Chamber and committees

The most important thing is to listen to our communities. That is why I want the debate to leave the chamber, get into communities and look honestly at where our services are threadbare. Alex Kerr knows, because he is my MSP, that we are relying on volunteers in the third sector to fill in the gaps. We have to be honest about funding.

I close by referring to Roz Foyer, the general secretary of the STUC, who warned that reform

“must not be a mere smokescreen for brutal cuts cosplaying as progress. Real progress means ending the £3 billion outsourcing within the public sector, delivering sectoral bargaining within social care and properly funding our public services through progressive taxation that builds, not bulldozes, our local government and public services.”

That is a good note to end on. I hope that we can all find a way forward, but, if we want real progress, let us get the debate out of this chamber and into our communities.

17:14

The minister mentioned organisational capacity, and he spoke about the importance of empowering communities. Does he understand why trade unions and workers are so concerned that up to 20,000 public sector workers could lose their jobs as part of the reform? Does he agree that it is hard to empower and have the right capacity if we could potentially lose that many workers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free bus travel is a key policy driver in the climate change plan. As getting more people on to buses will help to reduce Scotland’s transport emissions, will the cabinet secretary discuss with the transport secretary how the Bus Services Act 2025 will support local transport authorities and regional transport partnerships to franchise bus services or set up publicly owned bus companies? Will they discuss how the 2025 act will help to ensure that bus services meet the needs of all people across Scotland, instead of cutting routes and hiking fares in regions that are outwith the £2 bus fare cap?

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

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the climate action secretary has had with the transport secretary regarding how climate action policies are supporting the development of integrated public transport and active travel networks that connect rural communities with major urban centres, including Glasgow. (S7O-00267)

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

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

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

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

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

17:32

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

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

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

I will not ask the cabinet secretary about matters that are for the planning minister, but will she advise the Parliament whether the Government will consider what impact the potential hyperscale data centres could have on the commitments in the climate change plan?