Hansard

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,