Hansard

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 open and it starts to pour with rain. No doubt, by the time that Mr Russell winds up, he will have come up with a suitable symbolic interpretation.

I, too, welcome this important report, which the convener of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee introduced earlier. The issue is a tough one for both Parliament and Government because it is about tough choices, which Mary Scanlon illustrated in her speech. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the continuation of much of the work that my colleague Ross Finnie began in the previous Administration. I saw earlier a bit of the year-zero approach that we are all too used to from the front bench, but perhaps even Mr Lochhead could, in his more charitable moments, find a way to give some credit to ministers in previous Administrations who worked pretty hard on this difficult issue. I note that the umbrella group Scottish Environment LINK stated clearly on the radio this morning that it welcomes the work of current ministers because it continues the work of previous ministers in this difficult policy area.

I welcome what the convener of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee said about climate change in her introductory speech, and the points that Sarah Boyack and others have made on that issue. That appears to me to be the right context in which to view the debate. In addition, Nanette Milne, who is no longer in the chamber, rightly made a point about households. From our television screens last year we all gained a powerful impression of the impact of the floods down south on businesses and households, but particularly on the latter. That demonstrated the compelling need for Government across the UK, which in our context is the Scottish Government, to take action to deal with the enormous distress that is caused to people in such circumstances.

Roseanna Cunningham, Mary Scanlon, Peter Peacock and others mentioned recommendation 11 on clear criteria for the prioritisation of funding. Prioritisation is a ghastly word, but we use it all the time. I confess that I am a little confused by the Government's proposed approach to this because we are being told—and I understand that the committee was told when considering the spending review—that the budget will be allocated to local authorities. The budget will be £126 million, which is, in effect, a continuation of the £42 million a year that was given to local authorities in 2007-08. However, if the Scottish Parliament information centre's numbers are right, that indicates a real-terms cut in the budget for flooding. I am not quite sure how consistent that is with the recommendation, or how the minister will square off the need to tackle funding issues, as Mary Scanlon rightly mentioned.

I ask the minister to reflect on the fact that there is no reference to flood protection in the Government's national outcomes, indicators or targets, which we are repeatedly told in the Parliament are the defining purpose of the Government. If I quote the cabinet secretary correctly, he said earlier that

"flooding is one of the biggest threats"

and I am sure that we all concur with that. If he is right, why are flood prevention and the funding for it not mentioned in the national outcomes, indicators or targets?

I would be grateful if the Minister for Environment could give us an answer on that when he winds up the debate. I would also be grateful if he would help us to understand—perhaps not today but in due course—the principles of distribution that have been agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. What is the precise formula by which money has been allocated? What will happen to schemes that have been worked up but were not submitted as completed schemes by 14 November? There is a huge list of such schemes, as members said.

In paragraph 40 of its report to the Finance Committee on the Scottish budget spending review 2007, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee said:

"The Committee is unclear about how the reallocation of funding to local government will be calculated".

I would be grateful if the minister would clarify that and other matters that I mentioned. It is important that not just the Parliament but affected communities should understand the Government's approach to such issues.

Peter Peacock talked about coastal erosion and flooding, which I have raised with the minister's colleague Linda Fabiani in relation to the impact on island communities. During this morning's debate on the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme, Peter Peacock said that members of the Scottish Parliament probably have an eight-year tenure before they are out of the Parliament for one reason or another. If the most recent research findings from the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research on rising sea levels and on tide levels, which can be elevated by up to 2m by major storms, are true, my constituency is sinking and will be gone soon. I take Bill Wilson's point—he has left the chamber, too—about the changes that are happening. In that context, built heritage is an important issue. Perhaps the minister will consider the need to remove archaeological material that will be lost. I appreciate that the issue is not as important as the loss of businesses and homes, but it is important to many people.

David Stewart talked about weather radar. I do not disagree with his central point, but Shetland has no weather radar—not one iota. I am grateful to the convener of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for mentioning the issue and I ask the minister to say exactly what the Government is doing about the matter. David Stewart was right to say that the issue is important, not just for the Highlands but for the islands, which could do with weather radar. I hope that the minister will give a comprehensive answer on that point.