Hansard

You could easily be mistaken for Father Christmas today.

As many members said, two issues are at play. One is Professor Crichton’s direct call, in his petition, which sets out an important case in relation to Scotland’s contribution to the UK-wide flood regime and asks whether the current arrangement should be fundamentally changed. The other is the closely associated question of whether there will be a UK flood regime at all.

News report after news report has signalled that there is all but an impasse between the UK Government and the insurance industry. The longstanding agreement on UK-wide provision expires on 30 June. It is as though a great-grandfather clock were looming over us and ticking, with every swing of the pendulum taking us nearer to the deadline.

Although transitional arrangements are less than ideal, I welcome the minister’s comments in that regard, because a firm deal that sets out matters after 30 June is probably beyond us, given the timescale, and the existence of transitional arrangements will ensure that the wildness of the free market is not set loose on all the households we represent that have issues with flooding.

Let us make no mistake about this: back in March, the AXA UK chief executive Paul Evans warned that unless there was an agreement between the ABI and DEFRA, homes in flood risk areas would become “unsellable”. His views are shared throughout the industry and, worryingly, it all seems to be a bit of a who-will-blink-first negotiation. Before the new year, the media reported that a deal had to be in place by Christmas to ensure that it could come into effect over the summer; however, deadlines keep whooshing by and we are none the wiser.

I want to go back some time to April 2000, when the Water of Leith in my constituency burst its banks in a flood that no one who was there has forgotten. Hundreds of households along the river were affected and, as anyone who has seen the pictures will know, Murrayfield—not just the area, but the stadium itself—was inundated. After a very long battle involving a public inquiry and after the difficulties that arose from the overnight change in the financial climate in 2008-09 and the resulting rethink, my Roseburn and Murrayfield constituents are only slightly more protected than they were 13 years ago. When at a recent community council meeting, the subject of the 2000 floods came up—believe me, it always comes up—a resident who had lived in the area since she was a girl recounted her memories, rattling off dates like a history book right back to the 1960s and demonstrating how the same story had been repeated. Last year, there was a near miss that in other circumstances would have been the next instalment of the recurring cycle of flooding in the area; fortunately, however, and thanks in no small part to Scottish Government-funded works upstream at the Braid burn, the risk has been reduced slightly.

Nevertheless, the Water of Leith is currently projected to flood much more than once every 75 years and as a result my constituents face crippling insurance premiums—and that is before we take into account climate change concerns, which mean that those figures will need to be reviewed. Of course, the flood alert system is valuable and one would rather have it than not, but what a warning to get first thing in the morning: “Your house might be flooded today, so take action!” The people of Murrayfield and Roseburn want to put such traumatic experiences behind them.

Thanks to Scottish Government funding to the council, flood defences have been put in place further downstream at Stockbridge and Warriston but budget overruns mean that, although Roseburn might finally see diggers in the ground next year, they will be working on only a trimmed-down scheme or second-best alternative paid for with leftovers. A solution for Gordon MacDonald’s constituents further along the Water of Leith at Longstone is even further off.

As the minister well knows, I have lobbied the Government quite extensively on this issue; indeed, we met as recently as last Tuesday when I pressed for Edinburgh to have a seat at the table at the next round of national funding. I sense that the Government will be guided by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the crucial eligibility issue. For my constituents, the key issue in being able to protect their homes and indeed insure them against flooding is that eligibility be extended to older flood schemes that, as a result of the changed financial circumstances, require additional support. Obviously, that will result in a more crowded field of applicants but my constituents stand more chance as one group among dozens competing for funds than they do if they are left out of the competition entirely.