The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on flooding. The Deputy First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement; there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.
14:20
Since the start of December, Scotland has faced a series of storms, one following quickly on the heels of another. These have brought tremendous disruption, particularly through flooding events affecting many communities across much of Scotland.
“Exceptional” is a term that can be overused, but in the context of the past six weeks it is indeed appropriate. December 2015 and January 2016 saw many records broken. Rainfall was the greatest in the past 100 years of available records; water levels in Newton Stewart were the highest in 53 years; in Inverurie, water levels were the highest in 45 years; and the Dee at Ballater was at its highest level in 87 years. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency recorded over 50 new record river levels across Scotland and, in many cases, previous records were exceeded by substantial margins.
The scale of the events was exceptional but so, I believe, was the response to protect our communities. The collective efforts of our responders, working very closely together, were first class. The timing of storm Frank could not have been worse, with communities and responders planning for the new year. That is usually a period of festivity and hope but, for communities such as Ballater, which I visited on hogmanay, and Newton Stewart, which was visited by the First Minister and the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, it was far from festive and hopeful. However, although those communities saw a terrible start to the year, they continued to demonstrate a strong community spirit.
The Scottish Government resilience room—SGoRR—was actively engaged with the situation throughout, with frequent ministerial resilience meetings to ensure that all that the Scottish Government and its agencies could do was being done. We heard first-hand reports from the national police and fire services, which demonstrated the benefits of the new structures. Those benefits included getting specialist support such as water rescue craft quickly from one part of the country to another and the provision of relief to local teams who had been at the heart of the initial responses.
That first-class response was greatly aided by planning and preparation that were supported by forecasts from the Meteorological Office and SEPA, which allowed preparations to be undertaken and resources to be stood up in advance of their immediate requirement. Their forward look also allowed good planning to respond to needs, ensuring that individuals and teams were not strained too heavily.
Local authorities were at the heart of the efforts to respond, putting in place immediate defences and, where required, setting up rest centres. There was a concerted effort involving a range of functions in response to the flooding, including social care as well as emergency response. Their efforts were based on a substantial foundation of preparation, response and recovery, and I recognise their achievements in what were challenging circumstances.
While the efforts of local authority staff and emergency responders were critical and deserve recognition, I should also highlight the role played by third sector organisations and communities. None of us will have failed to be impressed by the spirit that was shown in many of the communities, particularly by firefighters, who put to one side their concerns about the flood risk to their own households to support their communities. Communities have joined together to deal with both the response and, now, the recovery, and I pay tribute to all those who are involved in that process.
We will review recent events with the aim of learning lessons to help with future emergency responses. That is regular practice following a SGoRR activation, with officials and responders reviewing the circumstances of the event to identify lessons to be learned, which will be acted on to provide a continuous improvement regime. Ultimately, the learning that is identified is captured and utilised to review and improve the delivery of response and recovery actions by statutory organisations, voluntary agencies and central Government in order to provide the best possible service to our communities, such as was seen in the tremendous joint efforts to tackle issues arising from this winter’s storms.
The Government has also been quick to respond to the move from response to recovery. On each occasion, we have been quick to activate the Bellwin scheme. It was triggered on 7 December 2015 as a result of storm Desmond and on 30 December 2015 as a result of storm Frank, and it remains active in the aftermath of the latest severe flooding. The Scottish Flood Forum, which is financially supported by the Scottish Government, has been swift to offer local support and advice.
On 16 December, I announced as part of the budget statement the allocation of £4 million of Barnett consequentials to support those who were affected by storm Desmond. Last Thursday evening and Friday morning, we saw some very significant impacts in the north-east of Scotland. On Saturday, as the communities there dealt with the immediate clear-up, the First Minister announced a further round of support totalling £12 million.
The first key element of that package is the provision of funding to local authorities to allow them to make payments of £1,500 for households, businesses, charities and community groups that have been affected by flooding. That money would be paid from allocations made to local authorities by the Scottish Government. If a local authority did not receive an allocation, it can seek recompense from the Scottish Government to make such a payment, thereby ensuring that any individual in any part of Scotland can receive support if they have been affected by flooding.
Secondly, a flat-rate grant payment of £3,000 will be available to businesses in any part of Scotland where there is evidence that their ability to trade was severely impacted by flooding at the beginning of January. The grant will be a one-off payment to offset costs that cannot be covered by existing insurance—for example, clean-up costs, the cost of materials and exceptional costs to help the business to restore trade, such as marketing and promotion costs. That will be funded by the Scottish Government in addition to the local authority allocations.
Thirdly, the Scottish Government will make available £5 million to assist with the reinstatement of infrastructure that has been lost as a result of the recent flooding. A specific allocation will be made to Aberdeenshire Council to support the reinstatement of the A93 between Ballater and Braemar. The exact sum will be dependent on discussions with the local authority. Further bids from local authorities are now invited.
Finally, the Scottish Government will open an agricultural flood bank restoration grant scheme that will be available to the farming community to seek financial support to restore damaged flood banks. The total available will be up to £1 million. Further discussions will take place tomorrow between the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, SEPA and NFU Scotland to discuss how we effectively involve and support the farming community in managing such conditions.
The Government has made those announcements as swiftly as possible after the conclusion of the weather events. That ensured that all partners maintained a clear focus on resolving the emergency situations, and it enabled us to gather a picture of the scale of the events to give clarity about the financial support that could be provided.
Today, the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities is writing to the United Kingdom Government to ask it, as the member state, to make an application to the European Union solidarity fund. The solidarity fund was established after the severe flooding in central Europe in 2002. Payments can be made to help fund emergency operations to deal with non-insurable damage such as salvage operations, repair of infrastructure and cleaning. Applications can be made only by member states. The UK received €162 million after the 2007 floods, but it has so far declined to make an application in relation to the recent flooding. We are asking that it now does so, as a successful application might well provide additional and welcome funding to local authorities to deal with the impact of the past few weeks.
December 2015 was the wettest on record. Climate change brings the likelihood of even more frequent severe weather events. It is important that we are prepared and, to that purpose, the Parliament approved the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. Yesterday, the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform launched our first-ever flood risk management plan and 14 local strategies, which set out investment plans of more than £235 million in 42 flood protection schemes that will protect more than 10,000 properties. The national plan allows us to target investment and co-ordinate actions that will reduce flood risk. The strategies contain measures such as natural flood risk management, where it is appropriate, as well as initiatives such as flood warning and community engagement.
The flood risk management plan and the local strategies are the culmination of a number of years of work to identify current flood risk. They set a clear agenda for action over coming months. The strategies, which have been developed collaboratively, are not static plans, and they will continue to be informed by the work undertaken by SEPA and other bodies, overseen by the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change, to ensure that our approach adequately addresses the latest climate change projections. SEPA provided excellent technical support and advice in informing those plans, and worked closely with local plan partnership teams. The public were also engaged before the strategies were finalised.
The strategies set the framework for the first six-year planning cycle. In June, the local authority-led partnerships will set out the detailed plan of action, which will provide additional local detail on delivery between 2016 and 2021. This massive programme demonstrates the seriousness with which the Government takes flood risk and the steps that we are taking to reduce that risk across Scotland.
As a Government, we are committed to investing in flood risk management as an investment in the future. The recent budget identified the need to maintain future investment in flood protection schemes and protected support for flood warning and forecasting. Recent events have shown the importance of that.
I repeat the Government’s appreciation for those involved in the front-line response in protecting communities across Scotland from the recent severe weather events. We recognise that flood risk management is a long-term priority. We are committed to reducing the risk, we have put in place a framework to deliver improvements and we are working to ensure that investment continues to be made available to support delivery across the country.
The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question of the Deputy First Minister would press their request-to-speak buttons now.
I thank the Deputy First Minister for the advance copy of his statement, and I echo his comments about the huge effort that has been made to help people throughout the floods and their immediate aftermath. I particularly welcome the commitment to a review of the emergency response. However, we ask specifically that the issue of flood equipment in communities at risk being available to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service be addressed across the whole country.
I support the suggestion in the Deputy First Minister’s statement that there should be a UK bid to the EU solidarity fund. That would make a huge amount of sense, given the severity of the floods that communities across the country have experienced.
However, I repeat that I believe that we need a proper formal review. The Deputy First Minister finished his statement by reassuring us that the money that is needed is there for flood defences, and that local strategies are in place. However, surely the events of the past fortnight tell us that the extreme and more unpredictable weather conditions that we are now experiencing will cause devastation to communities and businesses.
Although the Scottish Environment Protection Agency estimates the annual cost of flooding to be in the region of £250 million, the costs of the past fortnight’s flooding are estimated at more than £700 million. I would like more detail about the £235 million that the Deputy First Minister referred to and exactly what it will buy. My understanding of the schemes that he has referred to is that they have not all been tendered, so we do not know the final outcome bills for them or whether they will all be affordable. We also need to know about timescales. The Deputy First Minister’s statement suggested that we will not have that information until after June this year. Can he clarify that?
It is important to say that it is clear from having looked at the schemes and at SEPA’s flood prevention strategies that even if all the schemes that are being suggested are built, many communities and tens of thousands of households will not be protected by those flood defences. Last week, the First Minister told me that she does not want a long-running review, but I am not asking for that—
I am sorry, Ms Boyack, but you need to end. You get one minute and 30 seconds, but you are now at two minutes 11.
I apologise, Presiding Officer.
Surely we need to look urgently at future flood mitigation and resilience for our communities.
I hear what Sarah Boyack says and I welcome what she said about EU funding and about the provision of flood equipment being looked at in the light of experience, which will be part of the operational reviews that will be undertaken.
On the remainder of her question, I am at a bit of a loss to understand what she wants the Government to do. We set out on an orderly process that was activated by an act of Parliament that was passed in 2009, and which requires us to produce flood risk management strategies. We have done that: they have been published and were launched by the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform just on Monday. They cover the length and breadth of the country. Some plans will require us to undertake investment in flood protection schemes of the type that we are just completing in Selkirk, where the minister was on Monday, or in the type of scheme that was completed some years ago in the city of Perth—which I represent—and the money for which has proved to be extremely well spent.
In other circumstances, it is about working with nature to utilise its advantages as a component part of our flood risk management strategy. That work has been done and the Government is now focused entirely on implementing the strategies to provide the maximum protection that we can provide to people who are affected.
Sarah Boyack is right that there will be instances of acute weather intensity affecting different parts of the country. However, when I was in Ballater on hogmanay, not one single person said to me that a flood defence scheme could have protected Ballater, because the event was of such a magnitude that no design scheme would have managed to do that. What is required is examination of catchment areas, exactly as the flood risk management strategies do, in order to identify what cumulative actions can be taken to provide maximum protection. That is what the Government is focused on implementing and taking forward. Those strategies have been informed by the best available research, which we will continue to update, as I said in my statement.
On funding, the Government has made available £42 million as part of the local government finance settlement to support flood prevention schemes, and that money has been used across a range of areas. It has been used in the city of Elgin to provide schemes there, and it has been used in Forres, Selkirk and Brechin. Although the Selkirk and Brechin schemes are just half built, they have provided essential protection to communities there.
The Government’s commitment to maintain that funding for the duration of the period to 2020 has been assured by the commitment that I have given to local government that it will command 26 per cent of the capital budget that is available to the Government over the period to 2020, which is an extension of my previous commitment to local government. The resources are there for us to work with local government to introduce the flood risk management strategies that have been carefully prepared in advance of their requirement.
Alex Fergusson has up to a minute.
I, too, am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for the advance copy of his statement, and I entirely endorse the sentiments that he expressed on the professional and voluntary services that rose, with the communities that were affected, so whole-heartedly to the occasion in the wake of the recent devastating floods.
The First Minister’s announcement on Saturday was very welcome, although I believe that it was a statement that should surely have been made to Parliament before it was made to the media. However, many questions arise from it and from the statement today.
Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that the £4 million of consequential funding that he announced on 16 December will not be made available to councils until the end of March? If that is the case, will he fast track it?
Will the Government work with SEPA to ensure that communities such as Carsphairn in my constituency—which has now been flooded three years in a row yet is not recognised by SEPA as an area of potential vulnerability—will be fully taken into account in the flood risk management plan that was announced yesterday? Currently, they are not.
Finally, as we begin to look at how better to deal with future flooding, will the Government undertake to look at prophylactic measures, where appropriate, to slow down the flow of water from our hills and forests before it gets into the river system? That is increasingly successful in all parts of the UK and it has proved to be much more economical and efficient than the purely reactive building of barriers in towns and cities once the water is in that system.
I have seen a bit of traffic over the past two days about the money that I announced in December not being available until March. I suspect that that has come from the letter that was issued to local authorities on 17 December, which indicated that the money would be paid through the local government settlement as a redetermination, and would be paid out in the last two weeks of March 2016. If that is the source of that piece of what I will call poorly analysed information, it does not say much about people’s knowledge of local government finance determinations.
Ministers constantly make announcements in Parliament; statutory allocation of the money—actual parliamentary approval—might not come until a redetermination order at the end of March, but that does not prevent local authorities from spending the money. There is absolutely no problem about local authorities having to wait until the end of March for the money. I have announced in Parliament that the money is coming. If that is not good enough for any local authority, we need to look at the whole system of local government finance in every other respect. I have a list of other schemes—the council tax reduction scheme, the teachers induction scheme, free school meals, the looked-after children policy and the discretionary housing payments system—the money for all of which was paid out to local authorities by the same means, which did not prevent local authorities from spending the money. I do not know what people are thinking about on that matter.
I have a lot of sympathy with Mr Fergusson’s point about efforts to try to slow down water as it comes down the straths. A substantial conversation has to be had—we have already embarked on it with the agricultural community and land-use interests—about the various components that can play a part in trying to retain as much water as possible in the hills before it ends up in coastal communities and the river routes through our country. Indeed, if the temperature had been a bit lower, most of the rain that fell in my constituency would still be in the Grampian hills and mountains, and we would be having a fabulous skiing season into the bargain, but it was not thus.
There is a substantive discussion to be had. The thinking that Alex Fergusson mentions is implicit in the flood risk management strategies and will continue to play a part in our discussion with agricultural and rural interests about how we can best use Scotland’s natural resources to provide protection from flooding.
As members will expect, I have a large number of members wishing to ask questions. Keep your questions as short as possible, please, and in that that way I will allow everybody who has an interest to get in.
The people of Dumfries and Galloway in my region welcomed the First Minister’s announcement of £1 million for the region in addition to the £700,000 that was allocated in December. However, the Labour council in Dumfries and Galloway refused until yesterday to let people know about the £1,500 grants that were made available to them in December. It still claims that it has no money to distribute until March, despite the Deputy First Minister’s explanation today and the fact that it has considerable reserves and unspent revenue from this year.
Can we have a question please?
Dumfries and Galloway Council also claims that the December money is restricted to victims of storm Desmond, but I can reveal today that victims of storm Desmond in Dumfries were told that there were no grants available—
Ms McAlpine, please sit down.
—as late as last week.
Deputy First Minister.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree with me—
Please sit down.
In my answer to Mr Fergusson, I went through the issues at length. I have made an allocation of money. The statutory force behind that will be applied later on in the financial year, but the money is available to be spent and there should be no impediment to its being allocated to individuals who require the support.
I was interested to hear the cabinet secretary repeat the assertion that councils should pay out now. I suggest to the cabinet secretary that, instead of asking cash-strapped councils to make payments on the basis of an IOU from the Scottish Government, the Scottish Government should make payments as soon as possible to help councils to assist hard-pressed households and local business.
I am at a loss.
You are indeed.
Order!
Dr Murray is a former minister of the Scottish Government who knows how local authority finance works. Every week we pay money to local authorities. Every single week in life a cash payment is made by the Government to local authorities. Is Dr Murray trying to say to me that Dumfries and Galloway Council is so hard pressed that it cannot find £1,500 this week to pay out to somebody because it has no money available? Local authorities are sitting on £1.8 billion of cash reserves that could be used to support cash management. They know fine well that what we have announced is not an IOU: they know fine well that I have given a commitment and a redetermination that the money will be paid. Dumfries and Galloway Council should just pay up to the people to whom we have allocated the money and stop finding excuses.
Thankfully, many homes in my constituency were spared the impact of the River Don flooding. However, Dyce Juniors Football Club in my constituency has seen its home pitch severely flooded, the perimeter fence damaged, and the clubhouse facilities suffering significant damage. Although the announcement of cash being made available to community groups is welcome, will the Deputy First Minister advise whether the local football club falls into such a category? Given the significant damage that has been caused to the club, what future support might be available to enable it to continue to fulfil fixtures at the earliest possible stage?
We have said that the £1,500 payment can be made to an individual, a business, a charity or a community group. I hope that that definition is broad enough to take in organisations of the type that Mr McDonald has asked about.
Individual judgments on eligibility will be applied at local level, but we believe that the guidance is broad enough to enable individual authorities to determine what ventures can be supported.
As for longer-term support, organisations have access to a wide range of provisions that can assist them in ensuring that their grounds are rehabilitated. However, the Government is trying to provide early cash support to enable organisations and individuals to get back on their feet after what has been a serious set of circumstances.
I thank the Deputy First Minister for his statement. First, will he agree to review the Bellwin plan, given the concerns that have been expressed by councils across Scotland, not least in his own area? Secondly, when he mentioned the welcome letter to the UK Government about the EU solidarity fund, he said that there had been some previous discussions. Can he tell Parliament what those were and his reading of why the UK Government seems to be so reluctant to apply to that fund, given the good that it would do to Scotland?
I will certainly look at the Bellwin scheme. I would be very surprised if there is not a successful Bellwin scheme claim out of the events of the past few weeks. I should clarify to Parliament that I will be judging claims not on a storm Desmond basis and then separately on a storm Frank basis; rather, I will be considering the flooding damage that was done over the entire period, which I think is only reasonable in the circumstances.
As I indicated in my statement, the UK Government has been a beneficiary of the EU solidarity fund in the past—in 2007, quite understandably. It represents the type of fund to which we contribute on an on-going basis as part of the financial contributions that member states make to the EU. It is important that when we require that support, we make propositions to obtain it. There would obviously be a benefit to communities in England as well, because there was severe damage in the north of England into the bargain. I have no inside knowledge as to the UK Government’s thinking, but I encourage it to embark on an application and to try to receive some of that support, which would be of benefit to us and to local authorities.
I ask the Deputy First Minister to confirm that I have already had discussions with him about flooding that has taken place in the city of Stirling, Aberfoyle, Callander and the wider Stirling area in the past couple of weeks.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree with me that it is now urgent that people who were affected and who qualify for a grant as householders or businesses find the money in their accounts as soon as possible? To that end, what positive discussions have taken place with local authorities to make sure that they put in place the necessary arrangements to ensure that as many grant payments as possible can be achieved?
We are communicating with local authorities about the arrangements. As I have already explained to Parliament, there are no impediments to that money being made available or to it being financed by local authorities. The properties and businesses that have been affected in Stirling in particular are in quite a range of different geographies within the communities involved.
There will be isolated properties in local authorities that have not been influenced by the allocations that I have made. For that reason, I took the decision to make a facility available to local authorities that do not have an allocation to enable them to make payments and then seek recompense from the Scottish Government so that no individual in any part of Scotland who has been flooded in the recent events in any way loses out through the process.
Will the Deputy First Minister agree to consider further research and development funding for the development of integrated catchment management, recognising as he does the link between upland management and downstream flooding, to better protect our towns and villages?
In that context, will the Deputy First Minister and his colleagues consider increasing Scotland rural development programme funding to support new initiatives such as the new co-operation fund for joint strategy implementation?
Claudia Beamish will be familiar with the fact that there is provision within the agriculture support scheme to encourage and motivate greater attention on that element of our thinking in the approach to agricultural management.
As I said in my statement, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment will meet the NFUS, which has expressed its enthusiasm for being a participant in that important discussion. In the area that I represent, if agricultural land had not retained the volume of water that it did, the implications for urban communities would have been much more significant, and I am profoundly grateful to the farming community for how that situation was handled.
In relation to research, Mr Lochhead has regular dialogue with the research institutes that are active on that question. I am sure that the points that Claudia Beamish raises can be reflected in that thinking.
I associate myself with the Deputy First Minister’s comments on the work of the councils, the emergency services and the army of volunteers.
The Deputy First Minister has visited Ballater and is very much aware of the situation there. I welcome the announcement that moneys will be made available for the repair of the road between Ballater and Braemar. In my constituency, the area between the Dee and the Don has been significantly affected. Will he put on record a mechanism for people to make applications for compensation, and will that information be on the Scottish Government’s website?
The most important thing is that there is a ready means by which individuals can make themselves known to local authorities in order to secure financial support. We are encouraging local authorities to make that information available to people. Clearly, the priority is to provide practical assistance to individuals who have been affected by what is a serious set of circumstances and to do so in a fashion that meets their needs.
Will the Deputy First Minister confirm that the allocation of funding to local authorities will fully fund the £1,500 payment that is intended for households in the relevant council areas? Will he also confirm that there is no expectation or requirement that the payments should be means tested in any way?
On the first point, I would be staggered if the money that I have allocated does not meet all the £1,500 payments in all local authority areas. However, if local authorities can provide evidence to me that that is not the case, I will of course consider that evidence. I do not intend to apply any means testing to the process.
Hawick’s flood prevention plan has been prioritised as number 16 of 42 plans in the pipeline for the next five years. SEPA has identified 683 residential properties and 283 businesses that are at risk of flooding in Hawick. Of the 15 plans on the list that are above the one for Hawick, all but two affect a smaller number of properties. Given the scale of the damage that was caused last month in Hawick, will the Scottish Government consider giving greater priority to the Hawick flood scheme?
As Mr Lamont will know, as individual schemes take their course, a variety of tests have to be passed, not least of which are those in the planning and design process. Therefore, he should not attach too much rigidity to the order in which schemes emerge. The priority is to ensure that the funding support is in place and is used to ensure that schemes are taken forward as timeously as possible. I know from the evidence that has been marshalled in relation to the scheme in Hawick the significance of the benefits of that scheme. I am sure that that will be considered as part of the decision-making process.
In Caithness, communities such as Halkirk and Staxigoe near Wick were not considered to be flooding hotspots but flooded mainly as a result of excessive surface water. In the medium term, will the rolling flood management plans reassess whether areas that were previously considered low risk should receive investment? In the short term, will the Scottish Government encourage local authorities to review drainage and culvert maintenance to cope with much heavier surface water flooding?
On that last point, there is a lot of substance in what Mr Gibson says. One of the biggest issues that have been faced, particularly with the most recent storm damage, has been the enormous volumes of surface water from the prolonged period of heavy rain. That puts enormous pressure on drainage systems, which might not all be designed to cope with such volumes. Therefore, it is important that, throughout the country, those systems are well maintained, because good maintenance regimes can help. It is also important that we consider where improvements to the drainage system might make a significant difference. It is an issue for us to take forward at local authority level. Surface water is a particular impediment to the effective flow of water and to the alleviation of some of the difficulties that are experienced.
That ends the statement by the Deputy First Minister. I apologise to the two members whom I was unable to call.
Previous
Topical Question TimeNext
Education