Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 consideration of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill. For the first part of the stage 3 proceedings, members should have copies of the bill as amended at stage 2; the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments selected for debate; and the groupings. The Presiding Officer has decided to allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division that occurs after the debate only at the end of group 1. Thereafter, following the practice that we adopted during stage 3 consideration of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, we shall allow one minute for the first division in each group. That will enable the chamber to make speed.
Section 2—The general duties
I call Allan Wilson to speak to and move amendment 1, which is grouped with amendments 2, 3, 29 and 84.
Perhaps, for ease of reference, I should inform the chamber that Ross Finnie and I will speak alternately to sections. I will take the odd sections and Mr Finnie will take the even sections, with one exception.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of amendments 1, 2 and 3, which all bear on section 2 of the bill. Section 2 is important, as it sets out the general duties on Scottish ministers, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and other responsible authorities under part 1. Where those public bodies exercise functions under part 1 or any other function that is specified under section 2(8), they must do so in such a way as to secure compliance with the requirements of the water framework directive. That is a very high-level duty, and the amendments that are before us are concerned with the three other duties that the bodies must take on board in its context. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 bring together those duties in one subsection to aid transparency and understanding. I will deal with the duties one by one.
First, we have the promotion of sustainable flood management. Members will recall that, at stage 2, we lodged an amendment to that effect, which is now included in the bill as section 2(4A). The amendment gained the unanimous support of the Transport and the Environment Committee.
Our amendments today place that duty beside the other duties that I will discuss presently, but they do not change its effect in any way. For that reason, I do not propose to rehearse at this stage the debate that we had on the issue at stage 2. The duty is an important and useful addition to the bill and I am confident that it will gain universal support once more. I will refer to that aspect of the amendment when I discuss amendments 29 and 84, in the names of Bruce Crawford and Nora Radcliffe respectively.
Secondly, amendment 1 deals with the duty to
"act in the way best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development".
Scottish ministers, SEPA and the responsible authorities must do so as far as is consistent with the purposes of the relevant enactment or designated function in question.
Again, that fulfils our stage 2 commitment, which was sought by Des McNulty among others, to incorporate sustainable development in section 2 of the bill. Members of the Transport and the Environment Committee felt, rightly, that section 2 would be better balanced if an express reference to sustainable development were included beside the requirement to take account of the social and economic impact of the functions concerned. I am happy to fulfil that promise to the committee.
The final leg of amendment 1 deals with the promotion of an integrated approach; it replaces and amplifies the provision in section 2(5A) that was introduced at stage 2 by Robin Harper. I said at stage 2 that we would retain the spirit of Robin Harper's amendment, but that we would need to consider carefully its drafting. We have done so; an integrated approach remains and we have sought to provide clarity about what that means. As amendment 1 makes clear, such an approach is about ensuring that the various public authorities concerned work towards the common goal of protection of the water environment. I hope that Robin Harper and other members will agree that I have fulfilled my promise to the committee and the chamber with amendment 1.
Bruce Crawford's amendment 29 would require Scottish ministers to prepare a national strategy for flood management. Members of the Transport and the Environment Committee will be familiar with the argument, having rejected similar amendments at stage 2. I believe that the committee took the right decision in doing so. The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill represents a significant step forward in the co-ordination of sustainable flood prevention measures in Scotland. The river basin management planning process will provide a forum for the discussion of flood-related issues at the catchment level—the most appropriate level at which to consider those issues. That process will bring together local authorities, SEPA and Scottish Water, bodies that are integral to the success of any sustainable flood management strategy.
We introduced an amendment at stage 2 that made the link between flood management and the river basin management planning process much more explicit on the face of the bill. That amendment, to which I referred earlier, placed a duty on ministers, SEPA and responsible authorities to promote sustainable flood management where their functions under section 2 are relevant. For example, Scottish ministers will be required to promote sustainable flood management when considering grant applications for flood defence schemes. That requirement builds on the approach that has been adopted by the Executive in relation to sustainable flood management.
Local authorities will also be required to promote sustainable flood management when exercising their function under the town and country planning legislation, and they are already doing that. The Scottish Executive's planning policy, as set out in national planning policy guideline 7—on planning and flooding—says that development of an area that is exposed to frequent or extensive flooding, for example, the functional flood plain, is likely to be unsustainable and should be avoided. If development is essential, the threat of flooding should be managed in an environmentally sensitive way that recognises the role of soft engineering techniques—such as natural flood meadows and washlands—in attenuating flooding; where practical, the use of existing flood plains should be maximised. Those guidelines are clear.
The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill inserts another important additional safeguard. In due course, the construction of flood defence schemes will require consent in terms of the new control regime on engineering works in and around bodies of water that is introduced under section 20. That is yet another means by which a sustainable approach to flood management is assured.
We need only examine recent schemes for evidence of that approach being put into practice. The Moredun flood prevention scheme in Paisley adds no new hard defences and relies entirely on attenuation measures. The Mains Burn flood prevention scheme in Linlithgow, which I visited comparatively recently, has no walls or embankments and relies on attenuation and channel improvements, including the restoration of an open watercourse. The Fraser Road flood prevention scheme in Aberdeen, which will open shortly, relies mainly on the provision of wetlands storage within Westburn Park. I could go on. Future schemes such as those at Portpatrick, at the Water of Leith and on the White Car, will all include provision of storage reservoirs to reduce the scale of hard defences. I hope that it is clear to all members that significant steps have been taken, are being taken and will be taken towards addressing flood risk in Scotland in a more sustainable manner.
The minister will be aware of the circumstances of parts of my constituency of Strathkelvin and Bearsden, which have been inundated twice in as many years. The problems there, which were numerous and diverse, included combination drainage, a problem with emergency responses and considerable confusion in relation to responsibilities and roles. There are also increasing problems in respect of securing and retaining insurance cover, not only for those who have been directly affected by flooding but for those who live in flood-affected areas. Will the minister give some better information on how those specific problems will be tackled?
We will discuss in some detail an important series of Executive amendments on sustainable urban drainage systems. Those amendments seek to integrate the work of Scottish Water, local authorities and the Scottish Executive in addressing urban flooding problems related to the sewerage infrastructure. That series of amendments will provide us with the opportunity to debate in detail the points raised by Mr Fitzpatrick and the Executive's response to those points.
The fault with amendment 29, in the name of Bruce Crawford, is that it seeks to deal with the myriad interests and issues—including sustainable urban drainage systems—that surround flooding in Scotland today in a bill that is, properly, focused on protecting and conserving our water environment. Of course, the interaction of river basin planning or catchment management and sustainable flood management is key, but it is something that we have got right in the bill because of our amendment to section 2.
However, that is not the only interaction. To solve Scotland's flooding problems, we need to consider a much wider range of issues than the bill is concerned with. For example, we must consider emergency response, which institutions are responsible for what, who should take the lead in the clean-up and what role the police and fire service will play. We must look at insurance cover—particularly low-cost insurance cover for poorer families—and emergency assistance to householders and businesses affected by flooding.
We must consider how information on flood risk is best constructed and how it is then disseminated. As we made clear in the memorandum on flooding issues that we made available through the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee last week, we are working towards the production of second-generation flood risk assessment maps. We must consider how those maps should best be made available and whether there is more that needs to be done. In addition, we must examine the existing legislation on flood prevention—the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961—and whether it needs to be improved.
Will the minister comment on the concerns of the Scottish Rugby Union and others about the repeated flooding problem in the Murrayfield area?
The problems in Murrayfield, or in any other parts of Scotland that are afflicted by flooding, should be approached in three ways under the Scottish Executive's existing strategy. We must raise awareness of the likelihood of flooding, take measures to address the flood prevention process and alleviate pressures on flooding through a catchment-based approach that involves local authorities across the catchment area, rather than where specific flooding occurs. Very often, the cause of flooding may be downstream or upstream of the site where flooding actually occurs. Taking a catchment-area approach is an integral part of the bill.
In that regard, I have argued consistently throughout the process that all those issues fit in with the work of the ad hoc group of ministers that was established towards the end of last year and which will report to Cabinet by the end of February. The existence of that group, which is chaired by Jim Wallace and on which I serve with a number of other ministers, is well known.
Bruce Crawford and others have argued that there is a need for better co-ordination across Scotland of the different flood interests that I have described, including, among others, the emergency services, local authorities, SEPA and Scottish Water. That is one of the issues that the ad hoc group is considering and on which it will produce recommendations.
Bruce Crawford and his colleagues have sniped from the sidelines and chattered about missed opportunities.
The minister referred to the ad hoc group of ministers. This week, Jim Wallace indicated to me in a reply to a parliamentary question that that group had met twice, that it is not taking evidence from witnesses and that a paper will go to the Cabinet in February. When will that paper come into the public domain?
I expect that the paper will be made public shortly after the Cabinet has considered and approved its contents. Everybody will then have the opportunity to approve its contents. I believe that the paper will be warmly welcomed, not least in the member's constituency, where the Executive has moved swiftly and effectively to address flooding problems. I witnessed those problems when I visited Moray.
The Executive has acted and not engaged in the kind of semantic debate that Bruce Crawford would like to have. We do not pretend, as Bruce Crawford does, that we can solve all our flooding problems through the bill—that is patently ridiculous. In contrast with what Bruce Crawford has proposed, we have a structure in place that will deliver effective change where it is needed. For all those reasons and many others besides, I ask members not to support amendment 29.
Amendment 84 is identical to amendment 95, which the Transport and the Environment Committee rejected at stage 2. I can only repeat the case that we made at stage 2 in the hope that the Parliament will similarly reject amendment 84.
Amendment 84 seeks to amend schedule 1. The amendment would require a summary of the programme of measures to be applied to achieve sustainable flood management to be included in the river basin management plan, but that is unnecessary. Paragraph 6 of schedule 1 already provides that a summary of the programme of measures designed to achieve the environmental objectives that are set under the bill will be included in the river basin management plan. Measures relating to sustainable flood management, which I have discussed, will be included where relevant. It would be inconsistent to list only the measures that are aimed at the sustainable management of flooding while omitting all the other measures—for example, the measures that are aimed at tackling pollution, which are absolutely central to protecting and conserving our water environment for future generations.
We are discussing an environmental bill. It is important that sustainable flood management is given its place within that bill, but it is only one aspect of a broadly based and important piece of environmental legislation that will protect and conserve our water bodies for future generations. I ask Nora Radcliffe not to move amendment 84.
I move amendment 1.
I acknowledge that the Executive has come a long way in improving the bill with respect to flood management. It is good that the Executive's amendments recognise the Transport and the Environment Committee's desire to ensure that sustainable flood management and an integrated approach will be delivered.
In particular, amendment 1, in the name of Ross Finnie, is a positive contribution to the bill. However, while that amendment improves the bill, members will not be surprised to discover that I think that it does not go far enough in outlining ministers' specific responsibilities with regard to the preparation of a national flood strategy for Scotland. I hope that the minister accepts that I have been consistent in prosecuting the case for such a strategy.
Why do I continue to press that case? As I stated, the Executive's amendment 1 will improve matters. It will place in the bill words that should rightly appear in it, such as "sustainable" and "integrated". However, on their own, those words do not put in place a framework that will ensure that a strategic, focused and cohesive approach will be taken with regard to national policy and decision taking. Only if we place a duty on ministers to prepare and lay before the Parliament a national strategy for sustainable flood management will a strategic, focused and cohesive approach be achievable.
On 30 October 2002, Sarah Boyack stated in the chamber:
"The bill should set the framework for a coherent overview on flood prevention and management."
Des McNulty stated:
"I agree with some of Bruce Crawford's comments about flooding; for example, that we must have co-ordinated flood management systems. Indeed, we might well have to come up with a national flooding strategy"—[Official Report, 30 October 2002; c 14740, 14736-14737.]
Why did they support the concept of a national approach? They are concerned about the national overview and the fact that flood management will continue to be over-reliant on concrete flood defences and flood warnings.
The River Kelvin, for example, has its own flood protection system, but East Dunbartonshire Council has not consulted Glasgow City Council on areas where the river runs through Glasgow. That proves that there must be much more strategic thinking.
The minister used examples that involve grant schemes being run by local authorities. He misses the point that we should manage the process from the top, as well as use the bottom-up approach that is taken in the bill. If we are to avoid misery for householders and businesses, a much more proactive approach is needed. As WWF Scotland stated in its report "Turning the Tide on Flooding" in November 2002:
"With no national overview in Scotland, flood management is reduced to over-reliance on concrete defences and flood warnings."
WWF Scotland supports a national strategy because it recognises that only ministers have their hands on the levers of change that can make a substantial improvement to how Scotland deals with flooding. Only ministers can provide the policy overview that is required in agriculture, forestry, planning and industrial activity. Only ministers can effect real policy changes on land use through the issue of national planning guidelines. Only ministers can make the required changes to national policy in an integrated and cohesive manner and provide financial incentives to encourage the change from a hard, concrete approach to a softer, flood alleviation approach that works with flood plains and does not straitjacket them.
If ever there were an example of why that strategy is required, it can be seen in today's Executive press release in the name of Ross Finnie. The second last paragraph states:
"By incorporating a provision on sustainable flood management, we are reinforcing the existing approach whereby local authorities consider flood alleviation".
I do not think that the existing approach has worked very successfully.
The bill should be about people as much as about the environment. We must do all that we can to ensure that the miseries and hardships that are experienced by human beings as a result of flooding occurrences are kept to a minimum. New responsibilities are placed on SEPA, local authorities and others—that is proper—but Scottish ministers, as the strategic policy makers, should be required by statute to develop a national flooding strategy, to provide the leadership to drive forward the changes in national policy and to provide the funding mechanisms that are required.
The minister has made it plain that he will not accept amendment 29. I understand from the minister's comments that the ad hoc group on flooding—a group that is so important that it has met only twice in the past year—will report by the end of February. Will the minister, when he sums up, advise us whether the ad hoc group will give serious consideration to setting up a national flood action group?
As Scottish Environment LINK said in a briefing that we received this morning:
"In other areas where action is being taken to determine the best way forward there is a national overview group. In few areas can there be a more urgent need for such an action plan. Yet without a national group with an overview to design a route map for action across Scotland—there will be none."
Will the minister take that point on board today?
Amendment 84 seeks to ensure that information relating to sustainable flood management measures will be included in the river basin management plan. The amendment does not require direct action on flooding, but would ensure that the information about what is being done by bodies with responsibilities for various aspects of flooding is kept with, and as part of, the river basin plan. If the minister can assure me that that will happen, I will probably not move the amendment.
Amendments 1, 2 and 3 tidy up previous important amendments, which placed flood management and integration in the bill. I would welcome a ministerial assurance that integration will be not only preached but practised throughout Executive departments.
On amendment 29, I see the merit of a national overview of flood management, but a top-down approach is not appropriate. I would like something similar to the national waste strategy plan, which involved local authority waste plans being fed up to build the strategy. We need a similar bottom-up approach to flooding issues that recognises the local authorities' role.
I welcome the Executive amendments in the group and the fact that they will strengthen the sustainable flood management approach. I also welcome the fact that an integrated approach to dealing with the issues will be flagged up and put in statute.
I want to flag up the renewable energy industry's concerns about the application of the bill to the development of hydroelectricity schemes. The industry is worried not only about new hydroelectricity schemes, but about the bill's potential impact on existing schemes. That is why I welcome the bill's commitment to sustainable development and to an integrated approach that cuts across Executive departments. We need clarity and an approach that brings together the key players, including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage and the renewables industry to discuss the bill's implications and how those players can work together under the water framework directive. The hydroelectricity industry is concerned that the bill might cut across existing developments by requiring new licences. We need an integrated approach.
The Executive's policies on climate change and renewable energy targets must also be recognised. The issues must be dealt with together and we must achieve the right balance and a consistent approach from SEPA, SNH and the Executive, so that everybody knows where they stand as the bill is implemented. Further evaluations and regulations will come from the bill and it is important that the key players are involved in that.
I want to speak against amendment 29. Although I support fully Bruce Crawford's suggestion that there be a strategic approach and a national overview on flooding, I am not convinced that the bill is the right, or best, place to make such a commitment. I welcomed Allan Wilson's announcement before Christmas about the Cabinet sub-committee, which would be a far better vehicle for pursuit of that objective. We must broaden our approach to the issue; it is not purely about the water environment or natural flood defences as opposed to built flood defences. The bill is only a starting point and its provisions must be developed further. I welcome the amendments that were agreed to at stage 2, which strengthened the bill, but I want us to go an awful lot further. We must work with the insurance industry to look after the 170,000 people throughout Scotland who are at risk from flooding.
Today we will set a legislative framework, but we must ensure that action happens throughout Executive departments and the private sector. I would like the minister to commit to that. I welcome the minister's commitment—I do not know whether other members noticed it—to review and modernise the existing legislation on flooding, which is very old. We should consider the mechanisms that are in place to deal with coastal flooding.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you—I am in the final minute of my speech.
I want the sub-committee that Allan Wilson set up to pull together the issues and, after it has reported at the end of February, to supplement the legislative framework that we will put in place today through consideration of the existing legislation.
Amendments 1 to 3 are broadly welcomed by the Parliament: I, too, welcome them. However, it will not surprise anyone if I speak in favour of amendment 29. As members know, Moray has suffered several floods recently, including one last November, which was a disaster. I am sure that the minister agrees that, during his visit there, we saw places that looked like war zones because people's possessions were in skips outside their houses. I have heard many people say that they will never go back to their houses because they have been flooded three or even five times.
Last Monday, I attended a meeting in Elgin town hall at which more than 400 people were present. I know that the Presiding Officer would rule me out of order if I repeated some of the comments that were made at that meeting so, for the sake of propriety, I will not do so. However, there is great anger in areas where there is regular flooding. People feel that it takes a great deal of time to deal with the issues, which is why a national strategy is important.
During stage 1 consideration of the bill, the minister said that he favoured a national approach. He went on to discuss river basins, but added:
"that does not mean to say that we should not have a national strategy."—[Official Report, 30 October 2002; c 14755.]
Reasons for having a national strategy include the cost of examining the options that are available to local authorities in flood risk areas, and the time that it takes to examine those options and to reach appropriate decisions. If we had a national strategy, resources could be pooled to allow councils to help one another. I am sure that the lessons that are being learned in Moray might be of advantage elsewhere.
There is some urgency about the issue. No one has mentioned the European dimension, which I highlighted in a question to the First Minister soon after the floods in Moray. The First Minister promised that he would say in writing whether the Executive was making representations to the European Commission to secure funding to deal with flooding disasters, in addition to resources from the solidarity fund, which the European Union approved last September. There are resources available that could help us to introduce an effective national strategy to deal with flooding and to protect people.
The minister mentioned insurance. I understand that the Executive has not yet made contact directly with the Association of British Insurers, but many of the people who attended the meeting in Elgin on Monday asked what was happening to their premiums. They wonder whether they will get a payout and whether they will ever again be able to reinsure their domestic and business properties.
I declare my interest as a farmer.
The Conservative party welcomes amendment 1, which makes provision for the promotion of sustainable flood management. The lack of flood management provision in the bill as introduced was a glaring omission and we welcome the minister's acknowledgement of the Transport and the Environment Committee's position on the issue and on matters of integration.
I am attracted by amendment 29, in the name of Bruce Crawford, which calls for a national strategy for sustainable flood management to be developed. None of us knows how much global warming will increase the risk of flooding, but it is sensible to have in place a plan that will enable us to cope. As I said in the stage 1 debate on the bill, if flood frequency and volumes increase significantly beyond the current normal flooding levels, there will be a need for more Government funding for specific river basin flood prevention schemes to be made available.
There will be competing demands on Government funding for such schemes. An appraisal process that allows us to evaluate the need for one project against another will need to be developed, and that can be achieved only if an overarching national flood plan or strategy is in place to begin with. That strategy should be created by SEPA or the Executive and implemented by local authorities, with financial assistance from the Government.
We must be prepared for the worst-case scenarios that Margaret Ewing described. For that reason, I welcome amendment 29.
I congratulate the Executive on responding to an amendment that I lodged during stage 2 and I thank it for doing so. The water meadow of my expectations has been gently flooded by the sagacity and wisdom of the Executive.
However, one stream runs slightly muddy. I would like the minister to explain exactly what the Executive means by the phrase "so far as practicable" in paragraph (c) of the proposed new subsection that amendment 1 would introduce. Can the Executive conceive of situations in which it would not be practicable for councils and other stakeholders to adopt an integrated approach and to co-operate with one another? Proposed subsection (c) is still a bit flimsy and requires explanation.
On Bruce Crawford's amendment 29, it is up to the Executive to tell us why we should not vote for that amendment, because I am disposed to vote for it. Margaret Ewing, in her remarks on corporation and finance, said that amendment 29 was sensible. I draw the minister's attention to my support for Sarah Boyack's point about building on the excellent work that coastal forums have done, particularly the Forth coastal forum.
First, it is important that we acknowledge that during the bill's passage the Executive paid considerable attention to measures that were called for by members of the Transport and the Environment Committee, groups outwith the Parliament and members of the Parliament. In particular, the amendments that the Executive lodged at stage 2 and the amendments to those amendments that the minister has lodged for today's debate were born of amendments that were initially lodged by my colleagues Des McNulty and Sarah Boyack. Credit goes to those members for introducing the issues and to the Executive for responding positively to them. The Transport and the Environment Committee in its stage 1 report said that the bill should be an occasion for us to acknowledge the role of river basin management plans in addressing the problem of flooding.
I call on Bruce Crawford to reflect a bit more on what the minister said in his opening speech. The minister acknowledged that the amendments to which he spoke contained the power to promote sustainable flood management. He also drew attention to recent sustainable flood management measures that have been put in place and acknowledged that section 20 will introduce new powers that will require future schemes to gain consent for engineering works in and around bodies of water. A little acknowledgement of all those measures would be appreciated.
I am grateful to Mr Muldoon for drawing my attention to that. Obviously, I heard clearly what the minister said, but I did not necessarily accept entirely his rationale for asking me not to move amendment 29. I draw Mr Muldoon's attention to this question: if it is appropriate for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to have a national strategy for England, why is not it appropriate for the Scottish Executive to have a national strategy for Scotland?
It is remarkable that the SNP argues for identical policies to be adopted north and south of the border for every issue.
However, I draw Bruce Crawford's attention to the actions of the ad hoc group of ministers, which is considering arrangements for addressing flood risk, and how advice and support are provided to those who are at risk from, and affected by, flooding. I also draw his attention to the actions that have been taken on a second generation of flood risk maps, and to the fact that the ad hoc ministerial group is considering issues such as the operation of flood alerts, flood warning systems, and local authorities' duties and responsibilities. I do not think that it matters whether all that is called a strategy. It seems to me that a comprehensive set of policies is being put in place to address flood management in the future. The test will come when the ministerial group reports to Parliament; I am sure that we will consider the issue in due course.
Finally, the SNP would have a great deal more credibility on the issue if it were consistent. I draw members' attention to the fact that the Executive's ability to respond to flood emergencies is due largely to its use of resources from the contingency fund. The SNP, of course, would exhaust that fund in order to pursue its flagship policies, because it does not have the guts to propose raising taxes to pay for all of its policies.
It has been welcome to hear around the chamber the tone of support for more effective flood management measures. No one should underestimate the distress and upset that flooding causes to individual households and families. I have had dealings with several different categories of flooding over the years. When I was a councillor in Rutherglen, we had serious flooding in the west end and Spittal areas of Rutherglen, which flooded many people from their houses. Those people often did not have insurance cover. There has also been flooding of the River Cart and more recent flooding in Shettleston in the east end of Glasgow, where I visited shortly after the flood had happened. The debris from flooding and the damage that is done to individuals' lives must be seen to be believed in such instances.
It is extremely important that we have effective public policies in place to prevent and alleviate flooding. I welcome the Executive's commitment to that, but success will be judged in due course by the measures' effectiveness—we must be sure that the measures that are proposed will do the trick.
I will lay one or two concerns before the Parliament. It is important that we consider the national and local aspects of the matter. Nora Radcliffe touched on that. The local river basin management plans must be the key; national strategies are all very well, but I am not one of those who has a huge belief in targets and strategies because, ultimately, it is what happens on the ground that counts. The focus must be on local strategies and on delivery in the local areas, specifically the river basins with which we are concerned.
In the case of the Clyde, we have a patchwork of local authorities up and down the river, from the city of Glasgow in the middle, to the various Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and Dunbartonshire authorities. The Executive's policy has been to regard Glasgow City Council as the lead authority in the matter, to base its strategy around that and to view that as a partnership, but I have some scepticism as to whether that will work in the long term. I ask the minister to accept that, in future, it might be necessary to look for more effective mechanisms if the existing ones do not work. I was never especially a believer in the two-tier structure of local government, but there is no doubt that the abolition of the regional councils has left a strategic gap in many matters—flood control and water control being one.
I echo Robin Harper's comments on proposed paragraph (c) in amendment 1. That paragraph makes the amendment fairly mealy-mouthed with its references to "so far as practicable", "co-operating with each other" and "co-ordinating". One struggles to find much meaning in that paragraph. I am not so concerned with legislation, because it sets the framework. Money, resources, co-operation and the way that things work are important. If the minister reassures us on some of those matters I, like Nora Radcliffe, envisage considerable movement forward and more effective dealings in matters such as those about which we have been talking.
I call Alan Wilson to respond to the debate. You have 10 minutes, minister, and more if you want.
No!
There are cries of "No!" from the back. I will take considerably less time than that, and, I hope, secure consensus that the approach that we have adopted is the correct one.
As Bruce Crawford, John Scott and Robin Harper know, it is not the case that we do not have a strategy per se, because we do—I referred to it in my opening remarks. It is also not the case that that strategy cannot be improved or better co-ordinated: it can. We set up the ad hoc Cabinet committee on flooding to consider that and, contrary to the suggestion from some quarters, we have taken evidence. Part of that evidence has suggested that we might wish to consider a national forum on flood management of the type that amendment 29 envisages.
If Margaret Ewing does not mind, I will let her intervene later.
My point is simply that the bill is not the appropriate vehicle through which to introduce such a forum. My argument is based on the points that Margaret Ewing made, ostensibly in support of amendment 29, but which actually underpin my argument.
In the bill, which is about protecting and conserving our water environment, we can certainly consider sustainable flood management in a riverine context or an urban context in terms of sustainable urban drainage. The wider impact of flood management includes the provision of low-cost insurance for poorer people and the response of the emergency services in life-threatening circumstances in the aftermath of or during a flood, when they are protecting life and limb and are not simply trying to secure property and possessions. To take in the whole range of responses across the departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions and other responsible Whitehall departments, is an argument for an all-embracing strategy that would be beyond the bill's scope. That is my simple point, which I believe stands up to scrutiny.
I have asked several written questions about the ad hoc committee. I have asked from whom that committee was taking evidence and the reply has always been, "We do not intend to take evidence." I would have thought that evidence should have been taken from local authorities and the relevant organisations in many areas.
On low-cost insurance, following the 1997 floods, the SNP Moray Council introduced low-cost insurance whereby people could pay a small amount alongside their rent to ensure that they had cover. That is a good scheme that could be pooled for the benefit of the country.
There is no easy way to say this, but Margaret Ewing is wrong on two counts. The sub-committee has taken evidence from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities which, among others, has made a number of important contributions to the process. It is simply not true that we have not had meetings with the Association of British Insurers. We continue to have meetings with that association, which we met most recently in December last year. It is not true that the Cabinet sub-committee is divorced from everything else that is going on in relation to flood management, the response of emergency services and the important issue of insurance, particularly for poorer families. It is important that I nail that myth.
Similarly, the measures in the bill that promote sustainable flood management will give the very powers that Bruce Crawford seeks in relation to the new national river basin management planning process. They will bring together all the relevant players from Scottish Water, SEPA, COSLA and everybody else who has an interest in sustainable flood management, such as the Forestry Commission and the non-governmental organisations to which Robert Brown referred.
The planning process is in place, not just nationally but at a catchment level, which addresses Robert Brown's question on how we will bring together local authorities on a catchment-area basis. That is precisely what we will do at sub-river basin management planning level. In giving SEPA the lead, we will ensure that the circumstances to which Bruce Crawford referred—whereby there is no dialogue between Glasgow City Council, East Dunbartonshire Council and any other council, for that matter—will no longer exist. The discussions and debates will be able to take place at that level.
I accept the minister's assurances in that regard. However, does he accept that the slightly narrow viewpoint of any individual council can sometimes be a deterrent in implementing the necessary measures on a bigger scale? I wonder whether the partnership approach is quite enough in that context.
I accept that. By giving SEPA lead responsibility in the process and—which is important—giving it consent powers under section 20, we have the provision to bang together the necessary heads at local authority level to ensure that the problem is addressed on a catchment basis. That way, problems that are caused upstream or downstream can be taken into account in the engineering process.
I give Nora Radcliffe and Robin Harper the requisite reassurance that they sought on integration. Robin Harper asked about the phrase "so far as practicable". That phrase applies specifically in relation to planning. As he knows, the local authority's role is to decide on initial or individual applications. Scottish ministers, rightly, will have a different role subsequently in relation to laying down regulations and standards for the applications and perhaps considering appeals. It is not always the case that the two roles will coincide.
I turn to the important points that Sarah Boyack made on hydroelectricity. We are aware of concerns that have been raised by Scottish and Southern Energy plc and others that certain aspects of the bill will threaten our renewable energy targets. We have had extensive discussions, which we will continue.
We have a tremendous renewable energy resource, to which hydroelectricity makes a significant contribution. If a particular water body meets the criteria for derogation as a heavily modified water body, objectives that do not compromise the social, environmental and economic benefits of modification can be set. Members should remember that we are talking about an enabling measure. The bill will not threaten our important drive for more renewable energy.
Only this morning, I met the chairman of the Scottish Coastal Forum and discussed the prospect of developing throughout Scotland a more strategic approach to coastal zone management within the European context. I expect great things from that development.
I ask Bruce Crawford not to move amendment 29. If he is unwilling not to move it, I invite members to reject it.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 3—The water environment: definitions
Amendment 4 is grouped with amendments 6, 7 and 17 to 23 inclusive. I ask members who are leaving to keep the noise down.
At stage 2, the Transport and the Environment Committee agreed to a number of amendments that gave the protection of wetlands a more prominent and explicit place in the bill. Although we fully accept the thrust of those amendments, we believe that, on balance, the definition of "wetlands" that was inserted at stage 2 is too wide. It suggests that almost any piece of wet land in Scotland could constitute a wetland. We highlighted that issue at stage 2 and pledged to return to it at stage 3.
Amendment 4 seeks to refine the definition of "wetland" in the bill to clarify that a wetland is
"directly dependent, with regard to its water needs, on a body of groundwater or a body of surface water".
That would make it clear that a wetland is not simply any piece of land that spends some time under water.
A number of the other Executive amendments in the group would remove drafting irregularities that were introduced by amendments at stage 2. Amendment 6 would delete a non-Executive amendment to section 4(2) that added surface water and wetlands to the component parts of a river basin district. That amendment was unnecessary, given that the definition of a river basin already comprised all inland surface waters and areas of land from which all surface water run-off flows. Wetlands were included in that definition.
Amendment 7 deals with a non-Executive amendment that amended section 4(3). Section 4(3) clarifies the situation relating to the allocation of groundwater bodies or bodies of coastal waters to the appropriate river basin district. The reference to surface water that was inserted is unnecessary, too. As a result of the definition of "river basin district" that is given in section 4(2) and the definition of "river basin" that is given in section 25, it will be clear in all cases to which river basin district surface water belongs. The reference to wetlands is also unnecessary, as wetlands will naturally fall into the same river basin district as the body of water on which they are directly dependent.
Amendment 17 seeks to reinstate the original wording of section 20(3)(b). It is clear that abstractions from bodies of surface water or groundwater will not be allowed to damage the condition of the wetlands that are dependent on those bodies of water. Therefore, the stage 2 amendment that substituted the reference to abstraction from the water environment for the original wording was unnecessary and, rather than clarify the bill, served to obscure it.
Amendment 20 is consequential to amendment 17 and would tighten the definition of "abstraction" to bring it into line with the change that is suggested by amendment 17.
Amendment 18 is another amendment that would reverse changes introduced by amendment at stage 2. Section 20(3)(c) as introduced allowed for regulations to be made concerning the construction, alteration or operation of impounding works in bodies of surface water. The stage 2 amendment attempted to widen that power to allow regulations to control impoundments in groundwaters and wetlands by referring to "the water environment" rather than "bodies of surface water". We can foresee no circumstances in which impounding groundwater or the water in wetlands is possible. Amendment 18 would therefore reinstate the original wording. Members should be reassured that regulations will take account of the impact of impoundments of surface water bodies on wetlands.
Amendment 21, which is consequential to amendment 18, would clarify that the definition of "impounding works" relates to a body of surface water.
Amendment 19 would similarly tighten up the wording that was introduced by amendment at stage 2. Section 20(3)(d) as amended allows for regulations to control
"building, engineering or other works in, or in the vicinity of, the water environment".
Again, that is unnecessary. Amendment 19 would reinstate the original wording of section 20(3)(d), so that regulations would apply to
"building, engineering or other works in, or in the vicinity of, any body of inland surface water".
The bill is about the effective protection of the water environment. We do not want to get into a situation in which we needlessly duplicate powers to control engineering works at sea, for example.
Amendment 22 would make it clear that the definition of "pollution" relates to "the water environment", and not simply to "surface water or groundwater". Therefore, pollution of wetlands would also be covered. The amendment responds to a series of related amendments that were agreed to at stage 2.
Amendment 23, which is consequential to amendment 22, would insert further wording to clarify that the definition of "pollution" means the harmful introduction of substances by humans to the water environment, which includes wetlands.
I move amendment 4.
I welcome the fact that the Executive has recognised and accepted the importance that the committee placed on wetlands. I also welcome the fact that the Executive has recognised that we were looking for integration of activities across sectors.
I want to question the minister on amendments 17, 19, 20 and 21. I seek not so much direct answers as assurances about those amendments, which would change the bill as amended at stage 2.
On amendments 17, 20 and 21, will the minister assure us that his proposed changes would still protect wetlands? In particular, would amendment 17 protect wetlands from being drained or affected by the activities of others vis-à-vis abstraction and impounding upstream? In mentioning the impact of impoundments on wetlands, the minister said that his amendments would guarantee that wetlands would be protected. I ask the minister to explain that a little bit further, as I was not quite reassured from his opening remarks that impounding and abstraction activities would not affect wetlands. Therefore, I am not sure that we should remove the wording that protects wetlands.
I am much more concerned about amendment 19. I hope that I am not the only person who did not understand the minister's explanation of why we need the amendment. If we were to agree to amendment 19, we would lose the objective of integration, from river all the way through to coastal waters. The definition of "water environment" includes transitional waters, inland waters and coastal waters. Given that definition, why does amendment 19 appear to seek to chop the river away from its coastal connection to the sea? We need a bit more detail on that.
With the possible exception of amendment 19, on which I may agree with Fiona McLeod, I am inclined to support the minister's position on the amendments in group 2.
I take the view that it is unnecessary to broaden the scope of the bill to include wetlands in every definition. We have heard the minister's explanations that including wetlands would extend the scope of the bill—its provisions would cover not 2 per cent but 9 per cent of Scotland's landmass. Those figures were given at stage 2 when he asserted that SNH supported the Executive's position, and that there is no European legislative requirement to extend to wetlands the protection afforded to rivers, lochs and coastal waters.
The characterisation costs of such an extension of scope would be significant and unnecessary, given the protection already afforded under existing directives, legislation and designations. Pursuing the inclusion of wetlands significantly beyond the scope of the bill as introduced would gold-plate the bill unnecessarily. That, combined with the huge costs involved, leaves us largely supporting the Executive's position and its amendments in this group.
However, we also have reservations about amendment 19. I seek a reassurance that the effect of that amendment would not be wholly negative and leave coastal protection out of the overall integrated approach that we were hoping to take.
Amendment 4 would tighten up the definition of wetlands. I have no problem with that.
On amendments 6 and 7, I can accept that the references to surface water and wetlands should be removed because they would naturally be included in the characterisation of a river basin, whereas a body of groundwater might underlie more than one river basin, and a body of coastal water is adjacent to and not part of a river basin.
Amendment 17 refers to abstraction and I can accept that it is not likely that people will abstract from wetlands, although I am concerned about collateral damage if abstraction were to occur elsewhere. Amendment 18 refers to impounding and it is fair enough to say that that is likely to apply only to surface water. Amendments 20 and 21 are consequential to amendment 18.
I welcome amendments 22 and 23 because they would give a wider definition. However, I too have a lot of difficulty with amendment 19. It seems to me that building, engineering or other works could impinge on any part of the water environment. It is therefore quite important to keep that wider definition in the bill. I do not understand why we would want to limit powers to regulate the inland surface water environment only.
I reiterate Fiona McLeod's point that coastal waters would be excluded if we agreed to amendment 19. That could mean that coastal flood defences could be built that could lead to erosion further along the coast or without consideration for provision of inland flood management. Agreeing to amendment 19 would not allow us to fulfil the holistic and integrated ethos of the bill.
I welcome amendment 4, which seeks to introduce a new definition of wetlands. I was one of the committee members who was concerned that the amendment that had been lodged—with the best of intentions—at stage 2 broadened the definition of wetlands too far to include areas of ground that were prone to frequent inundation or saturation by water. Many of us felt that that definition could be far too broad. Certainly, it would have covered my local golf course for most of last year, as well as many other parts of Scotland that I do not think are intended to be brought within the ambit of the bill.
I, too, want to ask the minister about amendment 19. The bill's ambit is intended to include coastal waters up to a 3-mile limit. I acknowledge that the minister said that the intention behind amendment 19 was to avoid duplicating other legislation that controls development in such areas. When he responds to the debate, I ask him to clarify which measure would be thus duplicated. Was consideration given to repealing the relevant parts of those measures to ensure that the entire bill is consistent in protecting coastal waters in the same way as it will protect all other aspects of the water environment?
In speaking to this group of amendments, I will echo some of the points that have been raised about amendment 19, which certainly gives me cause for concern. I want to concentrate on some general questions that have been put to me on the water environment as defined in the bill—I want to obtain the answers from the minister.
The policy memorandum, which I have read carefully, refers to improving environmental aspects, but it does not mention the infrastructure requirements. There is a need to clarify the control mechanism that may be imposed because, on the whole, local authorities will take on responsibility for that. There is also a need to clarify whether improvements may be necessary to existing arrangements to enhance the quality of delivery.
The bill's accompanying documents do not go into great detail, but the reference in paragraph 57 of the policy memorandum to "Water Resources Management Strategies"—which are part and parcel of group 2, because they involve the regulation and control of the abstraction and impoundment of water—should be clarified. Can the minister advise whether those strategies will be additional to existing requirements to promote a scheme using the flood prevention order mechanism that is conferred by the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961?
It would be helpful if the minister would address those important points. If he does not feel that he can do so immediately, he could write to me about them. However, I would like him to clarify them during this discussion.
I welcome the inclusion of wetlands in the definition of "water environment" when those wetlands are directly dependent on a body of groundwater or surface water, such as a river. As Bristow Muldoon said, had it been otherwise, there would have been a danger of the whole country being included in wetlands at some time or other.
Transport and the Environment Committee members were impressed by their visit to Insh marshes in Strathspey, which was hosted by RSPB Scotland. The Insh marshes are part of the flood plain of the River Spey and are an important haven for wildlife. What is more, if the Spey were constrained from flooding at the Insh marshes, flooding would probably occur in Aviemore. Therefore, the marshes play a natural part in flood control.
I urge the Executive to investigate how flood plains can be restored over time to their former natural use where they have been changed by farming practices, and to examine how the environment and rural affairs department can support the farmers and crofters who manage those lands as wetlands, with consequent advantages for flood control and wildlife.
I have previously asked the Minister for Environment and Rural Development if land management contracts could play a part in integrating good environmental stewardship by farmers with water environment requirements. Has he given any further thought to that suggestion?
A number of interesting points were raised in the course of the debate on this group of amendments.
On amendment 17, about which clarification was sought, we have to be clear that we must not allow abstractions to damage the condition of wetlands that are dependent on bodies of surface water or groundwater. It is also clear that the effect on all bodies of water, including wetlands, will have to be taken into account in granting any licences.
Some members raised concerns as to whether amendment 19 might exclude a number of coastal and transitional waters and estuaries that otherwise form an integral part of the bill. I apologise to members if I did not make sufficiently clear the fact that the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 already controls engineering works in such excluded waters. In Scotland, controls currently extend in the Tay as far as Perth, so there are already controls to take care of those specific activities. Amendment 19 would cover the area that is not controlled.
As Bristow Muldoon said, the minister referred to other pieces of legislation that will cover those waters, but will they be reviewed in light of the bill—which we will pass today—if it is necessary to do so to achieve its objective of integration?
Yes. I am grateful for Fiona McLeod's constructive remark. We all understood the enormous scope of the bill—particularly during stage 2—and therefore the difficulties in being clear. Members are unanimous about that integrated approach and although the controls exist in the 1985 act, I am most anxious to ensure that the degree of integration to which she refers is achieved.
It has been put to me that the legislation that governs the matters under discussion is almost out of date and does not provide for the consultation that is part of the bill. In that sense, the existing legislation is not as modern as the bill. Will the minister reassure us about that?
I will respond to both Fiona McLeod and John Scott. We must remember that the bill is enabling legislation, so the Parliament will have the ability to develop the concept over a long time scale. For once, we are way ahead on implementing an essential and important European directive. Therefore, I can give the assurance that was requested.
In response to the questions that were asked by Margaret Bain—[Members: "Margaret Ewing."]—my apologies. Dearie me—that is quite alarming. I think that I will write to Margaret Ewing to apologise and to respond to her questions.
That takes me neatly on to Maureen Macmillan's questions on land management contracts. I am becoming worried that such contracts will be seen as the sorter of everything. As I said, the bill is enabling legislation, and it will be important for us to consider all aspects. The thrust of the bill is having an impact on all the Executive's thinking about taking a more integrated approach to our environmental considerations and to activities that have an impact on the agri-environment. I hope that I have responded to all the points, which I will pursue.
I return to amendment 19. Until the minister answered John Scott, I thought that we were getting somewhere. We know that the bill is about integration and achieving through consultation, but to ensure that we can agree to amendment 19, will the minister assure us that the acts to which he referred will be re-examined, in a consultative manner, in the light of the bill as an integratory measure?
Absolutely. I am in no doubt that if any amendment is required, that will be because of the different approach and requirements in the bill. The drive for any change will come from the bill, so the approach will be appropriate to that.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Amendment 5 is grouped with amendments 8 to 15, and amendment 25.
I am pleased to speak to amendment 5, which deals with the important issues of publicity for and participation in river basin planning.
Amendments 11 and 12 will add new subparagraphs to section 11(5) and provide that SEPA must take such steps as it thinks fit to encourage the persons who are listed in subsection (6) to participate appropriately in preparing the river basin management plan.
Amendment 12 is a consequential amendment and specifies that the persons who are to be consulted are those who are referred to in section 11(5)(c), which says that consultees are listed in subsection (6). Amendments 11 and 12 are important in so far as they fulfil another commitment that I made at stage 2 to strengthen the provisions in the bill for actively involving people in the management of our unique and precious water environment.
At stage 2, members of the Transport and the Environment Committee made it clear that traditional reactive consultation was not good enough for river basin management planning. The committee said that the protection of our rivers, lochs, coastal waters and groundwater is too important to leave to a simple consultation process. I agree, which is why the Executive has lodged its amendments in this grouping.
The amendments require SEPA to be proactive in encouraging those with an interest in the water environment to be proactive in the river basin planning process. I am confident that the Executive amendments will secure widespread support in the chamber.
Amendments 10 and 13 to 15 represent our response to the committee's desire to make greater provision in the bill for measures that will increase public awareness of and participation in the river basin management process. They address issues that were raised and amendments that were lodged by Des McNulty, which I accepted in principle at stage 2, and fulfil a promise that I made at that stage.
Amendment 10 ensures that, when publishing the statement, summary or draft plan that is required under section 11, SEPA must publicise that it has done so. It must also publicise the arrangements for making copies of the document available for public inspection, and the opportunity to make representations to SEPA about the document.
Amendment 13 introduces new duties on SEPA where it is required to publicise any matter relating to river basin management plans under sections 11, 12 or 13. SEPA will be required to do so by means of a notice placed in at least one national newspaper and in such local newspapers circulating in the river basin district as SEPA thinks fit. Amendment 13 also allows for publicity to be disseminated by electronic means, which I believe is an important addition to Des McNulty's stage 2 amendment, which contained no reference to dissemination by electronic methods.
Amendment 14 ensures that when a river basin management plan is submitted for approval to Scottish ministers, SEPA must publicise its arrangements for making such documents available for public inspection. Amendment 15 is similar, and ensures that when Scottish ministers approve a river basin management plan, SEPA must publicise the fact and the arrangements for making copies of the plan available for public inspection.
At stage 2, Fiona McLeod withdrew amendment 156 in response to my commitment to come back at stage 3 with a suitably worded Executive amendment that would ensure the fullest possible access to the information that will be produced to support river basin planning. I hope that Fiona McLeod agrees that amendment 25 fulfils the commitment that I made. Members may have seen the letter I wrote to her about the amendment, which I copied to the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee.
Amendment 25 requires that, as a very minimum, documents be made available in print and electronically. The amendment also allows the information to be made available
"by such other means, or in such other formats"
as is thought to be
"fit for the purpose of encouraging the inspection of it by members of the public."
I am sure that Fiona McLeod will agree that that addition is important. It requires SEPA to be creative in ensuring that those who wish to participate in river basin planning are given the information that they need to be involved in the most effective manner and in the format that is most suitable to them.
The provision in amendment 25 for SEPA to make available documents "by such other means" is important in that context. It means that, when maps or diagrams, which—as members can imagine—are very important to the process, are not easily transferable to formats such as audio or Braille whose use is designed to encourage inspection by people whose hearing or sight is impaired, SEPA will be expected to arrange for a member of staff to talk through the plans at SEPA offices or over the telephone. The Equal Opportunities Committee asked us to include that provision in the bill. I am happy to be able to do so through amendment 25.
Amendments 5, 8 and 9 tidy up inconsistencies in the drafting of the bill in relation to whether maps and other documents are kept available or made available, which is an important distinction. The bill will include references to requirements for documents to be both kept and made available for public inspection. There is no real difference in intention, but we should be consistent, and I propose that "make" is the better term to use. The amendments change the wording in the bill accordingly from "keep" to "make".
I move amendment 5.
Again, the SNP and the committee must acknowledge the consideration that the Executive has shown in listening to what we have said.
I shall briefly address amendments 13 and 25. Proposed section 11(10)(a)(ii) states that SEPA should publish a notice in a local newspaper circulating in the river basin district. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to refer to the sub-basin area, as the river basin district covers the whole of Scotland. However, I appreciate that the minister has taken our thoughts on board.
In relation to amendment 25, I give my personal thanks for the letter, and for the consultation in which we have been involved. However, I have another slight suggestion. Paragraph (b) of the proposed new section states that the information is to be provided in such other formats as the organisation thinks fit. I suggest that that needs more to back it up, perhaps some guidelines.
I welcomed the minister's comments this afternoon that SEPA would have to provide someone to talk through and explain information, but I should like to see guidelines to support that. The reason why I ask for that is that I hope that we will get some imaginative solutions, rather than the standards ones, to providing information in a variety of formats. I have been thinking about information being provided to a specific group of users who may want to consider a particular aspect of the plans. It also strikes me—the minister will not be surprised to hear this—that the guidelines could suggest that when organisations consult and hold informative evenings about the plans, they should think about how they provide audio assistance to members of the audience. As members know, I often have to wear headphones to pick up information. If there were guidelines, that point would be drawn to the attention of all those involved.
I thank the minister for moving the amendment.
Group 3 amendments provide for better record keeping, mapping and consultation, and for making information that has been gathered or consulted upon available and accessible to the public.
Although I generally welcome this group of amendments, I especially welcome amendment 11, which further encourages consultation in the development of river basin management plans. I refer in particular to rural industries and forestry and mining interests, which will be affected most by the costs of the bill. It is vital that those interests are included in any consultation.
I generally welcome this group of amendments. A distinctive element of the water framework directive is its requirement for active participation, and these sections of the bill and this group of amendments make it clear that we are serious about fulfilling that requirement. I should also say that, in framing the amendments to find a good way of meeting that aim, we have been greatly helped by Fiona McLeod's expertise in information dissemination.
Like other members, I welcome these amendments, which deliver greater transparency and allow people to be more involved in river basin management planning. Given the scope of such work, there must be wide consultation of NGOs, individual members of the public, businesses and statutory organisations. The last thing we want is for people to find out about the process once it has finished and they are unable to make any meaningful contribution.
As the creation of river basin management plans will no doubt give rise to some difficult, long-term and even controversial issues, it is important that they are disseminated widely. I welcome the use of electronic means, especially the internet, in that respect and we must advertise where people will be able to access such facilities. People will find the ability to call up documents and colourful maps and to click on their particular area incredibly useful as it will allow them to find out what options are available and make it easier for them to access information.
I hope that, when SEPA consults as part of the further work to be done after the bill is enacted, it will take imaginative approaches, such as using map designs that will be easy for people to navigate. I hope that that will make it easy for people to see the impact there will be on their area, rather than having to look at a map of the whole of Scotland. It is possible to design such maps.
If there had been a huge controversy in the chamber today, the issue would have got into the newspapers. The fact that we have all felt since stage 2 that the issue needed to be addressed means that there is support throughout the chamber. The challenge is to get people to take part in the discussions and to take part in the long-term changes that must come from the new strategies for river basins.
I firmly believe that we live in an information age. One of the things that the Parliament has got right—there are other things that people might argue we have got wrong—is our ability to disseminate information electronically to the widest possible audience. I would like that process to extend beyond the Executive to its agencies. SEPA, as our environmental protection agency, is a key player in information dissemination. I accept Fiona McLeod's helpful suggestion that we should consider providing guidelines to SEPA about how that process will operate.
As I said in relation to river basin district planning, we will expect notices to be published in at least one national newspaper, but also in such local newspapers in the river basin district or sub-river basin district as SEPA sees fit. I concede that there is a role for guidelines in elaborating on that. I assure members that we will take on board and incorporate in the SEPA guidelines the points that have been made about the dissemination of maps and we will ensure that the best possible format is used to enable disabled colleagues to access the information in concert with able-bodied colleagues. We want to ensure the transparency of the process and the widest possible dissemination of information.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Section 4—Establishment of river basin districts
Amendments 6 to 8 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 5—Characterisation of river basin districts
Amendment 82 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 82 seeks recognition of the impact of river basin characterisation on planning and human activity.
As section 5(2)(b) seeks to assess
"the impact of human activity on the status of the water environment",
it is reasonable to review the impact that river basin planning and flood management planning might have on human activity. If, for example, the impact of flood defence works on human activity or economic activity is too great on farming or forestry, that must be taken into account in the characterisation process and the planning that flows from that.
It was the view of the Subordinate Legislation Committee that an economic characterisation should be carried out by SEPA as part of the characterisation of a river basin. It was with that in mind that I lodged amendment 82.
I move amendment 82.
Neither I nor the Executive has particular objections to the thrust of what John Scott says. We share the view that river basin characterisation must take account of more than just the simple issues and must take into account human activity. However, I am slightly puzzled by the need for the amendment. If John Scott turns to section 2(4), he will note the general duty:
"The Scottish Ministers, SEPA and the responsible authorities must have regard to the social and economic impact of such exercise of those functions."
If SEPA is being asked to carry out those functions, it is therefore being asked to have regard to their impact.
More particularly, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 5(2) define what "characterisation" means. That subsection states:
"In this section ‘characterisation', in relation to a river basin district, means—
an analysis of the characteristics of the water environment,
a review of the impact of human activity on the status of the water environment, and
an economic analysis of water use."
It seems to me that taking those two sections together—and I agree that one must take them together to get the broader definition—covers more than adequately the points raised by John Scott. On those grounds, I invite him to withdraw amendment 82.
Amendment 82, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 7—Register of protected areas
Amendment 9 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 11—River basin management plans: publicity and consultation
Amendments 10 to 13 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 12—River basin management plans: submission for approval
Amendment 14 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 13—River basin management plans: approval
Amendment 15 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 16—Duty to have regard to river basin management plans
Amendment 16 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 16 amends section 16 to require Scottish ministers and every public body and office holder to have regard to any sub-basin plans prepared under section 15. That fulfils a commitment that I made at stage 2 to ensure that regard is had to sub-basin plans in the same way as to the overarching river basin management plans for Scotland.
Members will be aware that sub-basin plans will be of two different types. There will be sub-basin plans that cover the entire river basin district on the basis of natural catchments. There will also be sub-basin plans that cover specific issues that are relevant to the water environment, such as how best to tackle diffuse pollution or deal with water resource issues, or sustainable flood management. There are definitions of what one might call sectoral plans. Section 15 provides that sub-basin plans must not be inconsistent with the relevant river basin management plan. Provided that that criterion is met, amendment 16 ensures that all public bodies must then have regard to the sub-basin plan when carrying out functions that impact on it. In that way, we join up the organisations and their activities in the national plan and the sub-basin plans.
I move amendment 16.
Amendment 16 is to be welcomed, as the phrase "have regard to" will apply equally to river basin plans and sub-basin plans. However, it would be useful to clarify that the geographical areas referred to in some sub-basin plans would be expected to be based largely on river catchments. I seek that clarification.
They may be based on river catchments or they may not. They could be sectoral.
If sub-basin plans refer to geographical areas, that gives a degree of flexibility, but I would expect them to be based largely on river catchments, because that will be the most logical thing for them to be based on in most cases.
I might best explain the situation by saying that, where they are not sectoral, they will be based on river basin catchments.
If that is clear, the question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Before section 18
Amendment 29 moved—[Bruce Crawford].
The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
The result of the division is: For 39, Against 65, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 29 disagreed to.
Section 20—Regulation of controlled activities
Amendments 17 and 18 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 19 moved—[Ross Finnie].
The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) ( )
Crawford, Bruce JP (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 63, Against 39, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
Amendments 20 to 23 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.
Section 23—Fixing of charges for water services
Amendment 83 is in a group on its own.
The purpose of amendment 83 is to ensure that a river basin management plan has been approved before ministers can make regulations for the fixing of charges for the provision of water services. It is only proper that no charges are fixed before the characterisation process for a river basin district has been completed; after all, the characterisation process means that a full analysis of the water environment will be undertaken, and also—crucially—that there will be a review of the impact of human activity and an economic analysis of water use.
It is proper that charges are fixed only after the full consultation process that is envisaged for the river basin management plans. After all, as part of the river basin management planning process, as described in schedule 1 to the bill as introduced, a
"summary of significant pressures, and the impact of human activity, on the status of surface water and groundwater within the district"
will require to be included in every plan.
Amendment 83 seeks to ensure a pragmatic, stage-by-stage approach and serious analysis and full consultation before charges are fixed that might impact particularly on sensitive areas of the economy. That is what the bill seeks to achieve in most of the other areas of concern that it seeks to address. Why should the fixing of charges be treated differently?
One of the most sensitive industries in regard to the fixing of charges is the whisky industry. We should not forget that the whisky industry is a significant and strategic manufacturing industry, for Scotland and the United Kingdom. It has sales abroad of more than £2.5 billion—pounds not bottles—and a domestic consumption of £2 billion. The industry has 10,000 direct jobs and supports a further 30,000 in Scotland and 60,000 throughout the UK.
As it is constructed, the bill will allow abstraction charges to be applied at the whim of ministers through regulations. Amendment 83 seeks to ensure that before any charges are applied, an in-depth analysis is carried out and a full consultation process is entered into—as envisaged for all other areas of the bill. I seek to ensure that the whisky industry receives the same treatment as all other sectors that will be affected by the directive's intent.
In effect, my amendment would delay the fixing of charges until 2009. That would be perfectly adequate under the directive, as it is not until 2009 that programmes in relation to river basin districts must be established. I have used by way of evidence the report prepared for the Executive by CJC Consulting, "Evaluating the Economic Impact of Abstraction Controls on High and Medium Volume Water Users in Scotland". The report states:
"Because of limited information on groundwater status it was not possible to draw any general conclusions about the possible impacts of the Directive on sectors abstracting groundwater.
The issue is one of fairness and equity for one of Scotland's most important economic drivers—the whisky industry. It deserves to be treated on the same basis as all other industries. To treat it otherwise would be to do it an injustice and would bring into the bill a process that was not envisaged. There would be no in-depth analysis and there would be no full consultation—we have already agreed that full consultation is a good thing that we should try to achieve.
I move amendment 83.
It is fair to say that we have some sympathy with the general direction from which Bruce Crawford is coming. However, the amendment raises a number of practical problems in terms of complying with the directive.
Bruce Crawford helpfully talked about the coincidence of what the directive requires between 2009 and 2010. He also helpfully made the point that, in the real world, one would hope that the two matters would be coincident; in other words, that the preparation of the plan would take place before the assessment.
I want to draw a distinction on two points. First, as Bruce Crawford says, the regulations are about how Scottish Water, or other suppliers, charge for services. The matter is not one of new licences or regulations; it is about making charges for water services that are necessary to protect the water environment. Neither the directive nor the bill forces any particular change. The practical difficulty that we have is that the directive does not make the link that Bruce Crawford seeks to make. He might want to do that, but it is not what the directive does. The directive does not make a link between the production of the river basin management plan and the arrangements for charging for water services.
Apart from its overall objective, the bill must transpose into domestic legislation the requirements under the directive. To link the two in the way in which Bruce Crawford suggests would mean that we might not be able to comply with the European directive's requirements. I understand Bruce Crawford's suggestion and I hope that it might become the case, but the bill must transpose the directive into domestic legislation. Given that, the absence of the link in the directive makes it impossible for me to accept amendment 83, which is why I ask Bruce Crawford to withdraw it.
I thank the minister for his explanation. I understand the point about the link, but if the production of the management plan and the charging arrangements are not linked as the minister wishes them to be linked, I suggest that there is a conflict in the way in which the directive was drawn up. We must make up our minds about whether that conflict should be resolved by full analysis and consultation. The directive suggests that we should have full analysis and consultation before charges are brought into being. I recognise that the production of the plan and the charging arrangements are not linked, but unless we go through the proper analysis and consultation—which we have agreed is important in other areas—we will bring the system of charges into disrepute. It is our job to resolve the conflict, which we can do by voting for amendment 83.
The question is, that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 26, Against 80, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 83 disagreed to.
We are around 25 minutes ahead of time and I intend to proceed by beginning group 7, which is on planning permission for fish farming. We have time for the minister to speak to the amendments in the group, after which we will have the ministerial statement from Jim Wallace.
After section 23
Amendment 30 is grouped with amendments 79 and 80.
Amendment 30 is similar to one that Maureen Macmillan lodged at stage 2, which was subsequently withdrawn. Her amendment reflected the strength of feeling in the Transport and the Environment Committee on the issue of planning controls for fish farming—the committee expressed a desire to introduce planning controls in its aquaculture inquiry and at stage 1 of the bill. I was unable to accept Maureen Macmillan's amendment at stage 2, but as I had sympathy with its desired outcome, I undertook to work with her to investigate the practicalities of introducing controls in the bill and to return to the matter at stage 3. Since then, officials have met Maureen to discuss the measures that she wished to introduce and to consider whether and to what extent we could achieve the necessary changes in time for stage 3.
Amendment 30 is the product of that process. It will deliver Maureen Macmillan's and the Transport and the Environment Committee's main requirement, which was that fish farming should be brought under statutory planning controls and so subjected to local democratic scrutiny.
It was not possible to deliver on an associated provision that Maureen Macmillan requested. She had pressed us to ensure that statutory instruments made under the new provisions should be presented to Parliament within a fixed time scale. I am sure that members will appreciate that there are a number of, as yet, unresolved and complex issues to be dealt with before we can introduce robust and comprehensive changes to the planning system. We must also allow adequate time for proper consultation and discussions with stakeholders. I am grateful that Maureen Macmillan has recognised the Executive's position on that.
I assure the chamber that progress on the work has been accelerated significantly as a result of Maureen Macmillan's amendment. The Highlands and Islands Aquaculture Forum, an umbrella body that represents a range of aquaculture interests, met last week and received an update on progress on the extension of planning controls. The Executive looks forward to working with the forum and all other stakeholders in progressing that work. My ministerial colleagues and I also undertake to provide members of the Transport and the Environment Committee with regular progress reports as the work is taken forward.
Amendment 30 will extend statutory planning controls to marine fish farming by adding a new section after section 23. Amendments 79 and 80 make two consequential amendments to section 31.
Amendment 30 will extend planning controls by amending the meaning of "development" as it applies to fish farming in section 26(6) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 in two main respects. First, section 26(6) of the 1997 act will include within the meaning of "development" fish farms in coastal and transitional waters, as defined in the bill. That means that fish farms within the 3-mile limit of UK territorial waters adjacent to Scotland will require planning permission. Secondly, the definition of "tank" will be repealed and replaced by a new definition of "equipment" for use in fish farming.
The new definition of "equipment" will include tanks, cages and other structures, as well as long-lines that are used in the farming of shellfish. Although the amended meaning of "development" introduced by amendment 30 includes shellfish farming, it is not our intention to extend planning controls in relation to activities authorised by any of several orders made under the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. In the Executive's view, the limited effect of those activities on the water environment is not such as to make it necessary to bring them within the new planning controls.
Amendment 30 will amend section 40 of the 1997 act, which deals with the assessment of the environmental effects of development. The amendment to section 40 of the 1997 act will require the planning authority, before granting planning permission, to consider the effect of the proposed development on the water environment, as defined in the bill. Importantly, amendment 30 will not provide for a general extension of planning authority boundaries seawards; rather, it will allow Scottish ministers to make orders enabling planning authorities to discharge planning functions in relation to fish farming but not in relation to any other offshore activities in such waters.
As with planning controls more generally, the new controls will sit alongside and not duplicate other control regimes such as are administered by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and by the environment and rural affairs department of the Scottish Executive, under the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 and the Diseases of Fish Act 1983. Similarly, the requirements of the Coast Protection Act 1949 are unaffected, as are the rights and interests of the Crown Estate as the owner of the sea bed.
Amendments 79 and 80 make consequential changes to section 31 to enable ministers to make textual amendments and to make orders under the powers in subsection (5) subject to the affirmative procedure.
I move amendment 30.
One day, we might have an aquaculture bill—I hope so. One day, we might also have a single regulatory body for aquaculture, which would make things very much easier for the aquaculture industry and for the other industries that live alongside it. However, until that day arrives, we will have to rely on secondary legislation in bills such as this. It is encouraging that, through these amendments, aquaculture and fish farming are being put into the planning system. It is a good start in improving reasonable controls. In the past, there has been considerable concern about the accuracy of SEPA's discharge controls and the incompleteness of the environmental impact assessments in regard to fish farming.
The example at Ardmair stands out. The assessment there took little account of tidal flows in a fish cage site where there was not enough tidal flow to shift the build-up of detritus on the sea bed. Any pollution on such a scale is a potential environmental time bomb. Again, the environmental impact assessment had no information on the levels of sea lice in the cages prior to the use of the new medicine, Slice.
If councils have new planning powers, it will be important that they investigate thoroughly applications for fish farms. In the absence of an aquaculture bill, there must be binding rules and strict statutory national planning policy guidelines that will give councils the guidance that they need when considering applications from different sections of the aquaculture industry. Only in that way will we achieve good biodiversity and sustainable co-existence among different stakeholders within our coastal environment. It would indeed be an achievement to give better control over the aquatic environment of Scotland—and a better management system—out to a 3-mile limit. I hope that the minister will give us an assurance that the amendments will achieve that end.
I call Maureen Macmillan. After her speech, I shall take the ministerial statement from the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice, Mr Jim Wallace. Afterwards, we will resume the stage 3 debate on the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill. I will be relaxed about allowing the minister to intervene when we restart that debate. For the moment, I hand over the chair to Sir David Steel.
I speak in support of amendment 30. As members may know, the Transport and the Environment Committee has sought this amendment for many months. I thank the Executive for its co-operation in the matter, which involved joint working across the social inclusion department and the rural development department.
All stakeholders in aquaculture want planning powers to be transferred from the Crown Estate to local authorities. The Transport and the Environment Committee has had evidence of that since we first began our investigations into the environmental impact of fish farming. We felt that such environmental concerns could be better addressed by local authorities in the planning process, which would complement changes in the way that SEPA will regulate the marine environment as a result of the bill.
The granting of planning permission will have to take into consideration the effects on the water environment as outlined in the bill. Moreover, the democratisation of the planning process will allow local communities to have input into local authority strategy. I realise that the transfer of powers cannot be effected immediately. My recent discussions with the Executive and representatives of local authorities have shown that a great deal of discussion and consultation needs to take place before the regulations that would result from amendment 30 can be laid. I accept that it would not be appropriate to put in the bill a time scale for implementing the transfer of powers. However, I asked the minister to give an undertaking that the process would not be delayed but would be expedited as quickly as is feasible, and I believe that he gave me that assurance in his opening remarks.
I have one other matter to raise with the minister. Following reports on the BBC that amendment 30 would result in retrospective planning powers for local authorities, I was contacted by Scottish Quality Salmon, which naturally has great reservations about that point. I am at a loss to know where the idea of retrospective controls came from. As far as I am concerned, the bill is enabling legislation, and the details of the regulations will be decided after consultation with all stakeholders. I ask the minister to give me firm assurances that it is also the Executive's intention to consult on the regulations fully.
The next member to speak on this group of amendments will be John Scott. However, I have now cleared the screens and we will take the statement from Mr Jim Wallace on the firefighters. When that statement is finished, those who wish to take part in the stage 3 debate on the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill will have to press the buttons all over again.