Hansard

During last week's stage 2 discussions, I spent some time describing the links between the flood risk management plans prepared by SEPA and the flood risk management plans prepared by local authorities. As I said then, the objectives and measures described in the plans prepared by SEPA will form the basis of local flood risk management plans. However, that does not mean that the process will be top-down, with local authorities having to work within constraints set unilaterally by SEPA. Instead, the intention is for the SEPA and local authority plans to be prepared in parallel, with local authorities, Scottish Water and others directly informing the content of SEPA's plans. Advisory groups will play a key role in that process.Likewise, the plans prepared by local authorities will not simply be a description of the relevant objectives and measures set out in the plan prepared by SEPA. Instead, it is expected that local plans will contain further and more detailed information on the measures that they will take. The plans will of course include a description of how the measures will be implemented.Amendment 32 sets out examples of the type of supplemental information that should be incorporated in local plans—namely maps and further information on measures. The term "maps" could include detailed maps to assist in the planning or co-ordination of measures to manage surface run-off water; and the term "further information" could include more detailed information on ways to measure surface run-off water, or on measures that will use natural flood risk management techniques to alter, enhance or restore natural features or characteristics in the local plan district.I believe that amendment 32 directly addresses one of the questions raised by the committee at stage 1 on the level of detail expected from the assessment prepared under section 16, and on the requirement on local authorities to prepare their own assessment of how restoring natural features and characteristics could contribute to lowering flood risk.Amendment 32 clarifies that local authorities will be expected to set out further information on all measures, including measures that relate to restoring or enhancing natural features. It is also likely that some measures will focus on data-gathering efforts. Obtaining detailed information on opportunities to reduce flood risk through the adoption of more natural approaches would be an important part of that work.Amendment 32 applies to all measures identified in the plans prepared by SEPA. It will therefore require local plans to include further information about natural flood risk management measures alongside further information on measures to avoid flood risk through development management or through management of surface water run-off.Amendments 123 and 125 are similar in scope and intent. They would require lead local authorities to carry out assessments of natural features and characteristics. However, as there are no follow-up provisions on how those assessments would tie into other elements of the flood risk management process, it is difficult to understand what the information generated is intended to achieve. For instance, because neither amendment refers to measures, there is nothing to ensure that the assessments would have any effect on the flood-protection work that would be carried out by local authorities.Elaine Murray's amendment 123 would impose a new duty on lead authorities to assess the contribution that natural features and characteristics could make to flood risk management in the local plan district, but that would not be an assessment of how enhancing or restoring those natural features or characteristics could be used to manage flood risk.Peter Peacock's amendment 125 would, in effect, create a new duty on the lead local authority to undertake an assessment of the potential contribution that restoring natural features and characteristics could make to the management of flood risk in a local plan district. However, section 16 of the bill already includes a requirement on SEPA to prepare such information for the flood risk management districts. Local authorities will be involved in that work. Clearly, amendment 125 would therefore create duplication. It would impose an unnecessary administrative burden on the bodies that would have to carry out the duplicate assessment.It is important to consider where the assessments envisaged by amendments 123 and 125 would sit within the overall flood risk management planning process. The preparation of local plans is the last stage in each six-year flood risk management planning cycle. By the time those plans are finalised, flood risk assessments will have been carried out, the options will have been considered and flood risk management measures will have been selected to deliver objectives. It does not appear logical to carry out yet another assessment at the end of the planning process.I understand that the amendments are intended to ensure that the assessment prepared by SEPA under section 16 is complemented by a more detailed assessment to support the identification of measures. Local authorities will already feed in their contributions to the section 16 assessments through the advisory groups. Furthermore, the bill does not specify the level of detail that SEPA should go into when preparing assessments under section 16 and there would be nothing to prevent SEPA and local authorities from collaborating on assessments with different levels of detail depending on flood risk management needs. For the reasons that I have set out, I believe that the amendments lodged by Elaine Murray and Peter Peacock are not only unnecessary but risk creating parallel or duplicate processes in the bill. As a result, I urge the committee not to support them. That said, I want to ensure that the assessment prepared by SEPA under section 16 forms an integral part of flood risk management. For that reason, I am willing to work with Elaine Murray and Peter Peacock on developing an amendment at stage 3 that makes a clearer link between measures described in local flood risk management plans and section 16 assessments. I therefore ask Peter Peacock to withdraw amendment 125 and Elaine Murray not to move amendment 123.Before examining the detail of Peter Peacock's amendment 126, I stress again that there will be a close link between the plans prepared by SEPA and those prepared by local authorities. In short, there will not be two sets of independent plans; indeed, the bill states clearly that local plans must be consistent with the plans prepared by SEPA. Advisory groups will clearly play a key role in ensuring that the plans are closely co-ordinated.Amendment 126 is similar in purpose to amendment 85. As a result of that amendment, which the committee agreed to at last week's meeting, SEPA will be required to set out reasons for not including measures for altering or restoring natural features and characteristics identified through the assessment prepared under section 16. As I have already committed to working with Peter Peacock on finding some way of resolving the interplay—and, as we all agreed, duplication—between amendment 85 and the other amendments that relate to objectives and measures, I find it difficult to understand what amendment 126 is trying to achieve. Indeed, I am very concerned that it will create another layer of unnecessary burden and bureaucracy for local authorities. Local authorities will, of course, have discretion in how they implement measures, but that does not mean that local plans can pursue alternative objectives and measures.Finally, as I have previously stressed, the bill is about sustainable flood risk management, which means considering all the options that are available to manage flood risk, including flood warning, managing sewerage systems, raising awareness and avoiding flood risk through development control. Given the broad range of measures that are available to those responsible for reducing flood risk, requiring local authorities to explain why measures set out in the implementation part of a local flood risk management plan do not involve the restoration of natural features and characteristics seems unduly burdensome. For instance, why would a local authority need to consider natural approaches to flood management when setting out measures to tackle sewerage flooding or to raise awareness of flooding problems?I believe that the bill, as amended by amendments agreed to at last week's meeting, will ensure that information is prepared on why measures are selected, including information on why opportunities to restore natural features and characteristics are not being pursued. For those reasons, I urge Peter Peacock not to move amendment 126.