Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2774, in the name of Ross Finnie, on the general principles of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill.
The bill, the principles of which we are debating, is a vital part of our modernising government agenda and it delivers a commitment in our partnership agreement. More than that, it puts Scotland in the vanguard of the fight to ensure that the environmental protection that is championed by the strategic environmental assessment principles is at the heart of public policy making.
The widespread consensus that has emerged in support of the bill is encouraging, and the recommendation by the Environment and Rural Development Committee that the general principles of the bill should be agreed to is heartening. The committee has produced a comprehensive and thoughtful report and I thank its members and its convener for their work. I also thank the many individuals and organisations that engaged whole-heartedly in our consultation exercises and the projects that have been associated with the bill; among them are the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland.
In essence, the bill's principles are that there should be early consideration of the environmental effects of public sector strategies, plans and programmes and effective early public consultation. I make it clear that environmental assessment informs decision making, but does not dictate to it. Moreover, environmental assessment will mesh with current and future planning legislation and be integral to our sustainable development agenda.
The bill proposes to encompass—and to make a logical extension to—the current regulatory provisions. If our environmental protection approach is to be systematic, sensible and sustainable, it follows that it must be logical to go beyond the limited current provisions and to address all public sector strategies, plans and programmes that are likely to have significant environmental effects.
Is it not the case that, as the minister suggests, we already have legislation in place that covers the environmental aspects at which the bill is aimed? His party and other parties in the chamber constantly carp about additional regulation and red tape, particularly that which emanates from European legislation. Is this not a case of gold plating European regulations? Is the bill not simply putting an added cost on the environment?
No. Mr Gallie has misunderstood the principles of the bill. It is wholly illogical to say that the only plans and projects that should be subject to such scrutiny are those that derive from a regulatory framework. Later in my speech I will address the second issue that Mr Gallie raises, which is that of bureaucracy. We have set out plans and proposals to address that issue.
Previously, plans were not considered until it was too late—all plans with significant effects across all subjects. Strategic environmental assessment puts a focus on protecting and enhancing the environment and reducing the risk of unforeseen damage; it therefore allows us to anticipate the problems and to avoid the unnecessary public expenditure of having to remedy them at a later date.
I make no apology for being passionately committed to driving forward the principles in this legislative vehicle. Equally, my commitment to the values of the bill makes me aware—if I can address Mr Gallie—of how crucial it is to ensure that bureaucracy is kept to a minimum and that maximum support is provided to practitioners. I note that the committee shares my view and that it has raised concerns relating to those matters. I assure members that I am doing everything that I can and I hope in these few moments to be able to persuade them of that. To minimise bureaucracy, for example, and to avoid wasting time and resources on plans that have no or minimal environmental effects, the bill proposes a filter mechanism called pre-screening. I note that the committee believes that a published register of pre-screened cases would be valuable and I confirm my commitment to considering how best to give effect to that suggestion. On support, I have committed to producing comprehensive guidance and I note that the committee report welcomes that.
I note that the committee considers training to be vital. The Executive has already supported a number of training events, and has provided awareness seminars. In addition, we have commissioned unique environmental assessment templates, which will give practitioners practical guidance through the process. I share the view that the bill represents a major change in culture and practice and I will continue to support the change process as we go forward.
Will the minister acknowledge the crucial role of the gateway in co-ordination and in ensuring that that culture shift can happen? How will he ensure that the gateway is reflected fully in the bill?
I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for taking me on to the very subject at the top of my next page, which reads:
"Yet another unique support initiative—the SEA Gateway".
The SEA gateway will provide general advice and a liaison point for the responsible authorities and the consultation authorities. In addition, although still at an embryonic stage, it already provides a degree of quality control through its monitoring of statutory timescales. Those measures are all administrative, and I concede that they are not provided for in the bill. Because of the concerns raised I want to make the reasons for that clear. If such initiatives are to provide the high quality of support desired by the Executive and, I might say, by the committee and others, it is important to set them up so that they can respond flexibly to emerging needs and develop in an appropriate and useful way. I have no wish to straightjacket those potentially powerful initiatives within a statutory framework; rather, I propose to allow them to evolve naturally over time.
The bill requires SEPA, SNH and Historic Scotland to be consulted at points on the environmental assessment process. Those bodies are referred to as the consultation authorities. Importantly, that ensures that there is a statutory advice framework for the responsible authorities that are carrying out assessments. It also functions as a quality control mechanism and allows those key environmental bodies an early opportunity to engage in the process. The consultation authorities clearly have the expertise to cover the bulk of the environmental issues to be considered. However, concern has been raised about how they would consider other issues, for example health or population. The responsible authorities have a duty under the bill to report across the full range of environmental receptors. If, in certain cases, the consultation authorities cannot cover all the issues adequately, it will be for the responsible authorities to engage with other data holders to address the full range. Obviously, such data holders will be approached only as necessary and it would be neither practical nor proportionate to try to legislate for every possible body that might be involved. Moreover, such a provision would make nonsense of the general desire for a bureaucratically light SEA regime.
Having said that, I acknowledge that it is important to have a robust framework for environmental data gathering. Therefore, I will ensure that guidance includes advice on assessing health issues in an environmental context and that a list of recognised Scottish data sources across all issues is produced.
The bill does not apply to budgetary plans or to plans the sole purpose of which is to serve national defence or civil emergency. With regard to budgetary plans, it makes no sense to me to attempt to perform an SEA on a plan that sets out only expenditure headings. It would be far better to apply strategic environmental assessment to the strategic actions arising from budgetary plans when there are actual environmental effects that can be usefully assessed and from which assessments practical benefits can arise.
The SEA provisions will not apply to national defence plans or civil emergency plans. Of course, that does not mean that any particular authority is exempt—it applies just to those narrow categories of plans. The bill provides for public sector plans to be delivered by private sector companies. I will use a utility as an example. The plans, programmes and strategies arising from a regulatory, legislative or administrative requirement that are produced by a private utility company will come within the mischief of the bill. Any private, unregulated activity does not come within the mischief of the bill. In that way, we have ensured that such public plans do not escape the SEA provisions.
Finally, I know that there have been concerns about how compliance and environmental assessment practice will be monitored. Key measures include the provision that a plan qualifying for SEA shall not be adopted unless the SEA provisions have been applied. Moreover, Scottish ministers may direct that an SEA be performed, if appropriate. Those powers, backed by administrative measures such as the gateway and a long-term project assessing the operational aspects of strategic environmental assessment that is about to get underway will provide a robust quality assurance framework.
This bill is about three matters that are at the heart of the partnership agreement and our modernising government agenda: environmental protection; public participation; and, crucially, sustainable development. I urge Parliament to support the principles of the bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill.
The Scottish National Party welcomes the opportunity to put environmental considerations at the heart of government thinking but, like many others, we think that the bill is a first step and that it will inevitably be firmed up in the light of experience. We want that first step to be a sure one and it is therefore essential that we arrive at a critical analysis of where we have now reached. At this first stage, we have an opportunity to see amendments coming forward. The committee has asked a near record number of questions of the ministers about the detail of how it is intended that the provisions of the bill will be carried out and we look forward to hearing further answers in the final speech this afternoon and, in due course, by letter.
We are in a position to speculate about some of the answers, and we must do that. At last, we are doing something that is ahead of the European Union directive and United Kingdom law, because we are looking at plans and strategies. That is what we would expect of a forward-looking country. It has to be said that, if an independent country in the EU were doing what we are doing, it would have to aim for the highest possible standard, which is the benchmark against which we would measure the activities that are going on at present.
I am grateful that the member has elevated the Executive's policy to such a high plane. However, perhaps he would explain why such thinking was not contained in any thoughts or speeches by members of his party.
The minister ought to recognise that when we scrutinise such matters in committee they include fairly dry matters of administration. If he would like me to raise the constitutional question at every meeting, I would be happy to do so. I doubt whether my committee colleagues would seek to raise it at any time. I will deal with the question of why we should look at the matter in that way later in my speech.
It is important for the Executive to be clear about where strategic environmental assessment will kick in. A question has been raised about the possible building of new nuclear power stations. Because that would be a United Kingdom initiative, it would fall not under the process of SEA in Scotland but under the UK process, which is not as detailed as ours—at least, that is what we are led to believe. We need clarity about where SEA will kick in in relation to such programmes, which are important to people.
Earlier environmental impact assessment practice has been built on, but the Executive must give a whole-hearted lead on the process that it is setting up. We are looking for answers on how the structures will be explained to people. We asked for a flow chart showing the relationship between SEA, sustainable development and sustainable appraisal, because that would allow us to see which part of the Executive will draw together the structures and disseminate information on them. Previous debates have shown that the Executive's fledgling sustainability initiatives do not yet have the political weight that they require.
Is it not the case that many of the issues that are addressed by the bill are currently dealt with at council level? Does the member agree that, in many ways, the bill removes powers from local authorities and gives an extra voice to quangos?
I do not think that the member has read the bill. He should ask Alex Johnstone to explain it to him in a darkened room.
I might agree with Phil Gallie.
We will wait and see.
We raised the issue of pre-screening. If the Executive is to exempt items from assessment, it must define "minimal effect". If a register is to be kept of the items that arise, we will need a clear definition. We await the minister's answer on that.
I turn to the gateway. Information and best practice must be co-ordinated—thankfully, the minister recognised that in his speech—and data deficiencies in the early stages should not prevent the carrying out of strategic environmental assessment. Information should be disseminated as widely as possible, but the minister should make the point that SEA can go ahead even before data is available because it seeks to influence the overall principles of projects rather than the detail of their implementation. The training and funding regime that the minister has adopted is to be welcomed—it is one of the strengths of the proposals.
The committee has had lengthy discussions about private companies that do public work. That is important to many people. Scottish and Southern Energy's proposed Beauly to Denny power line project is an example of the public work that will have to be dealt with under the processes. We believe that such projects will be included, and we welcome that. We also note that the Executive will have to do SEA on projects before it instructs Scottish Water to work on them.
I turn to the bill's weaknesses. There are questions about how the gateway will be run. We know that it will be monitored, but we should bear it in mind that within a year of community planning being set up the Executive removed the website and the task force. It is important for us to know what resources will be provided to the gateway in future, given that its role will change from initiation to monitoring. We would like some answers on that.
We face major challenges. In particular, I have mentioned details that concern the Ministry of Defence and nuclear decisions that are taken outside Scotland and over which we can exercise only planning controls and not SEA.
Environmental justice involves the question of the consultative bodies' expertise not only on health and impacts on population, but on transboundary effects. What if acid rain was created and fell on Norway? Will Norway be allowed to have any say in our SEA processes? As an international partner and nation, Scotland would wish to try to involve other countries that our activities might affect. It is also interesting to note that the nordic countries have a network of SEA bodies that compares and builds up information to help better decisions to be made for SEA.
The SNP agrees with Elsa João, who has supported the bill and done much work to help us to understand it. She said that the bill
"could make a significant contribution towards better-informed public sector decision-making and consequently progress towards delivering sustainable development".
The SNP wants the Scottish Executive to provide the clearest detail on how to move towards sustainable development. We consider strategic environmental assessment to be very much part of the process. We demand that yearly reports should be made by the gateway or the part of the Executive that processes SEA, so that the Environment and Rural Development Committee can scrutinise the work and so that Parliament can debate the post-adoption strategy. We should look for more answers to the questions now, at this early stage in the new measure's development.
The bill has been introduced with the best intentions. Much legislation is proposed with extremely good intentions, but we can find difficulties in the detail that must be sorted out. Much in the bill is welcome, but in the time that is available to me, I will express some of my reservations.
The bill will revoke and replace the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/258), which Parliament approved and which came into force on 20 July last year. The regulations gave effect to the European Parliament and Council directive on strategic environmental assessment and, as such, they fulfilled the Executive's requirement to conform to the directive. The process that the bill has undergone shows that several measures have been added but, first, I will go through the Environment and Rural Development Committee's stage 1 report.
On part 1 of the bill, considerable confusion was shown in the evidence about the extension of the definition of a responsible authority. The extension goes beyond the EU directive's requirements. The main concern was whether private bodies that exercise public functions would be required to undertake a strategic environmental assessment. Some evidence suggested that the SEA process would be too costly for small and medium-sized businesses and would in effect discriminate against them. I support the committee's recommendation that the minister should clarify before stage 2 the expected SEA responsibilities of private bodies that perform public functions.
To an extent, there is confusion about which plans and programmes will be subject to SEA. Scottish Water highlighted the fact that undertaking environmental assessment at a strategic level would not relieve it of the obligation to conduct environmental impact assessments of some projects, which would result in great
"duplication of effort and greater expenditure than is necessary."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 27 April 2005; c 1824.]
I support the committee's request that the minister provide concrete illustrations of how SEA will work in practice and its recommendation that the minister should carefully produce guidance on the bill.
On the resource implications of extending the scope of SEAs beyond the current regulations, the bill's explanatory notes refer to research by the Babtie Group, which estimates that the annual cost of SEAs to the responsible authorities is likely to be between £7 million and £12.5 million per annum. I will give another example. In its evidence, the Confederation of British Industry Scotland stated to the committee that it was "very disappointed" that the EU directive would be extended. It thought that that was "at odds" with the Executive's
"public statements that the economy is its number one priority"
and stated:
"It is also counter to the commitments made to the business community by the UK Government that there would be no further ‘goldplating' of EU legislation."
By way of illustration, will the member imagine that such legislation existed and that proper environmental assessment had been required when two of Scotland's central airports were built? Rather than the proposition that he has just made, does he accept that the inevitable conclusion would have been that proper access and a proper public transport system would be an integral part of the system, which would have been a great boost to the economy?
In some respects, the minister illustrates the problem. Facilities that have evolved over time have done so as budgets permit. The minister is now suggesting that if they were to be dealt with under the provisions of the bill that we are considering, there would be a significant cost impact at the outset in order to ensure that everything is done at stage 1. We must accept that an evolutionary principle has led to many of the current public services.
Even Scottish Enterprise stated in evidence that the bill should not undermine economic growth. In its oral evidence, it said that its concern was based on the need to
"avoid adding to the process delays or excess bureaucracy that might slow down decision making."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 27 April 2005; c 1833.]
Serious concerns were also raised about the resource implications with regard to the skills that will be needed in the public sector to implement the bill.
Concerns about the monitoring process in part 3 have been raised. We hope that the Executive will review the monitoring process after a year to ensure that the nervousness and reservations that witnesses expressed were properly dealt with.
I will be brief about the SEA gateway. The administrative process could be a success, but it could be burdensome. It is not surprising that some consultation authorities supported the gateway and agreed that it might extend its responsibilities in a number of areas. The committee rightly wanted a more formal approach to it and guidance on its core functions.
In the final minute of his speech, will the member have time to make a fleeting reference to the environment?
Or to fishery protection vessels.
Concerns have also been raised about the high financial burden.
The Scottish Conservative party accepts that there is something desirable in the general principles of the bill, but we are concerned about the bill in practice. We accept that there is a need for a reasonable and unobtrusive amount of environmental assessment, but we think that the provisions under the current regulations are largely adequate to cover the requirements—they certainly cover the EU requirements. The Executive seems to be following the now familiar route of gold plating EU legislation while simultaneously using a sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut.
The bill's provisions will impose another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy and will lead to enormous resource implications in respect of costs and skills. The bill's supporters argue that money will be saved in the long run as a result of saving damage to the environment. However, Scotland is not currently experiencing widespread environmental damage from our public bodies. By all means, the safety net should be put in to address problems when they arise, but legislation should not be inflicted on public bodies that are carrying out their work effectively.
We are discussing the bill's general principles. The Conservatives believe that it is possible to argue that those general principles are being fulfilled by the action that was taken last year. Consequently, we believe that the provisions are worthy in principle, but that they are already covered by legislation and that the bill is unnecessary.
Labour members warmly welcome the bill and the objective of having the public sector take proper account of the full environmental impact of all new strategies, programmes or plans when it is preparing them. We do so because at the moment we do not have an explicit, rigorous approach. It is not good enough to assert that policies are good for the environment, without evidence or proper consideration. It is not good enough to assume that policies are good for the environment. We need to be able to demonstrate the impact that they will have, to know how to deal with any negative impact and how to maximise positive benefits, and to think through the trade-offs that can be made.
We do not live in a world where we can happily box up different issues. The big issues that we consider will impact on one another. We must see strategic environmental assessment in the context of our overall objectives on sustainable development. If we are to deliver economic prosperity as our top priority, at the same time as delivering social justice and ensuring that our environment is protected, we must ensure that we join up thinking across government. That means that we must be much more coherent and systematic.
The bill was welcomed by the vast majority of people who gave evidence to the Environment and Rural Development Committee. The objections of those who were less keen on or not convinced by the bill were based partly on the belief that strategic environmental assessment is about giving primacy to the environment, which is not the case. It is about ensuring that we consider the environment and that it is at the top table with other issues and is part of the decision-making process. At times, it may be inconvenient if a policy is identified as having a detrimental impact on the environment, but surely it is far better for us to know that up front and to begin to deal with the problems than to brush them under the carpet and leave them until later, when repairing the damage will be much more difficult.
Strategic environmental assessment is also about transparency. People should be confident that decisions that are taken have been thought through and are rigorous. Hopefully, the bill will increase accountability. That is why Labour members really welcome it. If local authorities are to be allowed to screen out particular issues, plans, policies or strategies that they do not believe will have a major impact on the environment, it is entirely appropriate that those decisions should be registered up front. I welcome the comments that the minister made to the committee on that issue. The information should be publicly accessible, so that we can have the accountability and transparency that the bill potentially provides. We do not want to create a loophole that would allow responsible authorities to avoid SEA when it should be carried out. However, we must also ensure that the impact of SEA is not disproportionate. We should not insist that absolutely every project is considered, regardless of its impact.
If the bill is to be a success, the biggest issue will be to ensure that the people involved in implementing it take real ownership of the process and embrace it, rather than see it as a threat. For that reason, I was disappointed with some of Alex Fergusson's comments.
He has not made them yet.
I am sorry—I meant Alex Johnstone. I will have to grovel for that later. Both members are sitting at the top table.
Phil Gallie's comments suggested to me that he has not read the bill. All public authorities, rather than just local authorities, will be responsible for environmental assessment. That includes the Executive and quangos. The issue must be central to all public policy.
I disagree strongly with the comments that Alex Johnstone made about gold plating. The term is usually employed as a way of objecting to high environmental standards, but let us be clear about the aim of the bill: it is about taking better-quality decisions. The CBI sees it as detracting from attempts to make the economy our number 1 priority, but that is to consider the economy in isolation from its wider impact and without thinking about the global challenges that we face. How will we deliver economic prosperity in this country if we ignore the impact of climate change? We must think through decisions in the round. In particular, we must think through the opportunities that may arise. Assessing environmental impact will not be all about identifying problems. There will be some big opportunities for us to grasp.
Alex Johnstone's comments on the brilliant environment that we have in this country and the few environmental problems that we face betrayed a very complacent attitude. There was much in his speech with which Labour members would take issue.
I will concentrate on how we make the legislation work. The SEA gateway is crucial. It is important because it will provide guidance on best practice, it will enable capacity building and it will be a source of monitoring to ensure that the bill is implemented effectively. The gateway will change over time, but committee members were convinced that we will need it for the long term. It must be flexible, but it will not enable the Scottish Executive to adopt a hands-off approach. The Executive will still need to be involved and it will still have to take an overview.
One of the most striking aspects of the evidence to the committee was the nervousness—a lack of confidence—about the ability of local authorities to cope with the bill. That was the message that we received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which was worried about timescales and resources. That contrasted with the evidence from academics and practitioners who, having considered the evidence and examined best practice from other countries, were confident that if there is effective management and ownership of the legislation, it could be highly successful. Committee members believe that the lessons learned after the introduction last year of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Scotland) Regulations 2004 give us a good platform for the future and enable us to move forward.
I hope that the Scottish Executive will take the lead in providing training to ensure that people take ownership of the issue. The minister's speech acknowledged the fact that training is required and some has already been carried out. Having heard the tone of the evidence that was given to the committee, I was struck by how far away the practitioners are from the aspirations of the bill. Much work requires to be done.
A combination of guidance and an initial top-down approach to let practitioners know what is in the bill and what it means for them is required. Engagement in a discussion about how resources can be directed effectively will go a long way towards making the bill effective. The Scottish Executive has a particular duty to lead by example and help people through the culture change.
I make a plea to the minister to continue to use scrutiny of the bill at stages 2 and 3 to focus on what the bill means in practice. My colleague Maureen Macmillan will pick up on points of confusion that have been raised with the committee about who does what at what level, particularly in relation to public sector projects, as more clarity is required. One issue is the interface between strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment. If we get that right, we will take decisions at the right level and avoid the kind of bureaucracy that Alex Johnstone is worried about.
There are issues about what the bill describes as "minimal" and "significant" environmental impacts. It would be helpful to have examples put in front of people to enable them to concentrate on what the real issues will be.
Many concerns exist. I hope that we can use parliamentary scrutiny positively and that the Executive will provide leadership to enable the bill to live up to its promise, which is to secure a better environmental outcome and a better quality of life for us all and to ensure that better decisions are made.
I will finish on a slightly controversial note. I suspect that we all agree that the bill should be passed, although we might debate some of the detail. However, I wonder how equipped the Parliament will be to monitor the implementation of the bill. I hope that members will not see it as being only the Environment and Rural Development Committee's job to ensure that the bill is being implemented. That view is shared by my colleagues. The whole of the Parliament, as well as the whole of the Executive, must take ownership of implementation of the bill. I note that there are not as many members in the chamber as there would be for debates on other issues.
I am not saying that the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development will be able to solve the problem in his summing-up. There are questions not only for the Executive and responsible authorities but for politicians in the chamber about the extent to which we think the bill will make a big impact. That is a challenge across the political parties. I notice that there are many empty rows of seats in the chamber, although not on Labour's part as there are one or two Labour members here. There is an issue about the importance that members place on the implementation of the legislation. I hope that we get political action from all parties in the chamber and that, by the time that we get to stage 3, the Conservatives, in particular, will be a little bit more enthusiastic about the bill and the opportunities that it may bring.
The worst parts of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill and strategic environmental assessment are their names. I do not know whether the minister is to blame, but the bill's name makes it sound like a turgid piece of European Union bureaucracy rather than an innovative and necessary piece of legislation that has emerged from the coalition.
I am pleased that the bill will place Scotland ahead of the game in looking after its environment. My local town of Newburgh, in Fife, recently completed the regeneration of a former factory site. The project cost lots of money, as there were clear-up costs involved in bringing the brownfield site back into public use. As the minister pointed out to Mr Gallie, if environmental assessments had been around when the factory was built, although those remedial costs would not have been eliminated, they would have been greatly reduced. The message is that a small bit of planning ahead can avoid costly and unnecessary clearing up.
In farming, there is a saying that one should live for today but farm for tomorrow. That basically means that, during our tenure of life, we should try not to degrade the environment but to cherish and enhance it—that message was meant to be directed towards the rural reactionaries on the Tory benches, but they have now vanished from the chamber. The rationale behind the environmental assessment requirement in the bill is the same. Through it, we will be doing our bit to ensure that future generations do not have to clean up after us. I hope that where we go with our legislation other countries may be encouraged to follow.
If that is the area of benefit, where are the downsides to bringing the bill into law? The Tories have highlighted in emotive and unfortunate terms the costs and how SEA will fit into the existing planning framework. Local authorities are concerned that the arrival of SEA will place another burden on their planning departments. The planning process will have another cog placed into its machinery, and local authorities will have to include SEA in the assessment of a strategy or plan as well as monitor any environmental impact that occurs during the development of the strategy or plan. The preparation of environmental reports is likely to be a significant undertaking for the planning departments of local authorities and other public bodies.
Currently, the bill calls for several public agencies to be consulted on environmental assessments. I would also like local knowledge to be brought into the process. Agencies such as SEPA, Historic Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage may have the professional expertise and technical knowledge that will be required to comment on an SEA, but they do not have at their fingertips the local information that may influence an environmental assessment. It might be sensible to add community councils to the list of statutory consultees.
Is that not an extension of the provisions in the bill that have caused so much fear and concern among those who have given evidence on the bill?
I agree with the minister that the consultation should not be widened out unnecessarily; however, I make a plea for local information and knowledge to be included in an environmental assessment to improve the quality of the assessment.
The arrival of strategic environmental assessments will bring complications and extra work for local authorities, so it is essential that the time limits for dealing with any plan or strategy do not stretch beyond the current limits. There is a particular issue concerning consistency in dealing with SEA applications, both within an individual responsible authority area and across normal barriers. It will have to be possible to move information from one area to another to achieve the goal of fairness and equality. In that context, I welcome the work of the gateway and believe that it is essential.
Does the member agree that, as well as the need for a flexible gateway, there is a need for a gateway in the long term? There are concerns that, because the bill does not mention the gateway, we could be left with a similar situation to that which exists in community planning, whereby assistance is given for two years but then disappears.
Mr Ruskell is in danger of jumping ahead and presuming that the process will not work. I believe that there is sufficient guarantee in the system.
I also welcome pre-screening, which I believe is essential. If a strategy or plan has no knock-on effects on the environment, there will be no need for an environmental assessment.
I support the bill and look forward to its progress.
The Scottish Green Party warmly welcomes and supports the general principles of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill. Overall it will improve the status of environmental issues and decision making so that the eyes of policy makers become trained on the environment as well as on economic growth and social justice. If we are to deliver real progress in Scotland, it is vital to have regard to the impacts that the economists often drily dismiss as externalities. As we all know, those externalities will be paid off the hard way, by future generations who will pay through the nose for our legacy of bad decisions, including degraded environments, congested and unhealthy streets and a chaotic global climate.
I say to Mr Gallie—who has not even had the good grace to stay for the debate—that that is where the real economic burden lies and where we will reduce our economic competitiveness. It seems as if the Tories want us to engage in a race to the bottom in environmental standards, which is fundamentalist and anti-progress.
We welcome the bill and the fact that it goes further than the European directive. Indeed, it has the potential to lead the way in Europe. I say the word "potential" because although the bill has good intentions of being an exemplar in Europe, there are key issues that the minister must consider at stage 2 and that the committee must resolve if the bill is to help us to make real progress in Scotland and Europe. The word "clarification" appears in almost every conclusion of the committee's report and it is often next to the word "guidance". I say to the minister that the bill is not yet clear.
For example, I thought that a potential plan for new nuclear power stations would be an obvious example of where SEA would pick up the need for scrutiny. However, I did not get a clear answer to the very simple question that I asked the minister in committee. Now, after several rounds of research, legal advice, written questions and answers, it appears that the UK white paper on energy, which spells out a free-market approach to the development of new nuclear power stations, would not be covered by UK or Scottish SEA legislation. One of the most fundamental decisions of our time is set to slip under the wire.
Does the member not agree that when the committee got the answer to Richard Lochhead's written question, it was extensive and absolutely clear about where the different environmental impact assessments would be carried out, and that it helped all of us in the chamber regardless of our view on the border?
Indeed, but research further to that showed that the UK energy white paper would not be scrutinised under SEA, although it is what would ensure that nuclear power stations would be built, if there was going to be such a programme. The position is not yet clear. I thought that the issue would be an easy one to deal with, but apparently it is not.
Will the member give way?
I need to move on.
There was even more confusion from private sector bodies regarding where strategic environmental assessment ends and environmental impact assessment begins. There was a lot of wriggling from energy companies and Scottish Water over whether they or some higher body would do the work of proofing the overall policy. It is vital that greater clarity is worked into the bill at stage 2.
We have also heard about the importance of an SEA gateway to co-ordinate the activities, to provide advice and training, to act as an arbiter in the case of a dispute, and to monitor the overall quality of the assessment work. Other countries that have successfully implemented SEA have independent gateways, but there is no reference to any form of gateway in the bill. It is important that a gateway is defined in the bill. I agree that it must be flexible so that its role can develop over time, but it must also offer long-term stability to the roll-out of SEA. The balance is a difficult one to strike, but we must do so at stage 2.
Clarity is also required on pre-screening. I still fail to grasp the need for yet another level of consideration. However, if the minister is intent on keeping that provision, he should make it transparent, require a register of decisions, and give us firm definitions of terms such as "minimal" and "significant" effects. The last thing we want is for such definitions to be turned into weasel words by irresponsible authorities.
Another matter on which we need clarity is the exemptions under the bill. I agree with the minister that the bill should cover financial plans that come before a programme but not those that arise as a result of a plan or programme. However, the point is far from clear in the current drafting. Once again, more clarity is needed.
To be honest, the exemption for the Ministry of Defence generated more heat than light in the committee's discussions. Having considered the issue in some depth, I am clear that plans for national defence could be included in the scope of the bill. It is even likely that such a move would be welcomed by the MOD, given that it routinely applies strategic environmental assessment beyond the minimum requirements under the existing UK regulations. In fact, last month the Secretary of State for Defence, Dr John Reid, issued a new policy statement on environmental protection, in which he stated:
"I will invoke any powers given to me to disapply legislation only on grounds of national security and only when such action is essential to maintain operational capability."
That definition of what is in and what is out in relation to national defence seems to me to be a world away from the blanket exemption to scrutiny of defence activities that the bill gives.
Will the member give way?
Hang on a minute.
Instead of the bill's approach, which seems to be based on the assumption that the MOD is too big and scary to deal with, we need a considered approach that recognises the MOD's own best practice.
I am rather surprised that one who has studied the bill with such great care has not understood that the MOD as a body is not exempt under the bill. The only exemptions under the bill are for plans and programmes in relation to national defence or civil emergencies. The MOD as a body is not exempt from the bill. Therefore, if the Secretary of State for Defence chooses to apply SEA legislation to national defence plans, he may do so, but that would not mean that all other activities of the MOD would not be within the mischief of the bill.
However, the bill will restrict those activities. For discussion at stage 2, we need a clearer definition from the minister about where national security will be of paramount interest such that the exemption will need to be applied. The matter is a drafting issue to which we can return, but we need a sensible debate on it.
I conclude on a note of caution. SEA reveals to us what the damage could be but, as Sarah Boyack and others have pointed out, politics determines what decisions are actually made. The M74 inquiry revealed what damage would be done but, so far, political road building has prevailed. SEA is a valuable tool in understanding what we plan to do in our world, but the responsibility still lies with politicians to make decisions that recognise that the health of people and the health of the environment are inseparable and inviolable.
The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill is one of a series of bills that have come before Parliament that put environmental considerations at the heart of government. I endorse all that my colleague Sarah Boyack has said in praise of the bill.
Like other bills that we have passed, the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill goes beyond the bare bones of what is required by a European directive. I commend the Executive for that decision, but the fact that the bill goes beyond the directive seems to have created some confusion in the minds of the public and private bodies that might be expected to deliver strategic environmental assessment. I think that the minister acknowledged that in his speech. Therefore, I will play bad cop to Sarah Boyack's good cop. Forgive me if I niggle and carp; I am not simply looking for difficulties where none exists, as members from other parties have done.
Some of my points have been raised by other members, but my first point is about the need for clarity, as it is not clear precisely what is meant in certain sections of the bill. Section 2(1) gives a definition of "responsible authority" that applies as long as the plan that the authority is preparing falls within section 5(3) and is a plan that is covered by the European directive. However, section 2(4) defines a smaller group of bodies that will be required to provide strategic environmental assessment for all their plans and programmes. I listened carefully to what the minister had to say, but what has not been explained properly yet is whether the provision includes private bodies that carry out public functions.
Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which is a public body that delivers much of its programmes through private companies, said in its evidence:
"we are unclear about how this type of work is covered, if the projects themselves are not covered by the EU directive."
Scottish and Southern Energy plc posed the question of who would have responsibility for strategic environmental assessment of its transmission network and whether it would be the company or the Executive. Will the company fall within section 2(1) or section 5(4)?
In his evidence, the minister drew the distinction between a private company that conducts a regulated activity and a private company that pursues private and unregulated business. What about a private body that carries out a public function that is not a regulated public function? It is extremely important that the question is clarified, and I hope that that can be done well before stage 2.
There is uncertainty about whether and when a body will be a responsible body and which plans and programmes will be subject to strategic environmental assessment. Indeed, there is also uncertainty about whether the allocation of funds for a future programme will constitute a trigger for strategic environmental assessment. Will a distinction be made between allocating funding to a project, as the National Lottery does, and designing a project? Will it be possible for a body to avoid strategic environmental assessment by claiming that a strategy is nothing more than a budget line? The committee is concerned that the Executive's intention in excluding financial plans is not clear. We ask the minister to provide examples of financial plans that would require a strategic environmental assessment and those that would not.
Another area that requires the Executive to give detailed guidance and examples for the sake of clarity is the relationship between strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment. There is much confusion about where one stops and the other begins. For example, Scottish Water said that it did not believe that it would be solely responsible for strategic environmental assessment; it believes that it will share that responsibility with the Executive and the regulator. It expressed concern about the relationship between strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment and, in particular, about the possible duplication of effort and, therefore, of cost. If Scottish Water is unsure about that, what is other public bodies' perception of the relationship between SEA and EIA?
That also raises the question of how prepared authorities will be for this major culture shift. Never before have local authorities had to environment-proof their plans at inception. The decision whether an SEA is required will need to be made at the very birth of a strategy—no matter the department from which it emanates—yet the necessary expertise to make that decision does not permeate all local authority departments. Although the assurances that the minister has given on resources are welcome, who will do the training? Sarah Boyack outlined the excellent suggestion that the committee made in that regard in our report. I, too, recommend it.
As Mark Ruskell said, it is inevitable that some concerns boil down to pure semantics. In the pre-screening process, judgments will have to be made about whether a strategy will have a "minimal" or "significant" effect on the environment. Again, we need definitions of those terms. More important, we need concrete examples of what those effects might be.
In considering part 2 of the bill, the committee considered the relationship between SEA and sustainability. Some concerns were expressed that SEA would give undue weight to the environmental impact of a plan to the detriment of socioeconomic needs. However, the policy memorandum makes it clear that that is not the Executive's intention and the committee whole-heartedly accepts that. Indeed, most of the evidence that we took supported that conclusion, with some witnesses suggesting that strategic environmental assessment would encourage better socioeconomic assessment. If I may, I will paraphrase something that the First Minister said in another context: environmental justice is very strongly linked to social justice.
As Alex Johnstone on the Conservative benches mentioned, the perception out there is that SEA might somehow be bad for business. The evidence from the Confederation of British Industry—and, to a lesser extent, from Scottish Enterprise—supported that perception. Members on the Labour benches do not agree with that interpretation, and I am sure that the minister does not agree with it either. We must get the message out to the wider community that sustainability makes good business sense, just as effecting a reduction in a business's energy needs to combat global warming does.
Although I heartily welcome the principles of the bill, I have left the minister a considerable list of things to do before stage 2. I trust that he will oblige.
I welcome this stage 1 debate and the comprehensive report of the Environment and Rural Development Committee that informs it. By and large, I support the sentiments that are driving the bill on to the statute book, but I will add what I hope will be received as constructive criticism.
Everyone agrees that environmental impact assessment is a necessary part of the creation or development of any major project and a sensible part of the planning procedure. However, it appears that delivery of strategic environmental assessment is giving many people cause for concern. In particular, as paragraph 120 of the report notes, there is
"a significant degree of nervousness amongst responsible authorities about what it will actually mean for them, in terms of financial resources and … staff capacity."
The committee's concerns appear to be shared by no less august bodies than Scottish Water and Scottish Enterprise. In evidence to the committee, Scottish Water pointed out that carrying out an SEA at strategic level would not relieve it of its obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment on certain projects, which will result in great
"duplication of effort and greater expenditure than is necessary."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 27 April 2005; c 1824.]
Does the member accept that conducting SEA at the more strategic level will make it a lot easier to conduct individual project-based EIAs and will therefore save time for organisations?
No. Scottish Water has probably got it right; it will mean twice the work and twice the expense. On the other hand, Scottish Enterprise stated in written evidence that the bill should not undermine economic growth, and in oral evidence that its concerns are based on the need to
"avoid adding to the process delays or excess bureaucracy that might slow down decision making."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 27 April 2005; c 1833.]
In addition, Babtie Group Ltd has estimated that the annual cost to responsible authorities is likely to be between £7 million and £12.5 million per annum. The Finance Committee has also raised the likelihood of the bill's having a financial impact on provisions under the forthcoming planning bill and existing planning systems.
Notwithstanding the enthusiastic promotion of the bill by those who will not have to pay for it—namely, the Lib-Lab Executive—it appears that the bill has not exactly been met with universal proposal.
Never mind the Executive—all members and businesses pay tax, some of which is devoted to dealing with contaminated land. We cannot consider the issue in a one-sided way. Surely the member accepts that if we have decent environmental assessment and reduce the need for us to pay hand over fist in taxation to deal with contaminated land, for example, that will benefit business.
I take the point, but businesses already pay enough taxes, and enough environmental checks are in place. No more checks are needed, because they will add to the cost.
The proposals go way beyond what is required to carry out the bill's not-unreasonable objectives. As Rob Gibson pointed out, the bill goes way beyond the requirements of the European Union directive. In short, gold plating is the order of the day. As Alex Johnstone said, we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and, in so doing, we will burden responsible authorities—many of which are strapped for cash—with an additional tier of cost that they can ill afford.
Will the member give way?
No. I must make progress.
Perhaps the minister should consider COSLA's suggestion that, rather than adopt the measures wholesale, a pilot scheme could and should be tried to allow an evaluation of the likely impact on staff and budgets. COSLA's caution on the subject is entirely reasonable, as Sarah Boyack pointed out, given that local authorities and council tax payers will have to foot the bill. Indeed, there is little point in passing cumbersome legislation if a sufficient number of planners are not available to carry out the assessments that will be required.
There is little point in imposing regulatory burdens on local authorities if those burdens mean that the authorities will have to cut other front-line services, such as those that relate to free personal care, which are already a casualty of budget shortfalls in South Ayrshire Council and elsewhere. Necessary legislation is one thing, but gratuitously burdensome, overzealous regulation and red tape are another. I note that other members have already expressed that view. Even Mark Ruskell is not entirely convinced of the merits of the bill.
We will, of course, seek to amend the bill at stages 2 and 3, and Alex Johnstone will lodge amendments in due course. We do not accept that the bill will save money in the long term by strategic consideration of environmental impacts, because that work is already being done perfectly well under the existing framework. We do not see a need to give the SEA gateway further powers and responsibilities in addition to the powers that have already been given to local authorities, SNH and SEPA, because that can only be a further brake on economic growth and development.
If the economy is, in fact, its much-stated number 1 priority for taking Scotland forward in this new century, I urge the Executive to consider carefully the negative impact that the bill will have on jobs in Scotland. As it is, jobs are being lost because of high business rates, excessive water charges and poor infrastructure. Today, I urge the Executive to take a step back before it inflicts another burden on businesses and business development in Scotland.
Before I turn to the substantive issues in the bill, I would like to make an observation. At decision time yesterday, Donald Gorrie made a valid observation when he commented on the little time that is given to some stage 3 debates but not to all. Today's business is a valid illustration of his point. Although I do not want to devalue any of the speeches that have been made across the parties in the chamber this afternoon, I am certain that the debate could have been conducted perfectly adequately in 60 minutes. However, decisions regarding time that is allocated to debates and the progress of legislation are not, thankfully, matters for members of the Environment and Rural Development Committee.
Ross Finnie was absolutely right to highlight the fact that the bill is a vital part of our modernising government agenda. We should also recognise where it places Scotland in the league table of environmental protection. We are, as the minister said, in the vanguard of championing environmental protection. That is an important observation and something about which we should rejoice. I particularly welcome Ross Finnie's assertion that environmental assessments will inform the decision-making process but not dictate to it.
I shall now introduce an element of discord by making an observation about the environmental assessments that are already required on the Lewis peatlands. The matter may not be directly related to the bill but, sadly, the peatlands in Lewis have now become economically sterile areas. Members who are familiar with the landscape of the Isle of Lewis will know that those peatlands are a not insignificant part of the island. I wish that we could revisit issues surrounding the Lewis peatlands and those environmental assessments.
Among the concerns that were highlighted by witnesses to the committee was the matter of bureaucracy. That concern has been amplified by members today, so the minister's assurance that bureaucracy will be kept to a minimum is certainly important.
Sarah Boyack was right to state the importance of proving the environmental impact of our policies. She was absolutely right to maintain that there is no room for assumptions and that we must have a robust and properly accredited system to make those decisions and to define categorically the impact of potential policies.
Other members mentioned concerns that have been expressed by local authorities through COSLA during our evidence-taking sessions. There is no doubt that there is a need for clarity, but there is also a need for flexibility in approach and attitude, which will require support from the Executive during the process of change. Again, that will be provided by the gateway, where general advice will be available. The gateway will also be a liaison point for the responsible consultation authorities.
Maureen Macmillan raised an important point about issues of clarity in certain sections of the bill. I have every confidence that, during the legislative journey that the bill has now embarked on, those sections will be made clearer; it will become clearer to everyone exactly what they mean. I can cite the example of the Ministry of Defence in relation to the bill, which was clearly explained. A question was lodged by Richard Lochhead and the answer was understood by everyone, with the exception of the Green party and Mr Mark Ruskell, the committee's eminent deputy convener.
Other issues relating to resourcing and training have been mentioned by many members. Those issues were also raised in committee meetings as areas of concern. Maureen Macmillan said that she had left the minister with a list of things to do. As she said, I am sure that he will oblige. The bill is eminently sensible and worthy of our support.
If we have learned anything during recent decades, it is that our environment is precious and fragile. There can no longer be excuses for allowing our environment or ecosystem to take a battering. We should all remember that we are part of the environment and ecosystem. Human beings are not separate from the environment; we are one with it. However, our footprint on the planet is often the darkest and most abusive and that is to our detriment, our shame and our danger.
Several years ago, the First Minister was photographed in his wellies and hard hat, standing in a landfill dump. He promised that the Scottish Parliament would deliver environmental justice, and so it should. The Scottish Parliament has the power to make the world that we live in safer, and to ensure that we, as custodians of the planet, leave it in a better state than it was in when we found it. Sadly, however, we have not done that and our environment is under attack. Often, we have not had the tools at our disposal to resist attacks on our environment, and the fall-out from that means that the people are excluded, local expertise is missing, and we pay the price by living with poison.
We must welcome a bill that will ensure that environmental assessment takes place and we should support any measure that backs up the First Minister's promise to deliver environmental justice. However, if there are holes in the bill, it might not be worth the recycled paper on which it is written. Concerns about the pre-screening provisions in section 7 have been well rehearsed, but I will highlight some of them. I am intrigued by section 7 and suspect that some of its provisions will allow people who want to cop out of their responsibilities to the community and the environment to do just that.
Everything that we do has an impact on the environment: in this chamber the paper that we use, the water that we drink and the light and sound system that we use all impact on the environment, as do the Holyrood building and the traffic that it attracts and displaces. When we work out what that impact is, we will be able to make sensible decisions about what is best for the environment, our health and the safety of our children in the long term. Any plan or proposal should be subject to environmental assessment. It is not rocket science and the more we do it the better we will get at it. Environmental assessment should be the norm; it should never be the exception to the rule.
However, I fear that private companies that throw up housing and other developments in and around our communities might use section 7 to find a way out of having to carry out environmental assessment. Let us face it: private companies generally put profits before people and the planet, and are more likely to seek short cuts and turn their backs on the environmental impact of their projects. Private companies build homes in the community in which I live that often have two car-parking spaces in bays below or near the building. Residents' cars soon fill up the bays and the streets soon fill up with cars. There are often three cars per family.
Does Ms Kane accept that under existing legislation such housing developments are required to undergo environmental impact assessment?
We want to ensure that that is and continues to be the case, but it has not always been the case. In Govanhill, the people were not heard and a development took place next to the McDonald's drive-through that had a detrimental impact on the community. When we legislate, we must ensure that the bill is clear and that people have access to it and can shape it. That is why the bill must ensure that planners must plan in favour of the environment. However, ambiguity around pre-screening could create loopholes, which must be avoided.
The bill does not mention private companies. We need to hear more about private finance initiative, public-private partnership and design, build, finance and operate projects. If a private company receives the gift of the opportunity to build a school or hospital, will the project be subject to environmental assessment across the board? Members should not forget that such companies are in business for long-term profit, so the environment is usually the last thing on their minds. Where in the bill is that matter addressed? Will the relationships between business, councils and the Executive give chancers the opportunity to smash and grab without being accountable to local people or the global environment? The devil is in the detail, but the bill has a shortage of detail on such concerns. I say to the minister that we cannot simply hope for a good deal here; we must have an absolute guarantee.
The members on the Tory benches who were griping about the cost of assessing environmental impacts should concern themselves with the cost of projects such as the M74 northern extension, which will have a negative impact on the environment and will cost well over £500 million.
We cannot allow the opportunities of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill to be lost because of a lack of clarity. I will welcome the bill as long as it has teeth—teeth that can protect our communities and teeth to bite those who would damage our communities. The Scottish Socialist Party broadly supports the bill, but only if we can be given three guarantees today. First, will the minister guarantee that private companies, private enterprise and private money will never be exempt from the environmental assessment process? Secondly, will the minister guarantee that pre-screening will happen in the full light of public accountability and be carried out by an independent and publicly accountable arbiter? Lastly, will the minister guarantee the removal of the nonsense of the Executive playing both poacher and gamekeeper in disputes? All disputes should be dealt with by an independent and publicly accountable arbiter. The minister should put those teeth in the bill and show the communities of Scotland that he is truly committed to environmental protection.
This is not a bill that filled me with tremendous excitement at the beginning of the process, and I have to confess that I did not spend my time off sick watching the committee's deliberations. It is nonetheless an important bill.
I begin by thanking the committee's clerking team and the bill team, which have provided us with some very useful information. I especially thank the staff of the Scottish Parliament information centre, who have provided helpful briefings that have helped us all to understand the bill better.
I agree with my colleague Maureen Macmillan: a number of questions remain unanswered, so we will need clarification before stage 2.
Scotland is at an environmental crossroads; we have identified what we need to do, so all that is left for us is to get on with doing it. Recently, the Environment and Rural Development Committee pubished its report on its inquiry into climate change. Among the many recommendations in the report was one that identified the need for the Executive to champion a change in business culture so that Scotland can take advantage of huge opportunities to meet environmental targets. It is therefore somewhat disappointing that the Conservatives and their friends in big business have continued to bury their heads in the sand, rather than consider the opportunities that the bill might present.
Will the member take an intervention?
Hang on—I will take an intervention in a minute.
For too long, communities such as the one that I represent have paid the price of businesses not being asked to address environmental concerns adequately, and the price of the impacts of work that those businesses undertake. It is no accident that there are a number of coal bings in my constituency. No one wants to take responsibility for them, and no one wants to take responsibility for removing them. Under the proposals in the bill, I hope that such situations will not be allowed to happen in any future industrial developments in constituencies such as mine.
Does Karen Gillon consider that Scottish Water and Scottish Enterprise—which have also expressed concerns about the bill—fall into the category of private businesses?
What we need is a change of attitude. People have to begin to take such issues seriously, rather than continuing to pretend that they are not happening and that somebody else will pay for them somewhere along the line. It is about time businesses started to pick up the tab for the environmental damage that they have caused to far too many communities for the sake of profit. I seldom agree with Rosie Kane, but on this occasion I probably do.
There is no doubt that strategic environmental assessment is a forward-looking process that has been designed to guarantee that before certain strategic decisions are made, their environmental implications are taken into account. It will allow us to identify, predict and weigh up the environmental impacts of proposals and to find feasible alternatives to existing plans. We will be able to compare proposals to find out which are the most sympathetic to the environment.
That said, I have some concerns about the implementation of SEA. For example, I am worried that COSLA is not fully prepared for its introduction. As members would expect, the Environment and Rural Development Committee has discussed the bill and it was during those discussions that implementation and pilots came up. I was uneasy about the lack of work that local authorities had done to prepare their staff for the bill's introduction. Although we are in the middle of one of the biggest school-building programmes the country has seen, the evidence that the committee received suggests that local authority education departments, in particular, have done little to use the process to carry out any strategic environmental assessment of that major development programme.
In a local authority context, the bill is not just about planning departments, which are already engaged in the process. It is about staff throughout authorities taking responsibility for strategic environmental assessment. In that regard, I ask the minister what plans the Executive has to provide training to key staff in local authorities and other agencies so that they can go back and train their colleagues.
I welcome the pathfinder initiative, which is a step in the right direction, but I have a final question about consultees' ability to comment on human health and population issues, on which there could be a gap. More needs to be done in determining how best plan owners will be able to assess the impact of their plans in respect of human health and population matters.
I welcome the bill and hope that members will support it at stage 1. Although there will be room for significant amendment at stage 2 to provide further clarification, I think that, all in all, we are going in the right direction.
We come to the closing speeches. At this stage, we are 13 minutes ahead of the clock.
I say at the outset that the Liberal Democrats support the bill, which seeks to put environmental awareness at the heart of decision making. If I were to sum up the bill at this stage, I would say that it is trying to do the right thing in the right way and that it has wide support in principle.
No organisation that was planning any action would dream of doing so without examining the financial options and implications of that action. Organisations automatically review the personnel and social implications of any proposed action; if the bill succeeds, it will become just as automatic for them to give proper consideration to the environmental implications of a proposed course of action. Not evaluating the environmental cost of a proposal will become as unthinkable as not evaluating its monetary cost.
That SEA is the right way to go is sharply underlined by the mess that we make when we do not count the environmental costs of what we do. However, if we do not do the right thing in an inclusive and transparent way, the system will not work. The strong emphasis on consultation and involvement in the process is what will make SEA effective.
What came through in the evidence that the committee took was support for the principle of SEA, awareness of the need for buy-in and concerns about clarity, capacity and resources. Unlike John Scott, I consider that to be healthy. Respondents understand that the process will involve effort and they want to get the system right because they recognise the long-term benefit that will be delivered. John Scott appeared to miss the underlying support that exists for the proposed measures.
Organisations were unclear about which bodies would be required to undertake SEA, which of their activities would be included, how their staff would cope and whether the estimates on the financial implications were accurate.
If there is such huge underlying support for the bill, why is it that the parts of the report that are highlighted are those that emphasise the caution and apprehension that bodies such as Scottish Water and Scottish Enterprise have expressed?
The reason is that those parts of the report relate to bits of the bill that we need to fix. The underlying support exists and we do not need to worry about that, but we have to get the bill right to deliver what people want. That explains the concentration on those elements.
The committee felt that it might be helpful to have what one might describe as worked examples to clarify who needs to assess what and especially, as a number of people have said about the public-private interface, to clarify the interrelationships between strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment, and to give clearer understanding of what the words "minimal" and "significant" will mean in practice.
A number of people pointed out that what will make the bill effective is a culture change that will need strong leadership from the Executive. One of the ways in which the committee envisaged that culture change being delivered was for the Executive to take responsibility for developing training packages that could be adapted to the requirements of other organisations. Although I welcome the provision of training and training materials referred to in the minister's speech, I agree with Sarah Boyack's comments, which were underlined by Karen Gillon and Maureen Macmillan, about the support that will be needed to implement the bill as we would like.
Rosie Kane passionately advocated across-the-board application of environmental impact assessment. However, if one tries to crack every nut, one is in danger of missing the real target. Many strategies, plans and programmes will have little or no impact on the environment so it is important that we target those that will have significant environmental impacts. The pre-screening and screening processes will be important in prioritising the plans, programmes and strategies that are to be assessed.
A register of any plans, policies and strategies that are screened out would serve three purposes. First, it would head off any attempts to evade strategic environmental assessment where it should be applied. The second purpose concerns transparency and the third is that such a register would give examples for comparison—a way of benchmarking that could be shared with and used by all bodies in the process.
A number of people have mentioned the gateway team that is to be based in the Scottish Executive, and how that team will be key to smooth operation of the whole process. I accept the minister's arguments about the need for flexibility and the capacity for evolution of that administrative team, but there is still a discussion to be had about whether it should be protected in the long term by being included in the bill. There will be a lot of discussion about that.
On resources, the pathfinder projects' progress over the summer should help our assessment of the likely accuracy of the current cost estimates of strategic environmental assessments. Those should be used to revise estimates, if necessary, and it should be remembered that very often, one may spend to save and that getting environmental assessment right at strategic level will be to the benefit of everything that happens thereafter.
I totally agree with Sarah Boyack that this is all about better-quality decisions. That was underlined by Karen Gillon's example of some of the missed opportunities in the current school-building programme.
We talk about sustainable development that balances economic, social and environmental issues. Strategic environmental assessment will ensure that the third leg of that sustainable development stool is the same length as the other two. That can only be a good thing. The bill will be a good one. A lot of work is yet to be done on it, but I commend the principles of the bill to the Scottish Parliament.
I do not think that I will be able to take up the 20 minutes that might be available to me, but I will try to speak a little more slowly than usual in an effort to help out the Presiding Officer.
I am sorry to say to Sarah Boyack—and I got her name right—that if she was as disappointed as she said she was by Alex Johnstone's speech, I fear that I will be taken off her Christmas card list, if indeed I am on it. It is the duty of Opposition to hold Government to account. I am disappointed in members who have belittled our contributions when they said, as Mark Ruskell did, that we seek to drag down standards. I do not accept that. It is absolutely legitimate for us to draw attention to concerns that have been put to the committee and are still felt. Sarah Boyack herself mentioned the distance between the concerns of practitioners and the aspirations of those who are guiding the legislation. All that we seek to do is to highlight the perfectly legitimate concerns that have been raised not by big business, as Karen Gillon suggested, but by government agencies and bodies. I cannot accept that it is wrong of us to do so.
I have always been a firm believer in the motto, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It seems to me that we are in severe danger of trying to fix something that works reasonably well at the moment. My suspicions are heightened by an apparently throwaway line in the conclusion of the committee's report. Paragraph 119 says that the committee was struck by the fact that there was substantial support for the bill from witnesses
"with the exception of one or two witnesses raising concerns about the possible effect of additional, unnecessary regulation".
I find that rather worrying. In this day and age, surely we should take concerns about unnecessary regulation extremely seriously. However, the committee seems to have rather brushed aside those concerns.
Does the member recognise that another committee of this Parliament has been examining the issue of regulation—the need for it, the adequacy of it and some of the arguments about gold plating that relate to it? Does he accept that the fact that the Subordinate Legislation Committee is conscious of the matter that he raises demonstrates that the issue is being addressed?
I hear what the member says and I recognise the work of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. However, I will explain why I have little faith in that work bearing fruit. The bill that we are discussing is being furthered by the department that despite, in the early days of the Scottish Parliament, establishing a committee to cut out unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy in the agriculture industry has presided over an inexorable rise in those same burdens to unprecedented levels. The Scottish Executive is not an Administration that is well known for minimising regulation. We should take extremely seriously any evidence from those who seek to warn us about even more of it.
To be fair, the committee's report notes that the bill has caused
"a significant degree of nervousness amongst responsible authorities about what it will actually mean for them, in terms of financial resources and other factors such as staff capacity."
In other words, the legislation will cost the responsible authorities a great deal of money—up to £12.5 million—that they do not have and will require work to be done by staff who currently do not exist.
No wonder that, as Alex Johnstone pointed out, CBI Scotland said that it was very disappointed that the EU directive was to be extended. It also said that it considered that the legislation was
"at odds with public statements that the economy is the Executive's number 1 priority"
and that it ran counter to commitments made by the UK Government to the business community that there would be no further gold plating of EU legislation. Despite the minister's reassurances in that regard, it is clear that the UK Government chose to ignore the Scottish Executive when it made that statement because, as all of Scotland is beginning to realise, this Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration is proving to be the master of all gold plating, the champion of overregulation and the instigator of levels of state interference that threaten to control almost every facet of our daily lives.
No one disputes the principle of environmental protection or environmental assessment. However, when the delivery of that noble objective is turned into a charter for consultants, which is what this legislation is in danger of becoming, the proposals should be thoroughly overhauled and amended, which is what we will seek to do at stage 2.
The legislation starts, wrongly, with the assumption that almost all plans and programmes are inherently bad for and damaging to the environment. That is not the case and, rather than subjecting every responsible authority to this cumbersome and expensive procedure, we should be seeking to ensure environmental protection with the absolute minimum of Government interference.
As Maureen Macmillan pointed out, Scottish Water talked of duplication. Further, Scottish Enterprise warned of increasing process delays and a slow-down in decision making. Rosie Kane's speech showed accurately why such concerns are fully justified. COSLA recommended that there should be a pilot scheme to enable all the implications to be assessed. For once—uniquely, I think—I am in complete agreement with all those bodies at one and the same time. I am also in agreement with Highland Council.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
I give way to the minister.
In my speech, I conceded the member's valid point that the issues of implementation must be rehearsed. However, does he accept that not one of the litany of persons who came before the committee was able to point to any positive framework that required them to consider the environmental impact of the plans and policies that they currently produce?
There is time to take Mr Ruskell's intervention later if you wish, Mr Fergusson.
Minister, I am sorry. Could I ask you to repeat your question? We have plenty of time.
I will try not to ask another question, Presiding Officer. We are craving your indulgence.
The member mentioned the litany of persons who gave evidence to the committee and he pointed out, properly, that there may be difficulties and that explanation may be required in relation to implementation; I accepted that in my opening speech. However, can he name a single witness who pointed to any requirement for them to consider the strategic environmental impact of their current plans and policies?
I entirely accept the minister's point, but it does not in any way remove the real concerns of not just big businesses but government agencies and small businesses about the impact of the legislation.
Does Mr Ruskell want to intervene?
I did a while ago, but I will try to remember what I was going to say.
The member mentioned the lack of any pilot studies, but he should reflect on what Karen Gillon said. The pathfinder project, which involves local authorities and will run during the summer, will inform the development of SEA. That process is on-going, but people are implementing SEA and we have the experience from other countries. We know that the process is successful and that it saves businesses money. That must be a good thing.
I hear what the member says, but it is COSLA, rather than me, that he needs to convince.
I mentioned Highland Council—that was so long ago that I have almost forgotten where I was. I agree with Highland Council's blunt statement that
"budget constraints will force Local Authorities to choose between delivering frontline services and meeting their statutory duty to SEA."
However, I do not think that that is a choice. A loaded gun is being pointed by the Executive at every responsible authority on which the legislation will impact. At stage 2, we must take the finger off the trigger.
I am afraid that I have come to the end, Presiding Officer.
I call Richard Lochhead, who in theory has seven minutes but who may take slightly more.
Oh, no.
I sense the trepidation in the chamber, Presiding Officer.
For perhaps the first time in my political career, I agree with Alasdair Morrison. We must do something about the way in which we manage debating time in the chamber. I recall that, last month, two committee debates were squeezed into two and a half hours. The debate on promoting Scotland worldwide, which was sponsored by the European and External Relations Committee, was given one hour and five minutes even though the report took a year and half to compile, the subject was quite controversial and there was high demand for speaking time. I ask the Presiding Officer and the business managers to take that comment back to the Parliamentary Bureau. Two hours is perhaps a little too long for a debate such as this, despite the excellent speeches that have been made.
We can all take pride in the fact that, during the first six years of the Parliament, we have discussed, debated and legislated on environmental matters many times. Many of those who fought for a long time for the Scottish Parliament did so because they believed that the best way of looking after Scotland's environment was to have our own Parliament here in Scotland. We argued that that would enable us to make decisions that were tailored to our needs and to look after our precious environment. In the past few years, we have made stringent attempts to mainstream environmental thinking and policy throughout all Government departments. In essence, that is what today's debate is about.
The European Union gets a lot of bad press, most of which is perfectly justified. One area in which the EU is successful, however, is in spurring nation states and countries such as Scotland into producing environmental legislation. The reality is that EU legislation led to the bill that we are discussing today. The EU has a bad image, but we must remind people in Scotland time and again that it has been in the driving seat of environmental legislation, which we generally support.
Alex Johnstone made a bizarre speech in which he appeared to say that the bill was unnecessary and damaging but that he would vote for it.
Alex Johnstone indicated disagreement.
I think that that is what he said; he certainly voted for the committee's stage 1 report. If he is to vote on the bill, I suggest that he should show his true colours and vote against it. His position in the debate was pretty unclear. Some of his statements were bizarre. The bill is not about gold plating; if anything, it is about green plating—that is green with a small "g", in case Mark Ruskell becomes excited. The bill will mainstream environmental thinking.
Gold plating occurs when, after European regulation has been agreed by all member states, one member state or part thereof chooses to implement that regulation in a way that adds additional costs to its economy and its people. The bill will do that. It will make elements of our economy uncompetitive and will consequently cause difficulties for the country's economy. That is gold plating.
The member's comments are unjustified. We are discussing environmental considerations being taken into account at the earliest possible stage of policy development.
During the committee's inquiry into climate change, we invited several ministers to give evidence at once on how they were climate change proofing Scottish Government policies. The ministers dissembled; they could not explain how they climate change proofed their policies. That concerns me, because climate change is a huge threat to Scotland and the planet. It is clear that ministers in the Scottish Government do not really take that into account when they decide policies on a range of issues.
Does the member accept, as an example, that the flood prevention schemes that local authorities propose are specifically and precisely required to take into account the impacts, and likely impacts, of climate change?
I am glad that that is happening on some matters, but it is not happening on all matters. Housing policy provides a perfect example of an area in which no account is being taken in policy development of the impact on climate change.
We must remember that the public sector accounts for more than 50 per cent of gross domestic product in Scotland. That is why it is important for the Government and public bodies to lead on environmental policy. They have a huge influence on how we treat our environment, because their expenditure is enormous. Many members referred to culture change. The culture change must happen at the root of government, so that it can spread throughout Scotland.
As many members have said, the committee's stage 1 report describes many concerns, a lack of clarity and confusion about the bill and what it will mean when it is put into practice. As many members from different parties have said, it is important for the minister to produce as soon as possible clear illustrations of how the bill will be put into practice and what it will mean. For instance, when and how will strategic environmental assessment kick in? The confusion must be cleared up, not least for the many public bodies at the front line that will have to implement the bill.
The committee heard from Scottish Water, which said—as other members have mentioned—that it is not responsible for strategies or policies, but that it simply delivers strategies and policies that have been decided by the Scottish Government in Edinburgh. Scottish Water's role must be clarified.
Several members referred to the resource implications for public bodies. We on the committee—I speak as a committee member as well as for the SNP—heard about concern over likely costs for local government, demands on staff time and resources and lack of training. We welcome the minister's comment that training packages will be produced to help front-line staff to deal with assessments.
As other members and the stage 1 report said, we do not want the gateway to be short lived. We hope that it will be established more permanently, because we must ensure that the application of strategic environmental assessment is consistent. Best practice must be followed and different public bodies must not implement SEA in different ways. We must have a cast-iron result on the implications for the environment.
Several members referred to transparency. We must ensure that pre-screening reports, screening reports and all the other aspects are put into the public domain and that people can ask questions and find out information on every environmental assessment that public bodies have carried out.
Public participation is important with regard to the impact of strategies, plans and programmes on the environment. That is why it is good that the report states that the public's response to consultations on assessments must be taken into account by public bodies that are putting together strategies.
Finally—after seven and a half minutes—I want to refer to the issue of Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Sarah Boyack referred to the written answer to Richard Lochhead's parliamentary question S2W-16669, and described it as a clarification of the minister's position on nuclear power stations. Does the member accept that the answer was a clarification, or is he still confused about what the minister meant?
I am glad that the member raised that issue, as I was just coming to it. When the committee received the answer to the parliamentary question on the implications of strategic environmental assessment for the potential to build nuclear power stations in Scotland, I thought that it clarified matters. However, the Scottish Parliament information centre has confirmed that if the UK Government issued a white paper on energy policy that included proposals to build nuclear power stations in Scotland, the strategic environmental assessment would not apply. The people of Scotland would expect an assessment to be carried out of the environmental implications of any proposal to build a nuclear power station in Scotland, as most people in Scotland would see the potential for nuclear power stations to be built here and the nuclear waste that would result from them to be a major threat to Scotland's environment. That is why clarity is needed.
That issue goes to the heart of the matter. UK plans, programmes and policies do not have to go through the process—only Scottish plans, programmes and policies do. We cannot even get a Scottish energy policy because we do not have a Scottish strategy, and only strategies can be subjected to assessments. Despite calls from parties, non-governmental organisations in Scotland and others, we do not yet have a Scottish energy strategy, so we cannot even put such a strategy through a strategic environmental assessment.
The bottom line is that all powers over Scotland's environment should lie with the Scottish Parliament, which could then conduct strategic environmental assessments on any issue—nuclear waste, nuclear power or whatever—that members think will impact on Scotland's environment, even the marine environment strategy that the minister is about to bring forward. Some 80 acts—many of which are reserved to London—cover Scotland's seas. How on earth can we propose a strategy in Scotland to protect Scotland's seas when powers over those seas are reserved to London? All those powers should be brought to Scotland. We could then properly pass laws such as the one that is proposed and assess the impact on the environment of all kinds of policies.
That said, we support the general principles of the bill at stage 1, as we must use the Parliament's limited powers to the best of our abilities. Once we obtain more powers, we can really protect Scotland's environment.
I call Lewis Macdonald to wind up the debate. In theory, he has 16 minutes, but he does not have to use them all, as the bureau has agreed that a motion without notice can be accepted to advance decision time if necessary. However, he may use the full 16 minutes if he wishes to.
I am as pleased as my colleagues are that I do not need to take all the time that is available. The evidence from this afternoon's debate suggests that I will not require to use up all the time.
The bill has attracted widespread support because it will assist in protecting Scotland's environment and will encourage public participation in doing so. [Interruption.]
I must interrupt you, minister, because there is a lot of conversation in the chamber. I appreciate that members have arrived early for decision time, but they should listen to the conclusion of the debate.
The bill has attracted widespread support because it strikes the right balance between providing a robust framework for protecting the environment and keeping bureaucracy to a minimum and because of the range of support mechanisms that will be put in place to ensure effective delivery of its provisions.
There is broad support for the bill's general principles and its overall approach, but there are issues that members have asked us to respond to. Before I deal with those matters, I want to take issue with Alex Fergusson's claim that, like others, the Conservatives have simply raised particular concerns. In my view, there is a clear difference between the Tory approach to the bill and the constructive concerns that other members have expressed.
That takes me back to Alex Johnstone's opening speech. I thought that Richard Lochhead did not fully understand the import of that speech, which I interpreted in a much more negative way than even he did. Mr Johnstone argued that it was a good thing that development in the past just happened, without any strategic assessment of impacts on the environment having been made—not that he mentioned the environment much. It was put to Mr Johnstone that it might be better for us to put in place public transport access to airports before they were developed, instead of having to spend the money that is required to do so afterwards. Sadly, the Conservatives were not convinced of the wisdom and prudence of that approach.
Does the minister accept that I was trying to argue that, when resources are finite, the additional costs of strategic environmental assessment could effectively prevent development from taking place? That is my concern about the bill. [Interruption.]
Before the minister answers, I must again call for a reasonable level of concentration and attention.
Mr Johnstone's intervention further demonstrates that he is missing the point. The issue is the costs and benefits over the piece. If strategic environmental assessment is carried out first and properly, vastly more will be saved than the process of carrying out the assessment could possibly cost.
I intervene in defence of my colleague's comments on airports, in particular. Glasgow airport, Edinburgh airport and Prestwick airport evolved in the 1930s, usually because of the enthusiasm of people such as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's predecessors and Group Captain McIntyre, and they were used during wartime. At the time, those airports were never likely to be subject to strategic assessment. The minister is speaking with the benefit of hindsight.
I am saying that we should subject all strategic plans and programmes to environmental assessment, precisely in order that we may have the benefit of foresight, may see what will happen and may take into account environmental impacts before we begin.
I thought that Alex Johnstone provided the best example of a laissez-faire, let-it-happen attitude until I heard Mr Scott's speech. John Scott appeared to take the view that our policy on environmental assessment should not be decided either in the Scottish Parliament or at Westminster, but should be driven only by European Union directives, and that we should do on the environment only what the European Union tells us to do. Richard Lochhead suggested that Europe has led on environmental matters and, although I do not want to detract from the contribution that it has made, I will say that Labour and Liberal Democrat members believe that we should build on what comes from Europe in order to address specific Scottish needs.
I make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that I said that we should include in the bill the minimum amount of European legislation that is necessary, instead of gold plating it, which appears to be the minister's intention.
However, John Scott said in his speech that we needed to pilot what we are doing in order to assess the impact of strategic environmental assessment. He missed the point that the European Union directive that was put into regulations last summer requires strategic environmental assessment to be carried out of all plans that have come forward since then. The pathfinder project that has been described allows us to make an assessment now of what the bill's impact will be when its provisions are implemented.
Fourteen plans, programmes and strategies are subject to strategic environmental assessment at the moment. Ten are from local authorities, one is from the structure plan committee in the Clyde valley, one is from a national park authority, one is from Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd and one is from the Deer Commission for Scotland. All the assessments that are being carried out currently will precisely inform strategic environmental assessment in the future.
So what is the bill for?
The point of the bill is that it extends the requirements to every plan, programme and strategy that comes forward in the public sector. If Mr Johnstone pays more attention at future meetings of the Environment and Rural Development Committee, he will find a fuller answer to the question that he has just put to me.
Maureen Macmillan and others asked about the difference between strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment. That is an important point. Strategic environmental assessment applies to strategies, plans and programmes. As I pointed out to Rosie Kane, environmental impact assessment applies to individual projects and schemes.
A number of members have referred to Scottish Water. Scottish Water exercises functions of a public character, so strategies, plans and programmes that it brings forward will be caught by the bill in the same way as those that are brought forward by other public bodies will be. That does not mean that every local scheme will be caught by the bill—those will be covered by EIAs, which already exist.
We have set out clear definitions of how the provisions will apply but, as has been said, we will ensure that greater clarification is provided where matters are still not clear to committee members. We will consider what further refinement of the provisions in the bill might be required and we will consider administrative support mechanisms. We will seek to respond to the committee's recommendations on a number of matters, in particular the need to enable responsible authorities and their staff to adopt the change of culture that is required in how they examine issues in order to implement the bill successfully.
We want to minimise bureaucracy and ensure that there is as light a touch as possible. Because of that, we have put in place pre-screening procedures, which will be carried out by the plan owner and will determine whether a plan or programme might have a significant environmental effect. We will not require strategic assessment of schemes that will not have a major environmental effect.
Does the minister acknowledge that, to make pre-screening robust, it is necessary to define the terms "minimal" and "significant"? Otherwise, they will become weasel words.
I understand the point that the member makes. I think that most people would understand fairly clearly what "minimal" means and what "significant" means, but we will use the guidance to spell that out if that is required. For example, an effect on land that is of no particular environmental value is clearly different from an effect on land that has an identified and understood environmental value. In order to improve the transparency of the process, we will consider the creation of a register of decisions that are made at the pre-screening stage, to make it clear when a project does not have to undergo strategic assessment. We will look to move to the scoping stage as quickly as possible when it is clear that an assessment will be required.
We want to use the gateway to help us to minimise bureaucracy and to implement SEA in a way that is helpful to those who are responsible for implementation. We want that to happen without the imposition of statutory or bureaucratic burdens. We want the gateway, as a body that is already working on the existing SEA proposals, to be able to carry out that function.
Mr Arbuckle suggested that we should increase the number of statutory consultees and Rosie Kane suggested that, in the longer term, we should extend the provisions of the bill to the private sector. Does the minister feel that the bill is robust enough to prevent such progressive movement? Alternatively, does he take the view that the legislation ought to be adjusted over time to include such provisions?
The bill makes it clear that the consultation authorities are the Scottish ministers, SEPA and SNH. That is because those authorities—in the case of the Scottish ministers, through Historic Scotland—bring to the table the expertise on environmental matters that we believe is required. It is our intention to go forward on that basis.
As I have said, we are clear about what will be covered and what will require assessment. We are also clear about who will be involved in the assessment. We want to ensure that the bureaucratic burden on those involved is kept to a minimum, but we also want to ensure that practitioners are fully aware of the requirements that are placed on them.
The UK regulations on transboundary effects, which Rob Gibson and one or two other members mentioned, provide for consultation on such effects. The results of that consultation will be taken into account in the SEA of any Scottish plan that has transboundary effects. The same will apply at UK level.
If the UK Government were to issue a white paper proposing to build a nuclear power station in Scotland, at what stage would the bill's provisions kick in?
If the UK Government produces a plan, programme or strategy that applies across the United Kingdom, the UK legislation will apply. If a plan, programme or strategy is produced that has effect only in Scotland, the Scottish legislation will apply. I hope that that important distinction was made clear earlier.
The bill will be good for the environment by providing environmental protection and helping us to tackle climate change. It will also strengthen public participation in public policy decision making. It will do all that on the basis of an effective balance between a light-touch regulatory regime and a robust enforcement and quality assurance framework. The bill is backed up by a dynamic package of support mechanisms that are designed to husband resources and to provide as much assistance as possible to all those people who are involved with the new requirements.
The principles of the bill are a key component in supporting our wider strategy of sustainable developments taking on board social, economic and environmental benefits along with greater public participation. I commend them to the Parliament.