Plenary, 22 Jan 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, January 22, 2009

Official Report 711KB pdf

---

Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3163, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill.

The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill will comprehensively modernise flood risk management in Scotland for the first time in over four decades. I thank the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for its diligent scrutiny of the bill, which is reflected in the detailed stage 1 report that we are discussing today, and for its support for the general principles of the bill.

The first recommendation in the committee's report rightly highlights the advantages of pre-legislative scrutiny. The committee's inquiry on flooding and flood management played an important part in the development of the bill. Although the scope of the inquiry was wider than the remit of the bill, I hope that a number of its recommendations are reflected in the bill. The thoroughness with which the committee has examined the bill and reflected on the views of a wide range of stakeholders will be extremely helpful as we move towards stage 2.

Many of the committee's recommendations are in line with the Government's thinking on areas where the bill needs to be strengthened. I am confident that our proposed stage 2 amendments will go a long way to meeting the majority of the committee's remaining concerns.

Research on climate change tells us that flooding could become more frequent and more severe. We must act now to minimise the impact of future flooding on Scotland's people, services, environment and economy.

Before Christmas, we saw yet again the problems that heavy rainfall can cause in many parts of Scotland. Four people were rescued from vehicles in flood water in Greenock and, just over a week ago, Jedburgh was on high alert and householders were putting sandbags in place when the Jed Water rose to peak levels. Thankfully, no one was seriously injured as a result of those events, but they remind us of the risks that flooding can pose to both people and property. Even today, the weather is fitting for the theme of the debate, as a flood warning has been in force in the Dumfries area and several flood watches have been issued in other areas of Scotland.

Historical records show an upward trend in average rainfall for each year. Scotland became 20 per cent wetter between 1961 and 2004, and the figures show an increase of almost 70 per cent in winter rainfall in northern Scotland.

We recognise that flooding cannot be eliminated, but experience tells us that well co-ordinated actions can significantly reduce the likelihood of flooding and its harmful impacts. We have introduced the bill to make a series of important changes to how flood risk will be managed in Scotland. Our aim is to ensure that the people of Scotland benefit from a modern, sustainable approach to flood risk management.

The bill will deliver flood management at a catchment scale, which will allow local authorities and others to take the best possible approach to managing flooding in their area. Options will range from traditional defences to improved flood warning and natural flood management measures where appropriate.

The preparation of new national flood risk assessments and flood maps will improve our understanding of the likelihood and consequences of flooding from rivers, the sea, extreme rainfall events and, of course, groundwater. The new assessments will be complemented by flood risk management plans, which will ensure that the most sustainable and cost-effective measures to manage flooding are planned for and delivered.

It would be difficult for me to describe in detail all the provisions in the bill, but I will mention some highlights. For the first time in Scotland, the bill will place a duty on specific public bodies—including local authorities, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water—to act with a view to reducing overall flood risk.

The bill will transpose the European directive on the assessment and management of flood risks in a way that suits Scotland's flood risk management needs. SEPA will be responsible for the directive and for preparing national assessment maps and plans to manage flooding. That work will be undertaken in close collaboration with local authorities, Scottish Water and other stakeholders. Local authorities will also be responsible for preparing local flood risk management plans to accompany the national plans.

To ensure that schemes that are identified in plans are implemented as promptly as possible, the bill repeals the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961. In its place, the bill creates a new streamlined process for approving flood protection schemes.

Dam failures are extremely infrequent, but they can have major consequences, including loss of life. The bill will transfer enforcement responsibilities under the Reservoirs Act 1975 from local authorities to SEPA. That will ensure that reservoir operators and the public benefit from a new and more consistent approach to reservoir safety enforcement. Reservoir safety will also be strengthened by the introduction of a compulsory post-incident reporting system.

As I am sure we all agree, flood warning is crucial to keeping the public informed of flooding events. The bill updates SEPA's responsibilities for flood warning and places a duty on SEPA to make flood warning information available to all Scotland's citizens.

During the bill's development, we have taken a series of steps to engage actively with the public, key stakeholders and experts in flood risk management, as has the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. In addition to the formal public consultation process that was undertaken in spring 2008, we established consultative groups to advise us on the bill's development and implementation. Those groups involved representatives from a wide variety of organisations and stakeholders, including local authorities, conservation groups and NFU Scotland.

We held additional stakeholder workshops and a series of public meetings across Scotland to gather information that allowed us to refine our initial proposals and to obtain information from people who have felt the impact of flooding in their communities. At those meetings, we heard at first hand the views of individuals who have been affected by flooding and the problems that they have had to overcome. We have listened to and learned from their experiences of the physical and emotional impacts of flooding.

I will touch on key points in the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's stage 1 report and discuss the main amendments that the Government intends to lodge at stage 2.

The bill provides a framework for delivering sustainable flood risk management, so I announce that we intend to amend the long title to include the word "sustainable". That amendment will ensure that the long title fully reflects the provisions and I am sure that it will attract cross-party support.

The committee expressed concern that the flood risk management planning process could be delayed by a shortage of experienced staff. We, too, would be concerned if such a shortage hindered improvements to flood risk management. However, many experienced flood risk management practitioners already operate in local authorities, SEPA and the private sector, and we must build on that strong foundation. Together with SEPA, we are engaging with further education institutions on the issue. The Minister for Environment and I will work with our opposite numbers in the education portfolio to consider how we can best fill the potential skills gaps.

The committee repeated its flooding inquiry recommendation that targeted funding be provided to local authorities for flood protection schemes. We appreciate the committee's concern, but I am afraid that we do not agree that the current funding arrangements for local government could compromise the bill's implementation. As we have said, the total package of funding for local government was worked out and agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It provides investment of £22.8 billion from 2008 to 2010, which is an increase of 9.9 per cent on 2007-08 figures. However, we will continue to discuss local authority funding with COSLA and we will carefully consider any requests to change the funding arrangements to support the bill's implementation.

Yesterday, the Local Government and Communities Committee heard that there are also capacity problems in Scottish Water, which has a significant role to play in addressing the flooding issues that plague my constituency. Will the cabinet secretary discuss with Scottish Water both the short-term and the long-term capacity problems that it faces?

We will listen to Scottish Water's views on the issue that the member raises, as Scottish Water has an important role to play in making the bill a success.

The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommended that we strengthen the link between the duty to reduce flood risk and the implementation of flood risk management plans; we will lodge an amendment that does just that. We have also taken on board the committee's concern that the bill needs to be clearer about who is responsible for assessing and managing drainage infrastructure. We intend to lodge amendments to add more explicit responsibilities for assessing drainage features, including sustainable urban drainage systems, and to give Scottish Water specific responsibility for assessing sewage flooding.

We are considering how to accommodate the committee's recommendation that responsible authorities be required to consider what contribution natural flood management approaches could make to reducing flood risk. Although we believe that the bill already ensures that natural flood management measures will be considered fully, we will look to develop an amendment that ensures that the most sustainable approach is always the one taken.

In addition to the amendments that I have mentioned, we intend to lodge an amendment that will add an enabling power to the bill that could be used to require reservoir undertakers to produce reservoir plans. Those plans would set out the on-site steps that operators would take to mitigate any harmful impact from an uncontrolled release of water.

I have given a rapid account of the bill's main features and the key changes that we expect to introduce at stage 2. We have, of course, been considering the whole range of the committee's recommendations and the points raised in evidence. In light of those, we will seek to amend the bill in other, more minor ways.

We recognise that legislation on its own will not achieve all the improvements in flood risk management that we seek. Effective implementation of the legislation is essential, and we are already working with local authorities, SEPA, Scottish Water and others to put in place the appropriate regulations, guidance and resourcing to take that forward. We will write to the committee shortly to provide more detail on our response to its recommendations

Through the bill, Scotland is leading the way in introducing a modern, first-class system of flood risk management. The bill will deliver vital improvements to how we manage flooding and make a real and long-term difference to the lives of people in Scotland. It will also ensure that Scotland is well placed to adapt to the challenges that the years and decades ahead will bring. We must protect families and businesses from threats that we believe may be round the corner. The bill is about making Scotland a safer place and protecting our environment at the same time. I know that it will be welcomed by the whole of Scotland, especially those communities that have felt the devastating impact of flooding in recent years. I commend the committee's report, this debate and our motion to the Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for the concessions that he has already made. Those concessions are important, because the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee has been involved in discussions about flooding for a long time. We first issued a call for written evidence back in September 2007, when we were embarking on our inquiry into flooding and flood management. The report on that inquiry was published in May 2008. The bill was introduced to Parliament in September 2008, so we were able to exert considerable influence on it in the first place.

The report on our inquiry contained 26 key recommendations, many of which—although not all—were taken up by the Government. It will not surprise members that a number of the recommendations in the stage 1 report on the bill are reiterations of views to which the committee had already come after its previous extensive inquiry.

We approached stage 1 on the basis that we need not revisit in detail issues on which we had made recommendations in our earlier report and which had already been adopted in the bill—for example, the recommendation that lead responsibility should lie with SEPA. There seemed no point in going back over that story. We also had the benefit of an early indication of Government amendments that are likely to be lodged at stage 2, which allowed us to anticipate certain developments while we were still at stage 1 and was of enormous benefit—so much so that in our stage 1 report we recommend that, where possible, that should become standard practice. Such advance notice will not always be possible, but it was extremely beneficial to us and would also help other committees as they take evidence at stage 1.

I thank everyone who was involved in the process—the clerking team, my colleagues on the committee, in particular members who were new to the committee in September and October, and all the witnesses who gave us their time and attention throughout the process, not least ministers and their officials.

The key recommendations of our stage 1 report include the broad recommendation that the Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill. Members will realise that it would be impossible for me to go through all 38 additional recommendations. I will pick out key areas of debate, on some of which the cabinet secretary has already conceded. He and the Minister for Environment should be aware that, on the issues on which we are still pressing the Government for change, the committee was unanimous.

The lack of an explicit duty on responsible authorities to implement measures on the ground is a potential weakness in the bill, so committee members will have been pleased to hear the cabinet secretary's concession in that regard. A local authority official told us in evidence that officials were already aware that the provisions of the bill were "permissive", which suggested to us that it was likely that a local authority that did not implement measures would avoid legal challenge. We were concerned that if there was a view that the duty on local authorities was permissive, some councils might take a minimalist view of their duties. Therefore, the cabinet secretary's concession is well received.

I am also grateful for the decision to include the word "sustainable" in the long title. There was considerable discussion in the committee about the matter, and the recommendation on sustainability in our inquiry report was carried into our stage 1 report. However, we accepted the minister's logic when he told us that to define "sustainable" in the bill would not be helpful, because our understanding of the term will change and evolve. We have come together on the issue, which is important.

The committee understands that there is a desire to encourage greater use of natural flood management techniques, including the use of flood plains, wetlands and woodlands where that is appropriate. In our inquiry report, we argued for a presumption in favour of natural flood management, but it became clear that the word "presumption" was almost a barrier to consideration of the issue. We thought that that view was based on a misunderstanding, because we always accepted that the presumption could and would often be rebutted and overturned. We were concerned that, unless there was more explicit direction, the current culture, in which there seems to be a bias towards hard solutions, would be difficult to overcome.

As I stressed in evidence to the committee, I do not believe that there is a presumption in favour of hard solutions. There has been such an approach, but it is changing rapidly and our concession to the committee's recommendation, whereby the most sustainable solution will always be sought, will allow us to take forward the reality of what is beginning to take place.

The committee has never taken the view that there is a presumption in favour of hard solutions; we were concerned about the culture among professionals. We thought that if we were to shift the culture away from the default option of hard solutions, there must be a stronger drive towards encouraging natural solutions. That is why we made three recommendations in that regard in our report. We understand that the word "presumption" presents a barrier and we accept that a different approach can be considered. I hope that the minister will consider adopting the mechanism that we suggested or propose an alternative measure that would achieve the same end. It is about changing the culture.

On long-term planning, our inquiry report called for a 25-year road map for investment, with provision for regular updating. That general approach was commended during stage 1 by a number of witnesses. Scottish Water agreed that a nationally prioritised list of flooding schemes would help in its forward planning. Chris Spray, from SEPA, said:

"We should look 20 or 25 years ahead."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 17 December 2008; c 1313.]

The committee took the view that SEPA could therefore be expected to produce a long-term strategic assessment as well as the district-level plans that are already provided for. That would give us a clear hierarchy of plans and would involve longer-term priorities for 12 and 24-year periods coming before the Parliament at least once in each four-year session.

It is inevitable that a key part of any debate about any policy in any Parliament under any Government will be about the vexed issue of funding. Our stage 1 recommendation follows on from a clear recommendation in the inquiry report. We remain uneasy about the method of funding allocation. I take on board what the cabinet secretary said this afternoon, but we hope that he will consider how to ensure that the strategic priorities are implemented in practice.

We raised concerns about the skills base in our inquiry report and we continue to be concerned about it because additional staff will be required. As I understand it, 55 new staff will be needed for what happens in Scotland and there are currently 200 vacancies in the Environment Agency south of the border, so we are still concerned about the potential for a skills gap. I have been saying, "Perhaps, instead of putting your daughter on the stage, Mrs Worthington, it might be an idea to send her to university to study hydrology or some related profession."

Coastal flooding has the potential to cause even greater devastation than fluvial and pluvial flooding. It is a big threat to infrastructure round our coast. It is essential that the most accurate predictions are available, and we have made a recommendation on that because of our concerns about the future.

I reiterate that our recommendations were unanimous and that we sought a Government response on a number of issues before stage 2—indeed, we have had a Government response on significant issues already this afternoon, for which we are grateful. I also reiterate that the committee has come to the process with a highly detailed understanding of the issue—more so than is usually the case—and that its recommendations are not capricious or arrived at without careful consideration. We hope that the positive response that we got this afternoon will continue, because that will make a good bill better. We commend the bill to Parliament.

The Labour Party supports the principles of the bill and is happy to support the Government's motion. The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill is one of those that we would have introduced had we been in government.

The Government has an opportunity because there is broad consensus across the parties on the need for the bill. As Roseanna Cunningham pointed out, there has been a lot of discussion on the bill and its principles in the Parliament, which is a very good thing. The committee's inquiry into flood prevention was a model of pre-legislative consultation. It was targeted and gave the public and all the organisations involved the chance to air and get to grips with some of the fundamental principles that we now see in the bill.

There are still issues that we would like to be addressed in the bill, such as the conflict of interest between SEPA's new role and its existing responsibilities. It is still crucial to consider how the bill will operate and the impact that it will have on people and organisations. One of the key challenges is the confusion and buck passing that members of the public and businesses still face when they deal with flooding incidents. It is fundamental that, when the bill is enacted, people understand everybody's role and where responsibility lies.

There are a number of issues that need to be addressed and a number of holes in the bill. We want to examine the gap between flood risk management plans and implementation. I heard what the cabinet secretary said on that in his speech, and we will examine the detail carefully when he makes proposals to the committee at stage 2. There are also outstanding problems with funding. They are not getting better; in fact, problems are beginning to escalate throughout the country.

The next point that I was going to make concerned our interest in strengthening the bill's provisions on sustainability, so I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to change the bill in that regard and to amend its long title. That brings us back to the point of the exchange between Roseanna Cunningham and Michael Russell, which was that the problem is the existing culture. We need to move away from the business-as-usual solutions. Hard engineering solutions are picked not necessarily because they are best but because they have historically been used. In some places, natural flood mechanisms are superior and are the right way to go. The change to the title of the bill will help to change the culture and will send out a strong message.

That change needs to be followed through elsewhere in the bill with a presumption in favour of sustainable flood management measures, on which an informed discussion is needed at stage 2. In planning, there is a presumption in favour of development unless the development plan provides good reasons why a development should not go ahead. Given the need to future-proof the impact of measures that will be in place for years to come, the detail of the sustainable flood risk management requirement and how Scottish Water is involved in that will be important. Those who were members of the Parliament during the passing of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, which established an independent regulator for Scottish Water, will remember the endless discussions that we had on environmental considerations and sustainability. Such discussions will probably move centre stage if we make sustainable development a key overarching principle of the bill, given that that is not how economic regulation works. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment will remember our committee discussions on that.

Another crucial issue is the gap between the creation and implementation of flood management plans. Partly, the issue is ministers' reluctance to place a duty clearly on councils in case that duty supersedes other legal duties. The problem is that the lack of such a duty provides a get-out clause for local authorities. We are not convinced by that argument, which we think is an excuse. In the current financial climate, in which councils are incredibly cash-strapped, clarity on their duties is essential for them as well as the public. That issue needs to be looked at.

We also think that SEPA and Scottish ministers should be under a duty to ensure that the objectives of flood risk management plans are met. Again, clarity on what different organisations are responsible for is crucial. A long-term strategy on flood prevention priorities would be helpful for central Government as well as for local authorities. Such a strategy would help to inform decision making. If, in making planning decisions, local authorities are conscious of future priorities, we will begin to ensure that we get the right decisions. We need to move away from business as usual. We need a long-term shift.

The bill still provides for no real assessment of human and economic issues in relation to flooding. The Scottish Government needs to provide guidance to responsible authorities so that such issues are factored into their assessments.

On funding issues—lest I lose the opportunity in the short time that I have been given this afternoon—the Finance Committee was very critical. It is apparent that local authorities are not coping with the current system. Last year, for example, the minister reassured me that the City of Edinburgh Council's previous funding commitment for flood prevention was included in its grant-aided expenditure. I understand that the council has written to ministers about the central Government's decision to change the system that had been put in place. Because changes have had to be made to the flood prevention scheme, costs have gone up so the estimate that was included in GAE is already out of date. Funding for the scheme that the council is now trying to put in place is short in future years—

Thank you, Ms Boyack.

I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer and as a member of NFU Scotland. On a personal note, I thank the clerks for their help thus far in preparing the reports on which today's debate is based. I also thank the minister for his intimation of the amendments that he intends to lodge at stage 2, which we generally welcome.

Scottish Conservatives welcome the introduction of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill. We believe that climate change is now happening and that it will most probably result in increasing precipitation and rising sea levels. With 3.6 per cent of Scotland's 2.5 million properties currently at risk, now is the time to act.

I will speak to some of the recommendations in the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's stage 1 report. Recommendation 3 notes the need

"to strengthen the link between the duty to reduce flood risk and the implementation of flood risk management plans".

It is self-evident that action must follow the production of plans. We do not believe that that is clear enough in the bill, as Sarah Boyack has already noted.

On recommendation 6, Scottish Conservatives very much support the view that assessments of human and social costs must be used in the production of flood risk maps. Such assessments must be carried out as a matter of urgency to allow SEPA to take account of them in the production of its flood risk assessment, which is due in December 2011.

Recommendation 7 notes the need for the Government to resolve conflicts of interest between SEPA's existing role and its future role under the bill. We believe that the issue needs to be addressed urgently and that the Government should produce guidance to avoid slippage in the production of flood risk maps by December 2011.

Recommendation 8 notes the self-evident need to align funding streams, while recommendation 36 rightly draws further attention to Conservative concerns that despite the production of flood risk maps and management plans, and the minister's assurances today, sufficient funding might not be available to implement those plans. Dangerously, the lack of a clear and binding duty in the bill to implement plans once they have been produced—although it may be that that issue is to be addressed—combined with a lack of targeted funding to carry out the work, puts at risk the effective implementation of the bill and, in doing so, also puts at risk householders and landowners. The Government must clarify its position during stage 2.

Recommendation 32 deals with coastal flooding—a topic that Bill Wilson was keen on—which will, for the foreseeable future, present a greater risk to property and people than will fluvial flooding. Although the incidence of fluvial and pluvial flooding events will increase, with the result that property and the lives of individuals might suffer damaging effects unless appropriate action is taken, coastal flooding is on a different scale of risk, in that it could have catastrophic consequences. Combined with sea level rise, tidal surges have the potential to inflict huge damage on property and infrastructure in the east and west of Scotland. The Government and SEPA must examine those existing but growing threats extremely carefully.

Turning to less apocalyptic matters, the Conservatives welcome and believe in the need to move to a more sustainable and natural approach to upstream and downstream flood risk management. I am intrigued by the possibility of taking the tops off floods by using natural flood management techniques and by developing the concept of hydraulic roughness, wherever possible.

The strategic placing of forestry along watercourses and flood plains would create leaky dams that could hold back floods. If such defences were intelligently sited, they would also enhance biodiversity. In my view, the placing across flood plains of strips of woodland as narrow as 25m wide would produce a damming effect and enhance the environment without significantly reducing agricultural output. The Forestry Commission's evidence in that regard was extremely valuable. However, such land use, especially if it became more extensive, could reduce the viability of farming and other enterprises. It is therefore important that individual businesses are not damaged or disadvantaged by contributing to the public good in that way, so adequate compensation must be paid to reflect any loss of land.

The Conservatives also believe that recommendation 27, which invites the Government to retain the obligation on local authorities to cleanse, repair and maintain watercourses, is important and should be addressed. I welcome the minister's comments on the matter.

The Conservatives believe that much more needs to be done to gather information about potential flooding risks and to disseminate it to the public. Ways must also be found to allow the emergency services to be more proactive in managing flood risk, as well as floods that occur.

We welcome the bill, which offers a route map to the provision of greater protection against flooding of all types in Scotland. The bill's aim to reduce the risk of flooding will need to be adequately funded: its purpose must not be thwarted as a result of inadequate funding. However, those are matters for future budgets and debates. In the meantime, we support the principles of the bill and look forward to lodging constructive amendments at stage 2.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats warmly welcome and firmly support the bill. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment's proposed amendment to its long title is a further and welcome enhancement. As with any bill at stage 1, we want to improve certain aspects of it. However, the general principles are absolutely sound, and I acknowledge the early efforts of the Scottish Government to address concerns that have been raised.

As Sarah Boyack and Roseanna Cunningham observed, the cabinet secretary's task was made easier by the work that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee undertook for its flooding inquiry last year. It is not false modesty to suggest that that had absolutely nothing to do with me, as I was still serving my time on the Finance Committee. Bringing such pre-legislative scrutiny to bear has significant benefits. I welcome Richard Lochhead's comments in that regard.

I pay tribute to previous and current Rural Affairs and Environment Committee members, and express my thanks to the clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and other support staff, as well as the many individuals and organisations that provided written and oral evidence during our consideration of the bill. That information has provided a solid basis for us to take forward our scrutiny of the bill in the months ahead. It is against that positive background and support for the principles and thrust of the bill that I raise the following concerns, which were addressed in the committee's report.

The issue of skills rightly received much attention during the committee's evidence sessions and has done so again this afternoon. It is recognised that the passing of the bill will result in greatly increased demand for specialist flood management staff, notably hydrologists. The bill's financial memorandum suggests that SEPA will require 55 new specialist staff. That must be viewed in light of the 200 vacant positions in the Environment Agency south of the border and the demands that will inevitably come from Scotland's local authorities for people with many of the same skills. The problem will become more acute as demand Europe-wide intensifies and the world of consultancy proves too alluring to resist for newly qualified and experienced people. I know that the minister acknowledges that problem but, as our report makes clear, the committee

"is not at all convinced by the Minister's reassurance that the steps being taken to recruit and retrain will ‘ensure future supply'."

Notwithstanding Mr Lochhead's remarks today, I hope that the Government will redouble its efforts to get to grips with an issue that cannot simply be left to SEPA and local authorities to resolve, and which threatens seriously to undermine the ability of ministers and responsible authorities to deliver effective flood risk management.

The skills issue also has a bearing on concerns that were raised with and by the committee about whether

"a cultural shift in favour of considering natural flood management techniques"

can be achieved. The committee wrestled with whether a presumption in favour of natural techniques and processes was desirable. As Roseanna Cunningham reflected, there is confusion about what such a presumption would mean in practice. However, it is clear that without access to the broader range of skills sets, it is perhaps unreasonable to expect local authority officials to gravitate towards considering—far less employing—such techniques. I agree with the convener that ministers must reflect further on that point and come forward with proposals that firmly underscore the need for natural flood management options to be properly considered, and for reasons to be given where such options are found not to be appropriate.

Legislation of the bill's scope and complexity takes time to introduce and bed down. We are right to be ambitious. We also need to be clear and resolute about our longer-term objectives for flood risk management. However, flood risk management plans will not be ready and in place until 2015, and we cannot lose sight of what is expected and required between now and then. Scottish Government officials admitted to the committee that interim arrangements have not been finalised. As a result, it should come as no surprise to the minister, or anyone else, that local authorities across the country are questioning their role and responsibilities in the meantime.

Jim Moodie from Fife Council, who made quite an impression on the committee, referred to the lack of interim arrangements and suggested that that was

"a concern because there is nothing in the bill to say that councils have to do anything until the management plans are in place."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 10 December 2008; c 1273.]

I accept that it would be a foolish, not to say short-lived, council administration that sat on its hands and did nothing in the face of a demonstrable flood risk in its area, but I hope that the minister will accept the need to clarify the position on interim arrangements.

The minister will recall the funding concerns that a number of local authorities raised, not only with the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee but with Finance Committee colleagues. I know that Jeremy Purvis will, as a member of the Finance Committee, and a constituency member from a part of the country that has been badly affected by flooding in the recent past, elaborate on some of those concerns in his remarks.

Returning to the evidence from Mr Moodie of Fife Council, he observed that the lack of a clear funding mechanism

"will mean that many schemes will not be delivered at all, because the funding will be allocated to what councils consider to be other priorities."

He added, rather courageously perhaps:

"Our budgets are defined by accountants and asset management people who are not directly affected by flood prevention issues or functions."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 10 December 2008; c 1270.]

While Mr Moodie doubtless had his work cut out to make his peace with his colleagues once he got back over the bridge that afternoon, his candour suggests that assurances from ministers about funding may still fall on deaf ears.

The minister will have observed that the stage 1 report includes a section on coastal flooding, to which we will need to return in more detail at stage 2. In particular, the question of how SEPA takes proper account of data on climate change impacts and local tidal patterns, including tidal surges, in reaching its conclusions will be important.

Banning development on land below a certain point above sea level is not always practicable, and mitigation still has a role to play. However, as the Association of British Insurers and others agreed, development and planning decisions need to be better aligned.

This is a good bill that can be made better. This afternoon, ministers have again shown a willingness to listen and respond. I hope that that will continue over the coming months.

Speeches are to be of six minutes, and there will be no warning before the end. I have already told one member that they will not be called, and I will probably have to cut back the time for the last two members in the open debate. I ask members to stick to their six minutes, please.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today's debate, and I extend a warm welcome to residents of Burnside village, near Broxburn, in my constituency, who join us in the public gallery. My constituents' lives were turned upside down by severe flooding last August. I am grateful to the Minister for Environment, Mike Russell, for visiting Broxburn and seeing at first hand the destruction and devastation.

I wish to read an extract from a letter that I received from an elderly couple who lost their home and 95 per cent of its contents, as I believe that their experience and recommendations are highly relevant to this debate. Mrs Ross wrote:

"It has taken me 3 months to be able to put some thoughts on this experience on paper. I do so with the hope that those who read it and are involved in considering the funding or provision of flood prevention measures will be made more aware of what a traumatic and life changing event such an experience can be."

She went on to say:

"flooding of the severity experienced in August … demands a co-ordinated response".

I whole-heartedly welcome the bill's aim to improve interagency co-ordination and co-operation in flood risk management plans. After the flooding in Broxburn, I certainly had to knock some agency heads together. I particularly welcome the requirement for risk management measures to consider the social as well as the economic impact of flooding.

The stage 1 report interested me in that it touched on the point that there is no precise, absolute defining line between what is deemed risk management and what is deemed flood rescue. I note that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommended that amendments should be forthcoming to deal in particular with fire and rescue services taking the lead on flood rescue and with enabling the police to be more proactive at an earlier stage.

I will quote Mrs Ross again:

"I had no idea if and when the water would stop rising. I had no idea how we were going to get out of the house. I had no idea what priority the emergency service had given my call. I felt we were completely isolated and alone left to cope the best way we could."

I appreciate and understand that the bill has specific purposes in mind but, when we debate and discuss, and legislate on and regulate the assessment and management of flood risk, I urge us to take a whole-process approach that includes flood rescue and aftercare. I appreciate that local authorities already have duties and responsibilities, but I feel strongly that we need national leadership on what constitutes best practice.

My constituents have often compared their experiences to that of a bereavement, given their inability to function in the immediate aftermath due to shock. I am talking about able people not being able to deal with the practicalities. They have described mood changes and depression, as well as repeated nightmares of being trapped in a home with rising water levels. I take this opportunity to stress the importance of practical assistance, good advice—about contamination, for example—follow-up procedures and good aftercare.

I will quote Mrs Ross once more:

"It would have been like a gift from heaven if someone from the council or social services had phoned to ask if we were ok or to offer some help."

If the bill is passed, I will be pleased that local authorities will be empowered to proceed with flood management initiatives, where agreement exists between all those involved, without having to go through a lengthy statutory process. I appreciate the Scottish Government's approval of a £5 million flood defence scheme in Broxburn. West Lothian Council is actively looking at how to extend the scheme and truncate the implementation period. In that regard, I make a plea to the minister: can anything be done about European Union procurement rules, which slow processes down to a standstill at times? Like other councils, West Lothian Council is also considering early warning systems.

On a personal note, I add my thanks to Graham Hedger, the flood prevention officer at West Lothian Council, and to Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service, particularly the retained fire crews, and other emergency services for the professionalism and care that they showed to my constituents.

Like others, I am pleased to take part in the debate and pleased to offer my support for the bill's general principles. All parties in the chamber agree with the bill's objective of ensuring that there is better flood protection for our communities and individual families.

We know that flooding is on the increase because of climate change, as the minister set out, and we know that current flooding legislation is outdated and that the procedures are too slow. Failure to take action on that would just enhance the kind of misery and devastation that Angela Constance has set out, which are the consequence of flooding events.

For the most part, the bill's provisions are fine, but they are complex, and will require a lot of explaining. I very much welcome the new role for SEPA in taking a national lead in flooding matters and I welcome planning on a river catchment basis, which is sensible. I welcome, too, the national overview, combined with the local delivery of community protection. I welcome the identification of responsible authorities and making their responsibilities clear, although perhaps a bit more work needs to be done on that. I also very much welcome the deemed planning consent provision, because current procedures are far too cumbersome and duplicative, which means delay and frustration for everybody involved.

Despite all those welcomes, I believe that the bill can be strengthened. The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee has argued that SEPA's role could be strengthened, so that it is obliged to take a long-term strategic view of flooding needs and priorities throughout the country and to produce a strategic assessment for six years ahead and one for the subsequent years up to 24 years ahead. However, it is important not just that SEPA is obliged to do that and that it does it, but that ministers have regard to what SEPA says. We will then have a national view that will not only aid public understanding of the issues and aid public debate, but assist ministers to decide the quantums of cash that will be required and give them a clue about how to distribute it.

The bill could also be strengthened with regard to sustainability. I welcome the minister's concession on that today.

Will the member take an intervention?

With respect, I will not, because I have a lot to get through in a short time.

I draw members' attention to Roseanna Cunningham's point about strengthening the natural flood management provisions. That is no panacea for flooding problems, but natural flood management can make a significant contribution. If we take the peaks off floods by using natural flood management, we will be able to ease the hard engineering that will also often be required. There is a double benefit from natural flood management techniques, because not only do they protect people from flooding to a greater extent, they enhance countryside habitats.

As Roseanna Cunningham said, the committee made its recommendations to secure a cultural shift. Having been in a local authority for many years, I know that the skills sets of local authorities tend to be in engineering, which tends to foster the view that engineering solutions are the limit of what we need to think about. We need to change that culture, which is why the committee recommended that SEPA and councils should consider the contribution that natural flood management techniques can make.

There is scope to improve provisions so that councils can use their best endeavours to implement flood risk management plans. I welcome the minister's indication that he will lodge an amendment on that. I look forward to seeing the wording, because that amendment needs to be explicit and powerful—I hope that it will be. However, flood prevention is not just about a dialogue or a deal between councils and the Government. Citizens and communities have rights, too, and they need the certainty that what is agreed for their communities will be implemented.

I would like further reassurance that the ability of Scottish Water to play its full part in the provisions of the bill will not be compromised. That relates to the role of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. The minister has indicated that there is scope for a conversation to take place with the WICS to clarify matters. It is important that we put beyond doubt the fact that Scottish Water can act in the spirit of the bill to find sustainable flooding solutions without being compromised by the provisions and powers of the WICS.

The committee made specific recommendations about the funding approach. I was sorry to hear the minister's comments on that, and I hope that there is still time for him to reconsider. It would be dreadful if implementation of the bill's good provisions was frustrated because of a lack of finance and a failure to target finance in the way that the committee clearly believes will be necessary. The committee's report offers the Government another opportunity to think about that. I hope that it will do so before stage 2.

It is hugely important that we make progress on flood management and speed up the associated processes. The bill is welcome—

Will the member give way?

I cannot, as I am in my final minute.

I have indicated that the committee looks forward to seeing the stage 2 amendment; although we reserve the right to try to strengthen the bill if they do not do what we want them to do.

The timescales are tight. I urge the Government to give as much advance notice of the details of the amendments as possible, so that the committee can properly consider them before the legislation is finalised.

Before closing, I wish Mike Russell every success in his acting debut tonight—actually, it is not his debut, as we know that he has been acting successfully for many years.

The bill is a welcome and long overdue measure to overhaul some seriously outdated legislation and ensure that it reflects the situation that we face in today's world of global warming, climate change and increased flooding risk.

In the Highlands, we faced a particularly disastrous flooding situation only two years ago. The flooding was so severe that the A9 was described as being more like a river than a road, and 40 people had to be rescued by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution in Ross-shire. Those people were rescued not from the sea but from their own homes in Dingwall. The coastguard even had to be called out to help to rescue four farm workers and a herd of cattle near Cannich, almost 20 miles inland.

In Inverness, more than 1,000 homes and businesses are threatened by flooding, and the potential costs of damage are estimated at around £77 million. Inverness was devastated by flooding in 1989 and 1990. The railway bridge collapsed in the 1989 storm. In 2002, Inverness was hit again—roads were closed and train services were suspended. Things were so bad that the police advised people not to travel to the Highland capital after several areas were left under water. Around 200 guests at the Thistle hotel had to be rescued in dinghies after they become marooned in water up to 5ft deep.

The bill will be welcomed by many, including future guests at the Thistle hotel. Indeed, it has already received a warm welcome from the Association of British Insurers, which is very much in favour of clearly defining the roles of local authorities and Scottish Water.

It is particularly encouraging that flood management will be listed in the core priorities of local government. That is real progress towards ensuring that flood management receives the prominence that it deserves.

The Association of British Insurers also approves of revising the building regulations to ensure that buildings in flood risk areas are resilient to flood damage. I agree with that, but the association could help by issuing advice on those matters to owners and tenants of such properties.

The NFUS has some reservations about the bill and the move away from hard-engineered flood prevention and protection to a more integrated flood risk approach using natural flood management. It says that the legislation must recognise the agricultural productivity or economic value of flood plains and that any proposed measures must be fully costed to properly assess their economic impact as well as environmental and social benefits.

The NFUS has also expressed deep concern about proposals to divert money from the Scottish rural development programme. It proposes either that funding for flood management should come from a different budget or that SRDP moneys should be increased commensurate with flood management requirements. Just yesterday, we had a debate on the common agricultural policy health check, which highlighted many of the problems facing agriculture and the SRDP. I ask the minister to consider the NFUS view sympathetically.

Less then two weeks ago, I was invited by the Glen Urquhart land use partnership—GULUP—to view the flood alleviation works on the River Enrick. Following a series of floods in the 1990s, which caused hundreds of thousands of pounds-worth of damage to homes and businesses in the glen, it was agreed that all agencies and the community would work together to find a long-term solution. A consultants' report led to the publication of an integrated catchment management plan in 2002 and £600,000 of European funding under the strategies and actions for flood emergency risk management programme. An updated report in July last year acknowledged the work that had been done in the upper catchment area of the river but concluded that the river remains unstable and warned that flood events might still create problems downstream.

It would cost about £100,000 to resolve the situation but, unfortunately, the £600,000 of European funding has been taken up by a report on the flood risk assessment of the Enrick, the employment of a project officer by Forest Enterprise and some works on the upper catchment of the river, which leaves insufficient money to complete the job to stabilise the river downstream. Identifying another source of capital funding to pay for that has proven difficult for GULUP. The original five-year restoration programme never had a full programme commitment from the agencies concerned—Highland Council and SEPA—and much of the money was spent on the survey work that I mentioned.

There are a number of lessons to be learned from GULUP's experience. First, we must ensure that agencies engage in co-operation and joint working. Secondly, we need to ensure that there is financial commitment from those agencies. Thirdly, we must ensure that bodies such as GULUP receive help in identifying suitable funding sources. Finally, we must ensure that money that is allocated to flood risk management is not eaten up by consultants' fees, leaving next to nothing for the works that need to be done.

One characteristic of the environment portfolio and of the work of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee is that some of the legislation that emerges is complex and requires detailed consideration by members and experts from a variety of specialisms. I hope that, through that process of consideration, we end up with well-considered and well-wrought legislation. That was certainly the case with the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill and the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill. The new Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill is operating in the same kind of territory. As other speakers have done, I welcome the approach that the Government has adopted not just in the content of the bill but in responding to the consultation, listening to the voices from the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and adapting the legislation.

When I was a member of the committee, I visited the east end of Glasgow to find out about some of the metropolitan drainage issues. Along with the rest of the committee, I visited Elgin, where we saw that flooding did not bypass the town and had been a chronic problem for many years. In general, flooding has a disastrous impact on communities—and not just when it occurs, because of the blight with which it can afflict communities by preventing necessary developments. The bill will address many of the issues that were highlighted by the committee in its inquiry report on flooding and flood management, which was informed by those visits and by expert witnesses.

I want to highlight several issues that members have raised. Roseanna Cunningham talked about the committee's suggestion in its inquiry report that there should be a presumption in favour of natural flood management techniques. The committee was trying to suggest that it would be preferable to give more weight to natural flood management over hard engineering approaches; it was not trying to say that we should always go for one rather than the other. As Peter Peacock suggested, we need to create a change of culture and to get people to consider natural flood management as an alternative, or sometimes as an adjunct, to hard engineering approaches. That was the committee's intention and I hope that we can get that properly into the bill.

I welcome the inclusion in the bill of the promotion of sustainability. That measure was also included in the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill, which created Scottish Water, and the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill. There is consistency of approach.

The committee identified the management of pluvial flooding as an issue. I am not sure that pluvial issues can be dealt with in the bill, but the Government must consider them in other legislation that it will need to introduce, particularly with regard to roads and planning. Some of the committee's conclusions should feed into not only the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill, but other legislation and guidance.

I want to emphasise the point that the member has just made. It is important to recognise that under the planning system, for example, the use of certain porous materials in building roads and patios and in other areas can make an enormous contribution. Methods to contain flooding exist outwith the bill, but we are conscious that they need to be joined up with other legislation and regulations.

That is right. That also fits in with the use of sustainable urban drainage schemes. We need greater clarity about who has responsibility for the initiation and maintenance of such schemes.

The committee argued that strategic flood risk assessment should always be compatible with development and structure plans to avoid such plans contradicting one another. I hope that there will be an interface between the bill, once it is passed, and the regulations that will be introduced under the Planning (Scotland) Act 2006, to ensure that different legislative bodies co-ordinate and plan their activity more effectively.

Funding was probably the committee's major concern, and it remains unresolved. I do not understand how a formula-based system for the allocation of resources for flooding, which of necessity gives organisations a population-based share, is directly compatible with a needs-based allocation scheme for flood risk management, which must inevitably fit the amount of money to the needs of the scheme. A population-equivalent system will not always work.

However well we anticipate flood risks, we will be overtaken by exceptional circumstances—that is the lesson of flooding. We need to find a system that allows the Government to intervene when necessary with the resources to deal with flood-risk problems as they arise. We can plan in advance, but it is important that we have mechanisms in place so that we can adapt.

I think that my time is up, Presiding Officer.

It certainly is.

I suppose that it is inevitable in a debate such as this that much time is taken up by members from different parts of the country raising issues of concern in their areas. Let me not disappoint anyone by departing from that trend.

Tayside, most of which falls within my Mid Scotland and Fife region, is one of the areas in Scotland that has been hard hit by flooding in recent years. The River Tay and its tributaries cover a massive area, and flooding in recent years has caused disruption to Highland Perthshire communities such as Kenmore, Dunkeld, Aberfeldy and Dalguise. Virtually every year in recent memory we have seen flooding in summer and winter, or indeed in both. Property has been damaged and roads have been closed—including the A9, which is the major arterial route to the north—as has the Perth to Inverness railway.

When we have periods of sustained rainfall, people in huge swathes of rural Perthshire and Angus are in near-constant fear of flooding due to heavy rains swelling the river system. We need flood prevention schemes and improvements in places such as Birnam, Bankfoot, Coupar Angus, Dalguise and Scone. Communities and towns in Angus also face the threat of flooding. Last year, Kirriemuir was badly hit, and I understand that Angus Council has proposed a flood prevention scheme in Brechin, which is absolutely essential if the town is to be given greater protection.

I will address three specific points in the bill. The first is the question of responsibility for risk management, which is covered by recommendation 7 in the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's stage 1 report. It is evident that a clearer line of responsibility is needed in flood risk management. The Scottish Government, local authorities and SEPA must all have clearer and better defined roles.

Two years ago, the new flood prevention scheme at Milnathort in Kinross-shire failed, which resulted in flooding and damage to properties in the area. At the time, the then Scottish Executive and Perth and Kinross Council blamed each other for the failure. The disruption and distress that the flooding ordeal caused residents were made no better as politicians argued about who was to blame and who was to sort out the damage. Parliamentarians can well understand such frustration, but it shows why it is so important that the bill tries to resolve such issues. I was pleased to hear what the cabinet secretary said about that subject when he opened the debate.

The second issue that I will address is the cost of works that are required to prevent flooding, and the cost of flooding repairs. That issue is dealt with in paragraphs 178 to 185 in the stage 1 report, and it is also covered in recommendation 26, which mentions giving power to local authorities to recover expenses from landowners. Part of the problem is that the use of the word "landowner" conjures up an image of a wealthy individual who lives in a large house or castle and has very deep pockets. In reality, that image is far from the reality in modern Scotland. The great majority of landowners are farmers, and, given the current situation with farming, very few of them have large amounts of spare money to spend.

A good example is a recent flood that occurred along the River Tay. The river flood banks were swept away, and farmland and property were flooded. The farmer who owns the land was legally responsible for repairing the flood banks and obtained an estimate for the work, which ran into six figures. That is a massive cost for anyone to meet, and he ended up in a situation in which the repair bill exceeded the market value of the land. It was clearly uneconomic for the farmer, in those circumstances, to pay the cost of repairing the embankments entirely by himself. Even if he had repaired them, there was a danger that flooding would have occurred again in another two or three years, with the farmer having to pay an identical repair bill.

We have to consider those issues carefully and think about how we support and assist individuals in those circumstances, rather than simply taking the approach—which, it appears from the committee report, the bill is in danger of adopting—of saying that we should fine people who are not meeting their responsibilities. We need to accept that there is an economic issue that needs to be addressed.

My final point is on an issue that I have raised in the past: the extraction of gravel and silt from river beds. It is time that the situation was reviewed. As I have seen for myself in many locations, the River Tay bursts its banks regularly, partly because the practice of dredging river beds has been brought to an end and water levels have risen as a result. Historically, gravel has been extracted from river beds, but it is now much harder to do that because of the restrictions that SEPA has imposed. As a result, every time a river floods, river banks are swept into the river bed, the silt and gravel are not extracted, and the water levels rise. That exacerbates the problem the next time that a flood takes place.

I appreciate that environmental issues need to be considered and that the salmon fishing industry has a major interest in the Tay that needs to be preserved. However, I have no doubt that by not extracting silt and gravel from river beds we are making the situation worse. Flood banks are being swept into the river bed and have to be replaced with material from elsewhere, instead of that material being removed from the river bed, as happened previously. We need to look again at that situation. The legislation is welcome, but it needs to be improved if we are to protect parts of Scotland from the danger of flooding.

I was brought up to revere—as I imagine many other members in the chamber were—the inspiring story of Hans Brinker, the young son of a sluicegate operator in Holland. While playing one day, young Hans noticed a small breach in one of the sea dykes, and, realising that the situation could soon turn into a significant flood unless prompt action was taken, he blocked the gap with his finger. Hans remained in that position all night, risking his life in the process, until he was relieved of his task by adults the next day.

Imagine my distress—at this point, those of a sensitive disposition might wish to put their hands over their ears—when I learned that Hans never existed. The story was simply a figment of the vivid imagination of the American writer Mary Elizabeth Mapes Dodge, who had never even visited Holland when she wrote the story. In such a brutal, cruel way are one's childhood illusions shattered.

Not only did Hans never exist, but the sea eventually reclaimed much of the land that was previously protected by dykes. When man tackles water, water often wins in the end. Rather than employing simplistic methods involving fingers in dykes to protect us from the risk of flooding, we need to put our fingers in our pockets or wallets and spend the money that is necessary to give us the protection that we desire.

Financial investment is important, but it is not the whole story, and protection from flooding also involves many other aspects. For example, we heard earlier about the difference in emphasis between so-called hard protection, such as the dykes in Holland, and softer measures such as the maintenance and development of wetlands and relief routes. Also, when measures have been deemed necessary and their nature determined, they need to be put into effect as quickly as possible.

Here in Edinburgh, the risk of flooding is mainly fluvial rather than due to threatened incursions of the sea. Around 500 Edinburgh homes were damaged by serious flooding in 2000, including some around Bonnington Mills, Warriston, Stockbridge, Murrayfield, Roseburn, Westfield Avenue, Ford's Road, Stenhouse Mill, Chesser Loan and Longstone Road. The Water of Leith also nearly burst its banks during the exceptionally heavy rainfall in January 2008.

In 2001, the estimated cost of protecting homes and businesses along the Water of Leith was £9 million, but today, following one delay after another and several inquiries, the cost might be as high as £54 million, and that might not be the end of it. The delays and cost increases are unsatisfactory, and whatever else we do, we need to speed up the process so that we can attend to a problem when it rears its head.

On the broader topic of flood risk management in Scotland, I welcome the long overdue step to update laws that have existed for nearly 50 years and which have now been overtaken by events. Flood policy needs to be brought into line with the european directive on the assessment and management of flood risks, and it is vital that we achieve much more effective interagency co-operation. Furthermore, we need to pay much more attention to the social as well as the economic cost of floods. Angela Constance spoke eloquently on that subject.

One element of the bill that greatly interests me is the proposal to amend the Reservoirs Act 1975 so that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency takes over from local authorities as the relevant enforcement authority for the whole nation. Another important provision enables Scottish ministers to make regulations on the reporting of incidents that might affect the safety of large raised reservoirs. We have been fortunate in Scotland, but tragedies in other countries and the risk of terrorist activities highlight the need for a co-ordinated supervisory regime, and that is what the bill gives us. The issue of reservoir safety is far too important to the country for it to be left in the hands of a multiplicity of local authorities. Here in Lothian, Threipmuir, Harlaw and Harperrig reservoirs are vital components of the flood protection scheme, so it is satisfying that they will come under SEPA's watchful eye.

Finally, the bill's requirement for a mapping exercise to be undertaken to identify areas that are at risk of flooding will produce for the first time a document that can be checked when someone is considering buying a house. That will reduce the risk that they will purchase a house that subsequently turns out to be at risk from flooding and uninsurable.

We might not have a small boy to plug a hole in our dyke, but the bill offers an even better alternative and commands my support.

I was not a member of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee when it undertook its inquiry into flooding, so to some extent I was playing catch-up when the committee began its scrutiny of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill. However, it became apparent that the evidence that we took on the bill had a striking resemblance to the evidence that the committee had received during its inquiry. Many of the recommendations in the committee's report on the bill are strong echoes of the previous recommendations on flooding, although they are not the same. The Government has taken on board some of the committee's previous recommendations, and I hope that it will act on the new recommendations as well.

When I first read through the bill, I was struck by the possibility that, in concentrating on drawing up flood risk management plans, it could result in a hugely bureaucratic process. There is not enough about the management of risk in the implementation of the plans.

It was argued in evidence that local authorities would implement plans through current mechanisms, but that simply does not go far enough. The bill must contain more specific duties to ensure that local implementation is prioritised. I am glad that the issue will be considered, because, at worst, the plans could simply sit on the shelf, gathering dust, until they are required to be reviewed. As the recommendation in paragraph 39 of the committee report argues, the bill

"should be amended to strengthen the link between the duty to reduce flood risk and the implementation of flood risk management plans."

Moreover, the bill contains no powers to ensure that development plans have regard to the flood risk management plan. If development plans, which are probably our most important means of managing and reducing flooding, are not forced to have regard to flood risk management plans, the whole exercise will be worthless.

Evidence that we received suggested that a balance has to be struck between flood risk management and other issues such as economic development and social need. That is true, and forcing development plans to have regard to flood risk management plans would not be detrimental to that balance. Instead, it would put flooding on the same footing as other issues that need to be taken into account when development plans are being drawn up. A duty to have regard to the flood risk management plan would also ensure that any development in a flood risk area would have to incorporate flood alleviation measures—

Will the member give way?

Very briefly.

As someone who has been struck off the list of speakers, I appreciate that.

Does the member share my concern that Moray Council's £168 million budget will be seriously affected by the bill's financial proposals and that, in paying for its flood alleviation schemes, it will be worse off by £23 million a year?

I agree. In fact, many councils expressed great concern about financing and suggested that the Government hold a pot of money to help small councils that might find themselves in difficulty.

Time is short, so I will move on swiftly. The bill requires authorities to have regard to social and economic impacts in carrying out their functions. The committee heard that tools for measuring the social and human costs of flooding are not widely available and that, at the moment, no best practice guidance is being used. As Angela Constance made clear, anyone who has witnessed flooding knows of its high social and human cost. Press reports show that major flooding often forces families into temporary accommodation for a long time. Paragraph 59 of the committee report therefore recommends that the Government produce guidance on measuring social and human costs. That work needs to be undertaken urgently. Given that the initial flood risk assessments will be required in December 2011, guidance needs to be in place sufficiently in advance of that date to enable SEPA to fulfil its requirements under the bill.

On deemed planning permission, the committee addressed the issue in its inquiry and is glad that it has been allowed for in the bill. However, I am concerned that the consultation process is not properly laid out in the bill; indeed, the bill might well not be the best place for those provisions. That said, the bill should allow for ministerial guidance to be provided on the consultation process for measures that have deemed planning permission. Complaints have already been made about the planning process, and the bill has to ensure that people are treated as stakeholders and can engage with the process as early as possible. After all, bodies that carry out consultations must listen as well provide information on what they want to do.

In fact, that approach is even more important, given the fact that the lead organisation is not democratically elected. If a council does not consult adequately, the electorate has the last word at the ballot box; the same does not hold true for a Government-appointed organisation, which will naturally look to Government instead of constituents for a lead. Paragraph 177 makes the extremely important recommendation that consultation on proposed flood prevention schemes be

"in line with best practice".

I am confident that the committee's recommendations can improve the bill and ensure that it is more than a paper exercise. I urge the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment to accept them in their entirety.

This has been a hugely impressive debate on a very serious issue that affects constituency MSPs, regional MSPs and all those who are concerned about the future of Scotland's environment.

Roseanna Cunningham's excellent speech provided the context for all our speeches. Although I support the bill and wish it considerable success, I will touch on concerns about a potential inconsistency at the heart of the bill with regard to funding.

The bill has at its heart an evidence-based and needs-based approach to flood alleviation and management, yet, by and large, the funding formula takes, as Roseanna Cunningham and Des McNulty indicated, a population-based approach. How that is managed between the Scottish Government and COSLA is crucial to the success of the bill. I hope that there may still be scope during the passage of the bill for further discussions with COSLA, in the context of the concordat, on whether there may be an innovative solution that could provide challenge funding for local authorities, which will find it increasingly difficult to match need with spending from their own capital budgets.

I will clear up a misconception. Mr McNulty made a comment about the population basis of the formula, which the member has repeated. The agreement with COSLA is simple. The allocation of money was done on a threefold basis, and was agreed with COSLA, which negotiated the formula. The money was allocated on the basis of, first, schemes that were already known about and, secondly, schemes that were in the pipeline; only thirdly was it allocated on a population basis to do with actual flood risk.

The Belwin formula, under which money is brought forward, and the SRDP are not population based. The formula that is being used is not a crude, population-based formula.

I would have hoped that the minister might have made those remarks in his summing-up speech rather than taking time out of a member's speech.

Let me get to the point, which is directly related to the position of Scottish Borders Council. I am aware of the points that the minister made in his intervention because he wrote to me in May last year about the three criteria. However, the criteria jar slightly with the evidence received by the Finance Committee. That committee received information in November—after its scrutiny of the financial memorandum—which highlighted 16 schemes, including the one in Broxburn, in Angela Constance's constituency, with a total capital value of £282 million. Those schemes are protected within the three-year settlement.

The Government is aware that there are two schemes in the Scottish Borders Council area—in Selkirk and Galashiels—which have a cost of up to £20 million. The Government is also aware of the pressures in Jedburgh, which the cabinet secretary acknowledged in his opening speech. It would be impossible for an authority the size of Scottish Borders Council, with an overall annual budget of £200 million, to deliver such capital projects without central Government support; it is simply inconceivable that that would be possible.

That is the difficulty that communities will have when they see the good intentions of the bill, which cannot be achieved without the continuing momentum of investment from central Government to support local authorities on a needs basis. The premise of the bill is that better information will deliver better flood management, but seeing on a map that their area is likely to be affected by flooding offers a community no comfort if no measures are in place to alleviate the problem or to protect that community. The bill, even with its good intentions, will therefore not be successful.

Shortly after I was elected in 2003, I travelled to the Yarrow valley and Broadmeadows after my first advice surgery to visit families whose homes had been destroyed by flash floods and landslips, as also happened in Broxburn. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that intentions in legislation are matched by action on the ground.

An aspect of the bill that gave the Finance Committee concern is whether SEPA can deliver so that the right type of approach is taken on an equitable basis throughout Scotland. I heard what the minister said in his intervention, and I have seen the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's report, which endorses all the findings of the Finance Committee's report.

Deliverability is not an issue to be taken lightly. There must be an equitable means of providing support to my constituents in Broadmeadows and to Angela Constance's constituents in Broxburn. The Broxburn scheme managed to get protected funding in this spending review period, but neither the Broadmeadows scheme nor—so far—the Selkirk scheme did. If the bill is to be a success, it must be equitable as well as deliverable.

I was the victim of the Presiding Officer's guillotine this morning with regards to timing—I will not be a victim again now.

Indeed, you will not.

My instinct is very much to regret the increasing complication of everyday life that is implicit in the bill. I do not apologise for regretting the need for more planners, more plans and more specialists to tell us what we need to do—the bureaucracy to which Rhoda Grant referred. I suspect that that feeling is general, except among people whose offspring want to be planners. However, if we want to reflect the reality on the ground—which is often wet—doing nothing is not an option. Even without the European directive, the complexity of modern life combined with climate change means that such plans and specialists are a necessary part of society, despite my scepticism.

Murdo Fraser made an interesting point about removing silt from river beds, which is relevant in some places and worthy of further investigation.

Peter Peacock talked about the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's recommendation 10, which is on the governance of Scottish Water. The concern is that although sustainable flood management measures might be much more cost effective in the long term, the current system of regulating Scottish Water under the Water Industry Commission for Scotland will drive Scottish Water in the opposite direction. Many members know that, in previous years, Scottish Water's excuse for the fact that its activities often ran on a tramline was that what it did and planned was governed by directives from the Water Industry Commission. The concern is that unless that relationship is altered—I am not sure of the mechanism for it—flood management might be influenced by the short-term costs on Scottish Water rather than by long-term considerations.

There is room for debate about how precise we should make the requirements on local authorities to implement plans. When he gave evidence, the Minister for Environment said that no Government can give a guarantee against flooding. We accept that—perhaps only King Canute could do it—but any assurance that he can give us on the responsibility to maintain watercourses, for example, might help.

When I gave evidence to the committee, the member expressed an interest in that issue, which I assure him we take seriously. I have considered the questions that he asked and the evidence that the committee heard. We are preparing to lodge an amendment that will require local authorities to prepare a schedule of maintenance works. That will take care of the supervision of watercourses, because local authorities will know where they are and a duty to work on them will exist.

I am grateful for that—a listening Government is exactly what we need.

John Scott mentioned coastal flooding and tidal surges. The committee's discussions tended to centre on planning and how to prevent further building in areas that are liable to those phenomena, but we did not discuss to a great extent how we protect existing coastal properties from them. Finding the solution to that is much more difficult and I noticed that John Scott offered no solution.

Issues have been raised in relation to recommendation 36, which expresses the committee's concern

"that a lack of funding could seriously stifle … effective implementation"

of plans. An issue exists, but members need to consider it in context. The plans for which the funding will be needed will not be produced until December 2015. I am not sure how many of us will be in the Parliament at that time. Some members have overstated the immediacy of the problem.

A potential lack of specialist staff is an issue, and it might be accentuated by the attraction into the system of yet more consultancy firms, which are almost as bad as planners. When I was interrogating a witness about staff recruitment, the convener helpfully used her prerogative to intervene and asked:

"Could I characterise the position as keeping your fingers crossed?"

The civil servant's response was:

"Yes and no, I suspect."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 19 November 2008; c 1188.]

That does not fill one with confidence and, of course, the bill is the result of an EU directive that—despite the reservations that I presume John Scott has—will eventually come into force throughout the EU and will therefore create Europe-wide demand for such specialists. Who knows whether other European countries—our 26 neighbours, which may shortly be joined by Iceland—will increase their supply of specialists? Depending on how our currency progresses in a downward direction, we may lose more people than we gain from that European flow.

I am not suggesting that the Government go down the route of Soviet-style workforce planning—that has never worked, and I do not suppose that it ever will. Nor would I ever say that we should tell our universities and colleges just how many hydrologists they should produce—perish the thought that they should do something that we want in return for all the funding they are given—but there is an issue that needs to be addressed, and if someone has in their family a young person with a degree in the appropriate science plus modern languages, they may be on to a good thing. I look forward to considering the bill at stage 2.

I congratulate the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee on its work on stage 1 of the bill. This has been a really interesting debate. Every member in the chamber will have represented, be aware of and vividly recall constituents' cases on the issue.

As a lifelong supporter and advocate of the benefits of the EU, I warmly welcome the fact that yet again—as Alasdair Morgan stated—we are dealing with legislation driven by the EU, which has placed an obligation on the Scottish Government to take forward its proposals. I note from the committee's report that the EU floods directive must be implemented by November 2009; it seems that the bill is on track to achieve that.

Like Angela Constance, I note recommendation 4 of the committee's report on its inquiry into flooding and flood management, which states that the Scottish Government should ensure

"that the social and human costs, as well as the economic costs, of flooding can be included in future assessments of the value of proposed flood management measures."

I welcome the requirement that SEPA and responsible authorities have regard to social and economic impact in the exercise of flood risk management functions. I note from the committee's stage 1 report that flood risk management plans must set objectives with regard to the cost and benefits of flood management measures, including benefits to human health, the economy and the environment, but there does not seem to be an agreed method for incorporating social and human costs into flood risk management assessments, maps and plans.

I share others' concerns about funding issues. Recommendations 11 and 12 of the committee's report highlight the inability to foresee what measures will be identified in flood risk management plans. The bill does not include clear criteria for prioritising funding of future flood management or influence the three levels of funding that are set out in recommendation 12, although those issues may be addressed by the proposed amendments that the cabinet secretary mentioned in his opening speech. Ministers need to reflect on all the speeches that have been made today, especially those of my colleagues Peter Peacock and Des McNulty, because policy and legislation are meaningless unless they are matched by adequate financial resources.

I agree with Dr Ian McKee's point about softer measures such as agreeing wetlands—he was right to say that the water inevitably wins. We need only look at the constituency of my friend and colleague Marilyn Livingstone MSP, which neighbours mine, where the sea reclaimed so much land at East Wemyss, threatening homes and businesses, when I was the roads and transportation spokesperson for Fife Council, with a remit that included coastal erosion and flooding matters. Angela Constance cited the example of her constituent Mrs Ross; I want to ensure that my constituents are spared the sort of misery that Mrs Ross described so well.

I was pleased to read in the written evidence submitted to the committee by the Association of British Insurers that it is discussing with the Scottish Government a statement of principles for flood insurance.

That statement was published—signed—on the day I gave evidence to the committee in December.

Thank you, minister. The ABI identified various measures that the Scottish Government needed to take, and it seems that the Government will take them. The ABI said clearly that the planning system should prevent

"inappropriate development in flood risk areas".

I welcome the ABI's approach. As the minister knows to his pain, I have tried ad nauseam, through 150 parliamentary questions and other interventions, to represent the concerns of my constituents in St David's Bay—the neighbouring town to where I live—who have been up in arms because the Government has signed off planning permission on a site that SEPA has designated as being at high risk of flooding. It beggars belief that a Government can put future generations of home owners in the path of certain harm.

I do not know whether it will be possible for me to lodge an amendment to the bill that would address the issue, but I will certainly lodge amendments if I can. I was especially pleased to read in the briefing from SPICe for today's debate that there might be an opening in that regard in relation to recommendation 18 in the committee's report, on flooding and flood management, which I will consider carefully.

When we legislate we have a duty to make people feel safe, but the current Government does not seem to be sufficiently sensitive to the issue—given that it accepted without question the reporter's view on the recent development proposal from Eadie Cairns. I hasten to add that I have no relationship whatever with that company. Perhaps the construction of the flats will be delayed, given the current economic situation. Every cloud has a silver lining.

I also agree with the ABI that there should be clear thinking on

"plans for more accurate identification of flood risk"

and on the responsibility of everyone involved, including developers and public agencies, to communicate to the public and insurers the risk of flooding from all sources, although I was surprised that the ABI thought that not enough work had been done in that regard.

I declare an interest in farming and my past directorships of NFU Scotland.

I have witnessed at first hand several floods. Living as I do in the verdant valley of the Yarrow, it is not uncommon to wake up and find that it looks more like the valley of the Nile. The worst flood that I remember happened in October 1977, when Selkirk lost its bridge and there was much damage to property and loss of livestock but no human loss, which was lucky. Last year I watched as the family dog disappeared into a 12ft-deep torrent of water rushing by the house, which had been a lazy burn of 6in only 10 minutes earlier. It was lucky that the dog swam out.

Liberal Democrats acknowledge that flooding is a tangible danger in the south of Scotland and many other parts of the country and welcome the renewed focus on flood management. We are committed to the bill, as Liam McArthur made clear, which presents an opportunity to introduce a more sustainable, integrated approach to flood management. As Liam McArthur said, the process was begun by Ross Finnie in the previous session of the Parliament. We are glad that there has been progress.

Almost 100,000 Scottish homes and 7,000 Scottish businesses are vulnerable to inland and coastal flooding. It is estimated that the annual average cost of damage from flooding is about £20 million, which could rise by 115 per cent by 2080. The economic cost should be the force behind the change that is needed to achieve a more sustainable approach to flooding.

Sustainable flood management offers a long-term solution, but there will still be a place for the hard defences that were mentioned by many members, including Roseanna Cunningham, the convener of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Hard engineering defences should be considered alongside softer engineering options. Many villages and towns in Scotland, including those in the south, are located on flood plains and are vulnerable to flooding. Soft engineering can reduce the need to build ever higher flood defences to protect such vulnerable communities.

The adoption of sustainable measures to tackle flooding will require a strategic approach in which consideration is given to the catchment as a whole, including water environment and land use interests. Responsibilities will have to be shared, not only between authorities but between rural communities and other groups.

Hawick has long suffered from flooding. Murdo Fraser mentioned gravel, which is an issue there: water does not flow under one of the two arches of the main bridge because the river is so full of gravel.

Towards the end of last year, Tavish Scott and I viewed the devastating effects of flooding in the Bowmont and Kale valleys near Kelso—as did Mr Russell, I believe. We saw the destruction that was caused to roads, bridges, homes and businessness. Further to the south-west, flooding disrupted the white sands area of Dumfries last week, as it seems to do regularly, and more is expected again tonight. The River Annan also caused problems for people when it burst it banks recently.

John Scott mentioned wood planting to alleviate floods. That comes at great expense—my farm has been involved in such an initiative—and we must not underestimate the power of water to move even trees and fences.

I am concerned that flood risk management plans will not have to be in place until 2015. Jeremy Purvis mentioned that local authorities are uncertain what their rights and responsibilities will be under the bill. The cabinet secretary and Liam McArthur also mentioned that. SEPA would inherit responsibility for Scotland's national flood management under the bill, but its role may not be fully implemented until 2015. In evidence to the committee, Scottish Government officials said that they have not finalised any interim arrangements, which has led some local authorities to question their flood management remit in advance of SEPA taking full responsibility. I echo the concerns that Jeremy Purvis, Sarah Boyack and Liam McArthur expressed about local authority funding.

Richard Lochhead mentioned that the bill will require SEPA and local authorities to assess whether natural features such as flood plains, woodlands or wetlands can be incorporated into flood risk management, but once the assessment has been carried out there will be no obligation on the authorities to incorporate natural defences into their plans and the bill does not presume that such defences should be preferred to other methods. Roseanna Cunningham, the committee's convener, mentioned that we need a cultural shift in favour of considering natural flood management techniques, as did Sarah Boyack.

Dave Thompson mentioned the Scottish rural development programme. I will not go on about it, but it is an issue—it is a pot that seems to be being dragged in all directions.

Alasdair Morgan and Liam McArthur mentioned skills. There may be opportunities, but it looks as though we have a skills gap that will have to be addressed.

The introduction of a Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill is welcome, but some matters still need clarification. I hope that, once the bill has progressed through stages 2 and 3, the final outcome will be a piece of legislation that builds on the good work that Ross Finnie did, so that truly sustainable flood management strategies that reduce the impact of flooding on Scotland's economy, species and habitats can be implemented with the proper finance behind them.

I can sum up the mood of the Parliament no better than by quoting Scottish Environment LINK, which

"welcomes the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's Stage 1 Report and its recommendations to strengthen the provisions of the Bill in a number of key areas. The primary legislation must be strong and robust enough to underpin effective implementation of flood risk management plans. The benefits of getting this right and reducing the risk of flooding in a sustainable way will not only help to improve and restore the status of the water environment, but will also reduce the economic and social costs of flooding."

I am sure that none of us can disagree with that.

There is no doubt that flooding and flood prevention have moved up the political agenda as we face up to the impact of climate change. Media coverage of several recent episodes of severe flooding north and south of the border has let us see something of the devastation that it causes not only physically but emotionally: people who experience it remain ever fearful of a recurrence, as Angela Constance highlighted by referring to her constituents' experiences in West Lothian.

SEPA's flood risk map, which was published in 2007, indicates that nearly 100,000 properties in Scotland are at risk of flooding. It is predicted that floods that are currently considered extreme are likely to become more common, as are water surges that threaten coastal defences and cause surface flooding that is likely to overwhelm our urban drainage systems. There is an urgent need for long-term planning with an emphasis on sustainable flood management, which makes the bill welcome, if long awaited.

By establishing a framework for assessing flood risk, mapping flood hazard and risk, and developing risk management plans, the bill aims to reduce the adverse consequences of flooding. It also transposes the EU floods directive into Scots law in anticipation of the deadline for doing so, which is November this year. Our party fully supports the bill and has given a commitment to work constructively with the Government to take it forward at speed. We are pleased with its provisions, as John Scott said, but they can and must be improved.

We are happy to support the recommendations that were unanimously agreed by the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee in its stage 1 report. They take due cognisance of what the many expert witnesses said in evidence during the committee's painstaking scrutiny of the bill, and as my party's environment spokesman—although I am not a member of the committee—I congratulate the committee on a thorough piece of work. I agree that its pre-legislative inquiry was impressive, and I am sure that it influenced the bill significantly.

There is a clear need to update and simplify the plethora of existing flood-related legislation, much of which, as the Government's policy memorandum states,

"is outdated and does not reflect the way that government and local services are now delivered in Scotland."

The main provisions in the bill have been ably discussed by others this afternoon so, rather than repeat what they said, I will simply endorse some concerns that were expressed to the committee. Like others, I am pleased that the Government has responded positively to the committee's recommendation by agreeing to amend the long title of the bill to include a reference to sustainability.

Funding is clearly a major issue. Local authorities and others are worried that funding streams for the lead and responsible authorities are not currently in alignment. As Dave Thompson stressed, NFU Scotland is deeply concerned about the possibility that money might be diverted from the Scottish rural development programme to flood management or to compensate farmers who lose valuable agricultural land as a consequence of natural flood management. The NFU believes that it is essential that the Government provides either an alternative source of funding or an increase in SRDP moneys that is commensurate with flood management requirements.

Alasdair Morgan highlighted the fears of SEPA and others that a lack of capacity in the recruitment and training of hydrologists and other specialists could seriously endanger the effective implementation of the bill. There is also concern that its implementation might be affected by the absence of a binding duty on responsible authorities to implement flood risk management plans and by the lack of a targeted funding stream for flood risk management.

Another concern is that the current prioritisation by Scottish Water of more immediate short-term cost options in assessing what form of flood prevention work to undertake could result in the benefits of more costly, but more sustainable, natural flood management techniques being overlooked. The cabinet secretary's commitment to look at that issue is welcome.

Finally, Scottish Water's worry that surface water management planning does not feature in the bill must also be considered as part of a co-ordinated approach to flood risk management. However, I appreciate that such issues might not come within the remit of the bill.

I have merely skimmed over some of the issues that the committee considered in depth. Clearly, as the committee recommended in its stage 1 report, some provisions need to be improved before stage 3, and the cabinet secretary's indication that he will address some of those issues at stage 2 is welcome.

The human cost of flooding can be devastating because of the damage it does not only to homes and possessions but to emotional wellbeing, so anything that the Government can do to prevent flooding and to mitigate its effects is to be welcomed. I am pleased and relieved that we now have legislation on the table and, along with my colleagues, I look forward to supporting the general principles of the bill at decision time.

As Angela Constance and others have said, there can be few more distressing and frightening experiences than the serious flooding of one's home. Unfortunately, an increasing number of residents are suffering that experience as a result of climate change, and the trend is likely to continue.

Murdo Fraser referred to the frustration experienced by members who have tried to represent constituents who have suffered as a result of flooding but found that none of the agencies involved seems to have responsibility for solving the problem. In Eaglesfield, Annan and Langholm in my constituency, sewers have been unable to cope with pluvial flooding, so constituents have experienced a particularly unpleasant form of flooding.

As others have mentioned, the Whitesands in Dumfries floods fairly regularly when the freshwater river, swollen by heavy rainfall, meets the tidal surge from the Solway—indeed, that happened earlier this afternoon, although it was not one of the worst floods in the area. It is extremely frustrating that action has not been taken to solve the problem and that opportunities have not been taken to secure funding to solve it, even though it has been a problem for decades, if not centuries. I hope that the Government will give us an indication of interim arrangements that can be put in place, because I do not want the necessary measures to be put off again until 2015, when the flood risk management plans come into effect.

We welcome the bill, which seeks to introduce responsibility for assessing flood risk and planning for its avoidance, but believe that it would benefit from some strengthening. We welcome the fact that the Government has said that it is willing to take action in some areas but, as Rhoda Grant and Sarah Boyack stressed, we want to ensure, in particular, that plans are implemented.

Roseanna Cunningham, Sarah Boyack and Peter Peacock mentioned the need to take a long-term view of priorities for investment. We would like SEPA to be tasked with looking forward over 24-year periods and planning what programmes of events need to be developed nationally. As well as helping to inform local authorities, that work could be used by ministers during spending reviews to establish how much money is needed for flood prevention.

As others have said, we need to ensure that flood risk management plans are not just drawn up but implemented. The Government has indicated that it will make some changes to the bill as regards local authorities' responsibilities, but we might need to consider placing duties on SEPA and on ministers to ensure that the objectives of flood risk management plans are met. I am not saying that we should commit either SEPA or ministers to funding every flood prevention plan that is prepared in Scotland, but we must ensure that action is taken following the production of plans.

All committee members are disappointed that our recommendation on funding seems not to be regarded favourably by ministers. In its report on flooding of May last year, the committee was highly critical of the Government's approach, and it has repeated its criticism in its stage 1 report on the bill. Members of all parties have raised the same issue. Jeremy Purvis, Mary Scanlon—whose intervention Rhoda Grant agreed with—Des McNulty and Helen Eadie are just a few of the members who have concerns about funding. Funding is central to whether the bill will work.

It is a matter of not just cash but other resources, such as human resources, as Roseanna Cunningham and Liam McArthur said. The bill's objectives could also be thwarted by a lack of hydrologists, whose expertise will be necessary in the production of the proposed plans. We know that the planning process in Scotland has been affected by the shortage of local authority planners, which has sometimes thwarted the intentions of legislation that the Parliament has passed. Let us learn from the problems that we have experienced as a result of a lack of appropriate professionals in local authorities, and let us do what we can to ensure that the right people with the right skills are in our authorities to implement the bill's provisions.

Several members said that they are disappointed that no progress has been made on assessment of the human and economic costs of flooding. We appreciate that those are difficult matters to assess, but authorities will need guidance from the Scottish Government so that they can factor such considerations into their assessments. They need to receive such guidance in sufficient time to allow them to take account of it when they draw up their plans.

There is also a concern about the need to strengthen the bill's provisions to ensure that natural flood prevention methods are taken into account. Roseanna Cunningham discussed a presumption in favour of natural solutions, but there were concerns that that might be taken to mean that no one could use hard engineering solutions, even when it was appropriate to do so. Although we appreciate that hard engineering solutions are sometimes appropriate, we want there to be a cultural shift, as Peter Peacock and Des McNulty said, so that councils consider the use of longer-term natural solutions.

I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement that he will take on board the suggestion of some environmental non-governmental organisations that the long title should be altered to include "sustainable".

Compensation was mentioned, and Murdo Fraser spoke about landowners' concerns that they might have to pay large amounts of money for flood prevention work. The committee agreed that private landowners should not be required to pay for flood management on their land when the cost has been determined by responsible authorities. Local authorities have sometimes however to go on to land in order to repair field drains or water courses that have become blocked because someone has not bothered to look after them. We feel that the local authority should be empowered to make a claim for the cost to the public purse of undertaking such work.

As John Scott said, the committee felt that the duty on local authorities to cleanse and maintain watercourses should be maintained, but it should perhaps be tempered by a section that says that that should not be in conflict with their flood prevention duties.

There are several issues to do with planning consent. Helen Eadie illustrated a problem with the current planning system, and there may be opportunities to address planning issues in areas that are likely to be flooded. We are happy that the cabinet secretary indicated that the Government will take on board issues that the Association of British Insurers raised about the maintenance of sustainable urban drainage systems, and we look forward to the Government's amendment on sewerage flooding at stage 2.

Generally, we are happy with the bill, but we look forward to the amendments. I wish the minister success in his acting debut, and I wonder what part he is playing: is he in "The Tempest", or is he the villain in "Babes in the Wood"?

Let us find out.

I will not talk about acting this evening; I will devote myself to the subject at hand. However, I understand that some tickets are still available for the performance at the Tall Ship in Glasgow at 8 o'clock tonight.

This has been a positive and important debate, but I start with one particular contribution that summed up the real issue. It is not the minutiae of legislation or the speed of the planning process, although a lot of work needs to be done on that. It is not even the details of the COSLA-agreed formula on funding, which I will come to. The issue is the suffering and distress of individuals, and sometimes the loss of life. Often property can be destroyed, which also causes distress. That was brought home to me last year, when I visited Angela Constance's constituents in Broxburn after launching the Scottish Flood Forum. I shall come to that valuable organisation in a moment.

The debate, the bill and all our work is about people. We must keep our focus on those people and how they are affected by flooding. Anyone who has visited those who are affected by flooding knows that one theme is constant. Those who have been flooded out of their homes, sometimes for months or years on end, always say that when the rain starts, they begin to feel scared again. We must reinforce a feeling of reassurance that the tasks that we undertake will be effective.

There will always be flooding. Some properties will always be affected by flooding. It cannot be eliminated, but there are actions that we can take to reduce the risk of flooding, which is precisely what we will do.

The constant theme of the debate has been that we have a good bill here. The environment organisations say that the bill is good. The political parties say that the bill is good. Our job is to work together to make that good bill substantially better. We are trying to do so and I am pleased that we have been able to move forward on a range of issues today, just as we were able to move forward after the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's report on flooding. We accepted a large number of that report's recommendations and integrated them into our thinking on the bill.

However, genuine differences remain. I start with finance. I have heard the issue discussed today in terms that I do not recognise. The formula is entirely clear. It is not a formula that has been imposed by the Government. It was negotiated with COSLA and has been agreed with COSLA. The formula is in three parts. First, existing flood schemes that were under way when the formula came into effect at the start of the last financial year were honoured. Secondly, schemes that had been published—that is schemes that were in the process of going through—were honoured. Thirdly, the rest of the money was divided, not on a crude population basis, but on the basis of properties at risk according to the SEPA flood map. That is the formula that operates now and local authorities, through COSLA, acceded to it; indeed, they suggested it.

The formula is not set in stone, however, and, in any new funding round it is possible that it will be developed or changed. It is the outcomes that are more important than anything else. Once we have better information and are more confident about what measures to use to address flooding problems, the funding pattern might well be able to change.

It is important to recognise that the current allocation of money was made on the basis of what local authorities asked for and had in place. I must say to Mr Purvis, with the greatest respect—and not falling out with him politically—that there was no Selkirk scheme. No authority had brought forward or published a Selkirk scheme. It has been admitted by Dr Murray—and I am grateful to her—that there was no Dumfries scheme. One had never been published. There was no agreed scheme, and the local authority had not come forward with one. Local authorities must come forward with their schemes and we will consider them.

The scheme that I am concerned about, in Edinburgh, was under the wire in that respect. I ask the minister to investigate the matter and to report back to the city council. I would be grateful to have a meeting with the minister, if that would help. What he is trying to say would be helpful to us in Edinburgh.

I would be happy to have a meeting about that, and I have repeatedly said that we are open to discussion about existing schemes that have changed in their nature. I am not making any guarantees, but I am open to discussion. It is important that we understand what the financial provisions are and how they operate. They are not crude provisions made solely on the basis of population; they are fairly sophisticated provisions made in negotiation with COSLA. I am happy to continue discussing the matter, but those are the facts.

Let me say a word or two about what we are trying to do. A great deal of work has been done so far. The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee produced a very good report and we are in active participation, debate and co-operation with the committee. At stage 2, we will continue that process. As the bill progresses, the Government will continue, I hope, to foster that feeling of consensus about what we are trying to achieve, and that will help us, along with the committee, to make a good bill better still.

We also wish to focus on some things that, although not central to the bill, are important. The support that the Scottish Government is giving to the Scottish Flood Forum is very important. The National Flood Forum has been of enormous benefit to people south of the border and the Scottish Flood Forum, funded by the Scottish Government, is now firmly established and is providing support to communities and individuals who are threatened by flooding. Those members who have constituents with such problems should talk to the forum.

Some further issues are germane. One is that of insurance, which was raised by Helen Eadie. The agreement with the Association of British Insurers is now in place. After 150 parliamentary questions from and three meetings with Helen Eadie—in one of them, I think that we were talking about different cases, which would explain a great deal—I have not been able to satisfy Helen Eadie. [Laughter.] It does happen. In those circumstances, I would welcome it if Helen Eadie lodged an amendment, so that some higher court can eventually decide on the issue that she has raised, which is important. If we do not build on flood plains, we severely limit certain types of development—and we would have to evacuate half the central belt. If that is the effect of the amendment that Helen Eadie wishes to lodge, I will allow the argument to speak for itself.

The issue of emergency response was raised in the debate. That does not come under the bill, but the provisions for flood mapping and the transposition of the European directive will help to inform the whole process of emergency response. There will be a sharper, more effective emergency response on flooding because we will be able to deal with it more accurately with respect to where it takes place.

I am conscious of the shortage of time, Presiding Officer, but let me deal with one or two other issues. We are having serious discussions with Scottish Water about how its plans dovetail with the bill. It is one of the bodies that is responsible for delivery. I am sure that its methodology and actions will develop as a result of the bill.

The central concern of some members was about a lack of skills. Alasdair Morgan's and Roseanna Cunningham's suggestion that all young people should train as hydrologists was an interesting one. I cannot manufacture hydrologists out of nowhere. I do not deny that there is a shortage of hydrologists, but the bill will require not only the skills of hydrology but those of cartography, engineering and, importantly, environmentalism. Not all the solutions under the bill lie in the realm of hydrology. I encourage those who are keen to work in those other areas to work with us on the bill.

I commend the bill to Parliament and I look forward to stage 2, when everybody will work to make this good bill better.