| Allan Wilson:
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 ground waters. 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.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
