Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 15A; the marshalled list—that is, SP bill 15A-ML; and the groupings, which I have agreed. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division this afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate and 30 seconds for all other divisions.
Section 1—General duty
We go straight to group 1. Amendment 19, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendment 10.
It is a pleasure to kick off proceedings at stage 3 of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill, about which there has been a lot of discussion and agreement.
Amendment 19 is a rewrite of an amendment that was lodged at stage 2. It focuses on the need for all agencies, including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Scottish ministers, councils and any designated responsible authorities, to take an integrated approach to flood risk management in exercising their individual functions. As the bill stands, those authorities will be required to co-operate so far as is practicable in order to co-ordinate the exercise of their functions. Co-ordinated actions require the agencies to work in harmony whereas integration requires them to work together as a whole. Integrated working is required to ensure that all aspects of flood risk prevention are covered.
All forms of flood risk—whether from surface, ground, river or coastal water—need to be addressed in an integrated way. To do that, policy must also be integrated, and the work of the many agencies that may be involved in flood prevention must fit together as much as possible.
Peter Peacock's amendment 10 recognises that some issues—surface water run-off and the management of natural features, for example—will cross local authority boundaries and local plan districts and that flood risk planning needs to be integrated in such cases. It proposes that the lead authority plan should include a description of how an integrated approach will be achieved. I encourage members to support both amendments in the group.
I move amendment 19.
I remind members that, if they wish to participate in a discussion on a group of amendments, they should press their request-to-speak buttons when the group is announced.
The implementation of certain flood protection measures may require two or more local authorities to take a co-ordinated approach in order for the measure to be effective. A measure could be proposed high up in a catchment area that seeks to slow down the flow of water, and a measure could be proposed further down in a separate local authority area that will store water in a flood plain, for example. Such measures will work effectively only if the relevant local authorities co-ordinate their implementation across the whole catchment. Amendment 10 seeks to ensure that local authorities are required to secure a co-ordinated approach.
Amendment 42, in the name of the minister, also deals with co-ordination to implement certain measures. I look to the minister to give me a brief assurance that her amendment deals with the issue of co-ordination. If it does, I will not move amendment 10.
Amendment 19 places a duty on the Scottish ministers, SEPA and responsible authorities to co-operate when they exercise their functions in order to adopt an integrated approach. That is entirely consistent with the spirit of the bill, so I support the amendment.
Amendment 10 relates to the co-ordination of efforts to implement measures that cross multiple local plan districts. Local plan districts will be discrete flood risk management units based on catchments. As such, flood risk management efforts should never need to be co-ordinated across different districts. We therefore believe that amendment 10 is unnecessary.
Furthermore, section 34 already includes provision on joint working arrangements between local authorities when local flood risk management plans are being prepared and, as Peter Peacock said, amendment 42, which will be discussed later, will require the lead local authority to set out information on how the efforts of all the bodies that are involved will be co-ordinated to implement measures. For those reasons, I urge Peter Peacock not to move amendment 10.
I am pleased that the minister intends to accept amendment 19.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
Section 2—Directions and guidance
We come to group 2. Amendment 26, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 8.
The concept of sustainable flood management was introduced by the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. Broadly speaking, sustainable flood risk management is about taking a catchment-focused approach to organising actions to manage flood risk for current and future generations. Sustainable flood risk management is at the heart of the bill, so guidance on it is essential.
Amendment 26 will require the Scottish ministers to issue guidance to SEPA and the responsible authorities on acting in the way that is best calculated to manage flood risk in a sustainable way. The guidance will have to be issued no later than 18 months after the relevant bill provisions are commenced, and it will have to be reviewed at least every six years and, when necessary, updated. Before the Scottish ministers issue guidance, they will have to consult SEPA and the responsible authorities.
Further, amendment 26 will require the Scottish ministers to issue guidance on the social, environmental and economic impact of exercising flood risk functions. That addresses a specific concern that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee raised at stage 2 about the actions that the Scottish ministers, SEPA and the responsible authorities will take to ensure that the social, environmental and economic impacts of flood risk management are considered fully.
Amendment 8, which was lodged by Robin Harper, is very similar in purpose to my amendment 26, the only difference being that my amendment would require guidance to be issued on sustainable flood risk management and on the equally important issue of considering the social, environmental and economic impact of exercising flood risk functions. My amendment is therefore rather wider. For that reason, I ask the member not to move his amendment 8.
I move amendment 26.
I will speak to amendment 8, but I hope that the minister will be content with my conclusion.
I lodged amendment 8 to ensure that the second part of recommendation 9 in the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's stage 1 report is met. The recommendation was that the Government should produce a similar amendment at stage 2, but it failed to do so. I am therefore pleased that the Government has done so at stage 3.
Amendment 8 would require the Scottish ministers to issue guidance on sustainable flood risk management to SEPA and other responsible authorities, and that guidance would have to be taken into account when those authorities exercised their flood risk-related functions. Prior to issuing the guidance, the Scottish ministers would have to consult SEPA, all responsible authorities and other appropriate persons, whom I envisage to include district flood risk advisory groups. Guidance is essential to ensure that we have a common understanding of what it means to manage flood risk in a sustainable way, and it will be the first important step in a new approach to flood management.
In accordance with previous legislation that the Parliament has passed and with European directives, my amendment proposes that the guidance be produced within one year of the bill coming into force, whereas the Government's amendment 26 would require the guidance to be produced within 18 months of that. I will not quibble over six months, although the sooner the guidance is issued the better. The minister has assured me that amendment 26 will achieve the same aim as amendment 8, which is to ensure that ministers, in association with all appropriate partners, develop guidance for SEPA and local authorities on what it means to manage flood risk in a sustainable way. I will therefore be happy not to move amendment 8.
Amendment 26 does what Robin Harper said and more. I am glad to hear that he is content with the amendment that we lodged.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
After section 2
Amendment 8 not moved.
Section 9—SEPA to prepare flood risk assessments
In group 3, amendment 27, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 28 to 30, 5, 33, 65, 36, 40, 41, 9, 42, 44, 7, 17, 18, 60 and 64.
Of necessity, my comments on this group will be longer. I will speak to amendments 27 to 30, 33, 36, 40 to 42, 44, 60 and 64 before turning my attention to the amendments lodged by Peter Peacock and Rhoda Grant. As I am sure that members will appreciate, I have a lot of ground to cover. To help members digest this particularly complex grouping, I intend to break it down into more manageable collections of amendments.
The first set of amendments that I will discuss relates to the assessment made under section 16. The assessment is intended to create for the first time a national picture of opportunities for natural flood risk management measures throughout Scotland. It will be a challenging exercise, but I do not expect SEPA to undertake the work in isolation: local authorities, the Forestry Commission and other bodies will be expected to contribute.
Amendment 30 stipulates that the map accompanying the assessment made under section 16 must be prepared at a scale that SEPA considers will assist in considering measures under section 24 and the inclusion of information in local flood risk management plans prepared under section 29. Amendment 30 addresses directly concerns raised by the committee at stage 2; I recognise the constructive contributions that committee members made during the preparation of amendment 30 and other amendments.
Peter Peacock has lodged a set of amendments that also deal with the issue of scale and section 16 assessments. Although I fully appreciate the good intentions behind his amendments, it is my view that amendments 5, 7 and 9 duplicate the amendments that I have lodged and that they therefore risk creating unnecessary duplication and confusion. For those reasons, I ask Peter Peacock not to move those amendments.
The second set of amendments relates to information that should be included in the supplemental and implementation parts of a local flood risk management plan.
Amendment 40 clarifies that local plans should include supplemental information on how implementing measures may alter or restore natural features and characteristics. Amendment 42 requires the lead local authority to specify how the responsible authorities will co-ordinate their functions to implement measures that alter, enhance or restore natural features and characteristics. Such co-ordination is particularly important as those types of measures must work in concert with measures in other parts of a catchment. Amendment 42 is the amendment to which I referred earlier. The amendments in this grouping all help to ensure that natural flood management options are considered in the preparation and implementation of local flood risk management plans, and I trust that they will be supported. Amendment 44 clarifies that SEPA may request responsible authorities to prepare information, assessments or maps about how the alteration, enhancement or restoration of natural features and characteristics could contribute to flood risk management.
Amendments 33 and 60 deal with a duplication that arose as a consequence of two similar amendments being agreed to at stage 2—one lodged by me and one by Peter Peacock. Peter Peacock and I have worked closely over the past few weeks to draft an alternative amendment that avoids such duplication. Amendment 60 will require SEPA to set out reasons for identifying measures in a flood risk management plan. When an assessment made under section 16 indicates that restoration or enhancement of natural features or characteristics could contribute to managing flood risk but a measure to take forward such an opportunity has not been identified, amendment 60 will require SEPA to set out the reasons why. Amendment 33 is a technical amendment to remove the remaining duplicate provisions.
My amendment 36 and amendment 65, which has been lodged by Peter Peacock, relate to the setting of objectives and measures to tackle flooding problems. The setting of objectives and measures is a complex process that requires a variety of factors to be balanced carefully. Amendment 36 requires the Scottish ministers to issue guidance to SEPA and the responsible authorities on setting objectives and measures under sections 23 and 24. The guidance must pay particular attention to the consideration of measures to alter or restore natural features and characteristics. The first guidance must be issued by 22 December 2012 and will allow the Scottish ministers to set out a framework to support the selection of the most sustainable flood-risk management measures.
Central to the selection of the most sustainable measures will be taking a catchment-focused approach. I expect SEPA and local authorities in taking such an approach to look first at how the timing, magnitude and duration of a flood can be altered to reduce flood risk—that is, what steps can be taken to manage the sources and pathways of flood waters before they cause a flood risk. By first focusing on the sources and pathways of flood waters, the aim is to reduce, but not necessarily replace, the need for traditional engineering solutions. Clearly, natural flood management options have an important role to play in that respect and, in most cases, I expect those options to be considered first. I intend fully to set out those and other important considerations in the guidance issued under amendment 36.
I believe that amendment 65, which has been lodged by Peter Peacock, will complement this approach by requiring SEPA to consider the contribution that restoring natural features and characteristics can make to reducing, slowing or otherwise managing flood waters. I therefore support amendment 65.
Finally, I support amendments 17 and 18, which have been lodged by Rhoda Grant, who spent a considerable amount of time on the committee while the bill was going through, although she is no longer a member of it. The amendments will add reference to the restoration and alteration of natural features and characteristics to the definition of "flood protection work".
Amendments 27 to 29, 41 and 64 are all consequential amendments.
I move amendment 27.
I will speak to amendment 65 in particular but also to the other amendments in the group. I acknowledge that, through the joint action of the committee and the Government, we have made huge progress since the first discussions took place. One matter that has received great attention throughout the passage of the bill—and indeed before the bill was introduced—is natural flood management. That cause has been advanced strongly by Scottish Environment LINK, and I pay tribute to its hard work and its advice during the passage of the bill. Andrea Johnstonová deserves a mention on the record, given the work that she has done.
There is little doubt that the committee has been attracted by the proposition of using more natural approaches to flood risk management. Such approaches might be more sustainable in the long term than hard engineering, and they have the additional advantage of utilising or restoring natural characteristics and habitats, which has other benefits for our society as a whole. When such approaches can be used to take the peak off floods before we need engineered solutions downstream, they should certainly be considered.
Natural flood management approaches might not work in every circumstance and they are not a panacea, but they certainly have a contribution to make and have great potential, too.
It has also become clear that we require a change in culture, particularly within local authorities, which are heavily influenced by engineers. Good people though engineers are, that situation can lead to a bias towards hard engineering solutions when natural flood alleviation measures might help. As the minister said, the Scottish Government has addressed that in part by introducing amendment 60 to schedule 1. I am grateful for that amendment, because it moves things forward. It strengthens the provisions for reporting and explaining why natural flood management measures are not included in a flood risk management plan.
Amendment 60 does not go far enough to address some of the concerns of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Amendment 65 seeks to address that point. It requires that SEPA must consider measures that seek to reduce, slow or otherwise manage flood water by altering, including enhancing, or restoring natural features and characteristics. Put more simply, it requires SEPA to consider the contribution that natural flood management, as it has become known, can make to the management of flood risk.
Amendment 65 is linked to the consideration of structural measures under section 24(1)(b), which includes measures that involve flood protection works. The minister has referred to Rhoda Grant's amendment 17, which seeks to deal with part of that, too.
I have been grateful to discuss such matters off-stage with the Government—the minister referred to that. An earlier draft of amendment 65 tried to express the idea of giving natural flood management priority, but I accept that that has legal difficulties. Following discussions, the amendment that was lodged was designed to achieve consensus. I thank the minister for saying that the Government will support the amendment.
I also thank the minister for setting out that she expects natural flood management issues to be discussed and considered first when decisions are made about what flood management plans need to be engineered—if that is the right word—and that she expects that process to be specified in guidance. I am grateful for all that. When taken with other stage 3 amendments that the minister mentioned, that fully meets the committee's recommendation in its report.
Given what the minister said, I accept that her amendment 30 deals with the points that I sought to make through amendments 5 and 7, so I will not move them.
The situation is similar for amendment 9, as the minister's amendment 42 deals with more detailed mapping. I am content with the minister's assurance and that her amendment deals with the issue adequately. Accordingly, I do not plan to move amendment 9.
Section 84 defines flood protection work as
"any operation on land for the purpose of protecting any land from flooding".
The definition includes a wide range of operations, but it lacks an emphasis on natural flood management.
The committee was concerned that those who are involved in flood prevention work will have a mindset that favours more structural measures, because of their training and experience. Changing the definition to include a paragraph that reads
"any work that involves the alteration (including enhancement) or restoration of natural features and characteristics of any river basin or coastal area"
would ensure a shift of emphasis towards more natural solutions in the consideration of structural measures. Amendment 17 is therefore important to the bill. I welcome the minister's support, and I hope that the rest of the Parliament will support the amendment.
Amendment 18, which is in my name, is consequential, so I urge members to support it, too.
I support most of the amendments in the group. I welcome the minister's response to stage 2 amendments that were intended to strengthen the provision of natural flood management. I also welcome Peter Peacock's amendment 65, which supports the principle of considering natural flood management techniques at the beginning, rather than at the end of a flood.
Like Peter Peacock, I agree with Scottish Environment LINK that natural solutions are more likely to be sustainable in the long term, will be cheaper to maintain and might benefit local communities. Natural flood management techniques should also help to increase biodiversity, deliver better habitat protection and improve water quality. In every sense, they will represent value for the money that is spent on developing them.
During the passage of the bill, I have learned of hydraulic roughness, which means slowing the progress of water and taking the peaks and tops off floods. I see huge potential in developing that concept on upstream flood plains as soon as possible.
Allowing hitherto natural flood plains to flood again and turning those temporary bodies of water into leaky dams by placing barriers of trees across flood plains and along riverbanks is a simple concept to visualise and understand. That is likely to be the most effective tool in the box of natural flood management techniques.
We will support all the amendments in the group that are moved.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Section 16—SEPA to assess possible contribution of alteration etc of natural features and characteristics
Amendments 28 to 30 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 5 not moved.
Section 19—Flood risk maps
We come to group 4. Amendment 31, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 32. I see that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment is to speak to the amendments.
I will speak to amendments 31 and 32, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham.
During stage 2, Liam McArthur lodged an amendment with the intention of ensuring that flood risk maps included details of potential damage to protected sites that do not depend on water, including a number of terrestrial sites and woodlands. We agreed that flooding could place non-water-dependent sites at risk and said that we would consider amending the bill to address the point. Amendments 31 and 32 will ensure that such areas are considered when flood risk maps are being prepared. I trust that the amendments in the group address Liam McArthur's concerns, and I hope that the chamber will support them.
I move amendment 31.
As the cabinet secretary indicated, I moved an amendment at stage 2 to address the fact that the bill did not cover non-water-dependent protected sites, which appeared to be an oversight. I am happy with the Government's amendments in the group.
Amendment 31 agreed to.
Amendment 32 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Section 23—SEPA to prepare flood risk management plans
Amendment 33 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 24—Flood risk management plans: objectives and measures
We move to group 5. Amendment 34, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 56, 58 and 62.
The amendments in the group are all largely drafting amendments.
At stage 2, Bill Wilson lodged an amendment to introduce a requirement on SEPA, when setting objectives and measures in flood risk management plans, to take account of the social, environmental and economic costs of implementing those measures. Amendment 34 is a minor consequential amendment: it changes the word "cost" to "costs", to reflect the new wording.
Section 80 already provides that the consent of the appropriate authority is needed before any of the powers of entry that are conferred by section 68 can be exercised on Crown land. Amendment 56 clarifies that the requirement applies to the powers that are listed in sections 68 or 70.
Amendment 58 provides that the references in the bill to European directives include references to the amended versions of the relevant directives. Amendment 62 is consequential on amendment 58. I hope that the chamber will support the amendments in the group.
I move amendment 34.
Amendment 34 agreed to.
We come to group 6. Amendment 35, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 35 clarifies that non-structural measures may include
"the carrying out of research, monitoring and other methods of gathering information relevant to managing flood risk".
Clearly, we need good information if we are to get the right measures in the right places, whether they are natural flood management measures or flood warning systems. Amendment 35 will ensure that those data-gathering exercises are targeted appropriately.
I move amendment 35.
Amendment 35 agreed to.
Amendment 65 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
After section 24
Amendment 36 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 25—Flood risk management plans: publicity of drafts etc and consultation
We now come to group 7. Amendment 37, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 43, 45, 49 to 51, 57 and 63.
We lodged the amendments in the group in response to a recommendation by the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee in its stage 1 report that the Scottish Government
"explore ways of ensuring that the appropriate emergency service acts proactively to manage flood risk".
In some ways, the issue relates to the debate that we will have on group 15.
Amendments 37, 43 and 45 ensure that category 1 responders must be consulted on flood risk management plans and that they must be appropriately represented on all district and sub-district advisory groups.
Amendments 49 to 51 ensure that SEPA will consult all relevant category 1 respondents in an area on the provision and alteration of flood warning systems.
Amendments 57 and 63 define a category 1 responder as
"a person or body listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004".
Those bodies include the emergency services—fire, police and ambulance—among others.
As I indicated, later we will discuss an amendment that proposes to give the fire and rescue service a specific role in flood risk management planning. I do not want to pre-empt that discussion, but I believe that the amendments that I have lodged strengthen the role of all category 1 responders in the flood risk management planning process. I trust that the amendments will be supported.
I move amendment 37.
Amendment 37 agreed to.
Section 26—Flood risk management plans: submission for approval
We come to group 7. Amendment 38, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 39.
During stage 2, John Scott lodged an amendment that sought to give the Scottish ministers a role in deciding which bodies SEPA should consult about draft flood risk management plans. The Scottish ministers already had power to do that under section 26 of the bill, but I undertook to lodge an amendment at stage 3 that would make the drafting clearer. Amendments 38 and 39 clarify the Scottish ministers' existing powers to direct SEPA to undertake further consultation, if they consider that that is required.
I move amendment 38.
I speak in support of amendments 38 and 39. I am grateful to the minister for lodging the amendments in response to my amendment 87 at stage 2. Although I accept that neither of the amendments changes the powers of ministers, they clarify their existing powers to direct SEPA at an early stage, if required, under section 26. The amendments are to be welcomed.
Amendment 38 agreed to.
Amendment 39 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 29—Local authorities to prepare local flood risk management plans
Amendments 40 and 41 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 9 not moved.
Amendment 42 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 10 not moved.
Section 30—Local flood risk management plans: publicity and consultation
Amendment 43 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 36—Duty to have regard to flood risk management plans and local flood risk management plans
We come to group 9. Amendment 4, in the name of Peter Peacock, is the only amendment in the group.
I suspect that we are getting into slightly more controversial territory and that the consensus may not last, but I live in hope.
Amendment 4 is designed to give effect to the unanimous recommendation that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee made in relation to flooding funding in its stage 1 report. Labour members have consistently pushed the issue of funding, as we believe that the bill as it stands leaves future funding less well ordered and clear than it could.
The committee received a number of recommendations and representations on the adequacy of the means for planning and funding national priorities for flood protection. The amendment seeks to place ministers under a duty to
"have regard to flood risk management plans"
when determining funding allocations to SEPA and local authorities. In my view, it is a modest but important amendment that requires ministers, in effect, to consider and form views on short, medium and long-term priorities, without tying their hands in relation to specific funding allocations and decisions at any given moment. As I mentioned, the amendment seeks to give effect to a committee recommendation.
The duty that the amendment creates is for ministers to
"have regard to flood risk management plans"
when allocating funding to SEPA or any responsible authority. It does not say how ministers must allocate the cash or how much funding they must provide; ultimately, those are matters for ministers. However, the wider public need to be assured that, when considering funding, ministers have had regard to the various plans that exist. After all, by providing for investment in future measures, the bill is designed to reduce the trauma that all too many people experience when their home and community are flooded.
Ministers will no doubt argue that they will, of course, have regard to plans and that the new duty is not needed. In my view, the duty is clearly needed to give some assurance over the period during which successive ministers will be required to have regard to the important issues concerned. Ministers will have to consider a range of other matters when it comes to funding, and the amendment does not prevent them from doing so.
I am intrigued by amendment 4. I appreciate that Peter Peacock has a point to make, but is it the policy of his party to lodge such amendments for every bill that comes before the Parliament from now on? Clearly, ministers give all such issues equal priority. I ask him to clarify the point for the record.
That is a matter for future bills. Flood funding is an important issue, and many people in Scotland have been traumatised by flooding. At the very least, ministers must have regard to flood risk management plans before they decide on funding allocations. That is all that amendment 4 does—it does nothing more and nothing less. Ministers should consider the plans before they make their decisions. Some might make out that the duty is onerous or even unnecessary, and that it conflicts with ministers' wider duties and responsibilities, but I do not accept that argument. It is no more onerous than the amendment says—ministers must "have regard to" the plans. That leaves ministers considerable scope, while ensuring that they cannot ignore flood funding among the many other issues that they have to consider.
I move amendment 4.
As Peter Peacock has indicated, amendment 4 represents a unanimous recommendation by the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. We received wide-ranging evidence from a cross-section of witnesses, many of whom expressed concern, not least the redoubtable Jim Moodie of Fife Council, who voiced a number of concerns about what would happen if a "have regard to" provision was not placed in the bill. The bill delivers a wide range of benefits, but it is important to ensure that we will the ends as well as the means. Peter Peacock's amendment is, as he suggests, perhaps more modest than some of the proposals that committee members had been considering earlier in the process. I certainly commend the amendment.
As Peter Peacock has described, his amendment 4 places a duty on ministers just to "have regard to" flood risk plans. That indeed reflects the recommendations in the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's report on flooding and flood management, and in its stage 1 report on the bill. In fact, the amendment does not go as far as those recommendations might suggest. It does not tie ministers into reintroducing ring-fenced funding for flood prevention, which many of us would like to see. The amendment says that, especially in spending review years, ministers should take into account the burden that is placed on the finances of SEPA and responsible authorities if they are to be able to implement the flood risk management plans that they have drawn up. It is important that funding follows policy, and that is all that we are asking for at this point. As Peter Peacock said, amendment 4 is relatively modest, and I hope that the Government feels able to accept it.
I fear that Elaine Murray's hopes are going to be dashed.
I regret that Peter Peacock decided to lodge amendment 4. It would of course require ministers to
"have regard to flood risk management plans … and local flood risk management plans"
when making funding decisions. Under the bill,
"The Scottish Ministers, SEPA and responsible authorities"
have a duty to act
"with a view to reducing overall flood risk",
and they must
"act with a view to achieving the objectives set out in the flood risk management plan".
It is for ministers, in co-operation with the responsible authorities, to allocate funding across a wide range of Government responsibilities in order to meet agreed national and local priorities. To place an additional statutory duty on ministers to "have regard to" such plans risks elevating flood risk management above all the other important functions of SEPA and other responsible authorities that ministers must consider when determining spending priorities. If such requirements are going to begin to appear in other legislation, everything will become a priority—in which case, as we know, nothing will be a priority.
For those reasons, I believe that amendment 4 is unnecessary, and I ask Peter Peacock to withdraw it.
I take it that we will just have to disagree. I do not accept the minister's arguments, as she knows. She said that the requirement
"risks elevating flood risk management",
but it does not actually elevate it. Ministers remain free to make the decisions that all ministers and Governments have to make in sorting out their relative spending priorities. The provisions contained in amendment 4 would require ministers to have regard to what are very important plans before they arrive at their decisions. As other members have said, it is a modest proposal, but it is significant.
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division. I suspend proceedings for five minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We move to the division on amendment 4.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 58, Against 56, Abstentions 0.
Amendment agreed to.
After section 36
We now come to group 10. Amendment 13, in the name of Karen Gillon, is grouped with amendment 14.
Like the amendments that the Parliament has just agreed to, amendments 13 and 14 seek to give effect to unanimous recommendations made by the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee in its flooding report; indeed, at the time, the minister was the convener of the committee.
The committee has had long and, at times, heated discussions on the importance of there being clear and impartial advice and evidence before any planning permission is granted for a development about which there is concern that the risk of flooding may be increased either at the site of the development itself or downstream.
It was made clear during evidence taking that pressure is always brought to bear on planning authorities by many different parties when there is evidence that a development that is seen to bring perceived economic benefit may increase the risk of flooding either at the site or further down the river's catchment area.
The committee recommended that the Scottish Government ensures that a full flood risk assessment is a prerequisite for the granting of planning permission for individual developments in areas that are at risk of flooding. [Interruption.]
Order. I am sorry, Ms Gillon, but there are far too many conversations taking place in the chamber. I ask members to concentrate on business.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
When asked whether there was any merit in having a statutory requirement for a flood risk assessment and for finding and developing a solution to manage any flood risk before an individual development is given consent, SEPA responded positively. Even Homes for Scotland expressed concern about ambiguity in interpretation and evident loopholes and recommended that the policy be reviewed.
The committee was very clear that a statutory requirement was needed to ensure that the planning system was clear and transparent: sufficient evidence must be available to prove—or sufficient time must be taken to ensure—that mitigation will be done and works will be carried out before planning permission is granted. The evidence to the committee was that it was very difficult to get that work undertaken once planning permission had been granted.
I hope that Parliament will see that these measures are positive, that they will aid the process and that they will ensure that we do not take short-term decisions that will, in the end, have long-term impacts and lead to unnecessary flooding. I ask the chamber to support the two amendments in my name.
I move amendment 13.
Amendments 13 and 14 appear to replicate existing duties that are already in planning legislation. Amendment 13 would require a flood risk assessment to be prepared where a development could increase the risk of properties being flooded. Amendment 14 would require planning authorities to have regard to that flood risk assessment when determining the application for planning permission.
Where flood risk is an issue, planning authorities already have a statutory duty to consult SEPA on planning applications. In commenting on an application, SEPA may advise that an assessment of flood risk should be prepared, and the planning authority has the power to require applicants to submit such an assessment.
In determining whether a flood risk assessment is necessary, SEPA will consult its flood risk experts, and both SEPA and the planning authority will consult SEPA's indicative flood maps. The authority must also consider SEPA's comments in response to an assessment before determining the application. That requirement arises from regulation 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008, which prevents a planning authority from determining a planning application until it has given consultees such as SEPA time to respond.
Further, if a planning authority proposes, contrary to SEPA's advice, to grant permission, the case must be notified to the Scottish ministers, who may decide to call in the application. That approach allows the planning authority and SEPA to exercise judgment on the risk posed by the proposal, before requiring the applicant to pay for an expensive consultant's study. The need for a flood risk assessment is therefore something that planning authorities, with advice from SEPA, are best placed to decide. On that basis, I ask Karen Gillon to withdraw amendment 13 and not to move amendment 14.
I thank the minister for her explanation. However, she was clearly not convinced by that explanation when she was a member of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, which produced the recommendations. Without wanting to delve into too many difficult issues and without mentioning the "A" word in too much detail, the experience of the Parliament this session is that current planning procedures are not sufficiently robust. I therefore urge the Parliament, in the best interests of the society in which we live, to ensure that amendments 13 and 14 go through and that undue influence is not placed on SEPA or anyone else in the future.
I am curious about whether the member is going to make an allegation of undue influence in a specific case. If she is, I can say that there has been absolutely no proof whatsoever that any undue influence has been exerted in any planning case.
I am not suggesting that; I am suggesting that we want to ensure that undue influence cannot be brought to bear. Indeed, in evidence to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, SEPA said that it would find the proposed mechanism helpful. If SEPA is asking for it and if the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, of which the minister was the convener, unanimously recommended it, I can see no good reason for the Parliament not to support amendments 13 and 14. I will press my amendments.
Before I put the question on amendment 13, I remind members who might have come into the chamber late that, if they wish to take part in discussions on groupings, they should press their request-to-speak buttons when the grouping is announced. I think that one or two members were disappointed that they did not get to speak on this grouping.
The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 55, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Amendment 14 moved—[Karen Gillon].
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 56, Abstentions 0.
I have to use my casting vote. In line with convention, I vote against the amendment.
Amendment 14 disagreed to.
Section 37—Power of SEPA to obtain information, documents and assistance
Amendment 44 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 43—Sub-district flood risk advisory groups
Amendment 45 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 45—Annual report on implementation of Directive
We move to group 11. Amendment 46, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 47.
Annual reports to Parliament provide valuable information on the implementation of legislation. The bill includes a requirement on the Scottish ministers to report to Parliament on action taken during the year by ministers, SEPA and the responsible authorities for securing compliance with the requirements of the European Community floods directive. Amendments 46 and 47 will extend the scope of such reports to cover all action taken to develop flood risk management plans and subsequently to implement measures that are set out in those plans. That will give Parliament a full picture of the action that is being undertaken by those who are responsible for managing flood risk.
I move amendment 46.
Amendment 46 agreed to.
Amendment 47 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 48—Interpretation of Part 3
Amendment 7 not moved.
Section 49—General power to manage flood risk
We come to group 12. Amendment 11, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendments 20, 21, 48, 12 and 22.
Again, the amendments in my name in this group rework an issue that I raised at stage 2, when I also highlighted the issue of the management of land for flood risk prevention. At stage 2, I moved that local authorities might be permitted to apply to Scottish ministers for a land management order for the purposes of flood prevention in a manner similar to that which applies for the management of sites of special scientific interest under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, and to compensate landowners for the loss of income from such land—a proposal that attracted John Scott's support in principle. However, the minister felt that my proposal would have created two parallel procedures. She suggested that the bill already contains provisions that will enable local authorities to carry out flood prevention operations. Nevertheless, all of us agreed that the bill could usefully be further amended at stage 3, so I did not press the amendments in my name at stage 2.
Subsequently, I have worked with committee clerks and John Scott has worked with Government officials, so group 12 offers two sets of alternative amendments—amendments 11 and 12, in my name, and amendments 20, 21 and 22, in the name of John Scott—that have the same aim. However, I note that the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association seems to be more concerned about the effects of amendments 11 and 12, so I will be interested to hear the minister's views on the issue.
Both sets of amendments would ensure that local authorities have the power to carry out land management with the aim of slowing down or storing water. Both sets of amendments would also provide for landowners to be compensated for the loss of income derived from their land when it is used for flood prevention. I think that amendments 11 and 12 are neat, but brevity might not necessarily be the best option in this case. Therefore, I am happy to listen to the minister's assessment of both sets of amendments. There may be technical reasons why amendments 20, 21 and 22 are preferable.
I will move amendment 11 at this point, but I might seek Parliament's permission to withdraw it and decide not to move amendment 12 if it transpires that amendments 20, 21 and 22 would achieve the same aim and are more competently expressed.
I move amendment 11.
Before I speak to amendments 20, 21 and 22, I must declare an interest as a farmer, although not one who is ever likely to benefit from those amendments.
In essence, the amendments in my name seek to compensate land managers for income lost or forgone as a result of their land being flooded. The downside of the use of natural flood management techniques, on which we all wish to place emphasis, is that land that is currently being used for agriculture, growing timber or other purposes might have to be flooded frequently or infrequently to protect communities downstream—or, on occasion, upstream—of the land in question. Therefore, it will be important, once flood risk plans have been developed, to assess the likely frequency of pieces of land being sacrificed to flooding and, possibly, coastal inundation, and thereafter to work out compensation for income lost on an occasional or regular basis.
In that regard, it would be best if individual long-term agreements could be reached between local authorities and land managers and an annual income stream created that is based on a risk assessment of potential damage to crop, stock, timber or other business interests. In addition, the use of annualised payments similar to cross-compliance payments or land management order payments would remind land managers of the duties and obligations that they must meet under their agreements and would encourage them to maintain their land exactly as the flood risk plans required.
I say that because I am concerned that a danger to natural flood prevention techniques might emerge if land is not maintained exactly as the flood risk plans demand. Given the likely complexity of some of the hydrology involved in producing those plans, they must not fail because agreements that have been reached on land use are not properly implemented.
I have listened carefully to Elaine Murray's arguments and believe that, in principle, amendments 11 and 12 seek to achieve the same ends as the amendments in my name. However, as my amendments are broader in scope than hers, I believe that they will work better in practice, so I hope that she will consider withdrawing amendment 11 and supporting mine.
I will speak to amendment 48 before I deal with amendments 11, 12, 20, 21 and 22. Amendment 48 is a technical amendment that seeks to remove the unnecessary overlap that was created by the cross-reference in section 49 to acquiring land under section 55—I dare say that that is crystal clear to everyone.
The other amendments in the group all aim to address a point that the committee made at stage 2. The committee was concerned that section 49 did not make it clear that local authorities could enter into agreements about how land is managed or make monetary contributions towards such work. Amendment 21 makes it clear that local authorities can enter into arrangements with landowners and occupiers to manage land in a way that will assist with the retention or slowing down of flood water, which could include a range of natural flood management measures. Amendment 22 will allow local authorities to pay landowners and occupiers for income that they lose as a result of entering into such agreements. I fully support the concept of entering into agreements about how land should be managed in that respect, so I support the amendments in the name of John Scott.
Amendment 12, in the name of Elaine Murray, is clearly similar to amendment 22, in the name of John Scott, but we believe that it is narrower in scope and could make it more difficult for local authorities to pay landowners who agree to change land management practices. Amendment 11, which would add a reference to operations by local authorities that would assist with the retention of flood water or slow down the flow of such water, is not necessary, as the definition of flood protection work already includes operations to retain or slow flood water. For those reasons, I ask Elaine Murray to withdraw amendment 11 and not to move amendment 12, and I reiterate my support for the amendments in the name of John Scott.
The intention of the two sets of amendments is to achieve the same aim. If John Scott's amendments achieve that more effectively than my amendments, I am more than happy to ask Parliament's permission to withdraw amendment 11.
Amendment 11, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 20 and 21 moved—[John Scott]—and agreed to.
Amendment 48 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 12 not moved.
Amendment 22 moved—[John Scott]—and agreed to.
Section 57— Recovery of expenses
We move to group 13. Amendment 23, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendment 24.
These amendments were the subject of an amendment at stage 2. The motivation behind them arose from evidence given to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee by Jim Moodie of Fife Council, who has been mentioned already today. Mr Moodie told us that although the bill contained a mechanism to allow a local authority to recover costs when it had to undertake work on privately owned land to repair or reinstate flood prevention measures, there was no similar mechanism when authorities were required to clear debris from private land to prevent flooding from occurring.
Although landowners should not be responsible for the whole cost of installing flood prevention measures on their land that are devised and agreed by the responsible authorities, where landowners have been negligent in keeping watercourses or field drains free of debris, and in so doing have placed neighbouring properties in danger of flooding, the local authority should be able to reclaim the expense to the public purse of remedial work.
At stage 2, the minister agreed that the situation was anomalous, but felt at that stage that any amendment should be tied in with the new requirements for local authorities to produce and implement schedules of clearance and repair work. I am grateful to her officials for subsequently suggesting a suitable form of words, now presented as amendments 23 and 24, in order to achieve that aim. I trust that the amendments will attract the support of all members.
I move amendment 23.
As indicated, amendments 23 and 24 deal with an issue that was raised at stage 2. They expand section 57 to enable local authorities to recover from the landowner or occupier expenses that are incurred in carrying out clearance and repair works under section 51(1)(a), where the need for such work was caused by the positive actions of the owner or occupier. That would include, for example, situations in which a flood risk arises as a consequence of a landowner dumping debris in a river. Under those circumstances, it is entirely appropriate for a local authority to seek compensation for any works that it undertakes to rectify the situation.
I am therefore happy to support amendments 23 and 24.
Amendment 23 agreed to.
Amendment 24 moved—[Elaine Murray]—and agreed to.
After section 61
We move to group 14. Amendment 15, in the name of Robin Harper, is grouped with amendment 16.
Amendment 15 seeks to add an additional requirement to section 56A(3) of the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002.
During oral evidence at stage 1, it became clear that Scottish Water prioritised the more immediate or short-term financial cost of options when assessing what form of work to undertake. The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee made it clear that that was incompatible with Scottish Water's duty to promote sustainable flood management, which will be more cost effective in the long term.
The committee recommended that changes to existing arrangements for financial regulation of Scottish Water were required in order to remove any doubt that Scottish Water will be able to meet its full responsibilities under the bill. The Government's response has not addressed those concerns satisfactorily. Therefore, I have lodged amendment 15, which I hope will, along with Peter Peacock's amendment 16, ensure that Scottish Water delivers sustainable flood management.
While amendment 16 addresses the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, amendment 15 adds an additional requirement on ministers to consider Scottish Water's duty to act in the best way calculated to manage flood risk sustainably when issuing directions to Scottish Water under section 56A of the 2002 act.
Scottish ministers issue a statement on ministerial objectives to Scottish Water. The statement includes objectives on such things as the standards of services to be provided to customers by Scottish Water; support for new development; the protection of drinking water; and other forms of environmental protection.
With the new bill, the statement will now also include sustainable flood management. That will sit alongside a requirement on ministers to consider Scottish Water's duty to act in a way calculated to contribute to sustainable development when issuing directions.
I believe that amendment 15 will go some way towards ensuring that Scottish Water starts to consider a range of investment options that allows it to take a more sustainable approach to its investment programmes.
I move amendment 15.
When Scottish Water officials admitted in their evidence at stage 1 that Scottish Water prioritised options with more immediate and short-term financial benefits when assessing what form of work to undertake, I think that we all realised that there could be a problem. The admission came despite the fact that Scottish Water has a duty under the 2002 act to act in the best way calculated to contribute to sustainable development.
In its stage 1 report, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommended that the Scottish Government should change its existing arrangements for the financial regulation of Scottish Water, in order to remove any doubt that Scottish Water will be able to meet its full responsibilities under the present bill.
The Water Industry Commission is the economic regulator of Scottish Water and has only a limited role in promoting sustainability. In that limited role, it has to have regard to any Scottish Water duties and to the guidance that is issued to it by ministers. However, it remains unclear how the commission goes about meeting that obligation. Amendment 16 seeks to ensure that it is required to consider Scottish Water's duty to act in the best way calculated to contribute to sustainable flood management when exercising its functions regarding charges. That duty would sit alongside the existing requirements for the commission to consider guidance that is issued to Scottish Water by Scottish ministers.
Amendment 16 deals only with issues of sustainable flood management. The issue of the sustainability of Scottish Water is wider than just flood management and cannot be fixed through this bill. I hope that the minister will be able to offer reassurance that the general issue of the sustainability of Scottish Water's investment programme will be dealt with appropriately at an early opportunity. That could be achieved in the short term by issuing guidance to the WIC on issues of sustainability and on how the WIC should exercise its functions regarding charges.
I support amendment 15, and I hope that members will also support amendment 16 when we come to a vote—if, indeed, we do.
This is an important issue. I have constituents who regularly suffer sewage flooding problems but cannot get resolution through Scottish Water, even though councillors and I have lobbied it.
Scottish Water would like to address the issue. It has bid for funding to give it the capacity to do remedial work to solve the problem, which is caused by greater flooding incidents. However, Scottish Water is not able to secure funding, because that would contravene the advice given by the WIC. That means that my constituents will not even be considered for the next round of improvement works until 2014. They have property that is regularly flooded with sewage, but the problem will not be addressed. That is not just an economic problem for my constituents, it is also a health and safety issue. It is directly related to the way in which advice from the WIC is structured. That is why we need to ensure that sustainable development is added to the calculations when investment advice is being set for the next period.
At lunch time today, the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on renewable energy and energy efficiency held a meeting at which we considered energy efficiency and water use. There is at present no way of ensuring that the economics of climate change are factored into investment programmes. Amendments 15 and 16 will go part of the way towards ensuring that the issue is at least on the agenda. We must not simply take the short-term solution that seems economically appropriate now. That would mean that our medium-term decisions would be the wrong decisions for climate change and sustainable development.
Members are concerned to ensure that Scottish Water is funded to carry out its new responsibilities under the bill. I recognise and share that concern. However, given the structure and operation of the regulatory framework in which Scottish Water operates, I do not believe that amendments 15 and 16 are necessary. I assure members that the existing framework will ensure that the new functions are funded.
Scottish Water carries out a number of important functions, including—most obviously—the treatment and supply of drinking water and the treatment of waste water and sewage. Those functions are funded through the regulatory framework, but neither is identified specifically within the relevant legislation and there is no difference in importance between those functions and the new functions under the bill.
Members might find it helpful if I say a few words about the funding of Scottish Water and the basic role of the Water Industry Commission in determining and setting charges. To determine the maximum charges for a period defined by ministers, the commission considers the cost of all the core functions that Scottish Water must perform in that period together with the requirements of any guidance or any applicable directions that ministers may have given to Scottish Water. That includes a direction from ministers setting the investment objectives that guide Scottish Water's investment programme.
The definition of "core functions" in the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 is very broad. It includes the basic functions of providing water and sewerage services but will also, on the passing of the bill, include all of Scottish Water's flood risk-related functions under the bill. That means that the present text of the 2002 act will already require the cost of performing flood risk-related duties to be taken into account when charges are set, just as the duties in relation to water supply and waste water are taken into account.
By focusing on just one of Scottish Water's important functions, the amendments risk undermining the carefully balanced regulatory framework. Scottish Water is already under a statutory obligation to act in the best way calculated to contribute to sustainable development, which is clearly the issue behind the amendments.
In fact, the Government has issued Scottish Water with guidance on that duty, to which the commission must have regard in setting charges. We recognise that understanding of the issue continues to develop and, as I said at earlier stages of the bill, I would be happy to review and update the guidance in full consultation with all relevant organisations, bodies and groups. As the commission is an independent body, there is no provision for ministers to issue it with directions or guidance. However, I consider it essential that we work towards a shared understanding of sustainable development and its evolving role in the water industry. I can, therefore, commit to entering into open discussions with the commission and Scottish Water to pursue that shared understanding.
I do not believe that the amendments will do anything to address the wider concern that members have outlined today. On that basis, I ask Robin Harper to withdraw amendment 15 and Peter Peacock not to move amendment 16.
I call Robin Harper to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 15.
The assurances from the minister were fairly detailed but not detailed enough. I think that I would be safer moving the amendment.
The amendment has already been moved, so you are pressing it.
The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 55, Against 57, Abstentions 0.
Amendment disagreed to.
Amendment 16 moved—[Peter Peacock].
The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 57, Against 57, Abstentions 0.
The vote is tied. I cast my vote against the amendment.
Amendment 16 disagreed to.
Section 67—Consultation required by sections 65 and 66
Amendments 49 to 51 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
After section 67
We come to group 15. Amendment 25, in the name of John Scott, is the only amendment in the group.
I thank Peter Peacock, Liam McArthur and other members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for their support for my proposal at stages 2 and 3.
The minister is aware that amendment 25 was developed in response to concerns that the fire and rescue authorities expressed during the committee's flooding inquiry, and in meetings and correspondence from them since. In our view, the fire and rescue service and others correctly identified a gap in the arrangements for co-ordinating inland flood rescues after a flood warning has been issued. The committee also thought that greater information should be made available to the public about how to cope with flooding and how to respond to flood risk warnings. We thought that the fire and rescue service would be well equipped to disseminate information to the public at large in flood risk areas, in the same way that the fire service makes available information about fire prevention.
Order. There are too many conversations going on.
In England and Wales, the Pitt report has delivered an enhanced and more co-ordinated response to flood prevention and flood rescue. The committee thought that the bill created an opportunity to enhance the response in Scotland. For that reason, I welcome the Government's announcement on Tuesday of the review that will be conducted into those matters. We all know well that they stray into civil contingency planning and involve other agencies. I look forward to the Government making early recommendations on completion of that review. I also look forward to the minister's remarks.
I move amendment 25.
I will be brief.
I am grateful to John Scott for lodging amendment 25, which has allowed a debate to take place on an issue that many witnesses raised in the committee. They were anxious about the emergency procedures that will be put in place to help them when a flood occurs and about advice on what they require to do in advance of a flood.
The issue had a good airing in the committee. Like other members, I am grateful that I have had the opportunity to discuss it with ministers. The review that the minister announced yesterday, which has become even more relevant in the light of recent events, is welcome. If the minister reads the same thing into the Official Report, as I assume she will, I will be happy to support any move for the amendment not to be pressed.
As John Scott said, the issue aroused considerable discussion in the committee, although, given the time that was available, there were limited opportunities to take oral evidence on it. I am clear that, whatever arrangements are currently in place, there are occasionally failures to co-ordinate and implement measures effectively. It has been suggested that the roles and responsibilities of emergency services and others are fairly clear when water is lapping around people's ankles or is even higher, but there seems to be a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities leading up to that point.
I acknowledge the complexity of the issue, which drifts into the area of civil contingencies. I also acknowledge the efforts of ministers and their officials to find a resolution. Like John Scott and Peter Peacock, I welcome Fergus Ewing's announcement earlier this week on the instigation of a review. However, I urge ministers to ensure that the review is timely and is not allowed to drift towards the end of the year. I would welcome clarification of the timescale.
I encourage the Government to take any early actions for which it need not await the outcome of the review, particularly in relation to co-ordination. Members are aware of the tragic events on Loch Awe earlier this year—my colleague Alan Reid has highlighted concerns about that. John Grieve has drawn attention to a failure to co-ordinate and a lack of knowledge of where resources were and who had them. I urge ministers to provide a sense of urgency and to give a commitment to conduct the review in early course and to take any early actions that are possible. Like John Scott and Peter Peacock, if I am given reassurances on those issues, I will agree to amendment 25 being withdrawn.
I am grateful to John Scott for giving us the opportunity to discuss the issues that are raised in amendment 25. Concern has been raised at all stages of the bill about instances in which response arrangements have not gone well. However, I believe that a statutory framework for multi-agency response is already in place under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. That highly practised multi-agency approach is the key principle that underpins our wider resilience strategy. The bill deals with flooding, but the range of rescue incidents involving water is far wider. That is why it would be wrong to pick out one single cause, such as flooding, and one single service for a statutory duty, without considering the issue more broadly.
As members might know, the Minister for Community Safety announced yesterday that a comprehensive review of the emergency services' ability to deal with all forms of water rescue, including flood rescue, has been ordered. The review will be led by Paddy Tomkins, who as a former chief inspector of constabulary will bring with him a strong understanding of the legal and operational role of emergency services in responding to such emergencies. Among other matters, the review will examine the need for a change in the law on the responders who cover water rescue; the resources and capability of all agencies that are currently involved in water rescue emergencies, such as flooding; the need for changes in the current operational arrangements between responders; and the level of public awareness of the risks that are associated with open water, including flood water.
At present, a wide range of agencies, including police, fire and rescue services, the Scottish Ambulance Service, the coastguard and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution could be called on to undertake a water rescue, with many interventions involving a multi-agency response. The review will actively seek views from all those agencies for full consideration by ministers. Any proposals to reform the legal framework or change operational practice would be taken only after full public consultation. The review has the support of the Chief Fire Officers Association Scotland, which, as the committee knows, originally asked for an amendment on the issue. The review also has the support of the Fire Brigades Union, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and many other organisations, voluntary and statutory, that can be called on to support a flooding or water rescue event. I hope that the review will reassure the Parliament that the Scottish Government is doing everything that it can to ensure the correct response from all the emergency services in the event of a flood.
I give a commitment to inform the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee of the outcome of the review and of any legislative or operational proposals in due course. The Minister for Community Safety has advised that he hopes that that will be done before the end of the year. For all those reasons, I urge John Scott to withdraw amendment 25.
Amendment 25, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 68—Powers of entry
We come to group 16. Amendment 52, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 53.
Amendments 52 and 53 will fix a minor omission from section 68. Amendment 52 will give local authorities that are lead authorities powers of entry for the purposes of preparing local flood risk management plans under section 29 and for the purposes of preparing reports under sections 32 and 33. Amendment 53 clarifies that those powers of entry will be available only to local authorities that are lead authorities under section 29(8).
I move amendment 52.
Amendment 52 agreed to.
Amendment 53 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 72—Compensation: supplementary
We come to group 17. Amendment 54, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 55 and 66.
Amendments 54 and 55 ensure that the 10-year deadline for giving notice of a claim for compensation covers all the activities listed in section 71 in respect of which compensation can be awarded.
Amendment 66, which was lodged by Peter Peacock, seeks to ensure that any compensation due is made within a "reasonable period". I understand that the speed of payment is not usually an issue. Claimants are generally concerned more about the time that it takes the local authority to determine the amount of compensation that is due in the first place. In that respect, amendment 66 would achieve very little. The negotiation of whether compensation is due and the amount that should be payable depend on the circumstances of each case. Often it involves factors outwith the local authority's control, such as the quality of the information that is provided by the claimant in support of his claim and his timely response to any requests for further information. The authority might also have to commission specialist technical reports to inform the valuer about specific aspects that need to be taken into account.
The intention behind amendment 66 might have been to speed up the negotiation process and ensure that it is completed within a reasonable period. However, agreement over compensation is rightly a two-way process, which makes it difficult to generalise about what a reasonable period might be. It might well be that the local authority has made a timely offer, but that the claimant disagrees with it. Indeed, there have been cases in which claims have been made for compensation and the valuer has subsequently shown that the claimant has not suffered any loss in value. However, getting to the bottom of such complicated situations can be a protracted process. Under those circumstances, it is difficult to understand what would constitute a reasonable time. That is why any question of disputed compensation is referred to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, which is an independent body that can look at the case dispassionately and come to a reasoned decision.
What constitutes a reasonable period will always depend on the factors and circumstances in each case, including how both parties have approached the negotiations, and such questions should probably be left to the tribunal to determine in each case. As the Lands Tribunal for Scotland is an independent body, the Scottish Government should not deal with the matter in guidance. However, amendment 66 has been lodged as a clear response to an expressed concern. In the circumstances, I wonder whether Peter Peacock would be satisfied at this stage with my commitment to discuss his more general issue with the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, COSLA and interested bodies to see whether any specific issues need to be teased out. On that basis, I ask Peter Peacock not to move amendment 66.
I move amendment 54.
As the minister said, the matter was brought to my and others' attention by the SCDI, which is a highly respected business organisation. Amendment 66 reflects concern in the business community that it can sometimes take many years before a compensation dispute between a council and a business can be settled—in fact, a decade has been quoted to me as being not unknown, whereas a timescale of 18 months would be far more reasonable.
The purpose of amendment 66 was to concentrate the minds of local authorities, as well as to require the minister to issue guidance on the issue with a view to ensuring that a settlement can be made in a reasonable timeframe. The minister has set out a variety of reasons why the amendment might not be technically competent or might address the wrong issue in the context of what I am trying to achieve. I am grateful to the minister for what she said and, on the basis of her commitment to meet the SCDI to discuss the matter and hear its concerns, to look at what might be done to engage with the problem and to speak to COSLA, I am happy not to move amendment 66.
Amendment 54 agreed to.
Amendment 55 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 66 not moved.
Section 80—Crown application
Amendment 56 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 84—Interpretation: general
Amendment 57 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendments 17 and 18 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.
Amendment 58 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Schedule 1
Matters to be included in flood risk management plans
We come to group 18. Amendment 59, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 61.
Amendment 59 is a response to an amendment that was lodged by Peter Peacock at stage 2, which aimed to address the concern that the bill as drafted did not place enough emphasis on the need for long-term planning. Amendment 59 requires flood risk management plans prepared by SEPA to describe whether each measure is to be implemented in the six-year period before the plan is next reviewed, in the following six years or after some other period. I assure members again that the bill is very much about long-term planning and that, in all likelihood, flood risk management plans will have to look at how to tackle flood risk over the next 50-plus years.
From discussions with the committee at stage 2, it was clear that there was a desire for more explicit information on the costs of measures to be included in flood risk management plans. Amendment 61 will require flood risk management plans to include information on the costs of measures that are to be implemented before the plan is next reviewed.
I move amendment 59.
No other member has indicated a desire to speak. [Interruption.] Mr Peacock has now done so. He has got in by a nose.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have known what it is like to be ignored throughout most of my life. [Interruption.] I hear expressions of ironic sympathy from members in other parties. I thank the minister for acknowledging the points that were made at an earlier stage. The amendments that she has lodged address those points, for which I am grateful.
Amendment 59 agreed to.
Amendments 60 and 61 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Schedule 4
Index
Amendments 62 to 64 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
That concludes consideration of amendments.