Water Resources (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Water Resources (Scotland) Bill.
In dealing with the amendments, members should have before them the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings—documents SP bill 15A, SP bill 15A-ML and SP bill 15A-G, respectively.
The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.
Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after I call the group.
I remind members to speak through the chair, by referring to other members by their full names and not as “you”.
Members should refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Section 1—Duty of the Scottish Ministers
Group 1 is on part 1 of the bill, on the duty of the Scottish ministers. Amendment 25, in the name of Jim Eadie, is grouped with amendments 6 and 7.
I am pleased to begin with amendment 25, which I am proposing as a refinement to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2.
I want to place on record my appreciation to RSPB Scotland for its support in working with me on the issue.
Part 1 of the bill is about the development of Scotland’s water resources. It places a duty on ministers to ensure the development of the value of those resources. That is to be welcomed because it will facilitate new and innovative ways of working as a hydro nation, an ambition that is shared by members across the chamber and that has the potential to bring significant benefits for Scotland’s people, environment and economy.
It is important, however, that the use of the resources is sustainable, which means that no development must be allowed to damage that precious resource. The duty is qualified in the bill by stating that minister must fulfil it
“in ways designed to contribute to the sustainable use of the resources.”
My amendment strengthens that important element by stating that ministers must fulfil the duty in ways designed “to promote” the sustainable use of our water resources. The requirement “to promote” gives greater emphasis than the requirement to “contribute to”. It places a greater onus on ministers to advance that aspect of sustainability than were they merely to “contribute to” it.
The amendment is consistent with recommendation 40 of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s stage 1 report, which calls for a
“deserved equality of emphasis to all three pillars of sustainability”.
It also reinforces the Deputy First Minister’s clear statement during stage 1:
“Our intention was never to drive economic benefit to the detriment of social or environmental factors, as those always need to be weighed up and balanced”.—[Official Report, 19 December 2012; c 14948.]
Overall, the amendment strengthens the duty of ministers under part 1 of the bill. It recognises the importance of the agenda in the long term and that value cannot be driven at the expense of the sustainable use of water resources. We are custodians of our environment and are responsible for securing its long-term sustainable use for the benefit of future generations. I am pleased to have worked collaboratively with the Deputy First Minister and her officials to reach this position, and I hope that she will be able to accept amendment 25.
I support the two other amendments in the group, as they help to explain fully what is meant by
“the value of Scotland’s water resources”.
I look forward to hearing the Deputy First Minister speak to the amendments.
I move amendment 25.
14:45
I thank Jim Eadie for lodging amendment 25, and I confirm to the chamber that I am happy and willing to accept it.
Part 1 of the bill places a duty on ministers to develop
“the value of Scotland’s water resources”.
In developing that value, ministers will, of course, have to weigh up all the factors that are involved when they decide how best to proceed. Jim Eadie suggests that ministers must develop the value of water resources in ways that are designed to “promote” the sustainable use of resources. I very much agree with Jim Eadie that that represents a strengthening of the provision but, rightly, it does not prevent ministers from taking account of other considerations. I believe that that strikes the right emphasis in the context of part 1, and l am sure that we can all agree that we wish to make use of our resources in a way that is valuable but also sustainable in the longer term. I am happy to support amendment 25.
Amendment 6 was developed following further reflection by me on how part 1 falls to be read. I want to ensure that it is clear on the face of the bill that the meaning of
“the value of Scotland’s water resources”
is very broad. With that in mind, I think that it helps to state explicitly that that means
“the value of the resources on any basis (including their monetary or non-monetary worth)”.
Amendment 6 seeks to put that beyond any doubt. In addition, amendment 6 keeps—within the meaning of the value of water resources—the current extension, which covers any
“economic, social, environmental or other benefit deriving from the use of ... the resources”
or associated activities.
Amendment 7 is a simple drafting adjustment of some wording that relates to amendment 6.
As well as being an economic asset for Scotland, our water resources have a great deal of worth that can be described or measured in other ways. Water plays a vital role in our nation’s industrial and domestic life and we must ensure that we conserve and protect it, while being creative and innovative in developing the full potential of what is, after all, our most fundamental resource.
I hope that, in addition to supporting my amendments, all members will support Jim Eadie’s amendment 25.
At stage 1, many of us expressed concern about the fact that the bill did not give environmental and social benefits the same weighting as commercial benefits. Therefore, I welcomed the amendments that the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee agreed to at stage 2. I was also supportive of the amendment that Jim Eadie lodged at stage 2, but which he did not press, so I very much welcome amendment 25, which will further clarify and strengthen the consideration of environmental and social benefits. I am happy to say that Labour members will support it.
I invite Jim Eadie to wind up and to indicate whether he intends to press or withdraw amendment 25.
I am delighted by the constructive approach that the Deputy First Minister has taken to amendment 25. She has not only listened to but acted on the representations that I, other MSPs and stakeholder organisations made at stage 2. I appreciate Elaine Murray’s support for my amendment.
I am delighted to press amendment 25.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Amendments 6 and 7 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
We come to group 2, which is on part 1 of the bill, with reference to peatlands. Amendment 1, in the name of Elaine Murray, is the only amendment in the group.
I suspect that the consensus is about to break down.
When I lodged this amendment at stage 2, the cabinet secretary argued that the inclusion of peatlands in the bill was artificially stretching the definition and that including them did not support the bill’s purposes. Having reflected on that, I note that the bill uses the definition of “water resources” set out in the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, which does not cover peatland habitats. Indeed, the strict interpretation of the 2003 act has already led to peat bogs being discounted as wetlands in Scotland.
As a result, in bringing back this amendment, I do not propose to introduce any changes to the implementation of the 2003 act. However, I feel that the amendment would ensure that the sustainable management of Scotland’s peatlands could be taken forward under the bill’s purpose of developing Scotland’s water resources, which would deliver great economic, environmental and social benefits.
The cabinet secretary’s argument that amendment 1 would artificially stretch the definition of water resources is, in my view, inconsistent, given that the second report on proposals and policies and RPP1 both recognise that peatland and wetland management are, in fact, the same thing. RPP2 states that
“Incorporation of wetland management data into the net Scottish emissions account”
will enable
“peatland restoration to be counted towards Scotland’s climate change targets”.
Moreover, given RPP2’s recognition of the importance of peatlands in retaining and filtering water, they ought to be included in the definition of “water resources”.
I move amendment 1.
I thank Elaine Murray for outlining the reasons behind amendment 1. However, although I fully understand the points that she is making, it will come as no surprise to her that I do not support it for the same reasons that I did not support it at stage 2.
In my view, the addition of the word “peatlands” to the definition of “water resources” in part 1 artificially stretches that definition. I understand and am not unsympathetic—in fact, I am very sympathetic—to the importance of caring for our peatlands and the Government is committed to doing that. For example, the 2012 budget announced a further contribution of £1.7 million to peatland restoration and the Government and its agencies are actively working together to support the protection and maintenance of those lands. The agenda’s significance is indeed highlighted in the draft RPP2, which is being considered by a number of parliamentary committees.
The addition of the word “peatlands” to the definition of “water resources” does not help to support the bill’s purpose. Part 1 is about water resources in the conventional, commonly understood sense; it is not about bogs, fens or any other type of land. The amendment seeks to protect peatlands by artificially stretching the definition of water resources in a way that I do not think appropriate or helpful in pursuing the bill’s aims and objectives.
With those comments, I ask Elaine Murray—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Yes—if I am able to.
Malcolm Chisholm.
I am finding it slightly difficult to follow the cabinet secretary’s train of thought. RPP2 acknowledges the importance of peatlands in retaining and filtering water, but that particular aspect of Government policy seems to go against what the cabinet secretary is saying. I find it difficult to understand the strength of her objection to what is a very reasonable and modest proposal.
I am not saying that the amendment is not reasonable—I am not even saying that there is no argument to it. I am simply pointing out that the bill’s point and objective is to look at water resources in the traditional, conventional, commonly understood sense. The member is right to highlight aspects of other Government policies that focus on peatlands; indeed, I suggest that that underlines and strengthens my argument. In rejecting amendment 1, I am not rejecting the importance of peatlands but saying very clearly that the issue is being dealt with and catered for not just through budgetary decisions but through other policies. Going back to the previous group of amendments, I repeat that the bill’s purpose is to ensure that we develop our water resources in the widest possible sense, but I do not think it appropriate for peatlands to be specifically included within its ambit.
For those reasons, I ask Elaine Murray to withdraw amendment 1. If, as I suspect, she will not do so, I ask the chamber to vote against it.
I had another request to speak on my screen, but I am afraid that it came too late for me to call the speaker.
I call Elaine Murray to wind up and indicate whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 1.
In his intervention, Malcolm Chisholm illustrated the difference in views: I believe that peatland is a water resource because of its function in improving the quality of our water. I will therefore press the amendment and go for the division.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a 30-second division, but only after a five-minute suspension.
14:54
Meeting suspended.
15:00
On resuming—
We come to the vote on amendment 1. This will be a 30-second division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 35, Against 82, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Section 3—Designation of bodies
Group 3 is on part 1 of the bill, on designated bodies. Amendment 2, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendment 3.
Amendments 2 and 3 are also a rehash of amendments that were lodged at stage 2. At that time, the cabinet secretary said that it was not appropriate for subsidiaries of Scottish Water to be included in the list of designated bodies, which is the purpose of amendments 2 and 3. She also said that it would be for Scottish Water to decide how to fulfil ministers’ directions, whether that be through its core functions or through one of its subsidiaries.
I argue that giving ministers the power to issue directions through subsidiaries does not require them to use that power, but enables them to use it if an issue is sufficiently important that that is the best way of delivering the Government’s intention. Indeed, it could be advantageous for ministers to have those powers to, for example, issue directions to Scottish Water Horizons, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Scottish Water that is described as a commercially sustainable, standalone business that uses innovative ideas, knowledge and assets to encourage sustainable growth and renewable technologies. Those are high priorities for the Scottish Government and ministers could need to use their powers of direction for those purposes.
The fact that Horizons is a stand-alone business might make it more complex for directions to be cascaded down from ministers via Scottish Water than its receiving ministerial directions without Scottish Water acting as an intermediary.
I move amendment 2.
If members wish to conduct conversations, could they please do so outwith the chamber?
The changes in part 3 of the bill do not go as far as I would like. I would prefer Scottish Water to become a private company and be freed in that respect. However, the changes in part 3 have the effect of giving Scottish Water many of the opportunities that it would have if it were in the private sector. Consequently, the opportunity to work in partnership and in conjunction with many other companies, and to operate those partnerships as if they were in the private sector, is a vital freedom granted by the bill. This amendment to an earlier part of the bill would have the effect of placing restrictions on those opportunities that I am not prepared to accept. I will oppose the amendment.
There are some fundamental disagreements about Elaine Murray’s amendments. First, although I understand that Alex Johnstone and his colleagues will support the Government, I fundamentally disagree with him about the privatisation of Scottish Water. I also disagree with Elaine Murray’s amendments.
Amendment 2 would add subsidiaries of Scottish Water to the list of designated bodies to which ministers could issue directions in relation to participation in activity to develop the value of our water resources. Amendment 3 defines subsidiaries as set out in the Companies Act 2006.
As I said at stage 2, when Elaine Murray lodged similar amendments, it is inappropriate to include subsidiaries of Scottish Water in the list. I stress that that is not because subsidiaries are or should be excluded from the agenda but because the extent of subsidiaries’ involvement is properly a matter for Scottish Water, as the parent company, to determine. The relationship between the Scottish ministers and Scottish Water is clear and ministers expect Scottish Water’s board to manage its affairs. The issuing of directions by ministers directly to a subsidiary would circumvent the agreed lines of communication and accountability that exist between ministers and Scottish Water and could cause confusion around responsibilities and priorities.
Part 1 of the bill ensures that Scottish Water will play its part in the development of our water resources, as Scottish Water is listed as one of the designated bodies to which ministers may give directions for the relevant purposes.
I therefore ask Elaine Murray to withdraw amendment 2 and not to move amendment 3. If the amendments are pressed, I ask members to reject them.
I remind members that there are strict rules on the use of electronic equipment in the chamber.
The short debate that we have had on amendments 2 and 3 illustrated fundamental differences of opinion. Alex Johnstone will not be surprised to hear that I completely disagree with him. Scottish Water is a public company, which displays excellence and which is responsible to the Scottish ministers. Subsidiaries that are wholly owned by the company should be capable of direction by the Scottish ministers, when such direction would be in the best interests of encouraging sustainable growth and renewable technologies.
I press amendment 2.
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 36, Against 82, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Amendment 3 not moved.
Section 4A—Report on steps taken
Group 4 is on reporting on the part 1 duty. Amendment 26, in the name of Jim Eadie, is the only amendment in the group.
It gives me pleasure to speak to amendment 26, which was developed after consideration of points that I made at stage 2.
The bill provides for ministers to report to the Parliament on how they have fulfilled their duty under section 1(1) within the first three years from commencement of the section. A more regular reporting regime in the first few years of implementation of the legislation would help to focus activity and ensure that steady progress is made. Amendment 26 therefore requires ministers to report annually for the first three years but does not affect their ability to report to the Parliament over a longer term after the end of that period.
Amendment 26 ensures that the right balance is struck on what is required by way of reporting under section 4A. I know that the activity is long term and that the bill is just one part of the aspiration of ministers—and indeed the whole Parliament—to develop Scotland as a hydro nation. I hope that regular parliamentary scrutiny will be helpful in shaping that agenda. As the Deputy First Minister has stated, collaboration is crucial, and we are all committed to maximising the development of Scotland’s water resources for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
I hope that the Deputy First Minister will welcome my amendment and support its inclusion in the bill.
I move amendment 26.
I thank Jim Eadie for lodging amendment 26, and I am happy to accept it.
At stage 2 we discussed the importance of scrutiny and checking for the implementation of part 1 of the bill, but without having a reporting burden so onerous that it diverted resources from advancing the primary agenda. I am grateful to Jim Eadie for his work at committee and for proposing an amendment that gives certainty and reassurance to stakeholders that ministers will provide an annual report in the first three years, but which allows for flexibility after that initial implementation period.
Parliament can, of course, ask ministers for an update at any time, and I welcome the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s comments about undertaking scrutiny of the legislation. As Jim Eadie has stated, the bill has benefited greatly from collaboration, and implementation will require joint working between many different organisations and agencies. Nevertheless, regular reporting in the early stages will help to give impetus to the hydro nation agenda.
I hope that everyone in the chamber will join me in supporting Jim Eadie’s amendment.
I thank the Deputy First Minister for her response and assurances. As with the undertaking of any new or innovative activities such as those that are provided for in the bill, it is important that the success of those activities is effectively monitored. At section 4A, the bill places a duty on the Scottish ministers to report every three years. My amendment 26 strengthens that duty, and I am delighted to have proposed it.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
Section 10—Factors as to approval
Group 5 is on water abstraction under part 2. Amendment 8, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 9 to 11.
Part 2 of the bill provides for ministerial control of very large abstractions from our water environment. It is fair to say that this has been the most controversial area of the bill. An abstraction will be subject to control if it qualifies as being above the threshold—which, as members will be aware, is currently set at 10 million litres per day—and if it is not otherwise exempt.
Amendment 8 is a minor drafting change so that the reference to “economic, social or other benefit” in part 2 is the same as elsewhere in the bill. The revised word order does not, of course, alter the effect of the relevant provision, being section 10(1)(c)(i). Ministers will still have to weigh up all the same factors when deciding whether to approve a qualifying abstraction.
Amendment 9 relates to the process under part 2. It makes it explicit that ministers, in deciding whether to grant approval of a qualifying abstraction, must have regard to any advice given by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or Scottish Water under section 13. That is a useful addition for the sake of listing in section 10 everything that ministers are bound to consider.
Section 14 enables ministers to make regulations about monitoring and record keeping for the purpose of the approval regime under part 2 in relation to abstractions. Amendment 10 clarifies that such regulations may, in connection with monitoring and record keeping, include provision about access to premises, about the steps that can be taken at the premises, and for summary offences arising from a failure to comply with the regulations or from the obstruction of someone exercising functions under the regulations.
Amendment 11 makes such regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, in light of the substantial nature of what regulations may do by virtue of amendment 10.
I move amendment 8.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment 9 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
Section 16—Monitoring and records
Amendment 10 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
Section 18—Procedure for regulations
Amendment 11 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
Section 21—Value of water resources
Group 6 is on Scottish Water’s functions. Amendment 12, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, is grouped with amendments 13 to 18.
15:15
Amendment 12 has been prepared following dialogue with stakeholders.
Section 25 of the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 sets out the scope of Scottish Water’s activities, enabling it to engage in any activity that is not inconsistent with the economic, efficient and effective exercise of its core functions. However, that provision does not give Scottish Water any legal right to interfere with private property or any third party rights.
The bill amends section 25 of the 2002 act to clarify that the range of activities in which Scottish Water may engage extends to activities that it considers will assist in the development of the value of Scotland’s water resources. Some stakeholders were concerned that that bill provision, as originally drafted, might give additional powers to Scottish Water to interfere with private property or other third party rights. Amendment 12 aims to assist the comprehension and clarity of section 25 of the 2002 act by clarifying that the section concerns the scope of Scottish Water’s activities and does not bestow any new legal powers on it.
At stage 2, I indicated that I would reconsider part 3 of the bill, which concerns Scottish Water’s functions. That was due in part to Jim Eadie’s helpful comments at that stage. Although initially the bill was drafted so that the duty on the Scottish ministers at part 1 was in effect mirrored in part 3 by a duty on Scottish Water, I have thought further about the issue and I am suggesting revised provisions with amendments 13 to 18.
The duty on ministers in part 1 of the bill concerns value in its broadest sense, encompassing considerations other than economic value. Scottish Water remains a designated body under part 1 and as such it has an important role to play in supporting ministers to meet their obligation to take steps to develop the value of Scotland’s water resources, when it is directed by ministers to do so.
Part 3 of the bill, however, is about Scottish Water and its own assets, which range from water treatment works, through equipment and land, to more intangible assets such as the technical experience that it might have built up over a number of years. Unlike part 1, the value to be developed in part 3 is commercial value, which is consistent with our vision for Scottish Water as a successful 21st century Scottish company.
It would not be appropriate to force Scottish Water and its subsidiaries, which operate in a competitive environment, to develop the non-commercial value of their assets. However—this is an important point—Scottish Water remains subject to the duty, when exercising its functions, to
“act in the way best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.”
That duty is enshrined in section 51 of the 2002 act.
I believe that the amendments proposed as a group provide the right balance when taken with the existing provisions in the 2002 act. They ensure that Scottish Water remains subject to the clear responsibility to act sustainably, while leaving it properly tasked to act commercially with regard to developing the value of its assets. The economic, efficient and effective exercise of its functions remains—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Yes.
I am trying to understand Nicola Sturgeon’s argument. She will understand why stakeholders have found it puzzling that there is one definition of value in part 1 and another in part 3. I understand that she has tried to explain the reasons for that, but I still find it very difficult. It appears that part 3 will limit the factors that Scottish Water takes into account and that it will therefore, in effect, act against the laudable intentions of widening the scope of value in part 1.
I am not sure whether Malcolm Chisholm has misunderstood. The reference I made to stakeholders’ concerns related to the issue that is being addressed by amendment 12, not the issue that I am talking about at the moment, although I fully accept that he may have been referring to other discussions with stakeholders.
I am trying to set out the issue clearly and to draw attention to the distinction between part 1 and part 3. Part 1 relates to the duty on ministers and concerns value in its broadest sense. In contrast, part 3 relates specifically to Scottish Water. The duty on Scottish Water is principally to ensure that the commercial value of its assets is enhanced and developed.
It would not be appropriate to force Scottish Water and its subsidiaries to develop the non-commercial value of their assets, but Scottish Water remains subject to the duty, when exercising its functions, to
“act in the way best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.”
That duty is enshrined in section 51 of the 2002 act. Taken together, the amendments will strike the right balance.
I underline the fact that, as Scottish Water is a publicly owned utility, ministers have a close relationship with it. It will be appropriate at times for ministers to offer the organisation guidance on the direction that it should take in developing the value of its assets and expertise. I ask members to support amendment 12 and the other amendments in the group.
I move amendment 12.
Given the confusion—I, too, am slightly confused by the amendments and about how the parts of the bill will interact—it would help to have more reassurance from the cabinet secretary on the record.
Some stakeholders—probably not the stakeholders who were referred to in relation to amendment 12—have raised the use of the term “commercial” in amendment 14, which should in no way diminish the need to consider biodiversity and sustainable development duties.
Will the cabinet secretary make it clear that the provision is not contrary to a contribution to the wider aspiration of developing Scotland as a hydro nation? There seems to be an element of conflict, as more emphasis appears to be given to commercial value than to social and environmental value. It would help to have it clearly stated that the provision in no way conflicts with the bill’s other aspirations.
I am happy to give Elaine Murray that clarity and assurance. The point that must be stressed is that the amendments, which are proposed as a group, must be looked at and read in conjunction with existing provisions in the 2002 act. The provisions ensure that Scottish Water remains subject to a clear responsibility to act sustainably but leave it properly tasked to act commercially in developing the value of its assets.
The economic, efficient and effective exercise of Scottish Water’s functions remains a key principle. Through the amendments and the 2002 act, we will ensure that that remains the case.
As I said, the amendments will further allow ministers to issue guidance on how Scottish Water should take steps to develop the value of its assets. Scottish Water must have regard to such guidance. As I said, it is a publicly owned utility. Given the relationship of communication and accountability between ministers and Scottish Water, it might be appropriate on occasions for ministers to offer it guidance on the direction that it should take when developing its assets.
When we take the amendments in conjunction with the existing provisions, we see that the clarity and assurance are there for Elaine Murray. I hope that, as a result, members will support the amendments.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Section 22—Development of assets
Amendments 13 to 16 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
Section 23—Supporting renewable energy
Amendments 17 and 18 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
Section 28—Agreements about activities
We move to group 7. Amendment 4, in the name of Dr Elaine Murray, is the only amendment in the group.
The bill enables Scottish Water to enter into agreements for the purpose of protecting or improving raw water quality. Such management agreements will help to contribute to sustainable catchment management, whereby drinking water quality issues are addressed at source rather than through more expensive water treatments further down the chain.
The cabinet secretary stated at stage 2 that Scottish Water is not obliged to meet those objectives, but my contention is that that is not correct. As Scottish Water is designated as a responsible authority for the purposes of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, it is obliged to contribute to the delivery of the water framework directive and the WEWS act objectives. As a public body, Scottish Water also has a range of other statutory duties, such as contributing to sustainable flood management and furthering the conservation of biodiversity.
Amendment 4 is slightly different from the amendment that I lodged at stage 2—members will be relieved to hear that. It aims to ensure that, in delivering sustainable catchment management, Scottish Water integrates that with its existing statutory duties.
The amendment that I lodged at stage 2 had a similar purpose, but there was a lack of clarity in the way in which it was drafted with regard to its intention. The amendment has therefore been redrafted to make it clear that the intention is not to give Scottish Water powers to enter into agreements that would, for example, reduce flood risk while not improving raw water quality. The amendment is intended to ensure that Scottish Water meets and integrates its various different statutory duties.
I move amendment 4.
Section 28 inserts new section 68A into the Water (Scotland) Act 1980. The new section enables Scottish Water to enter into agreements with landowners or local authorities for them or Scottish Water to carry out any activities that Scottish Water considers necessary to improve raw water quality—that is, the raw water that, once treated, becomes part of the public drinking water supply.
As Elaine Murray said, amendment 4 is a slight refinement of the amendment to section 28 that she lodged at stage 2. I still do not support the amendment. It lists five pieces of legislation, including
“the Water Resources (Scotland) Act 2013”,
under which Scottish Water will have certain duties, and it requires Scottish Water to have particular regard to those duties when making agreements under the section. That runs contrary to what the section is trying to do.
The new section of the 1980 act is about empowering Scottish Water to enter into voluntary agreements with landowners and local authorities when it is deemed that cost-effective action can be taken to address drinking water quality issues at source and thereby improve drinking water quality by means other than through treatment at a treatment works. Such agreements are not intended to be a vehicle by which Scottish Water complies with other statutory duties that have been placed on it, although they might sometimes further the same objectives.
It goes without saying that Scottish Water must comply with all statutory duties that are placed on it, and it could not enter into an agreement that would place it in breach of any such duty. The provision in amendment 4 would be an unnecessary complication and a distraction from the purpose of the section, which is to encourage agreements between Scottish Water and others for the purposes of improving raw water quality. I also argue that it is a duplication, given that Scottish Water must comply with all the legislation to which it is subject.
Taking those comments into account, I ask Elaine Murray to withdraw amendment 4. If the amendment is pressed, I ask the Parliament to reject it.
The debate on the amendment has been helpful because it has helped to clarify some of the issues around section 28. I am content with the explanation that has been given of the way in which the statutory duties must be fulfilled and the nature of section 28. I therefore intend to withdraw the amendment as I am content with the explanation that we now have on the record.
Amendment 4, by agreement, withdrawn.
After section 33
Amendment 5, in the name of Dr Murray, is the only amendment in group 8.
I am sure that members will be happy to hear that this is my final amendment.
I lodged the same amendment at stage 2 to try to ensure that the offence of the discharge of fats, oils and grease would cover a wider range of establishments. The discharge of those substances causes an estimated 55 per cent of sewer blockages. The bill gives us an opportunity to prevent the problem by ensuring that the offence covers potentially high-risk establishments. Public sector premises such as educational establishments and offices can have large catering facilities. It is therefore sensible to treat them in the same way as public sector hospitals and care homes, which are already covered due to their inclusion in the definition of trade premises under the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968.
15:30
At stage 2, the cabinet secretary stated that public sector premises, with the exception of hospitals and care homes, are currently excluded from part 2 of the 1968 act, which is the point that I am trying to make, and also said that my amendment raised the question whether the consent regime ought to be extended to cover such premises. In fact, there is a case that they should be covered. It seems illogical that some public sector premises are covered and some are not.
I believe that amendment 5 would give additional power to the legislation to prevent the discharge of these materials, which causes more than half of the sewer blockages in Scotland.
I move amendment 5.
The discharge of fat into sewers was one of the issues of genuine concern for a number of people who gave evidence. It is a matter of some concern that, if the bill remains as it is, the law will continue to permit certain types of public sector body to discharge in that way. I therefore have significant sympathy for amendment 5 and would be inclined to support it.
We debated this issue at stage 2 and I accept some of the prima facie arguments that are being made. It would be interesting for all of us to trail back through things so that we could understand fully the reasons for the distinctions between different classes of public body.
As Elaine Murray has explained, the amendment would bring premises that are used or managed by public bodies or office-holders, such as schools, within the new offence relating to the discharge of fat, oil and grease from trade premises. It would also—I stress this point—subject them to the new power for Scottish Water to recover the cost of rectifying any damage caused to sewers or drains as a result of such discharges.
The regime that was created by the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968, as far as I am aware, works well. Certainly, I have not heard from Scottish Water in particular any suggestion to the contrary. The regime will be further improved by the addition, through the bill, of the provisions expressly prohibiting the discharge of fats, oils and grease from trade premises into the public sewer, and allowing Scottish Water to recover the costs of rectifying damage caused by such discharges. Those provisions are to be inserted into the 1968 act, and complement provisions that are already in that act.
As I said a moment ago, Scottish Water has not drawn to our attention any particular problem caused by the existing definition of trade premises, which covers premises that are used by trade and industry and specifically includes hospitals and care homes but does not include other premises that are used or managed by public bodies. I am therefore not convinced by the argument that we should now apply the new offence to all such premises.
I intervene to ask a simple question. Is the cabinet secretary able to justify the fact that schools will be protected but hospitals will not be?
My point is that we have not had any expressions of concern from Scottish Water that the current system—whatever the historical reasons for that system—is not working well.
If we pass the amendment, there will also be a risk that those premises will be brought within the trade effluent consent regime in the 1968 act. To bring them within that regime would place an additional burden on the public bodies concerned and I am simply not convinced that there is a problem with discharges into the sewerage network from those premises that needs to be addressed.
I understand the point that members are making, I am simply not convinced that the way to respond to that point is to include those additional public bodies in the ambit of the legislation in the way that the amendment would. For those reasons, I ask Elaine Murray to withdraw amendment 5.
I am slightly confused by the cabinet secretary’s arguments, I must admit. It seems illogical that hospitals are covered by this regime but other parts of the public sector that have large catering facilities, such as schools, are not.
The cabinet secretary argues that Scottish Water has not reported any problems with the current system. If there is no problem, the powers will not be used. The powers are there in case a problem arises.
I am sure that there are probably historical reasons why certain parts of the public sector and certain public sector establishments are included and others are not, but that does not mean that the situation could not be tidied up at this point. Because I do not really understand the differences between those different types of public sector establishments in respect of this offence of discharging fats and oils, and given that the discharging of fats and oils into the sewers is a problem in general, I cannot see what would be lost by the inclusion of educational facilities and so on in the legislation. Therefore, I intend to press the amendment.
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 55, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Section 37—Content of order
Amendment 19, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, is grouped with amendments 20, 22 and 23.
Amendments 19 and 20 make minor refinements to the water shortage provisions, and in particular to the content of any water shortage order that ministers might make. It is important that any such order is as clear as possible and that ministers have sufficient flexibility to make an order that is appropriate to the community or the area affected.
Amendment 19 builds in additional flexibility by allowing water-saving measures to be tailored so that they apply only to certain purposes that are specified in the order, should that be appropriate and sufficient to reduce the demand on the network.
Amendment 20 allows for a water shortage order to include exemptions from, or exceptions to, the measures in the order, or to make different provision for different purposes. That might be because ministers agree that a certain activity is critical and should continue, or that a certain group of people should be exempted from the measures.
Amendments 22 and 23 are very minor drafting changes, to aid clarity.
I move amendment 19.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
Amendment 20 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
Before section 48
Amendment 21, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, is grouped with amendment 24.
Amendments 21 and 24 exempt the Crown, although not persons in the service of the Crown, from criminal liability under parts 2 and 7 of the bill. Those parts deal with the control of large-scale water abstractions and water shortage orders, and it is the Scottish Government’s policy that the Crown should not be exposed to criminal liability. The Crown will not be held criminally liable for contravening any provision under those two parts. However, Scottish ministers could apply to the Court of Session to declare any contravention of the provisions by the Crown unlawful.
The two amendments also concern the powers of entry conferred under parts 2 and 7 of the bill. They provide that those powers will be exercisable only in relation to Crown land, which is land belonging to Her Majesty or the Scottish Government, with the consent of the appropriate authority. That is in recognition of the fact that there might be additional security or safety issues that need to be considered before entry to such land can be granted.
As regards powers of entry, the amended provisions will not prevent access to Crown land but will merely require the consent of the Crown Estate Commissioners, the relevant office-holder or the relevant governmental authority as the case may be. It is also worth mentioning that, under ordinary administrative rules, such consent cannot be unreasonably withheld.
The amendments reflect Government policy and are consistent with provisions in other recent legislation passed by the Parliament, such as the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and the Reservoirs (Scotland) Act 2011.
I move amendment 21.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Schedule 1—Water shortage orders
Amendments 22 and 23 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
After schedule 2
Amendment 24 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.