Plenary, 04 Dec 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, December 4, 2003

Official Report 710KB pdf

---

Bathing Water Quality

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-695, in the name of Allan Wilson, on protecting bathing water quality. There are three amendments to the motion. I ask those members who are not remaining for the debate to leave the chamber immediately. I call Allan Wilson to speak to and move the motion. Minister, you have 11 minutes.

Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. I do not know whether I will fill the 11 minutes. I suspect that it is not compulsory.

Indeed it is not.

That might leave other members more time in which to make their contributions.

Today's debate provides a welcome opportunity to re-emphasise the importance of protecting Scotland's water environment, particularly our bathing waters, and to provide the Parliament with a full picture of the progress that has been made. It also provides us with a timely opportunity to consider the cost of those and future investments and to debate the implications of increasing standards, as is proposed by the current revision of the European bathing water directive.

Lest there be any dubiety about it, I should say first that Scotland has a very good water environment. There are almost 12,000km of coastal water around the Scottish mainland, 98 per cent of which the Scottish Environment Protection Agency reports as being of good or excellent condition. Some stretches are considered to be pristine or near pristine and none of our coastal water environment falls into the SEPA category of seriously polluted. We have a vast number of unspoiled beaches in rural areas, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, which are promoted by organisations such as the Marine Conservation Society for that very reason. They have miles of clean sand and water and there is often not a person in sight.

Unfortunately, we have had a problem meeting the standards of the bathing water directive at some beaches at some times in the past. Pollution reaches coastal waters either through sewage treatment works or as a result of agricultural run-off from farms. It is the unique combination of our climate, geology and geography, coupled with our livestock industry, that, in some parts of the country, increases the risks to bathing water quality.

We have come a long way in five years. In 1998, when we had 23 designated bathing waters, only nine met the mandatory standard of the directive and only three met the higher guideline standard. Since then we have made steady progress. In 2002, for example, 31 of our designated bathing waters met the mandatory standard of the bathing water directive and 24 met the guideline standard, giving us a pass rate of 91.6 per cent.

The minister may be aware of the on-going correspondence that I have had about Broughty Ferry beach becoming a designated bathing water area. He may also be aware that in two seasons the beach has met the highest standard of water quality. Given that state of affairs, will the minister consider re-establishing the bathing waters review panel to examine beaches such as Broughty Ferry beach, which have made such significant improvements, so that they can have designated status and all the benefits that that would bring?

The short answer to the member's question is yes. We will come on to consider designation in the context of the revision of the directive. Bathing water quality is only one part of the picture. We are completing a comprehensive survey of bathing water usage that we conducted over what members will recall was a glorious summer. We will consider that information in the context of other information relating to bathing water quality—the geological, geographical and climatic considerations to which I have referred. We will examine designation as a whole, taking into account all the factors that I have mentioned. Broughty Ferry beach and its popularity will be an important consideration in that process.

This year—2003—we had our best ever season, with a pass rate of 95 per cent. Eighteen designated bathing waters met the mandatory standard and 39 met the higher guideline standard. That is a good news story—not just for the Executive, but for the people of Scotland. It shows that we have adopted the right approach, have invested in the right solutions and have co-ordinated actions effectively. If we could count every year on the fine weather that we all enjoyed this summer—as parts of the south Mediterranean can—we would be able to guarantee high levels of compliance year on year, because sunlight naturally kills harmful bacteria in the water. However, here in Scotland we cannot always rely on having fine weather.

We have nevertheless made substantial progress in bringing our bathing waters up to European standards, which is great. I know that Bruce Crawford, in particular, will welcome that good news. However, such progress is expensive. Between 2000 and 2006, Scottish Water will invest approximately £1.6 billion in improving urban waste water infrastructure to protect our water environment, which includes our bathing waters. Additional public-private partnership schemes will invest a further £500 million during the same period. That is a huge sum of money by anyone's standards. The investment has been prioritised to protect our bathing waters. All members, their constituents and every other Scottish Water customer have paid and will continue to pay for those improvements.

The work cannot stop there. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, a revised bathing water directive that proposes even higher water quality standards is being discussed in Europe. Why have those higher standards been proposed? The purpose of the directive is to ensure clean, safe coastal water for the public to enjoy and to afford equal opportunity and access to clean beaches throughout continental Europe and these islands. Protecting public health is a key priority in that process.

I am glad that the minister has told us about the European Commission's new bathing water directive. He is right to say that it will set even higher standards. What has the Executive done to ascertain the cost implications of even greater investment in the water industry and the potential impact on charge payers when the directive comes into force?

Considerable work, some of which is focused on shaping the directive, is being done to ensure that the directive's emphasis on improving quality suits the geographical, geological and climatic conditions to which I referred, so that the potential costs to Scotland are minimised and the potential benefits of improving water quality are maximised. As the work on the directive comes to a conclusion, it will shape the cost-benefit analysis.

Bathing in water that does not meet current European standards would not make people seriously ill, but they might get a minor eye infection or a stomach upset, which could spoil a holiday. It is only natural not to want to bathe in water that is anything other than perfectly clean. If we cannot guarantee always to meet the proposed new European standards, what can we do? As I have said before in the chamber, not even I can change the Scottish climate—

But in an independent Scotland—

After independence, perhaps every day would be the first day of spring.

I am sure that Alex Johnstone agrees that de-stocking the entire Ayrshire coast is a rather drastic prospect. One option is to live with the minor temporary decreases in water quality and to ensure that the public is told about them so that people can take an informed decision about whether to bathe. That seems to be a realistic approach—after all, the dips in water quality occur only when it is pouring with rain, and who would want to use the beach in those conditions? Meeting the proposed new standards at all locations all the time will be a big challenge for us, especially in wet years.

I have outlined the extensive work that we have done to improve coastal water quality and explained the problems and costs that we face in making further, marginal, improvements. A new bathing water directive is looming. Should we look again at our bathing water designations policy? Where should the designated waters be? How can we best protect the public? What price are we prepared to pay for marginal improvements in water quality?

We need to adopt a sustainable approach to our bathing waters to ensure that we protect and manage our excellent water environment to benefit the people of Scotland. I am therefore happy to open this afternoon's debate and to hear what colleagues have to say on this complicated issue.

I move,

That the Parliament commends the results achieved during the 2003 bathing season for Scotland's designated bathing waters; welcomes the Scottish Executive's continued commitment to place the environment at the forefront of our strategy for protecting our bathing waters; acknowledges the importance of continuing to strive to achieve best value from the considerable investment that Scotland is applying, which in turn enhances Scotland's tourist credentials, and endorses the partnership approach taken by the Executive to work with all sectors to reduce pollution to the water environment.

Thank you. The 11 minutes turned out to be both guideline and mandatory.

Allan Wilson started with a distinct lack of enthusiasm, which suggests that he was not party to the decision to have this debate. Despite what some members of the press might think, the debate has nothing to do with swimming pools. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that an increasing number of commentators are looking at the debates the Executive is bringing to the Parliament and asking, "Why on earth are they spending so long talking about that?" To me, it is not so much that the topics of debate are pointless—today's debate, for example, has the potential to be important; the real pity is that we have been presented with yet another self-congratulatory, self-deluding motion from the Executive, on such a narrow focus.

Good progress has been made: SEPA figures show that 95 per cent of Scotland's bathing waters met mandatory European quality standards and 60 per cent met the guideline pass standard, which means excellent quality. I am happy to commend those who have been involved in securing that progress, but even SEPA expressed disappointment that 100 per cent compliance was not achieved. It also recognised that if we had not had such a relatively dry summer, the results might not have been as good. I suspect that last summer will provide a blip in more than one set of statistics.

We should aim for excellence grade for all our bathing waters. We need to ask why the Government officially recognises only 60 bathing beaches in Scotland. Denmark has designated more than 1,000 beaches and Finland—Finland, for goodness' sake—has designated 500. Initially, 126 beaches were recommended to the Scottish Office, which opted to select 23. That number was then raised to 60 at the start of 1999.

As any beach that is used regularly has the potential to be designated, it is puzzling that the Executive apparently has no plans to reconvene the bathing water review panel. It seems as though the Executive is happy to say, "We have listed our 60 beaches. Everything is fine with them, so there is nothing more to be done." Perhaps that is part of the do-nothing-hope-no-one-notices strategy that the Executive appears to be pursuing.

A huge number of Scottish beaches lie outwith the list of 60. Hundreds of our most beautiful, quiet, seemingly unspoiled and relatively remote beaches are used by members of the public. Those members of the public equally deserve to be protected from pollution. Quiet out-of-the-way beaches are not the only beaches to fall through the net. Many other beaches that are not on the official list are used regularly by bathers, windsurfers, surfers and sailors. Some of those were tested by SEPA: beaches at Largs, Kirkcaldy and Helensburgh failed to meet the EU standard.

I do not believe that we should get too hung up on the number of blue flags we can run up our seaside flagpoles. Some of the things, such as toilet facilities and car parking, that are required for that status would change the unspoilt nature that is part of the appeal of some of our beaches. However, we need to ensure that the water quality around those beaches is up to standard. Such beaches are becoming increasingly popular with surfers and other watersports enthusiasts. A clean environment is a major part of Scotland's tourism potential. That is why it is a pity that today's debate has been given such a narrow focus: bathing waters do not exist in isolation from the rest of the marine environment.

Does the member accept that in introducing the debate I referred to the water environment more generally? I also referred to SEPA's pass rate of 98 per cent. Does the member accept that there must be a correlation between usage and quality if the intent of the directive is to be properly implemented?

There is nothing wrong with making a correlation between usage and quality as long as we are ultimately talking about the water quality around all our coastal areas.

In a speech to WWF's oceans recovery seminar on 23 October, Allan Wilson promised that he would work with stakeholders before Christmas to produce a full consultation on the marine environment early in 2004. Today's debate would have been an ideal opportunity to inform the Parliament about the progress of that initiative, but the Executive is giving extremely mixed messages on its commitment to introducing legislation to protect the marine environment. Just a month after Allan Wilson's speech in October, Ross Finnie discussed the issue with the Environment and Rural Development Committee. Let me quote at length what Ross Finnie said during consideration of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill:

"If you can dispense with this bill quickly, deal with the water environment legislation relatively quickly and dispose of the proposed strategic environmental assessment bill in a trice, we will have time to consider much wider ranges of legislation. I do not wish to be facetious; the matter is important, but I have introduced a heavy programme that will take up much parliamentary time. I am conscious of the burden that we have already placed on your committee and you have other things to do. We will continue to work up what is required in terms of consultation and the scope we are looking at, but we have already proposed to the committee a hefty programme of legislation that will make a lot of work for you and me."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 26 November 2003; c 522-23.]

I do not wish to appear facetious either, but if we have such a heavy work load and if there is so much meaningful debate to be had, why do we spend our time on debates such as today's, which are designed to be nothing more than self-congratulatory time fillers? That is why my amendment talks about bathing water quality being a component of the bigger issue that is the wider marine environment.

The Parliament needs to do some bigger-picture thinking. That is what people want to see. If we are discussing the waters around our shores, of course we need to consider the progress in improving the quality of the bathing water at 60 hand-picked beaches, but we must also consider the call for a single EU directive on maritime safety and oil pollution that has been made by KIMO—I shall not try to pronounce its Finnish name in full—which is the organisation that represents coastal communities throughout the north of Europe. We need to take on board KIMO's findings that 96 per cent of dead seabirds surveyed in 2001 had plastics in their stomachs.

We should be considering the potential threat to our marine environment of the toxic fleet from the United States, and Westminster's plans for the dismantling of nuclear submarines. We should join the Irish Government in its concern about the impact of Sellafield on the marine environment.

We are a coastal country—a maritime nation—and we should be doing a lot more than talk about paddling in the sea. The Executive motion does no more than dip its toe in the issues that should be addressed. I ask members to support my amendment.

I move amendment S2M-695.3, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:

"but believes that this is only one component in a larger concern about the marine environment that must be addressed urgently if the commitment to improving Scotland's natural environment overall is to be realised."

Today's debate is one of those in which I ought to take the opportunity to declare an interest, given that agricultural run-off is important to the subject. I should make clear my interest because I have some experience of what SEPA is trying to achieve.

The Executive's motion is self-congratulatory, but we should not allow ourselves to make that the only criterion for refusing to support it. Although I am proposing a fairly radical amendment, I am happy that we should support the efforts of the Executive and the others who are involved. Many people are working hard to ensure that our bathing waters are improved and that their quality is protected in the long term.

SEPA inspectors are involved in a project in which they visit farms where agricultural run-off is a possibility. The area in the north-east where I farm managed to escape designation as a nitrate vulnerable zone, but it has been included in the pilot project. I was able to be present when the audit took place. The work that is being done by SEPA inspectors—like the work that was done when these matters were the responsibility of the predecessor organisation, the North East River Purification Board—has been constructive and positive. Wherever possible, the inspectors have sought to work hand-in-hand with those who may be creating pollution, to ensure that they understand the regulations and are able to implement them in such a way as to prevent pollution. It is a pleasant departure from the policeman mentality that often reigns in Government departments.

On the broader subject, the European Commission has proposed a replacement for the 1976 bathing water directive. The Conservatives welcome the chance to update the legislation. The Commission proposals include higher water quality standards, but on two, rather than 19, tests that affect public health. That is a more integrated quality management approach and the harmonised methods for handling water samples will also be of benefit.

The Conservatives in the European Parliament have welcomed the chance to simplify and update the legislation, to make it flexible and to improve the information given to the public about the quality of bathing water throughout Europe. However, Socialist, Liberal and Green amendments that have been passed in the European Parliament would extend the scope of the proposed directive to include waters that are used for other recreational activities, such as surfing and windsurfing. Those activities tend to be undertaken further from the shore over an extended period of time. Designating all those new waters as bathing water sites would significantly increase the extent of monitoring and management.

Amendments that add new criteria for the chemical composition of water and standards that relate to aquatic life but do not have a direct bearing on public health have also been pushed through. They will add to monitoring costs and could confuse the public, who are looking for reassurance about the health and safety of bathing water.

Of particular importance to Scotland is an amendment that is being lodged by Labour MEPs on behalf of the UK Government. It would allow more flexibility at times of diffuse pollution. The text of the amendment was only partly passed at first reading on 20 November 2003, but the UK will press it in the Council and the Conservatives will support it at second reading.

The Conservative party knows how important it is for Scotland to have a clean and safe water environment, especially bathing water. It must reach the EU's guidelines to safeguard public health and promote Scotland as an attractive place to visit—for the sake of our £4.5 billion per annum tourism industry if nothing else. We therefore urge the Executive to take the necessary action to bring the three failing beaches that are included in the report up to the level of mandatory EU standards.

The Executive must ensure that Scottish Water minimises sewage effluent leakage into rivers, as the effluent eventually runs on to Scottish beaches. Cases of that nature attract adverse publicity, as happened in April this year when a sewer in Ayr collapsed and the river was flooded with effluent. Scottish Water has a bad record on leakage, not only from sewers but from water supplies, and compares unfavourably with suppliers in England and Wales. The water industry commissioner has already highlighted the extra cost to Scottish consumers that results from that record. It must be corrected, and we must consider whether we should address the way in which Scottish Water is held accountable. The current arm's-length approach taken by the Executive has resulted in Scottish Water being confused by competing priorities and budgetary constraints.

It is increasingly clear that planning will be a key issue in the waste disposal issues that the Parliament and the Executive have to address. We should have known that: Scottish Water's applications for much-needed improvements in sewage treatment have continually been knocked back on planning grounds. When we address the planning issue, it is essential that we simplify and speed up the process. With those provisos, I would be pleased, should I be required at the end of the day, to vote for the Executive's motion—but as others have said, it is a self-congratulatory motion.

I move amendment S2M-695.1, to leave out from "commends" to end and insert:

"notes the continuing improvement in bathing water quality in Scotland but believes that further progress is now dependent on addressing the limitations of Scottish Water and the planning system."

For centuries, the seas have been humanity's dumping ground. We therefore welcome the improvements to our coasts that have been made in recent years and the political interest being shown through the number of amendments that have been lodged for this afternoon's debate.

However, we must not forget that we have had a very dry summer, which, as the minister said, will have served to improve the bathing water results. Although the work of Scottish Water, SEPA and, no doubt, many of the individual farmers and other land managers who have contributed to this year's good result is welcome and to be commended, we should be aware that we also got lucky with the weather this summer.

Even within the current year's results, though, not all our beaches reach the minimum standards. The Executive's 2002 strategy for improvement states:

"Nothing short of full compliance will be acceptable."

We should bear in mind that what we are talking about here is compliance with standards set by the bathing water directive way back in 1976. Although we have a record of improvement against standards set by that directive, we need to accept that, under the new, revised directive, compliance will be harder to achieve.

I understand the point that Mark Ruskell is making, but does it not run contrary to his previous point, which was that we got lucky this year? In fact, we have made continuous progress from 50 per cent compliance in 1998 to 95 per cent compliance in 2003. This is not simply a freak result in one year; there is evidence of steady progress over that period.

I have already mentioned that steady progress has been made, but the motion alludes much more to this year's results. We cannot consider only this year's results: we have to consider the steady progress over time and, indeed, continued progress. While we have a record of improvement against standards set by the 1976 directive, we need to accept that, under the revised directive, compliance will be harder to achieve.

The minister is right to say that there is no room for complacency; nor should we forget that many bathing beaches that are used by the public need to be brought under the scope of the new directive. For example, beaches such as Kirkcaldy Linktown and Largo east in my region, which are vital for the regeneration of the Fife coast, are still failing to meet those basic safety limits.

Given the impact of diffuse pollution from agriculture on bathing water, we need to consider what opportunities the common agricultural policy reform will offer for shifting Government funding away from agricultural practices that contribute to pollution. Let us not forget that, while we applaud the £2.5 million Executive biogas project that was launched today, £600 million goes into agricultural subsidies each year under the CAP—public money equivalent to one and a half Scottish Parliament buildings every year.

We should seek the highest possible level of modulation under CAP reform to pay farmers for environmental benefits. We should also ensure that the definitions of good agricultural practice that will require to be met for receipt of subsidy are synonymous with excellent environmental management on the farm.

CAP reform is not the only policy area that requires attention. Scotland has seen decades of underinvestment in our water structure. We should pay heed to Unison's warning that current investment has to be paid for either through water charges or by diverting resources from other public services.

I also want to draw members' attention to weaknesses in the bathing water directive when it comes to pollution from non-biological sources. Areas such as Sandside bay, on the north coast of Scotland can become contaminated with spent fuel particles that have leaked from Dounreay. If Sandside bay were a designated bathing area, it could slip through the bathing water directive net because the standards in the directive do not apply to radioactive or chemical pollution.

If we were to find ourselves cutting up nuclear submarine hulls, the risk would be further magnified. We need a proactive interpretation of the statement in the revised directive that says that

"care for our bathing waters needs to progress from simply sampling and monitoring to integrated quality management".

The water framework directive that was enacted by the Scottish Parliament as the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 is a far-reaching piece of legislation that has resource implications in keeping with its importance. The Executive commitment in the partnership agreement to implement the act is welcome. It will provide the policy context within which the bathing water directive can operate.

The Executive has committed itself to consulting on the best strategy for protecting and enhancing all of Scotland's coastline. In that respect, it is significant that the revised bathing water directive embraces the principles of integrated coastal zone management. That concept represents the sort of joined-up approach that we need to take to the promotion of the sustainable management of our coasts. It is an approach that I hope is implicit in the wording of the Executive's motion, which refers to the Executive's approach

"to work with all sectors to reduce pollution to the water environment."

It is easy to place the responsibility for clean bathing waters on Scottish Water and SEPA alone. We need to face up to our own patterns of consumption and to accept that we all have a part to play in minimising pollution.

The improvements that we have seen in bathing water quality are welcome. Further progress is needed, however, before we can come close to meeting the requirements of the bathing water directive and of our own Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. We have to tackle pollution at source and to accept that doing so requires investment. The longer-term benefits to Scotland's economy, the quality of life and quality of our environment will, however, make that a real investment for the future.

I move amendment S2M-695.4, to leave out from "commends" to end and insert:

"notes that while 2003 represents a record year for compliance with the Bathing Water Directive, some of Scotland's best bathing locations still fail to meet minimum standards; notes that compliance with the higher standards required by a revised European Directive will place further demands upon Scottish Water, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and other bodies with responsibilities for water quality; further notes that other legislation also impacts on Scotland's bathing water quality, and urges the Scottish Executive to be mindful of these considerations and of the importance of integrated coastal zone management when it consults on the best strategy for protecting and enhancing Scotland's coastline."

The statistics that have been published for 2003, which show that 95 per cent of our 60 designated bathing waters meet the mandatory standard and that more than 60 per cent meet the higher guideline standard, are to be welcomed.

Allan Wilson and other members outlined the considerable progress that has been made since 1998 and, indeed, from 2002, with a little help from the weather. I do not need to rehearse the statistics. However, there is no room for complacency. Five per cent, or three, of the 60 designated bathing beaches failed to meet the standard.

Even where bathing water meets the minimum standard, there is no guarantee of protection from the effects of pollutants. Friends of the Earth has pointed out that 73 per cent of reported illnesses among water sports enthusiasts occurred on beaches where water quality meets the minimum requirements.

There are many contributing factors to bathing water pollution. In the past, the main culprit has been sewage effluent. That is not surprising when collectively we produce 1.1 million cubic litres of liquid domestic sewage per day. All of us know that there is a lot of catching up to be done in respect of foul-water treatment. However, considerable investment has been made in upgrading existing sewage treatment works and in building new ones to eliminate sewage as a contributory factor to failing water standards. That work will continue.

As that major water pollutant is tackled, other factors including industrial discharges, diffuse agricultural pollution and the run-off from built-up areas, roads and car parks, which might contain oil residues, become more apparent. The increasing use of sustainable urban drainage systems is helping to reduce pollution from run-off, and controls on industrial discharges continue to tighten. Indeed, many industries are cleaning up their act voluntarily, as they begin to quantify the costed disbenefits of waste and the benefits of corporate responsibility and of having green credentials.

Much work has been carried out on how to tackle diffuse agricultural pollution through containment of slurries; nutrient budgeting to avoid excess manure being spread and leaching into water courses; and good management practices at water margins.

The original bathing water quality directive of 1976 was one of the first pieces of European environmental legislation and was introduced to require bathing water quality to be monitored and tested to protect bathers from health risks and to preserve the environment from pollution. The revised directive, which was proposed in October 2002, will use only bacteriological indicators but will set a higher health standard. It will provide long-term quality assessment and management methods to reduce the frequency and costs of monitoring. Well-developed management of bathing waters and extensive public information will replace an approach based purely on monitoring and retrospective compliance and there will be a stricter single standard for both fresh and coastal waters.

The quality of our bathing waters should improve even more when the requirements of the water framework directive begin to kick in and as we make progress on better protecting the marine environment with the introduction of marine national parks and integrated coastal zone management. Indeed, that issue has been highlighted extensively in our stage 1 consideration of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill. Although we might not be an obvious beach resort tourist destination, we attract water sports enthusiasts who surf, dive, canoe and sail around our coasts. Clean coastal waters also benefit the flora and fauna that attract walkers, bird enthusiasts and dolphin watchers. We need high water quality standards to protect and encourage those important tourism sectors.

Aquaculture, which also makes an important contribution to our economic activity, benefits from Scotland's reputation as a country with a clean water environment. As a result, there are good economic and environmental reasons for pursuing good bathing water quality regardless of whether we are required to do so to comply with European standards.

Good progress has been made and we are going in the right direction. However, we must not relax our efforts. I support the motion, and regret that the three amendments were not phrased as addenda, because each of them adds points that will be taken on board, whatever the vagaries of the voting system.

I know that the debate has been billed as an example of the dumbing down of the Scottish Parliament's agenda, but listening to the speeches so far, I am struck by the extent of the public policy choices that must be made on this matter. Although the issue is not a front-page one—unless beaches fail to meet standards—big public policy matters such as public expenditure and public health have arisen as a result of discussions in Europe on the new bathing water directive. Our involvement in the debate will not earn us any brownie points—perhaps that is an inappropriate phrase; I will say kudos instead—but members have already made some vital points.

The issue centres on what we consider to be acceptable standards in the 21st century for the beaches around our coast. As Nora Radcliffe pointed out, we are not the top choice for a two-week beach holiday. The Scottish weather cannot support that kind of tourism. However, that does not mean that thousands of people do not like surfing, windsurfing and sailing. Members who have tried such sports will know that the people who take part in them spend a large part of the time in the water. Furthermore, they do not go to designated beaches to engage in those activities. Although it is tempting to say that the illnesses that the minister mentioned are minor ones, they are still public health issues and we cannot dismiss them out of hand.

I want to concentrate colleagues' minds on this issue. Members might not have realised that two weeks ago the European Union imposed a fine on Spain because it failed to meet the quality standards set out in the existing bathing water quality directive. We are not talking about a small punishment. Spain will be required to pay about €624,000 every year for every 1 per cent of inshore Spanish bathing waters that continues to fail to meet the quality standards.

That is absolutely right. We admit that the rest of Europe has thousands more beaches than Scotland has, but that does not automatically mean that all those beaches meet the EU's standards. It is good that we are making much progress in Scotland and it is a real mistake to pretend that we are the only country in the whole of Europe that does not have decent bathing water facilities and that we are uniquely bad in that regard.

There are some aspects that are of particular importance in Scotland. Although, as several members have mentioned, we have had very good weather in the past year, diffuse pollution is a genuine issue that we will have to examine. As the minister pointed out, the new bathing water legislation will force the Parliament to focus on what has already been achieved in Scotland and to think about the standards that we want to ensure our beaches meet in future. We will have to focus on how much money we are prepared to spend on improving the water around our coastline. What are we prepared to do about that? What are we prepared to see in legislation?

It is true that improvements to our waste water treatment works have had a massive impact on water quality in key areas. The fact that part of Portobello beach made the guideline standard is a massive achievement when one thinks that only 2km away there is a waste water treatment facility that serves half a million people. That must be cause for celebration. Although the Environment and Rural Development Committee has addressed other issues in relation to that facility, we should acknowledge the achievement at Portobello.

It is right that a huge amount of taxpayers' money is being invested in higher-quality sewage treatment. We now have tertiary treatment facilities around Scotland whereas, historically, it was all right just to discharge raw sewage into our environment.

I know that the Tories focused on Scottish Water, but a bigger issue lies behind that.

I appreciate what the member says about new treatment works, but is she aware that, in places such as Campbeltown and Inverary in Argyll, where new treatment centres have recently been put in, the people are far from happy with the results, because the situation is worse than it was before?

Earlier this week, I met Scottish Water to discuss that very issue. If the member contacts Scottish Water again, he will find that work is going on with the local council to resolve the problem, which goes back to some of the historic planning problems that Alex Johnstone mentioned.

I want to concentrate on diffuse pollution, which is much harder to control. That is where we could expend much more of our energies. We know that heavy rain causes pollution by washing away pesticides, slurry and chemicals from our farms, and that the run-off from roads, housing and industrial developments can become contaminated with pollutants such as silt, oil, metals and other chemicals, which collect in the sewerage system and end up in the sea; no one has discussed that issue at any length today.

We need to pay much more attention to diffuse pollution. Recently, I took part in a WWF chemicals test and was highly surprised to find that I had a pesticide in my bloodstream that was banned 20 years ago. Pesticides run off agricultural land, move through our rivers and end up in the sea, along with a cocktail of other pollutants. The quality of our bathing water is important, so I think that we need to do much more upstream and onshore. We must not only consider integrated coastal zone management and the need for a marine environment bill, both of which have been mentioned, but tackle the pollution at source.

I am disappointed with the amendments. Although Alex Johnstone acknowledged the importance of planning in his speech, he was wrong to focus on Scottish Water. As well as examining the good things that have been done, we need to focus on the second half of the Executive's motion, which talks about the major challenge that we face. The nationalists made exactly the same mistake; their amendment would have been totally acceptable as an add-on—indeed, it would have been a positive and constructive add-on. It was a mistake to try to delete the reference to the challenge that we face, which is outlined in the Executive's motion. That is why I think that the amendments should be rejected.

I am surprised that we are debating bathing water quality for a couple of hours, given the number of pressing issues that the Parliament faces. The Parliament needs to increase the relevance of its debates to match what people outside the Parliament are talking about. Some of the subjects that were discussed during SNP time this morning, such as financial powers and the threat to cut the number of MEPs in Scotland, are far more fundamental; they are the sort of issue that we should be spending our time discussing. Bathing water quality is a very important and worthy subject, but I do not think that it should be commanding two hours of our time, given the pressure we face in relation to several other issues. When starting his opening speech, even the minister looked rather disappointed and worried when the Presiding Officer told him that he had to speak for 11 minutes.

The marine environment is crucial to Scotland because we are a marine nation and we are responsible for much of Europe's coastline. That means that we have an enormous responsibility to look after our marine environment. The issue is important not only because bathing water quality is important to human health.

Will the member give way?

I give way to Sarah Boyack.

In the past 30 seconds, the member has contradicted himself. He said that the debate is irrelevant and that the subject is not a matter of public policy, although we are spending £3 billion on Scottish Water to improve our sewage treatment works, yet he also said that the marine environment is one of Scotland's key assets. Richard Lochhead should think about inshore fisheries, on which he spoke articulately yesterday. The subject that we are debating today is a big issue. It is not attractive or sexy, but it is fundamental.

When the Parliament is pressed for time, there is a difference between worthy and important issues and issues to which the public want the Parliament to devote two hours of debate in our national political forum. A distinction also exists between the overall marine environment and bathing waters, on which the debate focuses. We should be talking about many other matters. If members speak to the public, they will find that the public have a similar view to mine. The turnout at elections is plummeting because the Parliament is not seen to be talking about issues that matter to the people of Scotland.

The marine environment as a whole is important for economic reasons, because it concerns the shellfish industry; the tourism industry, which other members have mentioned; and the growing organic aquaculture industry. All of those depend on good-quality and healthy sea water, and that is not to mention the human health implications to which other members referred.

The minister should say why we designate only 60 beaches, unlike many other countries, which designate thousands. Another matter is the "Good Beach Guide", which receives a huge amount of publicity when it is issued. The public become confused by the messages in that coverage and the fact that the Government has designated 60 beaches. They are not sure whether the message is that our beaches are or are not of great quality.

This year, the "Good Beach Guide" endorsed only 10 extra beaches in Scotland, and endorsed only 32 of the 126 beaches in Scotland that were sampled. I understand that beaches in the outer Hebrides are of great quality but are not sampled, which distorts the image that the public receive from the guides that are publicised in the press.

The pressure from the European Union on the Scottish Government to deliver environmental improvements is a positive aspect of the EU. The debate arises because of an EU directive, and other EU legislation such as the dangerous substances directive, the groundwater directive and the birds and habitats directives all have an impact on our marine environment. I am thankful that the Government cannot get away with dragging its feet because of EU pressure. The EU does not always have a good press in Scotland, but it deserves a good press this time.

My final point is about reserved matters. Ghost ships have been in the news a lot recently. Those ships could have had a huge impact on our beaches and on the quality of the marine environment. I am thankful that the ghost ships, which are in Hartlepool, will not come into Scottish waters, but they could have done so. When I wrote to the ministers about the subject, their reply was that they did not know about the issue. The Executive did not know about the matter until it saw all the publicity and it contacted the UK Government. We need a bit more co-ordination.

Much of the legislation is reserved to London. The fact that 77 acts are relevant to the marine environment in Scotland creates huge confusion and complexity, so we must simplify the situation. I hope that the Executive has proposals in the pipeline to achieve that. We must find out how to streamline those 77 acts so that we know who is responsible for what and the public understand the situation. We must do much to ensure that the marine environment goes higher up the political agenda.

Conservatives certainly welcomed the Executive's document "Scotland's Bathing Waters: A strategy for improvement" when it was published in 2002. Our biggest industry is tourism, which has a value of £4.5 billion annually, so it is essential that our many beautiful beaches and bathing areas should be as pristine as possible.

The Executive declared:

"We are committed to achieving European standards at all 60 Scottish identified bathing waters",

but it gave no time target for meeting that commitment. In view of the Executive's somewhat wha's-like-us motion, we are entitled to ask whether we should commend the results that have been achieved. Let us examine them.

This year—as the minister rightly mentioned—39 Scottish sites passed the European Community's higher guideline standards, 18 passed the basic or mandatory standards, but three failed to reach the required EC standards. I will not name and shame those three sites, but they account for 5 per cent of the country's 60 identified bathing areas. In England and Wales, only 1.2 per cent of the 500 designated areas failed to reach the standards, so we are not doing as well as we might like to tell ourselves.

I welcome pilot projects that have been funded by the Executive and organised by SEPA. For example, electronic messages relating to water quality and European Union bathing standards were flashed in six bathing sites in south-west Scotland this summer. However, no one can deny that many of Scotland's bathing areas continue to be dogged by pollution.

In particular, I welcome the achievement of four bathing areas in Scotland this year in winning coveted blue flag awards. The award scheme is run throughout the United Kingdom by Environmental Campaigns—ENCAMS—which compares UK beaches with beaches throughout Europe and South Africa. They are aimed at meeting the highest standards of cleanliness and coastal environmental care. I am particularly delighted at the success of those four beaches because all four of them are in Fife. One of them—the West Sands—is in my home town of St Andrews. The others areas are Aberdour's Silver sands, Burntisland and Elie harbour beach.

I welcome what the member says. However, in welcoming the pristine quality of Fife's beaches, does he accept that the problem that we face in south-west Scotland and north-west England is to do not simply with climactic change but with the geography and geology of those parts of our islands?

I am not totally convinced by the minister's argument, given the amount of industrial pollutants that come out of the Forth estuary, the power stations and so on.

Fife has done exceptionally well in obtaining those four blue flag awards, which are the only four in Scotland. However, let us face it—the rest of the UK has 100 blue flag awards. On a population basis alone, we should have had around 10 awards in Scotland, but we got four.

Much as the Executive might like to bask in Fife's success, I must pay tribute to Fife Council—which is a rare occurrence for me—for its commendable work in achieving such high bathing standards. Councillor Jim Brennan said:

"the maintenance of the beaches is the responsibility of Fife Council, local communities, Scottish Water".

He did not mention the Executive in his press release.

Yesterday afternoon, in respect of Alex Fergusson's members' business debate, I urged the Executive in its forthcoming strategic review of Scotland's inshore waters to consider setting up regional management groups to protect and preserve all the stakeholders who are involved in our coastal waters. I said that those groups should include fisheries, tourism and wildlife interests, as well as local authority representatives. They should certainly also include water purity experts.

The truth is that until we have sight of Allan Wilson's looming new water directive, it is difficult to offer the Executive any more than a could-still-do-better assessment in any interim report on improving our water environment.

I thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to speak in support of the motion in the name of Allan Wilson. I am aware that the debate is taking place when work is being undertaken to improve the number of bathing areas in Scotland that comply with the standards that have been set out by EU directives.

I would like to say something about what Richard Lochhead, convener of the European and External Relations Committee, said this afternoon that concerns me. We have discussed early intervention and having the earliest warnings that we possibly can to influence Europe at an appropriate time. We know that there is on-going work in Europe to change protocols and to examine the work that has been undertaken under the EU directives. Therefore, Richard Lochhead was gainsaying something that the European and External Relations Committee has agreed to—that is, that there should be the earliest possible warning about such issues.

Would not it have been appropriate to have had this debate a month and a half ago, before the directives were coming up for discussion in the European framework, so that the Parliament could have influenced the process?

Bruce Crawford will find that Richard Lochhead dismissed the idea. I find it surprising that members, including the convener of the European and External Relations Committee, who is sitting opposite me, are saying that the subject is not important.

I am able to speak on this topic from the perspective of being an MSP for the constituency that contains the bathing waters of Aberdour, which won the EU blue flag award. Ted Brocklebank mentioned that in a speech that contained much with which I agreed. I also speak from the perspective of someone who has been actively involved in work on environmental matters with the North Sea Commission, which is an organisation comprising political representation from Scotland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Holland and Belgium. As do the EC and many MSPs, the North Sea Commission recognises the importance of setting high standards for the quality of our water.

The strategy set by any one of the member states is interdependent on the strategies that are set by other member states. The minister has to cope not only with this country's strategy; he has to think of the strategies of other countries because the pollution arising from whatever happens in Holland, Germany or wherever has an impact on the pollution around our beaches, as was highlighted earlier in relation to Sellafield. For that reason, it is vital that we strive constantly to develop our political relationships with our neighbours around the North sea. Pollution in the sea and the air knows no boundaries, so the size of the challenge that the Scottish Executive faces is immense.

The challenges come not only from international waters but from the actions of every one of us in Scotland, as some of our colleagues—in particular Sarah Boyack—illustrated today.

When I think of the benefits that derive to Fife as a result of the fact that we have those blue flag bathing waters, I reflect on the commitment that has been shown by many professionals over a long period of time. That work was not done overnight and I inform Ted Brocklebank that it was started in the days of the Labour-controlled Fife Regional Council and culminated in the work of Scottish Water.

I share Helen Eadie's delight that there are blue flag beaches in Fife, as they are significant. However, a tourist walking on the Fife coastal path would also pass beaches that do not meet the minimum requirements. Does Helen Eadie agree that we should strive to include those beaches in implementation of the bathing water directive and do something about the situation?

The purpose of the debate is to allow us constructively to criticise the situation and make contributions. The minister has not pretended today that there is not much more to do, although we have done a lot. That is a fair point to put to colleagues.

It makes sense to improve our bathing water. On behalf of my constituents in Dunfermline East, I welcome the expert teams that have existed for some time across Europe. Within the general debate about the EU, it makes sense to sign up to the EU's directives and protocols. People often ask in what way it is relevant for us to be in the EU and the subject that we are discussing is an excellent example of why it makes sense for us to be in the EU.

I support the point that Mark Ruskell made about integrated coastal zone management, which is vital. Only in recent years has the UK taken that issue seriously on board. Our EU neighbours have been working on integrated coastal zone management strategies for a long time. The member states' expert teams have been working continually to define appropriate bathing water quality microbiological standards and compliance rules. Those experts have acknowledged, from their trials, assessments and evaluations, that the potential EC expert standard is too stringent for wider-scale application. That recognises the cost implications that Bruce Crawford mentioned and points to the fact that a political balance needs to be struck between the standards and cost factors.

Despite what the press and other commentators might say, this debate is important from the point of view of public health, the economy and the EU's interrelationships. We need to say to our colleagues in Scottish Water, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and local authority and political bodies, such as the North Sea Commission and the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, that we need to interact with them. We need to affirm this Parliament's desire to support politically their key work.

The debate is not self-congratulatory on the part of the Scottish Executive but is meant to celebrate the fact that enough of us care to applaud the efforts of the experts who are engaged in this vital work. In securing the debate, our minister, Allan Wilson, has recognised the many facets of bathing water quality. Putting the issue under the microscope, as we have done today, will send a message to the people of Scotland.

As Mark Ruskell said, we do not want our bathing waters to be dumping grounds, and our bathing water quality is one component in the tourism strategy.

I am sure that the minister initiated the debate in a spirit of asking what we can do to make things better, so the challenge for all members is to make constructive criticisms and not simply more snide political comments.

It would be churlish not to acknowledge that considerable improvements have been made in bathing water quality—the minister has already mentioned them—but even bathing water gets mired in smoke and mirrors. On 23 September, the Executive published on its website a press release with the big banner headline "Best ever bathing water results". The press release goes on to talk about

"95 per cent of designated bathing waters meeting the mandatory standard of the Bathing Water Directive and over 60 per cent meeting the higher guideline",

which was true. The minister is quoted as saying:

"While the preliminary results achieved for the 2003 bathing season are the best ever for Scotland's designated bathing waters, we are by no means complacent."

However, the headline in The Scotsman the next morning was "SEPA fails to reach goal for clean Scots beaches", so what should we believe when we read about such matters? The Scotsman tells us:

"Some 5 per cent of Scotland's 60 designated bathing beaches fell foul of European Union requirements this season, with three beaches on the west coast failing to meet minimum safety standards.

And only 65 per cent of the popular coastal spots offered bathing water of ‘excellent' quality, as outlined in the European Bathing Water Directive.

Studies of an additional 53 popular coastal waters found only 91 per cent met EU standards of cleanliness."

At that stage, a spokesman for SEPA also said:

"SEPA is very disappointed its target of 100 per cent compliance has not been met, and acknowledges there is still a lot of work to do."

I make those points because it is important that we get some clarity on what is really happening. There has been an improvement, but it has not been dramatic and there is a long way to go. It ain't, as the banner headline said it was, a case of "Best ever bathing water results". That may be a fact, but it is in danger of belying the truth.

Will Mr Crawford clarify his party's position? Is he aware that the quality of bathing beaches and the provision of sewage treatment have been one of the most bitterly debated issues on the west coast of Scotland, particularly in Ayrshire, over the past 20 years? Is he aware of the scale of historic and current investment and the continuing planning disputes that affect communities such as Largs, Millport and Arran? Will he reflect on the fact that the climatic and topographic character of the west of Scotland is entirely different from that of the east coast, from where the Scottish National Party speakers have all so far come, and will he acknowledge that the matter is of considerable importance to quite a lot of Scots even at this stage in the Parliament's life?

To be frank, I do not know what Murray Tosh is getting his dander up about, because I did not say at any stage that the issue was not important, and Roseanna Cunningham mentioned the Ayrshire situation. The attendance at the debate shows how much attention members in general are paying to the debate. On the Ayrshire situation, I took the rather large tome that considers all the problems that that area faces out of the Scottish Parliament information centre today to read before the debate.

I would like to make some progress, as I have just taken an intervention.

Mark Ruskell was dead right on integrated coastal zone management and on the bathing water standards not applying to radioactive waste. That is why it is important that Roseanna Cunningham's amendment be agreed to. It widens the debate from beaches to the whole marine environment and gives a much more strategic perspective, which we need. Had we had a debate on the marine environment, I am sure that more members would have attended and spoken, although I understand the importance of this debate for certain parts of Scotland, as outlined by Murray Tosh.

I will spend some of my time examining the impact that some of the nuclear establishments in Scotland have through what they discharge into the marine environment. Sarah Boyack was right to say that we need to tackle some of the issues at source. We certainly need to tackle the nuclear issues at source. I will start with the impact of the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd facility at Chapelcross. BNFL operates four Magnox reactors at Chapelcross. Since 1980, a processing plant that produces tritium has also operated on that site. Gaseous wastes from the site are discharged into the local environment and liquid radioactive waste is discharged into the Solway firth.

Recent habitat surveys have confirmed that local people who have large intakes of local seafood are exposed to risks from radioactivity. In addition, wild fowlers and fishermen who tend stake nets are exposed to external radiation. The presence of caesium 137 from Chapelcross in geese that feed on the salt marshes is also marine derived. However, none of that shows up in the figures that we are dealing with today in respect of the designation of beaches.

Mark Ruskell has already talked about the shame of Dounreay. From the beginning of its life, it has been an ugly scar on the environment of Scotland. Not only has the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority establishment been contributing to environmental degradation and harming public health for decades, so has the adjoining Ministry of Defence Vulcan plant. It has been discharging liquid radioactive waste into the sea. The on-going shame of the finds of radioactive particles at Sandside beach demonstrate well the dangers of radioactive waste to Scotland's marine life, beaches and human life. That should be a factor in whether our beaches are designated as being safe.

Our nuclear power stations also discharge harmful radioactive waste into the marine environment. There are problems at the Holy Loch and at Faslane and Coulport, where those discharges are on-going. As far as the Forth estuary is concerned, there may be clean beaches that are beginning to get the blue flag but, if 27 submarines are cut up at Rosyth, that will lead to the discharge of even more radioactive waste into the Forth until 2025. The picture would be completely different if we included those issues in consideration of whether the beaches are clean. We must do what we can to ensure that that work does not happen at Rosyth. As I am probably already over my time, I will finish at that point.

The Scottish Socialist Party recognises the progress that has been made, but we warn against complacency. I am pleased to hear the minister say that the Executive will not be complacent.

Unfortunately, the Executive recognises only 60 official bathing beaches in Scotland, whereas Denmark has designated 1,000, Finland has designated 500 and Italy has designated 5,400.

I will pose a number of questions, which were invited by the minister in his opening speech. What condition are the rest of our beaches in? What is the statutory requirement for monitoring non-designated beaches? Why are only 60 beaches designated? Do the general public not use the other beaches for leisure activities and what safeguards are in place?

Dounreay and Chapelcross have been mentioned. I will also mention Dundrennan on the Solway firth. For the past 20 years Dundrennan has been used by the MOD for the testing of weapons containing depleted uranium. Thousands of projectiles have been fired into the Solway firth, in spite of fears of potential health risks.

Since testing began in Kirkcudbright in 1982, more than 7,000 DU shells have been fired into the Solway firth. Most of the shells—approximately 20 tonnes of shells—still lie on the seabed; only one has been retrieved. How clean are the beaches around the Solway firth? What standard of monitoring is carried out there? How much has been done to reassure the people who live in that area—where there is a leukaemia cluster—that they are not at risk?

The CAP reforms are on-going. Farmers have to deal with several layers of bureaucracy and form filling. Do we really think that that is the best way to prevent agricultural pollution from ending up in our bathing water? Farmers do not want to pollute any more than the rest of us do, but with the proliferation of chemicals that they are currently forced to use in agriculture—they often have no choice—the risk of seepage into water is high. Is it not time for the Executive to take a lead in promoting organic and sustainable farming practices, which reduce chemical loading to the environment and reduce the potential for polluting our bearing waters?

Allan Wilson started the debate by avoiding a question from Shona Robison—at least, he did not give a firm answer. He went on to tell us that the weather is largely responsible for pollution even though it is also responsible for reducing pollution. To our unlimited astonishment, he went on to say that the Executive is unable to control the weather. He finished his speech by inviting us to answer two questions: whether we should reconsider the designation of bathing waters and how much we are prepared to pay. The responses have shown that the 20 or so members who are present are prepared to take that challenge seriously, which is why we are here.

The debate has been reasonably good in the sense that it has sparked off good ideas although, as Roseanna Cunningham, Alex Johnstone and others mentioned, one element of the debate was yet another self-congratulatory catalogue. Roseanna Cunningham called on us to look at the bigger picture and consider the wider marine environment, which has been done—Mark Ruskell was happy to do so in his speech. Roseanna mentioned marine pollution such as that from Sellafield and plastic in fishes' stomachs. I add to that the chemical pollution of fish in many parts of the North sea, which alters their physiology.

Alex Johnstone mentioned that he has visited farms and said that he is glad that SEPA has adopted a co-operative approach in working with farms to control diffuse pollution. Mark Ruskell agreed with that approach and gave a practical solution to the issue of where the required money will be found. Our answer is to consider the contribution that modulation of the £600 million that is to be put into agriculture could make to cutting the amount of money that the water authority spends on cleaning water. Instead of having an end-of-pipe solution, we should prevent pollution in the first place and allow the water authority to get on with its most important and pressing job, which is to replace our water mains, which leak up to a third of the total amount of water stored, and to replace our well-built but ancient Victorian sewage system.

Does Robin Harper agree that, in many areas, tightening the European directive on bathing water may involve not further engineering works or additional treatment works but a complex relationship between Scottish Water and the local agricultural communities, given that the principal source of pollution in the west of Scotland is in flood water from rivers, which is affected by agricultural run-off from organic and non-organic stock farms?

Mr Tosh has hit the nail on the head—that is exactly what Mark Ruskell said and what I have been reinforcing.

Many of the arguments have reinforced the point that the issue is hugely complex. The Executive must realise that point in addressing the issue. For example, we must tackle flood control through measures such as paying farmers to allow their fields to be flooded and planting trees, which may be part of the answer.

Robin Harper admits that the issue is hugely complex but, at the outset of his speech, he did not differentiate between the fact that rainy weather washes faecal bacteria into our coastal waters and the fact that sunny weather kills those bacteria.

I hoped that the minister might have forgiven me for that bit of levity at the beginning of my speech.

Sarah Boyack, in her eminently sensible and well-directed speech, pointed out the wide variety of policy options that are available. I hope that she appreciated that in the Green party's offering from Mark Ruskell, we suggested some of those options. Again and again, members complain about Scottish Water raising its water charges, but there is not much choice. The money must be raised either through raising the water charges or through general taxation. It is up to the Executive to make that choice and for us to support the Executive if it decides to raise the money in some other way. It is imperative that Scottish Water spends to save and that investment in improving the infrastructure for water in Scotland is made now and as quickly as possible.

To Richard Lochhead, all that I can say is that there are several sensible amendments and there has been a good debate. We have taken the issue seriously. Even if the matter were not a big public issue—and I would contest that assertion—Parliament and the Executive would have a duty to lead on a subject that we thought was important. We should debate such an issue whether or not the public think that it is important. Whether or not the public are rattling our doors, this is a very important issue and one that must be debated.

We started the debate with Allan Wilson outlining the progress that has been made and touching on future investment and the implications of improving standards. He acknowledged the fact that sunshine is a reserved matter and ended by asking salient questions about priority setting in the future, which we would do well to reflect on.

Roseanna Cunningham thought that more beaches should be considered for designation, but then pointed out why designation is not always appropriate. I agree with her that designated beaches are only one of many measures that can and should be taken to ensure good coastal water quality.

It was useful to hear from Alex Johnstone about some of the practical work that is being done to bring about improvements.

Mark Ruskell was the only member to mention the possibility of future funding being made available through the CAP reform and modulation for environmental measures.

Sarah Boyack highlighted the difficulties of addressing diffuse pollution but also why it is fundamentally important that we begin to tackle that huge and complex area, which requires a lot of research and consideration.

Richard Lochhead carped at the topic for debate, but his speech showed just how wide and important the topic of water quality is. As Sarah Boyack reminded him, it has major resource implications.

Does the member accept the fact that my so-called carping was simply pointing out that we had to widen the debate beyond bathing waters to address the whole of the marine environment, because this is one of only two Executive debates this week?

The proof of the pudding has been in the eating. The motion might have been, as Richard Lochhead said, quite narrow, but the debate has been wide ranging and the motion has triggered the opportunity for us to have a useful debate on the issues.

Ted Brocklebank—who is no longer in the chamber—did a very good job of promoting Fife and Fife Council.

Helen Eadie reminded us that pollution does not stop at man-made borders. She also made the salient point that environmental improvement takes long-term commitment.

Bruce Crawford and Rosemary Byrne highlighted the polluting effects of nuclear power stations, as well as armaments and agrochemicals, respectively.

It has been a good debate that has recognised the breadth and complexity of the issues. There has been value in airing and exploring those issues this afternoon.

I declare an interest in the subject, as I am a farmer. I shall speak in support of our amendment and re-emphasise the Conservative party's commitment to the protection of bathing water quality.

As Alex Johnstone and the minister noted, we all have a duty to protect public health. Nowhere is that more critical than in the west of Scotland, where many local people use our local beaches. In addition, cleaning up our bathing water enhances our tourism industry generally.

Nowhere is that more vital than on the beaches of Ayr, Prestwick and Troon—although, before he intervenes on me, I concede that the minister's local beaches, at Ardrossan, Largs and elsewhere, are equally important. Last summer, sitting in my office in Wellington Square in Ayr, I have been aware of literally thousands of people making their way to Ayr beach to swim in what are now clean and safe bathing waters. The huge investment in our new sewerage system, to which Murray Tosh alluded, is now paying off.

We have been lucky in Ayrshire this year as, mercifully, a burst sewer on the River Ayr did not significantly contaminate our beaches. By good luck, the old sewer running alongside the new one was able to be brought back into use to cope with the low volumes during the dry weather, and a potentially disastrous incident was avoided. Another incident, near Lochgreen golf course in Troon, was also swiftly dealt with by Scottish Water. Although I am not always Scottish Water's greatest fan, I must acknowledge the enormous effort that it made to protect our beaches on those occasions.

More can be done to continue to enhance our bathing waters, not just in Ayrshire but throughout Scotland. Stopping the daily trips of the Glasgow sewage sludge boats doon the watter to deposit Glasgow's sewage off Ailsa craig and into Ayrshire's coastal waters is just the first step. Local authorities, as well as the Executive, must play their part. One case in point is the lack of funding from South Ayrshire Council to allow the South sands at Troon to compete for a seaside award. Despite the fact that it has some of the cleanest bathing water in Scotland, the fact that money cannot be found by the council for a ranger service has denied Troon the opportunity to compete for the award. That is short-termism in the extreme, especially given the fact that Troon will be the focus of world sporting attention next summer, when the open championship comes to Troon again. I hope that at least some members will take the opportunity to come to Ayrshire for the open, and perhaps visit our beaches, if the weather permits.

We in Scotland must continue to support the revised EU bathing water directive, on a value-for-money basis. We will welcome the single river basin district designation order, which is to be laid before the Parliament later this month, as well as the subsequent creation of sub-basin management plans. We will need to continue to address the problems of diffuse pollution from industrial sewage and agricultural sources, as Sarah Boyack mentioned. That must be managed in a cost-effective way. That has not always happened in my constituency, particularly on farms in the Craigie area.

We continue to have reservations about the long-term cost to industry and agriculture of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. Unlike King Canute, however, we will not stand totally against the incoming tide of additional costs, provided they deliver quantifiable, cost-effective benefits to tourism and public health.

As Alex Johnstone said, we will need to support colleagues in the European Parliament. They have introduced an amendment to the directive to allow more flexibility over diffuse pollution when flooding occurs after heavy rainfall or snow melt. SEPA and the EU must note that our colder Scottish climate and typical lack of sunshine mean that our beach bathing waters do not benefit from the amount of cleansing ultraviolet radiation that is enjoyed by continental beaches, and I noted the minister's comments on that.

Nationally, we will have to spend significantly greater sums than other European countries will to bring our waters up to the same EU standard, which the EU must recognise. Locally, we must extend across Scotland the provision of electronic message signs that SEPA piloted in Ayrshire last year, which Ted Brocklebank mentioned. As we seek to attract more foreign visitors to our shores, we must provide them with the information with which they are familiar. I found it surprisingly reassuring to note that a beach that I visited when on holiday in southern Europe this year had a blue flag. Presumably, visitors to Scotland would be glad of similar reassurances when they come here, as Roseanna Cunningham suggested.

The debate has been very worth while, and many important issues have been raised for the minister to note. I would be particularly interested if he could give me an explanation as to why the geology of Scotland, as well as its geography, should affect bathing water quality—I am intrigued about that. I look forward to the minister's closing remarks and I commend our amendment to the Parliament.

Today's debate is similar to one that I experienced previously in a lesser place—Ross and Cromarty District Council. In that debate, which took place in 1990, the same issues cropped up as crop up now. Unfortunately, the source of pollution, which arrives with the tides, is largely ignored in this debate about protecting bathing water quality. It is certainly ignored in the motion that we are debating.

SNP members are frustrated by the narrow way in which the motion is framed and by the fact that many important issues relating to the marine environment have been excluded from it. Can the minister tell us whether—as Roseanna Cunningham asked—time will be found in the near future to progress the work that he has done to create the groundwork for a new bill?

I am happy to reassure the member that when we develop our framework strategy for the marine environment more generally we will bring it to the chamber for debate at the first opportunity. Does he accept that if the SNP had lodged its amendment as an addendum to the motion—as others suggested—I might have accepted it for wider debate, and that SNP members also have a responsibility in these matters?

It is difficult to second-guess the Government. Normally SNP amendments are completely unacceptable, regardless of the form in which they are lodged.

I represent the Highlands and Islands region. When I examine a map of the area, I notice how many beaches are located in national scenic areas or proposed areas of great national value along our coasts. That is why I am extremely disappointed by the narrow way in which the motion has been framed and why I must press the point that our amendment tries to draw the Parliament's attention to that important matter.

Roseanna Cunningham talked about the need to take a sustainable approach to this issue. Some aspects of bathing water quality development are sustainable, but until we take measures across the whole range of beaches around our shores—including seemingly unspoiled beaches that are not among the 60 beaches that have been mentioned—we will not be able to measure whether, as a nation, we are making the progress that we should be making with them.

Alex Johnstone mentioned important aspects of the work of Scottish Water, some of the mistakes that have been made in the past and the need to get planning issues sorted out to allow for progress. However, while the Conservative amendment adds its congratulations to the Government's self-congratulatory motion, it does not add a huge amount to the debate, although Conservative members have been involved to great effect in many of the debates relating to the Ayrshire coast and nitrate vulnerable zones. We are happy about that, but the Conservative amendment does not add much to the total price of this debate.

In welcoming and acknowledging what has been done, we are also considering what must be done next and what the next phase of European directives will be. There are important land-use issues that we must consider carefully. Conservative members who have spoken on those matters have been concerned by the tone of the SNP this afternoon, which has suggested that such matters are not appropriate for debate in the chamber. I argue that the directives have important implications for agriculture in Ayrshire and the south-west of Scotland that merit such scrutiny, albeit in the context of the wider issues that Mr Gibson has correctly addressed.

It would be helpful if the motion mentioned any of the directives, but it does not. We are stressing that we would like these issues to be debated, but the Government's motion does not do that.

In his speech, Mark Ruskell discussed integrated coastal zone management. That is the kind of development in legislation that will have to be introduced in order for there to be a sustainable approach. However, there is no mention of that in the motion, either.

Nora Radcliffe mentioned that many companies are voluntarily cleaning up their acts and developing more green practices, which is a help. However, many other organisations lag far behind. If only two bacterial indicators are included in the new directive, it will ignore the pollution that comes to our shores in the form of nuclear waste from Sellafield and particles from Dounreay, which follow the tides and the flow of the currents. Measures that deal with such pollution cannot possibly be left out of a considered view of a sustainable policy for the coasts.

Does the member acknowledge that my comments on the voluntary measures that companies have taken were made as an addendum to my remarks about how we are tightening up controls on discharges to, for example, water courses?

I am glad to acknowledge that. I am also glad that Nora Radcliffe has been joined by another colleague for the first time in this debate, which shows the importance that the Liberal Democrats have placed in it.

Sarah Boyack pointed out that many countries have the same problems as Scotland has. That is why a debate in the context of what the European Union can do is important for all the waters around our coasts and why we are looking for European recognition of the issues. Again, it is a pity that the motion does not mention that.

Richard Lochhead pointed out that 77 acts will soon need to be made homologous in order to create a marine bill that is fit for Scotland's future. I was at the meeting of the Environment and Rural Development Committee at which the developments in natural heritage were discussed, and Ross Finnie hinted that that work might take place next year, the year after that, some time or never. That kind of remark on the urgency of the matter shows how self-congratulatory the motion is.

In the Highlands and Islands and in every part of Scotland we are looking for the means to change the way in which people measure bathing water quality and the quality of the waters around our shores in general. Given that there is a campaign, run by KIMO, to save the North sea, surely we should expect some means to be found of recognising the amount of material—such as plastics—that is washed up on our shores. If bathing water quality data are only one measure of that, when will we have the kind of comprehensive approach in which interest has obviously been generated by this debate—although not by the motion?

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I am sorry, but I am finishing.

The SNP amendment was drawn up in such a way as to draw attention to the fact that the motion is underpowered, too self-congratulatory and in no hurry to deliver. If the minister wants there to be some urgency in the approach that he adopts, he should consider the SNP's amendment.

I now call the minister to wind up the debate.

At last. I was champing at the bit, Presiding Officer.

I reassure Roseanna Cunningham, Richard Lochhead and their partners in doom and gloom that this debate was not thrust upon me. I asked for the debate because I believe that the matter is important.

As has been identified by every other party in the chamber, from the Tories through the Liberal Democrats to the Greens and the Scottish Socialist Party, the nationalist position is completely contradictory. The SNP tells us that this debate is dumbing down parliamentary debate, and then goes on to tell us how important—or, as Richard Lochhead said, how very important—bathing water quality is, not least to tourism, which is our biggest industry. What would the SNP amendment do? It would delete any reference to environmental pollution of our water environment and any reference to tourism. If the SNP had proposed an addendum, we would have been happy to consider it.

In that context, although Robin Harper mentioned that Murray Tosh hit the nail on the head, I think that Sarah Boyack did precisely that in her speech. We have excellent waters that need to be kept clean, but we could do more and we will strive to do so. I can tell Bruce Crawford that there is no contradiction in that statement. We seek a 100 per cent compliance rate and have a 95 per cent rate, so there is more still to do. However, we must balance that aim with realism at all times. However much we spend and—I say this to Robin Harper—wherever the money comes from, we may not be able to guarantee 100 per cent compliance all the time. That is because, as I said in my opening speech, we have a climate, a geography and—John Scott will note—a geology that, combined with our land use, can sometimes work against us. When I refer to geology, I am talking about the steep slopes, the impermeable soils, the granite base and the fast-flowing rivers, all of which can contribute to particular periodic problems in the south-west of Scotland and the north-west of England. I think that that point was made very well by John Scott's colleague Murray Tosh to whom I now give way.

I agree absolutely with the significance of those points, but will the minister reflect on the desire that exists in many communities, especially down the west coast where that geology exists, to have their amenity beaches lifted to the designated status so that the desired improvements in sewage treatment and water quality can take place? He will be familiar with places such as Largs and Helensburgh, where such improvements are still an important and significant local issue.

Yes—I find myself agreeing yet again with Murray Tosh. I will come on to deal with designations.

Scottish Water obviously has a number of priorities, only one of which is improving bathing water quality. I suspect that I am like no one else in the chamber in being acutely aware of some of the conflicts that the planning regime poses for Scottish Water in places such as Largs, Arran, Helensburgh and elsewhere, where the requirement to get on with improving water quality and treating sewage can sometimes conflict with local concerns. As Mr Tosh will know well, those local concerns cannot be ridden roughshod over but must be taken account of. However, at the end of the day, the overwhelming priority is to improve water quality and to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is introduced.

To that extent, I propose that we take the partnership approach that we have pioneered with all those stakeholders, including the research organisations, Scottish Water and, without a doubt—I can tell John Scott—the NFU Scotland. Indeed, I think that we should involve the agricultural community as a whole, not just farmers.

Does the minister agree that we are talking about a win-win situation, in which fewer chemicals are put on our fields, fewer chemicals are then washed into our seas and we spend less money having to clear them up? That is a really good win-win situation, which his motion should start to let us deliver.

I do indeed agree. That is not in any way being self-congratulatory—far from it. We are bringing to the Parliament's attention that, yes, people are paying more in water charges and, yes, we are investing more taxpayers' money, but that is leading to real improvement in water quality. The people of Scotland deserve to know that.

The minister mentioned stakeholders. Is it not important to involve the estuary forums, given the extra work that, for instance, Forth Estuary Forum has done on things such as marine pollution and the pollution that comes from litter being left on beaches?

If I may add just one other little pitch, I just want to remark on how complicated the issue is. For example, I am told that if the Executive had been in a position to ban the fitting of macerators, that would have saved the old East of Scotland Water at least £1 million in extra treatment. That would have dealt with people who flush their potato peelings down the sink instead of putting them where they should be, which is in the compost.

Again, I agree with Robin Harper. Dare I say it, but the Scottish Coastal Forum also provides us with a welcome opportunity to discuss areas of interest regularly with all those stakeholders.

Part of Scottish Water's investment programme is investing to save. We predict that over the lifetime of that investment programme, there will be a requirement to reduce charges, and low-inflation increases will be necessary at the conclusion of the programme as the capital development comes on stream.

If the members do not mind, I have taken many interventions and I would like to move on. I have three and a half minutes left and I will be pleased to take further interventions later.

Having listened to all the comments, it is clear to me that we have to formulate and discuss a new bathing water designation policy with all those stakeholders, taking into account the revision of the EU bathing water directive. We have to consult widely on that. It is not practicable for all areas around the coast to be designated as bathing waters—I do not believe that anyone would suggest that we do so. We have to target spending so that we can give the highest level of protection to the public in places where people use the water.

We continue to look for new ways of reducing agricultural and urban run-offs.

Will the minister give way?

John Scott gets his chance at last.

I am raising a point that Alex Fergusson brought to my attention—sadly, he cannot be in the chamber today—about the inconsistency of the approach taken with farmers in his area when the agricultural colleges telephoned round and took 10 farms into a scheme. The rest of the farms in the river basin, or the water catchment area, were not part of that scheme. One farm is completely fenced while another is not. There is no consistency of approach in trying to reduce diffuse pollution. Perhaps the minister will address that.

Perhaps I will. The thrust of our strategy, as referred to earlier in the debate, and in the water framework directive more generally, is to include all stakeholders in a catchment area and ensure that all their views are taken into account in developing a catchment-based policy on diffuse pollution. If that approach is not being taken as it should be in one particular part of Scotland, we would certainly want to encourage it.

Sustainable urban drainage systems are another way in which we can remove rainwater from drains that go to sewage treatment works, thus reducing the demand on them and reducing the likelihood of overflows. As Mark Ruskell said, I announced the awarding of a contract to pilot biogas on a number of farms in Scotland. That is completely new to Scotland and, if it is successful, it will reduce agricultural run-off and deliver green electricity to farms.

Earlier this year, we also piloted real-time signs at five of Scotland's beaches on the west coast. That pilot worked well and we found that we could predict changes in water quality based on rainfall. That is the approach that is recommended by the World Health Organisation. It deals with short-term dips in water quality caused by rainstorms washing agricultural run-off from local fields into bathing waters.

Unlike southern Europe, we do not have a tourism sector that depends on beach holidays, nor do we have endless access to ultraviolet radiation in the form of sunshine to clean our waters naturally. However, some of our beaches—such as Ayr beach—are used by significant numbers of people when there is good weather.

The main issue for Scotland is therefore how to build on what is one of our main assets—our unique water environment. We have to ensure that it is protected and improved, but we also have to ensure that we apply resources at the right places for the best reasons. Scotland's coastal water environment is unique and important and the people of Scotland deserve to have access to it. We all acknowledge the high status of Scotland's water environment; it is one of the things that attract people to the country.

The press and, dare I say it, some of our nationalist colleagues sometimes give the impression that we are lagging behind our European partners. We have all heard that certain countries are better than we are, but the statistics do not back that up. According to last year's data, compliance with the bathing water directive in UK coastal waters was better than in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy and Sweden. That is no small achievement, and we should remember that Scotland's and the UK's results for this year were even better, with a compliance rate of 95 per cent for Scotland and 98.4 per cent for the whole of the UK. That is real progress, brought about by record investment and real partnership working, and I know that the Scottish Parliament will welcome that when we come to vote on the motion.