Plenary, 06 Oct 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, October 6, 2005

Official Report 780KB pdf

---

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

The next item of business is consideration of a Sewel motion. I ask Ross Finnie to move motion S2M-3327, on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the provisions in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill relating to devolved matters and those that confer executive functions on the Scottish Ministers should be considered by the UK Parliament.—[Ross Finnie.]

The Scottish National Party opposed this Sewel motion when it came before the Environment and Rural Development Committee on 22 June. Now that it is before the full Parliament, we appeal to members to reject it.

There is no doubt that the coalition Government is abusing the Sewel mechanism. The architects of that mechanism expected it to be used sparingly, but remarkably we are today debating the 64th Sewel motion to come before us in just six years, and we shall be debating the 65th in a few minutes' time. Indeed, one academic referred in today's press to the Sewel motion process as

"One that has eroded the distinctive ethos of the Scottish Parliament over the past six years".

Those affected by the issue that we are discussing are appealing to the Parliament to take responsibility, not to pass the buck back to Westminster. Prior to discussions at committee on the impact on Scotland of the United Kingdom Government's Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, to which the Sewel motion relates, representations were made by users of Scotland's canal network, who are members of the Scottish Inland Waterways Association, on the proposal to establish a UK inland waterways advisory council. They do not want the Scottish Parliament to pass to the UK Government in London responsibility for establishing a UK body. Instead, now that we have our own Parliament, they want us to do what is right for Scotland and to legislate for the creation of a Scottish equivalent.

Boat owners believe that an advisory body based south of the border will

"not be sufficiently focussed to meet the needs of the waterways users in Scotland."

I ask members to note that responsibility for Scottish waterways is devolved to this Parliament, but under the UK bill the advisory board will remain at UK level.

In short, it is clear that boat owners who use our canals do not trust a UK advisory body to look after their interests or to give Scottish ministers appropriate and informed advice on relevant matters, because the body will be based south of the border and the vast majority of its members will be from there. I quote from the written representation received by the Environment and Rural Development Committee from the chairman of the Scottish Inland Waterways Association, who wrote of the UK board that,

"with 2000 miles of waterway to deal with in England and Wales they do not have sufficient interest or knowledge of the Scottish waterway system to devote the time or the effort needed to deal adequately with the situation up here."

He went on to say:

"Any council set up to advise Scottish Ministers and the Waterways Board on matters relevant to inland waterways in Scotland can only be fully effective if it is constituted in Scotland with members who are fully aware of the Scottish waterways situation, their beauty, their potential and the problems associated with their operation. This is not achievable with an English based body even with a token Scottish representation."

To strengthen the case for opposing the motion, I turn to the revealing statement in the minister's memorandum to the committee. He said:

"Given the difficulties in the short term of securing this change through Scottish legislation these powers might be best achieved by enactment at Westminster under the terms of the Sewel Convention, although the Committee is asked to note that this presents some complexities for the NERC Bill".

The Scottish National Party appeals to the Parliament not to allow the minister off the hook or to abdicate his responsibilities by choosing a lazy, easy option through the Sewel process. Instead, he should listen to those who are directly affected by the bill and to those who elected members of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on their behalf.

I appeal to the Parliament to reject the motion.

Members will not have been surprised to hear that Richard Lochhead is opposed to a UK body. That is a perfectly legitimate position for the Scottish National Party to take, but we should be clear about the SNP's froth and agitation about the Sewel motion.

The matters in the bill are being perfectly properly dealt with and concern a number of technical adjustments, mainly to reform certain cross-border public authorities. The bill will reform the constitutions of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which operates on a UK basis, and the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, to which Richard Lochhead referred. That advisory council has been in existence for some time. It was reviewed in 2003 and the technical amendments that will be made will simply ensure that it is responsible to both the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament.

The bill also covers the removal from statute of three long-obsolete committees—the Great Britain-wide Consumer Committee, the Committee of Investigation and the Hill Farming Advisory Committee, which has not met in Scotland for more than two years—and provides a means of extending the purposes of the national nature reserves and local nature reserves in Scotland to clarify that they can be used, as in practice they already are, for wider public enjoyment and not simply for the current statutory reasons of scientific research.

People should take a reasonable view of what is in this UK bill, which will make minor technical adjustments in a convenient and sensible way. The SNP opposes the motion and makes a completely fallacious case, saying that Sewel motions are somehow anti-democratic. Its case is simply not proven by the facts. I invite members to support the motion.

The question on the motion will be put at decision time.