| Allan Wilson:
If that is consensus,
I would not like to see us when we disagree.
To respond to
every point that members have raised would take me the best part of two
hours. Fortunately, I do not intend to do that. This is a stage 1
debate; we will have the opportunity to go into greater detail at stage
2.
Mr Monteith:
Will the minister give way?
Allan Wilson:
Not at the minute. I have more serious things to deal with.
As everyone
realises, the bill is a vital piece of environmental legislation, so I
am all the more surprised that the Scottish National Party seeks to jeopardise
it by speaking against the financial resolution.
As Bruce Crawford
graciously accepted—although I cannot say the same for his colleagues Fergus
Ewing and Alasdair Morgan—the bill represents our chance to move ahead
of the rest of Europe in timely implementation of the water framework directive.
That is not just an abstract commitment to be fulfilled; it is an opportunity
to make a substantial difference to Scotland's water environment. It is
simply not true to say that the costs that arise from our implementation
of the directive come ahead of those in the rest of Europe. There will
be no gold plating.
Alasdair Morgan:
Would the minister care to reconcile his statement that our costs will
not be ahead of those in the rest of Europe with Mr Finnie's statement
that the bill provides us with an opportunity to get ahead of the rest
of Europe? How are those two statements compatible?
Allan Wilson:
All businesses that gave evidence on the bill
supported the phased approach. All Europe is required to have new methods
in effect by 2012. There is no difference between us and the rest of Europe
in the programme for effective implementation of the directive. It is spurious
to argue that our competitiveness will be adversely affected.
The bill will
give us a number of new powers to protect the water environment.
Bristow Muldoon:
One of the themes that has come through clearly in a number of today's
speeches—and which also came through in the Transport and the Environment
Committee's report—is the opportunity that the bill could give us to tackle
flooding. How does the minister believe that the new powers will enable
the Executive to tackle flood management in the future?
Allan Wilson:
That gives me the opportunity to address some
of the important points raised by George Lyon, Sarah Boyack and Brian Fitzpatrick.
We favour a national approach. We propose a national river basin district
to give a national overview, with advisory groups covering large regional
river basins across the country to ensure local input. We believe, as I
think everybody does, that local authorities—which have local knowledge
and are elected by local people—are best placed to take decisions on where
flood defences are required, but that does not mean to say that we should
not have a national strategy.
Bruce Crawford:
In its report on the financial memorandum, the Finance Committee sought
"a commitment
from the Executive that additional costs resulting from the Bill on local
authorities will be met in full, taking account of any cost savings that
may be identified."
Will the Executive
give that commitment today?
Allan Wilson:
I can tell Bruce Crawford—and we will debate this at stage 2—that flood
defence schemes are approved and funded by ministers on a national basis
to national design standards. All schemes are required to take account
of impacts upstream and downstream, and river basin planning will provide
a useful additional forum for flooding to be considered at a strategic,
national, level. That is not in itself an imperative of the directive,
but I hope that Bruce Crawford appreciates the good reasons why flood protection
measures ought to be integrated into river basin management plans instead
of being dealt with through a separate planning procedure.
The bill will
give SEPA more flexibility to regulate the environment, in particular in
the important area of fish farming, which everybody knows is a subject
close to my heart. SEPA will be able to focus on the processes of fish
farming, rather than exclusively on discharges.
The powers under
the bill are wide ranging, but the crucial point is that the planning system
suggested in the bill will engage all interested parties in the drawing
up of environmental objectives and in establishing the best means by which
those can be achieved. The bill ensures that economic, social and wider
environmental goals cannot simply be ignored when those plans are drawn
up—and SEPA will give proper consideration to those factors when drawing
up plans. It has embraced the new responsibilities already. We have given
it sufficient funding to do so. It has already made great strides in readying
itself for the task.
The flexibilities
contained in the bill that allow derogation from higher environmental objectives
for those bodies that are designated as heavily modified or artificial
are an important safeguard, as Fiona McLeod was correct to recognise. We
recognise the many social and environmental benefits that we receive from
those types of water body. I offer the member the reassurance that she
seeks: the bill will not simply discount those benefits.
Environmentalists
recognise the objectives that the bill sets as a step forward. The bill
moves us away from simple targets for the chemical status of water, towards
a more holistic measurement of water status. That involves an examination
of the ecological and chemical status of surface waters, and of the quantitative
and chemical status of ground waters. The change will mean that the regulatory
regimes will be geared to tackle those factors that impact on the elements
of the water environment that concern us most—the fish, plant and other
life of our rivers, lochs and coastal waters. The bill represents nothing
less than a fundamental overhaul of the way in which we protect our water
environment in Scotland.
I welcome the
Transport and the Environment Committee's endorsement of the provisions
of part 2 of the bill. The bill is ambitious, and I am pleased that members
have taken the opportunity to debate it thoroughly.
I do not have
time today to respond directly to all the points that have been made. I
give Des McNulty the assurance that he seeks—we have got the message. The
Transport and the Environment Committee and the Finance Committee paid
particular attention to the likely costs of implementing the body. That
attention has been reflected in today's debate. As Ross Finnie made clear
in his letter to the committee, the bill is unusual in that it is largely
an enabling bill. It also establishes a system of management and planning
for the water environment that will determine the objectives that are to
be set for each waterway and the measures that are necessary to achieve
those objectives.
Given those
two factors, it is impossible to be absolutely certain of the cost of implementation.
Nevertheless, I am confident that we have provided assessments of costs
that are as robust as possible. The estimated costs include assessments
of the anticipated costs of secondary legislation that is to be made under
the bill. Thirteen business case assessments have been produced and dialogue
has been maintained with sectors that are concerned about additional costs.
In those discussions, we have sought to reassure business that, when decisions
are taken on the balance between social, economic and environmental objectives,
those decisions will be the right ones for Scotland.
I can do nothing
better than echo the words of Nora Radcliffe and of Scottish Environment
LINK on this issue. Scottish Environment LINK states:
"It is essential
to see the costs issue in perspective. First, Scotland is obliged to ensure
healthy waters for Scotland. Second, if the Bill is poorly implemented
then the costs will be very much greater, not just to the taxpayer, but
to public health, industry and the economy generally. Even without the
Water Framework Directive driving this legislation, such a Bill is well
overdue"—
I would argue—
"because it
will SAVE the country millions in the long run.
Rather than
just asking how much is this bill going to cost - the question should be
how much it will cost if"—
as the nationalists
propose today—
"it is unsuccessful,
and how much it will save if it succeeds."
I thought that
only the Tories knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing. However,
it seems that today they have been joined by the nationalists.
We have the
opportunity to move ahead of our European counterparts by passing the Water
Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill. More important, we have
the opportunity to demonstrate to the Scottish people—remember them—that
we are responsive to their concerns and serious about the protection of
the Scottish environment. The Scottish people will pass judgment on Bruce
Crawford very soon. I hope that the Parliament will agree with me today
and support both the motion and the financial resolution.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
