| Allan Wilson:
How do I begin? Carolyn Leckie can see what
she is missing by not taking up the post of deputy convener of the Subordinate
Legislation Committee.
Roseanna Cunningham's
conspiracy theory falls at the first hurdle. She is correct to say that
the order would usually lie for 40 days and be considered by the Subordinate
Legislation Committee and by the Environment and Rural Development
Committee. However, the order must be formally approved and there was no
committee in place when the order was laid so it had to come to the chamber,
which is why we all had to come here today.
There is a serious
point, and I am surprised that the Tories, as the guardians of private
property, did not pick up on it, although Richard Lochhead made a point
about it. The compulsory purchase of land that belongs to an individual
is obviously a serious intrusion by the state into that individual's right
of ownership. Therefore, it is important that we get absolutely correct
legislation that identifies Scottish Water's powers in that regard.
Alex Johnstone:
Will the minister reassure me that the proposals
contained in the order contain no changes to the substance of the powers
that will now be allocated to Scottish Water rather than its constituent
organisations?
Allan Wilson:
For the third time, the answer to that is
yes.
Brian Monteith's
reference to Ian Lang was more inappropriate than he could imagine. Although
it is only now that we have become aware of the defect, it has existed
since 1994-it was inherent in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1994.
The defect was transferred from there to the Water Industry (Scotland)
Act 2002 when we were all sitting in committee discussing it, so it is
a product of the previous Conservative Administration-yet another legacy
to the water industry that it left us to fix.
I can answer
the point that Stewart Stevenson helpfully made. The changes to which he
referred are a tidying-up exercise to reflect the substitution of references
to "sewerage authority" with "Scottish Water". It follows that the amendment
to section 30H of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 has no substantive
effect.
I am sure that
that reassures Stewart Stevenson.
On CPOs, because
there is a referral from East Dunbartonshire Council to ministers, and
Scottish Water is considering it, I will not comment on the Mugdock situation,
except to say that the Executive wants the people of Glasgow to have a
secure, safe and clean water supply. Approval of the order in no way, shape,
manner or form represents approval by ministers of the CPO that has been
referred to.
Richard Lochhead
raised the question of how many applications have been made. There have
been no other applications. That is the first and only CPO sought by Scottish
Water since its establishment in 2002. Only one CPO application was made
by the previous water authorities under the Local Government (Scotland)
Act 1994-to which I referred-and that was in connection with the Helensburgh
treatment works. As that CPO was made in good faith, the title is unaffected
by the prior existence of any technical defect that we are now sorting
for all future CPO applications.
I hope that
those remarks have dealt successfully with all the points that were raised.
I move that the order be approved.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
