Hansard

Christine Grahame is right—there is something about rivers that gets into one’s soul. They are really important for the lifeblood of the nation. They are important for the economy, leisure, the environment, biodiversity and the climate—there is a range of sometimes competing demands on them. I like nothing better than running along a riverside, and I have run alongside many in the Borders, so I concur with Christine Grahame.

I congratulate Audrey Nicoll on opening the debate and lodging this motion. The Dee is one of the great rivers; it is a powerful river that contributes significantly not just to the economy of the area—as Alexander Burnett, rightly, highlighted—but its biodiversity.

If anybody is in any doubt that there is climate change, they just have to look at water. In the past few years, we have had everything from devastating floods to water scarcity. That scarcity has had a dramatic impact on the yields of farmers. I had thought that vegetables and potatoes would be impacted, but it turned out—bizarrely—that, in north-east Fife, it was barley yield, of all things, that was affected. That was at a time when the whisky industry was under quite a bit of strain and taking less of that commodity. Nevertheless, the impact of climate change is very clear.

What has come through from all contributions to the debate, including Paul Sweeney’s, is the wide diversity of rivers. They are not all the same; they have different topographies, sizes, flows, soil types, economic value and surrounding populations. Therefore, we need different answers for every river.

I have heard people talk many times about Eddleston Water, which is a great project. They keep telling me that the same approach would apply to the River Eden in Fife, but there are so many differences between the Borders and Fife, and we should not think that simple, well-worked and successful solutions in one part of the country will apply without change to other parts of the country. I want a plan for every different type of area.

Solutions to flooding, for instance, are very clear. We have seen from infrastructure projects just how much money we are spending on flood prevention schemes—the cost is soaring. We cannot afford to do those things everywhere, so we need to look at natural flood management systems. However, I feel that we are not even at the races when it comes to discussing with farmers and landowners exactly what will work in their area. I know that it takes a lot of work to get down to that level, but river basin and catchment management plans are just so remote—they are way above everything else, and they do not involve discussions with landowners at ground level in the way that is needed to change their practice. Secondly, there are no incentives for them to change. Why would they? They know what they know about how to work their land, and they need to be encouraged and incentivised to make changes to the way in which they operate.

Just now, we are not making any such changes. Two years after the devastating flood in Cupar in my constituency, not very much has changed. We have lots of talk and lots of plans—a Cupar flood study is coming up—but I have not seen very much actual change.

I pay tribute to the River Eden Sustainability Partnership, which is working with landowners on removing invasive species from that river. It is doing some really good—and hard—work, and if we can get a partnership approach going between it, the farmers and all who have an interest in the river, we might be getting somewhere.