The Scottish Parliament - Rural Affairs and Environment Committee Report

To consider and report on agriculture, fisheries and rural development and other matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment.

Roseanna Cunningham (Convener)
Karen Gillon
Jamie Hepburn
Des McNulty
Peter Peacock
Mike Rumbles
John Scott (Deputy Convener)
Bill Wilson

Recommendation 1: The Committee strongly recommends that the Scottish Government fully consider the recommendations contained within this report before introducing its bill on flooding and flood management. [Paragraph 14]

Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government set out the steps and funding that it considers necessary for mapping and addressing pluvial flooding. [Paragraph 57]

Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government conduct an assessment of the resilience of national infrastructure to potential storm surge events, especially given that storm surges and related coastal flooding are likely to increase in the future. [Paragraph 61]

Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government explore methods to ensure that the social and human costs, as well as the economic costs, of flooding can be included in future assessments of the value of proposed flood management measures. [Paragraph 74]

Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government establish how it can best contribute to building capacity in hydrological expertise. [Paragraph 80]

Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government adopt the catchment as the fundamental unit for flood management. [Paragraph 100]

Recommendation 7: The Committee recommends that SEPA should be given the role of competent authority and take the lead at a national level in flood risk management, with suitable further safeguards to its independence. [Paragraph 113]

Recommendation 8: The Committee recommends that the bodies who will contribute to the delivery of catchment flood management plans should be identified in statute and given a duty to collaborate in order to deliver those plans. [Paragraph 119]

Recommendation 9: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government place significantly greater emphasis on pluvial flood management in setting future objectives for Scottish Water. [Paragraph 136]

Recommendation 10: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government set out a national, strategic “road-map” for investment in flood management that looks forward over a period of at least 25 years, with provision for updating every parliamentary session. [Paragraph 139]

Recommendation 11: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government publishes clear criteria for prioritising the funding for future flood management. [Paragraph 150]

Recommendation 12: The Committee recommends that needs-based funding should be provided to local authorities in order that they can contribute to catchment flood management plans and believes the funding method adopted should embrace the three distinct levels of funding set out at paragraph 145. [Paragraph 151]

Recommendation 13: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government consider where there is scope for different approval processes to be established for different scales of flood management measure; that Scottish Ministers remain involved in the process of approving proposals for strategic flood prevention schemes; that a system of deemed planning consent associated with ministerial decisions is developed; and that the process of seeking approval for flood prevention schemes is streamlined to ensure speedier decision-making, including constraints on the time available for ministerial decisions. [Paragraph 162]

Recommendation 14: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government establishes further pilot studies to assess the contribution that natural flood management measures can make at a catchment scale. [Paragraph 175]

Recommendation 15: The Committee recommends that the legislation creates a presumption in favour of natural flood management techniques being used as a part of each catchment plan – so that specific justification will be needed for any decision not to include such techniques. Guidance on the use of such techniques should be provided and revised in the light of increased knowledge about the effectiveness of natural flood management techniques at the catchment scale. [Paragraph 177]

Recommendation 16: The Committee recommends that local authorities ensure that, when planning permission is granted for new developments incorporating sustainable urban drainage systems, and where Scottish Water is not adopting the system, an appropriate maintenance regime is a requirement of the planning permission. [Paragraph 184]

Recommendation 17: The Committee recommends that, given the importance of land-use management, the Scottish Government should ensure it has the power to require changes to land use for flood management purposes. Such a power would have to be accompanied by a provision for landowners to be compensated. [Paragraph 199]

Recommendation 18: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government require all local authorities to assess whether their strategic flood risk assessments are compatible with their development and structure plans and ensures that a full flood risk assessment is a prerequisite for the granting of planning permission for individual developments in areas at risk of flooding. [Paragraph 209]

Recommendation 19: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government ensure that the suggestion of enhanced reinstatement following flooding is communicated to representatives of the insurance industry and should seek to persuade the insurance industry that it is the best way to minimise the cost implications of further flooding incidents. [Paragraph 220]

Recommendation 20: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government develops a flood warning strategy and, in doing so, addresses SEPA’s other eight recommendations regarding flood warning. [Paragraph 233]

Recommendation 21: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government take steps, including by making representations to the UK Government, to ensure that high-resolution radar coverage is established throughout Scotland to ensure that flood warning is as effective as possible. [Paragraph 238]

Recommendation 22: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government ensures that SEPA has the necessary funding to enable it to collaborate with the Meteorological Office to provide an effective flood warning system for all types of flooding. [Paragraph 240]

Recommendation 23: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government investigates the possibility of individual property vendors providing information on previous flooding incidents associated with a particular property to potential purchasers and requiring developers to provide flood risk assessments for new developments to potential purchasers. [Paragraph 243]

Recommendation 24: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government takes steps, together with SEPA, local authorities, the emergency services and the insurance industry, to consider how it can educate members of the public at risk of flooding of how they can best protect themselves and their property. [Paragraph 248]

Recommendation 25: The Committee recommends that the fire and rescue service be tasked with coordinating all flood-related rescue activities. [Paragraph 251]

Recommendation 26: The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government explore ways of ensuring that the police service is able to act proactively rather than waiting for the situation to become an emergency. [Paragraph 254]

1. Being flooded is a devastating experience. It creates misery. It destroys people’s homes, possessions, livelihoods and sense of security. It can cause injury and death.

2. Unfortunately, we live in an era when climate change means that flooding is likely to become more prevalent. Therefore it is vital that society is as well protected as possible. Preventing all flooding is impossible¹ but it is essential that, as a society, we become better at managing it. In this context, the words of Gilbert White, one of the leading American geographers of the 20th century, are particularly relevant—

3. At the start of the parliamentary session, the Committee consulted stakeholders on which issues they viewed as being of highest priority for the Committee’s attention. Flooding and flood management was identified by a number of stakeholders as a high priority³.

4. The Committee agreed to conduct an inquiry into flooding and flood management at its meeting on 5 September 2007 and agreed the remit and approach to the inquiry at its meeting on 19 September 2007.

5. The remit of the inquiry was to examine Scotland’s current and future vulnerability to flooding and consider how flooding should best be managed in the future. In particular, the Committee sought responses to the following questions—

6. A call for written evidence was made on 19 September 2007 and 65 responses were received. A list of those submitting written evidence who did not go on to oral evidence is provided in Annexe C (all written evidence is available via the Scottish Parliament’s website⁴).

7. In addition, Peter Peacock MSP received a large number of responses from individuals and organisations in the Highlands and Islands to a request from him for written input. These submissions have been treated as written evidence for the inquiry and are available via the same webpage as noted above.

8. On 27 November 2007, members of the Committee undertook factfinding visits to Perth and the River Devon catchment and also to East Kilbride and Glasgow. Reports of these visits are provided in Annexe E.

9. The Committee took oral evidence at six meetings in early 2008. Details are provided in the extracts from the minutes and Official Reports of those meetings in Annexes A and B along with links to relevant written submissions. The meeting on 19 February 2008 was held at Moray College, Elgin. All other meetings were held in the Scottish Parliament.

10. The Committee would like to thank all those who gave provided oral and written evidence to the inquiry and facilitated its various visits.

11. The Committee launched its inquiry in the knowledge that the Scottish Government intended to introduce legislation in this area⁵ and therefore views this inquiry as representing valuable pre-legislative work in advance of its anticipated scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s bill. The Scottish Government launched its consultation on its legislative proposals in February 2008. It was always intended that the Committee’s inquiry would not be confined to the issues requiring legislative change.

12. As the inquiry was taking place in parallel to the development of related legislation by the Scottish Government, the Committee adopted a slightly unusual approach of writing to the Scottish Government highlighting issues that had emerged following each oral evidence session. These letters and the responses from the Scottish Government are reproduced in Annexe D.

13. This approach was taken partly because of the limited time the Committee expected to be available between publication of this report and finalisation of the Scottish Government Bill – which was scheduled for late June. The Minister has now signalled to the Committee that, partly in order to allow proper consideration to be given to the report’s conclusions in finalising the Bill, introduction is likely to be delayed until September. The Committee welcomes the Minister’s willingness to adapt the legislative timetable in this way, particularly as any short-term gains from rushing a Bill to early introduction are liable to create a more difficult scrutiny process at later stages.

15. This report addresses the key issues that have emerged during the course of the Committee’s inquiry.

16. Following a brief section defining certain key terms (see paragraphs 20 to 23), this report begins with a contextual section that outlines existing climate data, the potential impacts of climate change on flooding (this addresses the first question within the remit of the inquiry) and the current nature and scale of flood risk in Scotland (see paragraphs 24 to 80).

17. The next section of the report goes on to discuss the existing legislative framework that underpins flood prevention and management in Scotland and then examines possible changes to that legislative framework and issues surrounding responsibility for flood management and its funding (this addresses the second and third questions posed within the remit of the inquiry) (see paragraphs 81 to 162).

18. The next section examines the potential for sustainable flood management and the role that may be played by land-use management, the planning system and building regulations in mitigating the effects of flooding (this addresses the fourth and fifth questions posed within the remit of the inquiry) (see paragraphs 163 to 220).

19. The final section of the report addresses the systems that are in place to provide advance warning of flooding and the responses that are made in the immediate and long-term aftermath of a flood (this addresses in the sixth and seventh questions in the remit of the inquiry) (see paragraphs 221 to 254).

20. The most commonly understood form of flooding is fluvial flooding which is caused by rivers overtopping their banks as the capacity of their channel is exceeded and inundating normally dry, neighbouring areas.

21. Coastal flooding occurs when sea level rises above the level of the coast. In the short-term this may be caused by tidal or meteorological conditions (or a combination of the two) and in the longer term by sea level rise (associated with the effects of climate change)⁶.

22. Pluvial flooding occurs when heavy precipitation⁷ exceeds the rate at which it can drain away. It may be a particularly acute problem in urban areas where the land surface tends to be less porous than in rural areas. Sewer flooding can be considered as a subset of pluvial flooding as it can occur when domestic sewage is mixed with surface water in older combined sewer systems.

23. A frequently used concept within flood management is that of the return period. A return period is an indication of the likelihood of a flood of a certain scale occurring. A small flood may have a 1 in 10 year return period (or a 10 per cent chance of occurring in any year) while a large flood may have a 1 in 100 year return period (or a 1 per cent chance of occurring in any year).

24. This first section of the report provides background on existing climatic and hydrological data in Scotland, examines the potential impact of climate change on the Scottish climate and the seas surrounding Scotland and discusses the nature and scale of flood risk in Scotland.

25. Existing meteorological and hydrometric data provides valuable context for understanding the changing nature of future flood risk in Scotland. Annual average Scottish temperature⁸ and precipitation⁹ data from the Meteorological Office display considerable variability since 1914 (see Figures 1 and 2 in Annexe F). However, there appears to have been a trend towards higher average temperatures and amounts of precipitation over that period (see trendlines in Figures 1 and 2 in Annexe F).

26. The second half of the datasets (since 1961) appear to show consistently higher annual average temperature and precipitation in Scotland. The Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum For Environmental Research (SNIFFER) suggests that average spring, summer and winter temperatures have increased by 1ºC since 1961 and that Scotland as a whole has become over 20 per cent wetter on an annual basis and northern and western Scotland has become almost 60 per cent wetter during winter¹⁰.

27. This change in precipitation is also revealed in river flow data reported by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) whose analysis of long term data from its hydrometric network shows a 30 per cent increases in mean river flows between 1972 and 2006 and even more significant increases in peak winter flood levels¹¹.

28. The data presented above may contain early manifestations of climate change and its effect on temperature and precipitation in Scotland. They certainly provide a baseline for future observations.

29. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that humans are having an effect on climate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) most recent assessment states that: “Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likelydue to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”¹².

30. The potential future impact of this on Scotland was outlined by Professor John Mitchell from the Meteorological Office who said—

31. With regard to precipitation, the IPCC’s most recent assessment suggests that: “Annual precipitation is very likely to increase in most of northern Europe” and that “extremes of daily precipitation are very likely to increase in northern Europe.” ¹⁴

32. The IPCC’s report cautions that there is still a large degree of uncertainty in model predictions of future changes in both mean and extreme precipitation and this uncertainty has also been noted in a Foresight Report on future flooding in Scotland¹⁵ that was referenced in a number of written submissions received by the Committee.

33. The Foresight report notes that predictions of future precipitation changes in the future vary greatly within Scotland and according to which future greenhouse gas emissions scenario is used. It appears that winters are likely to become wetter (especially in the west of Scotland) and summers are likely to become drier. However, in its written submission, the Meteorological Office told the Committee that—

34. The Committee notes that the next United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme, which will be published later in 2008, should provide more precise predictions for future precipitation.

35. Envirocentre and the Royal Society of Edinburgh¹⁷ quoted research that provided a simple illustration of how a 10% increase in precipitation could result in a halving of the flood return period at Pacific Quay on the River Clyde. The revised flood frequency analysis shows that 1 in 100 and 1 in 200 flood return periods are halved to 1 in 50 and 1 in 100 flood return periods, respectively, by the 2050s. As noted in the submission from the UNESCO Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science at the University of Dundee¹⁸, this will mean that the standards of protection afforded by existing flood defences will fall.

36. It is important not to focus solely on the effects of climate change on precipitation when considering future flooding and flood management. The direct and indirect effects of temperature are also important when considering future risk of flooding in a variety of respects.

37. Temperature and precipitation are fundamentally connected through the physical properties of the atmosphere, with rises in temperature increasing the ability of the atmosphere to hold water (six to seven per cent per degree Celsius of warming¹⁹).

38. Aberdeenshire Council, Aberdeen City Council and the Macaulay Institute²⁰ all drew attention to the impact of increased winter temperatures on the reduced duration of snow cover. Snow acts as a buffer, dampening response to heavy precipitation events. Therefore reduced snow cover (temporally and spatially) may result in more rapid hydrological response and more fluvial flooding.

39. Temperature changes will also have an impact on surface conditions, which in turn will affect hydrological behaviour. The Macaulay Institute noted the indirect effects of changes in temperature on evaporation rates, soil moisture and vegetation, which will all have an effect on the volume of water reaching watercourses²¹.

40. Human influences on global temperature are very likely to have contributed to the rise in global sea level that has taken place in the second half of the twentieth century (through thermal expansion of the global ocean and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets)²². The Royal Society of Edinburgh²³ noted the Foresight report into future flooding in Scotland which provided predictions of future sea level rise for the decade beginning 2080. Depending on location within Scotland and greenhouse gas emission scenario, sea level is predicted to rise by between 31 and 64 cm.

41. Critically for coastal flooding, the effect of sea level rise is likely to be exacerbated by potential changes in the frequency of storm surges (elevated sea-levels caused by major storms which can increase predicted tidal levels by 1-2 m). The frequency of such storm surges is likely to increase as a result of greater storm activity. SEPA highlighted the scale of such storm surges with reference to the an event it recorded at Corpach, at the head of Loch Linnhe, when there was a sudden increase of more than 1m above the previous record level when adverse weather conditions and south-west lows combined with wet weather²⁴.

42. Similarly, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar noted the tragic impact of a storm surge which struck North and South Uist, Benbecula and Barra in January 2005 and which resulted in the deaths of five members of one family²⁵.

43. Since 1998 floods in Europe have caused some 700 deaths, the displacement of about half a million people and cost at least 25 billion euros in insured economic losses²⁶. This experience was a key driver in the development and adoption of the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks Directive (see details below).

44. During the summer of 2007, central England experienced severe flooding across an extensive area following record-breaking rainfall during the May to July period. The Pitt review²⁷ that was established to learn lessons from the flooding and its aftermath suggested that the event represented a 1 in 150 year event.

45. It is important not to attribute individual events to climate change. Extreme weather events have always occurred and, on their own, do not demonstrate a discernable trend. A recent hydrological assessment by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology on the 2007 English floods stressed their exceptional nature and cautioned against linking them directly to climate change²⁸. The report also noted the lack of distinct trends in flood level maxima in either the river Avon or the river Thames over the past 150 years. However, reflecting the historical Scottish data discussed above, it did note that—

46. Ensuring that the quality and length of climatic and hydrological datasets is maintained is vitally important in order to ensure that the full spectrum of climatic variability is captured and long-term trends discerned. However, Professor Mitchell of the Meteorological Office cautioned against over-reliance on historical data as: “the past may not be a good guide to the future“.²⁹

47. As a result, it may be necessary to rely on predictive modelling – with all its associated uncertainties – to provide the context for making the long-term investment decisions that will be required to ensure effective flood management.

48. In Scotland, flooding has affected a number of areas over past two decades including Perth (1993), Strathclyde (1994), Elgin (1997 and 2002), Glasgow (2002), Hawick (2005) and Stirling (2004, 2005 and 2006). Written submissions received by the Committee drew attention to the longer history of flooding in Scotland (e.g. the Cairngorms National Park Authority³⁰ referred to Thomas Dick Lauder’s account of Moray floods in summer 1829 and Network Rail³¹ noted the August 1948 flood in the Scottish Borders which resulted in the failure of seven railway bridges on the east coast mainline).

49. SEPA has published indicative maps which illustrate the areas likely to be affected by 1 in 200 year fluvial and coastal flooding. Across the whole of Scotland, 73 313 properties (commercial and residential) are at risk of fluvial flooding out of a total of 2 533 068 properties (or 2.9 per cent) and 26 181 properties (1.0 per cent) are at risk of coastal flooding³². Once other sources of flood risk (not indicated on the SEPA maps) are taken into account, the total numbers of properties liable to flooding are likely to exceed these figures.

50. In addition to the 1 in 200 year maps published by SEPA, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 1000 year maps are also made available to local authorities for planning purposes.

51. It is important to stress that SEPA sees its flood risk maps as being indicative and serving to: “raise awareness of flood risk”³³ and need to be supported by detailed site-specific studies before local authorities reach conclusions.

52. In contrast to fluvial and coastal flooding, the number of properties in Scotland at risk of pluvial flooding is not known. 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.”³⁴

53. SEPA did not express surprise at this comment³⁵ as the major flooding risk that affects Glasgow is pluvial flooding which is not addressed by the indicative maps of fluvial and coastal flood risk.

54. While fluvial and coastal flood risks are well known and understood, it appears to the Committee that pluvial flooding has become the poor relation in flood management efforts and notes the City of Edinburgh Council’s comment that: “Scotland is probably less prepared for such events than the south where the risk has historically been greater”³⁶. This is particularly worrying given the predictions of future increases in rainfall intensity and, as will be discussed below, the ambiguities over institutional responsibility for the management of pluvial flooding.

55. During the course of the inquiry, the Committee asked witnesses about the need for pluvial flood risk assessment and its subsequent management. When asked about the timescale for pluvial flood risk mapping, Scottish Water said—

56. The Committee notes the statement by Ronnie Falconer, of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, that the modelling and mapping of pluvial flooding is: “a very difficult thing to do”³⁸ but believes that it is an important priority for Scotland especially given the predictions of future changes in the nature of precipitation under future climate change. In this context, the Committee warmly welcomes the Minister for Environment’s statement to the Committee that—

58. The Stern Review was commissioned by the UK Government in 2005 and examined the potential economic effects of climate change and concluded that current UK expenditure on flooding could increase from around 0.1% of gross domestic product to 0.2–0.4% with a 3-4ºC temperature increase⁴⁰.

59. The cost of the exceptional summer 2007 floods in England is estimated to be £3 billion. In supplementary evidence provided to the Committee, the Association of British Insurers estimated the cost (at 2007 prices) of the Perth floods in 1994, floods in Edinburgh in 2000 and the Moray floods in 2002 as £40 million, £36 million and £60 million respectively.

60. Professor Crichton set out his view of the potential economic impacts on Scotland, and the United Kingdom as a whole, of extreme coastal flooding caused by a storm surge affecting the upper Firth of Forth—

62. The implications for businesses in Elgin of flooding were illustrated by Andrew Grzesinski, Group Managing Director of Macrae and Dick (a car sales group) who said—

63. The length of time that it can take to gain approval for the construction of a flood prevention scheme (see discussion below) may generate uncertainty among businesses and also means that they are exposed to higher insurance premiums and/or reduced cover until a scheme is in place and, critically, is shown to be effective⁴³.

64. The Committee is struck by the fact that areas at risk of flooding may be economically disadvantaged if adequate flood defences are not in place or are not planned to be built and this may thwart other publicly funded efforts to stimulate economic development.

65. The potential impacts of flooding on transport infrastructure (and by extension, on the economy) were highlighted by West Lothian Council with regard to the road system and by Network Rail in relation to rail. According to West Lothian Council—

67. It expressed concern that, in the event of flooding, its ability to take urgent remedial action to protect lives and ensure minimal disruption to the rail infrastructure was constrained by “ever increasing controls on engineering works as they might affect watercourses”. It wanted to see a—

68. Homes for Scotland reminded the Committee that the Scottish Government has a commitment to increase the number of new homes being built from 25 000 per year to 35 000 per year and this will demand a ready supply of land⁴⁷. Given that building on greenfield areas at risk of flooding is clearly inadvisable (see below for a more detailed discussion with regard to planning), Homes for Scotland argued that there will need to be “not only increased efficiency but new ways of thinking with regard to land supply and blockages to development.”

The Committee notes this view but believes that developers also have a responsibility to ensure that flood risk is minimised in any new development.

71. As noted in the introduction to this report, being flooded can be devastating. Jennifer Main from Elgin told the Committee described the impact of flooding there in 1997 and 2002—

72. Detailed research into the individual and social effects of flooding was published by the then Scottish Executive in 2007⁴⁹ which found that intangible impacts (those relating to non-material and/or emotional losses such as the loss of sentimental or irreplaceable items, the stress caused by living in temporary accommodation and dealing with insurers and builders) were more significant than tangible impacts (those relating to material losses).

73. A large number of written submissions that the Committee received noted that the existing methods of assessing the value of a potential flood prevention scheme under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 (see below) allowed only a strict economic cost/benefit analysis to be conducted, with more intangible social and welfare effects of flooding neglected. The Committee believes that the value of flood management measures should not be assessed purely from an economic perspective.

75. Given the likelihood that flooding is going to become more commonplace, the Committee notes, with concern, the evidence that it received regarding the shortage of hydrological expertise that exists. In its written submission to the Committee, the Royal Society of Edinburgh cited a joint report by the Environment Agency, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Institution of Civil Engineers⁵⁰ which stated that—

77. SEPA supported this view, saying “We definitely face a challenge in getting good-quality hydrologists”⁵² and noted that this challenge was also faced by local authorities and consultancies. It went on to suggest that it could co-operate with universities to support bursaries for MSc students and that the Scottish Government should examine what support it could provide.

78. Given the apparent shortage of hydrological expertise at a national level, the Committee believes that it is imperative that all bodies involved in flood management (the Scottish Government, SEPA, Scottish Water and local authorities) work closely together to maximise the hydrological expertise that is available to them. This is especially important for some local authorities who may not have a large critical mass of hydrological expertise to draw on.

79. The Committee notes the Minister for Environment’s comments that: “a big market opportunity is being created”⁵³ for hydrologists but believes that the Scottish Government should explore possibilities for increasing the funding available to support training for hydrology and to promote it as a career option.

81. A large proportion of written responses received by the Committee stressed (either implicitly or explicitly) the need for updating of the existing legislation relating to flooding and flood management and, in particular, the need for clarification of responsibilities with regard to the management of the various different types of flooding. As noted above, the Committee hopes that the Scottish Government’s proposed legislation will address this.

82. This section begins with a description of the complex suite of existing legislation relating to flooding and flood management, before considering potential changes to organisational structures, including the possibility of establishing a national flooding authority and the need for an enhanced role to be played by Scottish Water in flood management. It then examines funding for flood management measures and the need to streamline the process that local authorities face in gaining approval for flood prevention schemes.

83. The main relevant piece of legislation is the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961. The 1961 Act enables local authorities to undertake measures to defend non-agricultural land from fluvial or coastal flooding. It also enables them to promote flood prevention schemes, subject to approval from Scottish Ministers. The 1961 Act was amended by the Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1997 which places a duty on local authorities to assess the state of watercourses and act if they consider that those watercourses generate a flood risk.

84. The Coast Protection Act 1949 provides local authorities with the powers to take any action that appears “to them to be necessary or expedient for the protection of any land in their area.”⁵⁴

85. The Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1958 enables Scottish Ministers to make an order allowing landowners to undertake works to improve the drainage of agricultural land.

86. Section 1(1) of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 (as amended by the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 and the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003) places a duty on Scottish Water “to provide such public sewers and public SUD [sustainable urban drainage] systems as may be necessary for effectually draining its area of domestic sewage, surface water and trade effluent”.

87. The Reservoirs Act 1975 places a duty on all local authorities to manage reservoirs in their areas and ensure that they are maintained. In England and Wales, this duty was transferred to the Environment Agency by section 74 of the Water Act 2003. The Scottish Government’s consultation on its proposed legislation suggests that responsibility for reservoir safety should be transferred from local authorities to SEPA.

88. The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 enables works to be carried out to protect all types of roads (motorways, trunk roads and other public roads) from flooding. It also enables road authorities (Transport Scotland, on behalf of Scottish Ministers for trunk roads and local authorities for other public roads) to carry out works to prevent pluvial flooding.

89. Section 25 of the Environment Act 1995 gives SEPA the role of assessing flood risk and providing that information to planning authorities. The 1995 Act⁵⁵, through amendments to the Agriculture Act 1970, establishes SEPA as the flood warning authority for Scotland.

90. The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 transposed the European Water Framework Directive. Section 2(4)(a)(i) of the 2003 Act confers a duty on Scottish Ministers, SEPA and responsible agencies⁵⁶ to promote sustainable flood management (although this is not defined in the Act). The 2003 Act also establishes a regime⁵⁷ for the regulation of “controlled activities”. Controlled activities are defined as any activities which require to be regulated “for the purposes of protection of the water environment.”⁵⁸ There are two tiers of relevant activities which are subject to different approval requirements. Firstly, there are lower impact controlled activities which are subject only to general binding rules (which are specified in the 2005 Regulations). Secondly, there are controlled activities which require approval from SEPA. As examples, minor maintenance of a watercourse would fall into the former category while a flood prevention scheme being sought under the 1961 Act would fall into the latter category.

91. The mechanisms for responding to emergencies, including major flooding events, are established by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. The underlying principle is that of “integrated emergency management” which focuses on the consequences of emergencies, not their causes⁵⁹. In addition, the emphasis is on a response by local services and, to this end, eight strategic coordinating groups (Central, Dumfries and Galloway, Fife, Grampian, Highlands and Islands, Lothian and Borders, Strathclyde and Tayside) have been established. The strategic coordinating groups are chaired by either the relevant chief constable or a local authority chief executive.

92. The Assessment and Management of Flood Risks Directive (2007/60/EC) came into force on 26 November 2007 but does not need to be implemented by member states until November 2009. The Scottish Government intends to transpose the directive via the legislation that it will introduce later in the year. The directive requires member states to assess and map flood risk and produce plans to manage flooding.

93. The net result of the existing legislative framework is a highly complex web of responsibilities for the different types of flooding and different aspects of flood management that involves the Scottish Government, local authorities, SEPA, Scottish Water and the emergency services.

94. The Committee recognises that a core objective of the Scottish Government’s proposed legislation on flood management is to ensure that there is better coordination between the various organisations responsible for flood management. In order to achieve that objective, there must be clarity about where responsibilities lie and where the boundaries of those responsibilities begin and end. Perhaps the area where clarification of responsibility is most needed is with regard to pluvial flooding. Scottish Water has responsibility for sewer flooding but it is wholly unclear to the Committee who is responsible for managing flooding caused by an inability of the drainage system to accept excessive amounts of precipitation.

95. Despite the complicated and, in places, ambiguous picture of the responsibilities for flood management in Scotland, the Committee was told by Professor David Crichton that Scotland “is managing flooding much better than England is.”⁶⁰ Similarly, the Association of British Insurers said that its “perception and experience […] is that, for good historical and institutional reasons, flood management in Scotland has been considerably in advance of that in England and Wales.”⁶¹

96. The Committee notes that the insurance industry is currently reviewing its Statement of Principles according to which it will provide insurance for properties at risk of flooding as long as adequate public funding is provided for flood defence measures. The Committee encourages the insurance industry to reflect in the cover it offers to Scottish householders its view that flood risk management is more advanced in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom.

97. Irrespective of the precise details of where responsibilities lie for the management of the different types of flood management, there was unanimous agreement that the catchment was the most appropriate unit for flood management. However, it was suggested by Dr Wendy Kenyon, from the Macaulay Institute, that “generally, flood management is not taking place at a catchment level” and attributed this to “institutional arrangements and the fact that the legislation does not allow catchment-based planning.”⁶²

98. David Martin, from the Scottish Hydrological Group, cited the White Cart Water scheme⁶³ as an example of a catchment-based approach to flood management that spanned local authority boundaries⁶⁴. Under the scheme, flood storage areas in the upper part of the catchment (in the East Renfrewshire Council and South Lanarkshire Council areas) are being formed in order to attenuate the movement of water downstream and reduce flooding in the lower part of the catchment (in the Glasgow City Council area). The City of Edinburgh Council also cited the work that it was successfully conducting with West Lothian Council noting that—

99. Such partnership working across local authority boundaries is to be commended but the Committee believes that the existing legislation, coupled with the lack of congruence between local authority boundaries, and catchment boundaries makes it difficult for local authorities to adopt a catchment-based flood management. The Committee endorses a catchment-based approach to flood risk management and notes that the introduction of the new legislation by the Scottish Government provides an opportunity to promote a shift to a more catchment-based approach – a perspective which should enable a more integrated, holistic approach to flood management.

102. The advantages and disadvantages of having a national authority responsible for flood management were described by Aberdeenshire Council as follows—

103. In the 65 written submissions received by the Committee, there were a variety of views expressed on this subject. 14 explicitly mentioned SEPA as a potential national authority (including SEPA itself), ten argued generically for a need for greater coordination and consistency at a national level, five called for a national flood authority (but not SEPA) and 14 argued for a continuation of the current system with local authorities delivering flood management at a local level under a strategic framework provided by the Scottish Government (10 of these were individual local authorities and two were representative bodies of local authorities). 22 made no specific comment.

104. The Committee asked the panel of local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities who gave evidence to it on 19 February 2008 whether there should be a single strategic flooding authority and whether it should be SEPA⁶⁷. The answers were—

106. Similar points were made by Professor Crichton who suggested to the Committee that SEPA has “an unenviable conflict of interest” between its responsibilities under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 to protect the water environment and its potential responsibilities for flood management that could require it to insist on modifications to watercourses. Professor Crichton suggested that the appointment of an independent flood commissioner could resolve this conflict of interest and still provide a unified, strategic perspective⁶⁹.

108. Notwithstanding the variety of views expressed on this subject, the Committee does not see any merit in the creation of an additional layer of governance in the form of a separate Scottish flood authority or floods commissioner and sees it as imperative that there is one body charged with drawing together flood management plans. It therefore agrees that Scotland should have a single competent authority and that it should be SEPA.

109. SEPA is a non-departmental public body and in that capacity is accountable to Scottish Ministers and ultimately to the Scottish Parliament. In addition to its role as Scotland’s flood warning authority noted above, SEPA acts as Scotland’s independent environmental regulator, monitors and reports on the state of the Scottish environment and acts as an adviser on matters relating to environmental protection. This role as an adviser will have to be expanded to include the provision of strategic advice on flood management. Of relevance to the recommendation that it acts as Scotland’s flood authority is the fact that it already leads the river basin management planning process under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003.

110. The Committee believe that there are challenges that the Scottish Government will need to consider in drafting legislation to make SEPA the competent authority for flood risk management. Firstly, mechanisms will be needed to enable SEPA to act in this new capacity on a robustly independent basis, while leaving it ultimately accountable to Scottish Ministers for its decisions. Secondly, SEPA may need to be given clear guidance (set out in statute or otherwise made publicly available) to enable it to resolve conflicts that may arise between this new role and its existing responsibilities. Finally, there should be an independent mechanism for some form of review or audit of decisions and recommendations made by SEPA regarding flood risk management.

111. For the sake of clarity, the Committee does not believe that SEPA should take on all responsibilities for flood defences as these remain best delivered at a local level by local authorities, unlike in England and Wales where the Environment Agency has responsibility for flood defences. The Committee therefore agrees with the Minister for Environment when he said—

112. One member of the Committee⁷² did not believe that enough evidence was taken by the Committee to test whether SEPA was sufficiently independent of government.

114. This role will oblige SEPA to require the development of catchment flood management plans and to coordinate the actions of all the other agencies involved in flood management because, as noted in the written submission from the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland—

115. Such a multi-agency approach was highlighted to members of the Committee when they visited Glasgow to learn about the Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Plan (see report of visit in Annexe E). This plan involves Glasgow City Council working in partnership with a number of other organizations including Scottish Enterprise, SEPA and Scottish Water. There is currently no statutory basis for such partnership working.

116. Although the Committee commends the efforts of the various partners in drawing together the Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Plan, SEPA argued that the “loose, informal approach” that has been made to work in Glasgow could work elsewhere but that “more of a statutory framework” could be needed elsewhere⁷⁴ because—

117. The Committee believes that the key organisations that contribute to flood management must be identified in statute (with Ministers given a delegated power to vary the list over time); all of these organisations should then be given a duty to collaborate in order to deliver catchment flood management plans.

118. There may be circumstances where this new duty will come into conflict with the existing statutory duties of the organisations concerned (e.g. to promote habitat conservation). Some mechanism for resolving such conflicts will be needed – which, ultimately, may need to involve a decision by Scottish Ministers. The Committee recognises that there may be difficulties involved in creating such a mechanism, given that some of the duties involved may reflect requirements imposed by European Union legislation.

120. Under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, there are eight sub-basins (Argyll, Clyde, Forth, North East Scotland, North Highland, Orkney and Shetland, Tay and West Highland) each of which has an area advisory group which is responsible for the production of a sub-basin management plan (each sub-basin may comprise several catchments). These plans collectively contribute to the Scottish river basin management plan⁷⁶. Above the area advisory groups is a national advisory group and below each area advisory group is an area advisory group forum which provides a focus for all interested stakeholders to contribute to river basin management planning.

121. The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Scottish Government’s new flooding legislation will have to dovetail together as, put simply, they relate to the management of the quality of water and quantity of water respectively in a particular catchment. It is therefore tempting to suggest that the same geographical structures should be utilised for catchment flood management planning.

122. However, SEPA cautioned that in future the groups responsible for flood management need to be—

123. Furthermore, Dr Wendy Kenyon of the Macaulay Institute suggested that the area advisory groups were—

124. Finally, Mike Donaghy of WWF Scotland suggested that the river basin management planning process has been—

125. Despite these concerns, the Committee is clear that the same geographical structures (eight sub-basins comprising a number of catchments) that have been established under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 should be adopted as a basis for future flood management. Within each sub-basin, there may need to be several separate individual catchment flood management plans..

126. The Committee does not wish to see an unnecessary proliferation of many different bodies and, more importantly, believes that integrated catchment management is more likely to be achieved by using the same advisory and decision-making bodies for flood management as already exist under the 2003 Act. However, if this approach is to be taken then the area advisory groups must be adequately resourced so that they are able to deliver any additional responsibilities on top of their existing remit. In addition, their membership could benefit from review in the light of SEPA’s call for tighter, more focused groups.

127. This call for tighter arrangements in terms of membership needs to balanced against the importance of ensuring effective stakeholder participation. Professor David Crichton highlighted the work of the existing Flood Liaison Advisory Groups which provide a forum for—

128. This type of structure seems to be a valuable mechanism for stakeholders to contribute to flood management at a catchment level. The same benefits could, it appears, be delivered through the area advisory group forum. This would remove the need for separate Flood Liaison Advisory Groups but retain the opportunity for stakeholder engagement in the development and implementation of catchment flood management plans.

129. A number of written submissions (e.g. Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, Scottish Environment LINK) suggested that a national, strategic advisory group should be established to “review and direct implementation of national flooding policy.”⁸¹

130. The Committee does not believe that such a group should “direct” implementation of national flooding policy but should have a monitoring and advisory role. Such a group should promote a consistency of approach across Scotland and act as a forum where prioritisation of national efforts on flood management can be discussed. Because this group has an advisory role in relation to Ministers, they should not be directly involved in it.

131. Scottish Water currently has to meet financial and environmental objectives set by Scottish Ministers for the period 2006 to 2014. There are three regulators who ensure that Scottish Water’s operations and investment programme are focused on meeting those objectives: the Water Industry Commission, SEPA and the Drinking Water Quality Regulator.

132. Scottish Water’s only existing flooding related objective is to reduce the number of properties at risk of internal flooding (at a return period of 1 in 10 years). Scottish Water holds a register of all 1 603 properties that are at risk of such flooding. It intends to reduce the number of these properties by 456 during its current regulatory period (2006-2010) and its annual report for 2006-07 states that—

133. The Committee is surprised at Scottish Water’s apparent lack of engagement with flooding issues beyond the particular circumstances of sewer flooding, but recognises that this may be a product of the priorities set for it by Scottish Ministers.

134. However, the Committee notes and agrees with the Minister for Environment’s comment, when asked about Scottish Water’s role needing to adapt to incorporate pluvial flood management, that—

135. Therefore, in looking ahead to the next set of objectives that Scottish Ministers will set for Scottish Water, the Committee believes that the Scottish Government should ensure that there is a much greater emphasis on pluvial flood management. Clearly, this will have to be done in such a way that Scottish Water’s ability to continue making progress in other areas is not jeopardised.

137. The introduction of new legislation on flooding and flood management provides an opportunity to replace the fragmented approach that has evolved over the last fifty years with an integrated, national approach that is based on the characteristics of catchments. The Committee believes that this shift in geographical perspective needs to be mirrored by a shift in the temporal perspective at which flood management is considered at a national level. The Association of British Insurers has argued that a 25 year flood management strategy is necessary to plan an investment programme to mitigate flooding in the context of future climate change.

138. Clearly, such a timescale is challenging in the context of the existing three-year spending review cycle but the Committee recognises the value of a having a “road-map” that successive administrations could use to guide investment decisions on shorter timescales. This is particularly important as it appears that a commitment to long-term public investment in flood management could be a necessary requirement for the continuing provision of insurance at the same level as it has been provided in the past. The need for such a strategic perspective, that is durable beyond the lifespan of an individual administration, is also highlighted later in this report in the context of the role of land-use management in contributing to sustainable flood management.

140. Prior to the publication of the Scottish Government’s Scottish Budget Spending Review 2007⁸⁴, a concordat⁸⁵ was negotiated between the Scottish Government and local government which aimed to set out “the terms of a new relationship between the Scottish Government and local government”. The concordat indicated that the Scottish Government would step back “from micro-managing service delivery” by local authorities while retaining control of outcomes and policy direction.

141. One element of the concordat was a reduction in the amount of ring-fenced funding that was provided to local authorities. The concordat states that the overall level of ring-fencing will reduce from £2.7bn in 2007-08 to £0.5bn in 2008-09 and then to £0.3bn in 2010-11 (excluding the police grant) with previously ring-fenced funding being incorporated into the general allocation made to local authorities. The concordat identifies 43 previously ring-fenced grants which have been removed and placed into the local government settlement. One of these is the flood prevention and coast protection grant to enable them to deliver in accordance with single outcome agreements.

142. The Committee examined this shift in approach to the funding of flood management during the course of its scrutiny of the Scottish Budget Spending Review 2007⁸⁶. Paragraph 40 of its report noted that—

143. On the basis of what it has learned during both inquiries, the Committee has reached three main conclusions in relation to funding.

144. The first is that, in the context of climate change, it seems likely that real-terms expenditure on flood management will have to rise continuously for years to come.

145. The second is based on the presumption that, in future, funding provided to local authorities (or other organisations) will have to be used to contribute to the delivery of catchment flood management plans. Therefore, although local authorities will remain the vehicle for the delivery of flood management at a local level, the purpose of the funding that is provided to them will shift towards delivery of the catchment flood management plan rather than specific flood prevention schemes in their areas. In that context, the Committee believes that there will be a need for three distinct levels of funding:

146. Thirdly, the Committee considers it vital that there is transparency about how funding for flood management is allocated by the Scottish Government at all levels.

147. 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 addition, the allocation provided to individual local authorities for flood management may vary considerably between spending review periods and between local authorities according to where current national, strategic priorities lie.

148. Information provided by the Scottish Government during the course of the Committee’s scrutiny of its proposed budget for the spending review period 2008-09 to 2010-11 demonstrates that there is a large number of flood management projects on 20 different local authorities’ “wish-lists” (see Annexe H).

149. Given the large number of flood prevention schemes that local authorities wish to pursue and the likely need for a greater number of flood management measures as climate change manifests itself, the Committee believes that the Scottish Government should set out how it believes funding for flood management should be prioritised in the future. This statement should take account of the Committee’s recommendation made above regarding the need to incorporate social and human factors into the cost-benefit analysis that is conducted when considering flood prevention schemes.

152. Flood prevention schemes are subject to three separate approval processes – one under the 1961 Act, one under the planning process and one under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations.

153. The 1961 Act requires that any proposed flood prevention scheme is advertised and specific notification provided to anyone who has an interest in the land that is going to be affected by the scheme together with any other local authority or public body whose operations may be affected by the scheme. There is a three month period when objections can be lodged to any element of the proposed scheme. Any unresolved objection from someone who has been notified or who will otherwise be affected by the scheme will trigger a public local inquiry⁸⁷. After this, the decision to approve, or not, a flood prevention scheme rests with Scottish Ministers.

154. In relation to planning, the local authority (as the promoter of the scheme) makes an application to the planning authority (which is the local authority in another guise). The planning authority makes the final decision about whether the scheme should be approved, following consultation with statutory consultees and anyone else with an interest. Scottish Ministers have the opportunity to “call in” an application.

155. The final obstacle is gaining approval from SEPA under Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations as discussed above. Once an application has been received and where it considers that the activity may have a significant adverse impact on the water environment, SEPA must consult stakeholders on the application.

156. In summary, there are three separate approval processes, each with a distinct lead decision-making body (the Scottish Government, local authorities and SEPA) and each providing separate opportunities for consultation and objections to a flood prevention scheme to be raised.

157. The net effect of this was clearly articulated by Argyll and Bute Council—

158. Written submissions from a number of local authorities and other organisations stressed the need to streamline this system of triple approval. The Committee agrees that the system needs to be simplified to ensure that where an area has been identified as being at risk of flooding, action will be taken in reasonable time. The Committee notes that the Scottish Government’s consultation document on its proposals for legislative change⁸⁹ makes two suggestions for alternative systems. The first emphasises the role of Scottish Ministers by treating Ministerial approval of a flood prevention scheme as including deemed planning permission. The second suggestion removes Scottish Ministers from the approval process and places the responsibility wholly on local authorities.

159. There may well be small-scale flood management measures that only involve comparatively small amounts of funding and relate to an individual local authority and therefore it may be possible for responsibility for approval to reside with an individual local authority for such measures.

161. The Committee notes that Scottish Ministers may need independent, expert advice in making decisions on the merits of flood prevention schemes and notes that the national advisory group structure suggested above may offer a mechanism for such advice to be provided.

¹ Hence the Committee’s focus on flood management as opposed to flood prevention during the course of this inquiry.

² White, G.F. (1945) Human Adjustment to Floods. Department of Geography Research Paper no. 29. Chicago: The University of Chicago.

³ Rural Affairs and Environment paper RAE/S3/07/3/8 (discussed at meeting of 5 September 2007).

⁴ http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/rae/inquiries/flooding/WrittenEvidence.htm

⁵ Scottish Parliament. Official Report, 5 September 2007, Col 1370.

⁶ In its written submission, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management noted that coastal flooding could also be caused by catastrophic events such as the submarine Storegga landslides that occurred 8000 years ago on the Norwegian shelf and caused a tsunami which struck the east coast of Scotland.

⁷ Precipitation is used throughout this report to include snowfall as well as rainfall.

⁸ http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/seriesstatistics/scottemp.txt [Accessed 12 March 2008]

⁹ http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/seriesstatistics/scotrain.txt [Accessed 12 March 2008]

¹⁰ Barnett, C., J. Hossell, M. Perry, C. Procter and G. Hughes (2006) Patterns of climate change across Scotland: Technical Report. SNIFFER Project CC03, Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research.

¹¹ SEPA. Written submission to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

¹² IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. The IPCC defines “Very likely” as being over 90 per cent certain.

¹³ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 9 January 2008, Col 373.

¹⁴ Christensen, J.H., B. Hewitson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, X. Gao, I. Held, R. Jones, R.K. Kolli, W.-T. Kwon, R. Laprise, V. Magaña Rueda, L. Mearns, C.G. Menéndez, J. Räisänen, A. Rinke, A. Sarr and P. Whetton, 2007: Regional Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

¹⁵ Werrity, A. and Chatterton, J. 2004. Foresight Future Flooding Scotland.

¹⁶ Meteorological Office. Written submission to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

¹⁷ Envirocentre and Royal Society of Edinburgh. Written submissions to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

¹⁸ UNESCO Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science, University of Dundee. Written submissions to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

¹⁹ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 9 January 2008, Col 374.

²⁰ Aberdeenshire Council, Aberdeen City Council, Macaulay Institute. Written submissions to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

²¹ Macaulay Institute. Written submission to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

²² IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

²³ Royal Society of Edinburgh. Written submission to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

²⁴ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 5 March 2008, Col 544.

²⁵ Comhairle nan Eilean Siar. Written submission to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

²⁶ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/ [Accessed on 25 March 2008]

²⁷ Learning lessons from the 2007 floods. An independent review by Sir Michael Pitt.

²⁸ Marsh, T. J. and Hannaford, J. (2007) The summer 2007 floods in England and Wales – a hydrological appraisal. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology.

²⁹ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 9 January 2008, Col 378.

³⁰ Cairngorms National Park Authority. Written submission to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

³¹ Network Rail. Written submission to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

³² Scottish Government response to parliamentary question S3W-7606. See Tables 1 and 2 in Annexe G for a breakdown by local authority.

³³ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 5 March 2008. Col 542.

³⁴ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 19 February 2008. Col 503.

³⁵ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 5 March 2008, Col 541.

³⁶ City of Edinburgh Council. Written submission to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

³⁷ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 23 January 2008, Cols 438-9.

³⁸ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 6 February 2008, Col 477.

³⁹ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 19 March 2008, Col 604.

⁴⁰ Stern, N. (2007) The Economics of Climate Change, chapter 5. Available at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm [Accessed 9 April 2008]

⁴¹ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 23 January 2008, Col 408.

⁴² Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 19 February 2008, Col 522.

⁴³ Scottish Council for Development and Industry. Written submission to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

⁴⁴ West Lothian Council. Written submission to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

⁴⁵ Network Rail. Written submission to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

⁴⁶ Network Rail. Written submission to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

⁴⁷ Homes for Scotland. Written submission to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

⁴⁸ Jennifer Main. Written submission to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

⁴⁹ Werrity, A., Houston, D., Ball, T., Tavendale, A. and Black, A. 2007. Exploring the social impacts of flood risk and flooding in Scotland. Scottish Executive Social Research.

⁵⁰ Action on Engineering Skills Shortage in Flood Risk Management, (2005). Available at www.ice.org.uk/downloads//FLOOD_RISK.pdf [Accessed 7 April 2008]

⁵¹ Royal Society of Edinburgh. Written submission to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

⁵² Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 5 March 2008, Col 560.

⁵³ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 19 March 2008, Col 619.

⁵⁴ Section 4(1)

⁵⁵ Schedule 22, paragraph 14(2)(d)

⁵⁶ All local authorities, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Water, District Salmon Fishery Boards, British Waterways, National Park Authorities, Forestry Commission Scotland and the Fisheries Committee were designated as responsible authorities by the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (Designation of Responsible Authorities and Functions) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/126).

⁵⁷ Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/348)

⁵⁸ Section 20(1)

⁵⁹ Preparing Scotland: Scottish Guidance on Preparing for Emergencies. Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/06/12094636/0 [Accessed 25 March 2008]

⁶⁰ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 23 January 2008, Col 406.

⁶¹ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 19 March 2008, Col 589.

⁶² Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 6 February 2008, Col 444.

⁶³ http://www.whitecartwaterproject.org [Accessed 2 April 2008]

⁶⁴ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 6 February 2008, Col 445.

⁶⁵ Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Official Report, 19 February 2008, Col 489.