Hansard

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was very patient when listening to Mr Matheson. The letter to which I am referring is that of 15 November, which, I assume, is the same letter from which the member quoted.

The press release that was issued after the survey was carried out stated that

"there is no known harmful effect on health of the consumption of drinking water which has intermittently high levels of iron, manganese or aluminium".

The consultant spoke to a number of local residents and gave them the same information.

The critical issue that today's debate has raised is the need to ensure that people understand the process and have confidence in it. The issue of water supplies in Bo'ness has a long history, but it is not true to say that nothing has happened to address it. The water authority has acted to tackle the problem of water discoloration by scouring the pipes.

Donald Gorrie, Alex Neil and Cathy Peattie are right about the need to ensure that there is high investment in our water facilities. There have been attempts to deal with sediment that has built up by reorganising the pipe layout on Angus Road.

I am struck that Michael Connarty has taken up the issue on more than one occasion. Anyone who knows him will be aware that he is not the sort of person who can be fobbed off—he is a persistent character. Information that he has chased up has reassured him that there is no risk to public health, the only evidence of contamination being the sample that was taken in November 1998.

I would have hoped that the explanations that Mr Matheson has received, both from East of Scotland Water and from Forth Valley Health Board, would have reassured him that there is not a big problem with the water supply in Bo'ness.

Mr Neil is right to welcome the fact that we have had an opportunity to debate the issue. I should add that the matter was followed up by the Scottish Office after a series of complaints were made both to the local authority and to East of Scotland Water. The health authorities have been fully consulted. It is not just the water authority that has to account for itself—Forth Valley Health Board is involved, as well as the local authorities. There is a procedure that must be followed.

The water authorities are under a statutory obligation to produce an annual report on water quality in their area, and to submit that both to the local authorities and to the Executive. I stress that, if members of the public have concerns about their water supply, the water authorities will take samples from their tap and analyse them to ensure compliance with regulations. Customers will be informed of the results of that analysis. We also produce an annual report on the quality of drinking water, which was submitted to the Parliament's information centre and which I announced in a press release. I encourage members present to study that statement and to identify issues that they may wish to raise with me in the light of it.

Local authorities have a statutory duty to keep themselves informed about the quality of water supply in their areas. The water authorities are required to notify the local authorities, the health board and the Scottish Executive of any event that affects or is likely to affect the water supply in their area. There is a clear set of procedures.

I agree with the points that Donald Gorrie made about investment in public services. Significant investment is being made in East of Scotland Water to meet the requirements that are set by Europe and the Scottish Executive. However, I would dispute his comment that we have replaced Conservative councillors with Labour councillors. There is a process of applications, and local people—not just councillors—can apply to sit on water authorities. The appointments that were made this year showed an interesting mix of political backgrounds—the appointees were not all Labour members. The Water Industry Act 1999

gives us the transparency that Mr Gorrie and Mr Neil are looking for. We are in a period of transition: we have a new Parliament, new water legislation and a new water industry commissioner. We have the opportunity to get things right.

It is important that we make sure that when complaints are raised, they are followed up. The specific case that we are discussing today was checked by the Scottish Office earlier this year and officials have told me that they are satisfied that the correct approach was taken.

Water authorities have to hold regular meetings with consultants in public health medicine from the health boards in their supply area—it is not only people in the water authorities who are involved in discussions. If a water quality issue is thought to pose a threat to public health, those consultants have to advise the authorities on whether it is safe to continue using the water. If a hazard is thought likely to affect more than a small number of people, the consultants in public health medicine will advise that a multi-agency incident control team be set up to co-ordinate the investigation and management of the hazard. The primary aim of the incident control team is always to protect public health.

Operational support and advice is provided by the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health, which is frequently consulted by consultants in public health medicine and by local authority environmental health departments. The centre is satisfied that there is a clearly defined and effective mechanism for providing medical advice on water quality issues within Scotland.

Cathy Peattie raised a point about the way in which we test water. In this case, a problem with the way in which we test water has led to the debate. A water sample was collected and tested, but it was not collected in controlled circumstances. I am told that there must be a chain of custody. For instance, if someone was being tested for drugs, neither they nor any sample that they were required to provide would be left unsupervised. The same applies to testing for water quality.

We can never be complacent, but I am satisfied that the facts of the case that we are discussing have been examined and that there is no on-going pollution problem with the domestic water supply, nor is there a risk to public health. I am also satisfied that East of Scotland Water operated in an open and accountable manner and that there is no need for a review further to the review that has already been carried out.

I thank Mr Matheson for raising the issue because there is a need to ensure that local issues are dealt with effectively and through the correct procedures.