Chamber
Plenary, 26 Jun 2008
26 Jun 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Flooding and Flood Management
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.
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.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
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 floo...
Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP):
SNP
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 t...
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee’s 2nd Report, 2008 (Session 3):
Flooding and Flood Management (SP Paper 96).
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (Richard Lochhead):
SNP
I warmly commend the committee for its thorough investigation and report, which are certainly helping to ensure that flooding remains firmly on the Parliamen...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
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 interfe...
Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab):
Lab
We very much welcome the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's report, which is timely given that the Pitt report, which contains recommendations arising...
Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
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...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
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 th...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
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 ...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
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...
Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
I am listening very carefully—
Mike Rumbles:
LD
I—
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
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.
Mike Rumbles:
LD
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 Minis...
Roseanna Cunningham:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Mike Rumbles:
LD
No. Another SEPA e-mail referred to"Interference in due process … if signed off, it will no doubt affect staff morale".
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
You have one minute.
Mike Rumbles:
LD
All those interventions have taken time from me, Presiding Officer, but never mind.After all that, Mike Russell, the planning minister, came before our commi...
Michael Russell:
SNP
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 ...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
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 Av...
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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...
Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
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 ment...
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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 ha...
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab):
Lab
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?
Bill Wilson:
SNP
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,...
David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
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 ...
Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
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. ...
Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD):
LD
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 ...
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
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 ...