useful tool to support the environment. We do feel though that taken together with all of the other environmental initiatives thrust as a duty on local authorities, as for example Core Path Planning; to extend the scope of SEA beyond that prescribed by the European Directive so as to encompass ‘all new strategies, plans and prog rammes ’ is not, in COSLA’s view going to achieve sufficient added value to the environment, and will be resource intensive for council departments already under pressure to deliver more for less.

Costs

4. If the Bill has any financial implications for your organisation, do you believe that these have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum? If not, please provide details .

The Scotland wide costs will be determined by the total number of SEAs conducted. Research carried out by the Scottish Executive estimates that approximately 94 to 156 assessments per year are likely. However, these figures are subject to an error of 25%, which could lead to between 66 and 195 annual assessments. This is a very large discrepancy and makes any quantification of the costs difficult.

Based on this research the total costs for all assessments in Scotland would range from £3.3 million to £5.5 million (+/- 25%). Since there is an assumption, which has yet to be countered, that all local authorities will prepare a similar number of assessable plans, then this cost will be divided equally between all 32 councils. It is considered likely that due to the frequency of plan preparations a figure to the higher end of the range will a reasonable approximation. This could lead to a figure of £172,000 (+/- 25%) for each Local Authorities, and is largely independent of council size and geography. This would therefore have a disproportionate effect on smaller councils.

There is also an issue of staff time. Local authority staff will have to be moved from other responsibilities, at least temporarily, to deal with SEA. Councils have very limited staff capacity and any movement of staff may be to the detriment of other essential work, and may require additional ‘back filling’ of vacated posts.

Given that all local authority projects and plans will be subject to SEA, it is the belief of COSLA, as stated in answer to question 2, that the above figures are likely to be an underestimate and do not reflect the real costs for councils.

For example the Scottish Executive figures suggest that on average, local authorities can expect to conduct around 5 SEAs per year. A response from one council suggests that the true figure may be even double this number i.e. 10 SEAs per year. This could lead to a figure of £344,000 (+/- 25%). COSLA would suggest that even this larger estimate may be an underestimate, as despite best efforts, there is still a lack of understanding of the full implications of this Bill across the public sector.

There is sufficient uncertainty to warrant increased research, and time for comprehensive pilot projects. To rush into extending SEA beyond the regulations is likely to strain all responsible authorities considerably, where a more measured approach will, in the long run, deliver the same environmental benefits but allow all those affected to adapt.

COSLA in meetings with the Minister voluntarily offered to trial SEA across council services in two or three local authorities. We believe that this would help quantify the resource implications of the Bill. Regrettably, we still await the start of this pilot.

The true costs must be quantified before passing any primary legislation. Local Government recognises the importance of protecting the environment, and COSLA was extremely positive during the passage of the recent Nature Conservation (Scotland) 2004 Act through Parliament. However, the uncertainty of cost and resource implications of this legislation puts Local Government in a difficult position. Local authorities want to protect the environment and deliver on sustainable development, but are being asked on the extension of SEA to take a leap into the unknown.

COSLA therefore recommends taking time to consider the full implications of this Bill, before going beyond the regulations. This will ensure that Scotland can become a ‘World Leader’ in Strategic Environmental Assessment, but in a measured and steady way.

5. Are you content that your organisation can meet the financial costs associated with the Bill? If not, how do you think these costs should be met?

For member councils it will be a significant burden, at the very least in the short to medium term. COSLA acknowledges that, in time, skills will be acquired and economies of scale achieved in the delivery of SEA. However, to ask local authorities, from a standing start in services/departments (apart from development planning) to undertake this process, without specific financial support, is asking for a delay in delivering programmes and strategies, at a time when councils are being pressed on all sides to deliver more efficiently and with greater speed.

In addition the full costs must be met by the Scottish Executive.

6. Does the Financial Memorandum accurately reflect the margins of uncertainty associated with the estimates and the timescales over which such costs would be expected to arise ?

As stated above, since COSLA does not believe that the burden on councils can be accurately identified at this stage, the margins of uncertainty offer little or no comfort especially since there can have been no anticipation on the part of local authorities, in the recent spending round, as to the need to allocate significant resources to the SEA process. We also believe that the Scottish Executive itself is hugely underestimating the scale of SEA.

Wider Issues

7. If the Bill is part of a wider policy initiative, do you believe that these associated costs are accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

COSLA has already stated its support for the principles of environmental protection and sustainability. COSLA supports the principles of renewable energy and is working with its member councils to support local actions. But these councils have to be given the resources to support this work – nothing is going to be gained by placing greater burdens, especially those that may not achieve the environmental benefits that were originally envisaged by the European Directive. Thus, if environmental improvements or protection measures emerge as necessary from the SEA process, then these should be able to be reflected in the Financial Memorandum with the same degree of accuracy as those produced by the consultants regarding the SEA process itself.

Do you believe that there may be future costs associated with the Bill, for example through subordinate legislation or more developed guidance? If so, is it possible to quantify these costs?

Should the Scottish Executive determine in future that further types of plans and strategies on additional themes with potential environmental impact be required to be subject to SEA, the cost implications, if relevant to councils will have to be borne by them. At this stage, it is not possible for COSLA accurately quantify future costs, as the full scale of the financial implications will only become apparent when SEA begins to be rolled out.

For further information contact:

Kathy Cameron
Policy Manager
COSLA

¹ Submission from SEPA

² Rathjen, Official Report, 19 April 2005, Col 2486

³ Submission from COSLA

⁴ Cameron, Official Report, 19 April 2005, Col 2487

⁵ Cameron, Official Report, 19 April 2005, Col 2488

⁶ Rathjen, Official Report, 19 April 2005, Col 2491

⁷ McNulty, Official Report, 19 April 2004, Col 2489

⁸ Rathjen, Official Report, 19 April 2004, Col 2489

⁹ 1 SEPA’s statutory duties are:

Screening – SEPA must within 28 days reply to a screening consultation advising its view on whether a plan or programme will have significant environmental effects

Scoping – SEPA must within 35 days reply to a scoping consultation advising on the scope and level of detail that Responsible Authorities should include within Environmental Reports

Environmental Report – SEPA must be consulted on all Environmental Reports and the plan to which they relate and has the opportunity to comment on them within the timescale agreed at the Scoping stage.

Data Provision – This is statutory under other legislation (Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations) however the Bill will likely increase the number of requests.

Responsible Authority – Undertaking SEA for all of its qualifying plans, programmes and strategies

Wider Non Statutory activities include:

• Pre-SEA meetings, discussions and advice
• Assistance in preparing documents such as Scoping Reports
• Attending stakeholder meetings to agree SEA approach and methodology
• Requests from Responsible Authorities to assist development of SEA method and contribute to assessment
• Assistance with “spin off” work such as State of the Environment Reports
• Administration/tracking of SEA casework, internal policy, guidance, research etc