Flood Risk Management
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-499, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on managing the risks of flooding in Scotland.
Flooding can devastate lives, communities, property and the environment. Flooding will happen: this debate is about what needs to be done to improve how we manage the risk to Scotland.
Floods are natural, but they have been exacerbated and made more problematic by human activity. Historically, we have built on flood plains, straightened rivers and forced them into underground culverts, and drained land for agricultural production. In 21st century Scotland, increasing climate change means greater likelihood of floods. Climate scenarios for Scotland tell us that our climate will, over the course of the century, become wetter and stormier. As evidenced by events such as the 2002 Glasgow flood and the 2005 Western Isles storm, the implications of severe weather events are wide ranging across society, the environment and the economy.
The Scottish Government has a role to play in helping to equip Scotland with the tools that it needs to tackle climate change. However, we also know that some degree of change is unavoidable as the impacts of climate change in the next 30 or 40 years have already been determined by past and present emissions. As a result, we can expect an increase in flood risk—for all types of flooding. In some areas of Scotland, the potential risk of flooding could double before the end of the century, and that increase in flood risk could be damaging to both Scotland's economy and society as a whole. Our recently published flood maps highlight that around 100,000 properties are at risk from flooding from rivers and the sea.
Scotland needs to adapt to that change if it is to minimise the impacts of costly disruptions, and to safeguard the continued smooth functioning of services and infrastructure. How we manage the risks and events will be one of Parliament's main challenges for the future. It is clear that we have to leave behind the idea that we act only after a flood; we must instead seek to reduce the risk of significant impacts of flooding through sustainable flood management.
As members may be aware, after the recent devastating flooding in England, the Minister for Environment, Michael Russell, wrote to the chairs of the eight Scottish strategic co-ordinating groups, in which local responders co-ordinate the preparation for and response to emergencies in police force areas, seeking assurances that they were satisfied that arrangements were in place to deal with flooding in their areas. All the groups responded positively about their arrangements for dealing with flooding. Many referred to the process of risk assessment, which includes an assessment of various types of flooding in their area, and all have published a community risk register, which describes the risk rating for flooding in their areas.
As a Government, we want Scotland to become wealthier, fairer, healthier, safer and stronger. The flooding summit that the Minister for Environment and I hosted in Perth last week demonstrated unanimous support for a fresh approach to flood management. Key to such a fresh approach are the desire to declutter the process and the establishment of a framework to enable all organisations to work together effectively to deliver flood risk management for the 21st century.
I asked for frank and productive discussion at the flooding summit, and I am delighted to say that that is exactly what we got. The outcomes of the summit will be used to develop further our proposals for amending the current flooding legislation, as will contributions to today's debate. I was pleased that the summit supported the need to take a more strategic, catchment-based approach to flood risk management. It was obvious from those who were present that although we already have the expertise in Scotland to meet the challenge, we need clear leadership to manage the process and ensure that all the organisations involved work in partnership to achieve a collective goal. The aim is to join up processes wherever possible so that they complement, rather than conflict with, each other and so that they are seamless rather than encourage duplication.
I will take the opportunity to talk in more detail about that partnership approach, because the Government believes that it is the key to successful implementation of sustainable flood management in Scotland. At the moment, a wide range of organisations in Scotland deal with flooding. It is therefore essential that we find some way to co-ordinate those organisations to obtain the best possible solution to our flooding problems. There is a view that local authorities, which are accountable to local communities, are best able to judge the needs of their areas and should be responsible for implementing flood alleviation measures. However, in the move to a catchment-based approach, individual local authorities cannot operate in isolation.
Although we need to debate the case for a national flooding authority, if that route is favoured we have to make it clear that the Scottish Government's preference is to avoid the creation of any new body to fulfil the role. What is certain is that we need some way of co-ordinating catchment-based flood management planning at either regional or national level—in essence, a national approach delivered locally.
To achieve that, it makes sense first to consider how the role and responsibilities of existing bodies might be extended to carry out new work. It is essential that in an attempt to co-ordinate flooding-related matters we do not create unnecessary layers of bureaucracy for practitioners. However, if the best way to achieve partnership working involves a reorganisation of current responsibilities, we will not hesitate to bring that about. In the end, people in Scotland who are at risk from flooding matter most in this debate. We must do everything we can to protect them from the worst impacts of flooding.
There was a great deal of frustration among delegates at the summit in Perth about the sheer number of processes that local authorities have to go through to develop a flood alleviation scheme. It is also confusing for people who are at risk of flooding to be told that a scheme that has been approved under one regime cannot proceed because applications for other consents have to be made, with further rounds of public consultation. Even for non-contentious schemes such as those in Larkhall or Saltcoats, the statutory processes can take up to six months. For contested schemes, even where objectors withdraw without a public inquiry, such as for the Braid Burn and White Cart schemes, the processes can take nearly two years. The process is much longer when modifications to a scheme have to be considered, possibly involving further reference to the planning authority if there is a material change to the scheme. Preparation can take far longer. Many communities that were devastated by flooding many years ago are still waiting for flood alleviation schemes to be up and running.
The provision of flood defences, as with any major infrastructure, impacts on individuals, communities and the environment, and it requires careful and thorough planning. The studies that are needed to identify the right options take time to complete. Nevertheless, we recognise that the present statutory approach is cumbersome and time consuming, so we will consider how we can streamline the planning, flood alleviation and environmental protection processes to avoid duplication of effort. Legislation dating back to 1961 is simply not fit for purpose in the 21st century.
As many members will know, the flooding issues advisory committee was set up in 2005 to offer advice on how to move forward Scotland's national flooding framework. The committee is an excellent example of stakeholders working together to reach consensus on difficult issues. Like all members, particularly those who were in the previous Administration, I am grateful to the members of the committee and its sub-committees for their work and advice in recent years. The committee's final report is published today. Some of its suggestions—for example, the development of a more sustainable approach to flood management—have already been adopted by the Scottish Government. Other recommendations will require further discussion.
We can all agree that a sustainable approach to flood management means our being proactive at strategic level. That will require that stakeholders, including the public, work together from the beginning to share responsibility for final decisions. It is about joined-up thinking among and within organisations when developing strategies, plans and programmes.
Practitioners will have to consider how an incremental approach, using a combination of solutions across the catchment, might help in meeting new challenges as we go through the next 100 or 200 years. That approach may well include engineered works, but those will be sympathetic to the environment in which they are built.
We must recognise that sustainable flood management is not about soft versus hard engineering: rather, it is about considering a wide range of options, from flood warning schemes to river restoration projects; from flood prevention schemes to how we collect data and assess risk; from campaigns to raise awareness in areas at risk of flooding to reassessing how land is managed; and from considering the role of planning and building standards to sustainable drainage systems. We must ensure that the public has confidence in the benefits that land management changes and natural flood processes can bring to flood alleviation. To do that, we must continue to improve our knowledge through detailed studies and modelling.
Given the increased risks that we face, we need to begin now to build such processes into our flood alleviation plans. If we wait 10 or 20 years for scientific studies to be completed, we may well be too late for many communities. We must consider all sustainable flood management options if we are to meet the challenges in a way that will satisfy the economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability now and for future generations. That means that we need to make available flexible funding and to join up different funding streams—including, for example, the rural development programme—to make it possible to consider a wider range of flood management options.
Minister, you have one minute.
The advisory committee suggested that communities could be more aware of, and better prepared for, flooding. It highlighted the importance of improved risk assessment, flood warning schemes and awareness-raising in communities that have been identified as being at risk from flooding. All those allow individuals and communities to take informed decisions about how they can help themselves to manage their own flood risks, for example by ensuring that they have adequate insurance, by storing valuable or sentimental items and important documents upstairs or in a high cupboard, and by making up a flood emergency kit.
My apologies, minister. You have another two and a half minutes.
I thought so. I was watching the clock on my right. I wondered why it was different from the clocks elsewhere.
We must also consider how the planning and building standards systems can complement each other to address flooding issues in Scotland. We must ensure that we strike the right balance on how we use land so that we can avoid inappropriate development on flood plains and other locations that are at risk of flooding.
As the representative for the Moray constituency in the Scottish Parliament, I have a personal interest in the impacts of flooding. In July 1997, 150mm of rain fell over two days, resulting in 1,200 people being evacuated from more than 400 homes in the Elgin area. As recently as this July, I visited a young family who had been flooded out of their home in Rothes following flash floods. I am only too aware from my constituents of the distress that such flood events cause, the difficulties that are experienced in repairing damage to property and the despair of losing family treasures, photographs and memories. I know that many members will have come across similar devastation in their constituencies.
With that in mind, I am pleased that we are here to debate the issues around flood risk management for the 21st century. We now have a real opportunity to consider what is best for a safer and greener Scotland. In doing so, we must not abandon existing good management practices that are being taken forward nationally and internationally, but should instead seek to identify them and learn from them. As all members do, I want Scotland to be more proactive about tackling flooding. The challenges for the future are great, but we must take this opportunity to consider our future responsibilities and roles both individually and collectively. Clearly, no single body can do it all on its own, so we must work together on various levels to ensure that future strategies, programmes, plans, processes and funding streams are not taken forward in isolation.
What the flooding summit began and what today's debate is all about is a new start. We should all take this opportunity to consider what is best for the future of flood management policy in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that a Flooding Bill will be introduced during this parliamentary session; acknowledges the need for Scotland to take a more sustainable approach to flood risk management in order to tackle the increased risk of flooding associated with issues such as climate change; recognises the importance of the publication of the final report of the Flooding Issues Advisory Committee, which ran for two years, and considers that similar positive engagement with stakeholders, including those who have suffered the effects of flooding, should continue throughout the development of the draft Flooding Bill.
I call Mike Rumbles to speak to amendment S3M-499.1. If I have this right, Mr Rumbles, you have 11 minutes.
The commitment to introduce a consultation ahead of publishing a flood prevention bill is—like many other aspects of the Government's programme—a continuation of the work of the previous Executive and is to be welcomed. I welcome it.
We all know that climate change predictions suggest that our winters in Scotland will become wetter, with increases in rainfall intensity and frequency. Therefore, floods that are currently considered extreme will become more common in the future. That is a given. We are all aware that we face challenges as a result of climate change—increased risk of flooding is just one of those challenges.
It is not enough just to focus on managing the effects of climate change. The Government must take urgent action to help to reduce climate change in the first place. In this situation, cancelling public transport investment or blocking renewable energy projects is ludicrously short-sighted. The Scottish National Party Administration's attempt to sabotage the Edinburgh airport rail link, its rejection of wind farm applications and its failure to implement its manifesto commitment to annual climate change targets represent a failure to recognise that it is simply preposterous to attempt to mitigate the effects of climate change without also taking action to reduce that change in the first place. That is why the Liberal Democrats have lodged our amendment. [Interruption.]
Rather than challenge me from a sedentary position, the minister should try to intervene. I would be more than happy to give way to him.
I hope that our amendment will receive support from all around the chamber. We believe that the motion is far too complacent, as was the cabinet secretary's speech this morning and we believe that there is much that the Government can do in advance of primary legislation. In particular, we regret that neither the motion nor the minister's speech give any commitment to increasing the financial resources that are available to address this important issue.
Will the member give way?
Yes—perhaps the minister has asked the member to make an intervention.
Would Mr Rumbles care to tell us how much the Liberals would commit in increased financial resources to address flooding?
Brian Adam fails to recognise that he is no longer in the Opposition. He must remember that he is sitting on the Government front benches. The Government's responsibility is to bring forward its plans, programmes and budgets; the Opposition's job is to test them, but we cannot test them if the Government does not bring them forward.
Will the member give way?
I will in a minute, as I have just given way.
I am astonished that the cabinet secretary completely avoided addressing the issues that are raised in the amendment. He could have addressed all those issues, but he failed to do so. As far as the practical issues are concerned, the role of the single authority that the minister mentioned could be considered to ensure consistent implementation of national flooding policies at regional level—I am pleased to hear that that will be the case—and the pursuit of better co-ordination of all those who are involved in, for example, the rural development programme, the Scottish forestry strategy and the biodiversity strategy.
I repeat what I said in the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee yesterday: the minister has still not published the full £1.6 billion rural development programme. According to the Scottish Parliament information centre, details for only £1.1 billion of the programme are in the public domain. I ask him again—when I asked him at yesterday's committee meeting, he refused to give any commitment—to publish the details of that programme.
I think that the member is unduly addicted to conspiracy theories, but let me press him on a substantive point—
Minister, will you raise your microphone?
I am sorry, Presiding Officer. I am a little throaty this morning.
I want to press Mike Rumbles on the point that Brian Adam raised. The motion refers to our desire for consultation—we recently held a flooding summit—so we would welcome the member's good ideas if he has any. Can he tell us, for example, what balance he would strike between soft solutions and hard solutions and how that would relate to a financial package? If he would help us in that regard, we could move the debate forward.
Certainly. The Liberal Democrats are not in favour of a hard approach to flooding programmes. We want to move forward to what the minister has called a soft approach. That is quite clear.
I can also tell the minister that we have no conspiracy theory. Rather, the theory is one of incompetence on the part of ministers, who have been unable to publish the basic facts on the rural development programme. I look forward to hearing ministers tell Parliament where they will spend the £1.6 billion. Details for only £1.1 billion of the programme have been published. I repeat that they should tell us what they are doing with the other money.
Let me return to the main thrust of the debate. Practical pilot projects could be set up to test the effectiveness of natural flood management measures—I repeat that the Liberal Democrats favour natural flood management measures—but to date only one pilot has been set up in Clackmannanshire to demonstrate and quantify the effectiveness of such techniques. We need resources for such pilots. Natural flood management techniques include the restoration of wetlands, gullies and woodlands with the aim of reducing the flow of water from the hills by storing it along the catchment using natural techniques. Those are the subjects that Mike Russell asked me to outline, so I wish he would pay a bit more attention. If more projects like that were led by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Scottish Executive, natural flood management techniques could be applied on a much larger scale.
I repeat that the minister said nothing in his speech about funding. We had an apple pie speech and we have an apple pie motion, with which we cannot disagree. The problem is not in what the minister said, but in what he did not say. That is the Scottish Executive's problem in this field.
We all know that the Scottish Executive's budget is limited, as are all budgets, and that the money can be spent only once. That is why we have not heard much about the budget. Heaven forfend that the Government should promise to fund more projects than it has resources available to it—that would be terrible. However, I am sure that we will address that issue at the turn of the year, when we examine in greater detail the budget that the Scottish Executive must produce.
Mr Rumbles is not listening.
Mr Lochhead may say that I am not listening, but I wish he would listen. The job of a minister is to listen to what the Opposition has to say and not just criticise from a sedentary position.
Before the election, Richard Lochhead was quick to say that he would
"work with the SNP's Members of the European Parliament to further European Regional Development Funding … to finance the flood defences,"
and
"ensure the Association of British Insurers will take into account specific Scottish conditions and flood prevention measures when setting insurance risk calculations in Scotland."
I wonder whether the minister can tell Parliament in his summing up exactly how he is getting on with the commitments that he made on those two initiatives. I would like a little update on that.
The risks and costs of flooding in Scotland are great. Around 5 per cent of the land area of the country and about 4 per cent of all properties are at risk—it is serious. The previous Scottish Executive took action to address the matter—we increased the budget for flood defence schemes to £89 million and allowed local authorities to invest a total of £111 million in a programme of flood prevention schemes. Yes—we are mentioning money and what the previous Scottish Executive did. I would like to know what the new Scottish Executive will do.
The previous Executive introduced the world's first digital mapping of entire land areas in order to develop the most accurate flood risk maps and so aid flood prevention, and it more than doubled grants to authorities for flood defence schemes for 2005-08, with grant aid increasing from 50 per cent to 80 per cent.
The minister asked me about money, so I am pointing out the facts about what the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition did in the previous Parliament. We put our money where our mouths were. What will the new Scottish Executive do about funding the necessary schemes? We have heard nothing about that.
As well as legislating, the previous Executive took real action to assist with flood prevention measures and it was committed financially to improving Scotland's flood prevention schemes. Missing from the SNP Administration's motion and from the minister's speech is any reference to the continuance of that financial commitment. The motion is complacent and inadequate. I urge members from across the chamber to support the amendment.
I move amendment S3M-499.1, to insert at end:
"further believes that there are policy and funding issues that can be addressed in advance of primary legislation, and regrets that no commitments have been made to increase financial resources to address this important issue."
We on the Labour side welcome the SNP's commitment to introducing a bill on flooding. We would have done that, too, as it was a clear manifesto commitment. I also welcome today's debate because it is clear that current legislation on flooding prevention is out of date and not fit for purpose. I agree with the cabinet secretary on that.
That is not to say, though, that there were no legislative changes during the first eight years of the Scottish Parliament. During consideration of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill, we persuaded ministers to add references to flooding. It was important that we had a much more joined-up approach to river basin management—that is now happening across Scotland. That has been important, as were the annual reports to the previous Environment and Rural Development Committee, which enabled us to ensure accountability for implementation of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. The reports have also enabled stakeholders to review progress.
I, too, congratulate the members of FIAC for their excellent work in identifying the challenges and some of the tough solutions that we need to debate. There are now improved warnings for householders and businesses to ensure that they get adequate notice of potential flooding incidents. There is also the new planning guidance on flooding, although I am concerned about whether that is being fully implemented. I would like ministers to address monitoring of implementation of the flooding guidance. I believe that there have been instances in which the precautionary principle has not been fully applied. We must ensure that that happens in every planning decision in Scotland.
At the end of the day, it is householders who suffer. They are left with the devastation that flooding causes and they have increased difficulties in getting insurance cover. That issue will not go away, because climate change is happening and instances of heavy rainfall will increase.
There are big issues for the new SNP ministers to address. For example, there is the critical issue of the speed of decision making, to which the cabinet secretary referred in his speech. Speaking from my experience as an MSP, one of the first difficult issues that I had to deal with in my constituency of Edinburgh Central was the Water of Leith flooding incident in the spring of 2000—we still do not have full flood protection measures in place. We do not, however, lack expertise or engaged communities: the Water of Leith flood action group and Murrayfield community council in my constituency alone, never mind groups in the rest of the city, have had to engage with potential solutions for seven years now.
It will be controversial to speed up decision making because individual rights must be dealt with. However, we currently have a tortuously long process and double handling from the local authorities and the Scottish Executive. The technical process and the planning process must be brought together. We will work with the new ministers to ensure that we get something to which Parliament can agree—that is critical for managing flood risks in the future.
Flooding events have a tremendous human cost, with people sometimes being out of their houses for the best part of a year. However, the problem is not just loss of money: when we get bad rainfall, some of my constituents phone me to ask what is happening because they now have a fear of being in their own houses at such times. We must never accept that.
On a more basic level, individual householders can make changes that make their area more prone to flooding. In my constituency during the election campaign, I saw that several people in one street had concreted what had previously been their gardens. They now experience flooding in that street. We need to get basic information out to people because they do not think about the cumulative impact of what they do in their own gardens. We need to develop communication of such information.
Scottish ministers and Parliament face a big challenge, so it is vital that the bill consultation engages fully with those who have experienced flooding incidents because their perspective is crucial. There is the issue of the responsiveness of the emergency services: how well equipped is each service in the country? There is also the basic issue of funding for flood management, not just for the building of schemes. The longer they take to build, the more they cost. That has been the case in Edinburgh and elsewhere in the country.
I want to add to the debate coastal inundation, on which we have not, in the context of long-term management of flood risks, engaged sufficiently. It may not be possible to save our entire coastline, so we will have to deal with tough questions. We must consider managed-retreat strategies for some places and protection strategies for others. We must ensure that communities and local authorities in such areas are brought to the table for the debates. We need to undertake the critical analysis, discussion and information sharing now.
There are particular problems for smaller and island authorities that have extensive coastlines that will be exposed to stormier weather. They are unable to employ the range of staff in-house to address the technical and management issues that flooding and coastal erosion generate. Ministers will need to talk to such authorities. I know that there were issues in the past and that changes were made, but we need to ensure that those authorities have the resources—the people as well as the money—for the bigger challenges in the future.
Does the member agree that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency map shows that large parts of the housing development section of the Leith foreshore development area are at risk of flooding?
All our estuaries will have similar problems in the future. Work that was done 20 years ago at the University of Strathclyde identified areas that were at risk of flood. There are major flood risk problems across Scotland in our river estuaries, but particularly in the Clyde, the Forth and further up the Tay. I want to flag up the issue of rural communities because there is an issue about our coastline, but I agree that flood risk is also a huge issue for urban communities in Scotland. I know that my colleagues will focus on that point.
It is critical that SEPA is not regarded as being just a rural agency. We must continue to support its excellent work in identifying flood risk and we must keep a weather eye on its staffing levels and expertise, especially for planning applications and development plans.
Resources are a major issue, which Mike Rumbles was absolutely right to raise. Flood expenditure has increased significantly since Parliament was established, but we need to go much further. I note that last week the First Minister said about flooding that
"We cannot address the seriousness of the issue without additional funds being provided."—[Official Report, 13 September 2007; c 1746.]
I suspect that Scottish National Party members say that to everyone. However, we face a significant challenge and choices will have to be made in the spending review. Local authorities will be strapped for cash if the SNP's council tax freeze backs them into a corner and they will need extra support if they are to begin to cope with the challenges that they face. I ask ministers to consider the spending review and to give greater priority to the issue. They should also keep an eye on what is happening down south. Given the recent floods, Barnett consequentials are likely to deliver more resources to tackle flooding—if we in Scotland choose to take them.
Sustainable flood defences must be part of the solution, but they will not always be the cheapest option. If we are to pay to retain flood plains that are not used for economic activity, and if compensation is required, tough issues will need to be considered. I call on ministers to continue the work that is being done, to consider the issue on a cross-party basis and to ensure that money is available, not just centrally but in SEPA and in local authorities.
The debate on flooding must not take place only in Parliament; it must include a range of key players. I urge everyone to contribute to the work that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee will carry out this year on flooding. Such input will be vital if we are to raise awareness about the risks of flooding.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the early sight of the flooding issues advisory committee's report, which was published today. I welcome FIAC's conclusions—in particular the recommendations of the alleviation sub-committee.
I welcome the Government's proposal to introduce a flood prevention bill. Scottish Conservatives think that such a bill is vital and will provide an opportunity to update and integrate the legislation on flood management in Scotland. Almost 100,000 homes and more than 7,000 businesses are under threat of flooding, including homes and businesses in the Ayr constituency, so the bill is urgently needed, particularly given the increased rainfall that is predicted for Scotland as a result of climate change.
The human cost of flooding, which was evident during the recent floods in Tewkesbury and Hull, is a further compelling driver for action. Members of the Parliament have a duty of care to remove or reduce, if at all possible, the threat that flooding increasingly presents to our fellow citizens, which the cabinet secretary and Sarah Boyack mentioned. We must make a start on assessing and evaluating the best way forward, which is a daunting, but exciting, responsibility.
As members know, a flooding summit was held in Perth to inform the debate. Like other members, I am grateful to the people who took the time to attend the summit and highlight the seriousness and complexity of flooding issues in Scotland. Yesterday, the Parliament's Rural Affairs and Environment Committee initiated an inquiry into flooding. I welcome the Government's intention to conduct an inquiry into the subject later this year. I hope that the two pieces of work will not overlap. The inquiries must grapple with many huge issues.
The differences between river, coastal, surface and groundwater flooding are self-evident. Different and unique solutions will be required to address various types of flooding. The committee's inquiry and work on the bill will need to start with an attempt to evaluate the risks that are associated with greatly increased rainfall in Scotland during the past 40 years, which were evidenced in the study by the Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research—SNIFFER—and the risks that are associated with increasing storminess and rising sea levels, which lead to surges in coastal areas.
The bill will build on and update earlier legislation and should propose more sustainable and long-term solutions than were previously thought necessary. A combination of soft and hard engineering solutions must be found for each river basin or catchment area, and each solution or plan will be unique to the defined flooding problem. The concept of integrated flood management will need to be developed, particularly to reduce peaks of flooding, which usually—but not always—pass quickly.
I am a farmer, so the tops of the hills are familiar to me—I declare an interest in that regard. It will be important not to markedly increase drainage on open moorland. Afforestation, particularly with native woodland, should be encouraged, to create rainfall sponges that retain water in the hills and uplands. Upland valleys, which are naturally occurring flood plains and are often the best and most productive agricultural land, might have to be used for the public good, to hold water temporarily and accommodate peak flooding. However, if that involves breaching existing flood defences, it should happen only with the consent of affected farmers and landowners. If prime land is occasionally to be used for the public good in that way, it is vital that long-term compensation packages should be negotiated with affected farmers and landowners. Long-term commitments between landowners and public agencies, perhaps for up to 20 or 30 years, need to be considered and could perhaps be integrated into agri-environment schemes. A balance will need to be struck between using land for flood prevention and using it to grow food, given that food security is becoming an issue.
Environmental and wildlife issues will also need to be considered and balanced. All such issues will need to be integrated into an agreed plan for each river basin and married to the river basin management plans that have been and are being developed as a requirement of the water framework directive.
Best practice throughout the world should be studied and copied, to deliver soft and hard engineering solutions. The lessons learned from the experiences in Hull, Tewkesbury and elsewhere should help to inform the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's inquiry and the bill.
Coastal defences will require individual analysis and multi-agency working will be necessary to develop sustainable long-term protection. I agree with Sarah Boyack's comments in that regard.
If possible, efforts must be made to separate sewage from rainwater, but we all know that that is easier said than done, given the current infrastructure. However, a direction of travel should be established in the context of planning for the future, and longer timescales should be envisaged, to accommodate the anticipated threat of increased river and coastal flooding.
The creation of flood management schemes such as the Glasgow strategic drainage plan needs to be streamlined and simplified, and local authorities should incur less funding risk before seeking approval for plans. The bill should consider the process for putting in place demountable, temporary and householder flood defences. Planning timescales should be extended—to 40, 60, 80, or even 100 years—if research into global warming predicts rising river and sea levels. The bill will provide a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put the right solutions in place. Of course, some people think that global warming can still be stopped or reversed, so the advice that we receive will be crucial.
Local authorities, police and fire services might need new powers, so that they can act in the best public interest when extreme flooding events loom. The insurance industry, which so far has largely picked up the bill for flooding in the United Kingdom, will have to be persuaded to continue to insure our homes and businesses. It will do so only if the Government does more to reduce the risk of flooding. We should not forget that the UK insurance industry is almost unique in Europe in insuring against flooding risk. The industry will not continue to do that in the long term if the risks and payouts are too great.
Adequate funding will need to be found. I welcome the commitment that the First Minister made last week in response to a question that I asked him about flooding. He said:
"We cannot address the seriousness of the issue without additional funds being provided."—[Official Report, 13 September 2007; c 1746.]
If Mr Rumbles had been paying attention, he might have agreed with me that the First Minister seemed to be making a commitment to provide adequate funding.
Much needs to be considered before work can start to address river and coastal flooding. Time is not on our side. This generation and the next one must make a start as soon as possible, and we must get the modelling and predictions right first time. Engineering skills will be tested to the limit if we are to anticipate and cope with flooding, but I am optimistic that elegant solutions can be found, so that we can reduce flood risk throughout Scotland and provide a safer environment for our homes and businesses.
We move to open debate.
Floods are not a new phenomenon—no doubt Noah would attest to that. What is perhaps new, however, is the frequency with which such events are occurring in places where only occasional flooding might have been expected over the decades and even centuries. When events that used to happen once in a lifetime begin to occur with greater frequency, expectations about the response change. The events are no longer viewed as acts of God; they are more likely to be regarded as failures to plan properly.
Until now, the usual response to flooding has been wholly defensive. Like Canute, we seek somehow to hold back the water, with schemes that usually cost a lot of money, involve a lot of construction and—it must be said—are of varying effectiveness, as my colleague Keith Brown will no doubt say.
The recently publicised flood risk maps were a scary example of how continuing with that approach will be more and more difficult, as 100,000 Scottish homes and 7,000 Scottish businesses are now at risk. Humans have always built on flood plains because they are highly productive areas and are close to fast-flowing rivers and the sea, which were important avenues of communication, but the kind of building that we did in the past did not exacerbate the problems in flood-prone areas. That is not so now.
For members who, like me, represent areas with serious flood problems, the debate is not academic. Scottish Environment LINK estimates the average annual cost of damage from flooding to be around £20 million. Well, the total cost of the flooding in Perth in one year—1993—was £39 million. In that flooding, 1,600 properties were affected. It cost £26 million to put the Perth flood prevention scheme in place, 50 per cent of which was provided by the then Scottish Executive. Perth and Kinross Council had to apply for borrowing consent for a sum of £21.3 million before work could even start, and that money came from the Scottish Executive challenge fund. That meant that the Perth scheme was up against other schemes that were also seeking funding. That is not to mention the years that it took to get the funding together and build the defences.
That is a crazy way of doing things. The worst of it is that the rainfall that fell in Tewkesbury in July would have overwhelmed the new Perth defences. They are only recently built but are already potentially inadequate. That prompts the question of how far we can go and how much money we can spend on doing things the way that we have always done them if the net result is obsolescence only a few years down the line.
Many other smaller floods take place frequently in my constituency and throughout Scotland. They do not get the publicity that the really big events get, but they are continual and affect many people regularly. I attended the flood summit that the cabinet secretary organised in Perth on 10 September. I am sorry that more members were not able to take up the opportunity to go to that summit, because it was timely and profoundly useful. The commendably open discussion highlighted the key problems that face us and the issues that we must now address. The potential scale of the events that we may now face became clear from those discussions.
There is pretty much unanimous agreement that the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 is no longer fit for purpose. Leaving aside the question of incorporating the European Union floods directive, I think that there are big issues of funding that seriously need to be addressed—and I suggest that they be addressed in a slightly more constructive fashion than Mike Rumbles proposes. The complete nonsense of using challenge funding for flood defences needs to be rectified. Either flood defences are required or they are not and, if they are, they must be built.
It is equally important that we widen the definition of flood management so that money is not only directed towards hard construction but is also applied to soft schemes, which are perhaps much more sustainable. I say to Mike Rumbles that we are all aware that it will cost more, but we will not know how much more until we know how best to tackle the problem. He is in danger of becoming the Victor Meldrew of the Scottish Parliament if he does not mend his ways.
Roseanna Cunningham raises a legitimate question, but the point that I am making is that a commitment from the Scottish Executive to increase or continue with the funding is missing from this important argument. Where is any such commitment?
Mike Rumbles raises the possibility that the Government is somehow going to axe funding for flooding. What a piece of nonsense that is. If he would only listen to himself, he would realise how ridiculous he is beginning to sound.
Given the potential scale of the events and the flood risk maps to which I referred, serious questions must be asked about why planning and responses are left to local councils when the problem is arguably much greater and should be addressed at the catchment level. I appreciate that there is a danger of resorting to yet another level of bureaucracy, but there is no doubt that many local councils are now overwhelmed by the expectation of handling a problem of far greater scale than their local resources allow.
The cabinet secretary is not short of suggestions from a number of lobbying organisations, and I hope that he will accept the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's suggestions when it concludes its inquiry into flooding and flood management. That inquiry was announced yesterday and there are 12 weeks for written evidence to be submitted. I urge all members to get local groups to submit evidence and perhaps even to submit evidence themselves.
We are now into autumn and moving into the winter months, which are traditionally the months when Scotland is most vulnerable to high rainfall—although, on the evidence of this summer, we may have to change our perceptions of that. God forbid that we experience any more flooding this winter. However, the Parliament must move as fast as possible on the issue. We all want to minimise the potential for further damage on the scale that we saw in England in July.
Presiding Officer, I apologise to you and to members for not being able to stay to the end of the debate. The new Clydebank College building, which cost £30 million, is opening this afternoon and I am pleased that I will be there rather than here on this occasion. For that reason, I will have to forgo the pleasure of listening to Michael Russell closing the debate and, perhaps even worse, the delight of a second speech from Mike Rumbles.
We will all go to Clydebank College.
Absolutely.
As a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, I was closely involved in the scrutiny of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, under which Scotland became the first part of the UK to transpose the European water directive into statute. That act creates a new duty on public bodies to promote sustainable flood management and envisaged the creation of joint bodies based on eight river catchment basins across Scotland to oversee and co-ordinate a range of activities, including flood management.
During the passage of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill, I successfully argued for responsibility to be given to Scottish Water for the future maintenance and capital enhancement of public sustainable urban drainage systems—or SUDS, as they have become known. Despite advice that was issued by the Scottish Executive in the form of planning advice note 61, developers had been reluctant to create public SUDS while it was unclear where responsibility for maintaining and enhancing the systems would rest in future.
Scottish Water was not made responsible for all elements of SUDS. As the drainage authority, it has only partial responsibility, shared with developers and local authorities. However, because it will accept responsibility only for properly constructed schemes and is in a position to encourage the development of several ponds in series, to set standards for pollutant loading and to make developers abide by maximum run-off rates, the use of SUDS has greatly increased across Scotland and we have an effective management regime.
Both Des McNulty and I sat on the committee that examined that bill. Does he recall and accept that the big weakness was the lack of funding at the time? That is why, to pick up on Mike Rumbles's point—notwithstanding the First Minister's commitment—it is essential that adequate funding is put in place this time.
I will come on to funding in due course, but the example of SUDS demonstrates that legislation can assist with the management of drainage. Like Sarah Boyack, I welcome the minister's commitment to a flooding bill that will provide a framework for taking forward soft measures, such as planting trees along riverbanks and restoring wetlands, alongside harder engineering solutions. However, John Scott is right that, for that to be effective, the minister needs to ensure that there is adequate access to funding for sustainable flood prevention measures. I hope that he has the ear of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, Mr Swinney, in that regard.
Indeed, I hope that Mr Swinney will pay particular regard to the importance of sustainability in the decisions that he takes in the spending review and that he will live up to his full title. Labour doubled the amount of money that was directed towards flood prevention last year. Will he maintain that level of funding? Indeed, given Mr Lochhead's commitment to do whatever is necessary and practical to protect communities from the risk of flooding, will he substantially increase expenditure on flood prevention? The UK Government has made between £600 million and £800 million for flood management in England and Wales. Will the Barnett consequentials be available for flood management in Scotland and will the Scottish Executive—or the Scottish Government, as it now styles itself—ensure that that money is red lined and maintained for flood action?
Although Mr Lochhead became the member for Moray only relatively recently, he will be well aware of the problems that were experienced by the people of Elgin, which were spelled out to the Finance Committee when it took evidence from local organisations in late 2005 and which prompted greater generosity from Mr McCabe. Christine Grahame will no doubt talk about the flooding in Hawick in 2005 and other members may talk about the recent flooding at Milnathort in rural Stirlingshire, but there are problems throughout Scotland—even in my constituency. More than 2,000 properties are registered as being at risk of flooding in West Dunbartonshire and just under that number in East Dunbartonshire. However, recent flooding problems affecting some of my constituents in Clydebank show that the deterioration of drainage infrastructure, much of which dates back to before the first world war, is a significant problem that needs to be addressed alongside river-based flooding.
Before I make my point, I welcome Des McNulty to his new post. I am sorry that he will not be here to hear a personal tribute in my summing up—maybe I will not bother with it. He raised an important point about the decay of drainage systems, which points to another financial issue that should be borne in mind—indeed, it is raised in the WWF Scotland document "Slowing the Flow: A natural solution to flooding problems". There are a number of funding streams that need to be applied to the issue of flooding, so the lack of subtlety in the amendment is another problem with it because we need to call on a number of resources, not just one.
Des McNulty has half a minute.
Lack of subtlety is no excuse for not having a thorough debate—it is important that there is a proper consensual debate on these important infrastructure issues, and all the parties should be involved. I referred earlier to the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. If there are obstacles to implementation of the duty to provide sustainable flood management, they need to be identified and removed. The framework in the act allows for statutory regulation of integration of flood prevention and management across public bodies.
It is clear that some departments, organisations and agencies are not as fully engaged as they could be—the cabinet secretary indicated that that concern had emerged at the summit. That needs to change, and that change can be effected not just through new legislation but by effective implementation of existing legislation and the application of funding. All those strands need to be tied together. I hope that we can achieve that.
The cabinet secretary said that flooding can decimate lives, and there is no question but that he is right about that. Flooding is a Scotland-wide, UK-wide—as we saw this summer—and global problem, which is made worse by climate change. I will use one or two examples from my constituency to demonstrate that fact. The idea that all was great under the previous Executive and that, under the new Government, all is complacency as Mike Rumbles put it, is—to use Mr Rumbles's own word—preposterous. Complacency would be a party omitting all mention of flooding from its manifesto—as the Labour Party did.
Will the member take an intervention now?
Not just now—the member should wait until I get started.
Will the member not take one now?
The member is not taking an intervention.
I want to highlight the situation in Milnathort, which has been mentioned—I must point out that it is in Kinross-shire, not Stirlingshire. The example of Milnathort shows that, as Roseanna Cunningham pointed out, hard engineered flood defences are not always of comfort to local communities. Half a million pounds was spent on new flood defences at Milnathort, yet, within a few months of their completion, major flooding—with all the accompanying trauma that other members have described—took place there. Some people have still not returned to their homes, they have lost all their belongings and they have to live some distance away, with no real prospect of returning to their homes. More important, they have no confidence about going back to their houses—Sarah Boyack referred to that. There is real fear. I live 13 miles away from Milnathort, but every time that there are two successive days of rain I start to wonder what is happening there. That is becoming more acute with the onset of winter.
Bridge of Allan, in my constituency, is an example of a place in which one house can be affected by flooding, but the cause of the flooding can be traced back to previous flood defence systems that were put in place. It is hard to get funding to deal with that problem. Another case is the Wallace high school, which is currently under construction in Bridge of Allan and is said by local people to be Scotland's first underwater school. It has been built on a flood plain, and it is behind schedule and well over budget because of the cost of pumping out the water during its construction.
In the middle of my constituency, we had—as Mike Rumbles mentioned—the River Devon natural flood management scheme, which was funded not by the previous Executive but by HSBC working in partnership with Clackmannanshire Council and WWF Scotland.
As the cabinet secretary has said, it is not a simple case of new soft, natural flood defences being far better than the old engineered system. We must have the right solution for the right place. It is important that we review the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961—I am very pleased that that is included in the Government's programme. It is essential that we streamline the processes and the funding regime, as the cabinet secretary outlined.
Regarding Sarah Boyack's point about councils and funding, it is also essential that we do not impose new burdens that we do not then fund. I worked on a council for a long time, so I know that local government is fed up of that happening in the past, and it should not happen in the future. However, that is not the same point as the red herring about a council tax freeze, which is a completely different issue. I agree that if we oblige councils to do more on flood management, we should fund the costs.
I welcome the urgency with which the Government has sought to address the matter, by including it in the legislative programme and through the recent flood management summit, which I could not attend because of constituency obligations. I am grateful to Roseanna Cunningham and her Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for accepting an inquiry on flooding as one of its first items of business and I hope to give evidence to that inquiry. The urgency that her committee and the Government have shown on the issue stands in stark contrast to the complacency that existed under the previous Executive, of which Mike Rumbles's amendment, which I will oppose, is redolent.
I am pleased to take part in the debate, because flooding is unquestionably an important issue that touches more and more people's lives in Scotland every year. With the climate change that is taking place, it is probable that rainfall will become more intense, the patterns will change and more people will be affected over time.
Major questions now arise about whether the infrastructure that we have created over the years in towns and cities is capable of coping with current pressures. There is also a question about whether engineering solutions will ever be fully capable of coping with the pressures, which points to a need to utilise flooding protection mechanisms that are far more natural than those that we have used in the recent past. Such an approach has many benefits and may have important implications and good by-products for the management of uplands, biodiversity and the improvement and restoration of habitats. In our towns and cities, there is a potential to create new green corridors to manage flooding, which could bring major environmental and amenity benefits as well as providing more effective protection from flooding.
I welcome the Government's intention to introduce legislation on flooding, because we need to update the current legislation. I also welcome the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's decision to hold a major inquiry into flooding. Those initiatives build on the previous Administration's actions, to which other members have pointed, such as the creation of a national flooding framework, the introduction of new planning guidance, an increase in funding and the commissioning of expert advice through the flooding issues advisory committee.
Flooding can have a devastating impact on individuals and communities. In recent years in my region, the Highlands and Islands, many communities have been affected by flooding. For some individuals in the community, each of those incidents results in trauma, a potential effect on property value, anxiety, stress and the loss of irreplaceable personal items. An individual from Elgin, in giving evidence on their experience, said:
"I think you've a fear factor initially and adrenaline helps carry you through it. In a lot of cases panic sets in. Then the desperation to get alternative accommodation. Then it's getting the loss adjuster to come and have a look. You walk back through your house again and it's covered in sewage. That is a devastating moment."
Another person from Elgin, who had recently lost her mother to cancer, then lost every photograph of her mother in the flooding—those were irreplaceable personal items. Flooding touches people in a real way. The human cost, the cost to economic activity, the disruption to community life and the fear and anxiety in which people continue to live—which Sarah Boyack mentioned—are all reasons why we must make more advances in how we manage flooding. I will play a constructive part in the discussions about the bill when it is produced.
That said, I am seriously concerned about some aspects of the Government's policy, particularly the impact of other policies that the Government is pursuing on local authorities' ability to fund flood alleviation schemes. The Government has hitherto funded approved flood alleviation schemes at a rate of about 80 per cent. The local authorities then fund the balance using a mix of the potential sources: capital receipts, direct council tax and prudential borrowing, the interest payments of which, as well as the capital, are paid back over many years.
As we know, the Government proposes a council tax freeze. Further, if the council tax was ever abolished, as the Government proposes, a national capped rate of extra local income tax would be introduced. Under either of those policies, local authorities' discretion to raise extra local taxes to pay their part of flood alleviation schemes would in effect be removed. The only alternatives would be to reduce spending on other services or to sell assets, whereas other local authorities that do not have flooding issues could sell assets to spend on improvements to schools, local roads or social work facilities.
Considerable sums are involved. The total bill for the various flood schemes in Moray Council's territory comes close to £140 million. Under current conventions, Moray Council's share of that is some £29.5 million, of which it has already set aside some £12 million from capital receipts. The council therefore has to find a further £17.5 million. That is a large sum by any standards but, for a small local authority with a very small tax base, it is a huge burden. I will give members an idea of the costs involved. If the sums were all to be funded in one year, an increase in the council tax of roughly 50 per cent would be required.
The member will of course accept that Moray Council's financial problems have been around for a number of years, including the years under the previous two Administrations in Scotland.
I am trying to make a serious point about the planning and implementation of the present Government's policies and about their implications for the council's ability to cope.
If the sums were funded over a three-year period, the increase in council tax would be some 16 per cent per year; if funded by prudential borrowing, the cost would be something like 3.5 per cent on the council tax for perhaps 25 years or more. However, all funding avenues are now being blocked by the minority Government, which could mean that schemes will not be able to proceed or that they will have to be funded by millions of pounds in cuts in other services. That is a ridiculous position for the Government to put the people of Moray in.
The Government's policies on local taxation will cause huge problems for Moray. There can be only one solution: the minority Government must guarantee to fund flood alleviation schemes in Moray by 100 per cent. Nothing less will do. It would be intolerable if Moray's citizens had to forgo crucial public services that others enjoy, or if they were faced with large tax rises when taxes are being frozen in other parts of Scotland. When he sums up, the minister will have to put these matters beyond doubt. If his party sticks to its pledge to freeze council tax, he must guarantee 100 per cent funding for the Moray flood alleviation scheme.
I have said that I support the Government in considering legislation on flooding, but it will also have to consider the impact of its other policies on local communities' ability to cope. I will not support the Government if it puts undue burdens on the people of Moray.
As the speeches of Roseanna Cunningham and Keith Brown have already made clear, none of us who represent Mid Scotland and Fife need reminding of the horrors that afflicted the residents of Milnathort last year or the horrors that afflicted the residents in the Perth, Kinross and Strathearn areas in 1993.
It goes without saying that flooding is one of the worst natural disasters that can affect a community. As Peter Peacock has just said, flooding can have deep psychological and social effects as well as the obvious economic costs. Those costs amounted to something in the region of £40 million in the case of the Tay and Strathearn floods in 1993. It is obvious that flood management is hugely important, but the Government is absolutely right to stress that the sense of urgency is increased because of recent climate change trends. We should be under no illusions about the dangers of delaying new legislation.
The Scottish Government has already indicated that it takes flooding extremely seriously, and its proposal for a new flood prevention bill for Scotland is to be warmly welcomed. I hope that work can begin immediately on investigating best practice in other parts of the world and on ensuring that we have a comprehensive understanding of the complex science that underlies flood prevention. Clearly, a variety of interested stakeholder groups wish to participate in the debate, and the facilities to allow such participation should be put in place as soon as possible.
That said, the key focus has to be on responsibility—first, responsibility for what happens when flooding takes place, and secondly, responsibility for flood prevention. Scotland needs national legislation that clearly identifies where the responsibilities lie in both cases, and it should be in language that is familiar to the general public as well as to the scientists and technical experts.
As members are fully aware, Perth and Kinross Council faced severe criticism from many residents in Milnathort for its response to the flooding chaos. That criticism has now prompted a full investigation into where the different responsibilities should lie. Perth and Kinross Council has taken matters very seriously indeed, as is evident from the paper that its enterprise and infrastructure committee produced in August. It is absolutely right to initiate procedures to not only investigate what went wrong but put in place measures to improve transparency and accountability.
With that in mind, it is important to recognise that the primary responsibility for ensuring that water is kept out of a property lies with the property owner or occupier. That is not always recognised by the individuals concerned. It is therefore the owner's responsibility to undertake precautionary measures, and in particular to ensure that their property is adequately covered by their insurers. That is particularly important in light of the fact that the costs incurred by the insurance industry after the recent UK floods were sufficiently high to make the industry re-examine its commitment to provide full insurance cover. Incidentally, such cover is not always available in other countries. Measures will be successful only if the other parties involved in flood prevention are fully responsible and accountable in that role, so that insurers have confidence that they are not the only people to carry the economic cost.
The new bill must concentrate on that aspect of policy, and it must do so in three main areas. First, it must streamline the decision-making process to allow a much more holistic approach to be taken throughout the UK. As things stand at present, a large number of groups are involved in flood management and prevention, and it may take time to rationalise that structure so that responsibilities are more clearly defined and there is less scope for buck passing.
Secondly, the science that is relevant to flooding is changing all the time, which inevitably means that an important debate has to take place to find the appropriate balance between soft and hard engineering defences. That will undoubtedly involve additional resources.
Thirdly, if we are to continue to place on the individual the primary responsibility for keeping water out of their property, emphasis must be placed on assisting responsible landowners and punishing those who default. Huge amounts of money can be involved—to say nothing of the amount of work that is required—in maintaining efficient defences. Flood management will therefore not be successful unless individual landowners are able to recognise and deal with their responsibilities.
I said at the beginning that no one needs reminding of the horrors that flooding can bring. It is therefore imperative that the proposal for a new flood prevention bill is fully supported.
Flooding is one of the most important subjects facing not just Scotland but many places in the world, from Aberdeen to Africa and from Inverness to India. No matter where in the world we are, the risks of flooding are rising as quickly as the floods themselves. However, today we have yet another SNP debate that is short on substance and has little hope of passing muster at 5 pm.
My colleague Mike Rumbles was quite right to lodge an amendment to put some substance on the SNP motion. Once again, the SNP is being found out by a much more effective Opposition—an Opposition that has a good track record of governing in Scotland, and an Opposition that has led significant improvements in the financing of flood prevention infrastructure in Scotland. I have seen the benefits of that investment in my constituency. Indeed, one scheme that is very near my home in Dunfermline has already shown great benefits. Like so many other schemes in Scotland, it is a combination of soft and hard engineering.
I know that members have been lobbied by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which is seeking a bill, but it wants only natural flood prevention schemes to be used. Unfortunately, the RSPB has got it wrong, because one type of scheme will not prevent flooding in all areas: as in Dunfermline, a combined scheme is often the best scheme.
Members may be aware of Dunfermline's major expansion in recent years. Drainage for the massive new development was centred on sustainable urban drainage systems, which are known as SUDS to you and me, Presiding Officer. However, for those who are less familiar with them, SUDS are described by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as
"an alternative to conventional urban drainage systems and are designed to reduce pollution and flood risk in watercourses and wetlands ... SUDS are physical structures built to receive surface water runoff. They can include detention basins, retention ponds, constructed (storm water) wetlands, infiltration devices, swales and permeable surfaces. As well as dealing with water quality and flooding issues, SUDS can be designed to improve amenity and biodiversity in urban areas."
In fact, some of the SUDS ponds in Dunfermline have become home to mating pairs of swans and other wildfowl. People have come to view Dunfermline's Duloch Park SUDS ponds from as far away as Japan.
The issue of flooding is nothing new to me in this Parliament. I submitted a number of questions on flood prevention on 31 July and, not being too happy with the answers, I followed up with more detailed questions on 5 September. Only one of the questions that I submitted on 5 September was answered by the Scottish Government by yesterday's deadline. Perhaps not providing the answers that were due yesterday has something to do with today's debate. When I ask questions about flooding, Stewart Stevenson promises a review and soon afterwards Richard Lochhead offers us a bill. I wonder whether every time I ask a question it will result in a Government review and then a bill backing me. If so, I will happily submit a series of questions on the housing crisis, eradicating poverty and more powers for the Parliament—all areas in which I would welcome the Scottish Government's support.
Just in case the hysteria that is breaking out behind me goes too far, I give the member a personal assurance that the questions that he asked did not precipitate this debate or the bill.
I thank the minister for that intervention.
More serious is the threat to homes, businesses and agriculture from serious floods, and the huge impact that that can have on our economy. The high cost of insurance, or indeed the withdrawal of insurance in flood-prone areas, is causing a great deal of concern to many people. Much of Scotland's important infrastructure is located in valleys around the coast. A severe coastal flood off the River Forth, with the flooding of Longannet power station in my constituency and the Grangemouth refinery in Cathy Peattie's constituency, could have nationwide economic consequences.
Climate change is likely to exacerbate the problem. A recent study by the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research indicates that we are already seeing the impact of climate change on the weather. Between 1961 and 2004, there was an increase in winter precipitation, with the north of Scotland experiencing an increase of 70 per cent in winter rainfall, the east of Scotland an increase of 37 per cent and the west of Scotland an increase of 61 per cent. Minister, we need to take action now.
I hope that this will not descend into a party-political sniping match. It is perfectly possible for the Opposition to hold the Government to account and to use the correct tone. I welcome Sarah Boyack's speech, which, while robust, was consensual in some respects. My able colleague Roseanna Cunningham has already dealt with Mr Rumbles, whose contribution was as ill-judged and mischievous as ever.
As for Mr Tolson, I shall be gentle with him, because he is a novice in the chamber.
The topography of the Borders, whose many rivers—the Tweed and its tributaries; the Ettrick; the Yarrow; the Gala; the Leader; the Teviot and its tributaries; and the Liddel—powered the mills of the 19th and 20th centuries, can lead to the kind of flash flooding that may not always hit the newspapers. Roseanna Cunningham referred to the small occurrences that can make lives a misery. In the Borders, inland and along the coast, about 4,500 properties are at risk of flooding. Sarah Boyack rightly reminded us—not that we needed it—of the human misery that flooding can bring.
In 2003, the Bannerfield estate in Selkirk was flooded and more than 50 houses were affected. I was called in a week later, because Scottish Borders Housing Association was, to put it mildly, being tardy in its response. The houses were stinking. There were black flies everywhere and beasts crawling about. It was a mess. Elderly people were upset. People with young children were at real risk of illness and disease—this in Scotland in the 21st century.
In a small hamlet 10 miles up the road in the Yarrow valley, an entire house had been swept away because a culvert had become blocked. Water is unforgiving and cruel. It finds its natural course. It left other houses standing, with the house, garden and everything else absolutely untouched, while two doors away everything was wiped out. An elderly couple called me into their house, where the only thing left intact was a row of bright orange geraniums in the conservatory. I said to the couple, "Your conservatory has stayed up. It has a sloping glass wall." They told me, "It doesn't have a sloping glass wall." If someone had pushed it with their finger, the conservatory would have collapsed, leaving the couple with the plants that had somehow managed to survive the flood.
In 2005, I visited a house in Hawick that the woman whose home it was had not lived in for a year. She had been about to move back in but the house was flooded again. None of us can imagine what that must have been like for her. She lost everything, for example family photographs—things that really mattered. Furniture can be replaced, but such reminders of the past cannot. She did not have the heart to cross the doorstep into the stinking mess, with its warped floors and doors. That is another reality of flooding.
I have previously raised the issue of housing associations being unable to access the Bellwin scheme for funding to help in flooding disasters. If housing associations have to insure properties, they have to recover the premiums from rents. There is a real issue about the unintended consequences of wholesale stock transfer.
What is Scottish Borders Council doing? To put it politely, nothing. In 2005, I discovered that Dumfries and Galloway Council—which, as the Deputy Presiding Officer knows, is very honourable—obtained £638,000 of national funds for flood prevention. Scottish Borders Council has obtained nothing. When I challenged Scottish Borders Council in 2006, Councillor Edgar told me that a number of schemes were being considered, and said:
"One of our schemes is already on its way to the executive for preliminary evaluation."
Well, jolly good. In a recent question, John Lamont asked my colleague Mike Russell—he answers questions, and they are very good answers—which local authorities had applied for and been granted financial support for flood prevention schemes. Dumfries and Galloway was there again, but Borders was not. While I appreciate that not all councils have plans in place, some of them are soundly failing in their duty.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's wide embrace of groups. There are issues about Scottish Water and the impact that house building has on water courses. As Sarah Boyack rightly pointed out, there are issues to do with how we deal with our little bit of garden. If we put down tarmac or slabbing, we change the water course and drainage. We can all do soft engineering in our own gardens. I welcome the debate, and I hope that it continues in the tone set by Opposition members to my left.
Flooding, like fire, must be one of the most frightening things that can invade someone's house. Those of us who are fortunate enough never to have experienced severe flooding can only begin to understand how terrifying the ordeal can be through our contact with constituents who have suffered it. Although the constituency of Dumfries has been spared events of the type witnessed in Hull and the south of England during the so-called summer, residents of Annan, Eaglesfield, Langholm and Eskdalemuir have suffered to differing degrees over that period.
As members have said, a variety of factors have contributed, including deforestation, which particularly affects places such as Eskdalemuir; the amount of land on which drainage cannot occur due to house, garden and road building, as Sarah Boyack said; and, of course, climate change, which has produced exceptionally heavy bouts of rain with which drainage systems just cannot cope. Another factor is the piecemeal development of many conurbations, because when new developments are added to existing systems, the connections are not always in the most appropriate places. There is also a need to replace existing infrastructure to increase capacity.
John Scott referred to the problem of combined road drains and sewers being unable to cope with heavy rain, resulting in the ingress of flood waters contaminated by sewage. On top of that, there is the problem that local authorities have no control over agricultural land. As members will know, there is a lot of agricultural land in my constituency. Unfortunately, the lack of field drain maintenance can create serious problems for nearby residents.
After flooding, fear is often followed by frustration. There is a family in Eaglesfield—a family with whom the Minister for Environment is familiar, as he has also been involved in their case—who I know will not object to their case being mentioned, as it has been highlighted in the local press. They purchased their home three or four years ago, having been advised that flooding was a one-in-200-year risk. I believe that they have now been flooded three times in 18 months. Prevention measures were taken by Scottish Water and the council, but because of the different responsibilities it took time to work out whose duty it was to do what. Meanwhile, because the flooding was caused by a bout of heavy rainfall that lasted only 15 minutes, the family is living in constant fear.
The member raises an important case that illustrates an issue that needs to be highlighted, which is the absolute need for much simpler procedures in cases of flooding. As Sarah Boyack said, when four or five local authorities are involved, it can be a nightmare.
I absolutely agree. That is one of the reasons why we are all agreed that a flooding bill needs to be introduced. I am pleased that the Scottish Government is progressing down the same route as the previous Executive in that regard. We all agree that such a bill is necessary, because the current situation causes extreme frustration among people who have been flooded, particularly when no agency is able to compel private landowners to face their responsibilities to prevent flooding. In the case that I highlighted, three fields are allowed to flood into neighbouring properties, which is unacceptable. When I inquired into the matter, I was told that the insurance companies would have to pursue the landowner with regard to the damage. That is little consolation to a family who are manning the pumps at 4 o'clock in the morning to try to prevent the water getting into their home again.
The planning and environment services committee of Dumfries and Galloway Council agreed only last week to introduce a flood prevention scheme for the Whitesands area of Dumfries, which is an area that is notorious for flooding. Usually, the flooding is caused by high tides coming up the river when the river is swollen by heavy rainfall. The agreed approach is to employ a combination of soft and hard engineering techniques, with a number of flood plains being opened upstream and a barrier system being created in the town centre. The hard engineering side has caused some concern among residents because of the potential visual impact on one of the focal points of the town centre, which is one of the town's greatest assets. Many people are attracted more to flood prevention techniques that involve natural flood plains and riparian woodlands that collect water in times of overflow and slowly release it back into the river during drier times.
River channels need to be improved to allow increased water flow. Over a long period of time, I have had arguments with SEPA and the Scottish ministers—past and present—about the removal of gravel from river beds, which can be done only under a licence that is extremely difficult to get. I understand that the removal of gravel from the River Esk at Hawick was permitted only after the floods to which Christine Grahame referred. In Langholm, there are concerns about the build-up of gravel, but it has been difficult to get a licence to remove it.
I do not know whether the soft measures will be enough to address the problems that are caused by the tidal surge on the River Nith. Christine Grahame paid tribute to Dumfries and Galloway Council for its application for funding for Portpatrick, but I have to be a bit critical and point out that it took the council a heck of a long time to produce a scheme for the River Nith that it could present to the Scottish ministers. I understand that much of the funding is now committed and that the chance that the council will get the funding that it requested is substantially reduced.
In welcoming the proposals to modernise flooding legislation that is only a few years younger than me, I say to ministers—in a consensual way—that we need to consider the funding. If local authority budgets are to be constrained, the money will have to be provided centrally. Many of us who will be scrutinising the budget and the spending review in a few weeks' time will be interested to find out what sort of funding is being allocated to address the problems that we have all raised.
One of the problems with speaking late in a debate is that many members have already raised key issues. My speech might, therefore, be shorter than I had planned.
Rather than going through all of the money concerns in Moray, I will simply thank Peter Peacock for raising them and state that I fully endorse all of the points that he made.
I share the concerns that others have raised about financial issues, given that the resources that are needed in Moray are more than the council's annual budget. I appreciate that that situation might change now, but genuine concerns remain. Although we might disagree about the manner in which some members raise those concerns, we should be respectful and acknowledge that we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds, not pennies.
Many members have mentioned the traumatic effect of flooding on families. In the previous session, a class of nine and 10-year-olds from Elgin came to visit the Parliament. When we had asked them all of our questions, we said, as we normally do, "Do you have any questions for us?" All of them asked, "What are you doing about flooding?", and said, "We are worried about flooding. My mother's worried, my grannie's worried and I'm worried." I was left thinking that that was some legacy to have left that generation. The fact that nine and 10-year-olds are worried about flooding has stayed with me since then.
The recent publication by the Government of a detailed national map showing the areas that are most in danger of being deluged by rising water levels demonstrates that around 100,000 homes and businesses in Scotland are affected. As others have said, there is a large number of at-risk communities in the Highlands and Islands, prominent among them being Inverness and Elgin. The cabinet secretary is well aware of the problems in Elgin and Moray and of the devastating floods that hit the area in 1997 and 2002. Other members have mentioned events that took place two or three years ago; I am talking about floods that took place 10 years ago, and we are still waiting for flood alleviation schemes. After people's family homes were destroyed by flood waters or their businesses were ruined, they were subjected to living or working in temporary accommodation for many months.
One of the obstacles to progress seems to be bureaucracy. A headline in last week's Northern Scot and Moray & Nairn Express said it best: "Cut the red tape, flood chiefs plead". Officials on the ground who are trying to implement flood schemes in Moray and throughout Scotland appear to keep coming up against red tape at every stage. That adds more delays to schemes that need to be in place sooner rather than later in order to give residents of areas that have flooded in the past peace of mind that they will be protected. I do not suggest that we take away the democratic right of people to object to flood alleviation schemes, but the fact that it is possible for them to object more than once in relation to three different pieces of legislation clearly demonstrates that we need to streamline the process. The convoluted legal process that local authorities have to follow to gain a flood prevention order takes up huge amounts of council time and resources that could be better spent implementing the schemes much sooner. That probably partly explains why Elgin is still waiting for a flood alleviation scheme 10 years after the floods of 1997.
John Scott, Des McNulty and others mentioned land management techniques. Paragraph 28 of the flooding issues advisory committee's report mentions promoting rural land-use solutions. We are all aware that trees are one of the best upstream solutions, because woodlands absorb water above and below the ground and slow the passage of that water. I understand that the previous Moray Council applied for money for forestry as part of a flood alleviation scheme but that money is not granted for such measures under flood alleviation funding. Perhaps the new Scottish Government's more joined-up approach will enable the minister to examine that situation and consider providing money for forestry from flood alleviation funding rather than keeping the budget in a separate silo.
Inverness, where I live, had serious floods some years ago. I remember the television news showing a honeymooning couple leaving the Thistle hotel in a boat. The main cause of that flooding was the fact that councils were not cleaning out culverts. We can pass all the acts of Parliament that we wish, but our efforts will come to nothing if we do not ensure that all stakeholders play their part and ensure that drainage work is done.
I welcome the motion and the fact that a flooding bill will be dealt with in this parliamentary session. I ask the cabinet secretary and others to work closely with local authorities and help them to move more quickly to put schemes in place.
SEPA's flooding website has the slogan:
"Flooding: You can't prevent it. You can prepare for it."
I hope that the new flooding legislation will mean that we can prepare for it much more quickly than we have done in the past.
I welcome the Government's commitment to introduce a flooding bill, but I have many concerns, some of which I will bring to the Parliament's attention. The folly of decades of river straitjacketing, building on flood plains and deforestation of our uplands is coming home to roost. It will not be easy or cheap to solve those problems, but the Government can do creative things, especially if its policies are joined up.
We have heard several references, particularly from Mary Scanlon and John Scott, to the advantages of soft engineering in controlling flooding. I was glad to hear about that from members with rural constituencies. There is an opportunity to diversify farming subsidies for agri-environment schemes in Scotland's uplands to reduce flow, but the recent decision on such schemes seemed to miss that opportunity. I urge ministers to rethink their decision during the forthcoming budget process.
It should be possible under the existing agri-environment scheme to say that, if a forestry scheme will also help to prevent flooding, it has added value and therefore a greater chance of getting a subsidy from the Government. Without changing the rules, it should be possible for the Government to say, "This scheme has added value, so we're more likely to give you the money."
If it gives the member any comfort, we are considering ways in which each area of Scotland can influence the regional priorities of the rural development programme when those are set. That will take into account the need for flooding support and other aspects, to try to promote our cross-cutting agenda.
I am glad to hear that. As Peter Peacock said, forestry has environmental, biodiversity and social benefits in any case. It is common sense to get started now.
In February, WWF Scotland published a report on the River Devon natural flood management demonstration site. I am sure that the cabinet secretary and the minister understand that forestry works and is far cheaper than putting concrete defences in villages and towns further down the river.
I certainly yield to no one in my enthusiasm for forestry these days, but let us be absolutely realistic. A recent report states:
"Although it is very unlikely that floodplain woodland on its own would be able to provide complete protection for downstream towns or cities, it could make a valuable contribution".
Forestry has to be regarded as part of the mix and not as a solution in itself.
Clearly, Jim Tolson's criticism of the RSPB came from reading that report, but I do not think that even WWF Scotland would claim that forestry is the answer on its own. Because of the seriousness of climate change, which has to come into the debate at some point, it is sensible to consider all the other suggestions that have been made and take a sensible approach to flood defences. Climate change is not predicted to get any better and it will probably get worse.
Elaine Murray made a detailed and sensible speech on the problems that are faced in Dumfries and Galloway. What did the Parliament hope to achieve through the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003? Like Des McNulty, I was involved in considering that legislation and, with others, I was successful in making certain that it included a commitment to integrated flood management. I am slightly concerned that, rather than making statements, the cabinet secretary asked questions such as whether we need a national approach. I think that we do need such an approach. He said that he is concerned about creating a surplus layer of bureaucracy, but whatever we call the integrated flood management organisations that we set up throughout Scotland—WWF is calling them flood liaison advisory groups, or FLAGs—we will have an extra layer of bureaucracy of some kind. I hope that the bureaucracy will be light and that the integrated organisations will do everything they can to produce the best possible solution, both upstream with soft engineering and downstream with hard engineering where it is needed.
It will come as no surprise that I have a slight fear. In passing the 2003 act, we were the first in Europe to pass such legislation. Quite rightly, we were proud of ourselves. I certainly felt content when the bill was passed. I thought, "Good for Scotland—that is wonderful." However, progress has been slow since then. There is no point in being first in 2003 if, by 2015, when the legislation should be fully in operation, we are last.
In November last year, we had an emergency question-and-answer session after major floods devastated many communities between Orkney and Dingwall. The then Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development listened to our arguments and agreed that, if funding streams and processes needed to be changed, they would be changed. Today, we have established a cross-party consensus that that will be the aim of the flooding bill. I am glad that we have that consensus.
At the margins, small individual cases throw up problems and anomalies, and I will highlight a couple of those. Other members mentioned the maintenance of culverts. A number of bodies are responsible for that, including the roads authority, Scottish Water and local authorities. It is often the failure to clean out rivers further upstream that creates situations such as one that I saw on "Gardeners' World", in which two 40ft tree trunks were carried by a stream in Shropshire and ended up in a couple's garden. They were trying to rebuild something that had taken them 40 years to create. Those tree trunks were the responsibility of landowners further upstream. Householders are responsible for their properties, but landowners, including the owners of croft land, are also responsible for their property, for flooding and for insurance. They have to be brought into the picture.
In another example, communications to the north of Scotland were cut at Portgower near Helmsdale. A stream that comes down from the crofting communities clogged up the culverts. The bridge that carried the road survived but the train track bed was washed away to the extent of 50yd and it took months to fix. That simple case flooded the house of crofter Miss Margot MacGregor. We wait to see how the required co-ordination between the different bodies that are responsible will happen. I still have to have a meeting with the landowner to discuss how the stream can be kept clear, although that is apparently contradictory to the idea of slowing down water, which is the major issue in catchment areas.
We have to find ways in which water can escape quickly in the case of flash floods, but we also have to try to prevent problems further upstream. [Interruption.] There is water in the system.
There are three areas—[Interruption.]
Order. Brambles, even if they are on silent, will interfere with the sound system.
Brambles are the Scottish version. Thank you, Presiding Officer.
There are three areas to consider. We need to extend the range of grants; we have to deal with emergencies; and the Bellwin scheme has to be reformed. In the long term, the flood prevention scheme is now better funded, but it needs to be better targeted. In the medium term, the many small issues that are created by major floods take so long to fix.
In the October floods, an iron footbridge in Thurso was washed away. Highland Council took until May this year to make a claim to the Scottish Government for that and the whole process of replacing that important asset in the town will take far more than a year. Older people and others use that footbridge for winter walks—it is part of the health agenda, among other things. The process is far too long. When the relevant committee has discussions as part of the consultation ahead of the flooding bill, we must find out how to shorten the process.
Mary Scanlon highlighted the point that councils—especially smaller councils—do not have the resources to dedicate planners' time and so on to working out what the process is. I am sure that if Alasdair Allan gets to speak—I hope that he does—he will tell members about such problems in the Western Isles. A school there was devastated, and a site on which to rebuild that school has still not been sorted out after nearly two years. Dealing with such matters after coastal erosion and flooding takes far too long. If we can find a means to speed the process, that will be one of the measures for which people will most thank us.
There is much consensus about achieving such changes, but we must be wary of putting all our eggs in one basket. We must slow waters in catchment areas upstream, but we must also find better ways to channel water in built-up areas.
If Scottish Water is to be involved, it must say how often it has ignored small incidents that have happened repeatedly and whether its budget is geared up to maintaining the infrastructure. For example, houses on Clyde Street in Invergordon have been flooded about five times and it has taken two years with us on the case to get Scottish Water to agree to alter the drainage system. Through pressure, we succeeded at last, but there is a question about Scottish Water's budget. All the integration between landowners, councils, utilities and the Government must be speeded up. The consensus is that we must find a way to do that.
As other members have said, what ministers propose is a continuation of the important work that the previous Administration started. I welcome the proposals and the chance to have the debate. We need only remember what has happened across the world and in England in recent months to know the anguish that flooding can cause families. As Christine Grahame said, Sarah Boyack's speech was consensual and constructive. I hope that my speech will be like that. The debate is important.
I welcome the fact that the flooding summit was held in Perth. I have heard positive feedback from some officials who attended it. The summit highlighted several issues, including the important question of co-ordination, which the cabinet secretary spoke about. I wrote to John Swinney about that early in the summer, because it is important to have clarity about the situation, which is unclear.
If I may be parochial, I will say that as a former spokesperson for roads and transportation on Fife Council, my remit included coastal protection, which Sarah Boyack mentioned. That is an important element that needs to be taken on board in any strategy that is agreed. Fife's coastline is more than 100 miles long. Fife is almost surrounded by water, and several rivers run through it, so many areas are at particular risk of flooding.
In common with many areas of Scotland, Fife has coastal erosion issues. When I was the spokesperson on Fife Council, I witnessed how homes and factories in East Wemyss were flooded because of coastal erosion—I am sure that Marilyn Livingstone will forgive me for mentioning part of her constituency, which I do in a historical context. Remedial work there cost the taxpayer £6.5 million. When a family were sitting in their home in the village of East Wemyss late one evening, one whole side of their house was ripped out, along with a 5ft-thick sea wall, by the force of the sea. The risk is real. In every coastal area of Fife, coastal erosion issues are enormous.
As other members have said, a global context exists, but so does a European Union context. Sarah Boyack talked about coastal erosion. A critical action point that I ask the minister to address in his continuing work is arranging ways of securing feedback from our local authorities that engage at a European level with organisations such as the North Sea Commission when coastal zone management plans are worked on. Councillors engage with our partner countries all round the North Sea and have been involved in coastal zone management plans. The Scottish Executive needs to secure their feedback, as do relevant parliamentary committees. I hope that Sarah Boyack will take that on board when the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee undertakes its flooding inquiry. The North Sea Commission provides a possible pathway to EU funding. Will the minister take on board the possibility of a partnership approach to funding from the EU? He and his officials need to examine how flooding and coastal erosion are being addressed in other countries. Other parts of the North Sea Commission's area offer examples of best practice.
The minister needs to answer questions about funding in his wind-up speech. Labour committed to making available £75 million to support flood prevention and coastal protection programmes over the two years to March 2008 and to increasing the rate of grant support to 80 per cent. My question is simple: will the minister match that?
Coastal erosion management plans, such as that produced in Fife in 1999—a copy of which I just happen to have with me—are not universal to every local authority, although Fife Council determined that producing the plan was a key action point for it. Will the Executive require and fund other local authorities to prepare action plans? The point is important. As Mike Rumbles said, the risk of flooding is great. We need such plans to tell us where urgent work needs to be done.
National planning policy guideline 13, on coastal planning, clearly requires a planning authority to refuse planning permission in an area in which a flooding risk or coastal erosion has been identified. Why, then, is it possible that an inquiry reporter may give planning permission at St David's harbour in Dalgety Bay, which I represent? The minister needs to draw in such cases and tell the reporter that, under the precautionary principle, we do not accept such development. I have written to ask John Swinney for a meeting about that situation. We need to get a grip on that planning point. The national planning policy guideline is clear and we need to require local authorities to say no. I attended and gave evidence to that inquiry, at which planning officials did not even talk about coastal protection, so I implore the minister to ensure that that issue is addressed.
There is a tidal island on the west coast of North Uist called Baile Sear. At first sight, that name is curious, as it means "eastern village". It is difficult to understand how one of the most westerly communities in Scotland could ever have got such a name, until we realise that there was once, next door to it, a Baile Siar—the western village. That was until one night 300 years ago, when Baile Siar simply disappeared permanently beneath the waves.
I tell that story only to give some idea of the extent to which the Uists are at the mercy of the weather and the tides. There are probably few communities in Europe, outside the Netherlands, where flood prevention is of such dramatic and obvious concern. The islands of South Uist and Benbecula rely heavily on the natural flood defences that have built up on their machairs over the centuries, because many communities in the islands are at or, in some cases, even below sea level. That was illustrated in January 2005, when a storm of unparalleled intensity hit the Western Isles. People were lifted off their feet and caravans, sheds and even the front half of a hotel disappeared without trace overnight. For days, people were without electricity and, in many cases, found themselves living on islands within islands. As Rob Gibson mentioned, the school in Balivanich was also rendered unusable.
A far more tragic event occurred on the Uist causeway network: three generations of one family lost their lives and a whole community was left devastated. All members will have had the experience of leaving a meeting in their constituency feeling rather humbled. The Minister for Environment and I attended one such meeting recently in Uist. At the meeting, members of the local community, including bereaved relatives, made a polite but straightforward plea for a number of basic coastal protection measures to be taken to prevent disasters of the same kind occurring in future. Those measures were repairs to the causeway network, a hydrographic survey of the coasts, and attention to rebuilding and seeding the damaged machairs. Many members have spoken of soft solutions to flooding problems. The traditional method of coastal protection that the machairs provide is an instructive example of such a solution.
As the Minister for Environment will testify, the lasting impression of the meeting was of the quiet, patient hope of that community. However, as scripture has it, a hope often deferred maketh the heart sick. Two years ago, the Executive promised those measures as a matter of "urgency". It would be dishonest of me to say that anybody in the Uists, of any political persuasion, feels that evidence of such urgency has yet been easy to see. Nevertheless, I am confident that the situation can be changed, not least in the context of the proposed flooding bill and in the evident interest that the Minister for Environment has taken in the subject.
It is with that hope and confidence that I commend to the Government and to Parliament as a whole this very real, painful and urgent concern of my constituents.
Many people in the south of Scotland will be familiar with this subject. Christine Grahame mentioned the flood in Yarrow, where I live. I will never forget the frantic telephone call I received from my two sons, who were on the school bus when 5ft of water was lifting the bus off the ground. Elaine Murray mentioned the infamous Whitesands area of Dumfries, which is home to my father. I also mention Eskdalemuir, where more than 100 shepherds were washed away in the 1800s. Flooding is nothing new, and I am sure that it will be around for some time to come.
While we were in power and Ross Finnie was the minister, the Liberal Democrats made real commitments to flood defence. As Mike Rumbles mentioned, we increased the budget for flood defence schemes to £89 million, introduced the world's first digital mapping of entire land areas and doubled grant aid to local authorities for flood defence schemes. In addition, the Liberal Democrats introduced real and practical planning and flooding policy to prevent further development that would have a significant probability of being affected by flooding. We led the way, and I am glad that Alasdair Allan recognised that.
The consultation paper on the proposed flood prevention bill will be issued in January but, given the urgency of the issue, certain policy and funding issues should be addressed ahead of the legislation being introduced. A single authority should be considered, to ensure consistent implementation of national flooding policies at regional level and better co-ordination. Co-ordination with existing plans and policies—for example the Scottish rural development programme, the forestry strategy, the climate change adaptation programme and the biodiversity strategy—is needed to ensure more widespread delivery of flood prevention benefits where appropriate.
New legislation should aim to integrate with the aims of the proposed EU flood risk directive, which will contain three main requirements for a flood risk assessment based on past flooding events by 2011, the production of flood risk maps by 2013 and the preparation of flood management plans by 2015. Flood management plans must set objectives for tackling flooding to protect natural and cultural heritage and to reduce economic impacts. They must also contain measures for flood prevention, protection, preparedness, early warning systems and sustainable flood management.
I have listened with care to what the member has said. He has listed a number of policy issues that he says will need to be addressed in advance of the introduction of legislation. He claims that those issues have not been addressed, but each of them was mentioned in the cabinet secretary's opening speech. Will the member therefore withdraw that assertion, as he is clearly wrong about that?
I will just carry on, thank you.
Many towns in Dumfries and Galloway suffered severe flooding in 2005 and I recall two serious landslides. I am glad to say that Galashiels and Selkirk—two areas that have been badly affected by flooding in the past, as Christine Grahame mentioned—have been given priority status by the local authority, and their flood defence schemes could be in place in two to five years' time.
Hawick, on the other hand, which has experienced several devastating floods recently, may not have its flood defence scheme implemented for eight years. The cost of Hawick's flood defence scheme has been estimated to be £38 million—more than half the £70 million budget for the whole of the Borders region.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not just now, thank you.
The delay in fully implementing the scheme is due to the cost and the fact that the defences must be built to withstand a one-in-200-year flood, which would result in a wall 2m high being built through the middle of Hawick—almost like a new Berlin wall. The idea is not popular and would be very expensive. Building a wall to withstand a one-in-75-year flood would lessen the cost, reduce the height of the wall and quicken its delivery to the town.
I would like greater emphasis to be placed on the provision of easier access to more funding, so that what needs to be done can be achieved in good time. The impact of flooding on families and businesses cannot be underestimated. I ask the Scottish Government to make funds more easily accessible for local flood plans in the areas that are worst affected, such as Hawick and Dumfries.
I could not consider flooding without talking about climate change. As Mike Rumbles said, it is predicted that floods that are currently considered extreme will, in future, become common. Without action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly by 2080, what is now a one-in-50-year flood could become a one-in-20-year flood. We need clarification from the Government about what urgent action it will take to reduce the amount of harmful emissions. Scotland needs investment in its public transport services as well as in renewables initiatives.
The SNP is mothballing the Edinburgh airport rail link and ignoring expert advice on the growth in traffic levels while, at the same time, pledging to build bigger roads. The SNP also seems to be blocking wind farm applications.
Where?
I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.
Frankly, it is not good enough. I am sure that many people in Scotland will be saddened by the Government's lack of proper and serious commitment to the environment. It is obtuse to use mitigation as a way of dealing with the effects of climate change. Furthermore, the Government has not yet committed to retaining the flooding issues advisory committee—the expert panel that was set up by the previous Executive. Can the minister confirm that he and his colleagues are committed to that group?
I sincerely hope that the Scottish Government will take the problem of flooding as seriously as the Liberal Democrats did when we were in government. Actions speak louder than words. With that in mind, I call on members to support wholeheartedly the amendment in the name of my colleague, Mike Rumbles.
I reiterate the Scottish Conservatives' appreciation of the minister's decision to give us early sight of the report from the flooding issues advisory committee. It is an important piece of work, and the recommendations of FIAC's three sub-committees will, no doubt, substantially inform the development of a sustainable and integrated approach to flood risk management, which is the stated aim of the Scottish Government and has our full support. We welcome the SNP's proposal for a flood prevention bill, and we look forward to its introduction to Parliament next year. We also look forward to the flooding inquiry that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee is undertaking in this parliamentary session.
This interesting and important debate has covered issues that are extremely concerning to the many people in Scotland who are increasingly at risk of having their lives disrupted by flooding as climate change affects our rivers and seas. I note Mike Rumbles's remarks about funding and the similar concerns that have been raised by other members. Adequate funding will be crucial if satisfactory flood management is to be achieved and John Scott pointed out that the First Minister recently gave him a commitment on that; I hope that the First Minister will hold true to it.
Even if we have not had direct experience of flooding, our television screens have in recent years increasingly brought home to us the devastation caused by flooding. I have often thought how awful the aftermath must be of having one's home and possessions destroyed by flood water. Apart from the sheer unpleasantness and hard work of clearing up after a flood and trying to restore some sort of normal living, I am told that the emotional impact is akin to that of bereavement. That does not surprise me. Nor does the fear of flooding go away. Christine Grahame's and Peter Peacock's accounts of flooding in their constituencies were particularly moving.
The threat of flooding is real to almost 100,000 homes and 7,000 businesses in Scotland. There is an urgent need to put in place policies to reduce the risk of flooding and to support people who are affected by the aftermath of a flood.
If we are to take a more sustainable approach to flood risk management in Scotland, we must address several big issues, many of which have been touched on today. We know that, as well as the long-term risk of rising sea levels as a result of climate change, we can also expect more frequent storms to bring water surges that will threaten our coastal defences and cause surface flooding with which our urban drainage systems will struggle to cope—as we saw in several parts of the UK this summer. We need to look anew at long-term planning with more emphasis on sustainable flood management. The proposed flood prevention bill, together with the EU floods directive, will provide the opportunity to get it right.
The concept of sustainable flood management is not new to us. The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 introduced a new duty on the Scottish ministers, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and other responsible authorities to promote it. However, there is concern that we are seeing very little change on the ground four years later. Most councils still react to flooding by promoting local hard flood defence schemes, rather than by managing flooding on a catchment scale. Urgent reform of flood legislation is needed to change the current approach.
Does the member agree that, if the height of the walls to contain flooding that are being planned for various towns and cities in Scotland was predicated on the significant contribution that could be made to reducing flooding by tree planting in catchment areas, the cost of those walls could be significantly reduced?
I am not an expert on that, so I am not prepared to comment on it, although it sounds like sense to me.
Urgent reform of flood legislation is needed so that we can move towards managing flood risk by working with the natural environment rather than against it. It seems to make sense to revert to natural flood management where possible, using systems such as flood plains and wetlands to absorb river water and slow its flow to the coast, and to have undeveloped coastal land that can cope with encroaching sea water. I understand that these so-called soft engineering techniques are not only effective, but generally less costly than hard engineering solutions—Mr Harper mentioned some—although the two are not mutually exclusive.
Such an approach to flood management will have an impact on riparian and coastal land owners who currently have the main responsibility for flooding. They are already under enormous regulatory pressure and they would need to be given incentives to adopt the natural flood management schemes being recommended.
Full implementation of sustainable flood management will require a lot of work and preparation as well as advice from experts outwith Government. There needs to be a wholesale review of where responsibility for flooding lies. Better co-ordination of flood risk management is also needed, and there are indeed calls for a national overseeing authority, such as SEPA, to deal with it. However, like the cabinet secretary, we do not wish that to result in added bureaucracy; we need less of that, not more, as Mary Scanlon said.
Land use planning for flood plains needs to be examined, and we need to investigate best practice elsewhere. It is important to understand the complex science of flood prevention.
I see that I am running out of time. I would have covered other areas such as the review of existing legislation to bring it into line with requirements for sustainable flood management, review of funding streams, and advice on insurance cover. The work of the flooding issues advisory committee has shown the complexity of the issue and it is important that the sort of dialogue that FIAC has had with stakeholders should continue as the flood prevention bill is developed, including consultation with victims of flooding. It is important to get this urgently needed legislation right.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate and to reiterate the Labour Party's support for the introduction of a bill on flooding. For Keith Brown's benefit, page 75 of the Labour Party manifesto shows our commitment to appropriate legislation.
Members' speeches have shown how, when things go wrong, floods have a devastating effect on communities and individuals in rural and urban Scotland alike. There has been consensus in the chamber about the need for co-ordination and better joined-up working, for more accurate information, and for imaginative solutions. I welcome the cross-Scotland buy-in to the strategic, catchment-based approach that the cabinet secretary outlined this morning. He rightly says that local authorities have a unique insight into the needs of their local areas, but they cannot be allowed to work in isolation.
There will rightly be a debate about the need for a national flood agency and, as others said, the system needs to be less complex rather than more. The questions for the minister, therefore, are what it is that SEPA, the national environment protection agency, cannot now do that it would need to be able to do to fulfil such a co-ordinating role, and what additional benefits a new national agency would bring.
Another key partner in the debate is Scottish Water as it invests in infrastructure and provides robust advice to planning authorities. Many constituents have expressed to me their concerns that some developments, particularly housing developments, simply add to the flooding pressures in local areas further down the network. That is not always the case, but it has certainly become an issue and I sign up to the consensus on resolving that speedily.
In 1999, my constituents in Larkhall were flooded as a result of a lack of capacity in the water and sewerage network. The minister knows the case well from his previous life in the Parliament. It took years and further flooding before Scottish Water found, developed and put in place an appropriate solution. It was devastating for those families in the area and they are still living with the consequences through increased insurance premiums, as well as little things like their gardens being infected by material that has introduced new species which cannot be eradicated.
Local authority staff have a wide variety of expertise, as Sarah Boyack said, and I welcome the minister's comments on how best to share that expertise across local authorities and agencies at an earlier stage so that models can be developed and taken forward much more quickly. Some of our smaller local authorities might not have the necessary expertise, but the larger ones might and we need to find out how to share that.
The need for accurate information was highlighted particularly by Roseanna Cunningham's thoughtful contribution about how the changes of the past few years have resulted in Perth's flood defences being less robust than we would want them to be.
Flooding is, of course, a natural phenomenon that cannot, in itself, be attributed to climate change. However, much of this summer's flooding in the UK was caused by the jet stream being where we did not expect it to be. Climate change is exaggerating the impact of natural occurrences and, when the low pressure systems sat over many parts of the UK in June and July this year, it was chance more than anything else that meant that Scotland was not at the receiving end of a deluge.
Climate change will make such events more common. The past 40 years have seen remarkable increases in winter precipitation, from 37 per cent in east Scotland, to 61 per cent in west Scotland and 70 per cent in north Scotland. Increased trends in heavy rainfall and rainfall intensity have also been recorded. Over the summer, the Met Office issued generalised warnings, but more needs to be done so that we can accurately predict what is happening and what is going to happen in specific localities. If we were able to do that, we would be able to deal more effectively with flooding. We need earlier and more accurate predictions of intense precipitation on a highly localised scale, so we will need more investment in the Met Office and in the development of higher resolution models. What discussions has the minister had with the Met Office on the matter? What resources can be made available? How does he think we can integrate flooding and weather modelling better, so that we can predict events better, instead of spending billions on cleaning up the aftermath?
This is a critical issue. We know from climate change work that there will be different impacts on different parts of Scotland and that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. We need accurate information to be able to take forward the imaginative solutions that many members seek. Some of those relate to land management systems. There have been many calls for the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 to be revised, because the model of payment under the act is not as effective as it could be, and for the rural development model to be used to provide further incentives to farmers and land managers to allow the development of wetlands. However, as John Scott pointed out, that will be complex and will need to be done in partnership. My colleague Elaine Murray raised the issue of afforestation. It would be helpful for us to know how the minister believes that progress can be made in that area and what level of funding can be anticipated for it.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to a regional approach to implementing the rural development plan, but that will be meaningless if it is not matched with hard cash. Sarah Boyack, Helen Eadie and Alasdair Allan, in a very thoughtful speech, raised the issue of coastal inundation and its effects. In that area we require far more imaginative solutions than we have used in the past. Sarah Boyack was right to point out that there may be occasions when there is nothing that we can do and we must move to a model of retreat.
It has been an interesting and, on the whole, consensual debate. Members have brought a range of issues to the table. My Labour colleagues and I look forward to working with the Scottish ministers to make progress in this area. The motion is consensual, and the cabinet secretary made a consensual speech. However, a one-line commitment by the First Minister to additional funding cannot answer the hard questions of how much money will be available and to whom it will be paid. Labour members will give credit where credit is due, but we will not shirk our responsibility of holding the Government to account and asking tough questions on finance, when required. We look forward to more excellent debates such as this and welcome the chance to work with the Scottish ministers on the issue.
Croaking a little, I welcome the new team on the Labour benches. It will be most enjoyable—as it always has been—to work with Karen Gillon. I congratulate Sarah Boyack on her promotion. One of my lifelong ambitions has been to spend more time with Des McNulty; it will now be fulfilled.
I praise those who have taken part in the debate for their consensual approach. Karen Gillon is right to say that it is the role of every Opposition party to press hard on issues of resources and policy. I confirm that additional resources will be required. However, given that the spending review is currently under way, it is impossible at this stage for me to say anything in detail about those additional resources. There are a number of other reasons why that is impossible.
The one contribution to the debate that was completely unhelpful was that of the Liberal Democrats. There are six strong reasons why the amendment should be rejected, and I will give them all. First, since 1999 there has been a degree of consensus in the chamber on environmental issues, and we should try to maintain that. Of course we should ask tough questions, but Scotland's environment is more important than individual political careers. Mr Rumbles finds that amusing, which says a great deal about his approach.
The second reason relates to the policy issues that the amendment raises and that Mr Hume addressed in his speech. Every one of those issues was addressed by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment in his contribution.
Will the minister give way?
No, I will not.
Thirdly, Mr Rumbles's amendment fails to recognise the new thinking that will be required to fund flood prevention and flood risk in Scotland. As Mr McNulty indicated, a number of funding streams must come together. The briefing from WWF makes the same point, so there is external verification of the need for new thinking.
Fourthly, the amendment ignores completely the clear commitment that the First Minister made last week. That is ungracious, at the very least.
Fifthly, the amendment takes no account of the work that the present ministerial team will do and is doing to ensure that a key part of its policy portfolio is adequately delivered for Scotland.
Sixthly, the amendment is incompetent. It expresses regret
"that no commitments have been made",
but Mr Rumbles cannot know that that is the case, as the spending review process is not yet complete. For six strong reasons it is impossible for members to support the amendment. I am sure that I could think of another six reasons, were I to be given an additional five minutes.
Will the minister give way?
No, I will not. We have heard quite enough of Mr Rumbles's nonsensical arguments.
I turn to the substantive contributions to the debate that were made by everyone but the Liberal Democrat team.
Will the minister give way?
No, I want to make some progress.
Sarah Boyack made an important point about flooding guidance and planning. Over the past five years, planning authorities have approved only 12 applications contrary to SEPA's advice. On a number of those occasions, the applications were called in, and one of them was refused. However, there is a case for our continuing to examine the issue, and we will do so.
Sarah Boyack raised a number of other important issues, including that of coastal inundation. Dr Alasdair Allan spoke about the moving meeting that he and I had with the victims of the tragedy in Uist. Next month I will return to Uist to continue discussions on the matter, but the chamber should have no doubt that promises that were made previously must be honoured, especially in fragile rural communities. [Interruption.] I put it on record that I am immensely surprised that Mr Rumbles appeared to make some sort of interjection at that point. I hope that he will honour the commitment that was made by the Government that he supported.
Roseanna Cunningham mentioned the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's inquiry into flooding and flood management, which the Government welcomes. We will work closely with the committee. She was right to say that this is a fast-changing situation. Our understanding of the problem changes almost month to month. The work that SEPA is doing on it through its flood control centre at the Heriot-Watt business park is fascinating and needs to be seen. If any member who is concerned about flooding wishes to visit the centre, I would be happy to arrange that.
Keith Brown mentioned the Milnathort scheme. Both he and Elizabeth Smith raised the issue of local satisfaction. It is clear from the independent report that Perth and Kinross Council commissioned that advantage was not taken of local knowledge of the situation in Milnathort—it should have been.
Peter Peacock and Robin Harper raised the issue of habitats. A number of members spoke of the need for urgency—not just in planning for flood prevention and speeding up construction of flood defences, but in dealing with people who have been badly affected by flooding. Those who were present at the flooding summit will know that one of the worst consequences of a flood is the growing sense of alienation of people who have been through that traumatic experience—the feeling that no one really cares. It is important for the chamber to show when debating flooding over the next year that members from all parties recognise the real needs of flooding victims.
We must also recognise the need to join up the work that we do. A number of members, including Elaine Murray, said that at local level we often fail to join up activity. She and I saw the results of that failure in the community of Eaglesfield, and we are both active on the issue. It is extremely important that, at the level where individuals are suffering, those acting on the ground should recognise what has happened and work with one another, rather than handing the problem on to other people.
Robin Harper and many other members raised the issue of sustainable flood management, which is crucial and must be at the centre of what we are trying to achieve. The Forestry Commission is looking at how it can work with SEPA and others to identify for the first time a catchment in which large-scale trials can be carried out to evaluate the contribution that woodlands can make to sustainable flood management. We believe that they can make a difference, but their contribution is only one part of a complex set of measures.
I point out to Mr Hume that FIAC was a two-year, short-term initiative by the previous Government that was always intended to end now—it has not been cut off suddenly. The success of the flooding summit and FIAC's work demonstrated clearly the value of involving stakeholders at an early stage in developing new policy. We must define stakeholders very widely. They include all members who represent people who have suffered flooding or who work in communities that have been affected by it.
Of course, there is a wider issue in which we are all stakeholders. We live in a country that will suffer more flooding. I have already invited people to visit SEPA; if they look at the river charts, they will see that almost without exception the mean and high water levels of rivers in Scotland have been rising exponentially over the past 40 years. There is no doubt that the problem of flooding will get worse, which is why we must all recognise that the current legislation is not fit for purpose and why we must find the best legislation with which to move forward.
That said, one important caveat must be borne in mind. As Roseanna Cunningham said, the situation is flexible and fast-changing, and it is quite clear from the flooding summit and this debate that it will continue to change very speedily. As a result, the considerable challenge facing the committees and, indeed, the whole chamber is to devise legislation that is neither rigid nor prescriptive but is flexible enough to allow us to take different steps to protect the people of Scotland. We need a legislative approach that does not seek to lay things down in very straight lines but, instead, recognises that we do not know—and will not know next year or even two years from now—everything that we need to know about what will happen in Scotland.
I make no apology for pursuing this subject. For centuries, people have known that, if we strip hills of their trees, more water will flood into rivers and that, if we plant trees, less water will go into rivers. Surely we do not need another pilot project—we just need to get on with it.
Mr Harper is, as ever, both right and wrong. He is absolutely right to point out the effects of planting trees. However, the fact is that we have been replanting very vigorously over the past two or three generations; the level of afforestation in Scotland has risen considerably and will, I hope, continue to rise. The equation is not as simple as Mr Harper makes out.
Moreover, we cannot seek afforestation solutions in every possible situation; after all, we cannot plant forests in the middle of cities. We and the experts in this area need to know exactly how this kind of flood plain management will work. I would have thought that Mr Harper would have welcomed my desire for more trees to be planted to prove that such an approach can work. That is definitely what we are going to do.
We are going to work with every possible agency, all members and the committees of the Parliament to ensure that we honour our basic commitment to protect the people, the land and everything in Scotland, including its biodiversity, from the degradations of flooding. We will do our very best in that respect, but perhaps the last word should go to Mary Scanlon, who highlighted SEPA's line on this matter. Although we cannot actually stop flooding in every place, we can certainly take every possible action to diminish its effects and ensure that the people of Scotland do not suffer in future as they might otherwise have done.
As we have finished the debate early, I suspend the meeting until 11:40.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—