Hansard

We come to a very important and extensive provision. I apologise in advance, because I am going to deal with all the amendments in the group in order to give a detailed response. It is important to reflect briefly on the flooding that hit Elgin and the surrounding area since we discussed the issue last week. As most members will be aware, I visited the area on Monday. What I saw brought home to me again the terrible effects of flooding on those who are affected by it. The events in question were exceptional. The rainfall rate was 5mm per hour over a period of 48 hours, giving rise to the highest river flows ever recorded. I understand that one river gauge in the catchment measured a one in 250 year event. The council had, with assistance from the Scottish Executive, done some work since the previous flood in 1997, but it is clear that that was not sufficient to deal with an event of this magnitude. I am aware that flood defence proposals are being prepared and the Executive has already provided financial support to start that work. I encouraged the council to make speedy progress in submitting detailed proposals to us and I am encouraged by that. We have earmarked funds and have quadrupled the amount of money available for local authorities to bid for to provide flood defence mechanisms. The events in Moray serve to underline the importance of the amendments that we are discussing today. I have to be clear: as I said last week, we are not relying on the bill alone to tackle flooding. I also said last week that we have established an ad hoc group of ministers to examine the problem. The group met last week to agree its remit, which is to consider current arrangements for addressing flood risk and how advice and support is provided to those at risk from, and affected by, flooding; and to provide advice to Cabinet on how those arrangements can be improved by the end of February 2003.I also said that we are currently examining the workings of the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961. As a result, we are taking action on flooding on a number of fronts. It is important to bear in mind that the bill is only one of them. The Cabinet sub-committee will address issues that are beyond the bill's scope such as the campaign to raise flood awareness; the operation of the flood alert and flood warning system; local authorities' duties and responsibilities; provisions to comply with flood defence systems; the whole question of the emergency service response in the aftermath of flooding incidents such as those in Moray; the critical role of the co-ordination of those services; and, not least, insurance implications for householders and others. The sub-committee's holistic approach to flooding will address all those issues.I said last week that we would consider how to make the link between flood management and river basin planning clearer in the bill. At that stage, I thought that we would not be able to do so before stage 3, but I am delighted to be in a position to move amendment 109. The amendment builds on amendment 25, which was lodged by Des McNulty and Sarah Boyack and which we discussed last week, and resolves the difficulties with that amendment's very wide application. Amendment 109 would require the Scottish ministers, SEPA and responsible authorities to promote sustainable flood management where their functions under section 2 are relevant in that respect. I hope that the committee agrees that the amendment represents a significant step forward and complies with the policy intent behind amendment 25, which the committee supported. Members will recall that its drafting strongly resembles the general duties on Scottish Water and the Scottish ministers in the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002.Amendment 85 proposes a new section to deal with the assessment of flooding risk. As I have made clear, I am not antipathetic to the sentiments behind it—indeed, amendment 109 would provide that, as far as it is consistent with relevant enactments, the Scottish ministers, SEPA and other responsible authorities designated under the bill must promote sustainable flood management—but I genuinely believe that it is ill advised.Subsection (1) of the new section proposed by amendment 85 would place on SEPA the duty to carry out an assessment of flood risk in each river basin district. That would constitute a major duplication of existing activity, as section 6A of the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961, which was inserted by section 3 of the Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1997, already requires each local authority to publish a report that specifies measures that are judged necessary to prevent or mitigate the flooding of land in its area. Such reports must be published every two years and must specify the measures that have been taken since the previous report. The latest of those biennial reports were published in November 2001.Local authorities are also under a duty to assess the condition of watercourses in their areas, for the purpose of assessing whether they are likely to flood. Subsection (1) would place that responsibility on SEPA in addition to and not in place of local authorities. That would duplicate local authorities' existing duties and is therefore wholly unnecessary.We should also consider the role that SEPA already plays in flood prevention. As I said last week, SEPA already has the function, under section 25 of the Environment Act 1995, of assessing flood risk in Scotland. Indeed, I have a map that it produces with me, which shows its assessment of flood risks. Many people throughout Scotland—not least the insurance industry—already use its flood risk maps.It is important to point out that the reference in amendment 85 to section 7 of the Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1997 is erroneous. We believe that the reference should be to section 6A of the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961, to which I referred earlier. That is a reason in itself why the amendment should not be accepted.The new subsection (3) proposed by amendment 85 would require SEPA to take into account the report prepared under subsection (1) when it carries out the characterisation under section 5. The setting of environmental objectives under section 9 would then have to take into account that characterisation report and the flood risk assessment. We should not venture down that path. Articles 4 and 7 of the water framework directive are clear about the basis on which environmental objectives should be set. It is not clear whether the introduction of the new consideration is wholly consistent with the water framework directive; therefore, I oppose it. The bill makes it clear that characterisation and objective setting must be carried out in accordance with the detailed and technical requirements of the directive. Amendment 85 would give particular prominence to flooding and would give the impression that other considerations that are laid down in the directive are of less importance. It is clearly not the intention of the directive to make prevention or control of pollution subservient to flooding, for example.Nevertheless, I see what Des McNulty is getting at with subsection (3). It is crucial that the committee is aware that we will seek to designate local authorities as "responsible authorities" and to specify their functions under the 1961 act as "designated functions" in an order made under section 2 of the bill. As a result, local authorities will be required to exercise their functions under that act so as to secure compliance with the directive, which includes the mitigation of floods. If amendment 109 is accepted by the committee, the Scottish ministers, SEPA and the responsible authorities will have a duty to promote sustainable flood management so far as is consistent with the purposes of the designated function in question. That is a more sensible and practical way of promoting sustainable flood management than is suggested by amendment 85.Members will also be aware that the construction of flood defence schemes will, in due course, require to be consented in terms of the new control regime on building, engineering or other works in, or in the vicinity of, any body of inland surface water. That would be introduced under section 20 and it would be another means of ensuring that those schemes as a whole take a sustainable approach to flood management. In effect, local authorities will then be licensed by SEPA in respect of sustainable flood management.Finally, in discharging their duties under the 1961 act, local authorities will have regard to many of the issues that are mentioned in the new section proposed by amendment 85, particularly paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of subsection (5). It is entirely appropriate that local authorities, which are answerable to local people, consider those issues. I do not believe that requiring SEPA to duplicate existing work is in any way helpful. For all those reasons—the duplication of existing local authority and SEPA duties, the erroneous reference to the Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1997 and the skewing of the emphasis of the bill away from the intention of the water framework directive—I ask that amendment 85 be not moved. In addition, on the basis of the commitment that I have given to designate local authorities as responsible authorities and the proposed amendment that I have discussed, I ask Des McNulty not to move amendment 85.Amendment 94 is consequential to amendment 85. It seeks to amend schedule 1 to require a summary of the assessment of flooding risk to be set out in the river basin management plan. For the reasons I have already given in relation to amendment 85, we cannot support amendment 94.Amendment 95 also seeks to amend schedule 1. It would require a summary of the programme of measures to be applied to achieve sustainable flood management to be included in the river basin management plan. That is unnecessary. Paragraph 6 of schedule 1 already provides that a summary of the programmes of measures that are designed to achieve the environmental objectives that are set out under the bill shall be included in the river basin management plan. Measures relating to sustainable flood management will be included there where relevant. It would be odd to single out the measures that are aimed at sustainable flood management above all other measures, for example those that are aimed at tackling, controlling and preventing pollution.Amendment 129 seeks to do the same thing as amendment 95, but in a slightly different way. I am sorry to say that I oppose it for the same reasons as I oppose amendment 95. Measures to tackle flooding in a sustainable way are already covered by paragraph 6. I repeat that singling-out measures that are directed at this aspect of the bill do not make sense.Amendment 97 would amend schedule 1 to require a summary of the register of flood-prone areas to be included in the river basin management plan. Amendment 97 is obviously consequential to amendment 42, which we discussed last week. I said then that giving SEPA the duty to establish such a register is not necessary; it already has the function of assessing flood risk under section 25 of the Environment Act 1995. Given that provision, the additional provision is unnecessary.Amendment 107 reintroduces the issue of a national strategy for sustainable flood management. It seeks to introduce a new section to require ministers to prepare such a strategy. The strategy would also have to take account of river basin management plans and sub-basin plans. I hope that in light of amendment 109, Bruce Crawford will agree that amendment 107 is no longer necessary. If he does not—and apparently he does not—I can only reiterate the reasons that I gave last week as to why such an amendment is not necessary. As I have already made abundantly clear in this forum and in others in the past week, where flooding issues are relevant to the protection of the water environment, the river basin management plan will address them. This should be clear to everyone, and it should even be clear to Bruce Crawford—above all else, tackling flooding requires partnership between local authorities and other public bodies, such as SEPA and Scottish Water. It also requires partnership between the Executive and those bodies.Ministers cannot alleviate the flooding problems on their own. I could not do so even if I were the little boy of Dutch folklore to whom Bruce Crawford constantly refers. I think that he is actually mixing his metaphors because, as I understand the tale, the little boy is a national hero in Holland precisely because of what he prevented. I have no desire to aspire to the status of national hero. Suggesting, as Bruce Crawford does with amendment 107, that we can alleviate flooding problems on our own is not helpful, and he knows that.River basin planning already provides us with the forum to consider flooding issues strategically at the Scotland-wide level. It will bring together all those who have an interest. The Cabinet is, as I previously explained, considering all the other issues such as raising flood awareness, the flood alert and flood warning system and co-ordination of the emergency response in the aftermath of flooding. For all those reasons, I ask the committee not to support amendment 107 and to support amendment 109.I move amendment 109.