Plenary, 26 Jun 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, June 26, 2008

Official Report 557KB pdf

---

Flooding and Flood Management

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2208, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's report on flooding and flood management.

We have already eaten a little into the time that is available, so I ask members to stick closely to their allocated times. I call on Roseanna Cunningham to speak to and move the motion in her name.

We all remember the images from England last year when very serious flooding took place in the middle of the summer. The devastation and distress were only too evident, and the consequences are still being felt by families and businesses throughout the flood-hit areas. In the Scottish context, with the floods in Elgin still relatively fresh, and given the certainty of new legislation on both flooding and climate change, the subject of the first inquiry of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee in the current session was the unanimous choice of the whole committee.

I thank all those who have been involved in the committee's work, including the clerks, in particular Mark Roberts and my now departed clerk Andrew Mylne—who has departed to another job rather than departed Earth—and the researchers, in particular Tom Edwards. I also give a special mention to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Glasgow City Council and WWF Scotland, which organised a series of visits for committee members in November last year.

The timing of the inquiry was unusual, in that it ran parallel to the Government's consultation on its legislative proposals, which ensured that there were a number of inbuilt challenges. I look forward to hearing from the Minister for Environment about the Government's intended direction of travel and, although I do not expect the normal detailed response to the inquiry, I nevertheless remind both the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment and the minister that the committee inquiry ranged further than what is intended for the legislation. I have just received the written response to our recommendations—unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to read through it, so I look forward to seeing the comments.

The committee wished to ensure that its views were taken into account by the Government, so our timetable was very much governed by that requirement. I thank all the witnesses who gave of their time to the inquiry, especially those who attended the meeting in Elgin. That was no doubt a welcome decision for the Moray-based witnesses, but it may have been less welcome for those who travelled from Glasgow and Edinburgh. The report is long and detailed, so it is impossible for me to cover its every aspect and recommendation, but I will highlight the most important areas that it covers.

We began the inquiry against the backdrop of climate change. Our first evidence came from the Met Office. Professor John Mitchell told the committee that our past climate was no longer a safe guide to what might be expected in the future. He also gave us a stark warning that there is little point in trying to prevent flooding, and that we will instead have to become better at managing it. Much of the inquiry centred on such management.

We heard evidence from the Met Office about the serious lack of high-resolution radar coverage of Scotland, despite such coverage being necessary for accurate flood warnings. Only 50 per cent of Scotland is covered, compared with 95 per cent coverage of England and Wales. That finding, which surprised and shocked all committee members, forms the basis for recommendation 21.

The witnesses from the Met Office were also among the many witnesses who pointed to a serious shortage of hydrological expertise in Scotland. That skills issue clearly needs to be addressed. The committee believes that Government must be proactive on that front, which forms the basis for recommendation 5.

As the evidence sessions progressed, it became clear to us that chief among the changes that we had to consider was the likelihood of an increase in pluvial flooding, in which drainage systems are simply overwhelmed by the amount of water with which they have to deal. Members might recall that the flooding in Hull and Sheffield arose from that very problem.

Scottish Water witnesses were keen to point out that we simply cannot afford to keep building bigger and bigger drains and pumping stations to direct water away from settlements, and that we must instead either prevent or slow down the rate at which water enters drainage systems. Although many witnesses acknowledged the importance of that issue for the future, there was no agreement on where responsibility for directing such activity lies. The committee therefore took the view that the Government must set out a pathway and provide funding to ensure that the potential for pluvial flooding is mapped and addressed. As recommendation 2 makes clear, key to that would be Scottish Water's objectives giving greater priority to pluvial flood management.

Pluvial flooding was just one of the more strategic issues which we had to consider, but it soon became evident to the committee that time and space are also important. I realise that that might sound like something from an episode of "Doctor Who", but we discovered that we need to change both the temporal and spatial scale of our thinking on flooding. As a result of that consideration, witnesses overwhelmingly agreed that what is required is catchment-based management. That view is reflected in recommendation 14.

To reflect our view that we need to think over a much longer timescale than we do at present, we have also suggested that there should be a 25-year strategy to guide prioritisation of investment in flood management. However, we must also look for clear criteria for prioritising funding of future flood management.

There was also a significant debate about who should be involved in the strategic control of flood risk management and how that should be carried out. It is fair to say that on this there was no unanimity among witnesses. Essentially, the issue boils down to whether there should be a new strategic flooding agency—or, indeed, a tsar—or whether the responsibility should be imposed on SEPA. With no clear steer from witnesses, the committee deliberated on the matter and decided that, if we were to recommend the establishment of a new agency, we would in effect be reinventing the wheel—in this case, SEPA, which already exists. As a result, the committee concluded that SEPA's role should be expanded to encompass the strategic flood management role—which, of course, would have resource implications for the organisation. In our view, that did not mean that SEPA should have sole responsibility for the role, but that it should co-ordinate the large number of existing bodies, such as local authorities, that also have roles. The committee specifically does not see the model of the Environment Agency in England and Wales as being suitable for Scotland.

There was throughout the inquiry also significant discussion about the merits of natural flood management techniques. It is fair to say that even the proponents of natural flood management do not argue that it should be the only weapon in our armoury. Given some members' bemusement over the issue at the start of the inquiry, we were grateful for the clear distinction that was drawn between sustainable flood management and natural flood management. The committee feels that further research is needed into the effectiveness of natural flood management; however, as recommendations 14 and 15 make clear, on balance we take the view that there should be a presumption in favour of natural flood management techniques. We feel that, although such techniques should not be mandatory, they would have to be the first port of call when dealing with flood management and justification would have to be given to depart from them. That said, it is not expected that that would mean an end to hard solutions, which would still have a role to play.

Equally, it became clear to the committee that flood management is not just about flood plans per se; the planning system, building regulations and land use all have parts to play. We have therefore made a number of recommendations, the more important of which refer to the planning system. In that respect, we commend the approach taken by Dumfries and Galloway Council, which has compared its strategic plan with its flood risk plan to ensure that the two are compatible. However, the committee has gone further in suggesting in recommendation 18 that full flood risk assessments should be a prerequisite for planning permission for developments in areas at risk of flooding. That said, Scotland—and, indeed, the Government—should take some comfort from the fact that the insurance industry already regards the Scottish approach to flood management as being better than that which is taken in England and Wales. The Government might wish to build on that by persuading insurers to reflect that belief in their premiums, which is not something that they do at the moment.

Finally, I turn to an area that was covered by our inquiry but which will not be dealt with in the proposed bill—the system of flood warnings and the emergency response to the devastation that we see in the aftermath of flooding. Although that is an area in which constant updating is probably required, it is clear from evidence that the present arrangements are widely viewed as being unsatisfactory. The Government must address that situation, even if the anticipated bill is not the right vehicle for doing so.

There needs to be greater emphasis on dissemination of flood warnings. Witnesses made it clear to us that in many cases messages are simply not getting through. Flood victims in Elgin, in particular, provided compelling testament about the extent to which they were unprepared for what happened. Committee members were surprised that it seemed almost that there were parallel but unofficial warning systems in place, the most effective of which was the anecdotal evidence that was received by businesses such as those in Elgin that had a great deal to lose if they were caught unprepared. The fact that those businesses relied on unofficial warning systems because the official warning systems were simply not fit for purpose is a big indictment of the present arrangements. It seems to be extraordinary that phoning the farmer up the road is a more effective way of managing a potential flood than is relying on official warning systems. Our report makes a number of recommendations in that general area, and I hope that the minister will take them under advisement separately, even if they do not form part of the upcoming bill.

In one particular regard, the recommendations must be considered, if only out of a sense of fairness. Time and again, witnesses told us that individual home owners had to take responsibility for taking steps to protect their properties. We heard that from the insurers, the police and others. When they were questioned about what information their bodies give to home owners to inform them of what steps could be taken, the witnesses all fell silent. That is not good enough: if we are to demand individual responsibility, we must give people the information and wherewithal to help them fulfil that responsibility. In that regard, I direct the cabinet secretary's attention to recommendation 24, and I look forward to hearing his response—he might have to pass the matter on to another minister. I commend the report to Parliament.

I move,

Flooding and Flood Management (SP Paper 96).

I warmly commend the committee for its thorough investigation and report, which are certainly helping to ensure that flooding remains firmly on the Parliament's agenda. The report contains many useful and important recommendations that we are considering with great care. We have now published our initial response to the recommendations and will continue to build the committee's work into our thinking in the time ahead.

We welcome this morning's debate on the ever-increasing threat of flooding in Scotland. Floods inflict devastation on people's lives, on communities, on property and on Scotland's precious environment. As Roseanna Cunningham said, to understand the seriousness of the issue, we need only look at the devastating impact of last summer's floods in England and Wales. There is no doubt that Scotland will be able to learn valuable lessons from Sir Michael Pitt's review, which was published just this week.

We must remember that flooding is a natural process that has been made more problematic by human activity. Historically, we have constructed dams, straightened rivers, built on flood plains, constructed artificial drainage systems and removed natural vegetation. Now we must assess how we can deal with those man-made problems in the most sustainable way in the decades ahead.

Research into climate change tells us that we can expect an increase in the flood risk for all types of flooding. Given that that increased risk stands to affect Scotland's economy and society as a whole, how we manage it is one of the biggest challenges that Scotland faces in the 21st century. Tackling climate change and the rising sea levels and extreme weather events that it causes, which have consequences for communities both in Scotland and around the world, is also a priority for this Government. That is why we plan to introduce a climate change bill.

Those of us who represent communities that have experienced severe flooding will know that the committee has confirmed such communities' view that the present statutory framework is not up to the challenge. Legislation from the 1960s is not fit for purpose in the 21st century. That is why we have decided to take a completely new approach to flood risk management in Scotland. We all know that a number of key players deal with the many sources of flooding, but there is a lack of co-ordination of the various powers and duties that exist under different pieces of legislation. That lack of co-ordination is the result of the absence of a national framework within which our local authorities, Scottish Water, SEPA and others can take decisions on the management of flood risk.

The bill that we will introduce in September will change all that and will establish a modernised and sustainable approach to flood risk management. It will address many of the concerns that the committee's report highlights. The bill will encourage sustainable flood management at a catchment scale, allowing local authorities and others to take the best possible approach to the flood risk in their areas. The options will range from traditional defences in urban areas to improved flood warning and natural flood management measures where appropriate. The bill will make available to the public and the responsible authorities better information on the risk and consequences of flooding from rivers, the sea, extreme rainfall events and groundwater. It will improve flood risk management planning at the strategic level and ensure that flood risk management plans are prepared for all areas that are at a significant risk of flooding. It will also transfer the enforcement responsibilities under the Reservoirs Act 1975 to a single national body and introduce a compulsory post-incident reporting system, which will create a uniform approach to enforcement of that act throughout Scotland.

We set out many of our proposals for those changes earlier this year in "The Future of Flood Risk Management in Scotland—A Consultation Document". In addition to the formal consultation process, we developed our proposals with the assistance of the flooding bill advisory group. Of course, we also held stakeholder events throughout Scotland. At those public meetings, we heard at first hand the views of individuals who have been affected by flooding and we intend to learn from their experiences.

We are extremely grateful for the consideration that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee gave to flooding and flood management during its recent inquiry. I welcome the recommendations in the committee's report, which are generally in line with the proposals that we have developed for the bill and with the results of our public consultation. I will comment on some of the committee's key recommendations. We agree with the recommendation that SEPA should be given the role of competent authority and that it should take the lead at a national level on flood risk management. However, local authorities will be identified as responsible authorities for flood risk management and there will be scope for designating other bodies, such as Scottish Water, as responsible authorities and giving them a duty to collaborate to deliver flood risk management plans. Co-operation and collaboration between the bodies that are involved in flood risk management are essential, so that will be one of the core elements of the flooding bill. We agree that catchments should be the basis of flood risk management. The flooding bill will give SEPA the responsibility for identifying appropriate catchments for managing flood risk.

We agree with the committee that the Scottish Government should retain a national budget to fund research and other overarching flood management initiatives. However, it remains our view that local authorities' expenditure on flood risk management should be supported through the local government settlement. It will then be the responsibility of each local authority to allocate the total financial resources that are available to it on the basis of local needs and priorities, having first fulfilled its statutory obligations and the agreed priorities in its single outcome agreement.

The committee recommended that the Scottish ministers remain involved in the process of approving proposals for strategic flood prevention schemes. We have considered that issue with great care and taken full account of the responses to the public consultation. We agree that our present process is not working, but we consider that the committee's proposal is not necessarily the best way forward. One main concern with the current process for flood alleviation schemes is the length of time that it takes for such schemes to complete the required statutory process. The responses to our consultation on the future of flood risk management showed that a clear majority, including a majority of local authorities, considered it appropriate to take a local authority-led approach to the approval of flood risk management measures, rather than retain the existing process of ministerial confirmation.

Therefore, the bill will establish a new local authority-led approval process for flood risk management measures, which will enable the Scottish ministers to call in proposals, but only where appropriate. That must be right. Ministers should be involved when an issue cannot be resolved locally—that is a valid role, but it is not a valid role to have to approve every single local authority proposal. We simply do not see how that can accelerate the process. As Parliament is aware, the Scottish Government's intention is to stand back from micromanaging the delivery of local authority objectives. The new approval process in the bill will ensure that the Scottish ministers meet that goal while maintaining a role in the process of approving proposals for flood risk management measures, when necessary.

The new statutory process that will be set out in the flooding bill will streamline procedures by enabling deemed planning consent. The process should also shorten the time that it takes to get approval for non-contentious measures. In doing so, it will continue to ensure that individuals and organisations who are directly affected can object to proposals, without allowing the approval process to be extended unreasonably.

We welcome the committee's recommendation that the Scottish Government establish further pilot studies to assess the contribution that natural flood management measures can make at catchment scale. We acknowledge that natural flood risk management is an important component of sustainable flood management. Detailed studies across a range of catchment scales are required to establish a credible body of evidence on how natural flood risk management could sit with other proven, sustainable, catchment flood risk management measures. We are in the process of establishing a natural flood risk management working group, which will advise on future pilot studies to improve our understanding of the contribution that natural flood risk management can make to reducing flood risk. The forthcoming bill will enable the most sustainable approach to flood risk management to be taken in each case.

The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee has asked us to consider a number of other policy issues that do not relate directly to the bill, as its convener, Roseanna Cunningham, pointed out. I confirm our commitment to address those issues in due course and to continue to work with the committee on the way forward.

We all share a desire to prepare Scotland better for the threat of flooding. We look forward to working with the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, the Parliament and the rest of Scotland in the times ahead to achieve that end. Flooding is one of the biggest threats facing Scotland in the 21st century. It is a threat to our people's lives, to our property, to our communities and to the environment. It is also a global issue. We look forward to working together to tackle those issues head on in the times ahead.

I ask members who are speaking and those who are sitting close to them to ensure that their telephones and BlackBerrys are turned off. Quite a lot of interference came through during the cabinet secretary's speech.

We very much welcome the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's report, which is timely given that the Pitt report, which contains recommendations arising from the experience in England last summer, was published only this week. There are echoes there of Roseanna Cunningham's point about the need for better awareness and flood warning systems, which need to be reviewed and overhauled in Scotland, too.

There is now much greater awareness, not just in the Parliament but among the wider public, of the practical implications of climate change, which have been highlighted over the past few years. We can now see evidence that change is taking place. That comes out strongly in the committee's report. There are warmer temperatures and heavier, more concentrated rainfall, particularly in the west of the country. Those things are not just on the way; they are beginning to happen. In addition, the introduction of the Scottish Government's flooding bill is imminent. For Labour members, flooding legislation is unfinished business, although steady progress was made during the previous session, particularly on improving early warning, and expenditure on flooding was significantly increased. Our legislation, however, is now profoundly outdated and is no longer fit for purpose.

Anyone with personal experience of flooding and its aftermath will know the human misery and the huge economic costs that major flooding incidents can bring. The financial impact can be severe both for householders and for businesses. The long-term human impact, on health and on community confidence, is much harder to identify, but it clearly exists and is no less important. Therefore, I very much welcome the committee report's recommendation of improved analysis of flooding's social and economic costs.

As I am sure members will agree, and as I have said, the starting point is that the current flood legislation framework is profoundly out of date. We need to identify why it is out of date if we are to get the new legislation right. The current system is bureaucratic and unresponsive, with little support for modern, sustainable flood management methods. There is an almost exclusive focus on hard engineering. Those issues must be addressed.

Any critique of the current arrangements must cover the painfully slow planning and approval processes, which involve double handling of flood prevention scheme decisions and a complete lack of transparency for those who are involved in the process.

The timing of the committee's report is good. I congratulate the committee, its clerks and the witnesses who gave evidence on helping to get the report right, because I think that it will help to shape both the principles and the detail of the forthcoming bill. There has also been some innovation in how feedback has been given to the Scottish Government.

We support all the recommendations in the report. Having seen what the committee has come up with, we put on record the fact that the report is comprehensive and clearly points the way for the future.

There is a striking comment at paragraph 52 of the report:

"Glasgow City Council told the Committee that SEPA's indicative flood risk maps: ‘do not show half the areas in Glasgow that are subject to flooding.'"

That is a pretty shocking comment, which reflects what Roseanna Cunningham said: that, although we have some information about flooding on rivers and estuaries and we have some handle on coastal flooding, we do not really have a handle on pluvial flooding. The quotation from Glasgow City Council says it all—it is a call to action. The situation must be remedied. It presents a challenge throughout Scotland, but more action and more expertise are required to address the gaps.

One of the most important recommendations is that there should be a 25-year timescale for long-term planning. We are talking about using tree planting as part of the solution. That does not happen in a year or two years; it needs long-term, sustained investment and a proper funding framework.

I was disappointed at the minister's initial response, in which he defended the system that the Government has put in place. I sat through the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's discussions on the budget. The lack of thought given to the proposals for changes in flooding investment was almost embarrassing. There was no coherence in the Government's responses to straightforward questions from committee members—sometimes the responses were even contradictory. We need to ensure that we get a better result.

Even now, there are deeply unsatisfactory situations in parts of the country. I am told that Moray Council's director of finance has described the current situation as a period of complete uncertainty. In Edinburgh, we were concerned about whether our flood prevention schemes would get in under the wire for funding or whether we would miss out. Glasgow City Council is in a difficult position, because it has had to review its capital expenditure as a result of the decision to remove ring fencing from funding for flooding.

There is a real sense of rough justice, which my colleagues in the Labour Party have noted in the areas that they represent. The authorities with well-advanced plans that were lucky enough to get through the complex approval process got in under the wire, but for those that did not, it is tough luck. They have been told that it is up to them to use the existing money.

The reference to flooding in the concordat is opaque. Flooding is mentioned alongside schools, roads, waste management, the police estate and the fire and rescue service. That is not good enough. I hope that the Government will look long and hard at the committee's report, which was unanimous.

We are not arguing for the old system; we are saying that we should look for a new system with a three-tier funding process that will meet the challenge of the future. Many difficult issues will have to be addressed.

SEPA made a good recommendation. The committee considered carefully the issue of the competent authority. There should be clarity about the role of local authorities and Scottish Water, and a statutory obligation for them to work together, which is crucial. We also need a much more streamlined system of planning approvals. The current system is deeply frustrating for everyone and is no longer fit for purpose.

The recommendation about devolving the smaller decisions but maintaining national oversight of major decisions, and following that through with a national pot of funding directed by Government ministers, is absolutely right.

We agree that there also needs to be money in the pot for local authorities to use at their discretion. However, that should be for forward planning and working up schemes, not major capital investment.

The committee's report is extremely well put together. I hope that the Government will shift its position and will be more enthusiastic about all the recommendations. We need that for the future and for the new bill.

The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee is to be congratulated on a thorough and timely piece of work, which coincides with the Government's consultation on flooding. The Conservative party warmly welcomes the report and we share the committee's view that the Government should fully consider the recommendations that the report contains before it introduces its proposed bill on flooding and flood management.

Flooding and flood prevention have moved up the political agenda in recent years as awareness of the impact of climate change has grown and in the aftermath of some high-profile instances of severe flooding, notably, but by no means exclusively, in England. The devastation caused by flooding is hard to comprehend and goes way beyond the material losses sustained by those who are affected by it. The other evening, I watched a report on television about the on-going clear-up after last year's major flooding in the north of England and was particularly moved by the comment from one Hull resident, who said, "You don't have to die to lose your life."

Clearly, the emotional impact of flooding remains for a long time and the fear of further flooding is ever with those affected. I am pleased that the report highlights that and stresses the need for the Government to ensure that proper support is available to those in crisis.

The risk maps that SEPA published last year indicate that flooding is a very real threat to nearly 100,000 properties in Scotland and it is predicted that floods that are currently considered extreme are set to become more common in the future, with water surges threatening our coastal defences and causing surface flooding with which our urban drainage systems will struggle to cope.

There is an urgency about long-term planning, with an emphasis on sustainable flood management, because although the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 placed a duty on ministers, SEPA and responsible authorities to promote that, there has been little change in practical terms, with most councils still reacting to flooding by providing hard-engineered flood defence systems locally, rather than trying to manage flood risk at catchment level by working with the natural environment rather than against it.

It is concerning to learn from the report that the number of properties subject to rain-induced flooding is not known because work to map and address pluvial flooding has not yet been undertaken in Scotland due to a lack of appropriate authority or funding. It is also worrying that there is a shortage of hydrological expertise in Scotland, which is likely to get worse as demand for flood risk management grows, unless greater numbers of students can be induced to study science, engineering and technology at school and in college and university.

There is widespread agreement that catchment-based flood management is the way ahead, as it allows a more integrated, holistic approach to be taken. There is also recognition that the highly complex legislation dealing with flooding and flood management needs simplification.

We agree with the report's recommendation that there should be one body that is charged with drawing together and co-ordinating whole-river catchment plans and coastal defence strategies, and that SEPA is ideally placed to be that competent authority. We note with interest the comments regarding a future role for Scottish Water in the management of pluvial flooding.

I am particularly concerned that planning and building regulations should be adequately enforced, in agreement with current policies that state that built development should not take place on functional flood plains, and with regard to Scottish planning policy 7, which requires developers and planning authorities to consider the possibility of all forms of flooding so that they can ensure that new developments are free of significant flood risk and will not increase flood risk elsewhere in the catchment or increase the need for flood prevention measures.

In that context, I am appalled that Aberdeen's new local plan, approved only yesterday after a long, convoluted and much delayed process, includes within land designated for residential development an area of ground in the Loirsbank part of my former council ward that is a known flood plain and was previously designated as green belt.

The proposal for that change of use was hotly disputed within the council. It was opposed vociferously by many local residents and unanimously by all three local councillors. However, it was eventually approved by a majority on the council and, sadly, endorsed by Government ministers.

I know that any future planning permission will be subject to a satisfactory flood risk assessment, but to have designated that area as residential is almost unbelievable, given that existing houses, set further back from the River Dee than any future new development would be, already carry loaded insurance premiums because of the known flood risk. I sincerely hope that such folly will not be repeated elsewhere in Scotland.

My party notes and welcomes the report's recommendations on the need for a more streamlined process for the approval of flood management schemes, agrees that investment planning needs to be long term, with provision for updating in every parliamentary session, and welcomes the comments on flood warnings, weather radar and emergency responses. Those elements of the report complete a thorough, painstaking exercise whose recommendations, if eventually enshrined in new legislation, should make the prevention and management of future flooding in Scotland a simpler, more effective and more sustainable process.

One of the most important points in our report is the recommendation that SEPA should take the lead at a national level in overseeing the flood risk plans that are prepared by our local authorities. Indeed, the minister has just confirmed this morning that that is, indeed, the Government's intention. Therefore, I will concentrate my remarks on the reasons why I believe that not enough evidence was taken by the committee to test whether SEPA is sufficiently independent of Government to take on that role.

Representatives of SEPA came to our committee and made the point, in their written submission, that

"Controlling development through planning is perhaps the most powerful tool available to manage flood risks."

I could not agree more with that, which is why I challenged SEPA on whether it had robust processes, independent of Government, to control, for example, the building of houses on the flood plain.

At our meeting on 5 March, I tried to ask questions about the Aviemore application, as it was the most recent example of a developer wanting to build houses on the flood plain, but the committee convener prevented me from asking those questions. The convener used the argument, which in my view was spurious, that another committee was examining the issue. We were all aware that that was not the case. She changed her reasons for disallowing questions on the subject several times over the following weeks.

What had actually happened was that the Local Government and Communities Committee had mentioned in paragraph 268 of its report on the Trump application:

"The Committee is concerned by the implications of Ministerial intervention in the Aviemore case. FOI evidence reveals that intervention by 5 Scottish Ministers",

including the Minister for Environment, Mike Russell,

"pre-dates any request for action by a cross-party group of MSPs."

Therefore, no other committee was examining the issue. It was the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's duty to pursue the issue as it was central to our committee inquiry. Four out of eight committee members wished to recall SEPA to the committee before the minister came before us to give us his evidence, but the convener refused our repeated requests even to put the issue on the agenda for discussion, such was her determination to protect Scottish National Party ministers. In my view, she failed miserably in her duties.

I have never in nine years of service on parliamentary committees come across such a blatant misuse of power and authority by a committee convener and, frankly, it has undermined the authority of our report. It is surely a committee convener's duty to accede to requests if even one member of the committee asks to put something on the agenda for debate. The convener decided to use her authority to silence other members of the committee to protect her political colleague, Mr Russell. That sort of behaviour will not wash.

Does Mr Rumbles not accept that there is more than one way to skin a cat? I was able to ask all the questions that I required to ask—and the committee makes recommendations in the report which relate directly to the Aviemore experience—without mentioning the A-word in committee.

Yes, but is it not unfortunate that we had to go round in circles and were prevented from using the word "Aviemore"? Let us be clear: the First Minister made it clear in evidence to Parliament that he spoke to his most senior planner about the Aviemore application.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The issue of flooding is a very serious subject for debate. If Mr Rumbles is addressing not the issue of flooding but a previous incident, his account of which varies greatly from my own and that of many others, is he sticking to the subject of the debate?

I am listening very carefully—

I—

I am speaking, Mr Rumbles. I am listening carefully to what you have to say. I ask you to remember what the subject is and to be very careful from now on.

The subject is clear. It is about managing flooding and preventing the building of houses on the flood plain. This is a prime example of that.

The First Minister said that he spoke to Mike Russell, the Minister for Environment, who in turn spoke to SEPA, which then withdrew its opposition to the project. The freedom of information evidence referred to by the Local Government and Communities Committee showed that there was anger within SEPA over the pressure that it felt it was under from ministers. In e-mails, SEPA's Martin Boshoff warned that withdrawing its objection

"would weaken SEPA's position in the future and be perceived as discriminatory".

SEPA's senior planning officer talked of being

"Very concerned about the message this is sending to developers which is basically, make a big enough fuss and go high enough and SEPA will buckle".

Will the member give way?

No. Another SEPA e-mail referred to

"Interference in due process … if signed off, it will no doubt affect staff morale".

You have one minute.

All those interventions have taken time from me, Presiding Officer, but never mind.

After all that, Mike Russell, the planning minister, came before our committee.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am not the planning minister, so I hope that Mr Rumbles is not misleading the chamber. Perhaps that point could be noted.

The convener was so concerned about protecting the minister that prior to the meeting she informed us all that she would not even allow any mention of the Aviemore example and would rule any mention of it out of order—so much for effective committee scrutiny. I asked the minister several times whether he had ever intervened in such matters and he repeatedly said to the committee that he had never intervened in a planning process.

I was once again prevented from pursuing the matter by the convener. It is obvious to any independent observer that when the minister said that to the committee, he was being at least economic with the actualité, to borrow a phrase from the late Alan Clark. I hope that ministers realise that they should not be economic with the actualité to Parliament or any of its committees.

It is because SEPA caved in under such ministerial pressure that I am not at all convinced that the Government is right in advocating it as being the appropriate body to take the lead in flood prevention at the national level.

By now, observant members will have noticed that motions have been laid before the Parliament that would mean changes to the membership of various committees. One such change would be my move from the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee to the European and External Relations Committee. I do not want to seem presumptuous by saying that members will support those motions at decision time, but I would like to place on record my thanks to the members and clerks of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for the—by and large—constructive way in which we have worked together over the past year. In the spirit of harmony, I even extend my thanks to Mike Rumbles, whose single-minded approach to issues has always been interesting. Above all, I congratulate Roseanna Cunningham on the way in which she guided the committee through the flooding and flood management inquiry, on which we worked together in a constructive manner—again, by and large.

Our planet's changing climate may make the possibility of flooding more likely for many of our citizens. When it gave evidence in our inquiry, the Met Office talked about the likelihood of more intense rainfall in summer months in future years and the increased risk of flash flooding as a consequence. That is precisely what occurred in England last summer. We have all witnessed on our television screens the devastating impact on individuals and families affected by floods such as those in England last year and others around the world. Some of us may even have witnessed at first hand the more severe floods that have hit parts of Scotland. During its inquiry, the committee visited Elgin and heard from local businesspeople and residents there about the devastating effects of the flooding that has hit that town on more than one occasion.

In the most damaging floods, homes, businesses, treasured possessions and—in the worst instances—lives are lost. Most people probably do not believe that they will be affected by a flood, but the figures indicate that a significant number of people are at risk. I represent the Central Scotland region. Nearly 12,500 properties are at risk of flooding in the Falkirk local authority area alone. That is nearly a fifth of all properties in Falkirk.

Committee members visited the east end of Glasgow. Those who visit that area will be hard pressed to identify the rivers and watercourses there, but they do exist, in culvert—that is, they are underground and out of sight. However, because they are out of sight, they should not be out of mind. When heavy rain comes—as it does from time to time in Glasgow—there is a danger that those underground and unseen watercourses will spill out on to the streets and cause them to flood, as has happened in the past. That is the problem of pluvial flooding that Roseanna Cunningham mentioned. That such flooding can happen in an area in which it seems to the naked eye that there would never be a problem indicates the often unknown danger of flooding risk. What I have said illustrates why the committee was right to prioritise its flooding inquiry.

The Scottish Government has also been collecting evidence on flooding through a consultation process and town hall meetings. The committee's report, of course, is something of a warm-up act for the Government's forthcoming flooding bill. I have every confidence that the Government will take into account the committee's conclusions and recommendations when it frames that bill—indeed, there has been evidence today that it will do so. The Government should be congratulated on waiting for the findings of the inquiry before initiating legislation.

The evidence that the committee gathered shows strong support for a more co-ordinated approach to flood risk management in Scotland and for the appropriate use of resources to support that. Two issues in the report are particularly worth commenting on, the first of which is funding to tackle flooding. It is worth reminding colleagues that the removal of ring fencing in local government budgets does not mean the removal of funding for flood prevention. Indeed, the Scottish Government has budgeted for a 41 per cent increase in funding to local government for flood prevention over the next three years.

The Government's approach means that local government now has responsibility for allocating appropriate resources. The committee's report is clear about the effects of increased flood risk and precipitation, and it is in local authorities' self-interest to ensure that there is adequate provision for flood management in years to come. Paragraph 147 of the report states:

"In any one spending review period, it is unlikely that Scottish Government funding will be sufficient to cover all the spending needs identified in catchment flood management plans. Therefore prioritisation will be needed to reflect the 25 year national flooding strategy."

In other words, the issue goes beyond the lifetime of one Government of a particular party. It is right that we should adopt a long-term approach.

The second issue that I want to address is the competent authority for flood management. Although there was general agreement among witnesses on the need for such an authority, there was not unanimity on whether that authority should be SEPA. As has been demonstrated more than adequately by Mike Rumbles—who should perhaps be rechristened Mike Grumbles after his performance today—the committee was not unanimous on the issue either. However, it was equally clear from our evidence that no suggestion for another body was forthcoming and that, as Roseanna Cunningham said, there was little sense in reinventing the wheel. For that reason, the right approach is to entrust SEPA with the authority for flood management.

The committee's report represents an extremely useful contribution to the debate on the future of flood management in Scotland. I have no doubt that the Government will find it helpful when it introduces its flooding bill. I wish my soon-to-be-erstwhile colleagues on the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee all the best as they embark on scrutiny of the legislation and look forward to communities throughout Scotland benefiting from a sensible precautionary approach to flood management for many years to come.

Like other members, I think that the committee conducted a good inquiry. It is worth acknowledging the fact that, with one exception, which Mike Rumbles mentioned, the report's findings were unanimous. It contains more than 20 strong, clear recommendations.

We all know that flooding is a growing problem. Sadly, more communities in Scotland can expect to be affected by it in years to come, as climate change increasingly takes effect and we witness changes in our daily lives. The effect of flooding is huge in economic terms, but colossal in human terms. Two weeks ago I was in the village of Caol, which was badly flooded by coastal inundation in 2005. I visited the home of one elderly lady who told me that, while helping her granddaughter to prepare a school project about the first world war, she had taken out of her family album all the photographs that dated back to that time. The flood came in the midst of the project and all those photographs were lost. The lady indicated that she still finds herself going to the drawer in which the photographs used to be contained, only to remember that they no longer exist. That is a devastating experience for anyone. On the same day, I met people who are anxious and testify to finding it difficult to sleep on nights when the rain comes, the tide is high and the wind is blowing in a particular direction. As Nanette Milne indicated, that is a tragedy for the individuals concerned. It is vital that we do more to protect our communities.

The recommendations in the report are a distillation of the experience of flooding across Scotland, of managing flooding events and of policy to date. I will focus on four of them. The first is the recommendation that planning for flood management should be built around river catchments. That is fundamental and is the right approach for the future. As the minister said, it requires agencies in river catchments to work together; I am pleased that he indicated that there will be a duty on agencies to do so, which is a committee recommendation. The approach requires much more joined-up planning, land use and policy than there has been hitherto. Catchment zone planning is central to how we should proceed.

Secondly, the approach must be supported by big investments in flood defences—investments of up to and more than £100 million in the case of some relatively small communities. Finding an appropriate funding strategy and mechanism will be vital. The need for funding is uneven across the country in terms both of the time in which need arises and of geographical location. Perth had huge needs that have largely been addressed, but climate change may mean that further work is required in due course. Moray, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Hawick currently require work in relation to river problems, in particular. The Western Isles require massive expenditure in relation to coastal inundation. Those communities need support to meet the local demands on them. In my view and that of the committee, those areas need national support.

The recommendations on funding are important. A growing sum will be needed over time. Jamie Hepburn and Roseanna Cunningham spoke about the longer-term horizons that are needed, but which conflict with public policy on three-year spending reviews. The Government must wrestle with how to give clear indications of funding beyond a three-year period while remaining within the three-year horizons that determine spending reviews.

The committee recommended three funding levels. The first was a small national fund for research, policy development and piloting potential new approaches to which ministers agreed. The second was a large national fund reserved for flooding to help with the big expenditure that is required. The third was a local distribution fund to allow local authorities to plan to undertake small works.

That third funding level represents a policy change. It would be a development on all past policy and therefore requires every political party in the chamber to move their positions. I hope that the Government will accept that recommendation and I very much regret that the cabinet secretary said that he would not accept it. I make it clear that that decision is wrong and will have a regrettable impact on communities throughout Scotland. I urge the cabinet secretary to reconsider that decision because there is still time to do so.

Thirdly, natural flooding, which Roseanna Cunningham mentioned, will be very important. Over the centuries, rivers have been separated from their natural flood plains by the ingenuity of man, forcing water further downstream to where communities are located. That requires bigger engineering solutions downstream than might otherwise be the case. Engineering solutions will almost always be required, but we must do much more to use natural flood processes to mitigate downstream effects, as well as for a variety of other reasons. Reconnecting rivers to their flood plains has implications for farming about which the committee made recommendations, but it also has ecological benefits for biodiversity, habitat recreation and restoration. As Roseanna Cunningham said, there should be a presumption in favour of that.

My final point is about statutory processes, which are enormously complex, time-consuming, cumbersome and costly. They include flood prevention orders and planning processes duplicating each other at times, as well as a variety of permissions from SEPA. There are recommendations to streamline those processes, and a recommendation that deemed consent for one process be given on the back of another. I am pleased to hear that the minister is making progress on that point and I hope that it will continue when the bill is introduced.

I have focused on fluvial flooding, but coastal flooding is hugely important and everything that the report says applies equally to it. I do not have time to mention points that Roseanna Cunningham made about providing information to people, which is important. I believe that the committee has struck the right balance in its report—there is a way forward and I will be happy to support the Government if it accepts the recommendations for its legislation. However, I suspect that a big fight is coming on funding for flooding.

Having quickly rewritten the start of my speech, I now begin by congratulating Roseanna Cunningham on her chairing of the committee. Events in the chamber have shown just how important it was that the convener did not allow the committee to be detoured into discussing the minutiae of a specific planning event.

There are already signs that climate change is affecting Scotland. Changes in weather patterns and mean temperatures are already having noticeable temporal and spatial effects on our wildlife. While the expansion of the nuthatch's range might be welcomed as increasing biodiversity, we are also seeing the retreat of some species, the upland summer mayfly being one perhaps not very obvious example.

Alongside continuing changes in our fauna and flora we can expect changing patterns and an overall increased risk of flooding in both urban and rural areas, particularly adjacent to our rivers. Significantly, there will also be an increased risk of inundation in coastal areas as sea levels rise.

We cannot be certain how quickly and how high sea levels will rise. If the Scottish Government is successful in meeting its commitment to make 80 per cent reductions in carbon emissions, and if other nations follow suit, the rise might be limited. If, however, other Governments fail to follow Scotland's example, the rise might be considerable. Predictions vary widely. The United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change forecasts a maximum rise of 81cm. However, in the journal, Nature Geoscience, a maximum rise of 163cm is predicted. Dr James Hansen has suggested that if the west Arctic or Greenland ice sheets go, the rise could be as much as 5m. We can be certain that sea levels will rise, but we cannot be certain how great the rise will be. One thing is certain—we must plan and act now, in order to avoid being overwhelmed in the future. Taking action will have its critics and its costs, but if we fail to act, there will be greater costs in the future—not just financial costs, but costs in terms of human suffering as well. Being flooded is a highly stressful experience, but how much more stressful it is for people whose home is permanently flooded and must be abandoned.

We might draw parallels and imagine that we are at the beginning of some other great Government failure—the private finance initiative, perhaps. If the Government almost a decade ago had had the courage to call a halt, and if the former Executive had had the courage to say no to PFI, vast sums of money would have been saved. If action had been taken then, we would not have to pay bills for schools and hospitals decades into the future. If we lack the courage to take action now and we continue to build on low coastal plains, we will be obliged within a few decades either to spend great sums on building coastal defences or to rehouse those who have been forced to abandon their homes to the rising seas.

Of course, the legislation will not be simple. It would be simplistic merely to prohibit building below a certain height throughout Scotland. However, it is simple common sense to place restrictions on developments that would be directly affected by a rise in sea levels. During the flooding inquiry, I asked several witnesses whether they would consider it wise to place restrictions on developments below a certain height above sea level. They included Professor John Mitchell, who is director of climate science at the Met Office. He agreed that, in view of the predicted rise in sea levels that is associated with climate change, it would be sensible to prohibit building below a certain height above sea level. Others expressed concern that a rise in sea levels, combined with the possibility of more frequent and intense storm surges, could result in a considerably increased risk to low-lying developments.

During our evidence-gathering sessions, I asked witnesses from local authorities whether they had policies to restrict building in coastal areas. In particular, I asked whether they had any restrictions with specific reference to height above sea level as a response to the increased risk of inundation due to the anticipated rise in sea levels. I received several negative replies. In other words, a number of local authorities have no restrictions and no intention of introducing any.

It seems to me an act of folly that, faced with potentially catastrophic rises in sea levels, local authorities would build homes on coastal sites less than 1m above sea level. I ask the Government to consider putting in place clear restrictions on new-build in coastal areas. No doubt some would attack such restrictions, but I say to the Government and to all parties in the Parliament that, whatever attacks might be made on us for introducing such restrictions, they will be nothing compared with the condemnation of future generations if we do not act now.

If we do not act, future generations will have to meet a hefty bill. Whether it is for extensive coastal defences or for rehousing people, the price will have to be paid. The folly of PFI means that we already know the cost of failing to act when it becomes clear that a policy will leave future Governments and generations with massive debts.

Is it Bill Wilson's understanding that the SNP Government will not go ahead with any PFI or public-private partnership projects in the future?

My understanding is that we are moving towards an alternative, non-profit-sharing method, which will phase out PFI. Where contracts have already been signed, we will be saddled with the debts for a long time to come. That is precisely the point that I am about to make.

In 2024, we will pay £979 million in PFI debt repayments. We will not have cleared our debt repayments until 2041. How much greater will the cost be if we bury our heads in the sand and ignore the rising seas? If the current generation builds on the shoreline, the next generation might see the sea driving them from their homes, waving them goodbye in both senses of the word.

We can halt careless development now or we can order future ministers to achieve that which King Canute could not. Of course, the new Government has excellent ministers, but even I, as a back bencher from the Government party, do not believe that ministers' attempts to order the seas to halt would be any more significant to our oceans than the plaintive mewing of the gulls wheeling overhead.

I echo the mostly positive comments of previous speakers. I thank the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and its clerks for all their work in preparing the excellent report on flooding and flood management. Perhaps I should declare an interest of sorts as a substitute member of the committee. In a parallel, perhaps, with my footballing career, I spent the entire season on the bench, although I did dream the adolescent dream and hope that I would be selected to play for five minutes in the cup final and would score the winning goal. In fairness, I was given one game when a Labour member failed a late fitness test and I heard fascinating evidence from the Met Office—more of which later.

I want to focus on two main areas: the link between climate change and flood prevention. As other members have said, the debate on flooding must be seen in the context of climate change. At one level, it cannot be avoided: even if all emissions were stopped tomorrow, the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere would continue warming the planet for generations. If we do not minimise the process and focus on a twin-track approach of adaptation and mitigation, our children will face a future of flood, famine and disease primarily, but not exclusively, in the developing world.

What does that mean for Scotland? It means that coastal and riverside communities will be subject to more severe and prolonged flooding, with knock-on effects for the insurance industry. We will see more frequent return periods of severe flooding as occurred in Perth, Moray and Stirling. That can result in tragic loss of life, as was witnessed in the Western Isles in recent years.

Climate change will also mean that urban drainage schemes will be unable to cope with increasing volumes of storm water. It will mean that buildings designed for the climate systems of the past will be subject to subsidence and that new buildings will need to meet tougher design standards. The Stern report made it clear that a 3°C increase in temperature could mean that United Kingdom expenditure on flooding had to increase from 0.1 per cent to between 0.2 and 0.4 per cent of gross domestic product.

I will concentrate my remaining remarks on flood warning. There is no real warning system for pluvial flooding in Scotland, and we heard from the committee convener Roseanna Cunningham earlier why that is—the lack of high-definition radar coverage compared with England and Wales. SEPA gives fluvial warnings and operates a national floodline service, which works well in providing information on flood warning and risk. However, as mentioned on page 42 of the committee report, Jennifer Main told the committee that during the floods in Elgin in 2002:

"I did not receive any warning. I just saw the flood waters coming nearer and nearer and I warned my neighbours."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 19 February 2008; c 507.]

Moray Council has since developed a very good system, in which flood warnings can be communicated by e-mail, text, mobile telephone and fax.

SEPA has made a series of recommendations, including those for a national flood warning strategy, a risk assessment of critical infrastructure and work to improve the public's understanding of flood risk. In winding up the debate, will the minister say whether the Government will implement those SEPA recommendations?

Is pluvial flooding the poor relation, as the committee described it? We all know that flood warnings depend on a combination of meteorological and hydrological data, but the Met Office told the committee, at the meeting for which I was present, that the best technical standard is for weather radar to be able to detect rainfall at high resolution—about 2km—as that relates to the size of the weather systems that cause the most intense rainfall. As we have heard, the majority of Scotland—with the exception of Shetland, bizarrely—is currently covered by low-resolution radar, which is fine for weather forecasting. In effect, we have 100 per cent coverage on that.

However, high-resolution coverage is only at 50 per cent in Scotland, which is very poor. The gaps are mostly in our rural areas, such as Moray—which is, ironically, a high-risk area—the Highlands, Orkney and the south-west. In comparison, England and Wales have 95 per cent high-resolution coverage and so are in a much stronger position to predict floods. We need 100 per cent high-resolution radar coverage, which is recommendation 21 of the report.

I do not want our rural areas to become technological no-go zones, so I urge the minister—if he has a second to listen to the debate—to make blanket high-resolution coverage an urgent priority. My colleague Peter Peacock has been in touch with John Hirst, the Met Office chief executive, who has made it clear that we can conduct an assessment to work out how to take the next step, as has been done in England. We need an urgent assessment and a weather radar network review. That will examine the gaps in Scotland and cost about £75,000. The estimate from the evidence is that we probably need three new radar stations in Scotland.

We want to work as efficiently as possible, but the bigger question is how we can afford not to provide the most comprehensive radar coverage to predict flooding and avoid the worst human and financial misery that can result from it.

I commend the report to Parliament and urge members to support all its recommendations.

I am not a Rural Affairs and Environment Committee member, or even a substitute member, so I do not have the depth of knowledge that committee members have. However, I want to speak because flooding is a huge issue in the Highlands and Islands, as David Stewart just said.

The Scottish Government's flood risk maps show that the local authority with the largest area that is covered by fluvial flood zones is Highland Council. The same maps highlight the fact that Western Isles Council has the largest area that is covered by one-in-200-year coastal flood zones.

Of course, horrific floods occurred in Moray in 1997 and 2002. Last night, I attended Jim Hume's textiles exhibition in the garden lobby, where I spoke to Johnstons of Elgin. It is well known that that company lost £20 million in the earlier floods. Its quotations for insurance policies now run into millions. That is just one business, which has also spent huge amounts of money on preventive measures, as the cabinet secretary—who is the local MSP—knows.

In Elgin alone, 650 houses and 180 commercial properties were damaged in the 2002 floods. The combined losses from 1997 and 2002 are estimated to exceed £100 million. The committee visited Elgin to take evidence from a Moray Council official and residents whose homes and businesses were severely affected by flood waters.

Councils such as Moray have overwhelming public support for introducing flood prevention schemes and Moray Council has promoted four flood prevention orders—in Lhanbryde, Rothes, Forres and Elgin—for schemes whose value is estimated to exceed £150 million. The schemes attracted only 31 objections, but legislation says that if any flood prevention order receives even one objection—no matter how minor—that will lead to a public inquiry. As we all know, public inquiries can be expensive for the local authority and can significantly delay a scheme's implementation. I hope and trust that the minister will give guidance on whether that requirement will change and whether objectors will be limited to people such as those who live in or have businesses in the area and whom flooding would affect.

I will focus on the recommendations on pluvial flooding. Recommendation 9 is

"that the … Government place significantly greater emphasis on pluvial flood management in setting future objectives for Scottish Water."

That point arose in Moray only two weeks ago, when it was reported that the £83 million Elgin scheme will face further delays and extra costs, because Scottish Water will not do work that the local council's flood alleviation team understood that it would do to improve the drainage system and complement measures in the scheme. Scottish Water insists that that work is outwith its remit. I listened carefully to the cabinet secretary and I understand from what he said that the proposed bill will address the lack of co-ordination. I trust that that will bring clarity to the issue that I raise and that it will be addressed further down the line.

Recommendations 11 and 12, which are on funding, are also significant to Moray. Flood prevention is a top priority of Moray Council, which has allocated £40 million over the next three years to advance flood prevention schemes. However, the current estimate is that the council will face a shortfall of £23 million over those three years. More worrying is the fact that, in the longer term, the shortfall could exceed £80 million. Therefore, clarity on needs-based funding or clear criteria for prioritising funding for flood schemes, which the committee's report recommends, would be welcome.

My final point is on an important issue of guidance that was given to councillors about planning applications. At a recent meeting of Moray Council's planning and regulatory committee, members were faced with contradictory advice from SEPA and the council's flood experts on two applications. Guidance was sought from the director, who suggested that the better, more up-to-date, locally based advice was from the council's own team. I understand that the SEPA advice largely rests on desk-based maps and that, worryingly, it takes no account of flood alleviation schemes that are in place or planned.

I ask the minister whether authorities, such as Moray Council, that have expert local flood teams providing advice, should still have to contend with SEPA as a statutory consultee. I ask that because if the council ignores its own flood experts, and SEPA disagrees, the application must go back to the Scottish Government, which causes more delay and further costs. I know that the cabinet secretary will understand that delay and higher costs are not what we are looking for in Moray.

There must be something symbolic in the fact that, when Mary Scanlon and I choose to speak in a debate in which we have only a general interest, the heavens open and it starts to pour with rain. No doubt, by the time that Mr Russell winds up, he will have come up with a suitable symbolic interpretation.

I, too, welcome this important report, which the convener of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee introduced earlier. The issue is a tough one for both Parliament and Government because it is about tough choices, which Mary Scanlon illustrated in her speech. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the continuation of much of the work that my colleague Ross Finnie began in the previous Administration. I saw earlier a bit of the year-zero approach that we are all too used to from the front bench, but perhaps even Mr Lochhead could, in his more charitable moments, find a way to give some credit to ministers in previous Administrations who worked pretty hard on this difficult issue. I note that the umbrella group Scottish Environment LINK stated clearly on the radio this morning that it welcomes the work of current ministers because it continues the work of previous ministers in this difficult policy area.

I welcome what the convener of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee said about climate change in her introductory speech, and the points that Sarah Boyack and others have made on that issue. That appears to me to be the right context in which to view the debate. In addition, Nanette Milne, who is no longer in the chamber, rightly made a point about households. From our television screens last year we all gained a powerful impression of the impact of the floods down south on businesses and households, but particularly on the latter. That demonstrated the compelling need for Government across the UK, which in our context is the Scottish Government, to take action to deal with the enormous distress that is caused to people in such circumstances.

Roseanna Cunningham, Mary Scanlon, Peter Peacock and others mentioned recommendation 11 on clear criteria for the prioritisation of funding. Prioritisation is a ghastly word, but we use it all the time. I confess that I am a little confused by the Government's proposed approach to this because we are being told—and I understand that the committee was told when considering the spending review—that the budget will be allocated to local authorities. The budget will be £126 million, which is, in effect, a continuation of the £42 million a year that was given to local authorities in 2007-08. However, if the Scottish Parliament information centre's numbers are right, that indicates a real-terms cut in the budget for flooding. I am not quite sure how consistent that is with the recommendation, or how the minister will square off the need to tackle funding issues, as Mary Scanlon rightly mentioned.

I ask the minister to reflect on the fact that there is no reference to flood protection in the Government's national outcomes, indicators or targets, which we are repeatedly told in the Parliament are the defining purpose of the Government. If I quote the cabinet secretary correctly, he said earlier that

"flooding is one of the biggest threats"

and I am sure that we all concur with that. If he is right, why are flood prevention and the funding for it not mentioned in the national outcomes, indicators or targets?

I would be grateful if the Minister for Environment could give us an answer on that when he winds up the debate. I would also be grateful if he would help us to understand—perhaps not today but in due course—the principles of distribution that have been agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. What is the precise formula by which money has been allocated? What will happen to schemes that have been worked up but were not submitted as completed schemes by 14 November? There is a huge list of such schemes, as members said.

In paragraph 40 of its report to the Finance Committee on the Scottish budget spending review 2007, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee said:

"The Committee is unclear about how the reallocation of funding to local government will be calculated".

I would be grateful if the minister would clarify that and other matters that I mentioned. It is important that not just the Parliament but affected communities should understand the Government's approach to such issues.

Peter Peacock talked about coastal erosion and flooding, which I have raised with the minister's colleague Linda Fabiani in relation to the impact on island communities. During this morning's debate on the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme, Peter Peacock said that members of the Scottish Parliament probably have an eight-year tenure before they are out of the Parliament for one reason or another. If the most recent research findings from the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research on rising sea levels and on tide levels, which can be elevated by up to 2m by major storms, are true, my constituency is sinking and will be gone soon. I take Bill Wilson's point—he has left the chamber, too—about the changes that are happening. In that context, built heritage is an important issue. Perhaps the minister will consider the need to remove archaeological material that will be lost. I appreciate that the issue is not as important as the loss of businesses and homes, but it is important to many people.

David Stewart talked about weather radar. I do not disagree with his central point, but Shetland has no weather radar—not one iota. I am grateful to the convener of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for mentioning the issue and I ask the minister to say exactly what the Government is doing about the matter. David Stewart was right to say that the issue is important, not just for the Highlands but for the islands, which could do with weather radar. I hope that the minister will give a comprehensive answer on that point.

The flooding that affected the Highlands and Islands about 18 months ago and the Western Isles a year earlier sharpened much of the debate in the Parliament during the past year and led to the production of one of the best reports that has been presented to the Parliament. The long-term implications of the issues that the report raises, particularly for funding, are such that we must think out of the box. Perhaps we should think beyond the three-year period of the comprehensive spending review and try to secure cross-party agreement on how cash can be found in the long term. I suggest that an oil fund could help. I hope that members agree with me.

We must consider the combination of events such as coastal and pluvial flooding and high tides. Catchment-based flood management is difficult. The resilience to flooding of scattered communities in the Highlands is difficult to predict, given that a tenth of houses in the Highlands are liable to coastal flooding because they are situated less than 5m above high-tide level. How we plan is critical. We must acknowledge our geography and accept that people have a right to live in such communities and to expect the funding that will allow them to do so—although they will have to adapt. The terrible deaths in South Uist are a case in point.

The hydrological studies that are now taking place to work out what should be done should, perhaps, have been carried out before. There has been some remediation, but there is a growing realisation in South Uist that the sea will not let up on the western machairs, and it might be necessary for hundreds of people to move. However, do people in Leith understand that that could be the case for them? The SEPA flood maps show that the major housing developments on the sea shore in Leith could also end up underwater. If we are not taking those issues into account in our planning, the report points to the ways in which we should.

I will give a little example that shows that co-ordination is missing, and why it is needed. One of the incidents in October two years ago affected the burn at Gartymore, just north of Port Gower. Margot MacGregor suddenly saw water flowing past her kitchen window—it was 20ft deep, rather than the burn that normally passes her house. That was frightening for her, and in future we will probably not allow people to build croft houses in such areas.

The culvert became blocked by branches, trees and bushes that were taken down by the flood, and the water flooded over the main A9, washing away about 50yd of the railway bed. It took an enormous effort to convince the police to close the A9, because of the huge diversions that were required. I was able to convince them that Network Rail should get a two-hour window four days later, on a Sunday afternoon, to begin the process of lifting the railway.

That incident highlights the lack of co-ordination, starting with the way in which we manage culverts and ensure that people do not dump bushes and trees into water courses. Landowners have to be more careful about keeping water courses clear. That example shows that people need to be much more geared up to do the routine maintenance that could cut out the problems.

In my own village of Evanton, more and more building has taken place up the hill in Chapel Road, Teandallon Place and Swordale Road, which has meant that the hard concrete and tarmac makes a natural course to carry the waters down. As we heard a parliamentary statement on the floods, we were looking at pictures of the floods at the bottom of the street. Preparation involving flooding equipment, deeper drains and so on will take vast investment, and in small villages such as Evanton there will be major disruption, as there would be in cities. However, the same houses are being flooded time after time. Such villages deserve to be saved from having to face that again.

It is interesting to note the comments that have been made about high resolution radar not being available. That is a matter for the Met Office, which we do not control, and it has also been a matter for the Ministry of Defence. It is now necessary for us to have the debate with London, in the joint ministerial committees, to decide on funding. We should be looking to catch up, because we were left out in the past as being less important. We are equally important, and it is essential that we are able to catch up. The report's many excellent recommendations point us in the direction to enable us to do so. We need to have an overall body, and SEPA is that competent authority, but each local authority has to be tasked to do things. I ask that when the bill is presented, we get a clear steer on how to fund radar.

Having lasted in this place for more than eight years—not having been defeated by the effects of climate change or the best efforts of Gil Paterson—I can say that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's report will register as one of the more significant reports that the Parliament has produced. If one considers the past eight years, it is possible to identify major reports that have had a significant effect, either on legislation or on governance in relation to the matters on which the reports focused. The view will be taken in due course that this is a particularly significant report. The report, which was agreed almost entirely unanimously and with a very broad endorsement of its substantial number of recommendations, provides a template against which any future legislation can be judged.

The Environment and Rural Development Committee has recommended that there should be more clarity and that an identifiable body—which in our view should be SEPA—must be responsible for taking forward and co-ordinating flood risk management. We have also recommended that SEPA's independence in carrying out that role must be safeguarded and that

"the bodies who will contribute to the delivery of catchment flood management plans should be identified in statute and given a duty to collaborate in order to deliver those plans"

to ensure that the roles and responsibilities of all the different parties are clear.

The committee's suggestion that

"the Scottish Government place significantly greater emphasis on pluvial flood management in setting future objectives for Scottish Water"

will, as Jamie Hepburn made clear, be particularly important in Glasgow and the other urban areas in Scotland that are at most risk from pluvial flooding.

As Peter Peacock pointed out, the one area of disagreement between the committee as a whole and the Government is funding, particularly the criteria for prioritising and the mechanism for allocating funding for future flood management. Frankly, the system that ministers set out in their evidence to the inquiry and in the consultation on the budget will not work. Flood management funding cannot be evenly distributed among the 32 local authorities according to population share; instead, it must be allocated through a needs-based system. Indeed, Scottish Environment LINK has pointed out that strategic flood management

"requires catchment-based planning, often crossing one or"

two

"local authority boundaries. For this reason … large-scale projects should be funded using a centrally held government budget. Smaller projects can still be supported using grant-in-aid allocations to local authorities."

That approach, which has also been recommended by the committee, has to be matched by the funding system. If the Government disagrees with that view and wishes to maintain the position that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment set out with regard to the budget, he needs to make it clear. After all, by maintaining such a position, he simply goes against the committee's recommendation.

Mr McNulty seems to suggest that money for the flooding element in the local government settlement has been divided equally among the 32 local authorities. That is certainly not the case. When that money was built into the settlement, the relevant needs of various local authorities were taken into account. For example, out of the overall £126 million budget for flooding, Moray Council was allocated £40 million over the next three years.

Mr Lochhead knows better than I do that Moray needs £80 million to implement the schemes that it has planned. To be blunt, I have to say that the cabinet secretary has shifted from his original position. What is his consistent position? Does he want devolved budgeting for flood protection or a needs-based system? If he wants the latter, I have to tell him that it cannot be based on a population-driven formula. If that is made clear, we can make progress.

There must be different approval mechanisms for different scales of flood management measures. Indeed, the committee argued strongly that there could not be a one-club system with regard to such mechanisms. Does the minister accept the requirement for the three-tier system that has been proposed? Does he accept the presumption in favour of natural flood management in each catchment plan to ensure that specific justifications are provided before there is any move to a rigid engineering-based system? Again, I hope that the minister will provide clarification on those questions.

Finally, given the importance that the committee has placed on land use management, will the minister indicate whether, as the committee has recommended, "the Scottish Government" will

"ensure that it has the power to require changes to land use for flood management purposes"?

Of course, as we also point out,

"such a power would have to be accompanied by a provision for landowners to be compensated".

I would greatly appreciate a clear response to that question and the others that I have asked.

I have listened to the debate with considerable interest and I am glad to note the level of agreement that exists between the committee and the Government in a number of areas. I particularly welcome the idea that SEPA should act as a lead agency and the accent on the adoption of a catchment-based management system. I reflect on the fact that I played my part in ensuring that the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 contained references to a catchment-based approach.

I applaud the willingness to conduct further research into natural flood management. Although I acknowledge that the committee was clear in its recommendations in that regard, I would have liked those recommendations to be expressed even more robustly. Similarly, I would have liked the Government to be more robust in accepting natural flood management as an essential part of any future policy.

I give that assurance. The Government regards as essential the work that is being done on natural flood management. There is a strong shift in the balance towards natural flood management.

I thank the minister for his intervention, urge him to make further progress in that direction and hope that he will welcome my observations.

There are openings for a great deal of historical research. Peter Peacock mentioned flooding events in the first world war, when forest cover in Scotland was at an historic low—it accounted for about 5 per cent of the country's land area. Research could be done on deforestation, particularly in northern India, which would support the arguments in favour of planting trees as a way of tackling flooding.

Paragraph 170 of the committee's report quotes Scottish Environment LINK's submission, which said:

"Findings of the [River Devon] demonstration project and work done by RSPB in Insh marshes and elsewhere indicate that by restoring the functionality of rivers and uplands, it is possible to reduce the risk of flooding downstream in the long term for a fraction of the costs of expensive, short-lived, hard engineering."

Such an approach would tie in well with that of the Government.

As I have done before, I will restrict myself to discussing the use of trees, although there are, of course, other methods of natural flood management. If I recall correctly, the Government has said that it is developing a policy to increase tree cover from its present low rate of 17.7 per cent of Scotland's land area to 25 per cent by 2030. That is an achievable goal; indeed, it is almost modest, given that we trebled forest cover in Scotland from a post-war low of 6 per cent in 1947 to the present level of 17.7 per cent in the space of 60 years.

I was glad that Sarah Boyack and Peter Peacock discussed the advantages of natural flood management and the importance of coherent investment policies. It would help the Government to have a coherent investment policy if it tied its forest cover policy to its flood management policy and identified how those two policies could be more closely integrated. That would be a sensible and straightforward approach.

We should look for win-win approaches. By increasing biodiversity, by doing good things for tourism and for habitat restoration—which Peter Peacock mentioned—and by employing our forestry and our environmental land management policies, we will be able to develop an overall win-win approach over a period of 25 years. As Sarah Boyack correctly observed, we need a long-term approach to investment and policy if we are to control flooding in the future.

I just about have time to make one further reference. Rob Gibson talked about the knock-on effects of housing on flooding. Oddly enough, parking regulations in Edinburgh may have an unforeseen effect, which shows that we need an integrated approach. In some parts of Edinburgh, people have started concreting over their front gardens so that they can park their cars there rather than on the street, thus saving quite a lot of money. However, the increased run-off into our drains will increase flooding.

I urge the Government to follow a trees policy.

I am always interested in listening to Robin Harper when he talks about the trees. I know that he was a teacher in Buckhaven in Fife, where many trees were cut down to build some famous ships. Perhaps we could have a replanting of trees in Fife—that would be a great start.

As a keen supporter of the European Union, I am pleased that the Government's proposed legislation stems from the European Union directive on the assessment and management of flood risks, which came into force on 26 November 2007, but which member states do not need to implement until November 2009. In the context of the environment, we owe much to European Union directives. I frequently drive through eastern Europe and I have seen the great possibilities that exist there to improve the environment. I think back to the state of the environment in some of the old mining communities in Fife, particularly in what is now known as Lochore meadows, an area that once suffered from flooding and coal pollution.

I congratulate the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee on its report, which is a powerful piece of work. I am impressed by it. The report tells us that, since 1998, floods in Europe have caused about 700 deaths, the displacement of 0.5 million people and at least €25 billion in insured economic losses. However, the point that will stay in my memory from the debate will be Nanette Milne's comment about people losing everything when there is a flood, and how it is like dying. That was the thrust of what she said, although those were not her exact words. Her comment will stay with me.

I represent the Dunfermline East constituency, which has a coastline stretching from Aberdour, through Dalgety Bay, St Davids Harbour and North Queensferry to Rosyth. For that reason, my interest in the important issue of flooding lies in coastal flooding. I will focus on planning issues. I am especially concerned about the effect of sea-level rise, which is likely to be exacerbated by changes in the frequency of storm surges. Major storms can cause elevated sea levels—they can increase the predicted tidal levels by 1 to 2m. The frequency of storm surges is likely to increase as a result of greater storm activity.

Falkirk has the highest number of affected properties and Fife has the second highest number of homes that are known to be at risk of flooding. Sarah Boyack mentioned that the number of properties in Glasgow that are at risk of pluvial flooding is not known. I imagine that the same must apply throughout Scotland. Therefore, we must take any figures that we read in reports with a pinch of salt. SEPA's indicative flood maps do not show half of the affected areas. We look forward to the assessments and the mapping exercise that will come in due course. I am pleased with the committee's recommendation 17, on land-use management. That is an important aspect when it comes to planning and developing new properties.

A study that was done in 2002 for the Scottish Executive analysed possible river flooding in four future greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. The study found that, by the 2080s, in scenarios with high levels of emissions, floods could be up to 20 per cent larger and that, for some rivers, what is now a one-in-50-year flood could become a one-in-20-year flood. That is combined with rising sea levels, which add to the long-term risk. Storminess, too, is expected to increase. The risk of surges, which cause coastal flooding, will be increased: instead of having a one-in-200-year likelihood of flooding, my area might have a one-in-20-year likelihood of flooding.

The reason why I have become so interested in the planning and building control aspects of flooding relates to a planning application at St Davids Harbour, which is well known to the minister. The area of land is not stable, and the local authority, Fife Council, previously refused planning permission. There was a repeat application because, as a result of last year's elections, there was a non-determination, and the reporter approved the application.

I highlight that case because there appears to be a loophole or anomaly in the planning process in connection with flooding. Local authorities must have regard to Scottish planning policy 7, which requires them to ensure that new developments are free of significant flood risk. The policy states:

"Built development should not therefore take place on functional flood plains."

Development should not take place in areas that are at risk. I totally support the view of SEPA, which stated in written evidence:

"Controlling development through planning is perhaps the most powerful tool available to manage flood risks."

We can imagine the shock, anger, dismay and disbelief in my community when the minister, Mike Russell, signed off approval for the new development at St Davids Harbour, which is clearly at high risk of flooding, judging from the SEPA flood map. If flooding devastation follows at St Davids Harbour, the Official Report will clearly identify that Michael Russell was the minister. So much for the precautionary principle, as cited by Mr Hepburn.

I am especially interested and pleased to note recommendation 23 in the committee's report, which encourages the Government to consider

"requiring developers to provide flood risk assessments for new developments to potential purchasers."

A key aspect of that would be the independence of any such flood risk assessment.

The likelihood of a spring tide, a storm surge and pluvial flooding around the River Forth cannot be overstated.

Like some other members, I am not a member of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. However, as a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I have a strong interest in the impact of the proposed bill on local authorities. I also have a particular interest, as the coastline of my constituency stretches from Rosyth to Kincardine.

I welcome the SNP's commitment to review flooding legislation. We have the opportunity to introduce a sustainable, integrated approach to flood management in Scotland. That is a continuation of the work of the previous Executive, and principally my colleague Ross Finnie, who was Minister for Environment and Rural Development. That point has already been ably outlined by Nanette Milne, Tavish Scott and Sarah Boyack.

Over the years, flooding has affected various areas of Scotland, including Perth, Stirling and Glasgow, to name but a few, causing severe damage to property and severe distress to many thousands of people. In recent evidence to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, Professor David Crichton described his view of the potential economic impacts on Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole of extreme coastal flooding caused by a storm surge affecting the upper Firth of Forth, including my constituency. His evidence makes unpleasant reading. He said:

"Around 5,000 houses and 40 per cent of the UK's—not just Scotland's—oil and gas treatment facilities would be affected. Longannet, the biggest coal-fired power station in the UK and one of the biggest in Europe, is also in the area. Scottish Power would be much better qualified to tell the committee what the cost of Longannet closing for a year and the effects of such a closure on electricity supply would be."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 23 January 2008; c 408.]

The funding of flood prevention measures remains a great concern to us all. The SNP changed the way in which flood protection is funded, with the end of ring-fenced grants that previously were used to help local authorities to undertake major flood prevention work. The money has now been incorporated into the general allocation that is made to local authorities. Flood management schemes can be very expensive, and individual authorities' annual shares of the national budget allocation might not be sufficient to fund the schemes that are needed in their areas.

Some areas of Scotland have more flooding problems than others. The Government and COSLA have stated that the necessary money is available. The problem seems to be that the money is distributed across the 32 councils.

The money is indeed distributed among the 32 councils—it is distributed on a needs basis and on the basis of schemes that are going ahead. Can the member name a single scheme that will not go ahead because of the distribution formula? If he cannot, perhaps we can nail that idea once and for all.

I appreciate that intervention, but it begs the question, what happened to the concordat and ensuring that others were involved? The problem seems to be that although the money is distributed across 32 councils, the flooding problems are not spread equally across those 32 areas. Some councils desperately need more resources and others will receive more than they need to deal with their flooding problems. Regardless of whether the minister accepts that point, that is the reality.

We need to plan investment in flood management that looks forward over many years. The Association of British Insurers and the committee suggested that there should be a 25-year flood management strategy.

Expenditure on flood management will need to rise continually for years to come if major flooding is to be avoided. The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee concluded that three levels of funding would be needed. First, there should be a national budget to fund overarching projects, such as research on flood warning technology. Secondly, there should be a centrally controlled budget for major flood management projects that are too expensive for individual authorities or groups of authorities working jointly on a catchment basis to fund from their share of flooding expenditure, or for coastal flood prevention work. Thirdly, there should be a local funding budget for local authorities to enable them to prepare and deliver smaller local schemes.

We should not focus on only flood defences, because we need to take a wider view of the situation. Average temperatures and rainfall are rising. The effects of climate change are upon us, and it is predicted that winters will become wetter and summers will become drier.

The SNP needs to take urgent action now. We cannot leave things to the next generation, or even to the next session, to sort out. Cancelling public transport investment and blocking renewable energy projects is short-sighted. Without action to reduce emissions significantly, what is now a one-in-50-year flood could become a one-in-20-year flood by 2080.

A mix of hard and soft flood management is required. In my constituency, old areas have been managed mostly through hard engineering options, such as the storm tanks near my home. The newer areas of Dunfermline have been managed predominantly by soft engineering options, such as sustainable urban drainage system ponds. Future large-scale developments must be made to give up development space to options such as SUDS ponds. The main anti-flooding benefits of such ponds are obvious, but the less obvious environmental benefits include an increased presence of wildlife, such as swans.

My colleague Mike Rumbles's speech might have been controversial, but that was absolutely right, given that the Government and the SNP convener of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee damaged the reputation of SEPA—the very body that the Government has charged with administering planning in areas of flooding risk.

Jim Tolson was not even at the committee meeting.

No, but I read the Official Report of it.

Many members have made serious points, but I will not restate them, because I am out of time.

None of us who represent Mid Scotland and Fife need reminding of the horrors that afflicted the residents of Milnathort in 2006 or those which afflicted the residents of Perth and Strathearn in 1993.

As Peter Peacock, Nanette Milne and Tavish Scott said eloquently, it goes without saying that severe flooding is one of the worst natural disasters that can affect a community. It can have long-term psychological and social effects, as well as the substantial economic costs to which Mary Scanlon referred in citing the example of Johnstons of Elgin.

It seems obvious that flood management is hugely important. That is why we welcome the debate and the Government's determination to develop a modern approach to flood management via a new flood prevention bill for Scotland.

The Scottish Conservatives congratulate Roseanna Cunningham and the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee on all their hard work in bringing together many experts in the field in an area that Des McNulty described as one of the most important to have come before the Parliament.

It is useful that the debate has coincided with the publication of the report of the independent review by Sir Michael Pitt in England—a report that has further focused minds on the extent of the problems that we face and which has made it abundantly clear that traditional solutions to flooding are increasingly found wanting, because recent policy has been far too biased in favour of hard engineering options. In that respect, the consultation processes of the Scottish Government and the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee have both been effective in bringing forth comment from a wide range of interested stakeholder groups, whose expertise is crucial in advising the Parliament about how Scotland can refocus flood protection policy. Indeed, the scientific debate appears to be well advanced. However, there are some key messages that we need to take on board, principally those that involve addressing the current shortage of engineers and people with hydrological expertise.

There was a strong message from several witnesses that national legislation must clearly define where responsibilities lie in a language that is familiar to the general public as well as to the scientists and the technical experts. If there seems to be overwhelming support in favour of the catchment principle of flood management, legislation must reflect that in an unambiguous and workable way so that there is no repeat of the difficulties that were encountered in the aftermath of the recent Kinross and Milnathort floods. Transparency and accountability are essential, as is the existence of strong working relationships between all those involved, rather than there being scope for buck passing.

The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee has been clear about the need to avoid another layer of bureaucracy. We do not believe that we require an additional watchdog. However, there is undoubtedly a need for a national nerve centre, in the form of SEPA, to provide more accurate flood warning information and more careful and co-ordinated planning of flood management, which, I hope, will be of huge help to Scottish local authorities when they create their maps of old drainage ditches and streams in their areas.

It is essential that lines of responsibility are clear and that an assurance is given to people that their communities will be safeguarded. In that regard, I take on board the points that Roseanna Cunningham made at the end of her speech about some of the issues around the information process, which might not be covered by the legislation.

We do not want any future flood prevention schemes, such as those that are proposed in Almondbank, Birnam and Bankfoot, to be put in jeopardy because of disputes about where responsibility lies or a lack of funding. I join other members in asking the minister whether he will soon be able to provide detail in that respect, especially on how the additional funds will be distributed in order to provide funding for such flood mitigation schemes.

As I said, no one needs to be reminded of the horrors that flooding can bring. It is vital that we give full support to the proposal for a new flood prevention bill.

I welcome the debate and admit that I really quite enjoyed the inquiry, which was interesting and challenging. As a result of the inquiry, we have come up with a range of recommendations that can help to shape the forthcoming flooding bill and give ministers a steer that will help to ensure that the legislation has an easier passage than it might otherwise have.

As the convener rightly said, in the evidence that we took, there was no unanimity about what should be the strategic flood authority. There was genuine concern that SEPA was not strong enough to withstand external pressure in relation to major developments. There was also concern about the fact that it might be difficult to ensure that flood prevention measures would be constructed if they were required only after planning consent had been given. Concern was expressed about issues such as urban SUDS, as people were not clear about how they would be maintained in the long term.

After considerable debate, however, the committee rightly concluded that SEPA should become the competent authority. I am glad that the Government has accepted that view. However, we believe that SEPA's hand must be strengthened and its independence secured if that is to happen. It is clear that consent for development of flood plains will continue to be sought, often without consideration of the impact on the catchment as a whole.

A constituent to whom I spoke last week gave an interesting analogy that some members might relate to. He said that flood management was "a bit like a lady getting into her stays"—or, for more modern ladies, pulling on her wonder pants—"because you pull it in at one point and it has to get out somewhere else." Similarly, if people build on a flood plain and construct a measure to deal with flooding only on that flood plain, the water must get out somewhere else—generally downstream, which has implications for other people. That is why a catchment-based flood management scheme is the only game in town, as it will ensure that a more strategic perspective is brought to bear on planning decisions. SEPA must be given teeth to allow it to deal with such matters. It must be independent; most important, it must be seen to be independent.

The committee asked SEPA directly how the current system could be improved. It is true that, in the e-mails that were secured under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 about the Aviemore development, SEPA had expressed concern that consent could be given before an appropriate flood risk assessment had been carried out and a solution developed to manage any flood risk. That is why I was keen to pursue the issue, which gets to the heart of the matter in managing so many competing land use demands, such as housing, farming or tourism, while understanding the risks of development on the flood plain. Developers will always seek to use those competing demands to their advantage. That is why the committee has concluded that full flood risk assessments must be in place—they must be a statutory requirement—before planning consent is given.

It is fair to say that we also want a solution to be in place on a catchment basis, so that if a development is going ahead and a precautionary approach is being taken everybody can have confidence that those downstream will not suffer as a result.

Having such assessments as a statutory requirement would give SEPA one of the tools that it needs and enable it to have the independence that it requires. That approach would also increase transparency and ensure that decisions are factually based and that undue influence cannot be brought to bear before the granting of planning consent. I hope that the minister can comment on that recommendation in his summing up.

The committee is also acutely aware of the human cost of flooding, as a result of the knowledge that we gained through the inquiry and the experience of our constituents. We are keen to ensure that people have the information that they need through better education, earlier flood warning systems and increased mapping, so that they and local authorities can take action and other emergency services are equipped and ready for any event.

Some people who move into an area do not have the local knowledge to make informed decisions, which can lead them to purchase a house that is likely to be flooded at some point. The committee is keen that people are put before profit when developments are being considered, which is why we want developers to provide potential purchasers with flood risk assessments for new developments. My view is that that may well help to focus developers' minds: if they are not sure whether they will sell the houses, they might not build them there in the first place. I am interested to know how ministers will take that issue forward.

On sustainable urban drainage systems, the committee makes it clear that, when planning permission is granted, a maintenance regime must be a condition of that permission. I am again interested in the minister's response to that.

Finally, on finance, it is clear from the inquiry and from the debate that the current funding system does not have the confidence of the committee and is not sufficiently transparent. I acknowledge that the Government has moved from its muddled position in the budget process, when views changed depending on which official we spoke to. That movement is certainly welcome. However, movement is a two-way process, and the committee is not arguing for a return to the situation in which the money was held centrally. The approach that is being proposed by the committee is sensible. I heard the minister's comments today, but I hope that he will look again at the issue before he comes back to the committee with the bill and before the next budget process. We want a three-tier process that provides appropriate funding at national level and at local level to allow major projects to go ahead. I hope that members will support the committee's report at decision time.

I welcome the general tone of the debate and I stress that very little divides the Government from the committee and its report. It is important to emphasise that point at the beginning of my summing-up speech, and I will do so repeatedly throughout.

As our formal response to the committee report will show, we welcome most of the recommendations. We have indicated where we think the recommendations are already happening, as well as areas on which we need to have further debate. There is a growing unanimity of approach, which I hope will be reflected when the bill goes through the committee. However, I will come on to one or two significant areas of difference.

Last night, I attended the launch of Alastair McIntosh's new book, "Hell and High Water", which is his personal and influential response to climate change. In the book he talks a little about his experience in January 2005 of talking his mother, who lived on the seafront in Stornoway, through the enormous hurricane that was taking place. He relates her fear and distress as she experienced that dreadful event, which led to deaths in a part of South Uist that is very well known to me.

David Stewart referred to those events in his speech. From the beginning of the debate, we must recognise that we are developing legislation for a changing situation and a changing Scotland, and we will have to work on it together. I think that we can work on it together because the prize is very important: protecting ordinary people and allowing Scotland to change and develop to take account of what is happening in the world.

There has been only one unchanging thing in the debate: Mr Rumbles's contributions, which have not changed from the beginning of the Aviemore incident and will not change no matter what evidence is presented.

I will not take an intervention from Mr Rumbles.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Mr Rumbles has a point of order, Mr Russell.

Further to Mike Russell's earlier point of order, in my speech I may have referred to him as the planning minister. He is, of course, the Minister for Environment and he has direct responsibility for SEPA. His intervention with SEPA was therefore even more significant.

That was not a point of order.

Everything on the Aviemore case is in the public domain. There was and is no case to answer. In Stalin's Russia, absence of evidence was proof of guilt, and that is exactly the approach that Mr Rumbles is taking. I advise him in a friendly and supportive way to have a period of rest during the recess that may aid his recovery from what is becoming a dangerous obsession.

Mr Rumbles accepted that the debate has been good. The only real difference of opinion that exists is on funding. I am sorry that there is a difference of opinion, but let me outline clearly what the situation is now and say where I think there will be developments.

Funding has been committed to schemes that are under construction. There is no danger with those schemes. The total funding over the next three years—which is a record amount—takes into account the needs of submitted schemes that will be ready for construction over the next three years. With respect to the general distribution thereafter, funds will not be equally divided across authorities, as has been implied; rather, the distribution will be based on the properties that are at risk in each council area. Considerable misunderstanding of that matter has been displayed during the debate, and I want the facts to be on the record.

The new funding regime that the flooding bill will anticipate will develop things further. The national flood risk management plan that SEPA develops will set out long-term objectives and measures for managing flood risks. The plan must and will include a cost benefit analysis involving identified measures. Money can then be allocated under any future regime through the capital grant as part of a future spending process within the context of the national plan. We can debate how that takes place, but it must be predicated on the fact that the Government is committed to local decision making. There is no conflict whatsoever between catchment management and local decision making.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I was about to talk about single outcome agreements. If that is the issue that the member—

It is not, actually.

I am grateful to Mr Russell for talking about funding, but I would like him to clarify something. If his position is that there will be local discretion, is the funding within the grant-aided expenditure settlement? I cannot see how it can be within the GAE settlement and be needs based at the same time.

I have outlined the formula clearly. Mr Scott and others have assumed that local authorities do not, in some sense, care or worry about flooding. The local outcome agreements will prioritise tackling flooding where that is a priority for local authorities. We should trust local authorities to get things right. I believe that democracy is a good way forward and that local democracy is one of the best ways forward of all.

I want to refer briefly to some of the other issues that can unite us. We regard radar as an important issue; indeed, we are consulting SEPA and the United Kingdom Government as closely as possible on how radar coverage can be extended in Scotland. We recognise that radar is an important tool.

Will the minister take an intervention?

No. I am sorry, but I must make progress.

Various initiatives that relate to education and warning the public are under way. This year, SEPA is receiving substantial additional funding to develop a warning system, and there is a possibility that we will welcome the National Flood Forum to Scotland and help it to work with the Scottish public. I would support that.

On planning, of course there is a presumption against development on flood plains. However, let us think carefully about the matter for a moment. There are, for example, brownfield regeneration areas in the middle of the city of Glasgow that are on a flood plain. We could not abandon and walk away from those areas. Therefore, a blanket proscription against developing on flood plains would be impossible to fulfil. A careful approach needs to be taken, time after time. A presumption should exist that we do not want to create difficulties, but there should not be a blanket ban.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I am sorry, but I must make progress.

The issue of natural flood management goes to the heart of what we are talking about. We are trying to provide the maximum protection and adaptation, but we are also trying to ensure that we develop such measures in keeping with and by working alongside the other forces in nature, rather than working against them; Robin Harper made that point strongly. I repeat our commitment to the natural flood management approach. In our view, there must be a much better way of undertaking sustainable flood management, and the bill must reflect that.

I make it absolutely clear that the recommendations in the committee's report will be echoed in much of the bill. I hope that that will be seen in committee debates and discussions as the bill proceeds. Where we have differences—on funding, for example—discussion will have to continue, but I think that on most issues we will be able to unite to protect Scotland. The comprehensive effort that the committee and the Government have made to gather evidence and views from key stakeholders and the public has been extremely important. The evidence that we received in our consultation will inform the development of a bill that will be important to every community in Scotland.

I was struck by a point that Bill Wilson made. Of course, there are communities that are deeply at risk—we know where they are and must work with them—but every community in Scotland could be at risk from extreme rainfall events and the effects of pluvial flooding. Communities such as Newmills never expected to be affected but have suffered devastating floods. We must raise the profile of the issue, make the whole of Scotland understand how important it is to the Parliament and to Scotland generally, and find the appropriate methods of moving forward. I am grateful to the committee for its work and hope that we will be able to work well with it. The debate has been helpful and has taken the issue forward.

In closing today's debate on flooding and flood management, I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer.

I thank our clerks for their assiduous preparation of the report that we are debating and fully endorse Roseanna Cunningham's remarks in that regard. The debate has been valuable and largely consensual in nature, notwithstanding Mike Rumbles's contribution. That augurs well for the passage of the bill that will be introduced in the autumn.

When the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee launched its inquiry last year, it did so in the full knowledge that the Scottish Government intended to introduce legislation to update and transform the way in which Scotland manages its flood risk. We recognised that in the past Scotland has had a better approach to flood risk management than England, but that that was absolutely no reason to rest on our laurels, as future challenges are significant. As the minister suggested, we recognised that the experience of the National Flood Forum would help us in Scotland to address the issue. The intention was that the committee's report should inform constructively the Scottish Government's thinking; I hope that it has achieved that aim.

Reform of the legislative framework for flood management is long overdue. The current statute appears to have driven a piecemeal approach to the issue, but what is required is an holistic approach, with all the bodies and organisations that contribute to flood risk management working together coherently. I note the minister's view, which will be reflected in the bill, that the process should be local authority led. I accept that, provided that major and contentious plans remain subject to ministerial approval and that SEPA is the central co-ordinating body.

Several key themes have emerged. Climate change means that flooding is likely to become more common in future. We are likely to get wetter winters—the data tell us that that is already happening. Intense rainfall events are likely to become more common, especially in the summer time, which means that the risk of fluvial and pluvial flooding will increase. Areas of Scotland that may have seen themselves as immune from flooding in the past will have to learn to understand flood risk and to adapt to it.

Increased storminess may generate greater coastal flooding and inundation. I welcome Bill Wilson's thoughtful contribution on that issue. The debate appears to have shifted from arguing about the reality of climate change to discussing how to adapt to it; I welcome that shift. We know that at present around 77,000 homes are at risk of fluvial flooding and 94,000 homes are at risk of coastal flooding, but we do not know how many are at risk of pluvial flooding—those data do not seem to exist. Many of the witnesses from whom we heard said that the issue ought to be a priority; the committee agrees whole-heartedly with that position. David Stewart and Des McNulty also made that point.

To address the situation, it is essential that we take a long-term view of planning for flood management. The committee suggested a period of 25 years and I argued for an even longer timescale because we need to make investment decisions over that timescale or longer. The departing Jamie Hepburn referred to that, as did Peter Peacock. Certainly, investing now will be more cost effective than waiting for flooding to happen and then dealing with it.

The Stern report on the economic impacts of climate change estimated that annual losses due to flooding in the UK could increase from around 0.1 per cent of GDP today to 0.2 per cent and then 0.4 per cent of GDP once global temperatures increase by 3°C to 4°C. Therefore, at a purely economic level, we cannot afford not to get better at flood management.

However, this is not just about economic impacts, as the devastating social and human costs of flooding must be factored in. The committee's recommendation on incorporating non-economic factors in the assessment of flood prevention measures is essential. Many members, such as Nanette Milne, referred to that specifically.

I turn to how flooding can be coped with physically. In the past, the emphasis has tended to be on hard flood defences. There is no doubt that those will continue to be needed, but they are only one element of the toolkit that flood managers will need to draw on to achieve sustainable flood management in the future. In order to deliver sustainable flood management, the catchment must be the unit for flood management and an holistic approach must be taken to the management of flood risk throughout a catchment. I note that the minister shares that view.

The precise needs of catchments vary, and that variation will determine which elements of the flood management toolkit will need to be used. The funding required will also vary. We expect the minister to honour his pledges on making available adequate funding in future. I endorse Karen Gillon's comments in that regard.

Land use management within a catchment will be critical. Compelling evidence was presented by the Forestry Commission about the potential of afforestation, to which Sarah Boyack and Robin Harper referred, to increase hydraulic roughness, slow the speed at which rainfall enters watercourses and act as a physical barrier on flood plains, thereby taking the peaks off floods.

Peter Peacock referred to the fact that systems will need to be established to allow agricultural land to be flooded deliberately in order to protect areas both upstream and downstream. Obviously, such systems would need to be supported by adequate compensation for farmers and landowners. We need to think sensibly about that when costing projects in future, as Des McNulty said.

Similarly, incentives, perhaps through land management grants, to reduce land drainage, recreate former wetlands and reinstate natural meandering river channels might need to be considered, too. The progressive spread of hard surfaces, in the form of roads, driveways, car parks or whatever, has an impact on hydrological behaviour, resulting in more rapid run-off. That must be addressed, as Robin Harper mentioned.

I turn now to the planning system, which has a vital role to play in future. The committee was told that the situation in Scotland is significantly better than that in England, with less building on flood plains. However, with Government-driven targets, there is demand for more housing, although it might be slowing at the moment. The conflict between that demand, the desire for economic development and the need to avoid development in areas of flood risk needs to be resolved—or at the very least managed.

Land use management and planning are but two elements of the sustainable flood management toolkit; natural flood management techniques and effective building standards and regulations are others. All those need to be brought to bear, as we cannot simply rely on building bigger and bigger defences and drainage systems, which would be wholly unsustainable.

The committee looks forward to scrutinising the Government's legislative proposals later in the year. We hope that many of the recommendations contained in our report will be taken forward.

The timescale for achieving effective flood management stretches far into the future—way beyond this parliamentary session. Getting the legislation right now is vital for future generations who will have to live with the consequences of climate change and the bill that is to be introduced.

I hope that the committee's report has been a valuable contribution to the overall effort. We all look forward to receiving and reviewing the proposed legislation in the autumn.