Scottish Parliament

Thursday 26 June 2008

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:00]

Parliamentary Bureau Motion

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): Good morning. The first item of business this morning is consideration of business motion S3M-2272, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on the suspension of standing orders.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that Rule 12.3.3A of Standing Orders be suspended for the purpose of allowing the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to meet in the afternoon of Thursday 26 June 2008.—[Bruce Crawford.]

Motion agreed to.

Scottish Parliamentary Pension Scheme Committee
(Bill Proposal)

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2068, in the name of Alasdair Morgan, on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Pension Scheme Committee, on a proposal for a committee bill.

I remind members that all contributions should be made through the chair.

09:01

Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) (SNP): I do not often get the chance to contribute to debates, so I am grateful to the Parliamentary Bureau for scheduling the debate in a prestigious slot. Debates at 9 in the morning on a Thursday tend not to bring out the majority of my colleagues, and I suspect that the fact that the debate falls on the morning after the parliamentary journalists dinner has added to that tendency. However, perhaps the attendance shows either that we are not all self-interested in our pensions, or perhaps that our colleagues have lots of confidence in the committee that is looking after the matter.

In any event, I am pleased to present to Parliament the Scottish Parliamentary Pension Committee's report, which recommends that there be a committee bill to replace the existing rules on the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme and the payment of grants to members and office-holders when they leave office. Before I explain why we need such a bill, I thank those who contributed to the process. First, I thank my fellow committee members for their valuable contributions in developing the committee's report. Secondly, I thank the committee clerks and legal advisors, who worked so hard to support members of the committee. I have to say that those thanks are not simply the conventional ones that we give on all such occasions—I genuinely thank the staff and my colleagues for all the work that they put in on this complex issue. Indeed, in this morning's short debate, we will be able only to skim over the surface of the matter.

Thirdly, I thank those who responded to our consultation document. Finally, I thank those who came forward and gave oral evidence to the committee, including the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, the Government Actuary's Department, Sir John Butterfill from the Westminster contributory pension scheme, Alun Cairns, who is chairman of the National Assembly for Wales members' pension scheme, and our own Mike Pringle, who gave evidence on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which administers the current scheme. In particular,

Grant Ballantine of the Government Actuary's Department went a long way towards giving an intelligible explanation for, and putting a human face on, what most of us regard as a black art rather than a science. John Butterfill and Alun Cairns showed us the standard of knowledge and expertise that we in the Parliament should expect of any future trustees of our pension fund if we decide to go down the proposed route.

The Scottish parliamentary pension scheme is similar to the parliamentary contributory pension scheme at Westminster and has been in operation since the Parliament was set up in 1999. Looking around the chamber, I see some members—I could even say old lags, if that was a parliamentary term—who have been contributing since the inception of the scheme, just as I have. How time flies when we are really enjoying ourselves. The rules that cover grants for members and office-holders are also similar to the rules that are in place at Westminster. They, too, were introduced in 1999.

Why do we need to change the rules that govern our pensions and grants? First, they were set up under transitional provisions at Westminster and were always intended to be replaced by an act of the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, because of the transitional arrangements, it would not be possible for us to make any changes to the rules that govern pensions and grants without going down the proposed route.

Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, some major legislative changes at United Kingdom level since 1999 have affected all pension schemes. The main ones are in the Finance Act 2004 and the Pensions Act 2004, which have transformed the tax and legal environment in which pensions schemes operate. In fact, some changes have legally to be made by April 2011—doing nothing is not an option.

Having established the need for changes, Parliament set up a cross-party committee to consider and take evidence on the existing rules for the pension scheme and office-holders' grants and pensions, to report to Parliament on its findings and to set out the changes that we consider necessary and the provisions that should be contained in the proposed bill. To seek views on that, we issued a consultation document on 17 October last year to both current and former MSPs and office-holders, and to a wide range of outside bodies with an interest in pensions. We then took oral evidence from a number of experts whom I have already mentioned. We were mindful of the recommendations that had been made by the Senior Salaries Review Body in Westminster in its triennial report on MPs' and office-holders' salaries, pensions and allowances at the beginning of last year, and we were also mindful of

the pension arrangements that are currently in place in the other UK parliamentary and assembly bodies.

One of the first issues to consider was the role of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which is responsible for management and administration of the scheme. We recognised that, on one hand, the corporate body is responsible for funding the pension scheme through pension contributions from its budget—in effect, from the public purse—while on the other hand it has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of scheme members. The committee believes that there is a potential conflict of interests between those two roles or, at least, a perception of such a conflict. That view was also expressed by the corporate body when it gave evidence. We therefore recommend that, in line with other parliamentary and assembly pension schemes in these islands, a separate board of trustees be set up to manage the scheme in order to reduce the potential for any conflict of interests.

To bring the scheme into line with general changes to pension legislation, we recommend that express provision be made for pension sharing on divorce, which was introduced by the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, and to take account of the new status of civil partner, which was introduced by the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

On scheme benefits, we recommend introducing a second accrual rate of one fortieth, giving members and office-holders the chance to accrue pension benefits more quickly, but at their own expense through a higher contribution rate of 11 per cent. It is worth emphasising that, although an accrual rate of one fortieth may seem generous—our current accrual rate is one fiftieth—it will be paid for entirely by the members. Indeed, we anticipate that the sum total of changes to the pension fund and the other payments that we deal with in the report will show some benefit to the public purse. I hope that that will be borne out when we publish our financial memorandum—if Parliament decides to proceed with a bill.

We also recommend that the amount of pension awarded on ill-health retirement grounds be linked to the degree of ill-health suffered—we consider that there should be two levels of pension payable. A stringent test should be applicable for severe ill-health pensions, requiring that the member's ill-health must be such as to prevent the member from performing the duties of any paid occupation, not just those of an MSP. The pension received following that test would be the same as that which is provided under the current rules, which is an enhanced pension. A second, and lesser, category of ill-health retirement should be introduced for those who are assessed as being

unable adequately to carry out their duties as an MSP but who could carry out other employment of a different nature. Under that category, an ill-health pension based on years of service would be payable with no enhancement.

The committee believes that the table that is used to calculate early retirement benefits, which is based on age and service, could be seen to be discriminatory or, at the very least, inequitable. We therefore recommend removing that table and instead using actuarially neutral factors to calculate early retirement benefits.

That was a scamper through the report. In summary, we think that our recommendations will deliver a modern, affordable and equality-proofed scheme that will provide a range of benefits that strike an equitable and proportionate balance between the level of benefits and the cost to the public purse.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the proposal for a Committee Bill under Rule 9.15 contained in the Scottish Parliamentary Pension Scheme Committee's 1st Report, 2008 Scottish Parliamentary Pension Scheme (SP Paper 103).

09:10

David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con): As members of the Scottish Parliament, all of us are members of a public sector pension scheme whose characteristics are that benefits are defined by reference to final salary, that pension payments are index linked and that the employer's contribution is ultimately paid by the taxpayer.

Like many members, before the Parliament's arrival, I spent most of my working life in the private sector. I was self-employed and had a retirement plan with Equitable Life, so I assure members that I am sensitive to the pressures and problems that many people have experienced with private sector pension schemes and personal pension plans. As we know, many private sector schemes have been closed to new entrants. The recent experience at Grangemouth shows that proposed changes to schemes have even triggered industrial action.

When four of our members were asked to sit on the Scottish Parliamentary Pension Scheme Committee to examine and update our pension scheme—which we inherited from Westminster as part of the devolution settlement, as the committee's convener said—all of us were concerned to ensure that any changes that we proposed as a result would be fair and affordable to members and taxpayers alike, and that they would bring the scheme into line with the new rules in legislation governing pensions, and with

wider legislative requirements on age and sex discrimination. We were also concerned that any enhancements to the scheme's provisions would be paid for from members' contributions or from savings that were achieved elsewhere. I am satisfied that the scheme that is recommended in the committee's report meets those criteria. On that basis, I am happy to recommend the proposal to Parliament and to invite members to support the motion.

Alasdair Morgan has thanked everyone else, so I thank him for the excellent job that he did of convening the committee in his characteristically canny and pawky style. As he did, I thank the clerks and advisers who steered us through the thickets of pension law.

As members know, economics is described as "the dismal science" and actuaries are described as people who found accountancy too exciting. However, being a member of the committee was interesting. I learned much about a complex subject, and the most important fact that I learned was that all pension schemes—our own, others in the public sector and private sector schemes in the wider world—must be fit for purpose. Pensions represent deferred remuneration to the employer and a savings scheme to the employee. We must ensure that pensions for everyone in our society are fair and balanced, that the rules of schemes and plans reflect society as it is and how people live, and that schemes seek to give people security and dignity in retirement.

I am satisfied that our scheme meets those tests and that the proposed changes are fair, balanced, reasonable and affordable. On that basis, I am happy to support the motion.

09:14

Hugh O'Donnell (Central Scotland) (LD): I do not want the debate to sound like an Oscars ceremony but, like previous speakers, I thank the clerks and particularly the expert witnesses who guided the committee through the minutiae of a complex subject.

It is difficult to say much more than that, although there are many reasons why we members can be regarded as being in a privileged position. Given the wider issues concerning pension schemes, to which Mr McLetchie referred, we are fortunate to be beneficiaries of a good and effective pension scheme that, because of the proposals in our report, will be brought into line with the rules and regulations and which will, critically, place no greater burden on the public purse than it currently does.

As I look round the chamber—I apologise in advance for what I am about to say—it is interesting to see that most members sitting here

are perhaps of more mature years. Perhaps there is an element of vested interest in our being here, in that increasing age does concentrate the mind in such matters.

With those brief remarks, I support the report and the motion in Alasdair Morgan's name. Again, I thank everyone who was involved in helping us work our way through the subject.

09:16

Andrew Welsh (Angus) (SNP): Pension debates are necessary, but are never the most popular occasions; indeed, their attractiveness is probably proportionate to the age profile of MSPs. The presence of younger members would, indeed, be a sign of remarkable foresight.

The time is right for such a pension review and revision. As a member of the SPCB in the first and second parliamentary sessions, I was involved in approving the original pension scheme. I pay tribute to the parliamentary officials who have ensured its smooth working, because there was no real guide or precedent in this newest of Parliaments. Although the original scheme had some anomalies that have had to be sorted out, most of the original decisions were sound.

However, after nine years, it is the right time to put the whole system to the test, and to update and improve the scheme on the basis of experience. There were no Scottish Parliament pensioners when we started out, and their numbers are not yet great, but I am sure that time will soon cure that problem of scarcity.

The Scottish Parliamentary Pension Scheme Committee and its clerks certainly spread the net widely in their evidence taking, which involved meetings, a lunchtime drop-in session and evidence from trustees of other parliamentary schemes, as well as the oral and written evidence that they received, which the committee has used well.

I wish to address my remarks to a particular aspect of the proposed changes. So far, responsibility for management and administration of the pension scheme has rested on the shoulders of the SPCB. Guardianship of the Parliament's pension fund provision is, in fact, only one part of the massive range of corporate body responsibilities that cover the day-to-day working of everything that takes place in this building, from clerking, information services, security, staffing, legal and other services, repairs and maintenance, to every daily activity here. The decision making and ultimate responsibility lands on the agenda of the corporate body. Indeed, that fact of life was especially onerous during the long drawn-out saga of the construction of this building.

I therefore welcome report recommendations 1 to 9 regarding changes to the management and administration of the pension scheme, which propose that trustees be appointed to manage and administer the scheme. That will bring the Scottish Parliament scheme into line with the UK Parliament and National Assembly for Wales schemes, which have separate bodies dedicated to management of their members' pension schemes. The appointment of trustees will ensure that there will be no perceived conflict of interests, and will allow the trustees to be dedicated specifically to considering pension matters. The separation of the roles of employer and scheme sponsor is a sensible way forward for both the SPCB and future trustees. I welcome that recommendation.

The report also set out several consequences of such a division of responsibility and gives clear signposts for future decisions and for the relationship between the SPCB and the trustees regarding assets and liabilities. The report also signposts how the trustees should be appointed and how many there should be; how many staff they should have to advise and assist them; and how the trustees should report to Parliament.

I commend the committee for its balanced approach and for its acknowledgement of the continuing role of the SPCB through standing orders and the process of making changes through parliamentary action. If Parliament agrees to this pension scheme proposal, I wish all future trustees well in their work and decision making, which will affect the wellbeing of every present and future member of our national Parliament. Well done, the committee.

09:20

Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): Like other members of the Scottish Parliamentary Pension Scheme Committee, I pay tribute to the committee clerks, who helped us through a difficult and complex procedure, and to Alasdair Morgan. I echo Hugh O'Donnell's observation: it is interesting that with some noticeable exceptions the members who are present for this debate are of a certain age. I suggest not that those members have a growing interest in the subject, but that they bring commendable experience and wisdom to the proceedings.

As Alasdair Morgan and other members said, the pension provisions for members of the Scottish Parliament are rooted in the Westminster scheme. Since the Parliament was created, various changes have been made to the Westminster and National Assembly for Wales schemes and to the law, which require us to examine and update our scheme. The Parliament has come adrift from its colleague Parliaments at Westminster and in

Wales, which provide the comparators for our scheme, and we will be adrift of legal requirements unless we make changes to our scheme by 2011.

It is worth recording that because members of the Scottish Parliament receive only a percentage of the salary that Westminster members of Parliament receive, they get only a percentage of the pension that Westminster MPs receive. Given the other changes to which I referred, that means that MSPs' pensions are a percentage of a percentage. I hope that some day the Scottish Parliament will gain confidence and self-respect in its efforts to rectify the anomalies of lower pay and lower pension. I do not suggest in any way that Westminster parliamentarians do not deserve their remuneration—far from it—but it cannot be right to believe that MSPs work less hard or carry less responsibility than do members who serve in Westminster. I hope that the matter will be addressed in the future.

It is worth repeating that the committee's findings were unanimous, and noting how little commentary on or disagreement with the proposals there was. I am sure that some people outside Parliament will disagree with the proposals—some people might even disagree with the proposition that MSPs should receive a pension. However, everyone needs to plan for his or her retirement. This comment, from the website of the association of former members of Parliament, was pointed out to me recently:

"Few voters or even newspapers ever realise that the average length of service for a Member of Parliament is about 8 years. Sooner or later the guillotine falls. Either the voters feel like a change and sack them, or their local parties deselect them. Or their constituency boundaries change ... Their secretaries and staff also lost their jobs too. What happens to the losers then? Nobody knows ... Many sacked MPs suffer serious problems in getting other jobs."

Members of all parties know from experience that many colleagues who have not returned to the Scottish Parliament have struggled, sometimes for a long time, to find alternative employment. To try to offset some of those problems, the committee recommended that MSPs should be able to choose—I stress "choose"—to accrue pension rights more quickly than they can do under the existing scheme. However, as Alasdair Morgan said, MSPs will have to fund those accelerated benefits themselves. The cost to MSPs would be an extra 5 per cent of their salary, which would take their contributions to 11 per cent. That is the basis on which we recommended an option to have an accrual rate of one fortieth per year. It is crucial that individual members understand the cost of making that choice. My point about accrual is linked to my point that by definition our profession brings job uncertainty.

It is right that the committee proposed the

removal of the rule whereby a member must have 15 years' service before he or she becomes eligible for early retirement, especially given that a person's parliamentary career can be very short. Under the proposed new arrangements, members who are over 55 would be able to access their own funds, some of which might have been transferred from other pension funds when they entered Parliament. Therefore, a member would have access to funds at a critical stage of his or her life and career. Under the current arrangements, that cannot happen until a member has served 15 years, which seemed wrong to the committee. Any pension payable under the proposed new rules would be reduced by 4 per cent for each year in which the member was retired before they were 65, for the whole life of the pension, so it would be no soft option. That substantial penalty was recommended following advice from the Government actuary.

As David McLetchie, Hugh O'Donnell, Alasdair Morgan and Andrew Welsh indicated, the changes strike the right balance between the interests and needs of members and the interests of the public purse. They are modest improvements at one level and necessary revisions of the law at another level. They are sensible and measured recommendations and—as Alasdair Morgan said—they will come at no cost to the public purse. I encourage members to support them at decision time.

The Presiding Officer: Before I close the debate, I have a further request from Hugh O'Donnell. I can allow you to make a brief comment, Mr O'Donnell.

Hugh O'Donnell: Thank you, Presiding Officer. I formally apologise to all who are present in the chamber for my late arrival in the midst of Mr Morgan's opening remarks.

The Presiding Officer: Thank you for that courtesy, Mr O'Donnell.

Flooding and Flood Management

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): 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 flooding and flood management.

We have already eaten a little into the time that is available, so I ask members to stick closely to their allocated times. I call on Roseanna Cunningham to speak to and move the motion in her name.

09:26

Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (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 too evident, and the consequences are still being felt by families and businesses throughout the flood-hit areas. In the Scottish context, with the floods in Elgin still relatively fresh, and given the certainty of new legislation on both flooding and climate change, the subject of the first inquiry of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee in the current session was the unanimous choice of the whole committee.

I thank all those who have been involved in the committee's work, including the clerks, in particular Mark Roberts and my now departed clerk Andrew Mylne—who has departed to another job rather than departed Earth—and the researchers, in particular Tom Edwards. I also give a special mention to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Glasgow City Council and WWF Scotland, which organised a series of visits for committee members in November last year.

The timing of the inquiry was unusual, in that it ran parallel to the Government's consultation on its legislative proposals, which ensured that there were a number of inbuilt challenges. I look forward to hearing from the Minister for Environment about the Government's intended direction of travel and, although I do not expect the normal detailed response to the inquiry, I nevertheless remind both the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment and the minister that the committee inquiry ranged further than what is intended for the legislation. I have just received the written response to our recommendations—unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to read through it, so I look forward to seeing the comments.

The committee wished to ensure that its views were taken into account by the Government, so our timetable was very much governed by that requirement. I thank all the witnesses who gave of their time to the inquiry, especially those who

attended the meeting in Elgin. That was no doubt a welcome decision for the Moray-based witnesses, but it may have been less welcome for those who travelled from Glasgow and Edinburgh. The report is long and detailed, so it is impossible for me to cover its every aspect and recommendation, but I will highlight the most important areas that it covers.

We began the inquiry against the backdrop of climate change. Our first evidence came from the Met Office. Professor John Mitchell told the committee that our past climate was no longer a safe guide to what might be expected in the future. He also gave us a stark warning that there is little point in trying to prevent flooding, and that we will instead have to become better at managing it. Much of the inquiry centred on such management.

We heard evidence from the Met Office about the serious lack of high-resolution radar coverage of Scotland, despite such coverage being necessary for accurate flood warnings. Only 50 per cent of Scotland is covered, compared with 95 per cent coverage of England and Wales. That finding, which surprised and shocked all committee members, forms the basis for recommendation 21.

The witnesses from the Met Office were also among the many witnesses who pointed to a serious shortage of hydrological expertise in Scotland. That skills issue clearly needs to be addressed. The committee believes that Government must be proactive on that front, which forms the basis for recommendation 5.

As the evidence sessions progressed, it became clear to us that chief among the changes that we had to consider was the likelihood of an increase in pluvial flooding, in which drainage systems are simply overwhelmed by the amount of water with which they have to deal. Members might recall that the flooding in Hull and Sheffield arose from that very problem.

Scottish Water witnesses were keen to point out that we simply cannot afford to keep building bigger and bigger drains and pumping stations to direct water away from settlements, and that we must instead either prevent or slow down the rate at which water enters drainage systems. Although many witnesses acknowledged the importance of that issue for the future, there was no agreement on where responsibility for directing such activity lies. The committee therefore took the view that the Government must set out a pathway and provide funding to ensure that the potential for pluvial flooding is mapped and addressed. As recommendation 2 makes clear, key to that would be Scottish Water's objectives giving greater priority to pluvial flood management.

Pluvial flooding was just one of the more strategic issues which we had to consider, but it soon became evident to the committee that time and space are also important. I realise that that might sound like something from an episode of "Doctor Who", but we discovered that we need to change both the temporal and spatial scale of our thinking on flooding. As a result of that consideration, witnesses overwhelmingly agreed that what is required is catchment-based management. That view is reflected in recommendation 14.

To reflect our view that we need to think over a much longer timescale than we do at present, we have also suggested that there should be a 25-year strategy to guide prioritisation of investment in flood management. However, we must also look for clear criteria for prioritising funding of future flood management.

There was also a significant debate about who should be involved in the strategic control of flood risk management and how that should be carried out. It is fair to say that on this there was no unanimity among witnesses. Essentially, the issue boils down to whether there should be a new strategic flooding agency—or, indeed, a tsar—or whether the responsibility should be imposed on SEPA. With no clear steer from witnesses, the committee deliberated on the matter and decided that, if we were to recommend the establishment of a new agency, we would in effect be reinventing the wheel—in this case, SEPA, which already exists. As a result, the committee concluded that SEPA's role should be expanded to encompass the strategic flood management role—which, of course, would have resource implications for the organisation. In our view, that did not mean that SEPA should have sole responsibility for the role, but that it should co-ordinate the large number of existing bodies, such as local authorities, that also have roles. The committee specifically does not see the model of the Environment Agency in England and Wales as being suitable for Scotland.

There was throughout the inquiry also significant discussion about the merits of natural flood management techniques. It is fair to say that even the proponents of natural flood management do not argue that it should be the only weapon in our armoury. Given some members' bemusement over the issue at the start of the inquiry, we were grateful for the clear distinction that was drawn between sustainable flood management and natural flood management. The committee feels that further research is needed into the effectiveness of natural flood management; however, as recommendations 14 and 15 make clear, on balance we take the view that there should be a presumption in favour of natural flood management techniques. We feel that, although such techniques should not be mandatory, they

would have to be the first port of call when dealing with flood management and justification would have to be given to depart from them. That said, it is not expected that that would mean an end to hard solutions, which would still have a role to play.

Equally, it became clear to the committee that flood management is not just about flood plans per se; the planning system, building regulations and land use all have parts to play. We have therefore made a number of recommendations, the more important of which refer to the planning system. IN that respect, we commend the approach taken by Dumfries and Galloway Council, which has compared its strategic plan with its flood risk plan to ensure that the two are compatible. However, the committee has gone further in suggesting in recommendation 18 that full flood risk assessments should be a prerequisite for planning permission for developments in areas at risk of flooding. That said, Scotland—and, indeed, the Government—should take some comfort from the fact that the insurance industry already regards the Scottish approach to flood management as being better than that which is taken in England and Wales. The Government might wish to build on that by persuading insurers to reflect that belief in their premiums, which is not something that they do at the moment.

Finally, I turn to an area that was covered by our inquiry but which will not be dealt with in the proposed bill—the system of flood warnings and the emergency response to the devastation that we see in the aftermath of flooding. Although that is an area in which constant updating is probably required, it is clear from evidence that the present arrangements are widely viewed as being unsatisfactory. The Government must address that situation, even if the anticipated bill is not the right vehicle for doing so.

There needs to be greater emphasis on dissemination of flood warnings. Witnesses made it clear to us that in many cases messages are simply not getting through. Flood victims in Elgin, in particular, provided compelling testament about the extent to which they were unprepared for what happened. Committee members were surprised that it seemed almost that there were parallel but unofficial warning systems in place, the most effective of which was the anecdotal evidence that was received by businesses such as those in Elgin that had a great deal to lose if they were caught unprepared. The fact that those businesses relied on unofficial warning systems because the official warning systems were simply not fit for purpose is a big indictment of the present arrangements. It seems to be extraordinary that phoning the farmer up the road is a more effective way of managing a potential flood than is relying on official warning systems. Our report makes a number of

recommendations in that general area, and I hope that the minister will take them under advisement separately, even if they do not form part of the upcoming bill.

In one particular regard, the recommendations must be considered, if only out of a sense of fairness. Time and again, witnesses told us that individual home owners had to take responsibility for taking steps to protect their properties. We heard that from the insurers, the police and others. When they were questioned about what information their bodies give to home owners to inform them of what steps could be taken, the witnesses all fell silent. That is not good enough: if we are to demand individual responsibility, we must give people the information and wherewithal to help them fulfil that responsibility. In that regard, I direct the cabinet secretary's attention to recommendation 24, and I look forward to hearing his response—he might have to pass the matter on to another minister. I commend the report to Parliament.

I move,

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).

09:37

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (Richard Lochhead): I warmly commend the committee for its thorough investigation and report, which are certainly helping to ensure that flooding remains firmly on the Parliament's agenda. The report contains many useful and important recommendations that we are considering with great care. We have now published our initial response to the recommendations and will continue to build the committee's work into our thinking in the time ahead.

We welcome this morning's debate on the ever-increasing threat of flooding in Scotland. Floods inflict devastation on people's lives, on communities, on property and on Scotland's precious environment. As Roseanna Cunningham said, to understand the seriousness of the issue, we need only look at the devastating impact of last summer's floods in England and Wales. There is no doubt that Scotland will be able to learn valuable lessons from Sir Michael Pitt's review, which was published just this week.

We must remember that flooding is a natural process that has been made more problematic by human activity. Historically, we have constructed dams, straightened rivers, built on flood plains, constructed artificial drainage systems and removed natural vegetation. Now we must assess

how we can deal with those man-made problems in the most sustainable way in the decades ahead.

Research into climate change tells us that we can expect an increase in the flood risk for all types of flooding. Given that that increased risk stands to affect Scotland's economy and society as a whole, how we manage it is one of the biggest challenges that Scotland faces in the 21^st century. Tackling climate change and the rising sea levels and extreme weather events that it causes, which have consequences for communities both in Scotland and around the world, is also a priority for this Government. That is why we plan to introduce a climate change bill.

Those of us who represent communities that have experienced severe flooding will know that the committee has confirmed such communities' view that the present statutory framework is not up to the challenge. Legislation from the 1960s is not fit for purpose in the 21^st century. That is why we have decided to take a completely new approach to flood risk management in Scotland. We all know that a number of key players deal with the many sources of flooding, but there is a lack of co-ordination of the various powers and duties that exist under different pieces of legislation. That lack of co-ordination is the result of the absence of a national framework within which our local authorities, Scottish Water, SEPA and others can take decisions on the management of flood risk.

The bill that we will introduce in September will change all that and will establish a modernised and sustainable approach to flood risk management. It will address many of the concerns that the committee's report highlights. The bill will encourage sustainable flood management at a catchment scale, allowing local authorities and others to take the best possible approach to the flood risk in their areas. The options will range from traditional defences in urban areas to improved flood warning and natural flood management measures where appropriate. The bill will make available to the public and the responsible authorities better information on the risk and consequences of flooding from rivers, the sea, extreme rainfall events and groundwater. It will improve flood risk management planning at the strategic level and ensure that flood risk management plans are prepared for all areas that are at a significant risk of flooding. It will also transfer the enforcement responsibilities under the Reservoirs Act 1975 to a single national body and introduce a compulsory post-incident reporting system, which will create a uniform approach to enforcement of that act throughout Scotland.

We set out many of our proposals for those changes earlier this year in "The Future of Flood Risk Management in Scotland—A Consultation Document". In addition to the formal consultation

process, we developed our proposals with the assistance of the flooding bill advisory group. Of course, we also held stakeholder events throughout Scotland. At those public meetings, we heard at first hand the views of individuals who have been affected by flooding and we intend to learn from their experiences.

We are extremely grateful for the consideration that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee gave to flooding and flood management during its recent inquiry. I welcome the recommendations in the committee's report, which are generally in line with the proposals that we have developed for the bill and with the results of our public consultation. I will comment on some of the committee's key recommendations. We agree with the recommendation that SEPA should be given the role of competent authority and that it should take the lead at a national level on flood risk management. However, local authorities will be identified as responsible authorities for flood risk management and there will be scope for designating other bodies, such as Scottish Water, as responsible authorities and giving them a duty to collaborate to deliver flood risk management plans. Co-operation and collaboration between the bodies that are involved in flood risk management are essential, so that will be one of the core elements of the flooding bill. We agree that catchments should be the basis of flood risk management. The flooding bill will give SEPA the responsibility for identifying appropriate catchments for managing flood risk.

We agree with the committee that the Scottish Government should retain a national budget to fund research and other overarching flood management initiatives. However, it remains our view that local authorities' expenditure on flood risk management should be supported through the local government settlement. It will then be the responsibility of each local authority to allocate the total financial resources that are available to it on the basis of local needs and priorities, having first fulfilled its statutory obligations and the agreed priorities in its single outcome agreement.

The committee recommended that the Scottish ministers remain involved in the process of approving proposals for strategic flood prevention schemes. We have considered that issue with great care and taken full account of the responses to the public consultation. We agree that our present process is not working, but we consider that the committee's proposal is not necessarily the best way forward. One main concern with the current process for flood alleviation schemes is the length of time that it takes for such schemes to complete the required statutory process. The responses to our consultation on the future of flood risk management showed that a clear majority, including a majority of local authorities,

considered it appropriate to take a local authority-led approach to the approval of flood risk management measures, rather than retain the existing process of ministerial confirmation.

Therefore, the bill will establish a new local authority-led approval process for flood risk management measures, which will enable the Scottish ministers to call in proposals, but only where appropriate. That must be right. Ministers should be involved when an issue cannot be resolved locally—that is a valid role, but it is not a valid role to have to approve every single local authority proposal. We simply do not see how that can accelerate the process. As Parliament is aware, the Scottish Government's intention is to stand back from micromanaging the delivery of local authority objectives. The new approval process in the bill will ensure that the Scottish ministers meet that goal while maintaining a role in the process of approving proposals for flood risk management measures, when necessary.

The new statutory process that will be set out in the flooding bill will streamline procedures by enabling deemed planning consent. The process should also shorten the time that it takes to get approval for non-contentious measures. In doing so, it will continue to ensure that individuals and organisations who are directly affected can object to proposals, without allowing the approval process to be extended unreasonably.

We welcome the committee's recommendation that the Scottish Government establish further pilot studies to assess the contribution that natural flood management measures can make at catchment scale. We acknowledge that natural flood risk management is an important component of sustainable flood management. Detailed studies across a range of catchment scales are required to establish a credible body of evidence on how natural flood risk management could sit with other proven, sustainable, catchment flood risk management measures. We are in the process of establishing a natural flood risk management working group, which will advise on future pilot studies to improve our understanding of the contribution that natural flood risk management can make to reducing flood risk. The forthcoming bill will enable the most sustainable approach to flood risk management to be taken in each case.

The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee has asked us to consider a number of other policy issues that do not relate directly to the bill, as its convener, Roseanna Cunningham, pointed out. I confirm our commitment to address those issues in due course and to continue to work with the committee on the way forward.

We all share a desire to prepare Scotland better for the threat of flooding. We look forward to working with the Rural Affairs and Environment

Committee, the Parliament and the rest of Scotland in the times ahead to achieve that end. Flooding is one of the biggest threats facing Scotland in the 21^st century. It is a threat to our people's lives, to our property, to our communities and to the environment. It is also a global issue. We look forward to working together to tackle those issues head on in the times ahead.

The Presiding Officer: 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 interference came through during the cabinet secretary's speech.

09:46

Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (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 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.

09:53

Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (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 on flooding. The Conservative party warmly welcomes the report and we share the committee's view that the Government should fully consider the recommendations that the report contains before it introduces its proposed bill on flooding and flood management.

Flooding and flood prevention have moved up the political agenda in recent years as awareness of the impact of climate change has grown and in the aftermath of some high-profile instances of severe flooding, notably, but by no means exclusively, in England. The devastation caused by flooding is hard to comprehend and goes way beyond the material losses sustained by those who are affected by it. The other evening, I watched a report on television about the on-going clear-up after last year's major flooding in the north of England and was particularly moved by the comment from one Hull resident, who said, "You don't have to die to lose your life."

Clearly, the emotional impact of flooding remains for a long time and the fear of further flooding is ever with those affected. I am pleased that the report highlights that and stresses the need for the Government to ensure that proper support is available to those in crisis.

The risk maps that SEPA published last year indicate that flooding is a very real threat to nearly 100,000 properties in Scotland and it is predicted that floods that are currently considered extreme are set to become more common in the future, with water surges threatening our coastal defences and causing surface flooding with which our urban drainage systems will struggle to cope.

There is an urgency about long-term planning, with an emphasis on sustainable flood management, because although the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 placed a duty on ministers, SEPA and responsible authorities to promote that, there has been little change in practical terms, with most councils still reacting to flooding by providing hard-engineered flood defence systems locally, rather than trying to manage flood risk at catchment level by working with the natural environment rather than against it.

It is concerning to learn from the report that the number of properties subject to rain-induced flooding is not known because work to map and

address pluvial flooding has not yet been undertaken in Scotland due to a lack of appropriate authority or funding. It is also worrying that there is a shortage of hydrological expertise in Scotland, which is likely to get worse as demand for flood risk management grows, unless greater numbers of students can be induced to study science, engineering and technology at school and in college and university.

There is widespread agreement that catchment-based flood management is the way ahead, as it allows a more integrated, holistic approach to be taken. There is also recognition that the highly complex legislation dealing with flooding and flood management needs simplification.

We agree with the report's recommendation that there should be one body that is charged with drawing together and co-ordinating whole-river catchment plans and coastal defence strategies, and that SEPA is ideally placed to be that competent authority. We note with interest the comments regarding a future role for Scottish Water in the management of pluvial flooding.

I am particularly concerned that planning and building regulations should be adequately enforced, in agreement with current policies that state that built development should not take place on functional flood plains, and with regard to Scottish planning policy 7, which requires developers and planning authorities to consider the possibility of all forms of flooding so that they can ensure that new developments are free of significant flood risk and will not increase flood risk elsewhere in the catchment or increase the need for flood prevention measures.

In that context, I am appalled that Aberdeen's new local plan, approved only yesterday after a long, convoluted and much delayed process, includes within land designated for residential development an area of ground in the Loirsbank part of my former council ward that is a known flood plain and was previously designated as green belt.

The proposal for that change of use was hotly disputed within the council. It was opposed vociferously by many local residents and unanimously by all three local councillors. However, it was eventually approved by a majority on the council and, sadly, endorsed by Government ministers.

I know that any future planning permission will be subject to a satisfactory flood risk assessment, but to have designated that area as residential is almost unbelievable, given that existing houses, set further back from the River Dee than any future new development would be, already carry loaded insurance premiums because of the known

flood risk. I sincerely hope that such folly will not be repeated elsewhere in Scotland.

My party notes and welcomes the report's recommendations on the need for a more streamlined process for the approval of flood management schemes, agrees that investment planning needs to be long term, with provision for updating in every parliamentary session, and welcomes the comments on flood warnings, weather radar and emergency responses. Those elements of the report complete a thorough, painstaking exercise whose recommendations, if eventually enshrined in new legislation, should make the prevention and management of future flooding in Scotland a simpler, more effective and more sustainable process.

09:59

Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (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 that are prepared by our local authorities. Indeed, the minister has just confirmed this morning that that is, indeed, the Government's intention. Therefore, I will concentrate my remarks on the reasons why I believe that not enough evidence was taken by the committee to test whether SEPA is sufficiently independent of Government to take on that role.

Representatives of SEPA came to our committee and made the point, in their written submission, that

"Controlling development through planning is perhaps the most powerful tool available to manage flood risks."

I could not agree more with that, which is why I challenged SEPA on whether it had robust processes, independent of Government, to control, for example, the building of houses on the flood plain.

At our meeting on 5 March, I tried to ask questions about the Aviemore application, as it was the most recent example of a developer wanting to build houses on the flood plain, but the committee convener prevented me from asking those questions. The convener used the argument, which in my view was spurious, that another committee was examining the issue. We were all aware that that was not the case. She changed her reasons for disallowing questions on the subject several times over the following weeks.

What had actually happened was that the Local Government and Communities Committee had mentioned in paragraph 268 of its report on the Trump application:

"The Committee is concerned by the implications of Ministerial intervention in the Aviemore case. FOI evidence reveals that intervention by 5 Scottish Ministers",

including the Minister for Environment, Mike Russell,

"pre-dates any request for action by a cross-party group of MSPs."

Therefore, no other committee was examining the issue. It was the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's duty to pursue the issue as it was central to our committee inquiry. Four out of eight committee members wished to recall SEPA to the committee before the minister came before us to give us his evidence, but the convener refused our repeated requests even to put the issue on the agenda for discussion, such was her determination to protect Scottish National Party ministers. In my view, she failed miserably in her duties.

I have never in nine years of service on parliamentary committees come across such a blatant misuse of power and authority by a committee convener and, frankly, it has undermined the authority of our report. It is surely a committee convener's duty to accede to requests if even one member of the committee asks to put something on the agenda for debate. The convener decided to use her authority to silence other members of the committee to protect her political colleague, Mr Russell. That sort of behaviour will not wash.

Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (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 recommendations in the report which relate directly to the Aviemore experience—without mentioning the A-word in committee.

Mike Rumbles: 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 it clear in evidence to Parliament that he spoke to his most senior planner about the Aviemore application.

Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (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 a previous incident, his account of which varies greatly from my own and that of many others, is he sticking to the subject of the debate?

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman): I am listening very carefully—

Mike Rumbles: I—

The Deputy Presiding Officer: 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: 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 Minister said that he spoke to Mike Russell, the Minister for Environment, who in turn spoke to SEPA, which then withdrew its opposition to the project. The freedom of information evidence referred to by the Local Government and Communities Committee showed that there was anger within SEPA over the pressure that it felt it was under from ministers. In e-mails, SEPA's Martin Boshoff warned that withdrawing its objection

"would weaken SEPA's position in the future and be perceived as discriminatory".

SEPA's senior planning officer talked of being

"Very concerned about the message this is sending to developers which is basically, make a big enough fuss and go high enough and SEPA will buckle".

Roseanna Cunningham: Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles: 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: You have one minute.

Mike Rumbles: All those interventions have taken time from me, Presiding Officer, but never mind.

After all that, Mike Russell, the planning minister, came before our committee.

Michael Russell: 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 noted.

Mike Rumbles: 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 Aviemore example and would rule any mention of it out of order—so much for effective committee scrutiny. I asked the minister several times whether he had ever intervened in such matters and he repeatedly said to the committee that he had never intervened in a planning process.

I was once again prevented from pursuing the matter by the convener. It is obvious to any independent observer that when the minister said that to the committee, he was being at least economic with the actualité, to borrow a phrase from the late Alan Clark. I hope that ministers realise that they should not be economic with the actualité to Parliament or any of its committees.

It is because SEPA caved in under such ministerial pressure that I am not at all convinced that the Government is right in advocating it as being the appropriate body to take the lead in flood prevention at the national level.

10:05

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (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. One such change would be my move from the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee to the European and External Relations Committee. I do not want to seem presumptuous by saying that members will support those motions at decision time, but I would like to place on record my thanks to the members and clerks of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for the—by and large—constructive way in which we have worked together over the past year. In the spirit of harmony, I even extend my thanks to Mike Rumbles, whose single-minded approach to issues has always been interesting. Above all, I congratulate Roseanna Cunningham on the way in which she guided the committee through the flooding and flood management inquiry, on which we worked together in a constructive manner—again, by and large.

Our planet's changing climate may make the possibility of flooding more likely for many of our citizens. When it gave evidence in our inquiry, the Met Office talked about the likelihood of more intense rainfall in summer months in future years and the increased risk of flash flooding as a consequence. That is precisely what occurred in England last summer. We have all witnessed on our television screens the devastating impact on individuals and families affected by floods such as those in England last year and others around the world. Some of us may even have witnessed at first hand the more severe floods that have hit parts of Scotland. During its inquiry, the committee visited Elgin and heard from local businesspeople and residents there about the devastating effects of the flooding that has hit that town on more than one occasion.

In the most damaging floods, homes, businesses, treasured possessions and—in the worst instances—lives are lost. Most people probably do not believe that they will be affected by a flood, but the figures indicate that a significant number of people are at risk. I represent the Central Scotland region. Nearly 12,500 properties are at risk of flooding in the Falkirk local authority area alone. That is nearly a fifth of all properties in Falkirk.

Committee members visited the east end of Glasgow. Those who visit that area will be hard

pressed to identify the rivers and watercourses there, but they do exist, in culvert—that is, they are underground and out of sight. However, because they are out of sight, they should not be out of mind. When heavy rain comes—as it does from time to time in Glasgow—there is a danger that those underground and unseen watercourses will spill out on to the streets and cause them to flood, as has happened in the past. That is the problem of pluvial flooding that Roseanna Cunningham mentioned. That such flooding can happen in an area in which it seems to the naked eye that there would never be a problem indicates the often unknown danger of flooding risk. What I have said illustrates why the committee was right to prioritise its flooding inquiry.

The Scottish Government has also been collecting evidence on flooding through a consultation process and town hall meetings. The committee's report, of course, is something of a warm-up act for the Government's forthcoming flooding bill. I have every confidence that the Government will take into account the committee's conclusions and recommendations when it frames that bill—indeed, there has been evidence today that it will do so. The Government should be congratulated on waiting for the findings of the inquiry before initiating legislation.

The evidence that the committee gathered shows strong support for a more co-ordinated approach to flood risk management in Scotland and for the appropriate use of resources to support that. Two issues in the report are particularly worth commenting on, the first of which is funding to tackle flooding. It is worth reminding colleagues that the removal of ring fencing in local government budgets does not mean the removal of funding for flood prevention. Indeed, the Scottish Government has budgeted for a 41 per cent increase in funding to local government for flood prevention over the next three years.

The Government's approach means that local government now has responsibility for allocating appropriate resources. The committee's report is clear about the effects of increased flood risk and precipitation, and it is in local authorities' self-interest to ensure that there is adequate provision for flood management in years to come. Paragraph 147 of the report states:

"In any one spending review period, it is unlikely that Scottish Government funding will be sufficient to cover all the spending needs identified in catchment flood management plans. Therefore prioritisation will be needed to reflect the 25 year national flooding strategy."

In other words, the issue goes beyond the lifetime of one Government of a particular party. It is right that we should adopt a long-term approach.

The second issue that I want to address is the competent authority for flood management.

Although there was general agreement among witnesses on the need for such an authority, there was not unanimity on whether that authority should be SEPA. As has been demonstrated more than adequately by Mike Rumbles—who should perhaps be rechristened Mike Grumbles after his performance today—the committee was not unanimous on the issue either. However, it was equally clear from our evidence that no suggestion for another body was forthcoming and that, as Roseanna Cunningham said, there was little sense in reinventing the wheel. For that reason, the right approach is to entrust SEPA with the authority for flood management.

The committee's report represents an extremely useful contribution to the debate on the future of flood management in Scotland. I have no doubt that the Government will find it helpful when it introduces its flooding bill. I wish my soon-to-be-erstwhile colleagues on the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee all the best as they embark on scrutiny of the legislation and look forward to communities throughout Scotland benefiting from a sensible precautionary approach to flood management for many years to come.

10:11

Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (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 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.

10:18

Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (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 have shown just how important it was that the convener did not allow the committee to be detoured into discussing the minutiae of a specific planning event.

There are already signs that climate change is affecting Scotland. Changes in weather patterns and mean temperatures are already having noticeable temporal and spatial effects on our wildlife. While the expansion of the nuthatch's range might be welcomed as increasing biodiversity, we are also seeing the retreat of some species, the upland summer mayfly being one perhaps not very obvious example.

Alongside continuing changes in our fauna and flora we can expect changing patterns and an overall increased risk of flooding in both urban and rural areas, particularly adjacent to our rivers. Significantly, there will also be an increased risk of inundation in coastal areas as sea levels rise.

We cannot be certain how quickly and how high sea levels will rise. If the Scottish Government is successful in meeting its commitment to make 80 per cent reductions in carbon emissions, and if other nations follow suit, the rise might be limited. If, however, other Governments fail to follow Scotland's example, the rise might be considerable. Predictions vary widely. The United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change forecasts a maximum rise of 81cm. However, in the journal, Nature Geoscience, a maximum rise of 163cm is predicted. Dr James Hansen has suggested that if the west Arctic or Greenland ice sheets go, the rise could be as much as 5m. We can be certain that sea levels will rise, but we cannot be certain how great the rise will be. One thing is certain—we must plan and act now, in order to avoid being overwhelmed in the future. Taking action will have its critics and its costs, but if we fail to act, there will be greater costs in the future—not just financial costs, but costs in terms of human suffering as well. Being flooded is a highly stressful experience, but how much more stressful it is for people whose home is permanently flooded and must be abandoned.

We might draw parallels and imagine that we are at the beginning of some other great Government failure—the private finance initiative, perhaps. If the Government almost a decade ago had had the courage to call a halt, and if the former Executive had had the courage to say no to PFI, vast sums of money would have been saved. If action had been taken then, we would not have to pay bills for schools and hospitals decades into the future. If we lack the courage to take action now and we continue to build on low coastal plains, we will be obliged within a few decades either to spend great sums on building coastal defences or to rehouse those who have been forced to abandon their homes to the rising seas.

Of course, the legislation will not be simple. It would be simplistic merely to prohibit building below a certain height throughout Scotland. However, it is simple common sense to place

restrictions on developments that would be directly affected by a rise in sea levels. During the flooding inquiry, I asked several witnesses whether they would consider it wise to place restrictions on developments below a certain height above sea level. They included Professor John Mitchell, who is director of climate science at the Met Office. He agreed that, in view of the predicted rise in sea levels that is associated with climate change, it would be sensible to prohibit building below a certain height above sea level. Others expressed concern that a rise in sea levels, combined with the possibility of more frequent and intense storm surges, could result in a considerably increased risk to low-lying developments.

During our evidence-gathering sessions, I asked witnesses from local authorities whether they had policies to restrict building in coastal areas. In particular, I asked whether they had any restrictions with specific reference to height above sea level as a response to the increased risk of inundation due to the anticipated rise in sea levels. I received several negative replies. In other words, a number of local authorities have no restrictions and no intention of introducing any.

It seems to me an act of folly that, faced with potentially catastrophic rises in sea levels, local authorities would build homes on coastal sites less than 1m above sea level. I ask the Government to consider putting in place clear restrictions on new-build in coastal areas. No doubt some would attack such restrictions, but I say to the Government and to all parties in the Parliament that, whatever attacks might be made on us for introducing such restrictions, they will be nothing compared with the condemnation of future generations if we do not act now.

If we do not act, future generations will have to meet a hefty bill. Whether it is for extensive coastal defences or for rehousing people, the price will have to be paid. The folly of PFI means that we already know the cost of failing to act when it becomes clear than a policy will leave future Governments and generations with massive debts.

Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (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: 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, we will be saddled with the debts for a long time to come. That is precisely the point that I am about to make.

In 2024, we will pay £979 million in PFI debt repayments. We will not have cleared our debt repayments until 2041. How much greater will the cost be if we bury our heads in the sand and

ignore the rising seas? If the current generation builds on the shoreline, the next generation might see the sea driving them from their homes, waving them goodbye in both senses of the word.

We can halt careless development now or we can order future ministers to achieve that which King Canute could not. Of course, the new Government has excellent ministers, but even I, as a back bencher from the Government party, do not believe that ministers' attempts to order the seas to halt would be any more significant to our oceans than the plaintive mewing of the gulls wheeling overhead.

10:24

David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (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 the excellent report on flooding and flood management. Perhaps I should declare an interest of sorts as a substitute member of the committee. In a parallel, perhaps, with my footballing career, I spent the entire season on the bench, although I did dream the adolescent dream and hope that I would be selected to play for five minutes in the cup final and would score the winning goal. In fairness, I was given one game when a Labour member failed a late fitness test and I heard fascinating evidence from the Met Office—more of which later.

I want to focus on two main areas: the link between climate change and flood prevention. As other members have said, the debate on flooding must be seen in the context of climate change. At one level, it cannot be avoided: even if all emissions were stopped tomorrow, the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere would continue warming the planet for generations. If we do not minimise the process and focus on a twin-track approach of adaptation and mitigation, our children will face a future of flood, famine and disease primarily, but not exclusively, in the developing world.

What does that mean for Scotland? It means that coastal and riverside communities will be subject to more severe and prolonged flooding, with knock-on effects for the insurance industry. We will see more frequent return periods of severe flooding as occurred in Perth, Moray and Stirling. That can result in tragic loss of life, as was witnessed in the Western Isles in recent years.

Climate change will also mean that urban drainage schemes will be unable to cope with increasing volumes of storm water. It will mean that buildings designed for the climate systems of the past will be subject to subsidence and that new buildings will need to meet tougher design

standards. The Stern report made it clear that a 3°C increase in temperature could mean that United Kingdom expenditure on flooding had to increase from 0.1 per cent to between 0.2 and 0.4 per cent of gross domestic product.

I will concentrate my remaining remarks on flood warning. There is no real warning system for pluvial flooding in Scotland, and we heard from the committee convener Roseanna Cunningham earlier why that is—the lack of high-definition radar coverage compared with England and Wales. SEPA gives fluvial warnings and operates a national floodline service, which works well in providing information on flood warning and risk. However, as mentioned on page 42 of the committee report, Jennifer Main told the committee that during the floods in Elgin in 2002:

"I did not receive any warning. I just saw the flood waters coming nearer and nearer and I warned my neighbours."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 19 February 2008; c 507.]

Moray Council has since developed a very good system, in which flood warnings can be communicated by e-mail, text, mobile telephone and fax.

SEPA has made a series of recommendations, including those for a national flood warning strategy, a risk assessment of critical infrastructure and work to improve the public's understanding of flood risk. In winding up the debate, will the minister say whether the Government will implement those SEPA recommendations?

Is pluvial flooding the poor relation, as the committee described it? We all know that flood warnings depend on a combination of meteorological and hydrological data, but the Met Office told the committee, at the meeting for which I was present, that the best technical standard is for weather radar to be able to detect rainfall at high resolution—about 2km—as that relates to the size of the weather systems that cause the most intense rainfall. As we have heard, the majority of Scotland—with the exception of Shetland, bizarrely—is currently covered by low-resolution radar, which is fine for weather forecasting. In effect, we have 100 per cent coverage on that.

However, high-resolution coverage is only at 50 per cent in Scotland, which is very poor. The gaps are mostly in our rural areas, such as Moray—which is, ironically, a high-risk area—the Highlands, Orkney and the south-west. In comparison, England and Wales have 95 per cent high-resolution coverage and so are in a much stronger position to predict floods. We need 100 per cent high-resolution radar coverage, which is recommendation 21 of the report.

I do not want our rural areas to become technological no-go zones, so I urge the

minister—if he has a second to listen to the debate—to make blanket high-resolution coverage an urgent priority. My colleague Peter Peacock has been in touch with John Hirst, the Met Office chief executive, who has made it clear that we can conduct an assessment to work out how to take the next step, as has been done in England. We need an urgent assessment and a weather radar network review. That will examine the gaps in Scotland and cost about £75,000. The estimate from the evidence is that we probably need three new radar stations in Scotland.

We want to work as efficiently as possible, but the bigger question is how we can afford not to provide the most comprehensive radar coverage to predict flooding and avoid the worst human and financial misery that can result from it.

I commend the report to Parliament and urge members to support all its recommendations.

10:30

Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (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. However, I want to speak because flooding is a huge issue in the Highlands and Islands, as David Stewart just said.

The Scottish Government's flood risk maps show that the local authority with the largest area that is covered by fluvial flood zones is Highland Council. The same maps highlight the fact that Western Isles Council has the largest area that is covered by one-in-200-year coastal flood zones.

Of course, horrific floods occurred in Moray in 1997 and 2002. Last night, I attended Jim Hume's textiles exhibition in the garden lobby, where I spoke to Johnstons of Elgin. It is well known that that company lost £20 million in the earlier floods. Its quotations for insurance policies now run into millions. That is just one business, which has also spent huge amounts of money on preventive measures, as the cabinet secretary—who is the local MSP—knows.

In Elgin alone, 650 houses and 180 commercial properties were damaged in the 2002 floods. The combined losses from 1997 and 2002 are estimated to exceed £100 million. The committee visited Elgin to take evidence from a Moray Council official and residents whose homes and businesses were severely affected by flood waters.

Councils such as Moray have overwhelming public support for introducing flood prevention schemes and Moray Council has promoted four flood prevention orders—in Lhanbryde, Rothes, Forres and Elgin—for schemes whose value is

estimated to exceed £150 million. The schemes attracted only 31 objections, but legislation says that if any flood prevention order receives even one objection—no matter how minor—that will lead to a public inquiry. As we all know, public inquiries can be expensive for the local authority and can significantly delay a scheme's implementation. I hope and trust that the minister will give guidance on whether that requirement will change and whether objectors will be limited to people such as those who live in or have businesses in the area and whom flooding would affect.

I will focus on the recommendations on pluvial flooding. Recommendation 9 is

"that the ... Government place significantly greater emphasis on pluvial flood management in setting future objectives for Scottish Water."

That point arose in Moray only two weeks ago, when it was reported that the £83 million Elgin scheme will face further delays and extra costs, because Scottish Water will not do work that the local council's flood alleviation team understood that it would do to improve the drainage system and complement measures in the scheme. Scottish Water insists that that work is outwith its remit. I listened carefully to the cabinet secretary and I understand from what he said that the proposed bill will address the lack of co-ordination. I trust that that will bring clarity to the issue that I raise and that it will be addressed further down the line.

Recommendations 11 and 12, which are on funding, are also significant to Moray. Flood prevention is a top priority of Moray Council, which has allocated £40 million over the next three years to advance flood prevention schemes. However, the current estimate is that the council will face a shortfall of £23 million over those three years. More worrying is the fact that, in the longer term, the shortfall could exceed £80 million. Therefore, clarity on needs-based funding or clear criteria for prioritising funding for flood schemes, which the committee's report recommends, would be welcome.

My final point is on an important issue of guidance that was given to councillors about planning applications. At a recent meeting of Moray Council's planning and regulatory committee, members were faced with contradictory advice from SEPA and the council's flood experts on two applications. Guidance was sought from the director, who suggested that the better, more up-to-date, locally based advice was from the council's own team. I understand that the SEPA advice largely rests on desk-based maps and that, worryingly, it takes no account of flood alleviation schemes that are in place or planned.

I ask the minister whether authorities, such as

Moray Council, that have expert local flood teams providing advice, should still have to contend with SEPA as a statutory consultee. I ask that because if the council ignores its own flood experts, and SEPA disagrees, the application must go back to the Scottish Government, which causes more delay and further costs. I know that the cabinet secretary will understand that delay and higher costs are not what we are looking for in Moray.

10:36

Tavish Scott (Shetland) (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 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.

10:42

Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (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 during the past year and led to the production of one of the best reports that has been presented to the Parliament. The long-term implications of the issues that the report raises, particularly for funding, are such that we must think out of the box. Perhaps we should think beyond the three-year period of the comprehensive spending review and try to secure cross-party agreement on how cash can be found in the long term. I suggest that an oil fund could help. I hope that members agree with me.

We must consider the combination of events such as coastal and pluvial flooding and high tides. Catchment-based flood management is difficult. The resilience to flooding of scattered communities in the Highlands is difficult to predict, given that a tenth of houses in the Highlands are liable to coastal flooding because they are situated less than 5m above high-tide level. How we plan is critical. We must acknowledge our geography and accept that people have a right to live in such communities and to expect the funding that will allow them to do so—although they will have to adapt. The terrible deaths in South Uist are a case in point.

The hydrological studies that are now taking place to work out what should be done should, perhaps, have been carried out before. There has

been some remediation, but there is a growing realisation in South Uist that the sea will not let up on the western machairs, and it might be necessary for hundreds of people to move. However, do people in Leith understand that that could be the case for them? The SEPA flood maps show that the major housing developments on the sea shore in Leith could also end up underwater. If we are not taking those issues into account in our planning, the report points to the ways in which we should.

I will give a little example that shows that co-ordination is missing, and why it is needed. One of the incidents in October two years ago affected the burn at Gartymore, just north of Port Gower. Margot MacGregor suddenly saw water flowing past her kitchen window—it was 20ft deep, rather than the burn that normally passes her house. That was frightening for her, and in future we will probably not allow people to build croft houses in such areas.

The culvert became blocked by branches, trees and bushes that were taken down by the flood, and the water flooded over the main A9, washing away about 50yd of the railway bed. It took an enormous effort to convince the police to close the A9, because of the huge diversions that were required. I was able to convince them that Network Rail should get a two-hour window four days later, on a Sunday afternoon, to begin the process of lifting the railway.

That incident highlights the lack of co-ordination, starting with the way in which we manage culverts and ensure that people do not dump bushes and trees into water courses. Landowners have to be more careful about keeping water courses clear. That example shows that people need to be much more geared up to do the routine maintenance that could cut out the problems.

In my own village of Evanton, more and more building has taken place up the hill in Chapel Road, Teandallon Place and Swordale Road, which has meant that the hard concrete and tarmac makes a natural course to carry the waters down. As we heard a parliamentary statement on the floods, we were looking at pictures of the floods at the bottom of the street. Preparation involving flooding equipment, deeper drains and so on will take vast investment, and in small villages such as Evanton there will be major disruption, as there would be in cities. However, the same houses are being flooded time after time. Such villages deserve to be saved from having to face that again.

It is interesting to note the comments that have been made about high resolution radar not being available. That is a matter for the Met Office, which we do not control, and it has also been a matter for the Ministry of Defence. It is now

necessary for us to have the debate with London, in the joint ministerial committees, to decide on funding. We should be looking to catch up, because we were left out in the past as being less important. We are equally important, and it is essential that we are able to catch up. The report's many excellent recommendations point us in the direction to enable us to do so. We need to have an overall body, and SEPA is that competent authority, but each local authority has to be tasked to do things. I ask that when the bill is presented, we get a clear steer on how to fund radar.

10:48

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): Having lasted in this place for more than eight years—not having been defeated by the effects of climate change or the best efforts of Gil Paterson—I can say that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's report will register as one of the more significant reports that the Parliament has produced. If one considers the past eight years, it is possible to identify major reports that have had a significant effect, either on legislation or on governance in relation to the matters on which the reports focused. The view will be taken in due course that this is a particularly significant report. The report, which was agreed almost entirely unanimously and with a very bro