The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-8110, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill.

If only the passage of all bills were as smooth, Presiding Officer.

I am, of course, delighted to open the debate. I hope that all members are still feeling bright and breezy after stage 3 and I look forward to their speeches in this closing debate on a bill that has been with us for a number of months now.

We are putting the finishing touches to what will prove to be an essential long-term piece of legislation for Scotland. A particular spirit of collaboration has led to the bill passing through Parliament in a very constructive and positive way. Because of its very technical nature, there have been more than a few opportunities for humour at various stages of the process, but that has not prevented the members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee from recognising the real impact that the bill will have on public safety in Scotland. Their diligent scrutiny should be roundly praised. At this point, I record my thanks for the hard work that has been put in from all quarters. The resulting legislation will equip Scotland with a modern, innovative approach to regulating reservoirs without placing unnecessary burdens and additional bureaucracy on reservoir managers.

We must recognise the truly catastrophic impact that the failure of a reservoir could have. In the very same week in October 2010 that the bill was introduced, a breach of a dam in Hungary cost 10 lives and injured a further 120 people. Although the impact of the Hungarian incident was exacerbated by the fact that the dam was holding back a vast quantity of toxic sludge—something that would not be held in reservoirs in this country—the sheer volume of liquid released was, on its own, enough to cause considerable damage.

Moreover, I remind members, if anyone needs reminding, that in 2008 we had our own near failure of a dam at the Maich fishery in Renfrewshire. A disaster that had the very real potential to cost lives and cause extensive damage to infrastructure was only narrowly averted but, even so, people still had to be evacuated. The Maich fishery was not regulated because it was below 25,000m3 in capacity; that would have been remedied by just one of the significant and necessary changes to reservoir legislation that are made by this bill.

The incidents in Hungary and Renfrewshire, to name but two, provide stern warnings that we must do everything in our power to stop anything like that ever happening in Scotland. I have no doubt that this legislation will do exactly that. It will promote a safer, stronger and more secure environment for the people of Scotland. It might sound like a cliché, but it is entirely true: this bill will help to protect lives.

At this point, I am required to signify Crown consent for the bill. Before proceeding, and for the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I wish to advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.

I express my gratitude to all those who have been involved in the bill’s development. We have had vital input from many individuals, organisations and public bodies. I thank specifically the members of the reservoir safety stakeholder group, who have been a major influence in shaping the bill. I am sure that that influence will continue throughout the implementation stages. Their expert advice has been very valuable.

I thank my colleague Roseanna Cunningham, the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change, for the considerable progress that she made with the bill, and record my appreciation of the work that has been done by the members of the Finance Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee, and particularly the members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Their scrutiny of the bill has been thorough, well thought out and constructive, and I was pleased that we all agreed on most—indeed all—of the issues at stage 2. I also thank the clerks, who have worked diligently to support the bill and all the work of their respective committees.

Finally, I place on record my sincere thanks to my officials in the bill team and the Government and parliamentary legal teams. They have worked extremely hard on a demanding technical bill with a challenging timetable. I am sure that dissolution of the Parliament cannot happen soon enough for our committee and Government officials and that they are looking forward to the six-week break that is just around the corner.

I am confident that everyone who has worked on the bill agrees that the collaborative approach that has been taken with stakeholders and across party lines has been central to its successful development. I will outline some of the bill’s key elements, although I am sure that many members are familiar with them by now.

The bill will introduce a risk-based system of regulation. Reservoirs with no communities living downstream of them will be subject to less enforcement and will benefit from the reduced costs that that will deliver. Reservoirs that are close to communities and businesses will be more meticulously assessed to provide the highest possible level of protection.

We have reduced the minimum volume for regulation to 10,000m3. That change has been based on the most up-to-date technical advice available from the Institution of Civil Engineers. All managers of reservoirs of more than 10,000m3 will be required to register their reservoir with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. That registration will be free to reservoir managers for the first six months. Once the reservoir manager has registered, SEPA will categorise the reservoir as high, medium or low risk. The categorisation will determine the level of regulation.

The enforcement role will pass from local authorities to SEPA, which will hold the details in a central register of all reservoirs in Scotland and will receive details of maintenance and construction work from the appointed engineers and reservoir managers.

Finally, we have retained the role of the Institution of Civil Engineers, which has been a crucial feature of reservoir safety for more than 30 years. Its knowledge will continue to be invaluable to reservoir managers and, of course, SEPA.

To conclude, I believe that the bill will position Scotland’s system at the forefront of risk-based systems of reservoir safety and that it will make a significant and lasting difference to those who are at risk of flooding from reservoirs. It will protect Scotland’s people and property for many years to come, and I believe that it deserves the support of every member.

I am pleased to move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill be passed.

The bill’s passage through Parliament has been relatively fast. It was introduced only five months ago, and the stage 1 debate was only six weeks ago. That is rather unfortunate, as it rules out the possibility of my simply repeating the speeches that I made at that stage. People might remember what I said six weeks ago. Several committee members had the foresight to visit Malawi then, of course. Unfortunately for them, they have no such excuse not to be here today.

Despite 102 amendments being lodged at stage 2, that stage was completed in one hour and nine minutes. All but two of the amendments were in the name of the cabinet secretary. Twenty more amendments have been passed this afternoon in probably less than 15 minutes. That does not indicate that the subject of the bill is unimportant; it is far from being so. As the cabinet secretary mentioned and as Jamie McGrigor mentioned in the stage 1 debate, the effects of failure can be catastrophic. They have both referred to the terrible events in Hungary at the time of the bill being introduced.

The bill requires the registration of all reservoirs with a capacity of more than 10,000m3 and the assessment by SEPA of the risks of the probability of flooding and the consequences of an uncontrolled release of water. In everyday language, we would refer to that as flooding, which can be very serious. Many reservoirs are situated above population centres; in those circumstances, flooding can be extremely serious. Before the bill was introduced, reservoirs of less than 25,000m3 did not have to be registered and their risk was not required to be assessed or categorised.

The Reservoirs Act 1975 was amended by the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, which, among other provisions, transferred the enforcement duties from local authorities to SEPA and required the production of flood plans. Those provisions have not yet been commenced, but the bill will link in with them. The bill will also enable offences to be created under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, which I am sure we all recall with affection.

In the stage 1 debate, members noted that the bill was specialised and that a number of drafting errors had been made. Expert witnesses from bodies such as the Institution of Civil Engineers, Scottish Water and Scottish and Southern Energy raised other technical concerns. The cabinet secretary undertook to lodge amendments at stage 2, which addressed many points that the committee made. For example, the definition of a reservoir manager could have been interpreted to include organisations such as angling clubs that used or leased a reservoir for recreational purposes. A stage 2 amendment made it clear that such organisations would be responsible for supervision and maintenance only if they also had the power to operate the dam.

The bill’s financial impact on individuals, small businesses and charitable organisations that might now be caught by legislation because they have on their land a reservoir with a capacity of between 10,000m3 and 25,000m3 was discussed at stage 1. Committee members were concerned that some reservoir owners might be unable to afford to register, to undertake required maintenance work or to decommission a reservoir if they could not afford maintenance. Committee members therefore welcomed the amendments that enabled the Scottish ministers to provide grants under conditions that they consider appropriate.

A couple of financial issues cannot be resolved now but should be monitored after the bill is enacted. In the stage 1 debate, I and others raised SEPA’s ability to undertake its additional responsibilities when its budget is being substantially reduced. SEPA’s budget is due to reduce by £4.9 million—11 per cent—in the next financial year, while implementing the bill could involve one-off costs of up to £2.9 million and staffing costs of £2.19 million up to 2016. Those figures were estimated in the financial memorandum before the welcome decision was taken to give ministers grant-making powers. I assume that SEPA will issue grants on ministers’ behalf, as SEPA will register reservoirs and could require maintenance work to be undertaken. If I am incorrect, I am sure that the cabinet secretary can correct me.

The new planning regime has changed SEPA’s role in relation to planning applications. In addition, SEPA has consulted on introducing a more efficient and risk-based regulatory regime. Budget savings from those sources are probably to be expected. However, the cost of implementing the bill is difficult to estimate, so it should be monitored once the bill is enacted.

I assume that the bill’s close fit with other legislation, such as the 2009 act, could enable work under the bill to be undertaken in conjunction with duties under other acts. I would welcome the cabinet secretary’s views on how the bill’s budget implications will be monitored and published.

Overall, Labour members and I welcome the bill’s final stage. We look forward to the bill’s progress to being enacted. It will be important legislation, despite the jokes that we all made about it during its passage through Parliament.

I thank all those who have been involved in the bill’s creation and passage. I, too, thank all the respondents to the consultation, the witnesses who gave evidence to the Government and to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, and in particular the Institution of Civil Engineers. I also thank the committee’s clerks, Alasdair Reid from the Scottish Parliament information centre and the minister for responding readily to the issues that the committee and other stakeholders raised.

Today, after considering 122 amendments at stages 2 and 3, we will pass into law a bill that creates a legal and administrative framework for the construction and management of controlled reservoirs to deal with the risk of uncontrolled releases of water and their consequences of flooding. The bill also, perhaps rather incongruously, provides for the creation of offences to support the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, as those were omitted from the 2003 act.

At stage 1, Mr Scott raised a very interesting point about a Mohr’s slip circle. Is he satisfied that, in the unfortunate event of the occurrence of a Mohr’s slip circle, people will be better protected as a result of the bill?

Naturally I welcome, as ever, Peter Peacock’s well-thought-out intervention. That is a matter that I, coincidentally, expect to come to later, but I nonetheless welcome his intervention.

Scottish Conservatives welcome the bill, which seeks primarily to make Scotland a safer place in terms of reservoir safety. Given the age of our Scottish reservoirs, many of which are more than 100 years old, and the recent incident at the Maich fishery in Renfrewshire, the bill is certainly necessary and timeous. It will place some new burdens on owners who had none before and, in a few cases, it will reduce the burden on other owners.

In particular, the bill will introduce, for the first time, reservoirs of 10,000m3 capacity and move them into the regulations. However, limited users of the reservoirs, such as fishermen and angling clubs, will be exempt from the burden of regulation unless they are owners or lessees of reservoirs. I know that many fishermen and angling clubs will welcome that exemption.

Registration of reservoirs will now be mandatory to allow SEPA to maintain a register of controlled reservoirs. I urge those who are required to register to do so within the six-month period of grace after the bill is passed, when no charge will be incurred.

Like other members, I welcome the move towards a risk and consequences-based assessment of reservoirs. The six-year periodic review will keep the evaluation fresh and current. I welcome, too, the recent dialogue between ICE and the Government on how best to assess the risk of failure of essentially inert structures that are more than 100 years old and the inclusion of ICE, along with panel engineers, on the reservoir safety stakeholder group. That is perhaps a belt-and-braces approach, but it is better to be safe than sorry.

However, one concern that I have is the possible emerging threat of extreme weather events caused by climate change. Combinations of high rainfall and high winds, perhaps combined with a landslip, which could perhaps be caused by a Mohr’s slip circle, could lead to overtopping, and a combination of some or all of those events could threaten the stability of older reservoirs. A weather eye, so to speak, must be kept open for new combinations of dangerous events, perhaps not previously experienced and not individually threatening but which, if taken together, could be dangerous to some of our older structures.

On the risk category of established reservoirs being raised due to downstream development or the reduction in capacity from 25,000m3 to 10,000m3, I welcome the Government’s clarification and recognition of the cost implications for reservoir owners. The Government’s entirely correct intention to treat reservoir managers fairly and proportionately in such cases, and the provision of grants to address funding issues in those or other circumstances, are welcome. Furthermore, the issuing of guidance on the subject, which was agreed to today at Peter Peacock’s request, is welcome. It is important that the guidance should cover the widest range of reasonable circumstances. It is just as important that such grant aid is adequately funded. I know that that may well be difficult in the financially straitened times in which we find ourselves. Elaine Murray raised a concern, which I share, about SEPA’s funding to carry out the work.

This is a vital and necessary piece of legislation, which will reduce risk to human life, heritage and property and which Scottish Conservatives will support at decision time.

I declare at the outset that I was one of the renegade members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee that met in exile in Malawi, but Elaine Murray should not labour under the misapprehension that we were not paying close attention to what was happening at stage 1. I am sure that I speak for Karen Gillon and Maureen Watt when I say that one of the first things we did on returning from Lilongwe was scrutinise the Official Report.

As other members have suggested, the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill may have suffered a little from living under the shadow of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which was progressing through its various stages in committee and the chamber almost simultaneously. However, as Elaine Murray said, that is no reflection on the bill’s importance. As all speakers have indicated, this afternoon we are deliberating on a sensible, proportionate and important piece of legislation. Its general approach, which is based on risk and, as John Scott suggested, on consequences, is absolutely right. That is the direction of travel that we would like to see for all aspects of regulation. The cabinet secretary was right not simply to illustrate that fact with reference to the incident that occurred in Hungary around the time that the bill was introduced but to bring the issue rather closer to home by referring to the near miss, as it were, at the Maich fishery in Renfrewshire.

There was no equivalent in the bill to the contentious issues around snaring and wildlife crime with which we had to wrestle during consideration of the WANE bill. That said, a couple of issues that struck me as being potentially quite knotty were dealt with by amendments at stage 2.

The first of those issues related to the respective roles and responsibilities of construction engineers, inspection engineers and supervising engineers. At one stage—certainly after the bill was first presented to us—there was a risk that the Government might inadvertently have closed off the potential to access some of the expertise that is available in that cohort of engineers. Fortunately, due to evidence that was given to us at stage 1 and through the consultation with the Institution of Civil Engineers that was on-going throughout the process, those concerns were adequately addressed at stage 2.

Similarly, concerns were raised about the potential impact of the provision disqualifying an engineer who had previously acted as the construction engineer for a particular reservoir. I welcome the changes that the Government proposed at stage 2.

The other issue that stood out for me was support for small businesses, individuals or angling clubs that are owners of reservoirs. Some of the evidence that we took from one individual at stage 1 demonstrated that the ways in which individuals come into possession of reservoirs are not always straightforward. The potential impact of the liability on individuals and small businesses was almost the dominant concern of the committee at the conclusion of stage 1.

I welcomed the approach that ministers took at stage 2. As I said during stage 2 proceedings, the grant scheme that they have suggested makes sense. The whole committee struggled to find a magic bullet to deal with the problem, but the proposition that the Government has brought forward is a fair and considered stab at addressing it. I recognise that coming up with a ballpark figure for the liability on the Government from such a grant scheme is difficult until risk assessments have been carried out, but I am sure that the measures that have been taken in that regard will be welcome.

I thank fellow members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, the committee clerks and, in particular, those who gave evidence, especially the representatives of ICE, on whose expertise we had cause to rely on a regular and on-going basis. Thanks, too, to the minister and his officials.

There were no huge areas of disagreement, although it was striking that, in those areas where concerns arose, ministers acted swiftly to address them. However, the lack of controversy and profile should fool no one into underestimating the importance of the bill that we will put on to the statute this evening. I very much welcome the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill, and I confirm that the Liberal Democrats will support it at decision time.

As Liam McArthur has just indicated, the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill contrasts wildly with the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which also fell within the remit of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, and which was debated and passed last week. The passage of the WANE bill was long and tortuous and it had many major controversial amendments right to the end. The Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill, in contrast, has been a bit of a breeze, although, as with many bills that look fairly straightforward at first glance, the devil ends up being in the detail—and the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill is very detailed.

My committee member colleagues and I have valued the engineering expertise of John Scott, who used his background knowledge to good effect in teasing out many aspects of the bill. While I am in thanking mode, I also thank the clerks, SPICe staff and everyone who gave evidence and who was otherwise involved with the bill.

Like Karen Gillon and Liam McArthur, I apologise for not being present for the stage 1 debate, which took place during the visit to Malawi, but I know that Bill Wilson and Sandra White spoke ably on behalf of Scottish National Party committee members.

There is no doubt that if a reservoir were to fail there could be catastrophic results and it is right and proper for the Government to take preventive measures in that regard. Ten thousand cubic metres is equivalent to four Olympic-size swimming pools—that is the size of reservoir that comes under the bill. We can all imagine that a burst of that amount of water could inflict substantial damage and even loss of life, so it is important that the bill provides for reservoirs to be allocated different levels of risk and supervision at an appropriate level. The costs involved should also be appropriate and I will come back to that point.

The committee had a worry about the availability of qualified engineers capable of undertaking the necessary work. It is good to note, as the bill is passed, that there must be significant employment opportunities for engineering graduates and technicians in this area. Concerns were also raised about conflicts of interest, with the same engineers working for different people and parties, but I am satisfied with the measures that are in place to deal with that. Chapter 8 of the bill deals specifically with dispute resolution and is an important part of the bill.

Owners of reservoirs, especially those of small reservoirs that will now be regulated, are unsurprisingly nervous about the additional burdens, costs and paperwork involved. As with many regulations from various Government departments, full cost recovery of inspections is now the norm. That becomes more true as budgets decrease. It is important that costs are transparent. It is to be hoped that SEPA and other regulatory agencies become more open about how costs are arrived at and that all efforts are taken to keep costs under control—and not to shift unrelated costs on to the owners of reservoirs. It is also important that grants are available for owners who want to decommission their reservoirs, as Elaine Murray said.

Reservoirs play an important part in our natural environment. They provide drinking water, of course, and smaller reservoirs are often used for angling and other pursuits. I often think that reservoirs are underutilised as a resource for leisure pursuits.

As Elaine Murray and other members said, there was little in the bill that was contentious, and all parties agreed to the amendments. It seems pointless to speak for the sake of doing so, particularly given that we face a late decision time this evening. I look forward to the passing of the bill.

It is difficult to know where to start, given the wide array of issues in this extensive, complex and technical bill. While the cabinet secretary was speaking, I was thinking that when he comes to write his book about his experiences in Government the chapter on how he steered through this important bill will show that this was a high point in his political career.

Will you be buying the book?

I do not think so, but I will be delighted to receive a signed copy free of charge, when it has been completed.

In all seriousness, the bill is important.

I was delighted that John Scott put his reference to the Mohr slip circle—I confess that I was blissfully unaware of the phenomenon until it came up in the committee; I had seen one but I did not know what it was until John Scott explained it—in the context of climate change, because it has been important to consider the bill in light of the changing environment in which we live.

A feature of climate change is the much more erratic weather that we have all experienced. Members who have been here for a long time—I mean on the planet, not in the Parliament—can testify to the climate changes over our lifetimes. There is a much greater intensity of rainfall than there was when I was a boy. A consequence is that there is more scouring of the land, which the committee heard can give rise to slips of land into reservoirs. That can lead to overtopping or put pressure on the front of the dam, which in turn could lead to a collapse and endanger human life. John Scott was therefore right to refer to climate change as an important part of the context in which the bill must be considered. It is right that Government should take account of such matters and consider whether legislation is fit for purpose in the current times or needs to be updated. It is very much in such a spirit that the bill was introduced.

As we learned during our evidence taking, many reservoirs were built during the industrial revolution for particular purposes. For example, water was taken from the top of the hill above Greenock and down through the town to power the wealth-creating mills of the time. Some reservoirs are 150 years old or more. As Maureen Watt said, the purposes for which many reservoirs were created and maintained have changed over time, and many reservoirs are now used for leisure. They are largely used for angling, but the diverse habitat that they create is enjoyed by people in their leisure time in a variety of ways.

As the use of reservoirs has changed, so has the ownership. Many people and many small organisations that have a social purpose find themselves in charge of reservoirs. The change in the law, which will improve public safety through a risk-based approach, will lead to new burdens on owners. If everyone who is involved is to understand the implications of the new law, the Government and SEPA must provide a lot of information to owners and the wider public about the changes that are taking place. There must also be guidance for owners on their responsibilities under the new legislation, so that they can take their responsibilities seriously and try to meet their obligations.

In that context, I welcome the amendments that the Government made at stage 2 and today. As others said—Liam McArthur in particular—the Government has approached the bill constructively, as has the committee. The suggestions that were made for improvement were readily picked up and acted upon. I welcome the fact that the Government listened to the committee and to the evidence that it received and reflected that in changes to the bill.

Like Liam McArthur, I will draw attention to one thing in particular. I was particularly impressed by evidence that we got from a private owner who found himself potentially facing liabilities in relation to the new obligations that he and some colleagues would have, which it would clearly be difficult for him to finance. That situation would have the potential to give rise to a loss of amenity over time if the reservoir could not be maintained or kept. Equally, it could give rise to short-term costs that the owner simply could not pay.

The provision that has been included in the bill to give ministers the power, in the right circumstances, to offer grant support to allow people to fulfil their obligations is an important step forward. I hope that it will not require to be used, but it is important that the Government listened to the arguments about that and made provision for it.

I welcome equally the amendment about guidance. I lodged such an amendment at stage 2, but the minister improved upon it and brought the matter back to the Parliament. It will now be part of the coming act.

As members said, the bill is serious. It is all about improving public safety, better protecting the public and examining the risks that are associated with important reservoirs. I have every intention of supporting it at decision time because it is the right thing to do.

It is a great pleasure to have returned to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. I previously served on the Rural Development Committee under your benevolent dictatorship, Presiding Officer. Your performance in that role was so impressive that I was delighted that you expanded your convenership by taking control of the Parliament.

As a late joiner in relation to the bill, I missed the early discussions and the clearly significant engineering contributions that John Scott and others made.

Those members who were in Malawi and missed some of the proceedings should not feel in the slightest bit guilty about it because there the issue of water has a much different character. It is about getting clean, wholesome water in adequate volume to many of the communities in that country. In Scotland, we are fortunate to have sufficient water and simply to have to apply the technical solutions to ensure that we deliver that water to our communities and, through our dams and reservoirs, provide a significant contribution to the amenity of Scotland and the recreation of its inhabitants.

It is worth observing that the extension of the regulation on dams will slightly less than double the number of dams that are covered but, simultaneously, just under one third of those that are currently affected will experience reduced regulation. The bill strikes a proper balance on that.

Deciding that the amount of water that is held in a reservoir that comes under the bill should be 10,000m3 rather than 25,000m3 is quite difficult for the layperson to grasp. To do a little thinking about it, a single cubic metre—1m long by 1m wide by 1m high—is approximately 1 ton in weight because 1 gallon of water weighs 10lb. If 1m3 of water were to be flung over the top of a dam and fall something like 120ft, it would be travelling at 60mph or 70mph by the time it got to the bottom. Members should imagine 1m3 of water hitting an individual: it would be like stepping on to a motorway and being hit by a car.

John Scott rose—

I suspect that we will get the exact figures from John Scott.

Would Stewart Stevenson expect that water to have reached its terminal velocity over that distance, given the gravitational effect on it?

Let us have a really technical discussion. If it were ice, its terminal velocity in that shape would be approximately 120mph. On the other hand, it is travelling as a liquid, so it will of course disperse and to some extent become aerated. It is a complex issue. Does that not touch upon the very complexities of water? I speak, by the way, as someone who has undertaken parachuting, so I know about terminal velocity and all that sort of thing—it is quite exciting, I have to say.

At 10,000m3, we are looking at holding back something of the order of 10,000 tonnes of water.

Climate change is an important part of the future of not just Scotland but countries around the world. We will see dams that are overfilled because of increased rainfall; as atmospheric temperature rises, that will be one of the consequences. Equally, there will be periods of drought, when there is less water behind the dam.

Concrete is a very old material; the Romans used it 2,000 years ago. Many of our dams are constructed of concrete. As Barnes Wallis discovered when he designed the bouncing bomb, concrete is very strong in pressure but very weak in tension. If you take away the water from behind an elderly dam, there is a risk—although not a huge risk—that the dam might collapse backwards towards the water that previously held it in place. There are a range of risks to which some of our older dams can be exposed. The explosive effect of the bouncing bomb—taking the water suddenly away from behind the dam—is of course what caused the concrete to fall backwards and the water to come forward.

Water is essential for human life. It is worth saying that the well-nourished member of this Parliament could probably survive without food for a couple of months but would survive without water for something less than a week. In paying attention to Scotland’s natural resource that is water, we do something very important indeed.

This is a bill of considerable technical complexity that is simple in its purpose. It is fit for purpose and we should all support it at decision time.

We come to closing speeches. I can offer each speaker exactly one extra minute and would be very grateful if they took it. You have up to five minutes, Mr McArthur.

I am on the horns of a dilemma, Presiding Officer. I got that instruction from you with Maureen Watt’s plea that, if it has all been said for goodness’ sake do not repeat it, still ringing in my ears.

This has been an interesting debate that has set the right tone and reflects the way in which the bill has proceeded through its various stages. A number of speakers have talked about some of the concerns that exist in relation to the availability of qualified engineers. In these straitened times the job opportunities that might exist in that area might be just the sort of thing that we are looking for.

Given the economic circumstances and the state of budgets, it was quite right for a number of speakers to illustrate concerns about the ability of SEPA to carry out its functions.

I want to help extend the debate and also to introduce an element of controversy. I think that we received assurances from the Government. I am quite surprised that Liam McArthur and Maureen Watt do not seem happy to accept that sufficient engineers would be available to carry out the work associated with the bill. Is that a continuing concern? Will they pursue with the minister the point that there do not appear to be enough engineers to carry out the work?

I was going to go on to comment that I thought that it was very brave of Stewart Stevenson to accept an intervention from John Scott. Those of us who have been dealing with the bill from the outset have long since learned the lesson that that is not advisable.

John Scott makes a fair point. Time will tell. We saw that in relation to the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill and the availability of hydrologists. Future workforce planning is a difficult thing to get absolutely right. As John Scott said, we were assured that enough qualified engineers would be available—indeed, I think that Scotland is better blessed in that respect than other parts of the UK—but it is something that we probably need to keep a weather eye on.

Maureen Watt was absolutely right to say that there needs to be transparency when it comes to full cost recovery. It should not be full cost recovery at any cost. Any sense that external costs are being loaded on to reservoir owners needs to be avoided at all stages.

Peter Peacock made his usual thoughtful contribution. He started by referring, quite rightly, to the complex and technical nature of the bill. It is absolutely right that it weaves in issues around climate change. For those of us who are not blessed with the engineering background of Mr Scott, we can conceptualise such matters a little more readily. Like Peter Peacock, the rest of us are looking forward to receiving our signed copy of the minister’s book, “Richard—the reservoir months”, in due course.

Peter Peacock was also right to talk about the change in the usage and ownership of reservoirs, given that the bill places potential new burdens on individuals and smaller businesses who, at the point at which they found themselves in ownership of a reservoir, never anticipated taking on such responsibilities and burdens. I made that point in my opening speech and I reiterate that the Government’s response appears to be fairly pragmatic.

As well as bravely taking an intervention from John Scott and doing an awful lot to ingratiate himself with the Presiding Officer, Stewart Stevenson made some interesting points about the way in which issues around water are ones that we are all wrestling with. Despite the fact that those that we are forced to deal with in a Scottish context are in marked contrast to those that our counterparts in Malawi are forced to deal with, there is an international dimension to such issues.

It boils down to the fact that the bill that we will pass today is about public safety. I think that Stewart Stevenson caused a degree of alarm in identifying a concern about dams collapsing backwards in the event that water is removed from behind them. That was certainly new to me but, as every speaker has identified, recent events in Hungary and Renfrewshire have brought home to us the potential risks that are inherent in the use of dams.

The approach that the bill takes, which is based on the assessment of risk and possible consequences, is absolutely the right one and I reiterate that, on that basis, we will be happy to support it this evening.

I am pleased to close the debate on the bill for the Scottish Conservatives. I join many others in paying tribute to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for its good stage 1 report and its efforts at subsequent stages, and I thank the many organisations and individuals who took the time to give evidence to the committee or to send briefings to MSPs. In addition, SPICe’s Alasdair Reid produced two very good briefings, which were helpful for today’s debate and the stage 1 debate.

I very much enjoyed Stewart Stevenson’s speech. “The Dam Busters” is one of my favourite films. He was right when he said that an explosion at the front of a dam can cause it to fall in the other way—we saw that happening in the film. I wondered whether he might have heard the strains of “The Dambusters March” as he spoke.

Are you going to sing it?

No, I am not going to sing it because I am not allowed to in here, but it is one of my favourite tunes.

As I said in the stage 1 debate, the bill is of particular importance to my region of the Highlands and Islands because of the high number of reservoirs and lochs there. In that debate, I focused on concerns that were voiced in the stage 1 report about the cost implications for current and potential managers of medium or high-risk reservoirs. Amendments at stage 2 and today have gone some way towards addressing those concerns. It is right for ministers to put in place regulations before SEPA is able to charge any fees. It is also right that SEPA must consult widely on any charging scheme for the initial registration fee, annual charges and the cost of checking the dams, which might be done every year. I would be grateful if the minister could set out in more detail how the Government envisages consultation taking place and how it will ensure that it is as comprehensive as possible.

In Scotland, the feed-in tariff scheme is encouraging the construction of many small to medium-sized hydro schemes, especially in the Highlands and Islands. The developers of many of those schemes will want to construct and engineer storage reservoirs or to use existing lochs in the hills as storage reservoirs to maximise the potential of the schemes in dry weather. It is therefore important that developers are aware of any additional costs that SEPA might levy so that those can be factored into the schemes’ budgets. That will be important when people are trying to raise money from bankers to pay for the schemes—everyone knows how difficult that can be.

I welcome the fact that the bill will give ministers the power to issue grants to managers of high or medium-risk reservoirs that are not regulated by the 1975 act to help them to comply with the new legislation. Again, any further details on such grants from ministers at this stage would be welcomed by constituents who might be affected for the reasons that I have given. How will ministers make people aware of such grants? Will it be done in the same way as it was for the notorious agri-environmental grants?

The Scottish Conservatives are content to see the bill passed today because we recognise the need to enhance reservoir safety and clarify the legal framework that surrounds the construction and management of controlled reservoirs. However, we do not want people to suddenly have to pay charges for natural lochans in the hills just because they are there. We look to ministers to ensure that any remaining concerns about the cost implications are fully addressed and that all stakeholders are fully involved and consulted as the legislation is being implemented.

On behalf of Labour committee members, I thank the clerks and the bill team for their assistance with our consideration of the bill. I also thank the witnesses whose expert evidence illuminated the committee’s consideration and who pointed out to us and the cabinet secretary where amendments were required. Without the advice of organisations such as the Institution of Civil Engineers, we would not, during our consideration of the bill, have been aware of some of the problems that have arisen.

John Scott and Peter Peacock made an important point about the effect of climate change in increasing the risks of uncontrolled releases from older reservoirs. We have to consider climate change in a wide variety of pieces of legislation, not least this bill. As climate change causes erratic weather patterns and stormier weather, we will have to take preventive action as part of the way in which we adapt to climate change. Climate change is an issue not just in this country. It is an issue of international concern, and some of the problems that committee colleagues who went to Malawi observed on their travels relate to the effects of climate change in some of the hotter parts of the globe in addition to the effects that we see here, such as inundation and heavy rainfall.

I was reassured to hear that Liam McArthur, Maureen Watt and Karen Gillon rushed back to our stage 1 deliberations when they returned from Malawi. I am sure that they found the Official Report to be very illuminating. I thought that Liam McArthur referred to two naughty issues, and that I had missed something much more exciting than what was in the bill.

It was knotty with a k.

Maureen Watt referred to John Scott’s professional knowledge as a trained engineer. I have to say that John was probably more enthusiastic about the consideration of the bill than many other committee members, and I am grateful to him for bringing many different aspects to our attention. John normally advises us about agricultural issues from his position as a farmer, so to get his input as a civil engineer was interesting.

At stage 2, my colleague Peter Peacock raised the need to ensure that there is clarity in the interpretation of the bill and the responsibilities of the various individuals and organisations concerned. He pointed out then that the bill will create many new small registered reservoirs, that the managers of the reservoirs will be required to comply with legislation, and that to do that they will have to be able to understand both the nature and the scope of their responsibilities.

Part 1 of the bill is the most substantive. It places duties and responsibilities on the owners of reservoirs between 10,000m3 and 25,000m3, which are currently not required to be registered. I was therefore pleased that amendment 17 was agreed to this afternoon. It requires ministers to publish guidance, after consultation with SEPA, the Institution of Civil Engineers and any other persons who might seem to be appropriate, on how the legislation has to be interpreted. The amendment also requires ministers to review and republish the guidance as they think appropriate. At stage 2, Peter Peacock made the point that the previous legislation ended up with extensive guidance as it was revised over the years.

Mention has been made of the use of reservoirs for leisure, but they also provide an important habitat for many species, such as waterfowl. RSPB Scotland or one of the other non-governmental organisations raised the concern at stage 1 that, if reservoirs were decommissioned as a result of the legislation, important habitat might be lost. The fact that ministers could make grants available means that they could help to protect those habitats and biodiversity in general.

I do not know whether today’s speech was Stewart Stevenson’s 401st—I know that he reached 400 fairly recently.

Four hundred and second.

It was his 402nd speech. He reminded us of the issues around the weight of water and the speed at which it can travel. I was almost inclined to intervene in the debate between him and John Scott about what would actually happen as, of course, the water would not be flying through the air but pouring down the hillside, and the effects of friction and turbulence would have to be considered in judging the speed at which it would reach the bottom. However, I did not intervene because Karen Gillon was sitting beside me and I thought that she might hit me if I did. [Laughter.] However, the dialogue between John Scott and Stewart Stevenson was a good prelude to the science hustings, which I am hosting in committee room 1 this evening—I thought that we would have a little advert for that.

The cabinet secretary referred to a six-week break. It may be a six-week break for some. I think that this is probably the last stage 3 speech in this session in which I will take part—I am sure that members are relieved about that—but I hope to return to this place both leaner and fitter after my six-week break.

Finally, Jamie McGrigor and Stewart Stevenson both referred to the film “The Dam Busters”. My colleague Karen Gillon, who was with me when they did, observed that perhaps we should be considering “Reservoir Dogs”.

I thank members for their beneficial and constructive contributions to the debate. I know that Elaine Murray was concerned that we would be making so many speeches on the subject so close together, and she was worried that we had long memories. My constituents are always telling me that politicians have very short memories, so I assure her that we have forgotten what each of us has been saying.

I pay tribute to Peter Peacock, who is standing down from Parliament shortly. I do not know whether this is his last debate in Parliament, but it is certainly his last debate on my ministerial responsibilities. Even though we have not agreed on every issue, I pay tribute to the valued and thoughtful contributions that he has made in this chamber and in committee. [Applause.] He referred to the fact that I will perhaps mention this debate in my memoirs. I was going to give him a special mention, but he went on to say that he would not buy a copy of my memoirs, so I have dropped that idea. Nevertheless, I wish him all the best for the future.

John Scott was brave to take on Stewart Stevenson. He was clearly not aware that Stewart Stevenson is the Scottish National Party group’s chief scientist as well as our chief medical officer and chief engineer—as John Scott will have learned from the response to his intervention. He should have known better than to take on Stewart Stevenson. It was good to have a speech by a real scientist, Elaine Murray, on the Labour benches, during the debate as well.

It has given me great pleasure to bring the bill to the chamber. It has perhaps not been seen as the most attention-grabbing piece of legislation, as members have said, but we can all agree that it is a vital requirement for Scotland’s future and the safety of our communities. Indeed, the main reason why we decided to strengthen reservoir safety legislation was to ensure that we, in Scotland, never see the sort of attention-grabbing headlines that are prompted by reservoir breaches elsewhere in the world. As I mentioned at the start of the debate, the consequences of a reservoir failing are too unthinkable for us not to do everything in our power to prevent that from ever happening. We are in agreement that there is a need for new and improved reservoir safety legislation if we are to continue properly to protect the people of Scotland.

However, legislation alone will not make the necessary improvements to reservoir management. The Scottish Government has set in place a framework for taking forward the implementation of the bill. That work will build on the strong partnerships that have been developed during preparations for the bill.

A number of issues were raised during the debate, and I will try to address one or two of them. Maureen Watt and others asked whether there will be enough engineers to carry out the work that the bill will require. We have taken the issue seriously and referred to it at stage 2 when I attended the committee. I advise those members who raised the issue that, in 2010, 60 people were appointed or reappointed to the reservoir panels. The figure for 2010 was slightly higher than the average for a number of years, which was only 40. We can all agree that the trend is going in the right direction and that we can take some satisfaction from those statistics.

Reference was made to the costs that will be borne by reservoir managers and owners as well as those who will have to carry out improvements to meet the obligations that will be placed on them. I reiterate what I said at stage 2 about SEPA’s charging regime. SEPA will publish a detailed consultation paper on any proposed charging schemes and any schemes will have to be signed off by Scottish ministers. Members can rest assured that we will take into account the nature of the charging schemes when they are put in place.

For the avoidance of doubt, can the minister tell us whether the charging schemes that he envisages SEPA creating will operate purely on a cost recovery basis?

We will certainly take that into account to ensure that the charging schemes operate on a cost-recovery basis and are proportionate.

The other financial issue to be raised was to do with the financial provision that the Government proposes to make to assist small businesses with the new costs that may arise as a result of the bill. We amended the bill at stage 2 to allow financial help to be provided to the owners of newly regulated reservoirs in extreme cases. We all accept that the bankruptcy of any business is in nobody’s interests. If we did not help, that might result in the cost of the required maintenance falling on the public purse in any case, which is why we lodged the amendment on that. However, any such assistance will not be required before 2015 at the earliest, when we will know the risk categories of all reservoirs of between 10,000m3 and 25,000m3. By then, the risk will have been assessed and the scale of any necessary remedial action will be known.

I should also make it clear that the level of necessary financial assistance will be assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that it goes to those who really need it. It will, of course, be a temporary measure to assist with any capital investments. Thereafter, reservoir managers should be able to maintain their reservoirs to ensure that the safe standards that they have reached continue. If not, they should consider whether they wish to own or manage reservoirs in the future.

I am delighted that there will be grants towards the costs of people developing reservoirs or bringing them up to standard, but what about inspection charges in the years thereafter? Does the cabinet secretary know how much those inspection charges will be and how often the reservoirs will have to be inspected?

Financial assistance will be given only to those who have to bring their reservoirs up to the standards that are required and those who are in the circumstances that I have just outlined. No other financial assistance is envisaged.

I see that I am just about out of time, so I will say simply that the bill brings new opportunities and, of course, new challenges. I want to thank everyone for their enthusiasm and their commitment to the bill as we meet Scotland’s reservoir management needs in the 21st century. Many members have mentioned climate change and other threats to Scotland. The bill is about making Scotland a safer place, and I commend it to Parliament.