Indeed. Such sentiments are echoed by others.

Judith Nicol, clerk to the River Tweed commissioners, highlighted the risks surrounding the removal of out-of-hours water pollution cover for a river renowned for its salmon runs, and for which water quality is key to a multi-million pound salmon industry. She said: The emergency cover is something that should be removed as a last resort, not first; whoever is responsible should sort this out as soon as possible because these are fundamental services that need to be maintained. Thus far, the Government have failed miserably to "sort this out". They must be aware of the consequences of their failure.

In SEPA's western region, plans to clean streams and introduce flood warning systems have been abandoned. In the northern region, laboratory maintenance has ceased. I do not know whether the Government think that some cuts are justifiable, but what has been cut and what is threatened by SEPA's budget crisis include key areas of environmental monitoring, the maintenance of which is essential. For example, does the Minister believe that monitoring radiation levels in the Holy loch should be cut? Well, they have been.

As a result of the costs of monitoring for radioactive particles at Sandside bay, near Dounreay, investigations and monitoring for radiation at other sites will have to be curtailed. Is it acceptable to the Government that SEPA may no longer be in a position effectively to regulate the nuclear industry, or is that part of the plan, with the Environment Agency in England and Wales increasingly encroaching on SEPA's nuclear monitoring responsibilities, especially in the UK Radioactive Incident Monitoring Network?

In addition to SEPA's current duties, which it is struggling to meet, a range of new statutory responsibilities are to fall on the agency. Those include consultation on the national waste strategy and the national air quality strategy, ensuring compliance with waste packaging regulations, and overseeing the extension of pollution controls to small businesses.

On 26 April, The Scotsman quoted an unidentified board member as saying: There is no way these new responsibilities can be met, it is as simple as that—the Scottish Office needs to give up more money or they can forget it. That quote identifies the problem and points to the solution.

Professor Colin Reid, professor of environmental law at the university of Dundee, is similarly succinct in his proposed solution. I hope that the Government will respond positively to at least part of his suggested strategy for removing the current burden from SEPA. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Angus on 7 May, he stated: A remedy is required, whether short-term support to 'fill the gap' until future budgeting is done on the new basis, or through amendments to the law to relieve SEPA of this burden in the future. That is the choice facing the Government. They can either make good SEPA's shortfall, or they can pursue a legal solution which would alter SEPA's status to allow the agency to reclaim VAT, or provide a specific exemption that would allow SEPA access to a section 33 payback.

If necessary, the issue must be pursued vigorously with the Treasury. In particular, I hope that the Minister will not allow the Treasury to get away with the sort of nonsense contained in its answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) on 19 June 1997, which stated: Tax liabilities of publicly funded bodies are taken into account when setting levels of public expenditure in Scotland."—[Official Report, 19 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 270.] SEPA has been stumped by a loophole—a technicality—which has punched an enormous hole in its budget. That irrelevant ministerial reply displays a lack of understanding of the problem and a contempt for the needs of Scotland's environment.

The Scottish Office has been guilty of a similar contempt in its reply to my own questions on SEPA. The Minister tells me rather uninformatively in a written answer that the Secretary of State for Scotland "regularly discusses various issues" with the Chancellor of the exchequer. It is clear from the Minister's reply that he has not discussed SEPA's VAT reclaim. That is a failure on the part of the Scottish Office to defend Scotland's interests and its environment. I hope that the current Secretary of State will not, like his predecessor, be more the Cabinet's man in Scotland than Scotland's man in the Cabinet.

If the Government fail to take either of the suggested routes to a solution, they will be sending a clear signal that, despite the green commitments from the Prime Minister's spin doctors this week, the Government's environment strategy will be no more than hot air, adding to the global warming crisis. We need more than words; we need urgent action.

I shall end with two thoughts from the period when SEPA was created. As I said, SEPA was widely welcomed by, among others, the editorial pages of Scotland's newspapers. The Herald editorial on 2 April 1996 warned that, if SEPA was to be effective, it will have to have teeth, and know how to use them. As things stand, SEPA's teeth have been blunted. That cannot be allowed to continue.

When the Minister's predecessor, the Earl of Lindsay, officially launched SEPA, he boasted: SEPA will be Scotland's first national agency with the resources and expertise to tackle the distinctive needs of Scotland's environment". I doubt whether the Minister could make that boast today, because, despite the good works and the great promise of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, it no longer has the resources to complement its undoubted expertise. It certainly does not have the resources to move into a more proactive role, which many would welcome.

I am sure that the Minister will be keen to kick off his ministerial career by being able at least to match the boasts of the Conservative party. I give him that opportunity today. I am not interested in apportioning past blame for the situation. What is needed is a resolution now of the problem. The Minister must meet the needs and expectations of Scotland and act to save SEPA from a legal technicality that was unforeseen and yet will be unforgivably damaging to the effectiveness of environmental protection in Scotland.