Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3707, in the name of Ross Finnie, that the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill be passed.
It has been clear from the outset of stage 1 that there is wide support for the bill. It is an important bill for Scotland; it gives us a sound platform to protect our water environment for the future.
Like the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, this is an excellent example of a bill that would not have happened had it not been for the existence of the Scottish Parliament. There is no chance that Westminster would have found time for such a bill. Looking forward, Scotland's environment would have been poorer for that.
The bill is based on the premise that the environment is integral to the quality of the life of every person who lives in this country. It is based on the premise that we should not, through selfish use now, prejudice the environment for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. It is based on the premise that the best way to prevent that is to ensure that we have the best possible information about what is going on in our environment and that we actively involve those with an interest and who make use of the environment—individuals, communities and businesses—in making decisions about their future and their impact on their environment.
I will reflect on how the bill has been improved during its passage through committees. We have included provisions that will see the promotion of sustainable approaches to flood management—a matter that is close to the hearts of many members of the Parliament and their constituents. We have included new provisions today to introduce statutory planning controls over marine fish farming. We have also made much clearer the bill's protection of wetlands as an important constituent of the water cycle. The push for sustainable development is now expressly provided for in the bill.
Part 2 will change the way in which the cost of providing water and sewerage infrastructure for new housing developments is funded. We listened to the concerns about the impact that that might have on social housing development and increased the social justice budget to take account of the additional costs that the bill will place on such development.
Rural communities have expressed concerns to me about the impact that the bill might have on rural housing development, particularly in relation to sewerage connection. There seems to be a question whether what is being offered is capital or revenue funding, although I am not quite sure what the difference in impact may be. Will the minister say whether what is being offered will be similar to what exists at present?
My understanding is that the level of support will be increased, but it might be better if I clarify that more precisely for the member. The Transport and the Environment Committee drew our attention to the need to improve funding. The clear idea was to address the problem that Maureen Macmillan describes. I will write to her separately to clarify that.
There is one point that I must convey to the Parliament. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.
The bill is good for the people of Scotland and for its environment. It is good for the communities who share the environment and the individuals who are involved with it. I pay tribute to those within and outside the Parliament who have worked extraordinarily hard to ensure the delivery of a complex piece of legislation that transposes an important European directive. We are often behind on the implementation of European directives but, for once, the bill is in good time. The result of that work is a bill that will provide us with a platform to protect Scotland's water environment for generations to come.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I can safely say that the bill is a job of work well done. All who have taken an interest in its progress have contributed positively and it has been improved significantly since stage 1, which took place last October.
Apart from a couple of shortcomings, the bill is a testament to how well the Parliament can deal with legislation. I put on record my appreciation for the work of my colleagues on the Transport and the Environment Committee, who did a thorough job of scrutinising the bill and ensuring that the Executive introduced improving amendments.
It is also proper that due regard should be paid to the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee during stage 1. Scottish Environment LINK provided many valuable and timely briefings on issues of particular concern that required to be highlighted. That organisation is a resource and has established itself as a key voice on environmental aspects of legislation in Scotland.
Credit should also go to the minister and the Executive officials, who for the most part responded to concerns by producing amendments on issues such as wetlands, fish farming, planning permission and sustainable and integrated flood management. It is a pity that the Executive was not prepared to see sense and accept the need for ministers to take responsibility for a national flood strategy, which is a key piece of the jigsaw.
As the minister said, the bill will effectively transpose the European Union water framework directive into Scots law and should bring considerable social and economic benefits. However, it is a pity that the Executive has spoiled what might have been a pretty good report card by showing real weaknesses on cost-benefit analysis. Those weaknesses are not only in relation to future costs, but to future environmental benefits and social and economic advantages. In that regard, the report card says, "Must do better." The proper point at which to record our disquiet on that issue was at stage 1, which we did by voting against the financial resolution. We believe that more robust and rigorous future-impact information should have been made available. However, we will vote for the bill at decision time.
In one particular area, what the bill does not contain has made it even more interesting as far as the future is concerned. I am referring to what was previously part of the flagship of the Executive's approach to the bill. We were told repeatedly by Ross Finnie that the introduction of competition legislation in Scotland's water industry was vital. It is amazing how competition disappeared off the radar screen when the Executive saw how unpopular it was.
However, privatisation did not disappear entirely, did it? No, it was simply parked, hidden away until it was brought back to light in a tawdry little document for the Cabinet sub-committee on legislation, which outlines the legislative programme for the next session. That document says:
"Bill to establish regulatory framework for the provision of water and sewerage in a competitive environment, formerly for inclusion in the Water Environment and Water Services Bill".
The Executive intends to bring back the issue of privatisation next time around—if it gets the chance, which I do not think it will.
We support the bill, but we put on record the fact that we will oppose any proposals to bring privatisation to Scottish Water.
Today's debate brings to a conclusion months of work that has been undertaken by the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Executive and its civil servants. We are all indebted to the clerks for their tireless work and their patient understanding of all matters relating to the bill. We are also indebted to all the people and bodies who gave evidence and responded to the consultations on the bill. It could not have been achieved without their input.
It is appropriate that the bill will become law in the international year of fresh water. Although its delivery is a necessary act of compliance, incorporating the EU water framework directive into Scots law, its quick passage is a reflection of its largely non-contentious nature. I would have been less supportive of the bill if the Executive had not listened to the committee and addressed concerns about flooding, aquaculture, planning controls and sustainable urban drainage systems. However, it did and that is reflected in the fact that only four non-Executive amendments were lodged at stage 3.
The fact that we have addressed flooding in the bill does not mean that the problem is solved. With 170,000 Scottish homes at risk, the seriousness of the situation and the need for decisive action could not be greater, as the effect of global warming increases daily. That is why we welcome the inclusion of sustainable flood management plans, which will need to be supported by adequately funded agri-environment schemes. We welcome the determination to include all relevant parties in the development of river basin and sub-basin plans, and I and other MSPs look forward to receiving at the end of next month the report of the ad hoc ministerial group on flooding. I hope that it will tell us of the need to develop a national flood strategy.
I also welcome the pursuit of an holistic approach that accepts the need for an integrated approach to reconciling potentially conflicting policy objectives. That will surely deliver better value for money to the taxpayer. However, of major concern is the fact that the costs of the bill—which are likely to be huge—have still not been properly quantified. The minister reported in the autumn that the cheapest cost projection is likely to be around £70 million a year from 2006, with the worst-case projection being more than £100 million a year from 2006. Knowing, as we do, the Executive's track record on cost prediction, we can only presume that £100 million a year will be just the beginning of the financial burden to be borne principally by the industry and the taxpayer.
While we accept that we must implement the EU water framework directive, we have a duty not to impose unnecessary financial strictures on taxpayers and the farming, forestry, mining and energy industries. These are additional costs that are not on taxpayers' or industry's radar at the moment, but they will be real in the fullness of time. We may end up with clean water but little or no dairy farming in some of the more economically sensitive areas.
Nail by nail, the coffin lid is being hammered down on agriculture, mining and forestry, with increasing cost compliance and regulations. From 2007, the bodies of those industries may gradually be buried as they seek to compete in the world market with countries that do not have to bear the EU-inflicted costs. Our fishing industry has all but been destroyed and our rural industries remain on a knife edge. As a general principle, we should be sceptical of EU legislation that reduces our ability as a country to profit from our primary industries.
Scottish Water will recover its projected compliance costs of £28 million per year from us—its customers—but other businesses might not be able to recover costs from the marketplace and the net effect would be to make them less competitive in world markets. The jury is, therefore, out on what is the most important aspect of the bill.
I welcome the transfer of planning powers from the Crown Estate to local authorities. Again, that will not be without cost and it will be essential for cost recovery to be recognised in planning fees. I welcome also the minister's assurances that further legislation will be introduced that will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I am happy that provisions on sustainable urban drainage systems have been introduced into the bill. Again, we have no hard-and-fast indication of cost, but I welcome the fact that Scottish Water will now take responsibility for that area. The funding of Scottish Water will be crucial and we will have to examine our water and sewerage charges in future to make certain that we are all getting value for money.
I welcome the bill's progress to this point. If costs can be kept to a minimum in future, the bill will undoubtedly bring significant and sustainable benefit to Scotland which, I hope, will be harvested over many generations.
I have to say that, considering the bill received consensual support, I was disappointed by the speeches from Bruce Crawford and John Scott, who seemed to be scaremongering.
Bruce Crawford raised the prospect of the Scottish water industry being privatised. He ignored the fact that the Labour-Liberal Executive established a publicly accountable and publicly owned water industry under the name of Scottish Water. As regards John Scott's comments, nothing could harm the interests of rural Scotland more than not introducing the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill and allowing the degradation of Scotland's valuable natural resources. I am disappointed by the approach that both members took.
I support the motion to pass the bill and I want to concentrate on what I think are the positives that come through the bill. However, I would like first to thank, for the record, the Transport and the Environment Committee clerks—Callum Thomson, Alastair Macfie and Roz Wheeler—for the work that they provided to all committee members. Their support and endeavour was invaluable for all members from all parties.
I also want to put on record my thanks to the many organisations that gave evidence to the committee during the bill's passage. Bruce Crawford mentioned Scottish Environment LINK, which was instrumental in bringing forward many of the improvements to the bill through discussions with members of the Transport and the Environment Committee and with ministers. I also want to thank the many other organisations that gave evidence, including public sector agencies, professional representative groups and industrial organisations.
It is important to say that in passing the bill we are passing legislation that is under a European Union directive and we are doing so in a timely manner. As Ross Finnie said in his introductory remarks, it has not always been the case that the United Kingdom or Scotland has complied with all the deadlines. It is good that we are passing the bill well in advance of a deadline of December 2003. That is particularly good given the heavy legislative and other burdens that the ministerial team in the environment and rural affairs department has had over recent months.
What is important today is not the transposition of a directive just for the sake of it, but what the directive will enable us to do. The bill will enable us to protect Scotland's natural heritage in terms of our rivers, lochs, coastal waters and groundwaters—and, indeed, our wetlands, provision for which was introduced during the bill's passage. The bill will also encourage the active participation of communities and organisations throughout Scotland in water management and ensure that we can reduce and control pollution in the future.
I will comment on a few issues on which I think the Executive has moved considerably during the bill's passage. It has taken on board comments from members of the Transport and the Environment Committee, the committee's reports and amendments, and representations from external organisations. The most significant of those issues is flooding, which was the subject of an earlier debate today. The fact that the Executive is prepared to commit to provision for sustainable flood management in the bill is a major step forward, and it has been broadly welcomed.
I believe that the definition of wetlands has been improved today. That, too, is to be welcomed, as is the introduction of proposals to transfer aquaculture planning powers. We have also discussed sustainable urban drainage systems, which Des McNulty raised during the passage of the bill.
The bill will be an important piece of environmental legislation. Over the years to come, it will improve the way in which we are able to manage our water systems in Scotland. I commend the bill to the Parliament.
I will be brief, as it has been a long day. I add to all other members' thanks my thanks to the clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and all those who gave evidence. I say a particular thank-you to the environmental organisations that are organised through Scottish Environment LINK for the extra help that they have given us all over the past weeks in providing sound advice and good ideas for last-minute improvements to the bill, which have been significant.
Some work that comes before committees is inevitably rushed, but the bill has been given adequate time. We have done a very good job on it, and it is fit for purpose.
Earlier in the bill's passage, we heard excellent and clear evidence from another group—the Executive's civil servants. I am sure that I reflect all members' feelings on the matter. Those civil servants gave us admirably clear evidence that was of great assistance in our consideration of the bill.
Section 20 passed by before I remembered to ask a question about it. I think that the question was answered, but I will return to the Executive by snail mail if I find that I am not satisfied.
The bill is not simply a set of new regulations, but is very much an enabling bill. I hope that all those in Scotland who are concerned to control the ever-increasing problem of flooding—such as the local councils, farmers and the Executive—will use the bill to develop the best flood defence system that we can, perhaps well ahead of other parts of Europe. Already we can congratulate ourselves on the fact that we are ahead of the rest of Europe in the consideration and passing of the bill.
I endorse the thanks that colleagues have expressed to all those who have contributed to the bill.
The bill is about the sustainable management of Scotland's water resource. We have a lot of it—30,000 freshwater lochs and 7,000 river systems. Sustainable management will impinge on industry, the rural economy, the urban economy, planning, housing, drinking water, agriculture, tourism, ecology, the environment and energy. Indeed, it will impinge on just about every aspect of our lives and work. The bill is important in anybody's terms. To make the bill effective, all the interests and policy areas that I have mentioned—and probably a number that I have not—will need to be integrated into the management of our water.
The bill implements the European water framework directive and completes the primary legislative arrangements for Scottish Water. The water framework directive is the first European directive to be carried through by the Parliament from scratch, and I believe that ours is the first legislature in Europe to transpose the directive into legislation. That we have done a good job is therefore a source of pride, particularly in this year, because, as John Scott said, a United Nations resolution has designated 2003 the international year of fresh water.
The water framework directive's ethos is to deal with water resources holistically, to consider whole water systems and to involve all stakeholders in a way that manages to prevent deterioration and improve the quality of all fresh water, surface water and groundwater, as well as some coastal waters.
I am pleased that the Executive eventually took on board the idea that wetlands are an important part of water ecosystems and should be explicitly recognised as such in the bill. Wetlands are not just any old piece of land that is wet; they are a recognised and definable feature and perform a number of valuable functions in the ecosystem of which they are part. Those functions include absorbing the peaks of water flows that can otherwise cause flooding; controlling pollution by acting like settling tanks and in a number of other ways; storing nitrogen and phosphorous in the vegetation that they sustain; and acting as buffer zones between agricultural land and aquifers used for drinking water. Peat bogs especially can absorb carbon dioxide. Wetlands also provide an important habitat for a wide range of flora and fauna and are important for migratory birds. Finally, wetland vegetation can stabilise shorelines and consolidate soils. Members can see why I was so keen to have wetlands mentioned explicitly as part of the water environment.
The bill makes extensive provision for informing and involving people in river basin planning and management, and I hope and expect that all stakeholders will get involved to ensure that all interests are considered and catered for in the management of our water resource. Concern has been expressed, notably by the whisky industry and hydro-electric companies, but I am confident that they will find that the new regime is much more of an opportunity than a threat and that they can and will make a positive contribution.
It seems to me that the costs of not implementing the bill far outweigh the costs of doing so. There was strong pressure on the Executive to use the bill to transfer planning control of fish farming from the Crown Estate to local authorities. I am pleased that that has happened, as the Executive has introduced, a year or two years sooner than would otherwise have been possible, a sensible measure on which there was wide agreement.
Amendments at stage 3 have made maintenance of sustainable urban drainage systems a responsibility of Scottish Water, thus clearing up previous confusion and, I hope, resulting in much wider use of such means of mitigating pollution and flooding.
During the passage of the bill much has been made of flooding. Correctly, flooding has been specifically recognised as part of managing water systems, but I agree with the Executive that the bill is not the vehicle for a national flood strategy. Most local authorities in Scotland are organised on flooding to the extent that Scotland is being cited as an example of good practice in that regard. The sensible way in which to build a national overview is the national waste strategy model, starting with what local authorities are doing and feeding into it.
At one of my local schools on Friday I was asked what was the best thing about being an MSP. I tried to describe the moment of intense satisfaction when we see a bill being passed that is the culmination of the efforts of many people working together and contributing to something that was as good as they could make it collectively and which will be of benefit to Scotland and everyone living and working in Scotland. I look forward to one such moment shortly. I commend the bill to the Parliament and the people of Scotland.
It is a brave man who stands between members and a bacon roll, so I will be brief. In supporting the Executive, I make no apology for mentioning the important issues of flood prevention and reduction. I welcome the comments that were made by both the minister and the deputy minister that solutions to flooding problems will never be found on the face of a bill.
I probably have the distinction of being one of the few MSPs to have suffered being flooded out of his constituency office. That gave me a small insight into the much more serious problems suffered by too many of my constituents who were flooded out of their homes—some of them are still out of their homes.
On sustainable urban drainage systems—happily abbreviated as SUDS—John Scott mentioned the issue of reasonable costs. I urge on all members the view that other unnecessary costs and disruption are associated with unnecessary flooding. In my part of the country, a tremendous problem has been caused as a result of the difficulties in tackling the combined drainage system. I do not think that anyone would suggest that any reasonable drainage system would have coped with the unusual level of downpours and run-off that we have experienced. It is bad enough that people have had to cope with that, without their having to cope with its effects on sewage, which was the experience of too many of the people in my constituency who suffered flooding.
I very much welcome, and believe that there will be a key role for, the roll-out of the determinations of the ad hoc group of ministers. That is one of the reasons why I was persuaded to support the Executive and to move away from the superficial attraction of Bruce Crawford's programme of action. I hope that that roll-out will include serious consideration of the need for better co-ordination and for some form of standing forum that might address the various co-ordination issues. My experience of flooding incidents revealed a lack of basic co-ordination in relation to who was in the lead, who was responsible for undertaking works and who was responsible for the costs of those works, which represent a substantial burden. I am pleased by what the minister said about Scottish Water having a role in that regard.
All members whose constituents have faced flooding will be aware of the different stories that people have. Anything that can be done to ensure that people who face very difficult circumstances are not given the bureaucratic runaround is to be welcomed.
My colleague Sarah Boyack made an important point about information on flood risk. She is a sterling advocate of the need for effective information on action and campaigning on the environment and is to be congratulated on that.
It is vital that we should have better mapping. A number of my constituents face problems of insurance and insurance cover. Many more share such anxiety. Anything that ministers can do to secure better mapping for those who are affected by flood risk and for those who are identified by postcode as being at risk of flooding, even though they have not experienced it, would be welcome.
The Executive faces a number of serious challenges. I suspect that members have moved on to consideration of other matters, but we should not pretend that the bill does anything other than address key problems that are faced by constituents across Scotland.
I invite Allan Wilson to wind up the debate. When he has finished—depending on the length of his speech—I will be willing to accept a motion without notice to bring forward decision time.
I begin by adding my thanks to the clerks to the Transport and the Environment Committee, who worked tremendously hard on the bill, especially during the five weeks of stage 2 in the run-up to Christmas. I thank, too, all the members of the committee, who worked constructively to produce the bill that we have before us today, which is a better bill than the bill that was introduced.
I also thank the backroom team of civil servants, whose massed ranks members can see at the back of the chamber. Even as we speak, they are desperately waiting to get to the pub to celebrate the successful passing of the bill. I am sure that they will not mind my singling out for special mention Mr Michael Kellet, who, in delivering a briefing to me at 1 o'clock in the morning, went above and beyond the call of normal civil service duty.
Like Bristow Muldoon, I was surprised—or perhaps not—by the tone of the speeches of John Scott and Bruce Crawford. I will not call John Scott's speech a rant, as it did not reach that standard. It was anti-Executive, which one could say is fair enough. However, it was also anti-euro and anti-environment and it missed the whole point of the cost-benefit analysis that was undertaken. Even if one were to consider the issue of better water management in purely cash terms—we know that Tories know the price of everything and the value of nothing—that analysis pointed to benefits in the region of £1.5 billion.
Bruce Crawford's impression of a drowning man trying to resurrect a privatisation scare was equally discouraging. Brian Fitzpatrick is absolutely right. It must be said to the nationalists that it is the oldest example of muddled thinking in the book to believe that something will get done only if it is written on the face of a bill. What is even worse is that Bruce Crawford wanted to write his proposal on the face of the wrong bill. During the debate, I set out the nationally co-ordinated action that the Executive is taking on flooding, but the bill is simply not the place to deal with that issue. It is crass to suggest that, if we do not agree with that, there can be no nationally co-ordinated response.
As my colleague Ross Finnie has said, the bill puts us on the front foot in the protection of our rivers, lochs, coastal waters and groundwaters. In many respects, we are leading the way in Europe. The bill is an example of Scottish devolution delivering for the Scottish people. As we all know, the success of the Parliament is what the nationalists find more difficult than anything else to accept. They wrongly believe that they have a vested interest in failure. When members vote to support the bill—as I am sure they will—they will be rejecting that narrow nationalist mentality and delivering a vital measure to protect, conserve and enhance our unique water environment for future generations to enjoy.
I have much pleasure in supporting the motion moved by Ross Finnie that the Parliament should pass the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill.