Official Report 257KB pdf
Under agenda item 4, we have two evidence-taking sessions on the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill. I welcome to the committee David Faichney, flood warning unit manager, and Chris Spray, director of environmental science, both from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
Good morning, gentlemen. In much of the evidence that we have heard in the past few weeks, concerns have been expressed about the absence of the word "sustainability", or of a definition of sustainability, from the bill. It has been argued that there should be an explicit reference to sustainability. Government officials argue that the whole bill is about sustainability, so the argument that the long title should explicitly mention sustainability is not upheld. What are your views? Do you agree that the bill is implicitly about sustainability, or should sustainability be mentioned explicitly in the bill?
We regard both the bill and the directive—to which some parts play—as being ultimately about sustainable flood management. I do not think that we necessarily need the word in the bill. My colleagues tell me that it is a difficult word to define, but in any case the whole bill is about sustainable flood management. It talks to long-term planning and geographically large-scale planning, and it even talks to the benefits and costs. I am quite happy with it as it is, because the whole thing revolves around sustainable flood risk management.
Is it possible that, because the bill does not explicitly mention sustainability, your interpretation of your role and duties under the bill might be open to debate and argument in the future? If sustainability was mentioned—to the extent that it can be defined—might that put your role and duties beyond doubt?
I do not think that it matters, because the legislation under which SEPA was created already requires us to take account of sustainable development in all that we do, so that is pretty well covered already. Outwith discussions on the bill, we have done quite a lot of more general work with the Government on how we define sustainable development.
Section 18(8) of the bill provides for definitions of low, medium and high probability of floods. Strictly speaking, it gives Scottish ministers the power to determine those definitions. How do you wish the low, medium and high probability of floods to be defined? To what return periods should those probabilities be linked to ensure consistency?
That is a difficult question to answer at present. The directive is clear that floods with a medium probability are likely to return once in 100 years. That can also be expressed as an annual accedence probability of 1 per cent. I think that one of the Government's proposed amendments suggests that we talk about things in terms of accedence probabilities to be clear about low, medium and high-probability flood events.
The success of the bill depends on co-operation and co-ordination between the responsible authorities and partners. As the lead organisation, how will SEPA ensure that there is co-operation and co-ordination between organisations? For example, if local authorities and Scottish Water disagree about their responsibilities or who does what, what will be your role in sorting that out?
Ultimately, we regard the Scottish Government and the minister as the final arbiter, but I think that all of us who are involved would feel that we had failed in our duties if the matter got that far. Indeed, we would have failed, because we all have responsibilities to co-operate with each other and to co-ordinate our actions. We would not wish the matter to get as far as the Government.
It has been pointed out that there must also be co-operation on river basin planning under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. How can you ensure that flood risk management co-ordinates with river basin planning?
From a policy point of view, the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 views flood management as part of the deliverables. To a certain extent, we have been waiting for that to occur, and that is what we expect to happen.
The Scottish Rural Property and Business Association was a bit concerned about SEPA having the lead role as competent authority, as it felt that you were acting as both administrator and enforcer. We have also heard about the importance of putting in place safeguards to ensure the independence of SEPA. Do you have any concerns that people might see you as not being independent and, instead, being a Government body imposing the will of ministers on other recalcitrant authorities?
Sometimes we are seen as a Government body and sometimes we are not. That is partly to do with who is looking at us and partly to do with what we are dealing with.
It is commendable that you see your role as being more to do with bringing people together than directing people to do things. However, given the powers that you have under the bill, what would be your position if the efforts that you were making to encourage co-operation were not delivering what you believed had to happen, strategically? How could you make things happen?
I said before that, ultimately, we would have to go back to the Scottish Government. There will be some tensions, especially the first time around, between our role, which is to put in place the frameworks and high-level district achievements and aims, and that of sub-district, local authority-led groups, which is to build management programmes within those frameworks. We are aware of that issue and need to work through it in a co-operative way, so that we do not appear to be putting in place frameworks that are entirely unreasonable environmentally, economically or otherwise and do not play to a local group's priorities. The system will be built up mostly from the bottom, but we will be involved at the top level. Ultimately, we would look to the one final arbiter—the minister. However, we all have a duty to collaborate, so if we got to that point we would have failed miserably in the co-operative effort to reach an agreement.
In paragraph 2.2 of your written evidence, you say that Scotland
I may have to submit further written evidence to the committee with the exact details, as they are always changing. Of all the professions with which SEPA is involved, at the moment it has the most difficulty recruiting hydrologists and hydrogeologists. We regularly lose competent staff to consultancies, which walk in and offer people jobs—almost the same jobs, from the other side—at salaries that we cannot match. We know that local authorities are in exactly the same situation; consultants are also fighting hard. South of the border, the Environment Agency is in a poor state. In previous evidence, I noted that, according to the United Kingdom Parliament, 200 flood risk manager and engineer posts were vacant in England and Wales at one time.
What is the current production—if "production" is the correct word—of suitable people? Do we need a 50 per cent increase or a doubling of numbers? Can you give us a sense of how big the challenge is?
The financial memorandum suggests that SEPA will require between 40 and 60 extra staff over the next few years. Those include a maximum of between a dozen and 15 flood risk management professionals—the people responsible for flood risk assessment. We will need to bring in about three or four people a year and to work out where they will come from. However, that is the number required by SEPA alone—others will be in competition with us.
But that will presumably be counterbalanced, as the consultants you mentioned will also be recruiting more people. Everybody will be getting their own flood risk management consultant.
That is correct. The one existing MSc course that is key for this field, at Stirling, will turn out only a maximum of about a dozen people in any one year. Some of them will go overseas and, as you say, the rest will disappear into consultancies, local authorities, SEPA and elsewhere. The demand will be greater than the current production by a significant amount, certainly in the first five years. After that, it might begin to level off, but an injection of cash into the relevant universities in Scotland is urgently needed to attract folk on to those courses. We in SEPA—as well as local authorities—need to build mechanisms to ensure that those people then come to work for us.
Alasdair Morgan mentioned a concern about an explosion of additional professional managers. To what extent are you able to diversify to meet the new demand for the skills that are required? If local authorities were simply to expand the workforce by adding hydrologists and did not make reductions elsewhere, they would quickly come under severe financial and public relations pressure.
That is a good point. We discussed with the guys at Stirling and Dundee universities the extent to which the courses can be made modular, so that we can tell current professionals that if they take modules 2 and 3, it will give them the skills to start working on a particular project. As David Faichney said, some of the skills relate to GIS and mapping, and the need for an understanding of hydrology is not that great as long as you have experts elsewhere to whom you can refer.
Where do you recruit? For example, over a number of years the national health service has become accustomed to being raided by other countries that are recruiting; but, equally, it recruits in other countries. Has SEPA looked elsewhere to recruit suitably qualified staff?
We increasingly do—you are right. We are slightly helped by the fact that the floods directive, and the water framework directive before it, is European legislation, so there are people in other countries who face exactly the same challenges and have the same skills.
Because it is European legislation, however, those people will presumably be needed in their own countries to do precisely what we are doing here.
That is true.
I was thinking that SEPA might recruit from further abroad.
We will certainly consider that—we have had inquiries from Australia and elsewhere. We have a slight advantage over the rest of Europe, in that Scotland is leading the way: we are the first country that is introducing legislation to put the EU framework directive in place. If we act fast, we might get people ahead of other countries—although we may lose them later on.
I will move on to the question of duties on some of the responsible authorities that are listed in the bill, which perhaps relates to my previous question and follows what Elaine Murray said. In your submission, you state:
We want a better linkage between the beginning of the bill, which deals with the correct and understandable general duty of responsible authorities and others to reduce flood risks, and the mechanisms for producing and implementing plans. That linkage needs to be tightened up; indeed, the supplementary evidence that the Scottish Government provided after the first evidence sessions began to address the matter.
You referred to the Scottish Government's supplementary evidence. I think that Government officials said that they want to strengthen slightly the duty to implement and that the minister gave his signature to that—I hope that I am not misrepresenting what was said. I suppose that the issue is how slight the strengthening should be. I want to be clear. Given your role, you are clear that in the great scheme of things an explicit connection to implementing plans, however that is expressed, is important in delivering what communities need.
We think so. The issue is linking what the sub-district local flood risk management plans say with the district plans, which we must finally send to Europe. Such an approach would give us greater surety that we will move forward. Otherwise, I think that there would be a risk that, for all sorts of good reasons and priorities, very little would happen.
I want to ask about the change in SEPA's culture that the bill will bring about. At the moment, SEPA prioritises the environment for obvious reasons, but the bill will impose on it duties to protect communities, households, property and so on. How will you balance your duties come the enactment of the bill? With the existing culture, primacy is given to the environment. The River Earn in my constituency provides an example: its flood risk is put secondary to the environment. When we asked a Government official about the matter, he said that it was impossible to say how SEPA would balance its duties. I would like to hear about that directly from you.
That is an interesting observation. As we speak, SEPA's culture is changing dramatically fast. As our corporate plan shows, we have put a new emphasis on customer focus, which involves addressing not exactly the issue that you raise, but the area that you rightly highlight.
It will be quite difficult to change the culture of the entire organisation quickly.
I understand the challenge but do not think that that is so. We have already effected a massive change in focusing on the customer; I can give further evidence of what is involved in that.
There is a duty under the bill for the assessments to include social impacts. Given that we have had evidence that very few tools, if any, are available for assessing social impacts, how will SEPA fulfil that requirement under the bill?
Rhoda Grant is quite right that the bill includes duties to assess social and economic impacts, which are not necessarily matters that we deal with regularly at the moment. We see the main task as being to use the evidence that is already available. Some excellent work has recently been done at the University of Dundee on the social impacts of flooding, so our aim would be to build further links with Professor Alan Werritty and the folk who have done that work.
There is no doubt that we need to expand on those skills and to understand not just the social impacts but the economic impacts of flooding.
Are you confident that you can fulfil that duty under the bill?
I am confident that the means are available to us to explore the issue externally with academics who have done work in that field. We can examine the systems that we are already using for flood warning development to identify how applicable they are, but there is a fair amount of work to be done on that.
I want to move on to natural flood management and the evidence that we have taken on SEPA's responsibilities under section 16, which requires the organisation to map natural features. There has been discussion about whether the requirement to carry out that process at national level is the right resolution to achieve local implementation of natural flood management methods. In addition, it has been argued that not just natural features but natural processes should be considered, and that that ought to be defined in the bill. Will you give your views on both those issues?
We were quite keen for the bill to refer to natural processes. That is mainly because we are hydrologists, so we understand and are capable of measuring processes. Many of the questions about natural flood management are about how effective such techniques are. To define effectiveness, one must say on what the techniques have an effect. The answer is on the hydrograph—the height to which a river or body of water will go over time, which obviously equates to a flood. That is influenced by all sorts of processes, such as run-off. We have always been of the view that we would prefer reference to be made to processes, but we will not lose too much sleep about the bill's reference to features; we will work with that. If, ultimately, that means building a feature that has an influence on processes, we can work that way. The key element is that it is understood that we are talking about processes.
Section 16 is about our getting a national overview and an understanding of where there is potential for natural flood management measures; that is, where we are likely to be able to make land use changes or capture land that would enable our doing something to mitigate flood risk. That work will be done throughout the country, so it will be at a level greater than the catchment scale. Once the potential areas for natural flood management throughout Scotland and the areas of significant flood risk have been mapped, we can put the two layers together, which will allow us to decide whether opportunities exist for natural flood management where there is significant flood risk. That is the level of work that SEPA will do under section 16.
There are already examples in Scotland of that process working. The convener will know that when the Perth flood defences were being considered, detailed discussions were held on the extent to which the upland catchment could have an impact and help with mitigation downstream. There are similar good examples in Glasgow, where people have considered those issues. That is the sort of thinking that needs to be done: we can certainly influence that.
That is a helpful description of SEPA's role and the level at which you will operate. I have a question that follows on from that. Once you have done the work that you describe and it has left your hands, so to speak, what imperative or force will act on those who are responsible for implementing schemes locally? Those people could say, "That's helpful and interesting, but we're going to do something entirely different."
If research has been done and we have tools to demonstrate where natural flood management could provide a benefit, we will look to everyone who is putting together the flood risk management plan in an area to show that they have taken notice of the potential for natural flood management and have done further scoping. By that, I do not mean the high-level work that SEPA might have done nationally, but work to identify whether potential exists and to consider that in detail. I suppose that the level of detail that the authorities go into will depend on the potential for natural flood management measures. In areas such as Glasgow, where it is important to keep water above ground and capture it at source, even small parcels of land could be useful in small catchments in reducing flood risk.
Indeed. You suggest that you would hope and expect those who are responsible to do that, but what would require them to think about the issues further?
I guess that the starting point will be for us to work with them to find out whether a cost benefit case can be made for such measures. The challenge in considering the cost benefit ratio is that, understandably, communities fairly often want their area to be defended right now. As I said, one problem with many catchment management measures is that it takes time before they start working, so there are long and short-term considerations. We must accept that sustainable flood management will involve considering the short term—which may mean more hard defences and better flood risk management and warning—alongside the long term, which may be more about a whole-catchment approach. Ultimately, if we say one thing, local authorities say another and we cannot reach agreement, we will have to go back to the ministerial position. That can happen at present in the planning process when development is considered, although the option is rarely used.
Would it be fair to say that you are presuming that natural flood management measures will be used? In a previous report, the committee talked about making it a requirement that there be a presumption in favour of considering—not necessarily implementing—natural flood management measures. If such measures were to be ruled out, that decision would have to be justified. In the flow of work that you have described, would it help if the bill contained a presumption that local authorities and their partners would consider such matters?
"Presumption" is probably the wrong word. The bodies must consider such matters, but must do so in the context of all the existing opportunities. To talk about a presumption in favour of or against something is probably the wrong way to go about things. As I have suggested, time and geography would have to be taken into account.
We have many issues to cover, and I do not think that we will be able to cover them in the time that is available. I am not disposed to extend the hour that we have allowed for this panel—although that is not because of the witnesses. I want to jump to issues that we will have to deal with. If other issues cannot be fitted in, we may have to write to you.
We would be happy for you to do that.
Alasdair Morgan has a question about reservoirs, and Bill Wilson has a question about flood warnings. I would like them to ask those questions, so that we have responses for our report. After those questions have been answered, we will devote the remaining time to funding, which will also be important for our report.
Paragraph 2.11 of SEPA's written submission is headed "National security considerations" and relates to reservoir inundation plans. Will you go into more detail on those plans?
From our security manager and emergency planning manager, we understand that sensitivities surround inundation plans showing what would happen if a reservoir were to fail. There are particular concerns about terrorist activity and the ability of organisations to understand quickly which reservoirs could have the biggest impacts downstream. I believe that such concerns are being thrashed out among the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency and the security services in England and Wales.
In my previous job at Northumbrian Water, one of my responsibilities was looking after Kielder Water. It was alarming to find that, at the height of some of the terrorist troubles, one of the cells operating out of Newcastle had details of Kielder Water.
You are suggesting that, if someone knew sensitive details of what would flood if a dam broke, that could make the dam a target—although, at the level at which these people operate, they might think, "It's pretty obvious what's going to be flooded if we blow up the dam."
I would not disagree with that.
The bill requires SEPA to map the areas where we think there are significant flood risks in Scotland. That will include mapping of areas downstream of reservoirs. Consideration would have to be given to the level of detail, where the details were to be held, and whether they were to be publicly available. There would be a tie-in between general maps showing the extent of possible inundations and the sort of maps that are wanted by emergency planning agencies, which would indicate the possible impact of flooding—the number of deaths, perhaps, and the number of key properties downstream, such as schools, old-folks homes, fire stations or critical national infrastructure. The agencies do not want that kind of information to be made public.
You are fairly hopeful that the requisite information will be available to those who need it.
Absolutely.
And that it will not available to those who do not.
Those who need it will include a wide range of people, not all of whom will have signed the Official Secrets Act.
If information has to be held separately or securely, or in different forms, there will be an impact on resourcing. We are concerned about that.
We are in separate discussions with the Scottish Government about assessing for all critical national infrastructure the risk of flooding—whether that is coastal flooding, storm surges or whatever. Those discussions are separate but tie in to this one.
Various discussions have taken place on to whom SEPA should provide flood warnings, and Government officials have told us that they have not specified that. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has suggested that SEPA should notify all category 1 responders. To whom do you provide flood warnings at present, and do you expect any changes to that in the light of the bill?
SEPA's primary customers for flood warnings are local authorities, the police, fire and rescue services in some instances, the telephone floodline service and the web service, through SEPA's website. We make flood warnings available to the public through the floodline service and through professional partners such as the police and local authorities. Some local authorities cascade those flood warnings down to individual customers in their areas, such as businesses and householders. The local authorities and the police are category 1 responders. In large flood events, SEPA, as a category 1 responder itself, has to share information about the event that it is leading on—in this case floods—with all other category 1 responders through the strategic co-ordinating group structure.
It is worth reassuring the committee that we are working on a new flood warning dissemination system for Scotland. It is a £7 million project. The advisory board for that includes ACPOS, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, COSLA, and fire and rescue services. We are also going to bring the national health service on to the board. The new system will enable folk to get individual messages. It is key that everybody understands the messages and how they are produced. It is not a SEPA system; it is for all of those groups.
Does that mean that in every circumstance—apart from minor floods perhaps—those people would always be informed?
As a category 1 responder, that is what we have to do. It is one of our key roles under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
Do you have a feedback mechanism to check that when you send those flood warnings out they are acted upon?
We get feedback from our key customers. We work closely with local authorities and the police during and after flood events, and we do debriefings with them for significant flood events. A few years ago, we operated cascade systems that went to the police and then on to the public, and we would carry out an annual survey to ensure that people were receiving those warnings. When that was in place, we were getting feedback that about 80 per cent of people had received and understood the warnings. However, that was a distinct group of about 200 people. It is different from what we understand is the EA's experience, which is to work with much larger numbers. It is challenging to engage with people and to help them to understand what flood warnings are about and what they should do when they receive a warning.
We are working closely with the Met Office, which has for the past six months been trialling some new work on severe weather warnings. That enables the Met Office and us to give much more information about random events, such as intense rainfalls that do not necessarily build up over a long time. We aim to continue working closely with the Met Office—indeed, that is one of the committee's recommendations—to develop that further into a sort of joint forecasting procedure.
I want to move to funding, which is the key to much of the bill.
You indicated in your evidence that the task of aligning funding streams might prove difficult and that it may, ultimately, require guidance from the Scottish Government. You also indicated that the timing of existing funding mechanisms for local authorities, Scottish Water and SEPA are not in sync, and that funding is not in sync with your programme planning periods. There may also be uncertainty about the long-term maintenance of flood risk management. Those are clear descriptions of the problem. What do you think the solutions would be?
I like the easy questions. The processes of various funding streams do not coincide, but that is just a fact of life—they were all set up for different reasons. Quality and standards III and Q and S IV do not have the same timescale as us. Some of us work to comprehensive spending review periods; others do not and we all need to recognise that. To have some centrally held funds that we could draw down—which I think was one of Scottish Water's ideas—seems to be an eminently suitable way of going forward.
Do you regard funding alignment as an interim issue until such time as there is much greater clarity about the planning processes and schemes that are coming on stream five or 10 years down the road? Is the idea of the centrally held fund simply to smooth the apparent differences in funding streams and when they might switch on and off currently? Does it have no other purpose?
You are right that it will be an interim issue, because we are being parachuted into a new set of timescales to which no one was previously working. We must realise that. The current planning period runs to 2015, so by the time we are looking to the next six-year period, a lot of folk will be able to think about the matter.
I follow that. What time horizon ought we to have for planning what will sometimes be major items of expenditure in Scottish and, certainly, local authority terms? We have had evidence from the Association of British Insurers, Scottish Water and others that it should be 25 years and, in a committee report, we talked about long horizons, but in the answer that you have just given, you mentioned a 12-year horizon. What is your feel for the longer-term planning lead?
There is a six-year planning cycle. As I said, we are in one at the moment, so let us think about how we will do the next one. We should look 20 or 25 years ahead. The Scottish Government has given us a steer to consider the strategic needs for flooding in that time period so that we can start building in what we know about climate change, and so that we can set priorities—whether it is coastal flooding, which areas it affects and what we need to look for. That will also start us looking to longer-term natural flood management.
That is a good question—you should give me notice of such requests. My second point was that the Scottish Government has indicated that it expects you to advise ministers as part of the normal exchange of information with them, but you are not under any obligation to do so because there is no duty on SEPA to provide a strategic view of funding such as you describe.
I must admit that I had not realised that we did not have such a duty. I am not being arrogant; we expect to work closely with the Scottish Government. Our role is not in telling it where finances go but in creating the road map for the future.
The role is about the quanta of cash and big schemes that are required. It is strategic.
That is right—the role is very strategic. The costs of a single flood scheme are huge. I was recently considering a flood scheme for Hawick with Scottish Borders Council. We are talking about £50 million at a snip. There are a lot of places the size of Hawick scattered around Scotland with greater or lesser demands and needs right now. The amounts of money are large, but we need to project a long way into the future.
The flood risk management planning process, as fed from the local plans up through the district plans, should set out where all the priorities are across Scotland. It should give us an idea of the hierarchy of those priorities—what is top of the list and where the big spends are. You will not be able to achieve all the priorities over one or two cycles; it will be many cycles before they are all achieved. There is a need to understand the relative benefits of projects nationally, and it will be very difficult to convey that at local level and to explain how the money that will be used to fund them is going to come from the bottom up. That will be a bit of a challenge.
Mr Spray mentioned Hawick, and there are many other such schemes, which you have to an extent to aggregate with your knowledge of what is needed and what is coming up.
That would be very good. The current system is not like that. It is reactive to the demands that are—understandably—made in various areas about what the next key priorities should be. We need to get above that.
You are not looking for powers to remove settlements, are you?
I am not asking for that. However, let us consider the options for the south-east of England. The Essex coast is retreating at a rate of 12m a year. Luckily, that is not the case up here. We must recognise that there are some serious questions, but if we think about them now, we can plan into the future.
I take you back to the discussion about the proposal for a central pot of money. If I understand correctly, part of the purpose of that would be to smooth the transition and to provide some certainty. There has been quite a debate with many local authorities about whether or not re-ring fencing or having a central pot would be beneficial. From your point of view, and considering the job that you need to do, would certainty be provided if local authorities had such a ring-fenced pot from which they would be expected to draw resources for flooding?
The real challenge for local authorities is around what to do in the current comprehensive spending review round. That is why we have spoken more about smoothing the differences in funding streams, rather than all the funding going into a central pot. I am not sure whether or not a central pot is needed in the long term. If we can plan, we might not need that. However, the allocation needs to stack up against the correct bit of demand. At the moment, we are in a very difficult transitional period, which is why we need the smoothing money. The debate on central funding might re-emerge in the future but, at the moment, we can probably plan ahead and plan that debate out, so to speak.
There are some outstanding issues relating to the planning process, and we will follow up on them as soon as possible after the meeting, so that we can get responses from you. I am not disposed to extend this evidence session any longer.
I commiserate with the minister on his ill health. Something seems to be going round the Parliament—I blame the First Minister for introducing the illness to the rest of us.
I am sure that I can rely on Dr Murray not to take unfair advantage of me.
I will not. The mind boggles.
You are not sounding too good yourself.
I had the illness two weeks ago.
Shall we just call it a day?
We received evidence from Scottish Water and the ABI that we require a long-term strategy for flood risk management over perhaps 25 or 50 years. When the minister's officials were asked about that on 19 November, they said that the six-yearly planning process could cope with that. The ABI would like the bill to require a long-term strategy. Does such a proposal have merit?
Nothing in the bill prevents the creation of a long-term strategy. In fact, much in the bill encourages such a strategy. I know that you have talked to SEPA, among others, about that.
You do not think that wording is needed to encourage partners to look a bit further over the horizon.
No. The debate has clarified and will continue to clarify many issues. Such wording is not needed, because the whole process focuses on moving Scotland forward on sustainable flood management.
Unsurprisingly, I will return to sustainable flood management. What are your views on the concern that the bill does not mention sustainable flood management? Does the bill contain a sufficient presumption in favour of natural flood management?
Absolutely. Two points are involved. As the committee has taken evidence, it has debated the question whether the long title should refer to sustainable flood management. The committee will understand that I must defer to lawyers on such matters, and they say firmly that a bill's title is a description and not an aspiration. The title of the bill is therefore a description, but I fully accept that the aspiration is to have a system of sustainable flood management. Everything in the bill points towards that and towards ensuring that flood management is sustainable and that we are adopting a progressive policy. That is inherent and clear in the bill, and I want it to continue to be clear. I am afraid that we cannot change the long title; our legal advice is very firm on that.
Presumably, the aspiration could be mentioned elsewhere in the bill.
Section 1 includes the promotion of sustainable flood management.
There is a concern that people have been working in a particular way for some time now, so we need actively to encourage engineers and planners into a new way of working. When Scottish Water estimated the cost of development, it did not seem to include either environmental or social costs. Is it possible for the bill to include a method of ensuring that, when new developments are considered in the future, the costs of environmental and social benefits or disbenefits must be estimated?
SEPA's evidence this morning is that it is increasingly focused on the economic and social costs of flooding. Rhoda Grant asked a specific—and very good—question about that. That is where the focus lies, and SEPA is leading the way. However, I do not get the impression that any of the people who are involved in flood management require to be motivated to think about such matters. They are very much up to speed with and focused on them.
You have referred to an issue, that, as I recall, formed part of the debate that we had in Parliament some months back. There is a presumption in favour of natural flood management methods, and I suspect that there has been a bit of confusion about what that means. To be clear, it is not that natural flood management must be used in all circumstances in which it is possible to use it. It is more about creating the imperative that it must be considered and, if it is not used, that must be justified. You indicated that there is a double benefit, not just for flood management but for habitat creation, for example. Would you consider lodging an amendment to the bill to make it clear that natural flood management must be considered? I am relaxed about the wording.
The bill is already pretty clear about that. I can be positive about this, although there is a slight caveat. The positive nature of our approach to the bill is to make sure that the toolbox contains a range of tools. The 1961 act was too prescriptive; it was an act for another time. We now want to offer people a range of tools to mix and match as they wish, but the key tool among them all is natural flood management. We entirely accept that; that is how it should be.
That is helpful.
Our concern is that natural flood management is not the current culture. That is part of the reason why I asked about the cost benefit issue. If we can, we should ensure that the costs of the environmental and social benefits and disbenefits are included in the calculations.
I disagree with you: natural flood management is increasingly the culture, and I suspect that, by the time that the bill is fully implemented in 2010, it will be if not the only show in town—I do not think that natural flood management is the only show in town—then at the centre of things. You have heard that opinion from SEPA and a range of other organisations, and there will be a duty to choose natural flood management. It is important, and everyone involved in flooding now understands that.
There is a requirement on SEPA, when it sets objectives and measures, to take specific account of environmental benefits among all the benefits that result from a particular measure. It has to take into account the potential adverse consequences of flooding on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. Therefore, the environment is clearly part of everything that a flood risk management scheme will address.
My concern comes from having heard that, when Scottish Water calculated cost, it had no system for including the cost of environmental damage or social disbenefit. I want to be reassured that, when future possible flood prevention developments are compared, the potential costs, such as environmental and social disbenefits, will be included as part of the cost estimate. That will give a fair comparison between natural and alternative methods of engineering.
It is important that, as Scottish Water's actions under both the developed plan for 2010 to 2014 and the new plan for 2014 onwards go ahead, that point is drawn to its attention. It is probably best to include that in the ministerial instruction to Scottish Water, and I can perhaps assure you by saying that I need to discuss that point with my ministerial colleagues who deal with Scottish Water. We can take a belt-and-braces approach to that.
By now, you will have picked up the fact that the committee has some concerns about whether there can be a sufficiently robust culture change in the various organisations to encompass what the bill wants to achieve. I put a question to SEPA this morning about its ability to decide between what are perceived to be competing priorities—the priority mandating its concern about the environment and water quality and the new priority that relates to safety from flooding of communities, households and property. At the moment, it tends to prioritise one over the other. Are you confident that there is enough in the bill to ensure that SEPA shifts that culture by 2010?
I find that SEPA is ever more aware that it has to balance all its actions by considering their social and economic cost and its own environmental and regulatory duties. We have seen a development in SEPA's culture. It recognises that balance, and its work and innovations in planning show that. The bill will reinforce the fact that SEPA as an organisation will always have to make intelligent choices about its work, and I do not see anything in the bill that contradicts SEPA's primary environmental and regulatory duties. The two priorities will go hand in hand.
So you would be interested to hear of specific examples of where SEPA's priorities may be questionable.
I am always interested in those examples.
That is an invitation to committee members to let the minister know about any problems in their own areas.
The chair of SEPA will be interested in those, too, as he is focused on the issue.
Okay. Rhoda Grant has questions about planning and flood risk management processes.
My question is on the interaction between flood risk management plans and local development plans. We have heard in evidence that local authorities will have regard to flood risk management plans in their development plans but that they will still consider economic developments despite what is in a flood risk management plan. Where do the different plans fit together? Should the bill emphasise that local authorities need to make flood risk management plans part of their development plans?
Section 24 in part 3 makes specific reference to development plans. However, I would place the issue in a slightly wider context. Clearly, development planning must take account of flood risk. If it does not, something will go badly wrong at certain stages. There is therefore an inextricable link between development planning and flood risk planning. The existing planning system recognises that because it applies special provisions to building on a flood plain. Development planning and flood risk planning must therefore go hand in hand. The development of local flood plans must take account of development activities, and vice versa.
We are considering a petition as part of our evidence taking on the bill. The petitioners state clearly that the current planning policy guidelines are not being adhered to by some local authorities, which continue to plan for developments on flood plains. [Interruption.] Sorry, that cough is catching.
I would just like to say that it is not my fault.
I hold you responsible.
It seems to be spreading like wildfire.
Yes.
There is a clear set of provisions on building on flood plains, but we must recognise that such building is sometimes necessary. For example, brownfield and other development land beside the River Clyde is on a flood plain. Clear regulations apply in such circumstances, and there is a clear procedure to be followed. We expect it to be followed and we believe that it is being followed. People tend to say that no building or developments should take place on flood plains. Regrettably, that is not possible. We therefore want to ensure that such developments are done within the planning system and that we have much more regard to ensuring that buildings on flood plains are resilient in relation to flooding. A lot of good work has been done on that. I am keen to encourage that approach, particularly with insurers.
We had evidence from SEPA about the huge cost of even small flood alleviation schemes. Economic development has been used as an excuse to build on flood plains. However, what is the balance? How does a flood alleviation scheme costing the public purse £50 million—that figure was quoted for one scheme—fit in with economic development?
That is an interesting and important question that local authorities and SEPA should sometimes ask. The balance has shifted greatly over the years in other countries. For example, Japan spent substantial sums on flood defences, even during the second world war, but it now spends far less on them because it does not believe the task can be adequately undertaken. We must constantly balance what is taking place, keeping the tool of natural flood management very much in mind as well, to hark back to an earlier question. One of the strong lessons from the bill is that the era of saying, "We will build a wall," is well and truly over. It has been substantially over for some time and, frankly, the bill is putting it to death.
Elaine Murray has follow-on questions on flood risk management plans.
We have spoken about the need to join up resources and so on. Currently, Scottish Water goes through the Q and S process and consults every four years. It then draws up its scheme of priorities for investment for the next four years. Do you intend to take any action to try to align flood risk management plans with Scottish Water's business plans? There are also issues around funding streams, which we may come on to.
I heard Chris Spray's earlier evidence on the issue. It is right that we take certain actions over a period of time. However, we have identified the problem involved. Perhaps Dr Greig would like to say a word or two about that.
We have set up advisory groups on the bill and its implementation. Scottish Water is well represented on those groups, one of which has started to look closely at the issue of aligning funding streams. We understand the problems around aligning the CSR and quality and standards, given the different timelines involved.
The funding of the local plans—[Interruption.] I think that my cough is more to do with last night's partying than the cold.
I advise the minister that the Labour Party's Christmas party was last night.
That is not responsible for the way that I am feeling.
Given that one of Scottish Water's principal funding sources is customer charges, if Scottish Water is required to provide funding the general customer will have to come up with some of that money. Obviously, the other source of funding would be local authorities. Is it expected that flood risk management projects involving Scottish Water will be funded through customer charges, or will funding be directed through local authorities?
We are discussing that issue with Scottish Water, but it is most likely that we will continue to fund investment through current routes rather than look to local authorities to provide money to Scottish Water. That said, if local authorities want to develop, say, urban drainage management measures, they can use their own money for that and easily share the funding with Scottish Water. We will take a flexible approach that accommodates different sources of funding but, as I say, we will probably want to retain the current funding routes. A lot of work is being carried out on that and there are things that we can do to make the process work better, but I do not think that we need to change it significantly.
A hallmark of the bill is its emphasis on collaborative effort. All the organisations that have been referred to, as well as many others, will be involved in the process. Obviously, those organisations will have their own funding priorities, but we are looking for collaboration. After all, the essential point behind the bill is that the work cannot be carried out by one organisation alone.
Scottish Water has a national pot, but what about local authority contributions? When an authority's local plan is established, it will want to bid for Government funding. What might be the process for identifying that funding?
The committee is well aware of how funding has been allocated in the present spending round, so I will not labour the point. Essentially, for schemes that were already known about, resources were applied under an agreement with COSLA on folding money for flooding into the local authority settlement. Allowances were also made for schemes in development, and a proportion of funding was distributed to deal with properties at risk.
Peter Peacock's questions on the duty to implement flood risk management plans follow on from those remarks.
The ultimate aim of the technicalities around the bill is to provide better protection for homes, public buildings, public services and so on in flooding incidents. In the evidence that we have received, a lot of people, from agencies, non-governmental organisations, local authorities and so on, have expressed surprise that, although they are obliged to work with others to come up with flood risk management plans, there is no explicit duty to implement those plans. Your officials have indicated that you are beginning to think about promoting a link between the general duty to make plans and the specific duty to implement them. Can you tell us more about your intentions in that regard? Will the duty to implement the plans be explicit, or will the existing situation merely be tweaked?
The context in which I will address those questions is one in which, for the first time ever, we have legislation that creates a general duty for local authorities and others to take responsibility for flood management, just as they take responsibility for education, road maintenance and so on. That is a big step forward.
I welcome that indication, but I will reserve my position on the matter until I see the details.
At some point, I am sure, but not yet.
Nevertheless, a subsequent Government might have a different policy. Therefore, in the interests of good governance over the long term, it is important to move beyond a view that considers only current policy and to ensure that the bill delivers a way of ensuring that certain things will happen. Do you accept that point?
I do not accept it as an absolute, because all legislation expresses Governments' views and reflects the way in which those Governments see the world politically. However, I accept that we have to create a piece of legislation that is fit for purpose in the longer term.
You suggested an analogy with local authorities' duty to maintain roads. If I damage my car in a pothole I can sue the local authority, but I will not be able to sue the local authority if it has not implemented a flood risk management plan. Indeed, Fife Council told us that your officials have assured it that it would not be open to legal challenge. Do you accept that difference between the two situations?
I would not necessarily accept it; I will have to think a little more about it. You seem to have stretched the analogy a little farther than it ought to have been stretched.
Okay. I take the point. My view is that you cannot give people a guarantee against flooding in the same way as you can with roads—there is a difference in the level of guarantee that can be given.
There are difficulties in giving any guarantee on flooding. We know quite a lot about roads: we know where they go and how they should be constructed. In flooding, there are still some uncertainties. As a committee, you have discussed those issues as part of your inquiry and, again, in your consideration of the bill. Not least of the uncertainties in terms of pluvial flooding is where the rain falls.
One question that follows on from that concerns the process of co-operation and co-ordination. The local authorities, SEPA and Scottish Water have flagged up to us their concerns, particularly about the potential misalignment of roles. Who, ultimately, will crack the whip and say what gets done and when? There is still some uncertainty about who will hold what responsibility. Will SEPA's role include the resolution of those issues or will you—or another minister—do that?
The committee helpfully flagged up that issue in its inquiry into flooding. I recollect that from giving evidence to you. As a result of what you said, we took the issue on board when we drafted the bill, which strengthened the provision. The minister has an interventionist role, should that be required. That provision has been included in the bill as a result of questions that the committee asked.
A slight concern for us is that although you say things are clear, local authorities and Scottish Water are not taking quite the same position; they are telling us that they do not feel that it is clear. They say that they are not entirely certain who has responsibility for taking the lead on specific tasks. Although your clarity on the matter is not in doubt, lack of clarity continues to be an issue for local authorities and Scottish Water. The issue will have to be looked at.
I take on board the fact that I have a role to spread clarity. We will certainly endeavour to do so.
Thank you.
There is a range of areas that we could get into; I will try to address some of them. Elaine Murray made the central point that also arose in the evidence that we heard from SEPA earlier this morning: like many others, including Scottish Water, SEPA made it clear that it sees merit in the long-term strategic view being taken. You have told us that you agree with that view. An allied issue is the need for an element of understanding—publicly and nationally—on the costs over a long period of time. What is your view of SEPA's role in all this? It has set out its view; do you share it? Is the view absolutely and explicitly agreed? Can you help me to understand whether SEPA has a duty under the bill to provide ministers with the kind of advice that it set out fully this morning?
Allow me to make several points about funding in response to that.
There are two provisions that address the point about SEPA not having a duty and where the information on costs might come from. When it produces district plans, SEPA has to undertake a cost benefit analysis. It will not do such work on individual schemes—local authorities are well placed to do that—but it will undertake a cost benefit analysis of the plan, and that will provide information on the costs. Because it is a long-term plan, the analysis will give an understanding of the long-term costs and benefits, and that information will be made available to ministers.
I accept what you say. I suppose my answer to the minister might be that, notwithstanding that, there is a need to be quite explicit. Given climate change and the need to protect communities, we have to have an open and clear debate about what it will cost. SEPA clearly thinks that it can play a role in that.
You are addressing transparency about what we spend on flooding management in Scotland. The most negative debate would be reduced to, "You're no spending enough," "Aye, we are."
I welcome that and look forward to seeing how it might develop. I am not talking about specific sums of money, which is to do with detailed decision making during any particular financing period.
The bill already does that to some extent. Its very construction covers the existing need, the social and economic considerations, the way in which flood risk management has to build and develop, and how it must be a collaborative activity that takes account of development planning—we heard that question earlier. The criteria that should be applied are in the bill. If we go further than that we will be pretty close to telling a local authority that it has to have a local plan and telling it how to implement it. There is an element of flexibility on that in the bill, which recognises that there are various tools in the box, including natural flood management.
Scottish Water's activities are, to some extent, regulated by the Water Industry Commission. We have heard concerns that although Scottish Water might be under a duty to think about acting sustainably—as we heard in evidence last week—the WIC is not under a similar duty and it is possible that Scottish Water, in seeking to fulfil its duties, will operate under one set of criteria while the WIC, in helping to regulate pricing and charging, will not embrace the full range of considerations as Scottish Water has to, so its actions might be more limited than would otherwise be the case. Do you think there is a case for examining the operating instructions to the Water Industry Commission or what governs them, to try to ensure alignment?
As I said in my response to Dr Wilson, there is a case for discussing the instructions to the Scottish Water Industry Commission with the responsible ministers. I do not need to remind you, Mr Peacock, that the Scottish Government has the word "sustainable" tattooed in the middle of its objectives. I do not think that any part of Government should operate in any other way but a sustainable one—and every part of Government should know that.
I readily accept that you have a tattoo somewhere that says "sustainability", but that is not the point—we need to know what the law says. If there is a disagreement in terms of the law, and requirements are placed on the Water Industry Commission, would it not be as well to tighten that up now while we have the chance, rather than leave the matter open to any doubt?
I agree—that is why we are discussing instructions to the Water Industry Commission. I return to the point that I believe that every part of Government would want to look at its actions and ensure that it is operating sustainably—that includes the WIC as well as everyone else.
I do not know whether there is anything left for Elaine Murray to ask.
Peter Peacock has covered a lot of the issues that the Finance Committee raised in its report. Scottish Government officials apparently confirmed to the Finance Committee that information on the costs that are incurred by various public bodies in delivering their new responsibilities could be included in the formal mechanism that the bill provides for reporting to Parliament. The committee wondered whether the Government intended to report formally to Parliament on the implementation of the bill and to include the costs in that.
All three of us have said the same thing: we will look at it.
The Association of British Insurers raised concerns in its evidence to the committee about the need for a long-term strategy. It also suggested, in relation to the higher risk from multiple unaligned funding streams, that flood risk could be better managed if funds for flood risk management were separately identified and ring fenced for that purpose.
I shall take it as a challenge to spread clarity to you, Mr McArthur. The historic concordat with the ABI, which I am pleased to be able to bring to fruition today, certainly considers the long-term window. We do not accept the point of ring fencing—I think I have made that clear in what I have said here; we accept the democratic right of bodies and organisations to spend the resources that they have. I am in favour of transparency in relation to those resources so that we know where the money is coming from and what the totals are, and where it is being spent. We will do our best to achieve that, but we have made a decision—not just in this area but in every area—that we should rely on local authorities to make their own decisions, and we will stick with that.
Bill Wilson has questions on coastal inundation, which is no surprise to the rest of us.
We heard evidence from SEPA earlier that 12m of Essex is being lost each year, and it referred to the possibility of our having to abandon some settlements in Scotland as sea levels rise. In view of that evidence, will you consider the possibility of prohibiting developments below a certain height above sea level? I mean in coastal areas; I am not talking about throughout the country. The ABI stated that its members use SEPA's maps and information when they determine the possibility of insuring new developments. Will you instruct that those maps allow for climate change in the coming 20 or 30 years?
On the second point, I can see no reason why there should not be an estimate of possible climate change effect, although it is hard to make that estimate precisely.
I accept that not every development should necessarily be prohibited. To take a simple example, if a farmer chooses to build a byre 10cm above sea level, that is his decision and it is hardly the end of the world.
You are refining your question. You began by saying—
Okay, I spoke broadly. I am thinking of more significant developments, such as housing developments. The sea level rise may be 50cm, which we might be able to cope with, or it might be 5m, which we would have considerable difficulty coping with. A presumption against developing new settlements at, say, less than 1m above sea level would be a sensible precautionary move.
Every planning authority is aware of such issues—they need to be aware of them. I cannot imagine a planning authority in Scotland that is not aware of the climate change issues. Authorities that have affected areas will want to bear those issues in mind but, at the end of the day, it will be their decision. I would be surprised if any major new settlement was planned in Scotland at 10cm above sea level. I would certainly not purchase property there.
Right—I will move on. A concern has been expressed to me that conflict might arise between the bill and the Coast Protection Act 1949. Are you aware of that concern and, if so, do you have any comments on it?
That sounds like a concern on which Judith Tracey will be more than well informed.
Section 36 would place a duty on all public bodies to have regard to district and local flood risk management plans when exercising any functions that affect a flood risk management district. Under the Coast Protection Act 1949, local authorities are the competent authority on coast protection. In future, when an authority plans any coast protection work, it will have to take into account its flood risk management function. Therefore, the two could not possibly be in conflict.
Alasdair Morgan has a couple of questions about reservoirs and hydrologists, so we may as well move on.
My first question is on national security, which I know is an issue that is dear to the minister's heart. SEPA told us that it wishes to have clarification on security issues in respect of reservoir inundation plans. Discussions seem to be on-going with DEFRA on that. People who are involved in flood management need to know what is likely to be flooded if a reservoir has a problem, but DEFRA seems to be unwilling to spread that information about, on national security grounds.
It is even unwilling to give that information to ministers—officials get told such things more than ministers. Judith Tracey will, no doubt, have a response on that, although I am aware of the problem and that it is difficult to crack. I should make the serious point that our work on reservoirs is being done hand in glove with DEFRA—we think that that should be the case. That has been useful to us because aspects of reservoir legislation in Scotland need tidying up for two reasons. The first is that advantageous changes have occurred south of the border and the second is that the proposed floods and water bill south of the border will have a major impact on reservoir legislation and on the issues that the member raises. We are considering whether it would be appropriate to have a legislative consent motion on aspects of that proposed bill. However, a decision on that is some time away—it will certainly not happen in the present parliamentary session.
National security has been extensively discussed since the issue came up when the Water Act 2003 conferred on ministers a power to acquire inundation maps. The power has not yet been enacted, for the simple reason that there has been much discussion about who should see the maps, how they should be stored and who should have access to them. Much discussion has focused on security, and inundation maps have not yet been produced in England and Wales.
How does that affect timescales for planning that must be done in the event of a legitimate emergency?
That is a bit of a moot point, given that the inundation maps have not yet been produced. Some larger reservoir undertakers have produced inundation maps for their own purposes, so that they know where the water would go. I think that it has been agreed that they will make their maps available to the English equivalent of our strategic co-ordinating groups, to be used for emergency planning purposes.
Is the current situation satisfactory?
I do not think that it is satisfactory, which is why we have strengthened the approach by including reservoirs in the bill and are considering moving our legislation forward, in line with legislation in England and Wales.
When might inundation maps be available—at least to someone—for all major reservoirs in Scotland?
We informed the committee that we intend to lodge an amendment on on-site plans. Such plans are likely to require maps that show where the water would go. If the amendment is agreed to at stage 2 and the bill is subsequently passed, I imagine that it will take a year or two to produce plans.
Mr Morgan is a fair-minded man and will realise that the emergency services in areas that are served by large reservoirs are aware of the issues and factor into their thinking the possibility of difficulties with dams or similar structures. What the emergency services have is not as good as a full inundation map, but it is not nothing; we are assured that they are prepared for such circumstances.
My second question is about the difficulty that various people have flagged up to us about the current shortage—which may get worse—of hydrologists and other trained engineers. The shortage will be affected by the fact that other countries are due to implement similar measures and by the fact that such engineers seem to be easily attracted by private firms to act as consultants. Presumably the demand from those firms will increase. How will we address the current shortage, which will get worse in the very near future?
It strikes me that SEPA gave a positive answer to that question earlier. Positive engagement is taking place with universities, trainers and others to ensure future supply. We are looking at retraining people with other engineering skills. I am in contact with my opposite numbers in the education portfolio to encourage them and to highlight the opportunities. We should also tell people that, for the foreseeable future, there will be major opportunities to become an hydrologist. It strikes me that if anyone in the room is thinking of retraining, that would be a good opportunity.
Thank you, but I will not take up the option just yet.
I am not sure that there is a major cash issue, as that issue has not been central to our thinking. It should be possible for small amounts of resource to be found from flooding research and other areas if new courses need to be provided. However, I think that the issue is getting the individuals rather than the cash.
That completes our questions to the minister. We have given him mercy for the final 10 minutes as we will now move on to a different agenda item. I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation