The main item of business today is a debate on motion S1M-3338, in the name of Ross Finnie, on Scottish water supplies and public health, and two amendments to that motion.

The Executive has called today's debate to assure Parliament and the people of Scotland that public health is protected from the risks that are inherent in providing a public water supply. In light of the questions raised during the discovery of cryptosporidium in the water supply in Glasgow and Edinburgh, we want to put the state of the public water supply into its proper perspective and detail the steps that we take to protect public health.

My purpose today is to reassure members present, as well as the wider public, about four basic things. First, the quality of Scotland's water supplies is good. It has substantially improved in recent years and will improve. However, ministers acknowledge that, despite those improvements, there is absolutely no room for complacency. That is why, secondly, we have agreed an investment programme for the water industry that is designed to meet higher standards than have ever been achieved before. Thirdly, it is important that we recognise that we have in place a rigorous and effective system of regulation, which ensures that the current infrastructure is operated in a way that provides the best possible protection for public health. Fourthly, I want to make it clear that the Executive is determined to learn whatever lessons have arisen from the recent incidents in Edinburgh and Glasgow and that we will act upon those promptly and effectively.

The quality of Scotland's public drinking water supplies is good and is improving. It does not pose an unacceptable risk to public health. The drinking water quality regulator has today published his initial situation report on public health issues regarding water supply across Scotland. The report highlights the substantial improvements that have been made in the quality of Scotland's drinking water over the past decade. The percentage of incidents in which a prescribed threshold has been breached has halved. For some vital parameters, such as faecal coliforms, the improvement is even more substantial.

However, it is important to appreciate that, given the safety factors involved in setting quality standards, the mere breach of a quality standard does not in itself pose a threat to public health.

Will the minister evaluate the importance of the refusal of East Dunbartonshire Council to support the water treatment centre in Mugdock? How important will that decision be for the safety of water in the Glasgow area?

That matter is important and, if the member does not mind, I will come to it later. First, I want to set out the framework within which we are operating.

We acknowledge that, following the introduction of the revised European Union drinking water directive in 1998, we in Scotland must meet new standards. A number of legislative drivers will lead to new standards in the way in which we treat waste water. All of that was set out in the quality and standards process that the Executive conducted last year. The process involved consultation with all interested parties—including this Parliament—and culminated in the publication of the report that I have in my hand. The report makes clear the standards that need to be met and the risks and uncertainties associated with possible measures to meet those standards. Indeed, the report specifically points to the need to invest in order to facilitate a reduction in the levels of trihalomethanes and a reduction in the risk from cryptosporidium. I therefore put it to the Scottish National Party that it is disingenuous to suggest that people in this Parliament or elsewhere were not aware of those risks in our public water supply.

In the quality and standards process, I believe that, by choosing the central option, we got the balance right between meeting all regulatory requirements and setting the burden to be placed on charge payers. The decision that we took means that Scottish Water will invest nearly £2 billion over the next four years in its water and waste water networks. Of that sum, around half will be spent on improving drinking water and the distribution network.

Will the minister concede that, even with that level of expenditure, water quality in Scotland will still be below that in England?

The drinking water quality regulator set out in his report the standards that are to be met by Scottish Water up to 2006. That is what is in this report—[ Interruption .]

Let me get to the point. SNP members are getting very agitated. They must keep calm. The standards will represent a substantial improvement. We will continue to improve. It is an evolving process. However, there is a limit to what can be achieved over any period of time. That was set out by the drinking water quality regulator.

We can be confident in our water and in its further improvement because we have a robust system of regulation that protects public health. Improvements include the fact that Scottish Water must take measures to meet the water quality standards.

The Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 require that water supplied for drinking contains no organisms that pose a substantial potential risk to human health. They contain standards for 57 different parameters—including standards for coliforms such as E coli, for various metals such as aluminium and lead, and for THMs.

Much mention has been made of the presence of THMs, which, of course, are the by-product of using chlorine disinfection. THMs have been linked to disease. However, the Scottish national standard for total THMs is more than twice as stringent as the World Health Organization guideline. European Community guidelines will tighten to match the Scottish standard in 2008. Until the investment to which I referred is in place to reduce the presence of THMs, it is paramount that we eliminate bacteria and other microbes such as E coli from drinking water. The WHO has said that, where there is a choice between disinfection and tackling those elements on the one hand, and tackling THMs on the other, efficient disinfection must never be compromised. We are committed to following that advice.

The other factor to be considered is the reporting assessment regime. The regime is designed to ensure that it is directed towards the protection of public health, so that, where a threat is identified, action is directed towards mitigating that risk. Such factors will underpin the cryptosporidium direction, which initiates preventive action.

The standard for the cryptosporidium direction is clear. Unfortunately, too many people have jumped to the wrong conclusion. That includes the SNP spokesperson who said in a press release:

"We know that no level of cryptosporidium is safe."

That is wrong. The Bouchier committee of 1998 concluded that, given the uncertainties in the scientific and medical evidence, it

"is not possible to recommend a health-related standard for cryptosporidium in drinking water."

Indeed, on 9 August, Professor Bouchier issued a statement to correct misinterpretations of the committee's conclusions such as those of the SNP. He said that his advice

"reflected the scientific evidence available at the time. This should not be interpreted however, as indicating that low concentrations in the water inevitably present an unacceptable health risk. Action in any particular case must depend on a local risk assessment, taking account of all relevant factors, including the implications of any alternative approach."

The minister correctly quotes the 1998 report by Professor Bouchier, in which he says

"It is not possible to recommend a health-related standard for cryptosporidium in drinking water."

In that case, why, in the report of the ad hoc group—of which the minister was a member—that was published today, is there a request for Professor Bouchier to reconvene his expert group to advise on health related standards for cryptosporidium in the water supply? What on earth is the Executive talking about?

We think that that would be an improvement. We can exchange quotes. Professor Bouchier says that his advice

"reflected the scientific evidence available at the time."

We are asking him to review that because the detection and analytical processes for cryptosporidium are advancing all the time—they are much better than they were. We are asking Professor Bouchier to advise on health standards if it is possible to do so. Let us stick to the essential feature: the assertion that a low concentration in the water inevitably presents an unacceptable health risk is wrong.

In the absence of a standard we have implemented a regime that maximises the protection of public health. Under the direction, cryptosporidium is reported immediately to the relevant national health service board and the drinking water quality unit. It is then the responsibility of the NHS board, through the local department of public health, to assess the risk and decide, in consultation with other parties, including Scottish Water, what measures need to be taken. That includes deciding whether health professionals and the public should be alerted to the risks. The water quality regime is stringent and robust. The regulator has significant powers to take appropriate action if the regulatory requirements are not met.

It is against that background that we should consider the recent alerts in Glasgow and Edinburgh. In both cases, Scottish Water detected levels of cryptosporidium in the final treated water and reported them immediately to the local NHS board. In Glasgow, on Friday 2 August, public health officials decided to notify local general practitioners of their concerns for patients at risk. Following receipt of further tests, the incident control team concluded that a boil water notice was appropriate. That precautionary action was announced on the evening of Saturday 3 August and lifted on Wednesday 7 August.

Questions have been raised as to the way in which that information was given in two phases—first to the GPs and later to the general public.

Those decisions were taken by the NHS board, based on its professional assessment of the apparent public health risks. Further details will be included in the control team's official report. I advise members that at the earliest opportunity Scottish Water took the precautionary action of re-zoning the distribution network.

In Edinburgh, the incident control team met on 9 August to consider levels that had been detected. It became apparent to that team that those levels were too low and short lived to justify taking such precautionary actions.

Overall, at the point of trying to protect public health, the system of Scottish Water being required to notify any presence of cryptosporidium and Scottish Water advising the relevant public health board to take the appropriate investigative action, worked. However, I accept, as does the Executive, that after that system of protection of public health had operated satisfactorily, there were serious shortcomings in the way in which information was handled in both cases. In Edinburgh, where the incident was caused by a problem with the filtration system, there were very obvious confusions, through the issuing of a press statement alerting the public to the fact that cryptosporidium had been detected and a subsequent statement that confirmed that no action was necessary.

The problem was more serious in Glasgow. Although the boil water notice was delivered well and promptly in some parts of the city that were affected, in other places it was not. Worse than that was the fact that residents of Clydebank were omitted from the original boil water notice. I asked Scottish Water to investigate why its systems did not pick up on the fact that Clydebank was receiving the affected water and it has prepared a report, identifying the problem and setting out the measures to be taken. I understand that Scottish Water will discuss the detail of the report with local representatives—I hope that that will include members of the Scottish Parliament—to reassure them that that problem is being addressed.

I have also asked the water industry commissioner for Scotland, who has a particular responsibility for consumers, to investigate the way in which Scottish Water provided information to its customers. Some members are aware that the water industry commissioner has already convened local meetings. A blow-by-blow account of each incident is properly a matter for the reports of the two incident control teams, who are concluding their investigations. Their reports will be published in due course.

As I said at the outset of the debate, the Executive recognises that there can be no room for complacency. The ministerial group, which was set up by the First Minister to consider what steps were necessary, published its report today. The report contains eight principal recommendations and action to implement them is already underway.

The first action, as has already been pointed out, is that Professor Bouchier, amongst others, is to give clearer advice on the way in which doctors and scientists arrive at judgments on the health risks that are posed by cryptosporidium.

Secondly, the drinking water quality regulator will review the cryptosporidium direction to see whether or not, in the light of changed circumstances, it needs to be strengthened or adjusted in any way.

Thirdly, after the wholly unacceptable events in Clydebank, Scottish Water is reviewing its arrangements to ensure that it holds accurate information on the network across Scotland to allow effective communication with the public to take place.

Fourthly, the Executive, in conjunction with Scottish Water and NHS boards, aims to complete the current review of the water hazard incident plans and produce an all-Scotland plan by December.

Fifthly, the health department is preparing for consultation draft guidance on the roles and responsibilities of incident and outbreak control teams.

Sixthly, we are introducing requirements to ensure that the recommendations from those teams are followed up properly.

Seventhly, the health department is developing guidance on good practice on risk assessment and communications under the chief medical officer who initiated a review of those arrangements.

Finally, we published today the interim guidance for use by all relevant agencies on public health action following the detection of cryptosporidium in public water supplies.

In the introduction to the "Drinking Water Quality in Scotland 2000" document, the minister promises to put in place

"a systematic risk management process to effectively eliminate the risk" from cryptosporidium

"by 2005."

Is he saying that those measures are not adequate and that what has been done is not sufficient to eliminate the risk?

My apologies. I should not have allowed that intervention, as the minister is up to time. I ask him to wind up. However, by all means, he should respond.

It is clear that we have to make the investment. Without it, we have the risk, which is why we have the precautionary process of reporting.

It is extraordinarily important that we have the treatment plant at Milngavie, as without a treatment plant, we will be unable to deliver on the obligation of the water company to satisfy the requirements of the drinking water quality regulator by 2005. If the procedures that are in place are assessed in an objective and rational way, there is no reason for the public not to have confidence that Scotland's drinking water quality is good and that it poses no unacceptable risk to public health.

I repeat that I accept, and the Executive accepts, that there is absolutely no room for complacency. That is why we have made a commitment to a massive improvement programme. We have in place a rigorous and effective system of control, monitoring and reporting, which is designed and aimed solely at protecting public health. We have put those steps in place to ensure that the lessons from the recent incidents will be taken. We will address any deficiencies that are identified and we will continue to enhance the protection of public health, which we believe is of paramount importance.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the progress made over recent years in improving Scotland's drinking water quality; acknowledges that substantial investment in the water industry infrastructure and its operation is needed to increase further water quality standards and enhance the protection of public health, as identified in Investment Priorities for Scotland's Water Authorities 2002-06, and supports the continued implementation by the Scottish Executive, Scottish Water, regulators and NHS boards of the most rigorous regime possible in terms of monitoring, reporting and assessment of water quality.

According to my screen, only five members want to take part in the debate. I do not believe that. I ask those members who wish to take part to press their request-to-speak buttons.

First, let me say that we very much welcome today's debate. The issue of Scotland's water and the fundamental right of her citizens to have access to a clean and safe supply is very serious and deserves to be treated in that manner. Everyone is aware of the communications fiasco that surrounded the recent cryptosporidium outbreaks in Glasgow and Edinburgh. I will say more about that later.

Before this summer's outbreak in Glasgow, the previous significant incident occurred in spring 2000. There were 90 confirmed cases as a result of that outbreak, six of which required hospitalisation. Tragically, one elderly person died. No one can doubt that cryptosporidium is anything but a serious risk to public health.

As a result of the outbreak in 2000, an outbreak control team was formed to investigate and report on the circumstances. The OCT produced its report in November 2001. Although many of its recommendations have been implemented, several key recommendations have either not been implemented at all or are being implemented only today after an unsatisfactory delay of 10 months as a result of the ad hoc committee's report. The Parliament deserves to know this afternoon why it has taken 10 months to begin to implement some of those vital recommendations. Indeed, some have still not been dealt with.

For example, the OCT recommended that all the livestock should be moved from Loch Katrine. However, on 7 August, the Daily Mail reported that 3,000 sheep were still located in the Loch Katrine catchment area. We need to know today how many sheep remain and when we can expect them to be removed.

It was also recommended that the water authority should discuss the status of Loch Katrine with the regulator, with a view to providing specific advice to food and drinks manufacturers. The advice was to refer to the continuing risk of cryptosporidium to ensure that manufacturers could introduce local treatment options if necessary. Why has that recommendation not been acted upon? What has been done since the recent outbreak to implement it? Today's report appears to contain no reference to how that matter will be addressed.

Moreover, it was recommended that the Greater Glasgow Health Board, in conjunction with the water authority, should consider advising the public about the status of Loch Katrine water to allow the public to decide for themselves the on-going precautionary action that they should take. Additionally, it was recommended that advice should be issued to all doctors in the Greater Glasgow Health Board area to enable them to decide on the on-going need for the very young, the elderly and immuno-compromised patients to boil water. Why were those recommendations not acted upon 10 months ago? Why are we beginning to act on them only today as a result of the ad hoc report? That delay jeopardised public health.

What about the recommendation that, in the interests of impartiality and transparency, the water authorities should not form part of any future OCTs? Again, the recommendation has not been implemented, and again we ask why. Perhaps the answer lies hidden in the small print at the end of the OCT report, where it states that West of Scotland Water did not endorse the report because it did not agree with the recommendations. As a result, it was agreed to refer the report to the Scottish Executive for—in the report's own words—"further direction and input".

The ad hoc group's report, which we received today, says that the OCT reports should be sent routinely to the Scottish Executive. Well, that did a lot of good. For goodness' sake, it was sent to the Executive 10 months ago in November 2001.

What has happened to the report since it reached the Executive? After all, Ross Finnie's own water quality team was aware of the findings of the OCT report—it attended all the OCT meetings. The Executive's own water quality report, issued in August 2001, stated that it awaited the outcome of the OCT report. Just what happened to the report when it entered the black hole of the Executive? On whose shelf did it sit gathering dust? Why was no action taken? Surely the minister was aware of the report's existence. Why, even today, have we no idea what further direction and guidance was provided by the Executive, apart from what is contained in the ad hoc report?

The dangers of cryptosporidium are well known. The Executive's own document states:

"the water authorities are required to implement an approach based on assessing the risk of, and taking precautionary steps to limit, contamination by the end of 2000."

It did not take long for the Executive to realise that that target would never be achieved. Therefore, in March 2000, a direction setting out the so-called strict timetable to reduce assessed risks by 2005 was issued. The minister referred to that. However, with the failure of the recent planning application, even that stretched target begins to look increasingly unachievable.

Not only do we have the problem of cryptosporidium, but there are trihalomethanes and lead as well as other contaminants. Scientific studies have linked the existence of THMs to an increased risk of cancer, to reproductive problems and to miscarriages. From the most recently available water quality report for 2000—the minister failed to tell us this—it is clear that 34 per cent of Scotland's water zones are failing to meet the regulatory requirements because of the level of contamination from THMs. Yet in 1996, that figure was only 24 per cent. If the failure rate in 2000 is even higher than it was in 1996, it far from inspires confidence that the Executive's targets for the reduction of THMs are achievable under planned levels of expenditure.

Does the member dispute the advice of the WHO, which says that where there is a choice between disinfecting a water supply to get rid of serious micro-organisms and the short-term health question of THMs, one should never compromise disinfection?

I am not disputing that. The minister is getting mired in the technicalities. I am pointing out clearly that, with a situation that worsens year in, year out, the Executive's investment programme might not be sufficient to deal with it.

Whether the targets are realistic is predicated on the level of investment that is made available. In the Executive consultation paper from 2001, three options were outlined for future investment levels. The central option was finally selected, meaning that the legal standards would be met and that some improvements would be made to the assets, but that there would be only enough investment in the underground structure to prevent further decay. That option was described by the water industry commissioner in his strategic review for 2002-06 as not allowing for any significant improvement in the overall network.

The question we must ask ourselves now is, are we satisfied that all the answers have been provided with regard to the handling of the recent cryptosporidium outbreak in Glasgow? Given the difficulties experienced by Scottish Water in meeting their deadlines, are the investment levels of sufficient order to ensure that Scottish Water can supply a clean and safe product at an early date?

Does Bruce Crawford acknowledge that, when those three options were presented, it was made clear that the water quality standards were not compromised in any way, irrespective of which option was selected?

It was also made clear that, under those options, the lead replacement treatment that we require in Scotland would not be carried out.

If we are being honest, the answer is that we cannot be satisfied on either count with the information that is currently available. Only an in-depth inquiry by the Transport and the Environment Committee will be able to produce adequate answers.

In the meantime, I am sure that the public will be absolutely astounded by the motion that was lodged by Ross Finnie for today's debate. The Executive's motion has airbrushed out any sense that in recent weeks there existed a significant cryptosporidium problem in Glasgow's water supply, and that a communications fiasco was created by Ross Finnie and Scottish Water over the outbreak. The motion smacks of arrogance and complacency.

Throughout the period of the outbreak, the people of Glasgow were provided with information that was inadequate and inaccurate. Worse still, the minister provided information that was at the least downright misleading. It might be that we are never going to get appropriate answers from Ross Finnie. The people of Glasgow deserve an apology from Ross Finnie and, so far, that has not been forthcoming.

In the 19^th century, the supply of wholesome water was considered to be a fundamental right. It is a disgrace that the minister cannot guarantee that in the 21^st century.

I move amendment S1M-3338.1, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:

"believes that it is a fundamental right of Scotland's citizens to have access to a clean and safe water supply to ensure that public health is not compromised; requests the Transport and the Environment Committee to initiate an inquiry into the extent of contamination of water supplies from cryptosporidium, trihalomethanes and lead, or other sources of contamination, and into whether the investment programme currently planned by Scottish Water is adequate to ensure these clean and safe supplies and to restore public confidence in the water that people drink and use; further requests the Transport and the Environment Committee to consider whether the current regulatory regime with separate offices for the Water Commissioner and the Water Regulator acts in the best interests of the consumer; believes that legislation concerning the supply of water contaminated by cryptosporidium should be introduced bringing the level of protection afforded to consumers in Scotland to at least the level in England, and has serious reservations about the inept handling of the recent cryptosporidium outbreak in Glasgow by the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and Scottish Water, in particular the failure to fully implement the findings of the report produced by the Outbreak Control Team in November 2001 and to adequately and accurately inform the public about the safety of their water supply."

"People could die," said no less a figure than Hugh Pennington. "People will die because of cryptosporidium in the water, and the young and elderly will be most at risk." Those warnings are not the warnings of the Tory party in Scotland. They are the warnings given to the Scottish Executive last month by the Government scientist Hugh Pennington. That we need to have this debate at all is a matter of huge concern. That it should be the first debate of the new parliamentary year underlines its importance and the fact that water has unexpectedly been one of the biggest political issues of the summer.

Let us turn the clock back a little, to before the summer, characterised as it has been not just by talk about water quality but also by extraordinarily high rainfall. Let us turn the clock back to 1 April and the formation of Scottish Water. In a speech on the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill, I said that the Scottish Conservative party would wait and see whether the new animal that is Scottish Water would deliver the goods for the Scottish public. I noted that its success would be judged on its ability to deliver high-quality, clean water economically, and said that we would reserve judgment until it did so.

I suppose that those were the natural misgivings of a party that regards Scottish Water as an experiment—an experimental type of company that pretends to be a public limited company but which is actually under the direct control of Ross Finnie. In honesty, I did not expect its weaknesses to be revealed so soon, but the real question is about whether they are the weaknesses of the company or the weaknesses of the minister. That question must be answered today.

Was the cryptosporidium outbreak in Glasgow avoidable? Should animals have been removed from the water catchment area of the Mugdock reservoir before such an outbreak occurred? Keeping cryptosporidium out of a public water supply is not rocket science. If we cannot provide adequate and proper filtration for any reason, sheep and cattle, the main carriers of the organism, must be kept off the catchment area. Normally, radiation from the sun would be enough to destroy those oocysts, but in the wettest summer for many years the climatic conditions were such as to render a challenge to public health inevitable unless action was taken.

We all know that, mercifully, in the event no one died on this occasion from that mismanagement of the situation, but one is left with the feeling that that was only by the grace of God and not as a result of planning by Scottish Water.

I hear what John Scott says about trying to eliminate the problem, but does he accept that 96 per cent of all Scotland's water is supplied from sources where there are animals in or around the areas that feed into them. In Scotland's particular circumstances, how does he suggest that we eliminate the faecal content that gets into the water supply other than by using water treatment plants?

When it is acknowledged that the water treatment plants do not work, surely it would have been wise to implement the recommendations of last year's report that suggested that the animals should be removed. Would not that have been prudent?

We all know that no one died, and that is a mercy, but cryptosporidium in the public water supply is such a well-known hazard that the minister must tell us today how many sheep and cattle are still grazing in the catchment areas of our public water supplies in Scotland.

indicated disagreement.

He has taken them off then, has he? Thank goodness for that; it is about time. If, as I suspect, there are still several thousand animals grazing on the catchment areas of Scotland's public water supplies, will the minister assure us that all the filtration systems have been checked since the outbreak in Glasgow? Is Scottish Water essentially exercising due diligence by removing those animals now, even if they were not removed before? Is the procurator fiscal considering whether an offence has been committed concerning the recent outbreaks? Will all livestock be taken off those areas in future?

Another question that needs to be answered is whether the Executive will be holding a public inquiry into the causes and effects of the cryptosporidium outbreak in the Glasgow water supply. Will the Executive be inviting the Food Standards Agency Scotland to review Scottish Water's practices and procedures, despite such scrutiny not being within its current remit and notwithstanding the investigations of the Bouchier expert group and the interim guidance notes that were issued today? Those questions need answers, and we need leadership.

Tough decisions need to be taken, but tougher decisions lie ahead for the Executive on the appealed planning decisions for the treatment works in east Dunbartonshire. Tough decisions need to be taken in the real world and not simply discussed by Labour back benchers and ministers. If Scottish Water is to build a water treatment plant, it may have to be a little more sympathetic to local public opinion. Seventeen other sites were available to Scottish Water; surely it is not beyond the wit of man to find a site that would have been agreeable to all. Perhaps a more considered and thorough approach by Scottish Water would have produced a different planning decision.

If the proposed site had been the only site available, the protesters, who are reasonable, would perhaps have taken a different view. All of them are as concerned as I am about public safety, but the proposed plant could have been sited just as effectively and efficiently elsewhere and with the blessing of public opinion.

Today, we must confront the reality of the planning decision and the issues that have been thrown up by it. The real issue in the real world is that the safety and quality of Glasgow's water supply cannot now be guaranteed for the foreseeable future. As a result of the planning decision that was taken last week, it will now be impossible for part of Glasgow's water supply to comply with the European Union directive on water quality by 2005. Even if the planning appeal is fast-tracked and a decision to go ahead is given, a year will have been lost in respect of construction of the water treatment plant. On the other hand, if the appeal by Scottish Water is unsuccessful, the date for the provision of a water treatment plant will almost vanish into infinity. Either way, an EU directive will not be complied with. Under the second scenario, Glasgow residents may have to suffer a sub-standard water supply for many years to come.

One might shrug one's shoulders and say, "The water will not be any different from what it has been in the past, so what is the problem?" The real problem is the Executive's credibility. Its flagship new hybrid company under ministerial control will deliver water of a quality condemned not only by Brussels and the people of Glasgow—who must drink it whether it is harmful or not—but by the Prime Minister himself.

Scottish Water will deliver water that the Johannesburg summit would condemn in a developed country. The Prime Minister and Jack McConnell would condemn it in another country, but cannot deliver clean and safe drinking water in their own country. It ill becomes those two politicians to parade around Africa tut-tutting at water quality when Ross Finnie's water company has badly let them down.

Ross Finnie will squirm on the hook like a sprat—that is a Scottish type of prat—and, indeed, in his own eyes, he has almost absolved himself of all blame today, but the Scottish people are more observant and canny than he gives them credit for. They know that the minister has not had a good recess.

Will the member give way?

The member is in his final minute and must wind up.

First, genetically modified crop scientists and his own scientist let him down and a U-turn on GM crop trials now looks likely—that is for another day. Secondly, cryptosporidium got into our water and his water company let him down. Last week, poor old Ross let himself down in making needless racist comments of which he admits that he is not proud.

I suggest to Jack McConnell that Ross Finnie is overworked and exhausted after the recess. He has had too many lines to defend and does not believe his own rhetoric. I say to the First Minister that his Minister for Environment and Rural Development needs a rest, like Wendy Alexander before him, who took voluntary redundancy when the heat in the oven became too great. Is it not time to offer Ross Finnie the same package, albeit for different reasons?

I move amendment S1M-3338.2, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:

"notes the need to improve drinking water quality across Scotland; further notes the need for significant investment to achieve this; supports the implementation by the Scottish Executive, Scottish Water, regulators and NHS boards of an even more robust regime in terms of monitoring, reporting and assessment of water quality, and regrets the Executive's handling, through Scottish Water, of Scotland's drinking water supplies, which has lead to inconvenience, worry and real danger for the citizens of Glasgow and other affected consumers across Scotland."

In the first parliamentary debate after the recess, it is correct to consider Scottish water supplies and public health, given the genuine and widespread concern—particularly in the west of Scotland—that was generated only a few weeks ago by the question of cryptosporidium contamination. There was much criticism of how the situation was handled, which I will deal with later.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not know whether there has been a mistake, but Mr Muldoon is the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee and appears to be opening for the Labour party. Given that our amendment supports referral of an issue to that committee, is it in order for Mr Muldoon to open?

I will reflect on that point, Mr Russell. In the meantime, I ask Mr Muldoon to continue.

People in Scotland have a right to expect clean water. They should be able to have belief in the public water system and in the ability of the public water company to supply clean water. I will reflect on some of the problems that we have experienced during the summer in that context. However, we must also recognise that we should consider the issue in the absence of hyperbole. We should recognise that many improvements have been made in Scottish water in the past 10 years in respect of coliforms, the pH of the water and metals. Bruce Crawford correctly pointed out that the position on trihalomethanes is not as well pronounced in terms of a reduction, albeit that there has been an overall downward trend in that the lowest level for about 10 years was recorded in 2000.

It was lower in 1996.

My figures are slightly different.

The figures that I used were provided by the Executive.

Having recognised that, we should return to the issue that important lessons may be learned from the cryptosporidium contamination that occurred this summer.

Given what the member has said and given that he is the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, does he accept that we should have an inquiry not only into the outbreak of cryptosporidium in Glasgow, but into whether investment levels are sufficient to allow Scottish Water to make water clean and safe in Scotland?

It is certainly important that the Transport and the Environment Committee considers any reports that are produced by the incident control team. Members of the Transport and the Environment Committee have discussed that issue. I do not think that the case has been made that the investment level that is proposed for the forthcoming years is insufficient to achieve improvements in Scottish water. Sufficient evidence suggests that the proposed levels of investment will be sufficient to improve Scottish water to a satisfactory level by 2006.

As the convener of such an important committee, what is Bristow Muldoon's opinion on Scottish Water's selection of a treatment plant in Mugdock? Was that decision driven by cost? If so, does Bristow Muldoon agree that the best option should have been pursued, instead of the cheapest option?

Before Mr Muldoon responds, I will come back to Mr Russell's point of order. The only qualification that would have some bearing on Mr Muldoon speaking would be if he had a registrable interest. Being convener of the committee is not a registrable interest. My understanding is that Mr Muldoon is, of course, speaking exclusively for the Labour party. If we make that clear, it might help the debate from now on.

Certainly, Presiding Officer.

On the same point of order, Presiding Officer. Mr Muldoon has already responded in terms of his view as the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee as to whether there should be an inquiry, without the committee being consulted on the matter. I am sorry that Mr Muldoon has been put in this position, but we are in a very serious situation. A member who is speaking on behalf of the Labour party is also convener of a parliamentary committee. He cannot ride both horses at once. Some thinking should be given to that and whoever encouraged him to do so should think again.

It is for that reason that I intervened at that point and made it clear that Mr Muldoon is speaking in the debate in a Labour party role. There is no reason why he should not do so.

I find it regrettable that this number of interventions is being made in order to distract from the main issue that we are debating, which is the quality of water in Scotland.

I will respond to Mr Sheridan's intervention. I do not know that I am in a position to say whether the site that was chosen at Mugdock was the correct site. It is essential that we make progress on providing a sufficient quality of water treatment plant in the Glasgow area to ensure that everyone in Glasgow receives the correct standard of water.

Will Bristow Muldoon give way?

No, thank you.

Scottish Water should analyse closely whether the plan that it put forward was the best one and whether it needs to review its plans and propose an alternative site. I do not know whether I currently have the level of knowledge to say whether that was the best site.

Mr Scott's comments should be taken with a pinch of salt. In the immediate aftermath of the cryptosporidium outbreak, he issued a press release that indicated that the Conservatives believed that

"the failure to allow competition in the industry would be to the detriment of Scottish consumers."

He went on to say that he believed that

"Public sector monopolies are, by their very nature, cumbersome, inefficient and unresponsive to the needs of consumers."

That reveals the Conservatives' true agenda on the water industry, which is to privatise it.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you. I want to make progress, because I have taken a number of interventions.

It is recognised widely that a high degree of investment is needed to replace aging infrastructure and to deliver higher standards of drinking water and waste-water treatment. The Transport and the Environment Committee—I refer to its actions, not to its published reports—backed the investment programme of around £2 billion in the coming four years. The report of the drinking water quality regulator states that that investment programme can bring about further improvements in the quality of drinking water in Scotland.

I realise that some members want to argue that the investment programme should be revisited in the wake of the recent problems with cryptosporidium, but that case has not yet been made. Further evidence is required to make that case.

Scottish Water and others in the industry must reflect on a number of important issues that were raised by the cryptosporidium outbreak in Glasgow and Clydebank. Amongst those issues is undoubtedly the essential need to deliver a new treatment works for the Mugdock supply. I referred to that issue earlier in response to Mr Sheridan's comments, so I will not touch on it further. Scottish Water must review its records to ensure that it knows where water supplies go and which areas will be affected if there is contamination. Scottish Water must reflect on its strategy for communicating with the public, especially at weekends. It must also consider whether it was correct to alert general practitioners before the general public.

A number of questions remain in relation to the report on the 2000 outbreak in Glasgow that was published by the outbreak control team in November 2001. One issue is why sheep and cattle were still in the Loch Katrine catchment area. On that issue, Mr Scott made the fair point that, because of the known deficiencies with the treatment plants that treat water from Loch Katrine, the recommendation in the report should have been implemented more speedily. We must also ask why recommendations 11 to 14 of that report, which were referred to earlier and which involved making general information available to consumers, particularly to those who are immuno-compromised and other vulnerable groups, were not implemented earlier.

One recommendation that was in that report, but which I am not so sure about, was that the water authority should not be involved in future outbreak control teams. I am not convinced about that, because although public health experts should take the lead on such teams, the water authority has a major role in providing information to the team and in resolving contamination situations.

What I want to come out of today's debate and future consideration of the matter is a restoration of full confidence in Scotland's public water system. We have improved standards in recent years and I am confident that, through the £2 billion investment programme, standards will continue to improve in years to come. However, there is no doubt that confidence has taken a knock. It is essential that the incident control team's reports are published and scrutinised by parliamentary committees. Scottish Water must consider its channels of communication and the action that it will take to provide a new treatment plant at Loch Katrine. I will conclude with that, because of the number of interventions that I have taken.

Further to my earlier point of order, I think that the Official Report will show—you might wish to check it, Presiding Officer—that Mr Muldoon did not mention the Labour party once, although he mentioned the Transport and the Environment Committee half a dozen times. The matter must be considered carefully.

I shall take your guidance, Mr Russell. I will look at the Official Report in due course.

The minister began the debate by saying that he wants to restore public confidence in Scotland's water. After hearing 15 minutes of his speech, I do not think that the public's confidence will be greatly restored.

I lived through that nightmare a few weeks ago, as someone who was affected by it, whose neighbours were affected by it, whose family was affected by it and whose constituents were affected by it. I was surrounded by people who did not know whether they could drink the water. Once they knew that they could not drink the water, they were worried about how long they had been drinking the water. That was a huge problem for a huge number of people.

Let me illustrate how badly the communication side of the outbreak was handled, through my experience as a member of the Parliament. When I phoned Scottish Water's helpline to ask what areas were affected, it took the operators quite a long time to work through postcodes and find out which parts of my constituency were affected. When I asked them whether bottled water would be delivered, they could not tell me. When I asked them where the bowsers would be sited, they could not tell me. When, eventually, I told them that I was an MSP and asked them to take my phone number and phone me back so that I could inform my constituents, they said that they could not do that. Is that the way in which we want to inform the public? It was an abject example of how not to do that.

We have to move on, and there are three things that we should ensure happen. I am a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee. First, that committee should immediately hold an inquiry into what happened and why it happened. That inquiry should examine the events of the outbreak and the quality of Scotland's water. It should consider whether the legislation that the Parliament has just passed and the bill that the committee has just started to scrutinise are up to delivering a high standard of water. It must reconsider the evidence that we were given that, if we accepted the medium level of investment, we would ensure the production of good quality water in Scotland. Perhaps the enhanced option would have meant that we would have got quicker results or that we would achieve levels of water quality above those that are achieved in England rather than below them.

The inquiry must also consider how quickly things are happening. The minister has talked about the ad hoc reports and we have talked about the OCT report from last November. I live where I have always lived. Five years ago, West of Scotland Water did not know where the pipes from Burncrooks went. Now, in 2002, Scottish Water is saying that it does not know where the pipes from Mugdock go. How many five-year intervals do we have to go through before we can answer such questions?

Secondly, we need a strong, authoritative and powerful regulator, not a variety of them that would include a drinking water quality regulator and a water industry commissioner. We must have a strong voice and a champion for Scotland's customers, whose priority will be to balance charges against health—unlike that of the water commissioner who admits that his passion is efficiency rather than public health.

Thirdly, we must consider legislation. The Transport and the Environment Committee started work this morning on the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill. Will the minister take the opportunity that that bill affords to ensure that legislation on notification of, and possible prosecution over, contaminated water in Scotland is brought up to the same level as the legislation in England? If he is not going to take that opportunity, is he going to leave it to the SNP to take it? As an MSP and as someone who lives in the area that was affected, I say to the minister that we need answers, not more bland Exec-speak.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In considering the point of order that my friend, Mike Russell, raised four times, will you also consider that the same rule that applies to Bristow Muldoon should apply to a member of the SNP who is on the lead committee? In considering that point of order, you should consider how it relates to all members of the committee—unless you draw a distinction between the convener and other committee members.

I will reflect on the point of order and pull together all the points at the end. In the meantime, I am anxious to get on with the debate. Time is running very short.

Although I appreciate the fact that progress is being made on improving water quality, we must focus on some of the failures of recent months and highlight ways in which we can avoid similar failures in the future.

A good place to start is the response of West of Scotland Water to the outbreak control team's 2001 report on the earlier cryptosporidium incident. I will quote selectively from the response, because I do not have much time. In the document, West of Scotland Water said that it

"does not endorse the report" and

"does not agree with the recommendations as they stand".

It was especially concerned about the recommendations on consumer advice.

As a representative of the people of Clydebank, I am angry that Scottish Water does not endorse the report, because we have had to experience the situation twice. As Fiona McLeod said, the first time round was with the Burncrooks incident, when the water was contaminated but people received poor and inadequate information, information that came too late and information that turned out to be inaccurate.

It is galling that such a situation should happen again, especially as we were given firm assurances that such an incident would not recur, that lessons would be learned and that procedures would be put in place. Obviously, those procedures did not entirely work. Some improvements have been made. We were not left in the same situation as with the Burncrooks incident. However, people in Clydebank were told first that they were not affected, then that people in the Whitecrook and Linnvale areas of Clydebank were affected and eventually that other streets and other parts of Clydebank were affected. People were given misinformation, wrong information and information that was too late. That is unacceptable.

Does Des McNulty agree that it is unacceptable that no action was taken for 10 months following the outbreak control team's report of November 2001?

I yield to nobody in my affection for Scottish Water's capacity to respond arrogantly to any criticism. It has failed in a variety of ways to respond on action that it should take.

How do we resolve the matter? A programme of regular updates of water information would help. We live in the world of the internet. Testing information could be updated daily and reports about water standards could be published quarterly. Why cannot we have that? Such information is provided in other parts of the world, but not in Scotland. Those measures would be fairly straightforward, simple and cheap.

People have raised issues about the process that led to the planning application for the water treatment plant in Milngavie. I have asked Ross Finnie many questions about that because, like many people in Milngavie, I am concerned about the stories that we are being told and the information that we are being denied about the site selection process.

Questions about that process come not only from me. I will quote selectively from a report by Arup Scotland, which provided consulting engineers to examine the application for East Dunbartonshire Council. Its report says:

"The option finally chosen is one of the least robust, particularly in terms of cryptosporidium removal."

I firmly believe that we need a water treatment plant in Milngavie as soon as possible, but for goodness' sake let us put it on the right site, ensure that it does what it is supposed to do and take the people with us. We should protect the interests of the people of Milngavie and the public health of the people of Clydebank, Glasgow and the area to the north of the city. That is what we need to do.

Scottish Water has not listened. Talking to people about how to improve water quality is not rocket science. It could have been done much better; it has not been done well. I would like the minister to get hold of the situation, knock heads together—particularly in Scottish Water—and get a system that works up and running now.

The debate is important as it concerns an invaluable natural resource and the health of the people of Scotland. There is no doubt that confidence in the Scottish water industry took a severe knock in the summer months. The minister seems to be living rather dangerously these days; it is inappropriate that he and his officials should condemn people in Glasgow and Clydebank to do likewise.

Contaminated water has enormous implications for public health. If the negative effects of produce from animals that have consumed contaminated water are also incorporated, the situation becomes even more serious. Against that background, we require to review what has happened and to try to learn some lessons. I suggest that the way forward is not that outlined in the complacent and vaguely self-congratulatory motion that the minister has placed before the Parliament.

The events of the past month have caused considerable furore and a debate that generated more heat than light. However, let us examine the issue and consider how to move forward. One of the lessons that we must learn concerns communication. In May 2000, 90 people in Glasgow were affected by a water-borne infection that was thought to have come from Loch Katrine. An inquiry was ordered. In November 2001, the minister received the appropriate reports and was warned that, following the outbreak, there was an on-going risk from the bug. At that stage, despite being advised by officials that the public should be told, he remained silent. I understand that in hindsight anyone can have 20:20 vision and that the minister did not want to be alarmist. However, in retrospect it seems that he took an unreasonable risk with the health of the people of the Glasgow area.

Most concern relates to the events of late July and early August 2002, when it became apparent that there was a serious difficulty and cryptosporidium was detected in the Mugdock reservoir. The problem was communicated in a woefully inadequate way. I welcome the fact that the minister has in no way attempted to shy clear of the unpalatable facts. However, perhaps we should consider how serious the problem was or could have been in some cases.

I received a complaint from one lady whose partner suffers from leukaemia and for whom the consequences of exposure to cryptosporidium could have been fatal. The lady who wrote to me is also immune suppressed and reckons that during the period concerned, which coincided with hot weather, she drank at least 10 pints of potentially contaminated water before being made aware of the risk.

A friend of mine who lives in Glasgow city centre was blissfully unaware of the difficulties, as was his girlfriend in the west end. Two large areas of the city had not been notified of the problem. We must learn always to be honest with the public. The system for warning people of difficulties must be much more comprehensive and professional.

I am not convinced that Scottish Water has learned its lesson. In a letter to Scottish Water, my colleague Annabel Goldie stated:

"It has been intimated to me that the recent outbreak was attributable not to general seepage and contamination of water between Loch Katrine and Milngavie but specifically to a flash flood in the Mugdock area which washed through fields over two protective walls and into a choked gully thereby backing up and flowing direct into the Milngavie Reservoir.

Apparently cryptosporidium is much more likely to occur in the spring and if the above account is accurate a much greater risk lies ahead."

Annabel Goldie wrote the letter on 19 August. On 26 August, she received a standard reply from Scottish Water that manifestly failed to address the issues that she had raised. To my mind, that shows a lack of professionalism and indicates that Scottish Water must examine the matter much more closely. There are real lessons to be learned from the outbreak.

It would not be complacent for me to apply some common sense to the debate. We should remember that we are dealing with a water and sewerage infrastructure that was built by the Victorians and has suffered from decades of underinvestment. That investment deficit is beginning to be tackled with significant sums of money, but there are practical and physical limits to how much can be done and how quickly.

Scottish Water supplies water and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency monitors water quality. Public health departments use the monitoring information to decide when there is a public health hazard and appropriate actions are triggered. By and large, the system worked during the recent episode in Glasgow, although there was a major failure of notification. That demonstrates the difficulties of dealing efficiently with a long-standing and complex system of pipework and the exact mapping information that relates to it. Those difficulties are not surprising, given that the system has been handed over from regional water authorities first to three area water authorities and then to Scottish Water. Lessons must and will be learned from the episode.

Will the member give way?

I must continue, as I am short of time.

In the debate about Scottish water supplies and public health, I would like to highlight the issue of private water supplies. Private water supplies do not come under the aegis of Scottish Water, but their safety and the health implications for the people who depend on them must not be overlooked. Aberdeenshire has 43 per cent of Scotland's private water supplies and a disproportionately high incidence of E coli infection, which is potentially more serious than cryptosporidiosis. With so much work needed to bring the existing public water supply up to the standard that we all want, resources to bring many of those users of private water supplies on to the public water supply are not available and will not be available for many years, if ever.

Given what the member has just said, does she accept that there needs to be a re-examination of whether overall levels of investment are high enough to secure the improvements that we require in all Scotland's water, including private water supplies?

Levels of investment are quite rightly kept under continuous review.

I urge the Executive to do something to help users of private water supplies. There is technology to improve the safety of drinking water from private wells or springs, such as an ultraviolet filter, which costs about £2,000 to fit. However, we have to remember that almost by definition many people with private water supplies live in remote and rural areas and many of them are on low incomes. I want the Executive to do something to help that group of water users by finding a mechanism that will enable grants to be made available for the fitting of ultraviolet filters to private water supplies to eliminate the danger of E coli, cryptosporidium and nitric contamination.

I welcome the fact that the first debate after the recess is about the health of our water supply network. In the past, there has been a lack of concern about the quality of our drinking water, our drainage network and other related issues, such as the state of our beaches, which is also a public health issue. I acknowledge that, over the past few years, investment has been reviewed continually and the Executive has striven to meet improved standards. Many of those standards are set not by us but quite rightly by the European Union and it cannot be easy to adhere to all the many directives that relate to water.

I am particularly pleased that water remains in public hands and that ministers have acknowledged the need to reorganise the water industry to ensure that it stays in the public sector, although we know that we need massive investment in the infrastructure.

In the few minutes that I have to speak, I will emphasise what I believe are the lessons that need to be learned from the events of last month. As the constituency MSP for Glasgow Kelvin, I know that all my constituents were affected directly by the decision to put the area on cryptosporidium alert. It was a strange time for many people in Glasgow, who were used to the benefits of drinking water directly from the tap but were suddenly told that their water had to be boiled. The fact that that happened during the hottest days of the summer meant that it had a particular impact. Many people in the west end of Glasgow joked about drinking bottled water anyway, but the situation had a profound effect on everyone. The elderly and people with vulnerable immune systems, such as HIV and leukaemia sufferers, were particularly at risk. The precautionary measures that Scottish Water took were therefore absolutely right.

Pointing the finger of blame serves little purpose. It is of paramount importance that we ensure that we have learned the lessons and that we take action to rectify the problems.

The key issue for my constituents is how the information was communicated to the people who were affected. I know that that point has not been lost, because others members have made it. Scottish Water said that the people of Partick were affected by the potential outbreak, but it was not specific about the areas around Partick, which is not necessarily a defined area. People in Yorkhill and Kelvingrove Park were affected, but they did not know that, because there did not seem to be detailed information from Scottish Water about the various communities that make up the west end of Glasgow. I want an assurance that that lesson has been learned, not just for my constituency, but for other members' constituencies.

I advise the member that, as a resident of Yorkhill, I got a notice, which I read on my return from holiday after I had drunk about two pints of water.

Given that Mr Aitken is a constituent, I have to represent his interests.

Many MSPs will have found that the information that Scottish Water gave about their communities needed to be much more detailed, so that the message could have been communicated to all those who should have received it.

Over and above last month's incident, I have many other issues with Scottish Water. As an MSP for a land-locked constituency, little did I think that I would be dealing with flooding, but I had to in Byres Road—I am sure that members did not know about that—due to a burst water main that is more than 100 years old. I say that to make a point about the other sort of investment that Scottish Water needs. There is a need to modernise our drainage system. We must ensure that water is removed quickly from problem areas. For me, that demonstrates the need for an investment package to improve not only water standards but infrastructure.

I have listened to the criticisms that have been made by members from all parts of the chamber, but I was astonished by that made by John Scott, who suggested that the procurator fiscal should be asked to consider whether an offence has taken place. Constructive criticism is fair, but it is ludicrous to suggest that either Scottish Water or ministers acted criminally or wilfully.

Will the member give way?

I do not think that I can.

I ask Pauline McNeill to conclude her speech.

I am sorry that John Scott will not be able to respond to my final point. He raised the issue of credibility, but the people of Scotland campaigned to keep water in public hands. Given the record of his party, I will not take any lessons about credibility from the Conservative party. Let us have constructive criticism.

I pay tribute to my front-bench colleagues, particularly Bruce Crawford and Fiona McLeod, for their tireless work on the issue during the summer when they were involved with a particular incident and its consequences. I hope that the minister will listen as I address the serious, long-term issue of lead in Scotland's water.

Lead is a pernicious and cumulative poison. It is found in Scottish water for two reasons: through the use of lead solder and through the use of lead pipe or fittings. Even in the 21^st century, people in Scotland are still being poisoned by lead in their water supply. Last year, a young girl in Larkhall was hospitalised as a result of lead poisoning. The fact that lead is a poison that has a cumulative effect over the long term makes lead poisoning difficult to diagnose. Many potential diagnoses are tried before one discovers, through extensive testing, that one is literally being killed by the water that one drinks.

Many people in the chamber will think that the problem is long past or is of small consequence and concerns only a handful of properties. However, the report by the drinking water quality regulator that was provided to us today tells the truth: at least 400,000 properties—possibly more—are affected. As the minister knows, the regulations that regulate the amount of lead in the water supply lead towards a cumulative reduction in the amount of lead in the supply. However, that could mean that the situation will worsen—in terms of numbers—over the next 10 years.

When I was alerted to the Larkhall case—largely through the actions of the SNP's north Clydesdale branch, which has been working hard on the issue—I wrote to every local authority in Scotland to seek information about the situation in their areas. Some authorities were opaque, some refused to give detailed answers, but some, to which I pay tribute and which come from across the political spectrum, indicated that they had severe problems.

I will quote briefly from one or two of the answers that I received. East Ayrshire Council estimates that it has problems with approximately 12,500 houses—that is an awful lot of houses. Given the money that the council can make available to do anything about those problems, it estimates that its lead replacement works will be completed by 2072. East Ayrshire is an exception, as most local authorities have solved the problems that existed in their housing stock.

However, there are still huge problems in private housing stock. Changes to regulations in 1998 meant that grants to replace lead are now means tested and the changes that are to be made to that grant scheme over the coming year will make it even more difficult for people to get resources. Argyll and Bute has 2,906 affected houses, almost all of which are private. The grant that the council can give means it will be 290 years before it can eliminate lead in private housing.

There is a grave problem of persistent poisoning and it is a problem of which most people are unaware. Although water authorities replace lead piping on the supply into the house free of charge, piping within the house is the responsibility of the householder. The problem is not visible. People might have replaced a vast amount of the piping that they can see, but they might not have replaced all tanks or pipes that have lead solder, which they cannot see.

There is a problem with resources in each local authority. There is a problem with drinking water quality. It is a public health problem about which we have known for more than half a century. We now know that some of the explorers of the north-west passage were killed by lead solder in the food that they took. We must eliminate lead in Scotland. We know that it is damaging people and making them ill. There must be a campaign and resources must be provided. It is the minister's job to provide them. I ask him to respond to that demand today.

I will address the minister's response. I remind him of what he said in reply to my question about the importance of the treatment plant at Mugdock. He said that obtaining the plant was "extraordinarily important"—he said that it was of paramount importance for public health.

The document "Initial situation report on public health issues with respect to water supply across Scotland" lists the high-risk water treatment works for cryptosporidium and includes Milngavie, which serves just under 700,000 citizens in Glasgow.

I am disappointed with what the minister has said so far. It is not often that I agree with Des McNulty, but I am compelled to agree with him today. Des McNulty was calling on the minister to intervene—at least, I hope that he was. The report's preamble tells us that the principle behind the ad hoc group of ministers on health and public water supply is that the issue should be driven by concerns about public health. We have a high-risk situation facing the citizens of Glasgow and we have a Scottish water authority that apparently chooses the cheapest and, according to many expert advisers, the worst of the 17 options for a water treatment plant. In those circumstances, I seek direct intervention from the minister.

It is being downright complacent simply to say, "We are waiting for an appeal." That appeal concerns the option that has been selected by Scottish Water, which is apparently the worst option. It will be six to 12 months before a public inquiry is held. Therefore, there will be a delay in excess of 12 months before what is a high-risk situation is addressed.

I appeal to the minister to set up a short-term committee of inquiry—a committee with a maximum duration of six weeks—to consider the options and to produce and implement a plan. When it comes to an issue of local democracy versus the public health of 700,000 residents of Glasgow, the public health of those residents comes first.

The minister's response to the concerns of the citizens of Glasgow is not good enough. Public confidence in our water supply is at rock bottom. The problem is that the minister is not doing enough to address that. I appeal to the minister to tell us that he will intervene directly, with the backing of the Executive, instead of adopting a Pontius Pilate approach and leaving the issue to the local authority. The public health issue is so important that it is necessary for the minister to go above the heads of the local authority.

If Mary Scanlon and Bill Butler keep their speeches to three minutes, I will squeeze in a few other people.

As my speech comes late in the debate and many issues have already been raised, I shall be able to do so.

I will raise two issues. First, I want an assurance that the water that flows out of our taps is safe to drink and that there are adequate safeguards to protect public health. I would like such an assurance about the water in both the private and public sectors. Secondly, I ask the minister whether the provision of water and sewage treatment plants is sufficiently taken into account when planning applications are dealt with.

As I looked through some of my son's textbooks last night, I noted that in 1842 the secretary of the poor law commission recommended clean drinking water and the efficient removal of waste water as a means for promoting better health among the masses. One hundred and sixty years later, we are still looking for the same thing. Given that few of us are experts on water filtration systems, we look to the minister to ensure that the Executive works with the universities, public health bodies and Scottish Water to ensure that all the knowledge is applied.

Among all the mathematical equations, I notice that various systems can be used to remove 99.9 per cent of cryptosporidium. I also note that, in the report "Drinking Water Quality in Scotland 2000", the Executive promised to eliminate cryptosporidium by 2005. To pick up on Des McNulty's point, we need a progress report on that promise.

Will the minister also give us an assurance about chlorine? How is it known whether enough chlorine is used to purify the water? Is the minister absolutely sure about the levels of chlorine, which is potentially carcinogenic?

Given the problems that we have experienced in Strathspey this summer, will the minister also assure us that private water supplies are inspected? Paragraph 6.3 of the report "Drinking Water Quality in Scotland 2000" states:

"Local authorities should have procedures in place for ensuring that they are meeting the requirements of the 1992 Regulations."

Are those procedures now in place? Are they monitored in order to ensure that private water supplies are fit for public health?

Finally, I want to ask about a planning development in Aviemore. The development is for 500 houses, but there are already concerns about odours from the existing water treatment plant. Constituents have asked me whether such airborne odours are monitored and whether they are safe for public health. I know that that is not quite the issue that we are considering today, but people need to be reassured. Should not the planning permission for large developments take into account water and sewerage needs and the impact on the existing infrastructure? That should be done not as an afterthought, but as a priority before planning permission is given.

Thank you. After Bill Butler, we will have time for two-minute snippets from Dorothy-Grace Elder and Richard Lochhead.

Obviously, this is a serious debate on a serious subject. Despite the fact that the Executive's motion is on the bland side and could do with a little more critical analysis of the role of Scottish Water, I am minded to support it as it stands. It is obvious that there has been progress, but I will say a word or two about the pressing need to develop the most rigorous regime possible to protect and enhance the quality of drinking water so that public confidence is restored. There is no doubt about the fact that public confidence has taken a knock.

The recent outbreak of cryptosporidium in Glasgow was alarming. Although members will know that cryptosporidium is not usually life threatening, it is potentially life threatening to the young, the elderly and those with immune-system difficulties. It is therefore vital that, when the water system is found to be contaminated, the information should be disseminated as swiftly as possible. I am glad that Mr Finnie was frank in accepting that there were serious shortcomings about the dissemination of the necessary information from Scottish Water. He also accepted that a great deal of improvement was needed.

I agree with the minister that a significant and potentially harmful interval was allowed to elapse before the necessary public health information warning was relayed to all those who were affected. We had only to listen to Des McNulty's speech to know that that was the case.

The minister will also know that, as the member whose whole constituency of Glasgow Anniesland was affected, I lodged a series of written questions on the cryptosporidium parasite on Monday 5 August. I presume that the answers to my questions, when I receive them, will mirror the minister's frankness today.

The second point that I want to make in the short time allotted concerns the recent decision by East Dunbartonshire Council to reject a planning application from Scottish Water for a new £100 million treatment works at Milngavie. That decision was—how can I put it?—disappointing to say the very least. I accept that it was a matter for the council, but public health should have more importance attached to it than should a potentially negative effect on the amenity value of reservoirs. Public health is paramount. For as long as there continues to be no such development, the threat to the health of the people of Glasgow and the surrounding areas will remain. That is completely unacceptable. When the minister sums up, I would like to hear some comments on that.

I look forward to Scottish Water taking the decision to appeal. The appeal matters on public health grounds. I hope that the minister will be able to give some indication of ways in which the matter can rapidly be resolved. The people demand that and they are right to do so.

It must be bizarre to someone from overseas to witness this debate and to think that Scotland—a country that many would consider to be over-endowed with water—cannot deliver safe water to Glasgow more than a century after the Victorians achieved a pure water system.

What has happened is almost incredible. We were told that sheep were far too close to the lochside—but who owns some of those sheep, but Scottish Water? There is a device for removing sheep; it is called a sheepdog. No one needs to bother to contact Ross Finnie or the Scottish Parliament on that issue. However, the minister has still to spell out why the public was not warned first about the threat to their health. Why were doctors told first that they might expect more patients? Logic dictates that if you first tell the potential patients, they will not become patients. Will the minister assure us that, if anything goes wrong in future, the public will be told first? We need some honesty.

Pauline McNeill referred to drains and a burst water main in the west end of Glasgow. That incident was awful, but at least it was pure water. In the east end, after the flooding of 30 July, there was foul water that was filled with sewage. Perhaps Scottish Water has too many responsibilities; it is also in control of sewerage, which is a bad move. It cannot cope, and has been warned over a long period that the drains in the east end of Glasgow could not cope with normal heavy rainfall.

What happened on 30 July should not be written off as a so-called act of God; rather, it was an act of stupidity on the part of Scottish Water not to have already repaired those drains. The quango cannot pass the buck. It must accept responsibility for not repairing and reorganising its drainage system, which is still the Victorian system patched up. I appeal to the minister to consider removing the responsibility for drainage from Scottish Water. Control of the sewerage system should either be separated out or restored to local authorities which, overall, did a better job.

When we recall the discussions that have been taking place in Johannesburg, we should all remember that we are lucky in that most people in Scotland have access to drinking water. However, massive improvements are required because we would not otherwise have one report containing eight recommendations before us today, and another helpful report from the regulator.

I remind the chamber that the first and biggest outbreak this year of cryptosporidium was in the Aberdeen area, where there were 143 victims. Usually we would expect 60 to 65 cases in Grampian a year, but the recent outbreak left 143 victims in its wake. Most people will not know that because no ministerial task forces were set up and the media did not cover the story because it was not in Edinburgh or Glasgow. However, it was a serious outbreak that caused a great deal of concern. The outbreak was identified at the end of January, but not until early March was the potential source at Invercannie treatment works, near Banchory outside Aberdeen, was identified.

Grampian NHS Trust and the water authorities held a news conference on 11 March. It would be constructive for the minister to consider that case and turn his mind away from Edinburgh and Glasgow for a few moments to find out why the delay occurred. We are still waiting for the outcome of the case control study that was set up. I spoke to the Scottish centre for infection and environmental health this morning and discovered that we still, months after the outbreak, do not know the exact source.

That raises questions about rural supplies of water. Invercannie, many other treatment works and the infrastructure in rural Scotland have lacked investment down the decades. The report that we received today was quite shocking. As MSP for North-East Scotland I was shocked to learn that 233,000 people in the Aberdeen area live in three of the seven high-risk areas for cryptosporidium. There are also 59 moderate risk areas—I do not know where they are, but I suspect that they are rural. Indeed, half of Aberdeen is in a high-risk area. I was previously unaware of all that information and I am sure that the people of Grampian were unaware of it, too.

I ask the minister to turn his attention to rural investment. I was speaking to someone who works in the operations side of the water industry in the north-east, who told me that his budget is a fraction of what it was in the 1980s. We know that the water authorities have been shedding staff.

Finally, it would be helpful if the north and north-east of Scotland were given a voice on the new board of Scottish Water, given that one of the members of the board lives in London. There is no one on the board from the north-east of Scotland, where the high-risk areas are.

We move to wind-up speeches. I ask members to keep their remarks tight. It would be helpful if members could use less than their allocated time.

This has been a rather better debate than I thought it would be when I heard the depressingly overblown speeches of Bruce Crawford and John Scott.

Water holds a special place in the consciousness of people in Scotland, which is odd, because as Dorothy-Grace Elder said, we have so much of it. People showed that water holds a special place when they voted in the Strathclyde referendum—suggested by Liberal Democrat colleague Christopher Mason a year or two back—on keeping water in public ownership and control. People in Scotland want water in public ownership and control and they want good wholesome water.

However, let us get real about the current position—that is particularly important in relation to the Conservatives. Our problems arise not because of some action of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive, Scottish Water or even the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, but because of years of underinvestment by successive Governments in water and sewerage infrastructure. Indeed, there has been underinvestment in public assets in general. As Bristow Muldoon said, we could do with an absence of hyperbole, particularly from members of the Conservative party.

As long ago as 1992, the Scottish Office estimated that £5 billion of capital over 15 years was needed to comply with European directives. The Scottish Executive has committed £2 billion over the next four years to move a long way along the line to address that. It cannot happen overnight; it takes time for investment to take effect.

However, I go along with the representations that were made by several members about the need to make quick decisions about the Mugdock reservoir problem. That should not be a matter of overriding local opinion; local opinion involves several complex issues. As Des McNulty said, it is necessary to get the right decision in the right place at the right time. A key point about the Glasgow problem is that the monitoring arrangements that were necessary on an interim basis while investment was put in place worked—apart from the lamentable inability of Scottish Water to know where on earth its water goes to. Des McNulty and others made the point about regular information updates and so on. That must be taken on board.

I also want to mention the issue that Dorothy-Grace Elder touched on earlier, which is the experience of many people in the east end of Glasgow who suffered real and substantial damage. They were subject not to theoretical risk, which occurred as a result of the cryptosporidium issue, but to the flooding that occurred a couple of weeks earlier, which drowned their ground floors with flood water contaminated with sewage. To be frank, that is not acceptable in this day and age. It illustrates again the problems that we have with Scottish infrastructure on both these headings. The solution that Dorothy-Grace Elder proposed is not necessarily the right one, but I agree about the need to draw together the various interests of the council, Scottish Water and other people who are involved in the matter, with the aim of getting clear, quick and responsible decision making. Dorothy-Grace Elder was right about that.

I want in passing to make a plea that the Executive consider the question of some sort of flood compensation scheme. The Executive should also consider how to encourage more people to take out insurance provision to avoid the extreme problems that were encountered during the recent floods. The issue that arose in the east end of Glasgow is not an isolated occurrence. The extremes of climate that we get increasingly in the modern world will come back again and again to haunt us in the years to come. We must look at the issue as a matter of priority and predominance.

Many good points have been made in the debate and I hope that the minister and his ministerial colleagues will take them on board. We do not want a repetition of the sort of problems that we had over the summer. That said, we have to put those problems into perspective and to deal with them by solving the underlying problems of lack of investment in water and sewerage, which have bedevilled us so much in recent years.

I agree with the previous speaker, who was certainly overbloated on one thing only—that the debate on the state of Scotland's water was interesting. I remind Robert Brown that he should, when he talks about underinvestment, remember that the ad hoc group recognised that the investment made since 1990—including the investment made during seven years of Conservative Government—radically improved water quality. He should have been more courteous and at least acknowledged that fact, but then again, I doubted that he would.

Responsibility is at the heart of the debate. No member disapproves of the attempts that Scottish Water is making to better the quality of the water that it delivers. I do not question the Executive's aim of trying to ensure that we are in alignment with the European Union's directives and to try to better the delivery of water to people's homes. I repeat that the debate is about responsibility and, in particular, the minister's responsibility to take on board and to admit his failures. That is especially true in light of a report that dates back to November 2001. The minister must tell Parliament why he has singularly failed to implement many of the report's recommendations.

Des McNulty went on and on about Scottish Water. I agree with many of the points that he made, but it is interesting to note that he did not once connect what he said with the fact that the de facto head of Scottish Water is Ross Finnie, a minister who sits on the Cabinet of the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive, and with whom the buck stops. I will be looking to see whether Ross Finnie says in his summing up, "Yes. I was wrong. I made mistakes, but I take full responsibility for them." Ross Finnie takes the money for being a minister, so he must take what a minister gets if he wants to take on that responsibility. We must not let that fact slip from the minds of all the people who suffered over the summer.

It is Mr Finnie's duty, and that of the Executive, to protect public safety. Although I acknowledge that he has non-governmental organisations at arms length to do that, with duty comes responsibility. Some members suggested that the Scottish Conservatives would privatise the water industry. I say to Bristow Muldoon that the English consumer in England, with a privatised water industry, is better protected and has better consumer rights than has the Scottish consumer.

On the basis of that observation, can Mr Wallace confirm whether the Tories want to privatise Scottish Water? Will that form part of the Tory manifesto next year?

Mr Muldoon is right on cue. I will get to that point.

The consumer has the right to sue a private organisation or to move their investment. A shareholder has the right to put pressure on for the removal of the board. Which shareholder is going to stand up for people in the west of Scotland? Which shareholder is going to ensure that the management of Scottish Water is removed? In England, a public body regulates the private sector. In Scotland, a public body regulates a public industry. Guess who is involved? If one looks at the ad hoc group report, one will see that all five members of the group are ministers. They are regulating themselves and their self-interest is there to be seen. As a result, we will see the usual trait of the Scottish Executive, which is to say, "It was not my responsibility. It was the responsibility of an official or of someone else." That has gone on all the way back to the Scottish Qualifications Authority.

I do not think that we should privatise the water industry in Scotland at the moment. However, supporters of the EU—I am one of them—should look out. The EU wants to push the privatisation and deregulation of water and energy supplies, as it did with postal services. We can sit here until we are blue in the face and say that water will remain in the public sector, but that will not happen. It is no coincidence that the Executive has rearranged Scottish Water as an arm's-length company so that it now looks almost like a public limited company. The pressure is on and there is very little that anyone can do to stop that happening. Indeed, I wonder what Mr Muldoon will do in that case. Will he say that we should leave the EU? I remember that Labour opposed the privatisation of the Post Office when Mr Blair went off to Brussels and agreed to the deregulation of postal services.

As a result, I doubt that the choice will be made in this Parliament. However, I do know that when I lived in England and received water from an English water authority, I had lower bills, better consumer protection and better service. I knew whom to blame and they took responsibility. However, I fear that today we will see an Executive that will not take responsibility for its failure to act over the 10 months in question. As we see from its motion, it has completely missed the point about why it let down people in the west of Scotland.

It must be said that the tale of the Glasgow cryptosporidium outbreak is one of ministerial incompetence and an almost negligent disregard for public health. Bruce Crawford and—I have to say—the Daily Record must take credit for doggedly scrutinising the minister's failings throughout the crisis and exposing them one by one. Without those actions, the public would never have known about them. As we now know, those failings do not just cover early August, but stretch back at least to November 2001.

However, I want to deal first with the events from 2 August to 8 August. As Fiona McLeod, Des McNulty, Pauline McNeill and other members rightly pointed out, the delay in getting accurate and reliable information to the general public was completely unacceptable. I will use a very human example to illustrate that point. A constituent contacted my office on 7 August. The lady in question is an insulin-dependent diabetic, and any minor stomach upset is likely to interfere with the control of her diabetes and to necessitate hospitalisation. On top of that, she had just been discharged from hospital after surgery and had two open wounds. It was Monday 5 August before she had any idea at all that there was a problem with the water supply and that it was not safe for her to drink the water or to bathe her open wounds in it. That is three days after the outbreak was confirmed and general practitioners were informed. Furthermore, she did not even live in Clydebank; she lived in the Glasgow area. Such a situation is totally unacceptable.

My experience underlines the inadequacy of information. Like Bill Aitken, I was one of the lucky ones; I was on holiday during the crisis. When I returned, I found through my front door a very helpful letter telling me that the boiled water notice had been lifted, which was fantastic news. The only problem was that I had not received a letter telling me that the boiled water notice had been implemented in the first place. There is no better demonstration of the inadequacy of the information. Indeed, the handling of the whole situation was woefully inadequate.

What adds insult to that injury is that although the minister knew that an outbreak was likely, it appears that he did absolutely nothing about it. I understand that he wrote last week to Des McNulty to tell him that the outbreak was unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected—an understatement if ever there was one. The outbreak control team report from November 2001, which appears to have been gathering dust on the minister's desk for 10 months, told the minister that

"there is a risk of a future outbreak over the next five years until the treatment works at Milngavie is upgraded".

The OCT report made 18 recommendations that were designed to minimise such risk. Bruce Crawford ran through some of those key recommendations, one of which was that all livestock should be removed from Loch Katrine. I think that, earlier in the debate, I heard an off-the-record exchange between John Swinney and the minister in which the minister said that there were now no sheep at Loch Katrine. At this stage, I am happy to take an intervention from the minister to allow him to put that very important piece of information on the record.

Yes. The issue that Nicola Sturgeon rightly raises was about the existence of 17,000 sheep that West of Scotland Water had on the land it owns. Although West of Scotland Water indicated that it was removing those sheep, it is a matter of regret that until fairly recently there were 3,500 to 4,000—or possibly 6,000—sheep still there. As I understand it, as of this morning there might still be one or two strays there—and even the sheep dog that was referred to earlier—but there are, in effect, no more sheep on that site.

I can update the minister. A statement that was issued by Scottish Water this afternoon confirms that there are still approximately 3,000 sheep left on the north shore. I suggest that the minister stop giving misleading information to the Scottish public and that he get on top of his brief so that he can provide the information that people want. He is doing nothing to restore public confidence.

I thank Nicola Sturgeon for taking my intervention. In light of the recommendations in last November's report, does she agree that the situation amounts to due diligence not being shown, and that it might be reasonable for the procurator fiscal to consider the behaviour of Scottish Water?

Diligence, due or otherwise, is not a word I would use in connection with the episode. However, in light of the information that I have just shared with the Parliament, we still have a minister who is not sufficiently aware of the salient facts to be advising the Scottish public. That is a seriously worrying state of affairs.

Bruce Crawford ran through some of the other key recommendations that were ignored by the minister back in November 2001. Although the minister knew about that report, and a Scottish Executive representative attended the meetings, he did nothing about it. If that is not incompetence and wilful disregard for public safety, I do not know what is.

Let us look to the future. Throughout the crisis, the SNP made constructive proposals about how we can move forward. I will repeat two of them. First, the Transport and the Environment Committee should inquire into the adequacy of Scottish Water's investment plans. Given the wealth of information we have heard during the debate, that is essential.

Secondly, earlier today Ross Finnie seemed to be at pains to give the message that everything is now fine. It is not fine. We need legislation to ensure that, as in England, water suppliers can be prosecuted if levels of cryptosporidium in the water supply exceed a specified level. That is the least that people in Scotland have a right to expect.

I finish with a word about the controversy surrounding the treatment plant at Mugdock. I make my comments not only as a Glasgow MSP but as someone who lives in Glasgow. It is not acceptable that the Loch Katrine water supply is the only unfiltered supply anywhere in Scotland. I do not have time to go into the details of that controversy, but whatever it takes must be done to sort out that unacceptable state of affairs.

It has been a sorry saga. The minister has proved once already this week that he knows how to say sorry. I suggest that he lose no further time in saying sorry to the people of Glasgow. I support Bruce Crawford's amendment.

In time for reflection this afternoon, Monsignor Michael Conway quoted Sartre who said that

"Hell is other people".

After Nicola Sturgeon's speech, perhaps hell is another politician. I want to identify some key issues in trying to respond to some of her more extreme allegations about action that was taken by my colleague Ross Finnie, and by the Executive in general.

I thank Richard Lochhead for identifying the parallel between the debate and the concerns that have been raised at the Johannesburg summit to the effect that there is, in other parts of the globe, no access to clean drinking water—a fact that results in some 10,000 deaths a day in Africa. Thankfully, because of the farsightedness of our Victorian forefathers and foremothers in Scotland, there is a recognition that, although we have a water supply that was designed for the previous century and which was ignored in the last part of the last century, problems have now been addressed through the combination of the Executive and a commitment to investment.

Critical issues have been raised this afternoon. The fundamental issue is how we communicate the message when we identify likely problems in the water supply. A number of members focused on the water supply that was affected in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and which was affected throughout Scotland, as Richard Lochhead pointed out.

We acknowledge that we must identify ways in which to communicate more effectively in future. The ad hoc group's report identified a number of recommendations that I believe will address many of the concerns that have been raised by members this afternoon. As Ross Finnie said, we have asked Scottish Water to explain why it missed out a number of individuals, particularly in the Clydebank area, when it was notifying the public about the water supply.

Unlike other members who may have been on holiday that weekend, I visited the Balmore premises of Scottish Water on the Saturday evening on which I first heard about the problem. I identified to those whom I met there the importance of trying to ensure that they addressed properly the complex problem of communicating with the public in Glasgow over that Saturday night and Sunday morning. Regrettably, they did not do that to the satisfaction of anyone concerned; we want to ensure that that does not happen again. Members can rest assured that we want no repeat of that weakness by Scottish Water. I acknowledge that Des McNulty and other members have been concerned in the past about Scottish Water's predecessor in that area—West of Scotland Water—and its failure to respond to concerns that were raised in previous incidents.

Depending on the information that is received about the quality of the water supply, health professionals are asked to assess the situation and make judgment calls. That is right and proper. It is not for Ross Finnie, for me as Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, or for any other minister to determine that. The ad hoc committee report has identified ways in which we want to deal in future with those communication issues.

A number of questions have been raised about the quality of the water supply. Those questions were touched on in the most alarming contributions to today's debate, primarily by the main Opposition spokesperson, Bruce Crawford. For the benefit of Parliament, I should explain that the overall number of THM failures in Scotland has been reduced because of increased monitoring of the water supply. Indeed, Bruce Crawford emphasised what my colleague, Ross Finnie, clearly said; we could compromise the quality of our water supply by not disinfecting the water, which would be in direct contravention of the WHO's clear recommendations.

We were asked why the ad hoc committee report asks for further deliberation on the Bouchier recommendations. We have done so largely because the Bouchier report is now four years old. If we had not done that, I am sure that the criticism from Nicola Sturgeon would be that we had not acted on a report from four years ago.

I would now like to address the key point. Information changes as scientific evidence is gathered. It is quite right and proper for my colleague, Malcolm Chisholm, to say that we want an update from Bouchier and that, taking into account scientific advances, we want to assess how accurate we can be in making recommendations about the water supply.

During his speech, the minister has emphasised time and again the importance of communication. I accept that, but I would like to know on whose desk the outbreak control team report has remained since it was sent to the Executive in November 2001. Where has been the communication on that report? On whose desk has it lain and what happened to it when it arrived there?

I am absolutely delighted that Bruce Crawford has given me that overture to comment on the role of the outbreak control team's recommendations. The overall majority of those recommendations have been acted upon.

Over the past two and a half years, West of Scotland Water and Scottish Water have removed 17,000 sheep from the Loch Katrine catchment area. That is a considerable achievement. By 16 September, all but the strays and stragglers will have been sold, and no sheep will be on the shore head or the loch. Fencing proposals are also being developed in the catchment management plan that was produced by West of Scotland Water and Scottish Water to deal with access to the Loch Katrine water supply.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I want to stress two more points before I take a further, perhaps heightened, contribution from Nicola Sturgeon.

On advice to consumers, we have identified recommendations 11 to 13 of the report. Bruce Crawford and Nicola Sturgeon have tried to present the claim that no action has really been taken on the recommendations, so I want to stress exactly what has been done, in case Bruce Crawford has not enlightened the Parliament as to what has been done.

West of Scotland Water and Scottish Water have now addressed with their consumers the issue of a risk assessment of the area and they regularly discuss with the drinking water quality regulator and his team communication with major customers. In the light of the fact that Scottish Water was moving on the recommendation for the removal of sheep and on introducing more accurate and up-to-date monitoring arrangements, Greater Glasgow NHS Board thought that it would be inappropriate, and that it would cause public alarm, to address further public notification of the risks associated with cryptosporidium. The ad hoc committee's report has identified a number of measures to try to pull things together much more coherently. That shows that the Executive considers what happened in early August to be serious and that it wants to move forward.

On time scales, although Bruce Crawford claims—as I can hear from my left—that we should remove the livestock from Loch Katrine more quickly, I am sure that he would rush to me to complain about the impact of that on the market.

I want to deal with many other issues that have been raised. Ross Finnie said that is important that we refer to what Bouchier claimed in 1998, which was that low concentrations of water do not inevitably present an unacceptable health risk; however, we want to ensure that that information is up to date, which is why the ad hoc committee has moved the issue forward.

Members raised other important issues, including whether the investment measures are appropriate. The Parliament has in the past two years twice scrutinised the role of the water industry, first through the Transport and the Environment Committee's inquiry, then during the passage of the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill. Members have raised concerns about whether investment will address concerns that have been raised. We are trying to close the gap between here and elsewhere in the UK. I disagree with what the Conservatives said about the large-scale investment that is required for Scotland's water standards. Most serious analysts—including the Civil Engineering Contractors Association—estimate that the contribution that must be made over the next few years to address that will take almost 50 per cent of all contracts. It is recognised that we are moving as quickly as we can in respect of investment patterns.

On standards, which the SNP Opposition raised, Scottish drinking water, in all the monitoring that has been undertaken, has not even reached half of the standard that was produced for the English regulation. That is not a health standard—it is an industry standard. It is recognised that the monitoring that has been undertaken has shown up issues that our measures can address and deal with.

Many other issues have been raised that are important—for example, lead in water supplies, which was identified by the water quality regulator. Such issues are long term. Mike Russell identified the scale of the challenge that needs to be addressed and I hope that the Parliament can address the challenge through a variety of measures. Parliament's consideration of private sector housing next year may address some areas. In addition to that, investment is coming on-stream through the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001—there will be investment opportunities. I hope that the time scale that Mike Russell mentioned will be addressed. Substantial issues need to be monitored and progressed in the next few years.

There are substantial issues relating to private water supplies, particularly for members from the north of Scotland. The Presiding Officer is signalling to me and time precludes me from addressing much of the detail of that matter, but I would be happy to respond in writing on the issue.

The final and most important issue relates to what we should do next. Members have mentioned what we should do next in relation to the decision that was made by East Dunbartonshire Council. I agree that we should do something, but it would be remiss of ministers to make judgments about issues that are primarily the preserve of local government—which is right and proper. An assessment was made of Scottish Water's application and we are encouraging that organisation to make progress on how it responds to the council's decision.

Will the member take an intervention?

I would like to, because Mr Sheridan's name is included on a list that I have before me.

No.

I have a motion, which was lodged on 4 October 2001 and signed by Fiona McLeod, Tommy Sheridan, Nicola Sturgeon, Michael Russell and others. It says that

"the Parliament is concerned at the plan by West of Scotland Water Authority to build Scotland's largest ever treatment works at the Milngavie Reservoir" and that that would

"deprive the citizens of Milngavie and Glasgow of a much loved and used public amenity in an area of outstanding natural beauty".

No mention is made of the interests of citizens in the city of Glasgow, which were much commented upon by Mr Sheridan in his eloquent speech to the Parliament. Let us measure folk by what they do one month compared to what they did in the previous year or the year before that. I do not mind Ross Finnie, Malcolm Chisholm and Frank McAveety being judged on what we try to do in relation to the responsibilities that we have, but let us be consistent about what we say. It is okay for members to sign a motion in October 2001 and to change their opinion in the chamber this afternoon. That is fine. Perhaps members have learned from that and that is a good thing.

We want to move forward and try to ensure that the water supply in Scotland is worthy of this century. I believe that the Executive has taken measures to address the issue. Ross Finnie has identified ways in which, through his role as the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, he will deal with the issue. As the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, I am determined—with my colleagues in the health team—to ensure that public health is not compromised. I therefore recommend that members agree to the motion that has been lodged by Ross Finnie and the health team.

I have a point of order. Is not it the case, under the ministerial code, that a minister should, when he accidentally misleads the Parliament, take the earliest opportunity to correct himself? That situation may have arisen with regard to the removal of sheep from the shores of Loch Katrine, which has been discussed in the debate.

I think that the member seeks to protract the debate. The ministerial code is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the First Minister.