Storms and Flooding (Help for Communities)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to help communities affected by storms and flooding. (S4T-01209)
Storm Desmond over the weekend impacted on a number of areas—in particular, Dumfries and Galloway, the Borders and Tayside. I chaired meetings of the Scottish Government’s resilience committee during the course of that event to ensure that all appropriate support was in place to mitigate potential damage. I am sure that Parliament will echo my thanks to public servants and volunteers who worked tirelessly to protect the communities that were at risk. The Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform visited Hawick this morning to see some of the impacts and to meet some of those who are involved in the response. I have activated the Bellwin scheme to provide support to local authorities to assist with the immediate and the unforeseen costs of dealing with the flood damage.
We have seen the devastating consequences of the flooding in the south of Scotland and for our neighbours in Cumbria, in the north-west of England. I note that some of the areas in Cumbria that were most devastated had expensive flood defences in place. What lessons might we learn here from the failure of those defences, given that we are planning our flood defences for the future?
Obviously, the circumstances in the north-west of England were dramatically more difficult for the communities involved there than was the case throughout Scotland—although we had in Hawick, Newcastleton, Dumfries and Langholm some very significant flooding impacts. Very careful planning has to be undertaken in relation to flood alleviation schemes. It is essential that a very comprehensive assessment is made of the dynamics of water flows in particular areas, and the impact of the natural environment and the built landscape in that process. A particular challenge in the north-west of England was, of course, the fact that the rainfall that occurred was significantly greater than had been anticipated in planning the flood prevention schemes. It is important in the planning of flood prevention schemes that we look very carefully at a wide variety of factors to ensure that when we make the major capital investment that all such schemes represent, we properly take into account all relevant factors to ensure the capability and the capacity of the flood prevention measures.
I start by thanking the major emergency team in Dumfries and Galloway for their very prompt action in getting flood prevention materials to communities, including the Whitesands and Friars Vennel communities.
A £2.1 million flood prevention scheme for Langholm is being developed by Dumfries and Galloway Council, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water. Given the situation in Langholm last weekend—which was not as bad as we had feared it was going to be—will the cabinet secretary please encourage his colleagues and organisations that are responsible to the Scottish Government to work with the council to bring forward the Langholm scheme as soon as possible?
First, I echo the point that Dr Murray made. In each of the three principal local authorities that faced particular challenges over the weekend, preparations were well executed in advance to ensure that the authorities were as prepared as they could be. Without that preparation, the implications would have been significantly worse. The preparations that were undertaken in a number of areas meant that some serious impacts were avoided.
In relation to Dr Murray’s substantive question, SEPA is looking at flood-risk strategies over a six-year flood-risk plan cycle. Those are long-term works that take time to deliver, and there will, of course, be decisions to be made about the schemes that will be included in that process. A number of schemes have already been advanced by the Scottish Government—in Selkirk, Galashiels, Brechin, the River Ness, Almondbank, the Water of Leith, Elgin and Forres—over the course of the past few years, and further decisions will be taken in that respect. I will ensure that the points that Dr Murray raised are properly taken into account in that process.
I, too, pay tribute to the emergency services and volunteers in the Borders who worked very hard to mitigate flood damage in that area.
My question relates to the flooding in Hawick. The cabinet secretary will be aware that a flood prevention scheme for the town has been in the pipeline since 2010. Will the Scottish Government now do everything that it can to accelerate the planning and creation of that scheme for Hawick? Specifically, can the Government commit today to providing the full funding allocation to Borders Council so that there are no unnecessary delays in implementing the scheme?
First of all, I welcome Mr Lamont’s comments about the emergency services. The Scottish Borders Council experienced the greatest degree of difficulty, with which it had to wrestle principally over two sites in Newcastleton and Hawick, although other areas were affected.
On the determination and prioritisation of flood prevention schemes, discussions are jointly taken forward between the Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I know that the Hawick scheme is well advanced, and that decisions will be taken about the schemes that are being taken forward as part of the multi-year financial settlements that have been put in place as a consequence of decisions made jointly with COSLA.
The minister mentioned that the Bellwin scheme is coming into play, which I welcome. I, too, acknowledge the efforts of all the emergency services and volunteers. We should also acknowledge that Cumbria received nearly 14 inches of rain.
I reiterate John Lamont’s plea for Hawick’s flood scheme to be progressed. I would also be interested in Mr Swinney’s view on the Selkirk scheme, which may have been damaged. Would the Government be happy to provide support for any damage that may have been done to it? As Mr Swinney knows, the scheme has not quite been completed.
I saw photographic images of the challenges that were experienced in Selkirk. Of course, as part of the analysis, I would be very surprised if we do not find that even the partial completion of the Selkirk scheme was of benefit, and that householders and businesses were protected as a consequence of the work that has been undertaken.
I reiterate my comments made in reply to Mr Lamont’s question: there will be a process of decision making about which schemes will be taken forward as part of the flood prevention investment by the Government and COSLA. That is a very active area of co-operation between the Government and our local authority partners. I will ensure that those issues are properly considered as part of that decision making.
Is the cabinet secretary aware that, in Aberfeldy, Callander and three parts of the city of Stirling, which are all in my constituency, businesses and homes were inundated? Will he help to facilitate a discussion between SEPA and me to talk about how accurate its floodline information is, because the material that came through did not reflect the actuality on the ground?
That is a significant issue. Obviously, we have invested heavily in the flood forecasting service and the floodline information. We point members of the public very directly to that information. It was obviously information that I was studying—to be frank, minute by minute—during the course of Friday and Saturday, and on Sunday morning. The importance of its accuracy must be assured, so I will certainly raise the issue with SEPA to ensure that members of the public are able to access quality information that will allow them to determine the best precautions for them to take.
Glasgow Bin Lorry Crash (Fatal Accident Inquiry)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the findings of the fatal accident inquiry into the Glasgow bin lorry crash. (S4T-01205)
Sheriff Beckett issued his detailed judgment yesterday, which included a series of recommendations that impact on the medical profession, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, local authorities and the Secretary of State for Transport.
The regulations on driver licensing and assessment are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. The fatal accident inquiry findings raise significant issues for consideration, which we trust will be reflected on and given the necessary due attention to ensure that road safety measures are as robust and effective as possible across Scotland and the UK.
The Solicitor General for Scotland wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport following the conclusion of the evidence in the FAI to set out the defects in the system and draw his attention to this and other FAIs that have covered the same issues. Yesterday, she wrote again to the secretary of state, enclosing a copy of the judgment and offering her assistance and that of the Scottish Government in implementing the relevant recommendations.
Letters are in process to the medical profession and local authorities to draw their attention to Sheriff Beckett’s recommendations. I trust that those bodies will take forward and implement the detailed and sensible recommendations that have been made, with a view to preventing such a tragedy from happening again.
I take this opportunity to offer my heartfelt sympathies to all the families involved for their losses. This is a difficult time of year, leading to the anniversary of the tragedy. They are in all our thoughts and prayers.
My thoughts are with the families, too. It must have been extremely difficult for friends and relatives of those who died last December to sit through the inquiry.
Although we now have some answers about how the tragedy unfolded, significant questions remain. Opportunities to prevent the crash were missed. The sheriff concluded that Harry Clarke
“repeatedly lied in order to gain and retain jobs and licences.”
It took just six short weeks for the police to conclude their investigation, and it took the Crown only a further four weeks to conclude that there would be no prosecution of the driver. I have a letter from the Lord Advocate that states that the driver was never formally interviewed by the police and never considered to be a suspect. In the light of that and the evidence that came to light during the FAI, is the Lord Advocate absolutely certain that the investigation into criminal proceedings was as exhaustive and rigorous as it should have been?
No evidence emerged in the FAI that the Crown was unaware of, and nothing emerged in Sheriff Beckett’s judgment that the Crown was unaware of. In my view, nothing in Sheriff Beckett’s judgment undermines the decision not to prosecute the driver of the bin lorry.
As Alison McInnes will be aware, the Crown published detailed written reasons at the conclusion of the evidence in the FAI, which set out the legal and evidential basis for the decision not to prosecute. The Crown well appreciates that the decision is not popular, but the Crown cannot take decisions on the basis that they are popular but wrong in law. That would be unconstitutional and an abuse of process that would—rightly—result in severe criticism by the court and a loss of confidence in the Crown.
I remark that the Crown acts in the public interest in cases such as this one. The sheriff recommended that the Crown should review whether its policies prevent or discourage prosecutions under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Will the Lord Advocate confirm that the Crown will review that, what the timescale for the review will be and whether he will ensure that its findings are made public, so that the public can better understand the decision not to prosecute in this case?
Sheriff Beckett’s recommendation referred to sections 94 and 174 of the 1988 act, which both relate to making false statements and withholding material information from the DVLA and insurance companies. In his determination, he noted that in making those recommendations he was not referring to any prosecution decisions relating to Mr Clarke. The recommendations related to the FAI evidence of Dr Parry of the DVLA that since 2005 there have been no cases of and no prosecutions for offences that relate to those sections. Sheriff Beckett was right to draw attention to that.
In answer to Alison McInnes’s question, I say that the Crown will reflect on Sheriff Beckett’s recommendation. The Crown has been in touch with its counterpart south of the border, the Crown Prosecution Service, to discuss the recommendation. We will take forward the recommendation with the CPS and the DVLA to ensure that prosecution policy for and reporting and investigation of such offences are fit for purpose and that there is no barrier to the investigation, reporting and prosecution of them.
I feel great sorrow for the affected families, as I am sure all of us do. Given that the families have said that they intend to seek a private prosecution, what can the Crown and the Scottish Government do to facilitate that process?
Jackie Baillie will understand that I cannot comment on that. I have not seen a bill of criminal letters, and her question relates to a private prosecution of Mr Clarke. It is not for me to comment on that. If and when such a bill is lodged, the Crown will carefully consider it and consider its position on it, and the Crown will make its position clear to the court and to the families.
I am well aware of the sensitivities of the situation, the tragic loss that all the families have suffered and their feelings on our decision. I reiterate that the decision not to prosecute was not taken in a vacuum, not taken without possession of all the necessary information and not taken without assessing what the sufficiency of evidence and corroboration was. The decision was looked at by a number of senior lawyers at the Crown Office—senior Crown counsel—and was endorsed by a law officer.
We will consider whether any bill of criminal letters establishes a sufficiency of evidence. Once we have had an opportunity to do that, we will make our position clear to the families and to the court.
Previous
Business MotionsNext
Forth Road Bridge