Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 23, 2026

Official Report 830KB pdf

---

Flood Resilience

The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-01283, in the name of Gillian Martin, on building a flood-resilient Scotland—delivering action for communities in a changing climate. Members who wish to speak should press their request-to-speak button now.

15:45

I am pleased to open today’s debate and, given that flooding is one of the most significant climate-related challenges that we face, to have the opportunity to highlight the progress that is being made to improve Scotland’s flood resilience.

It is clear that climate change is driving more frequent and severe weather events around the world, and Scotland is not immune from that. Our communities are experiencing heavier rainfall, more frequent storms and rising sea levels. Events that were once considered exceptional are, regrettably, becoming common. For many people, flood risk is no longer a distant future threat; it is today’s reality. Behind every flood statistic, there are people whose homes, businesses and communities have been affected. Many of us across the chamber know constituents who have experienced such devastation at first hand, with treasured family possessions irretrievably lost, homes damaged and businesses disrupted.

The science is clear: flood risk will continue to increase. Therefore, we must not only respond to flooding but focus on preparing for the future, reducing risk and, crucially, building resilience.

That is exactly what this Government is doing. We are determined to take action now to protect people, homes and livelihoods. In the past two years alone, significant progress has been made. We have published Scotland’s first national flood resilience strategy and a flood recovery framework, and we have invested in new data and monitoring technology to strengthen resilience.

This afternoon, we will publish our national flood resilience strategy implementation plan, which was developed with partners from across Scotland. It sets out 65 actions for delivery over the next four years, including those that will be supported by the additional £15 million of flood resilience investment that was announced this summer and set out in our programme for government.

The funding, which focuses on those communities that are most vulnerable to flooding, will support a new £5 million community flood resilience fund, beginning in 2027, to support local projects that improve preparedness and reduce flood risk. There will be an investment of £3 million in blue-green infrastructure projects, supporting solutions that work with nature to manage rainfall while delivering wider environmental benefits; a further £2.5 million will future proof public assets and resilience infrastructure; and £1 million will support innovative coastal resilience projects.

We will ask Public Health Scotland to develop a tool that combines flood risk and demographic data, helping to identify more vulnerable communities and target support where it is needed most. Working closely with communities, local authorities and partners, we will invest in practical measures that will strengthen resilience for the future.

Earlier today, I laid before the Parliament our report on implementation of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, highlighting the progress that was made between 2021 and 2025.

I welcome any new additional funds for flood resilience measures, but one scheme for one small community in my constituency is going to cost £1 million. That is just one scheme for a small community. How far will the funds that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Rural Affairs has set out reach across Scotland?

The £15 million is in addition to funding that is already given to councils and mainly used for hard engineering infrastructure. No one is suggesting that the £15 million is the sum total of flood resilience funding. It is additional money, and it is particularly for small schemes, where interventions can be made at a local scale.

Together, those publications demonstrate not only how far we have come but how we will continue to prepare Scotland for the future.

In 2024, we published the national flood resilience strategy, setting out a clear long-term vision to 2045. It recognised the progress that has already been made through flood protection schemes, forecasting, warning services, community resilience initiatives and strong partnership working across Scotland. It also highlighted the need for a different approach. Flood resilience is about more than just managing water; it is about how we plan our towns and cities, protect vital infrastructure, manage land and support communities to adapt.

The strategy’s vision is straightforward: people and places across Scotland are prepared for increased flood risk, with resilience embedded in a way that is fair, sustainable and inclusive. Today’s implementation plan turns that vision into action. The plan is built around three themes: people, places and processes.

On the point about people, we know that people who have less money are likely to find it harder to protect themselves from flooding and to recover when flooding arises. What will the Government’s plans today do to address that inequality?

This gives me an opportunity to mention Flo, the Scottish Flood Forum bus that is outside the Parliament today, which I encourage every member to go and see. That organisation is taking a number of actions to help to support low-income households and individuals. There are also resilience services embedded in our local councils. During the recent flooding events in Scotland, community response partnerships have grown up in communities. I encourage people to look into what is available in their local area. The flood resilience bus will stay outside until 6 o’clock to allow everyone to visit. That gives members time after the debate to find out at first hand what support is available for their constituents.

At the heart of our actions is a simple principle: resilient communities are the foundation of a flood-resilient Scotland. In response to Monica Lennon, I mentioned Flo, the flood resilience bus, which offers advice in our communities. We also continue to support the valuable work of the conservation volunteers, strengthening flood resilience through education, training and community action.

[Made a request to intervene.]

I will take Mr Hoy’s intervention in a minute. I need to make some progress as I have a tight 12 minutes.

The lessons from storm Babet have shaped our approach. Last year, we published a flood recovery framework, setting out how communities can be supported after major flooding. Today, I am pleased to announce that £500,000 will be made available to help communities that are recovering from recent flooding, as part of that wider £15 million investment.

As the cabinet secretary might be aware from written correspondence that we have engaged in, the community of Langholm, which I represent, would like the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to engage in dredging locally. The minister talked about people, and the people of Langholm who would like the dredging to take place. The process is relatively simple and it has been done over a number of years. Does the minister have any understanding of why SEPA seems to be changing its view, which has been held in relation to areas such as Langholm for many years, and why dredging is not one potential solution to mitigate flood risk?

That issue has been brought up in my constituency. I am meeting SEPA this week—tomorrow, I think—and if Mr Hoy will permit me, I will add that to the issues that I want to discuss with SEPA. We need to understand why decisions are made, and communities need to have a two-way dialogue with SEPA about the interventions that can be made.

I want to mention some of the flood schemes. There has been £612 million to support local authority flood risk management, which I mentioned in my response to Mr Rennie. Twenty-one flood protection schemes have been delivered, four further projects are under construction, two are under contract and three others are progressing through development. Once the Hawick flood scheme is open later this autumn, I will visit it. It is protecting more than 900 homes and businesses and was named environmental project of the year. I am really looking forward to going down to Hawick to see it in action.

The work that has been done on delivering the schemes reflects the strength of collaboration between national Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and local authorities. We are also working with COSLA on the affordability of current schemes—again, that speaks to Mr Rennie’s point—and to reform future funding arrangements for major flood protection schemes, ensuring that that investment delivers best value and maximum benefit.

Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the current funding formula disadvantages small communities across Scotland, which means that there are very few places for them to go when it comes to applying for the bigger infrastructure projects that can protect them?

Mr Rennie made a similar point. I point out that there is a £15 million fund in addition to the settlement from COSLA to local authorities. However, I am always looking for ways to make communities more resilient and considering the various interventions that could be made, sometimes in the blue-green infrastructure and sometimes in the hard engineering infrastructure.

We have also funded SEPA to develop our first national flood and coastal asset register; we have strengthened building standards; and work is under way across the public sector to understand and reduce flood risks to important public assets, including national health service facilities.

In the remaining minutes, I want to talk about the importance of nature-based solutions. We are investing in nature-based solutions, from Balruddery near Dundee, where innovative leaky barriers are helping to slow flood peaks, to the Garrel burn restoration project, which is reconnecting rivers and flood plains. I visited the River Peffery remeandering project, just north of Dingwall, which is not only improving the biodiversity in the area but protecting the business park in Dingwall—and, indeed, the town—from flooding.

Through our coastal change adaptation fund, we have supported dune restoration and beach recharge projects in communities including St Andrews, Montrose, Cullipool and Lossiemouth. Our programme for government commits to a further £14 million for the coastal change adaptation fund. Of course, those nature-based solutions are not only about flood mitigation or flood protection interventions; they also have other fantastic outcomes, particularly in relation to stemming biodiversity loss and bringing habitats back. We will continue to build on that work and to expand the evidence. I am interested in speaking to anyone in the Parliament about how we can have more action in relation to flood protection schemes.

SEPA is updating its national flood management maps, targeting the action that will have the greatest impact. We have commissioned SEPA to develop a new flood advisory service that will strengthen planning, governance and delivery of major flood resilience projects.

Climate adaptation is being embedded across national, regional and local planning—32 local authorities are participating in climate ready regions partnerships.

I realise that I am probably running out of time, but I want to mention that the flood resilience strategy sets a course to 2045; today’s implementation plan is a major step forward on that journey. Ultimately, success will be measured not by plans or policy but by outcomes that are seen in communities, in particular in communities that have previously faced flooding events or feel that they are at risk.

I thank everyone who has contributed to the development of the implementation plan. By acting now, working together and investing wisely, we can build a safer, stronger and more resilient Scotland for future generations. I look forward to hearing members’ contributions.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises Scotland’s increasing risk of flooding as a result of climate change and the significant impacts flooding can have on communities, businesses and the environment; further recognises the need to continue to adapt to these changes at pace; welcomes the commitments in the Programme for Government to additional investment in flood resilience and coastal adaptation and the progress being made through partnership working among local authorities, the third sector, communities and wider partners to improve flood resilience; acknowledges the broad range of actions and continued public investment in flood protection schemes, nature-based solutions and community preparedness; recognises the need to support those most vulnerable to flooding with adaptation and recovery, and agrees that building a flood resilient Scotland is essential to protecting people, homes and livelihoods.

I call Donald MacKinnon to speak to and move amendment S7M-01283.2.

15:58

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, in that I am a shareholder in a common grazing, with an interest in peatland restoration.

I welcome much of the Government’s motion and what the cabinet secretary has said. Our climate is changing, and with it the frequency and impact of flooding events. An increasing number of intense rainfall events can overwhelm drainage systems while sea levels rise and increasingly stormy weather threatens our coastal communities.

Making communities across Scotland more resilient to flooding is essential and will require a holistic approach that combines urban planning, hard engineering and landscape-scale, nature-based solutions. The additional £15 million flood resilience fund is welcome, but it must be followed through with scaled-up and faster delivery of promised projects.

Last year, Audit Scotland reported that the

“funding mechanism for … flood schemes”

was

“not fit for purpose”,

that projects were increasing in costs and that timelines were extending, with an increase in expected costs from £350 million in 2015 to £1 billion in 2025 for fewer projects than were originally planned.

The Scottish Government must meet the scale of the challenge that is in front of us. Key to future delivery is addressing the recommendations that were outlined in the Audit Scotland report last year. That is why our amendment calls for a commitment to guaranteeing and increasing funding for the incomplete projects from cycle 1 and to ensuring that future cycles are adequately resourced, with flexibility for increased costs built in. It is clear that a lack of flexibility in the existing programme has led to challenges with delivery. Collaboration between communities, local authorities, COSLA and the Government will be key to turning a corner and delivering the infrastructure that is required.

Scottish Water’s management of the drainage system is a critical part of the story, too, and ensuring that investment in the network prioritises the areas of most concern will be important to ensuring that the results are evident.

Does Donald MacKinnon agree that it is important that we maintain Scottish Water’s constitution as being publicly owned? Every penny of profit that is made by that organisation goes back into paying for the infrastructure, which is a marked difference from the privatised water companies that operate in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I totally agree with the cabinet secretary’s point. We are fortunate to have a publicly owned water provider, and it is important that Scottish Water uses the money that it takes to invest in its infrastructure and to contribute to addressing the challenges that we face.

Nature-based solutions have a crucial role to play in flood management, and we are minded to support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which calls for catchment co-ordinators. Nature-based solutions will work best on a landscape scale across whole catchments, which will require co-ordination between land managers, farmers, crofters and funding bodies. For that reason, we will also support the Green amendment.

Where appropriate, peatland restoration, tree planting and river restoration schemes can all help to slow the flow of water, which helps to retain water in the soil and in upland areas and protects communities further downstream. Support must continue to be given to the land managers who engage in that work, which should be recognised for its significant benefits in militating against flooding and for the real costs that are involved, particularly if there is a loss of agricultural opportunity. As the cabinet secretary pointed out, that work can also align with wider climate and biodiversity ambitions alongside the creation of landscapes that are more resilient to wildfire and will ultimately remain productive parts of agricultural holdings.

Increasing rainfall is not the only risk to our communities when it comes to flooding, and it would be remiss of me not to mention the impact of the rising sea level and increasingly stormy weather, which also presents a significant risk, not least to our coastal and island communities. Causeways that link islands are at particular risk of damage and disruption as those challenges worsen—for example, the Baleshare causeway in my constituency, which connects a small island to North Uist, is often closed due to bad weather. We cannot lose sight of the importance of protecting the resilience of connectivity between communities and ensuring that such connections are fit for changing conditions.

I reiterate my support for the Scottish Government’s ambition to get the issue right. It is simply not an option to find ourselves in a similar position next year, with projects failing to deliver. The changing climate will not wait for us. Action is needed now to protect homes, make our communities more resilient and deliver on these long-promised schemes.

I move amendment S7M-01283.2, to leave out from “acknowledges” to “preparedness” and insert:

“calls on the Scottish Government to increase and guarantee funding for the remaining incomplete flood protection schemes from Cycle 1 and to ensure that future funding cycles are adequately resourced and provide flexibility to accommodate increased costs; believes that further Scottish Government support is required for nature-based solutions and community preparedness”.

16:03

Unfortunately, flooding is not a new phenomenon for communities across Scotland. Long before the dreaded two-word phrase “net zero” entered the political lexicon, long before climate change was rebranded the climate crisis and long before any of us entered the political fray, flooding affected communities across Scotland.

In my region, one of the most severe weather events to hit the south-east of Scotland was the great Borders flood of 1948. Berwickshire and Roxburghshire received four months’ worth of rainfall in less than a week. To the west, in Dumfries, the River Nith hit its highest water level mark of 5.15m in December 1982—a figure that would not be passed for another 40 years.

It is crucial to remember that countless generations of Scots have had to deal with the challenges of flooding across our country; thus, given that the Scottish Government heavily references climate change in its motion, it is important to recognise that, although weather patterns may well change and extreme weather events may increase, it is fundamentally a case of Scotland needing to adapt to known and experienced challenges.

Given the long-running challenge of flooding to communities across Scotland, any serious and meaningful proposals on investment in flood resilience should and will be welcomed, and I look forward to seeing more details of the investment that the cabinet secretary mentioned earlier in the debate.

When we discuss the role of climate change in flood risks to communities across Scotland and assess our response to that, it is imperative that we focus on what we have agency to influence and on the outcomes that we can shape. That means focusing on climate adaptation and not climate mitigation. Scotland accounts for 0.08 per cent of global emissions, with that figure having fallen by more than 50 per cent since 1990. That means that, unfortunately, it is not within our gift to mitigate the global challenge of climate change. Instead, we have the ability—indeed, I would say, the responsibility—to ensure that our resources and energy that are focused on the topic go into methods of adaptation. That means sustained and suitable investment in flood protection schemes for at-risk communities across Scotland.

Earlier this year, the Government announced what it called a

“Record investment for climate action”,

but the Scottish public could well ask whether elements of that funding could be better deployed to practical solutions for climate adaptation and flood prevention.

One such spending commitment in that announcement that stood out to me was for

“£12 million to support vulnerable communities in the Global South”,

which—for those members who do not speak the language of SOAS postgraduates—means taxpayers’ money being spent overseas rather than here in Scotland. It potentially means Scottish taxpayers’ money going to some of the world’s largest polluters and emitters, depending on what the cabinet secretary’s definition of the global south might be.

Will the member give way?

I would be delighted to take Mr Hoy’s intervention.

I thank Mr Langan for taking my intervention; perhaps I can bring him back closer to home. What is his position on the Whitesands flood defence scheme? Does he stand with the community?

I call Donald MacKinnon.

Am I taking another intervention?

If you like.

It would be normal to respond to each intervention in turn.

Absolutely. I thank Mr Hoy for his intervention—I will be coming to that very important project for the people of Dumfries later in my speech.

Was Donald MacKinnon asking to intervene?

No, I was not.

Oh, that is a shame—he is a fine man. He is not on the Reform benches just yet, but there we are.

I hope that, across the chamber, we can agree that, given the severe and well-documented limits on public finances, that money could be much better deployed at home to support our flood challenges, and that it is our constituents across Scotland, and not necessarily the world at large, to whom we owe that duty. However, from what I heard at portfolio question time earlier, I am not sure that that commonsense view is universally held across the chamber.

As previously mentioned, when there are serious and meaningful proposals for investment in flood resilience for communities across Scotland, that will always be welcomed. However, it is important to ensure that flood prevention projects are shaped by the communities for which they are designed and that the wishes of those communities are considered every step of the way.

That can be seen nowhere more clearly than in my region, where the Whitesands flood protection scheme in Dumfries has frustrated local residents and businesses with the significant disruption that it has caused. There are concerns about the suitability of the scheme, which was first conceived more than two decades ago, and about the impact that it will have on the character of the town centre.

Those concerns have prompted multiple petitions from residents, who have gathered thousands of signatures. However, residents’ concerns and questions have not been met with the openness that they merit. In addition, the Scottish Information Commissioner has criticised Dumfries and Galloway Council’s handling of a freedom of information request relating to the impact of the scheme on common good land, finding that the council had

“failed at the most basic level”

in its response. That is a clear case of local communities not being listened to.

The ongoing development of the Whitesands flood protection scheme has highlighted cost management challenges, which are far too often associated with such projects. The estimated total cost rose from £37.5 million in 2023 to £68.6 million by the end of 2025. Unfortunately, that is not an isolated example. Hawick’s flood protection scheme was initially estimated at £37.4 million in the 2016-17 financial year, before ballooning to almost £80 million by the end of 2023.

The member must come to a conclusion.

The people of Dumfries and Hawick rightly deserve long-lasting protection from the devastating potential of serious flooding, but we must recognise that every penny of overspend is a penny that is not spent on towns such as Peebles and Newcastleton, which are waiting for significant and much-needed flood protection investment.

To conclude, Reform will always support sensible and long-term investment in flood resilience. Scotland cannot control global emissions, but we can do what is within our agency, which is to prepare our communities for any changes and ensure that they are listened to every step of the way.

I move amendment S7M-01283.4, to leave out from “as” to end and insert:

“and that its contribution to global emissions is negligible; believes that this Parliament cannot control global weather patterns and that flooding risks will persist regardless of future emissions reductions; further believes that government policy must therefore place a greater emphasis on Scotland’s ability to adapt, prepare for and recover from flooding and on protecting homes, businesses and infrastructure from its effects.”

16:09

Every year, we see devastating floods that will become more common as climate change makes extreme weather events more frequent and more severe. Global predictions point to a potentially catastrophic El Niño event in a matter of months, while the UK Government has issued warnings about the expected wild winter that is coming.

The heightened flood risk in Scotland is stark. In 2018, it was estimated that around 284,000 properties were at a medium risk of flooding. Last year, the national flood risk assessment showed that 400,000 properties are now at risk. Climate chaos is already here, and Governments need to be more dynamic in responding to that ever-growing threat. Doing so will need open and honest conversations about what can and cannot be saved; the costs of action versus inaction; and the need for leadership and change in the way we manage our land and our coasts.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to the £15 million fund to improve community resilience to floods—I am sure that we will all have a shot on the flood bus outside later this afternoon. That commitment sits alongside others that the Government has made, including the £150 million that was spent during the previous session of Parliament on flood risk management projects. Those are all important investments that have made a start in supporting communities and councils to build their resilience to flooding.

The focus of funding has so far largely been on the hard-defence, downstream engineering projects. Those remain critically important, but there is a backlog in delivery, and they do not tackle the root causes of flooding. Catchment-wide restoration and nature-based solutions need to be the foundation of our approach to managing flood risk. Techniques that restore, enhance and alter natural features to help slow down water and absorb excess rainfall should be the easiest and simplest to deploy at a bigger landscape scale. Where hard projects are needed to defend communities, those nature-based approaches can help to reduce their capital cost and make them more future proofed.

Restoring riparian woodland reduces water run-off and downstream flood levels, and ensuring that rivers are connected to the natural floodplains allows them to hold water in low-risk upstream areas. Our landscapes need to become sponges, not least because the risk of fire is also growing at the same time as the risk of flood and storm. Blocking drains in peatlands and restoring wetlands transform degraded landscapes into stores for excess water during intense rainfall, and release it gradually during dry periods. Even the reintroduction of the beaver, which creates and expands wetlands, should be welcomed as a small but positive part of this overall picture.

However, the reality is that only around a fifth of our riverbanks in Scotland are currently wooded. We have straightened many rivers with artificial banks, reducing our ability to cope with floodwaters. We need to manage land differently to reduce the risk of flooding, and there is an opportunity for Government to work with farmers, crofters and other land managers to reshape our land management and agricultural support schemes to support them—the land managers—to take those long-term preventative actions on their land and make those choices to support their communities. That is something that the Green amendment highlights in this debate.

Of course, many communities are already taking nature-based approaches to flood resilience, as well as supporting individual householders, but the current funding formula for hard capital projects prioritises them based on the number of properties at risk and the population size, and that inevitably disadvantages smaller communities that are impacted by flooding. One of those communities is Aberfoyle. It has been hit repeatedly every two to three years by floods, but it looks unlikely, under the current funding formula, that Aberfoyle will ever qualify for the capital funding that it needs to protect it, due to its population size. That is despite the fact that the River Forth, which runs through Aberfoyle, also impacts on communities downstream such as Bridge of Allan, and on the wider Carse of Stirling. However, so far, the community has been unable to get its project over the line. It is unacceptable that the future viability of communities such as Aberfoyle is being determined by a formula that does not recognise the wider social and economic impact of flooding. We are in danger of effectively losing places from the map in Scotland, with a human cost that has yet to be measured.

We know that flooding disproportionately impacts socially and economically disadvantaged communities, leaving households facing periods of displacement, repair costs and worsening mental health. Audit Scotland has warned that the current funding mechanism is no longer fit for purpose and will simply widen those inequalities unless we take action to change it.

In conclusion, I welcome this debate, but it must be the start of a new, more urgent conversation about the choices that are being made around investment, the growing threat and the changes that need to be made in the way in which whole catchments are managed.

I move amendment S7M-01283.5, to insert at end:

“; recognises the range of actions that communities across Scotland are taking to reduce their flood risk; is concerned that small communities can miss out on funding opportunities under the current model; believes that communities must have an active role in developing flood management plans; further believes that such plans must be developed on a catchment-wide scale, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with landowners to take forward nature-based solutions to flooding through public land management and agriculture support schemes.”

16:15

According to SEPA, flooding remains Scotland’s most serious climate-related threat and, sadly, it is becoming more frequent, more intense and more damaging. The impact is felt across Scotland, including in Dumfries and Galloway. In the Solway area alone, about 16,000 people and 10,000 homes and businesses are at risk of flooding, with those numbers expected to rise significantly in the decades ahead. Nationally, about 400,000 homes, businesses and essential services are now classed as being at medium risk of flooding. The associated costs are approaching £500 million a year, with communities, infrastructure, farming and the wider rural economy affected.

Although I welcome the support that the Scottish Government provides, I am concerned that funding remains limited and inconsistent. At a time when the risk is increasing, we need a dedicated long-term national resilience fund that provides communities and local authorities with certainty and helps them to prepare for the future.

Preparedness must also improve. Despite the available guidance and support, too many people still do not know what to do when flooding strikes. Raising awareness and improving community resilience must be a greater priority.

I invite Finlay Carson to visit Flo, the flood bus, which is outside the Parliament, so that he can inform his constituents on that very issue. It has reams of advice for householders.

I certainly will visit it. I will tell the people there that I was invited by the cabinet secretary—I am sure that they will be delighted.

I place on the record my appreciation for the work of our emergency services during flooding events. However, we must ensure that there is a co-ordinated framework that delivers a consistent and effective response when communities are at their most vulnerable.

Prevention is equally important. As we have heard, measures such as the creation of riparian woodland and peatland restoration can reduce flood risk. About 20 per cent of our riverbanks are currently wooded.

Any approach must strike the right balance and recognise the vital role of those who manage our land. Farmers, crofters and land managers are an essential part of flood resilience, and they need greater support to help them to mitigate flooding, protect rural livelihoods and safeguard Scotland’s food security.

More broadly, the Government must move forward with technology such as gene editing, which experts in the farming industry have identified as an important tool in helping the agriculture sector to adapt to climate change. Experts from organisations including the Roslin Institute and the James Hutton Institute, along with the farming industry, have already highlighted the benefits. Gene editing is known to improve yields and protect crops against disease and climate change.

I recognise that climate change is driving the increase in flooding across much of Scotland, but we must be honest about the unintended consequences of some environmental policies. In some areas, farmers have faced increased flooding risk as a result of poorly planned species introductions and poor land management decisions. Nature-based solutions can play an important role, but they must be evidence led, locally supported and developed in partnership with farmers and land managers. Above all, they must not come at the expense of productive farmland, rural businesses or Scotland’s ability to produce food. That is why we broadly support the amendments.

I think that there is genuine consensus on the issue, so will Finlay Carson send a message to the farming community, as I have done, to get involved with the integrating trees network, which would allow trees to be planted on farms, to slow down water, without reducing productivity?

I will whole-heartedly do so, but the Government needs to provide agri-forestry grant schemes that actually work and are not controlled by a failing information technology system. That would be a great start.

As I said, we broadly support the amendments, including those that recognise the importance of catchment-scale planning, community involvement and working with landowners.

However, any expansion of nature-based flood management must be accompanied by a clear commitment to protect good-quality agricultural land wherever possible. Where farmers are asked to dedicate land or accept restrictions for the wider public good, for the benefit of flood management, they must be properly compensated, with payments reflecting the true economic value of the land and any loss of production.

Overall, the Scottish Government must improve resilience, provide greater financial support and ensure that communities are aware of flood risk and mitigation measures. It must prioritise prevention, safety and protecting livelihoods, while recognising that farmers and land managers are essential partners in delivering effective flood management.

In supporting all amendments except the Reform amendment, we recognise that Scotland must focus on practical measures that reduce flood risk and protect communities. Those measures will succeed only if they are developed in conjunction with local communities and food producers and they strike the right balance between environmental objectives, food production and economic sustainability.

We all know that the threat of serious flooding is only months away. The time to act is now, not when the tide is already against us.

I move amendment S7M-01283.3, to leave out from “Scotland’s” to end and insert:

“that Scotland is facing an increasing risk of flooding; further recognises that flooding is becoming more frequent, more intense, more damaging and more costly due to changes in the climate; highlights that the impact of flooding is felt throughout Scotland, including in urban, rural and coastal communities; further highlights that it affects homes, businesses and livelihoods across Scotland; appreciates the funding announcement made in the 2026-31 Programme for Government but questions whether further support is needed; calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that the public is aware of the risks and mitigation efforts related to flooding; urges the Scottish Government to ensure that national strategies are in place to target flood prevention and support when flooding does happen, and also urges local authorities to consult widely and transparently on proposed flood defence plans and to take full account of local views, and asks all involved to make sure that efforts to prevent, mitigate and tackle flooding are directed at all parts of Scotland facing a substantial and rising threat.”

16:20

I feel a particular responsibility. It was almost three years ago that Amelia woke up to find her Christmas presents floating in her front room in Cupar. She was seven years old at the time. Subsequently, I made a commitment in the chamber, during a debate, that I would do all that I could to ensure that that did not happen again. I have spent the past three years being incredibly frustrated by the system and by our inability to deliver practical measures in this relatively small community to prevent that from happening.

To give credit to the local council, it has carried out some clearing of the Lady burn and it has introduced a flood resilience grant for affected households. Also, John Swinney introduced a Scottish grant scheme particularly for my constituents, for which I was grateful. However, the broader measures that are necessary to prevent flooding from happening again are simply not there. The council committed to a Cupar flood study, but it has still not reported back, and we have not been able to get the council to engage with the wider stakeholders.

As Mark Ruskell said, a wider catchment plan is the answer. I reject the view that it is all about either hard engineering or nature-based solutions. It depends on the environment and the circumstances, and we have to be flexible. I also reject the view that beavers are the answer in every community. They are not. They cause utter devastation for some, although they may be the answer for others. Let us stop suggesting that there are absolute solutions and instead take a flexible approach to finding the right solutions for communities.

We know that hard engineering can be incredibly expensive, so to float the prospect of hard-engineering schemes to some communities when we know that the money is not available and that they will never happen is cruel. We need to take a broader, catchment-based approach to finding the right answers.

Members will be able to tell that I get worked up about this. That is because it is three years on and almost nothing has changed. I fear that, this year, Amelia’s house will be flooded again.

For nature-based solutions, we need to bring in multiple landowners, which is much harder than implementing hard-engineering solutions. All those landowners need to come together, but it is not necessarily in their direct interest to introduce some of the measures on their land. When they face financial pressure and constraints on their time, it can be really difficult to convince them to do something that is in the interests of the broader community. Of course, they care about the wider community, but when they are up against it, they are simply not going to do it. That is my experience in north-east Fife. Everybody, and every bit of the catchment, needs to be involved for this to be effective.

The trouble with the current system, including the new grant scheme that was announced today, is that the scheme is reactive. It depends on those individual owners coming forward and applying for the grants, navigating the system and implementing the scheme up front, often at considerable cost to themselves.

We need a more co-ordinated system that says to everybody in the catchment area, “This is the plan. This is what we want you to do on your farm or on your land. We are telling every other farmer that this is what we want them to do on their land.” Only a catchment-wide scheme will be effective in communities such as Cupar. If we just leave it to individual farmers to apply on their own, that simply will not be enough.

Mr Rennie will be aware that full catchment pilots are taking place on the South Esk and the River Dee. It is important that, once those pilots are complete, the lessons are disseminated to areas across Scotland.

I do not accept that. It is three years since the flooding in Cupar. How long do we have to wait for lessons to be learned elsewhere? North-east Fife is different from those areas. It is prime agricultural land, so the lessons will be dramatically different. We know what the solutions are and the different measures. We know about trees in the hinterland, the quality of soil and making sure that we have trickle dams and delay ponds. We know all that stuff, so what are we waiting for?

If the cabinet secretary stands up at the end and tells me that we are going to have a catchment co-ordinator for the River Eden, as I would like, I will give her a big hug. That is the solution that I want.

[Made a request to intervene.]

I am sorry, but we are really tight for time. You must conclude, Mr Rennie.

I have got only half of my speech done. I will conclude that point in my closing speech.

It is really important that we get this done, because people cannot wait any longer. All that they see is bureaucracy and difficulties. We need something that works.

Mr Rennie, can you move your amendment, please?

I have already done so. I did it earlier.

Well—

Do you want me to do it again?

Yes.

I move amendment S7M-01283.1, to insert at end:

“; believes, however, that the mix of financial support can be complex and fails to recognise the economic value of land; further believes that the SEPA permissions process can be demanding, confusing and a barrier to action, and calls for the value of grants to reflect the economic value of land and for the appointment of catchment coordinators to work with communities and land owners to develop a plan of action.”

I ask all members who want to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button now. We are very tight for time, so members should bear that in mind when taking interventions.

16:26

I draw attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests and to my roles as a hydrologist and a councillor in Fife.

When we talk about building a flood-resilient Scotland, it is important that we recognise that flooding is not a problem simply for communities at the bottom of the catchment but is catchment wide. Increasingly in a changing climate, the issue requires us to think differently about how we manage our land, rivers and public services. One in eight properties in Scotland is now at risk of flooding, and the number is set to rise as climate change continues.

I will start with the example of Rosyth, in my constituency, which has suffered flooding for decades and is a classic example of what happens when we build on top of natural systems rather than around them or, better still, with them. In Rosyth, wetlands and areas of flood plain were built over, watercourses were straightened and culverted, and natural drainage was altered to accommodate development. Those decisions might have made sense at the time, but climate change is adding another layer of pressure by bringing more frequent and intense rainfall events. Infrastructure that was designed for conditions of the past is increasingly being overwhelmed. That is why I welcome the Rosyth river restoration project, which is funded through the Scottish Government’s water environment fund. The project is looking at the Whinny burn and the Brankholm burn not simply as drainage channels but as part of a wider river system that can support biodiversity, improve water quality, contribute to flood resistance and provide benefits to the wider community.

No single intervention, organisation or funding pot will solve all of this; we need to look at the whole system. I have a particular interest in the issue, having studied for a masters in sustainable catchment management at the University of Dundee. One of the central lessons is that what happens upstream invariably affects what happens downstream. I have frequently told colleagues that hydrology is not that complicated. Water flows downhill and, if you get in the way, you might flood. How water reaches our communities is key. How we manage soils, woodland, peatland, agricultural land and drainage affects how water reaches our rivers. Rather than asking simply how we defend communities from flooding, we should ask how we manage our catchments so that water is slowed down, stored and managed more naturally. The evidence increasingly shows that flood protection schemes are only part of the solution.

David Barratt brings some unique expertise to this debate. However, I want to ask about his expertise as a councillor. Does he believe that Fife Council has the capacity and expertise that it needs to do the catchment-wide co-ordination that Willie Rennie and I have talked about? If the council does not have that capacity and expertise, who does? Is it Forth Rivers Trust, some other Government agencies, SEPA or a super-environmental body that might be cobbled together under the public service reform programme? There is a huge gap at the moment.

I agree, and I do not believe that Fife Council has the capacity to deliver all of that, which is why there needs to be partnership. As it happens, my master’s programme was set up due to the Scottish Government identifying that there was a skills shortage, with not enough hydrologists out there. That master’s programme is no longer there, and I think that we need to restart it.

The evidence increasingly shows that flood protection schemes are only part of the solution. We need a broader toolkit that includes natural flood management, blue-green infrastructure and better land use decisions. There are already excellent examples of that approach in Scotland, including the Tweed Forum and the South Esk Catchment Partnership. Those projects work because they operate at the scale at which nature actually functions, which is the catchment.

Nature does not recognise local authority boundaries, nor does it recognise the distinction between SEPA and NatureScot. That is why the evidence that was heard by the Climate Action Committee a couple of weeks back is so important. SEPA highlighted the importance of having a single-front-door approach and a more place-based approach, while NatureScot and SEPA also highlighted the value of catchment-scale working. The evidence recognised that water quality, soil health, agriculture, biodiversity and flooding are not separate issues but are interconnected.

Therefore, I am delighted that the implementation plan will include the pioneer catchment projects, which will test new ways for environmental organisations to work together across river catchments. That is exactly the kind of approach that we need, and we need to build upon it. I also welcome plans for a national flood advisory service, which will help to ensure that expertise and best practice are shared consistently across Scotland.

The real opportunity from public service reform is perhaps not simply to create a new organisation or reporting structure but to create different ways of working so that the communities that face flooding do not need to navigate organisational boundaries. There is an opportunity to create a genuine one-door, catchment-based approach that complements hard defences with solutions that work with nature rather than against it.

If we want to have a flood-resilient Scotland, we cannot simply build higher walls downstream; we must also make better decisions upstream. That is how we build more flood-resilient communities and a more flood-resilient Scotland, as well as having healthier rivers that are better prepared for the challenges that the climate will bring.

16:32

As I drove through some flooded roads to get to the Parliament today, I reflected on the irony of us debating flooding. There is no doubt that climate change is real and that it is here now. Flooding is impacting communities across Scotland, and it is vital that the Government works alongside local councils and communities to deliver effective infrastructure.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s acknowledgement that successful flood protection depends on partnerships between communities, local authorities and the national Government. Flood protection and the impacts of climate change are issues that are too important to become subject to polarised debate in our communities. They should never be used as wedge issues, and I am optimistic about the consensus that we have heard in the Parliament today.

I want to talk about the feeling in my community, because Musselburgh faces a particularly complex flooding challenge. As a coastal town that is situated at the mouth of the River Esk, it is vulnerable to both coastal and river flooding. Residents acknowledge that climate change increases the flooding risk, and they accept the need for a flood protection scheme. At the same time, they recognise the River Esk as a defining feature of the town, and they want to preserve its history, identity and character.

Because of Musselburgh’s unique geography and heritage, developing an effective flood protection scheme is inherently complex. The Scottish Government has stated that flood resilience should take a place-based approach that involves communities in shaping solutions for their local areas. Unfortunately, many residents in Musselburgh feel that that aspiration has not been fully realised. The flood protection scheme has attracted 500 objections, a local public inquiry has started, and the cost of the design has spiralled to more than £130 million.

The scheme’s original designs and plan were developed under the framework of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, which did not impose funding caps on individual flood protection schemes. The Scottish Government, working with COSLA, has now introduced a £35.6 million funding cap on the Musselburgh flood protection scheme. That sits alongside the requirement to have a construction contract in place by February 2028 in order to stay in cycle 1.

Therefore, we have a scheme that is way over budget, lots of man-hours have already been committed, and there is a long road ahead—and councillors are facing pressure to make decisions in a constrained framework while the town remains unprotected.

The ongoing public local inquiry demonstrates the consequences of not securing sufficient community buy-in early in the process. Residents are not opposed to flood protection; rather, they want to be confident that they will have the most suitable scheme for their area and one that uses the nature-based and other solutions that we have spoken about today.

It is crucial to recognise the public investment that has been committed to flood protection across Scotland and the tangible benefits that it has brought for communities. However, the experience in Musselburgh emphasises the need for sufficient flexibility in such schemes. To be successful, flood protection schemes must account for local geography, heritage and community. Meaningful community engagement throughout the process will lead to better schemes.

Therefore, I urge the Scottish Government to recognise the complexity of the issue, particularly in communities such as Musselburgh. I would welcome greater engagement from the Government to help to facilitate a solution that protects residents from flooding while securing the support of local communities and the local authority. We must have a collaborative approach to the scheme. It is essential that we create a scheme that effectively protects the town and preserves its heritage.

I urge the Scottish Government to reflect on and learn lessons from what has happened in Musselburgh, to ensure that there is adequate flexibility in the legislation and to ensure that communities are included and represented in flood protection schemes from the very beginning. In protecting Scotland from flooding, we must keep communities at the heart of the process.

16:36

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. As the cabinet secretary, other members and stakeholder briefings have all set out, flooding is Scotland’s biggest adaptation challenge, so today’s debate is of real significance to people and communities across Scotland, including in my Moray constituency.

As many members will know, Moray has been no stranger to severe flooding events down the years, involving the Spey, the Lossie and the Findhorn. Thanks to investment from the Scottish Government, substantial flood alleviation infrastructure has been delivered in communities across my constituency, including in Elgin, Forres, Dallas, Rothes and Newmill. That investment has protected thousands of properties and prevented an estimated £86 million-worth of damage.

Just this month, £1 million of Scottish Government funding was announced for further flood resilience works across Moray, which will support work to progress the Seatown flood protection scheme, coastal defence work at Lossiemouth, surface water plans for Rothes and flood risk assessments for Kinloss. In my constituency, a number of innovative schemes have been delivered that are protecting people and properties.

As the climate changes, rainfall intensity increases and we see the effects of coastal erosion, flooding continues to be an existing and future threat in communities across Moray and across the country. Today’s publication of the Government’s flood resilience implementation plan is certainly to be welcomed. It is right that it focuses on people, places and processes, and that it recognises that building the required resilience will involve local authorities, public bodies, partners and communities delivering on a clear programme of practical actions together. It is vital that they do so together, because, as the plan says, no single organisation can deliver the adaptations that are required and build the resilience that the country needs on its own.

The £15 million flood resilience fund that was launched this summer will help to support those communities in Scotland that are most at risk of flooding. I certainly welcome the fact that the funding is available not only to local authorities but to local community groups, because, for any resilience plan to be successful, local communities must be considered as key partners.

I want to say a little about the people and the places that are identified in the plan. As the cabinet secretary said, and as the plan makes clear, a core part of the Government’s flood resilience strategy is ensuring that people are prepared for increased flooding. That must mean being prepared for the before, the during and the after. For me, it is crucial that we deliver on all those objectives, especially for our most vulnerable residents. That means giving people the information that they need before a flood happens, having support in place so that the most vulnerable people are not left isolated, and helping to get communities back on their feet as quickly as possible.

In its briefing for today’s debate, Scottish Land & Estates highlighted that rural communities are especially vulnerable to prolonged cut-off from key services after extreme weather events. I have certainly seen the impact of that in my Moray constituency over the years, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary has in hers, too. If we are to build truly resilient communities, that must include everyone.

We know that flood resilience has to begin upstream in the way that we manage our land. The Government recognises the critical role of managing agricultural land, riverbanks, flood plains, forestry and drainage to reduce the risk downstream. Over the past few weeks at the Rural Affairs Committee, we have heard about the significant role that peatland restoration and forestry both have to play in our adapting to a more volatile climate. They are not just important for biodiversity; they are key to building more resilient landscapes. The benefit of those interventions is that they also improve our resilience to other extreme weather events, including droughts and wildfires.

We cannot prevent every flood, but the plan that has been set out by the Government is key to being prepared for every flood: reducing the damage that flooding can cause, improving support and warning systems, and building resilience networks across our community. In the face of more extreme and unpredictable weather, and as our biggest climate adaptation challenge, we need all partners to put their shoulder to the wheel to ensure that the plan succeeds.

16:41

I thank the minister for her motion. We can all agree that, when flooding impacts on homes, families and businesses, the results are often devastating. In my region, in Perthshire, for instance, towns and rural areas have experienced a number of flooding events over the years. Many houses and businesses have been flooded more than once, which has caused serious problems with obtaining insurance. Between 2015 and 2026, there have been at least half a dozen serious floods in Perthshire.

Going back further, in 1993, there was the great Tay flood, as it is known: one of the most severe recent floods in Perthshire. The River Tay rose by 6.48 metres—which I think beats the previous one mentioned—and, within a matter of hours, more than 2,000 homes were either partially underwater or badly affected by seepage. The incident caused £40 million-worth of damage and led to £25 million of flood defences being built. Since then, there have been times when the flood defences have not managed to hold the water back entirely, but the defences have helped, so there is a place for hard defences. They are very expensive, however, as Willie Rennie mentioned.

Going further back, to the 13th century, there was the great Perth flood in 1210. Relentless rain and high tides on the River Tay forced King William the Lion and his court to flee by boat. We do not know whether the current defences would have allowed him to stay safely in Perthshire, but that example shows that flooding is not a new problem.

We perhaps have a lot more problems now, because people will build homes on flood plains. It is essential that we learn lessons and do not do that. That takes me back to a former job that I had—in 2001, I put out a press release that said “Don’t build on flood plains.” Developments are often proposed on land, such as parkland or rough grazing, that has never had buildings on it previously. That is for a very good reason: the community knew that the land flooded every so many years.

I am glad that Helen McDade has mentioned the important issue of flood plains. Does she agree that it is worrying that some of her Reform colleagues who got elected to local councils in England abolished flood risk committees?

I have not seen those flood risks, and I have not seen what the member is referring to. We all need to consider flood risk management everywhere. We are dealing with Scotland, and there is pressure for land for new housing here. We do not need to look as far as England to find instances where people have suggested building schools on flood plains—which was in Dingwall, although I do not remember whether it went ahead. We have our own problems to deal with, and I suggest that we continue to look at what is before us and try to make sensible decisions.

Several members, including Donald MacKinnon, Mark Ruskell and the minister, have mentioned the place for nature-based solutions, which we need to look at on both sides of the fence. A lot of clear felling of forestry takes place. In the town where I live, I watch as much of the hill that is above us is clear felled, and then I watch a lot more floodwater coming down to flood the Co-op once again—I do not think that it can have insurance. On the other hand, as has been mentioned, restoring peatland can help to moderate flooding as it contains water before slowly releasing it.

Land management is a crucial part of minimising the risks, so we need a land-use strategy and planning policies that recognise that flooding needs major consideration. I welcome the minister’s commitment to nature-based solutions and look forward to reviewing the Government’s strategy, with her assurance that adaptation and resilience are at its heart.

16:45

I open with the words of one of my constituents:

“I thought my husband had been swept away. I didn’t think I was going to see him alive again.”

I heard those words from her two weeks after storm Amy. I was sitting in a village hall, listening to the stories of people whose lives had been turned upside down as a result of that catastrophic weather event. Questions were asked and, through them, we heard anger, tears and frustration, but positive sparks were also there because of how community members had pulled together to support one another. There was a need to find things that they could do to ensure that if—or when—it happens again, they know what to do.

When catastrophic events occur, it is also a time when communities and organisations come together but, sadly, we tend to revert to our normal way of life afterwards, with little change being made. We can no longer do that. United Nations Secretary General António Guterres used his speech yesterday to warn us of that, when he said:

“The climate crisis went from distant warning to daily reality.”

How well Scotland adapts to such realities will be central to our future prosperity and, if I might make a local reference, how well Argyll and Bute adapts to them will be central to its own future.

The Scottish Government’s flood resilience strategy and framework are welcome and will help to build a safer, more resilient Scotland, by targeting support to where it is needed most. The £15 million fund to improve the resilience of communities is also very helpful, but, as Willie Rennie has said, that money could be spent solely in Argyll and Bute, if my inbox is anything to go by. For example, businesses in the Lochavullin industrial estate in Oban are flooded regularly. In Islay and Bute, and in many other places, the foundations of roads are undermined by extreme weather, because much of Argyll’s road network hugs the coastline. In Dunoon, a lack of clarity about whose responsibility it is to clear culverts and maintain drains has resulted in damaged roads and flooded properties.

What can be done? As Donald MacKinnon referenced, Audit Scotland’s report, “Flooding in communities” provides some solutions, such as ensuring that people, communities, councils and others have all the information that they need, by setting out clear roles and responsibilities. It suggests that we need clear timelines for the delivery of the national flood resilience strategy to ensure that flooding services are delivered by councils and the Scottish Government effectively and efficiently. The Scottish Government needs to provide clarity and certainty about how much funding is available for major flood schemes, which I hope would be multiyear. As my colleague David Barratt highlighted, we need to ensure that there are enough people with the right skills and experience to support tackling flooding.

I can relate those solutions to conversations I have had and work that I have been doing to support communities across Argyll and Bute, where there is an engaged community around Loch Awe. I have convened round-table meetings that have brought together stakeholders including the community, power companies, developers, Argyll and Bute Council, SEPA and the Scottish Government. We have made some progress but, to be honest, with so many competing stakeholders and given the effects of commercial confidentiality, progress has been slow. I am grateful to everyone who has engaged but, at some point, there needs to be recognition that people are living there and that things cannot just be done to them. For example, perhaps loch levels that worked when they were originally set are no longer fit for purpose. I suggest that there is a lack of clarity about who is responsible for decision making, and I believe that tackling that should be directly connected with our public service reform aims.

A phrase that the First Minister used in discussing the programme for government describes, in my opinion, the situation that we have with flood protection:

“too small to be strategic and … too big to be local.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2027; c 32.]

I agree with the points that Willie Rennie and Mark Ruskell made about smaller communities, and I hope that Public Health Scotland’s work will involve meaningful dialogue with the smaller communities that I represent.

As the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Rural Affairs mentioned, the Isle of Luing is vulnerable to coastal erosion and storm damage. The coastline is built up in part by disused slate, which is susceptible to rapid erosion. The community has had big ideas about reinforcing that barrier, but it also wants to restart the island’s slate-mining industry, providing new jobs, stimulating the local economy and reducing depopulation. I am pleased that, as the cabinet secretary referenced, the community secured £2.1 million from the Scottish Government’s regeneration capital grant fund. That is hugely positive and it is a brilliant example of local people finding local creative solutions and partnering with national bodies to achieve change.

I agree with what the Green amendment says about nature-based solutions. As species champion for the Celtic rainforest, I note that investment in it could become the sponge that Mark Ruskell mentioned.

You must conclude.

This is a Scottish Gaelic proverb about flooding: “Chan eil tuil air nach tig traoghadh”, which means, “There is no flood that will not subside.” I hope that, by taking a leaf out of the book of Argyll and Bute communities, alongside investing wisely and acting now, we can ensure that Scotland is better prepared for the increasing flood risk and that our communities, economy and environment will be more resilient to the impacts of climate change.

16:51

From Musselburgh to North Berwick, from Longniddry to Dunbar and from Portobello to Cramond, my region is home to some amazing coastal communities with rich social, cultural and natural heritages. Like my colleague Katherine Sangster, I will use my time in this debate to pay particular attention to the coastal communities of East Lothian, which are calling on us to take action on the impact of the climate crisis.

In 2020, storm Ciara caused a huge amount of damage to the harbour in North Berwick, leading a local official to declare it the worst storm in 100 years. Residents of Dunbar are worried about there being a repeat of what happened in 2024, when crashing waves created a sinkhole the size of a delivery van in a local street. Residents of Musselburgh have expressed concerns about potential relocation plans for residents who are at risk of flooding and how they might interact with the wider housing emergency, and about the current lack of a public health assessment of toxic landfill sites that may be at risk of coastal erosion.

A recent project by Climate Hubs Scotland and Climate Ready South East Scotland shows huge levels of concern among East Lothian residents about coastal erosion and sea level rise. Looking through the amazing story map that the project has produced—I recommend that everyone has a look at it—I read stories in which residents express deep sadness about the changing landscape across the region, which is caused by coastal erosion, flood damage, storms and high rainfall. One person said:

“I am concerned as there seems to be very noticeable changes in a relatively short period of time. This does not feel like a gradual change, more like a distinct shift.”

I was struck by residents calling for urgent action in their communities, but also recognising that what they are seeing on their doorsteps is situated within the global climate crisis. One person, talking about how we should be responding to multiple instances of flooding in Musselburgh, said that what they wanted to see first was a

“fast and complete end to fossil fuel use”.

We need to support East Lothian Council, and local authorities across the country, to respond, by offering them more funding to manage flooding, but also by diversifying funding so that it is made available for smaller community-led actions and nature-based solutions as well as for engineered schemes. I would like to see an urgent review of the guidance that is provided to local authorities on flood protection schemes, because I am hearing from councillors that it is massively out of date.

We need to better involve communities in informing us about what flood resilience means to them. We need to work with communities to shape our responses, give clearer guidance to local authorities on what public engagement should look like, and ensure that participation happens at very early stages so that we can avoid delays such as those to the hearings in Musselburgh.

We should make sure that, at the very early stages, we are talking to disabled people and other marginalised groups in the community, who are likely to be impacted disproportionately and in different ways. We need to recognise that those groups are also key actors in the climate emergency planning and capacity building.

There really is no time to lose. As is the case in East Lothian, our communities across Scotland are already seeing the devastating impacts of the climate crisis. We must act now on behalf of the communities that are facing the greatest risk.

16:55

I declare an interest as an elected councillor on Dundee City Council.

Climate change is not a future event. The climate is already changing, and our focus now must be on trying to limit the scale of the increase in temperature to 1.5°C and to mitigate the damage that that will cause.

We should no longer be building for the weather as we know it; all our new-built and natural infrastructure must be able to adapt to the weather that we will be living in. Unfortunately, the United Nations Environment Programme now expects the most optimistic scenario to be a warming of 1.8°C, but that is only if we stick to meeting our net zero targets. I want to explain to our Reform colleagues that 1.5°C was never a target; it is a global limit on how much warming we can cope with and still be able to work well on this planet.

The Climate Change Committee’s latest assessment states that an average winter is likely to be more like a particularly wet winter in the past.

If we achieved net zero today, when does Heather Anderson think that that would have an impact? Years ago, WWF said that it would take 50 years for that to be achieved. We have to look at adaptation. Net zero would not stop climate change, and people should not be told that, if we stopped it now, that would prevent these events from happening, because that is not true.

I will try to explain it again. We are trying to limit global warming to 1.5°C because, if it goes beyond that, the global scenario will get much worse and will be much more difficult to manage. There will be tipping points. We will not stop climate change; it is happening. We are trying to limit the level of damage that we will have to cope with by not making the situation worse. I hope that that is a clear enough explanation.

The Climate Change Committee also said that the intensity of the heavy bursts of rainfall that we will experience will be 60 per cent higher than in the 1990s. Flash flooding will be the new normal.

Dundee City Council’s risk and vulnerability assessment modelled what would happen in Dundee if the temperature increased by 2°C or 4°C. At 2°C, the risk to people, communities and buildings from flooding would increase to a very high level. Businesses would be disrupted, and two schools plus health facilities, including a nursing home, might be in the projected flood zone.

Dundee is defined by water. Not only are we situated on the banks of the Tay, but the city is marbled with watercourses such as the Dighty and the Scouring Burn. As David Barrett said, in the past, we were not very good at managing water; we just culverted it, and that is coming back to bite us.

The Dighty used to support more than 50 jute and textile mills along its banks. In October 2023, when the Dighty burst its banks during storm Babet, roads and bridges were damaged, 150 houses were flooded and flash floods swept across the city. The damage cost Dundee City Council around £1.5 million. Remeandering the Dighty further upstream is now vital so as to prevent repeated flooding downstream.

The Scouring Burn, which is named after the industrial act of washing textile yarn and linen in water, is now culverted, along with 12 other watercourses that flow under our Dundee streets. When flash flooding hit the west end earlier this year, the most pronounced damage was along the historic route of the burn, down the Blackness Road.

I will share an interesting fact with members: 88 per cent of Dundee’s sewers carry both rainwater and sewage, which is the highest concentration of combined sewers in Scotland. Given the 13 subterranean watercourses that run under our feet, the risks of flooding from intense rainfall in Dundee are significantly increased.

Luckily for us in Dundee, we have Dr Rebecca Wade. Dr Wade is a senior lecturer at Abertay University, and she trains civil and environmental engineers on how to adapt for climate change and how to manage water.

Even more luckily for us, some of the people she has trained are now leading the Water Resilient Dundee partnership. That team knows how to mitigate flooding and, what is just as important, it knows how to keep surface water out of the already overloaded sewer system. The team’s work so far includes the installation of small sustainable drainage systems—or SuDS—including the one at St Mary’s community centre in the north of Dundee. It is absolutely brilliant. It involves collecting rainwater from the roof and drains of the community centre and directing it into a series of SuDS planters. They look like planters to me, but they are actually design-engineered rain gardens that soak up the excess water, filter it, prevent it from going into the drains and sewers, and then irrigate the specially selected plants that are growing there. Flood prevention and pollinators—two for the price of one, just because the engineers are smart.

The member must conclude.

The team has also introduced rainwater gardens under Craigie Street pocket park, and, because it involved the local community, nobody minded about the roadworks.

With Scottish Government support, we now have an amazing 2.5 mile-long active travel route, combined with flood defences, running from Monifieth to Broughty Ferry. Along with sand dune restoration along the beach, the new active travel route is providing 450 residents and businesses with flood protection against a one-in-200-year storm-surge event.

The short to longer-term weather forecast is scary, but, if we use our knowledge, skills and ingenuity to work with nature, we can mitigate some of the damage that we have already caused. It is vital that we do not continue to make the situation worse. I welcome the production of the plan and I am very glad that we are finally recognising nature’s role.

I will sit down now, Presiding Officer.

17:01

As our amendment makes clear, flood mitigations must have the confidence and support of the public. It goes without saying that there are strong and deeply held concerns among my constituents about the Whitesands flood protection scheme in Dumfries. My constituents recognise the need to tackle flooding, but they also expect a project of such a scale, given its cost, to be pursued with openness, proper scrutiny and transparency, and they expect their emails to get an answer.

Recent findings from the Scottish Information Commissioner have made those expectations more important. The commissioner found serious failings in Dumfries and Galloway Council’s handling of information requests relating to the scheme, including questions relating to the legal status of common good land. That matters enormously because public confidence depends on people being able to understand how decisions relating to the scheme have been reached and on the council giving clear and consistent answers.

There are important questions that Dumfries and Galloway Council must now address. It must clearly and willingly explain the legal position surrounding the use of common good land that is affected by the project and show that the proper processes have been pursued at all stages.

Local businesses also deserve clarity, because traders have raised concerns about disruption and the potential loss of revenue during construction. They need to know what assessment the council has undertaken of those impacts and what arrangements for compensation, if any, will be available.

With such substantial public expenditure involved, residents deserve a clear and up-to-date account of the project’s costs, risks and potential liabilities. Those are reasonable questions about public money, public assets and the future of Dumfries town centre. I will be meeting the council’s chief executive next week, and I appeal to the council to take the opportunity, belatedly, to answer those questions fully, openly and transparently.

I also ask the Scottish Government to answer a question that I have put to it in the past. How will it deal with any cost overruns in relation to the project? Will it meet its fair and proportionate share of costs or will any cost overruns fall to my constituents? Given the amount of taxpayers’ money that has been committed to the project at the Whitesands, my constituents deserve answers, transparency and a commitment to openness as it moves forward, if indeed it does.

17:04

This is a really important debate for my constituents in Angus North and Mearns. Flooding and coastal erosion are not abstract risks or distant possibilities for them; they are already affecting homes, businesses, public services and local infrastructure, and have shaped how communities plan for the future, how families feel about the security of their homes and how local economies recover after extreme weather.

In October 2023, storm Babet devastated Brechin, as the South Esk river breached its banks and inundated the River Street area. Families were forced from their homes, businesses were damaged and lives were turned upside down. For many residents, recovery has not been quick or simple; it has involved uncertainty, disruption and difficult decisions about what comes next.

Today—three years later—Angus Council considered the future of flood-damaged properties in a special meeting. It is vital that the future of the community, not simply cost, is prioritised. I am very glad that the council has voted unanimously for a flood scheme uplift, demolition of uninhabitable houses and a new open space. As I said, it has taken three years for it to get to that point. The situation in Brechin shows why long-term transition planning for communities at greatest risk is so important, and why that planning must be done with residents, not to them.

Montrose faces a different but equally serious threat from coastal erosion along its dune system. Rising sea levels and more intense storms could create new flood pathways and place low-lying areas of the town at risk. The dunes are not only a landscape feature; they are a natural defence for the town. If they are weakened or breached, as has been predicted, the consequences for homes, businesses, transport links and community life will be profound—it is not too dramatic to say that Montrose would no longer exist as we know it. That is why I welcome the £440,000 of Scottish Government support from the coastal change adaptation fund for work at Montrose links, including nature-based solutions such as dune restoration and beach nourishment. Those measures matter because they work with the natural environment instead of against it.

However, short-term action must sit alongside practical long-term strategies that give coastal communities confidence that their future is being taken seriously. Elsewhere in Montrose, surface water flooding has long affected areas such as Borrowfield. Scottish Water’s investment to upgrade the wastewater network is therefore a welcome step for residents who have experienced repeated sewer flooding—that work is now under way. It is a reminder that flood resilience is about not only rivers and coasts but the everyday infrastructure underneath our streets, which must be able to cope with heavier rainfall and more frequent extreme weather.

Further north, Stonehaven’s flood protection scheme has helped to address repeated flooding from the Carron Water and now protects 370 homes, two public utilities, countless businesses, a school and an emergency service site. I thank the Scottish Government for the substantial contribution that it made to the cost of that scheme—that is the type of investment that could make a real difference to communities that have lived with repeated flood risk. However, those communities still have coastal overtopping and surface water risks, which shows that flood protection schemes must sit alongside wider investment in drainage, sewer infrastructure, natural flood management and community resilience.

Taken together, Brechin, Montrose and Stonehaven show why the national flood resilience strategy’s three pillars—supporting people, creating resilient places and improving the processes that underpin flood resilience—matter. Supporting people means recognising the emotional, financial and practical impact of flooding; creating resilient places means investing before disaster strikes; and improving processes means ensuring that communities, public bodies and decision makers can act quickly and effectively. The pillars also show the scale of the challenge that climate change presents.

In some areas, we will need stronger defences and greater resilience; in others, we might face difficult decisions about where development can safely take place and how communities will adapt to changing environmental conditions. Those decisions must be honest, evidence-based and rooted in fairness, so that the burden does not fall most heavily on those least able to carry it. I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to invest a further £15 million in flood resilience measures, targeted at the communities that need support the most, as well as the additional £14 million allocated to the coastal change adaptation fund to help local authorities, including Angus Council and Aberdeenshire Council, respond to rising sea levels and coastal erosion.

It is vital that communities across my constituency can benefit from that support, and that funding is directed to practical measures that make a visible difference on the ground. That work will succeed only through partnership between the Scottish Government, Scottish Water, SEPA, local authorities and communities.

Can you wind up, please?

Yes, I am coming to the end, Presiding Officer.

I commend Mark Ruskell’s contribution, especially on nature-based solutions and mitigation, as well as David Barratt’s, Heather Anderson’s and Laura Mitchell’s—and some of what Finlay Carson said.

We move to winding-up speeches.

17:09

Dawn Black’s contribution summed up the complex range of issues that we are facing in different parts of the country, and she concluded that there is no single solution to any of this. Although I favour Mark Ruskell’s sponginess in the hinterland, I also believe that, on some occasions, as Finlay Carson pointed out, we need to clear the rivers of some of the trees, including willows, that fall into them, and of some of the silt. There is no one solution. We need to use the variety of expertise that we have to find the right solution for each community.

In a couple of numbers, I will show part of the problem. In my part of the world, a farmer would gain £1,000 per hectare, net, for growing spring barley in a field. If the farmer were asked to turn that field into a flood plain, he would get £500 per hectare, which is half the price. What farmer would ever agree to such a thing, even if it was right for the wider community? That is why my main point is that the Government needs a funding system that is flexible enough to reflect the economic value of land and produce in different parts of the country, because there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

I agree with Willie Rennie’s approach to catchment co-ordinators, but does he not see that, if we take the single approach of looking at the economic value of land, we could end up with some perverse decisions? For example, we might end up protecting a Royal and Ancient Golf Club course over communities—people and houses. Although economic value is one metric, we also need to look at what constitutes communities and why we need to protect those.

I do not know whether Mark Ruskell is suggesting that we flood the Old course, but we will move on from that snide remark about one of the best golf courses in the country.

The trouble with Mark Ruskell’s analysis is that, if the decision has to be made by the landowner—the farmer—he will not agree to the change unless we get the finances right. That is what I am suggesting. We need an understanding of the need for the right solution for different parts of the country, yet we spend millions of pounds on big hard-engineering schemes, in a siloed budget approach in which we spend big money in different areas, whereas smaller amounts of money in some communities could make a big difference.

My next point is that that silo mentality is a huge problem. Government action on the climate is separate from Government action on agriculture, which is different from council action on protecting individual houses, which is different from NatureScot’s approach to, say, the beavers, which is different from SEPA’s approach—which is very much a reactive sitting in judgment on individual applications—and that is a different approach from community organisations that involve volunteers. We do not have a co-ordinated system.

The next issue that we need to address is farmers’ distrust of SEPA. They will not apply to SEPA for permission for different schemes if they can help it, because they have had bad experiences of SEPA in the past. When they get it involved, they have a really challenging time. We therefore need a different approach from SEPA—less bureaucratic, more supportive and less complicated. The four levels of application process that have to be gone through to get any work done on a river are really difficult.

If the Presiding Officer will forgive me, I will say that my dream—I hope that the cabinet secretary is listening—is that we will have a catchment plan for the River Eden and other rivers across the country that face flooding problems, and that we will have catchment co-ordinators and co-ordinated funding. If we can get all of that sorted, my friend Amelia in Cupar will be happy.

17:14

This has certainly been an interesting debate. I do not know whether Willie Rennie lost any Christmas presents himself in 2023—that may be where some of his anger is coming from.

I do not know whether it is just me or whether other members in the chamber who work on the land do the same, but I seem to remember years on the basis of what the weather was like in the winter. I remember 2010 being the year of the snow, when all the buildings fell down, but I also distinctly remember 2015. In my head, I remember it as the Godzilla year, because I am sure that one of the papers mentioned the Godzilla El Niño. That was the last time that El Niño was very big, and members may remember that there was massive flooding across large parts of Scotland. In the south, one of the rivers burst its banks, and the Press and Journal said that Deeside looked like it had been at war. It was a massive issue.

This is a pretty topical debate because, from my understanding of the recent press coverage, there is a very significant El Niño building across the southern hemisphere, and we might find that it has an impact this year. That is why funding is welcome, but we need to ensure that it is delivered on the ground.

Willie Rennie talked about a co-ordinated system. I do not necessarily disagree with that; we need a joined-up approach between public bodies and the landowners and farmers on the ground. However, I will make two points. First, that absolutely requires that public bodies—councils, SEPA or whoever it might be—hear from, and genuinely listen to, those who work on the land, many of whom have significant experience.

I have to be honest and say—although I know that some members will not agree—that there is a wee bit of institutional arrogance in some of our public bodies, which do not respect the knowledge and experiences of those who have often worked within river systems for years.

Laura Mitchell mentioned the great work in Moray. I think that some of that work is exemplary—of course, it was delivered under a Conservative-independent council administration—

Funded by the Scottish National Party Government.

With the great help of the SNP—that is exactly the point. There was great cross-party work on that.

We can do good work in this area, but Willie Rennie is right that we need to push forward, because the risks are getting bigger and bigger.

I will make one comment. I have worked with the community in Garmouth for several years, ever since I was a councillor, on some of the issues in relation to the River Spey. The community has faced a barrier with regard to Moray Council’s delivery of projects, and for years it has worked with experts to find relatively low-cost ways of working with the river’s natural processes to prevent further erosion. If everyone had listened to the community early on, we might have been able to prevent the loss of the historic Spey viaduct, which we are now working to try to fix.

I know that the cabinet secretary will not know about the specific works in that area, but I would be happy to let her in if she could give me any indication that the new funding that is in place might support the community.

Actually, I do not know that I have time to do that, but we can come back to the issue. Nonetheless, I want to know whether the community really can, with that funding, get involved in delivering projects exactly like that.

17:17

In January this year, Aboyne, in my region, saw dangerous levels of rainfall: 227mm, which is more than 400 per cent of the monthly average. In Aberdeen, it was more than 270 per cent. That has had devastating consequences for business, communities and our environments, with farms flooded and crops destroyed; residents spending weeks drying out their homes and battling insurance companies; and bird life such as puffins dying, as they cannot hunt in the stormy conditions.

Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more severe. As Mark Ruskell highlighted, last year, the national flood risk assessment report revealed that 400,000—one in eight—homes, business and vital services are in areas that are at medium risk of flooding. That figure is projected to reach 634,000 by the year 2100. Those are direct consequences of the climate emergency. Our communities need us to take that seriously.

I pay tribute to the save our sands Montrose campaign, which is a small community campaign to highlight the significant coastal erosion that the town is facing. Decades of dredging and sand removal have contributed to the current loss of at least 7m of coastline a year. The campaign has been instrumental in getting £2 million for coastal defences, including stone groynes to trap sand and stop erosion. However, that is a short-term measure; a Dynamic Coast study predicts that a further 120m could be lost in the coming decades. That £2 million is just a fraction of what we will need to protect the north-east coast as we adapt to the climate-changed future.

In contrast, some communities—such as residents in Castleton, west of Glamis, who were flooded multiple times during the 2023-24 winter—have had absolutely no state support for adaptation, and some have struggled to get compensation through their insurance providers. We cannot simply accept that some communities will be lost to flooding because we will not mitigate or adapt or because we choose to exclude them from the support that is available. Willie Rennie, Dawn Black and others are right to say that we must be honest with communities about what they can expect.

Of course, we know that part of our response to flooding requires skilled and experienced workers, including those from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The Scottish Greens have repeatedly called for proper resourcing of the SFRS to expand the front-line climate emergency response and ensure that all fire stations are equipped for responding to flooding, wildfires and extreme weather.

As we have heard from many speakers, investment in nature restoration projects will support nature to recover from the nature emergency and reduce flooding. Restoration of rivers and lochs supports natural flood defences. Beaver dams can smooth out and lower peak flows during heavy rainfall. Upper catchment tree planting reduces downstream flood risk by slowing run-off, increasing soil infiltration—or sponginess—and intercepting rainfall. Ecosystem wetting is good for flood prevention and for wildfire risk mitigation.

In our towns and cities, we must tackle the scourge of urban creep. Research by Maggie Carter at the University of St Andrews on green-space cover in Dundee shows that areas that have lost the most green space are at the highest risk of flooding, with those areas also being in some of the most deprived parts of the city.

We need flood-sensitive land management as standard, planning systems that take flood risk seriously, and co-ordinated community-based action across Scotland.

It is clear that climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of flooding. We must be honest with communities about what support they can expect. We must ensure that that support is used in collaborative and co-ordinated ways in order to create as many resilient communities as possible and restore the flood defences that nature has given us. We must recognise the importance of both climate adaptation and mitigation because, without concerted effort that uses every appropriate tool, we cannot hope to stem the tide.

17:21

Flooding and coastal erosion have hit communities hard right across the Highlands, Nairn and Moray. Highland Council looked at its whole coastline and found 29 high-risk locations. Nairn came top—number 1. What does being number 1 get it? Not a seawall but another plan, and the council says that even that is

“dependent on the availability of resources”.

It is the same story on the river. A flood study for the River Nairn was due in the previous planning cycle. It did not start until 2022, the final year.

The Government’s motion talks about partnership, and I am all for that—I think we are all for that in this chamber. However, I hope—Jenni Minto alluded to this in her speech—that the Government also looks to public service reform, because communities need delivery.

There has been quite a lot of consensus in the chamber today. Willie Rennie’s two speeches were very apt and on point, and I do not disagree with what he said. I never thought that I would say this, but Mark Ruskell made some valid points, too, and we do not really disagree with any of what he said. Other members have made similar speeches that addressed the issues in their communities, and I welcome what they have said.

Just for completeness, does Mr Bannerman disagree with some of the stuff that his colleague Jamie Langan said about climate change?

That is a nice try, but I do not disagree with my colleague Jamie Langan. He was correct in what he said.

I want to challenge the Government on two points. Why does money keep going on reviews instead of construction? That ties in with the public service reform element that I want to touch on today.

Will the member give way?

I will continue and make some progress.

As Laura Mitchell and Tim Eagle said—I apologise to the chamber for making yet another Moray point—Moray knows that flood schemes work. The schemes in Elgin, Forres and Rothes have been built and are protecting homes today. However, look at what is still waiting. This month, Moray Council set out how it will spend almost £1 million of Scottish Government flood funding. Portessie flooded three times in five years and was told that it was too small to qualify for national flood funding. A £3.65 million scheme went before councillors in 2015, alongside a scheme for Dallas. The Dallas scheme was built by 2017, but Portessie was given money to review the viability of its scheme. Now, 11 years on, the scheme is still being reviewed.

In Lossiemouth, options for the Seatown scheme went to the public in 2018. The local flood plan pencils in construction for 2026 to 2028, so we hope that money will be available to cover the whole of that period. However, it is now 2026 and this year’s money is going on modelling and design. As for Rothes, the money is for updating a surface water management plan—another plan. I think that, if he were still an MSP, my constituent Sir Edward Mountain would have something to say about that. It is a case of review, remodel and replan—it seems to be everything except build.

We must ask whether the plan will actually deliver. Let us look at the record. The 2015 to 2021 flood plan included 42 flood protection schemes. By the end of 2024, only 16 were finished—fewer than four in 10. I hope that the cabinet secretary will not blame that on Covid, because the plan was more than four years old before the pandemic arrived.

Delay has a price. The bill for the unfinished schemes has almost trebled, from £337 million to £985 million. Every year of delay is paid for, in essence, twice—once by the taxpayer and once by local people who have to bail out their sitting rooms.

Our amendment makes the simple point—Willie Rennie might even agree with it—that there will be flood risk whatever happens to emissions. The test for the Government is not to provide another strategy, review or consultation, but to put concrete in the ground in Nairn, Portessie, Lossiemouth and Rothes. When the cabinet secretary closes the debate, I hope that she will give those communities further clarity on the Government’s plans.

I call Gillian Martin to wind up the debate. [Interruption.] Oh, sorry—I call Monica Lennon first.

17:26

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thought that I had been cancelled.

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. We have heard a lot of consensus—perhaps a surprising amount—on how we can build a flood-resilient Scotland in a changing climate. We had to have this debate, because the Audit Scotland report that my colleague Donald MacKinnon and others referenced set out a number of important recommendations to address gaps in resources, skills, capacity and leadership. It is reassuring that the majority of members accept that flooding in our communities is a significant climate change risk for Scotland.

On the Audit Scotland report, I am very concerned that the funding mechanisms for major flood protection schemes are not fit for purpose, so we will look closely at the Government’s plans. We have heard some encouraging words, but it would be good to hear from the cabinet secretary, in her closing speech, how many of Audit Scotland’s recommendations have been implemented and how many are still being worked on.

As we have heard from colleagues across the chamber, it can take too long to complete flood protection schemes and the costs can become astronomical. That is an important point because, as Mark Ruskell said, we know that 400,000 properties in Scotland are deemed to be at risk from flooding.

Colleagues made important points about their local areas. We heard from Laura Mitchell, Willie Rennie—we heard a lot from Willie Rennie—Katherine Sangster and Jenni Minto. I will come back to Willie Rennie in a second. It is clear that this is not an abstract debate; flooding is affecting our communities right now. For example, Katherine Sangster had to commute to the Parliament today through flash floods.

That brings me to the point that Finlay Carson and others made about the importance of our communities being informed and having access to good information. I raised with the cabinet secretary the point about inequality and the disproportionate impact on those with the least resources. Kate Nevens talked about the impact on disabled people and marginalised groups, and she said that, as well as raising awareness and providing information, we need earlier participation.

It was interesting to hear Helen McDade speak about her concerns about inappropriate development on flood plains. I was surprised that she had not heard that her Reform colleagues in England had scrapped flood risk committees on the first day that they came into power. I hope that, if Reform ever got close to running local government in Scotland, it would never do anything like that. She was not aware of the details, so perhaps she will go away and look at that.

Due to the magic of technology, I can now point out that Reform merged that committee with the environment committee—I think that Monica Lennon is talking about Lincoln—and has stepped up how often the environment committee meets. It did not abolish looking at flooding; it merged the committees on various environmental issues.

I would encourage Helen McDade to dig a little bit deeper and look at what people in Lincolnshire and Derbyshire have said.

When we look at the Reform Scotland manifesto, we see that there is nothing in it to address flood resilience or the adaptation measures that it calls for in the chamber today. The manifesto says, “Let Scotland flourish!” However, it sounds as though the party is happy to let Scotland flood, because not a penny would go into any schemes that would protect our communities.

The cabinet secretary opened the debate by acknowledging that flood risk is a today problem. [Interruption.]

Excuse me. Let us hear Ms Lennon.

The cabinet secretary was right to talk about the very real impact on households and businesses, which is why I raised with her the disproportionate impact on lower-income households and disadvantaged communities. We need to hear more about that. Asking us to visit a bus outside Parliament in the next half hour will not give us the information that we are looking for. However, we will try to do that.

We will support Willie Rennie’s amendment. We are, in principle, very supportive of catchment co-ordinators, although I am not sure how many we need or where we will find them. He said that he wants his dreams to come true, and we do not want to get in the way of Willie Rennie’s dreams coming true. I am not sure that the hug he offered the cabinet secretary is quite the carrot that he hopes it will be, but we will try to help him out with that.

As well as hearing about colleagues’ constituencies, it was good to learn that David Barratt is the Parliament’s in-house hydrologist. That will be quite useful. He was right to talk about the sharing of best practice.

We will try to work constructively with the Government. There are issues on which we still need reassurance, but we have lodged an amendment today that seeks that reassurance. It is clear that we need different solutions across the country. Some of them will be nature-based and others will involve hard infrastructure, but we cannot allow the costs to get out of control. If we accept the reality of climate science and work together, we can make Scotland safer and more resilient.

17:32

This has been a really interesting debate. I am glad that we have had it now. I had a few announcements to make in my speech that coincided with the timing of the debate, but the fact that we are having it before winter means that we are talking about resilience and strategic work to protect our communities from flooding. Very often, we have these debates in response to an event. We will have such debates again, and I do not want to tempt fate, but today we have been able to talk strategically about our approach.

I want to talk about some of the contributions, particularly the initial speeches and those in the open debate. If one theme has emerged—and not just because of Willie Rennie—it is taking a catchment-scale approach. It is almost as if the terms of the debate have moved towards a more focused discussion of river management and catchment-scale action. It is good that so many members spoke about that, because work is being done in that regard.

Willie Rennie maybe did not understand what I meant when I spoke about learning the lessons from the pilots in the South Esk and the Dee. By that, I meant the collaborative work, particularly between agencies and land managers, rather than anything to do with the geography. A few members alluded to the importance of that. Finlay Carson mentioned the role of farmers, crofters and land managers. A few people, including Willie Rennie, mentioned that farmers often have a mistrust of some of the agencies. It is important that we are able to prove through these pilots that some of that mistrust has been overcome and that barriers have been removed. In fact, the pilots will allow people to see that that partnership working can be effective.

I am glad that the cabinet secretary appreciates the importance of agricultural land and flood plains in flood mitigation. Is it time to consider agricultural support that recognises the value of that land, rather than waiting for farmers to have to prove that they have been placed at an economic disadvantage because their land has provided flood protection further downstream?

Obviously, we are undertaking a programme of work on agricultural support payments. We have heard an assumption that farmers and land managers will not give over land for the sake of any nature or flood protection schemes. However, I have visited a farm just north of Dingwall that has done just that, without wanting compensation for the land. That involved the remeandering project in the River Peffery. The farmer there could not be a more evangelical proponent of the nature restoration fund, which was used for that project, and the benefits of it. He at no point said to me, “I lost value from my farm.” He was evangelical about the advantages of being involved in that and having that community spirit.

[Made a request to intervene.]

It is important to recognise that there are farmers and landowners who want to give over land. However, I take Mr Rennie’s point that they need to be recognised for that, if that is what Mr Rennie wanted to raise in an intervention.

Jamie Langan does not believe that climate change exists, but he still wants climate adaptation funding—go figure, as they say.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention on that point?

Absolutely.

I made the point that I do not think that Scotland has the agency to mitigate a global issue—I believe that it is real.

Well, this is a moment in time. I am glad to hear that Jamie Langan has a different approach from that of some of his colleagues who do not believe that it is real.

David Barratt said that no one intervention, body or funding stream is the answer. That is apparent from the breadth of debate today. There are so many opportunities for intervention that will protect our communities from flooding. Mark Ruskell talked at length about remeandering projects and peatland restoration.

Obviously, I have talked about flood prevention funding streams, including the ones that I launched today. However, the nature restoration fund is also a key intervention. It might be there to restore nature but, in some areas, it also has an important flood mitigation role. I mentioned the River Peffery scheme, which is protecting homes and businesses in Dingwall.

Monica Lennon asked for more detail. I am sorry if I offended her by telling her to go to the bus, but I told the people who operate the flood bus that I would advertise it, and I wanted to make sure that I did so. Monica Lennon wanted more detail on the Government’s response to the Audit Scotland report on flooding. Work is already under way on many of the recommendations. That includes work with COSLA to manage the cycle of flood protection scheme funding and develop new governance and processes for funding major flood protection schemes. We have provided £970,000 to SEPA to allow it to purchase wave buoys to improve Scotland’s coastal flood warning system, and more money for a database of flood and coastal protection. We are also looking at airborne light detection and ranging—LiDAR—surveys, building on the work that we have done on LiDAR surveys in Scotland, which have already had more than £1 million of funding.

There is an important point about families who are struggling with the cost of living and who cannot afford insurance. For people who live in an area that has been affected by flooding, insurance can go up. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that it is a serious issue and that we need to see more from the Government on it?

I hope that my remarks did not take away from how seriously I take the issue. If anything was meant by the member’s use of the word “serious”, I would say that I feel very seriously about the issue. I was glad to hear the interventions that were made about the fact that disabled people are more impacted by climate change and its effects. That point was made by Kate Nevens as well.

Our partners in the Scottish Flood Forum also have information on Flood Re, which is a scheme that can help people who find it difficult to get insurance for whatever reason. People can get advice from that on how to get insurance.

[Made a request to intervene.]

Forgive me, but I want to make progress on referencing members who contributed to the debate.

I appreciate what Katherine Sangster said about flooding and flood protection not being used as a wedge issue because it is too important for that. She said that communities must be

“at the heart of the process.”

They must be at the start of the process, too, so that issues do not snowball.

We have seen successful flood protection and intervention. I loved the moment of partnership working and consensus between two representatives: Laura Mitchell, the constituency MSP for Moray, and her Conservative counterpart, who talked about the partnership working between the council there and my party.

Helen McDade mentioned building on flood plains. We will all have examples in our constituencies of such decisions that have been made—I certainly do in mine. Monica Lennon’s intervention on Helen McDade was important—there was a bit of back and forth—because people will make decisions next year on who they want to run their councils. It is important that members can challenge other parties in the Parliament where there are inconsistencies. If something has been done in another Administration by a party, perhaps in another part of the UK, we want to make sure that that will not happen in Scotland. That was an important intervention and exchange.

Jenni Minto made a point about the level of funding when she said that the flood resilience funding could be spent in Argyll and Bute alone. Yes, I know—it could be spent in any member’s constituency—but members also made the point that there need to be smaller pockets of money that are available for community schemes. A great deal of money is being given to local authorities through the settlement that was agreed with COSLA. However, separate to that, there are also smaller interventions that can be made by community groups, and several members mentioned that they need to have the ability to do so.

Kate Nevens made a point about coastal erosion and the coastal change adaptation fund, which we need to consider in the round. There is additional money that is available for flood prevention and protection, as well as £14 million for the coastal change adaptation fund. Again, far more than that has cumulatively been committed to the nature restoration fund, which can also have those impacts, alongside the money that we are putting into peatland restoration. There are several streams of funding that will have multiple outcomes, including building on flood adaptation.

The Government will support the Green amendment. There were a couple of other amendments that I came close to accepting—I was hoping to have time to go through each one—if it were not for a few words. For example, it was a shame that I could not accept the Conservative amendment, but I am afraid that there was just one phrase that I took issue with. I hope that members will find it in their hearts to support the Government motion.

At the risk of getting a hug from Willie Rennie, which he promised, I will do what I can to look into mainstreaming the work that has been done on catchment support. That point came through clearly from multiple members, and it will be one of the main points that I take away from this debate.

That concludes the debate on building a flood-resilient Scotland—delivering action for communities in a changing climate.