Hansard

We very much welcome the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's report, which is timely given that the Pitt report, which contains recommendations arising from the experience in England last summer, was published only this week. There are echoes there of Roseanna Cunningham's point about the need for better awareness and flood warning systems, which need to be reviewed and overhauled in Scotland, too.

There is now much greater awareness, not just in the Parliament but among the wider public, of the practical implications of climate change, which have been highlighted over the past few years. We can now see evidence that change is taking place. That comes out strongly in the committee's report. There are warmer temperatures and heavier, more concentrated rainfall, particularly in the west of the country. Those things are not just on the way; they are beginning to happen. In addition, the introduction of the Scottish Government's flooding bill is imminent. For Labour members, flooding legislation is unfinished business, although steady progress was made during the previous session, particularly on improving early warning, and expenditure on flooding was significantly increased. Our legislation, however, is now profoundly outdated and is no longer fit for purpose.

Anyone with personal experience of flooding and its aftermath will know the human misery and the huge economic costs that major flooding incidents can bring. The financial impact can be severe both for householders and for businesses. The long-term human impact, on health and on community confidence, is much harder to identify, but it clearly exists and is no less important. Therefore, I very much welcome the committee report's recommendation of improved analysis of flooding's social and economic costs.

As I am sure members will agree, and as I have said, the starting point is that the current flood legislation framework is profoundly out of date. We need to identify why it is out of date if we are to get the new legislation right. The current system is bureaucratic and unresponsive, with little support for modern, sustainable flood management methods. There is an almost exclusive focus on hard engineering. Those issues must be addressed.

Any critique of the current arrangements must cover the painfully slow planning and approval processes, which involve double handling of flood prevention scheme decisions and a complete lack of transparency for those who are involved in the process.

The timing of the committee's report is good. I congratulate the committee, its clerks and the witnesses who gave evidence on helping to get the report right, because I think that it will help to shape both the principles and the detail of the forthcoming bill. There has also been some innovation in how feedback has been given to the Scottish Government.

We support all the recommendations in the report. Having seen what the committee has come up with, we put on record the fact that the report is comprehensive and clearly points the way for the future.

There is a striking comment at paragraph 52 of the report:

"Glasgow City Council told the Committee that SEPA's indicative flood risk maps: ‘do not show half the areas in Glasgow that are subject to flooding.'"

That is a pretty shocking comment, which reflects what Roseanna Cunningham said: that, although we have some information about flooding on rivers and estuaries and we have some handle on coastal flooding, we do not really have a handle on pluvial flooding. The quotation from Glasgow City Council says it all—it is a call to action. The situation must be remedied. It presents a challenge throughout Scotland, but more action and more expertise are required to address the gaps.

One of the most important recommendations is that there should be a 25-year timescale for long-term planning. We are talking about using tree planting as part of the solution. That does not happen in a year or two years; it needs long-term, sustained investment and a proper funding framework.

I was disappointed at the minister's initial response, in which he defended the system that the Government has put in place. I sat through the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's discussions on the budget. The lack of thought given to the proposals for changes in flooding investment was almost embarrassing. There was no coherence in the Government's responses to straightforward questions from committee members—sometimes the responses were even contradictory. We need to ensure that we get a better result.

Even now, there are deeply unsatisfactory situations in parts of the country. I am told that Moray Council's director of finance has described the current situation as a period of complete uncertainty. In Edinburgh, we were concerned about whether our flood prevention schemes would get in under the wire for funding or whether we would miss out. Glasgow City Council is in a difficult position, because it has had to review its capital expenditure as a result of the decision to remove ring fencing from funding for flooding.

There is a real sense of rough justice, which my colleagues in the Labour Party have noted in the areas that they represent. The authorities with well-advanced plans that were lucky enough to get through the complex approval process got in under the wire, but for those that did not, it is tough luck. They have been told that it is up to them to use the existing money.

The reference to flooding in the concordat is opaque. Flooding is mentioned alongside schools, roads, waste management, the police estate and the fire and rescue service. That is not good enough. I hope that the Government will look long and hard at the committee's report, which was unanimous.

We are not arguing for the old system; we are saying that we should look for a new system with a three-tier funding process that will meet the challenge of the future. Many difficult issues will have to be addressed.

SEPA made a good recommendation. The committee considered carefully the issue of the competent authority. There should be clarity about the role of local authorities and Scottish Water, and a statutory obligation for them to work together, which is crucial. We also need a much more streamlined system of planning approvals. The current system is deeply frustrating for everyone and is no longer fit for purpose.

The recommendation about devolving the smaller decisions but maintaining national oversight of major decisions, and following that through with a national pot of funding directed by Government ministers, is absolutely right.

We agree that there also needs to be money in the pot for local authorities to use at their discretion. However, that should be for forward planning and working up schemes, not major capital investment.

The committee's report is extremely well put together. I hope that the Government will shift its position and will be more enthusiastic about all the recommendations. We need that for the future and for the new bill.