Official Report 1060KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-20235, in the name of Craig Hoy, on Scotland’s flood defences. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes proposals for a number of flood defence schemes across Scotland, including in the South Scotland region; considers the impact and pressure caused by climate change on coastal and rural communities; recognises reported public concerns about the design and costs of flood defence projects, and notes the calls for the Scottish Government and local authorities to fully consult with local communities, partners, businesses, organisations and other stakeholders during the appraisal and consenting process.
17:29
As a nation, Scotland is shaped by water: it is central to our landscape, our economy and our identity. The world over, lochs, rivers and long, rocky and rugged coastlines are closely identified with Scotland—as, of course, unfortunately, is the rain. However, plentiful water is not only one of our greatest assets but one of our greatest challenges, and flooding is one of the most acute environmental challenges that Scotland faces today. It is an increasing threat to communities across Scotland, both coastal and inland, and the need for effective flood defences has never been more urgent.
Flooding in Scotland is not a new problem, but it is becoming more and more frequent and severe, with an impact on people and their homes, businesses and critical infrastructure. Scientific projections suggest that Scotland can expect wetter and warmer winters in the future, along with more extreme weather events. That will place even greater pressure on existing flood defences, putting homes, businesses, farm land and infrastructure at further risk.
Across the South Scotland region, which I represent, some advances have been made in developing better flood defences. However, in communities such as Peebles and Walkerburn there are serious concerns that a continuing lack of flood protection poses a risk to people and property, along with fears that successful funding applications to install schemes in places such as Galashiels, Selkirk and Jedburgh mean that there is now little cash left for further defence schemes in the foreseeable future.
In East Lothian, for example, in Musselburgh and down the coast, a debate is raging about what sort of flood defences the town and the wider coastline area needs and how much those will cost. In other communities, plans for flood protection have not secured the necessary support of local communities—for example, that is the case with the recent proposals for a scheme in Langholm. In that instance, plans would have included the erection of walls and embankments along the River Esk and its tributaries, but those plans were shelved as a result of strong opposition from within the community, amid fears of spiralling costs.
I recognise the strength of local opinion in many instances, and I stress that it must be heeded as ministers and councils across South Scotland consider future flood defence plans. That is at the heart of what I want to say today. The need to fully consult local communities, partners, businesses, organisations and other stakeholders during the appraisal and consenting process for flood defence schemes is a crucial step, but, all too often, it has not taken place.
The most glaring example of that has been the failure to mount a meaningful consultation for the Whitesands flood defence scheme in Dumfries, which was recently given the green light by the Scottish National Party-run council. That there is a serious flooding issue at the Whitesands is not in dispute—it floods regularly, and it can cause severe disruption and damage to businesses and other properties in the area when the Nith bursts its banks. However, despite that, the proposed scheme, which is estimated to cost potentially a staggering £69 million and possibly even more, has not won the support of local people or of those in neighbouring communities—in fact, it is quite the opposite.
Over recent years, thousands of locals have signed petitions against the scheme, which would fundamentally and damagingly alter historic views along the Whitesands, as a raised walkway incorporating walls, glass panels and flood gates is planned to run from the former Dumfries & Galloway Standard offices downstream to Dock park, with additional measures over the river at Welldale and Kenmure Terrace.
Aside from the physical impact of the proposed scheme, there are widespread fears locally that it could lead to the loss of the Rood fair—one of Scotland’s longest-running festivals, which dates back to the 1500s and makes use of the Whitesands each year. There are also real concerns among local retailers about the disruption and the loss of revenues that their businesses will face during the construction phase.
There is an equally widespread view that the costly scheme will be ineffective—a £69 million white elephant on the River Nith that siphons off millions of pounds in investment that could have supported vital local services, including provisions to effectively address other flood-related issues. The funding could have gone towards tackling the flooding that affects many roads in the rural south-west or towards the proper dredging of local rivers. It could have helped to replace the Diamond Jubilee bridge and the Cuthbertson memorial bridge, which were both washed away in 2021 when water levels along the River Annan reached a 50-year high. Those are practical measures that would command support in the community, rather than £69 million being squandered on a flood scheme for Dumfries in which locals simply do not have confidence.
Flood defences are essential to Scotland’s future. They protect lives, homes and livelihoods, and they help to ensure that communities can thrive despite climate change. However, they need to be taken forward with the necessary consultation of local communities, partners, businesses, organisations and other stakeholders, particularly when it is local authority and Scottish Government money that is at risk.
Water has shaped Scotland’s history and, with the right choices and the right flood mitigation measures that enjoy public support, it does not have to threaten the future of our country and our communities.
17:35
I thank Craig Hoy for securing the debate. I agree with much of what he outlined about the need to implement coastal and inland flood defences—as he said, water has shaped Scotland’s history. In my short time, I will focus my comments on the recent decision that was made by Dumfries and Galloway Council regarding the proposed Whitesands scheme.
People outside the Parliament who watched and listened to Craig Hoy’s speech would be forgiven for thinking that the council suddenly decided last month that it would be a good idea to build a flood protection barrier and came up with some plans on the back of a fag packet, probably inspired by Mr Hoy’s party and its approach to public policy. However, the vote by Dumfries and Galloway Council was the culmination of 15 years of planning, design, hydraulics reports, technical reports, planning applications and many consultations.
I agree that many people in the area, and further afield, are against the flood protection scheme, and there are some who are sceptical but open to persuasion. It will be a big change to the landscape of the town at the Whitesands, and any change on this scale—it is a substantial project with a substantial budget—will inevitably split opinion.
The Whitesands has flooded more than 200 times since the 1820s, and the worst flooding has been witnessed in recent years. The proposal will provide a permanent once-in-75-years flood protection standard. If Mr Hoy had spent some time going through the public record on the Whitesands, he would have found more than a decade of consultations, planning submissions, council committee meetings, charrettes, open meetings, information evenings and so on.
Does Emma Harper acknowledge, however, the scale of local opposition at various stages in the consultation, including in the public inquiry? Is it not right that local representatives now reflect that public opinion instead of, as she is doing, selling the community down the river with this expensive, unwanted and deeply unpopular scheme?
I thank Craig Hoy for that intervention, but I do not believe that I am selling people down the river. I have not been part of the votes or the decision making, but the local authority voted to move ahead with the project. I will come to some of those points.
The outcome of the consultations led to a decision that the majority of elected members supported, which was made ahead of recess. Over many years, we have seen a reluctance from the Conservatives to spend public money on protecting the public good. However, I take the view that we elect representatives to take such decisions, and the council has decided to move forward with the scheme.
Will Emma Harper take an intervention?
I will not take another intervention.
The £55 million of Scottish Government funding is a huge boost for the local economy. Almost every day, we hear lectures from Conservative members about where our finite spending—which has been made more finite by those colleagues’ economically crackpot austerity agenda over the years—should go. However, we are looking here at transformational major investment in infrastructure in the south-west. To be clear, 80 per cent of that money is from the Government’s flood protection budget, and, if Dumfries does not spend it on flood protection, another scheme will take its place.
Are we seriously suggesting that, after 15 years of consideration, consultation and democratic debate—and, late last year, a democratic decision—we should tell the Scottish Government that Dumfries does not want that investment after all? That economic boost will continue in the longer term. How much good, in reputational terms, does it do for inward investment if the major reason for Dumfries hitting the headlines every year is that the Whitesands is under water?
It would be useful if Mr Hoy had a plan for the local businesses and residents who suffer flooding year after year. Perhaps he could spell out exactly how long he thinks that they should wait and tolerate the disruption in their lives. Should it be one more year, or another five years?
I want to see the maximum amount of public consultation on any big infrastructure project; the days of far-off officials giving an aye or a nay belong in the 1950s. However, after 15 years of public consultation on the Whitesands, I do not think that it is too much to allow decision makers who were elected by the people to make a decision that, although it might not get 100 per cent approval, will transform the lives of the people in the Whitesands in Dumfries. We need to support their future.
17:39
More than two years have now passed since storm Babet devastated Brechin, but far too many families have still not returned home. What should have been a period of recovery has instead become a case study in delay, deflection and abandonment by the SNP Government.
Eighty-five council houses were ruined by flooding and might not be rebuilt until 2030 at the earliest. More than 30 privately owned homes were also affected. Empty properties are costing more than £6,000 a week in lost rent, while remaining residents feel trapped in uncertainty. Many have told me that, every time it rains, they fear that the nightmare will begin all over again. That constant anxiety is an often overlooked human cost of inaction.
The failure of the Brechin flood prevention scheme should have been a wake-up call. Built just seven years before it was overwhelmed, it demonstrated that existing defences are not fit for purpose or keeping pace with extreme weather, but the Scottish Government has failed to properly strengthen or fund Brechin’s protections. Ministers were quick to appear for photo opportunities in the aftermath, but they have been far slower to deliver the funding and decisions that are needed to prevent a repeat.
As a result, local government has been left to pick up the pieces. Angus Council wants to rebuild River Street and improve flood protection, but it cannot do so alone. The cost of a rebuild has been estimated at £15 million over 30 years, which is simply beyond the council’s means without Government support. That leaves Angus Council in an impossible position: it is responsible for delivery but is denied the resources to act.
The economic damage has been just as stark. Flooding has crippled local businesses, none more so than Matrix International. The company, which once employed about 100 people, was so badly flooded that it was forced to scale back its operations, and it ultimately closed. The Scottish Government’s flood recovery support amounted to just £3,000.
I heard Emma Harper criticise Opposition members. I say to her and her colleagues that they should look at Audit Scotland’s report “Flooding in communities: Moving towards flood resilience”, which is damning. It confirms that there are serious gaps in funding, skills and capacity, and it states that the system for allocating flood defence funding is “not fit for purpose”. As a result, costs are rising, schemes are delayed and fewer communities are being protected.
What has sustained communities such as Brechin has been not Government strategy but community spirit, with volunteers, council staff and emergency services involved and neighbours helping neighbours. However, good will alone cannot replace leadership, and the Government should have matched the resilience of communities with real action and proper investment. At-risk communities such as Brechin deserve better.
17:43
This debate is crucial, so I thank Craig Hoy for securing it. The issue of flooding is not a distant concern but an immediate and escalating threat to communities across Scotland. A survey carried out in 2018, to which I have been referring for the past few years, estimated that 284,000 properties in Scotland are at risk of flooding, with projections showing the number rising to almost 400,000 by 2080.
However, last month, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency published the “National Flood Risk Assessment 2025” report, which makes it clear that the risks have escalated. The report states:
“Communities from the Borders to the Highlands and Islands have lived with the impact of flooding for decades”,
as colleagues have commented. It also notes that
“as our climate changes, those impacts are accelerating. The National Flood Risk Assessment ... 2025 gives us the clearest picture yet of what lies ahead for Scottish homes and businesses—and why action to improve Scotland’s flood resilience matters.”
The report goes on to state that
“around 400,000 properties—homes, businesses, and vital services—are in areas at medium risk of flooding”,
and notes:
“That’s 1 in 8 properties across Scotland, a sharp rise from”
the 2018 estimate. Those figures are not abstract. We need to find ways to deliver for our communities, because the safety and livelihoods of families, businesses and entire communities depend on the decisions that are made.
The insurance sector is also raising the issue with us, and representatives of the sector came to lobby members before Christmas. However, we have not seen the sort of strategy that is needed to match the urgency of the situation being put in place. Funding is not keeping pace with rising costs and, as projects get delayed, increasing numbers of homes and parts of critical infrastructure are now exposed to flood risk.
What is in the current strategy is not sharp enough—it lacks clear timescales and the implementation plans that communities deserve now. Without defined timescales, there is delay, and, with every delay, the cost rises and communities are impacted.
I do not think that the draft climate change plan prioritised flooding resilience sufficiently.
The draft climate change plan might not do so, but the Scottish national adaptation plan—SNAP3—does. That is where all the adaptation plans lie. I am sure that Sarah Boyack is familiar with that document.
My point is that the issue needs to be much higher up the agenda. That is crucial in the climate change plan, because, when roads are shut and rail lines are disrupted, communities become isolated. Essential, reliable transport is vital to keep people safe and enable businesses to function.
As colleagues across the chamber have commented, the intensity of climate change is impacting on flooding, and it is going to get worse. That is why we need a comprehensive approach to flood defence. Hard engineering alone will not be enough; we also need investment in nature-based solutions that slow the flow of water before it reaches our towns and villages. That means restoring wetlands, protecting and expanding peatlands and supporting natural flood management projects that work with the landscape rather than against it.
We also need to accelerate the roll-out of sustainable urban drainage systems, both in existing communities and in new developments. Our communities have to be involved in the design of flood investment—from the start of the process, not towards the end—because it matters to everybody. I have followed with huge interest the work that is being done in East Lothian. There is a real risk to people’s homes and businesses, and they need confidence that the Scottish Government will deliver the scale of protection investment that is required to deal with the changing climate that people are now experiencing.
We have known about these challenges for decades. When I was a town planner, literally decades ago, the issue started to be on our agenda for places such as Grangemouth, but we have still not seen the investment that is needed. We can disagree with each other on all sorts of issues, but on this issue we must have political commitment in place across our parties, because not acting is going to risk people’s homes, businesses and livelihoods. Decisions that are made now will determine whether our communities are protected or exposed in the decades ahead. We owe it to our communities to act with urgency and ambition and to involve them in the process, because we need to deliver action across Scotland.
17:48
I thank Craig Hoy for securing the debate. At a time when extreme weather is very much on our minds, it is right that we consider how we build resilience in the face of growing uncertainty for many communities.
The debate is about safety, justice and community resilience. It is about how we ensure that people can live free from the fear and devastation that flooding causes. For too many communities, flooding is not an abstract or future risk but a lived reality that affects how people sleep, work, insure their homes and plan their futures. As we have heard, extreme weather events are no longer rare—they are the new normal. Such events are more frequent and severe, driven by the climate crisis that is already here.
That is patently clear in the north-east, particularly in Angus and in Aberdeenshire, where repeated flooding has exposed the consequences of having flood defences that are not future proofed and policies that are not properly joined up. In Angus, the experiences of residents in Brechin and at Castleton cottages are a stark warning. One Castleton resident said:
“We’ve done everything we were told to do, but the water keeps coming in. You can’t relax when it rains—you’re always waiting for the next flood”.
That constant anxiety takes a serious toll on people’s mental wellbeing, on their family life and on their sense of safety in their homes.
The floods were not inevitable. A failure to properly connect land use, land management, planning decisions and flood defences has left communities exposed. When upstream land management, river engineering, housing development and emergency planning are treated separately and siloed, the result is repeated flooding, rising insurance costs and people feeling abandoned.
In Brechin, where homes have been inundated and defences breached, as Tess White mentioned earlier, a resident said:
“It’s not just the damage, it’s the stress. Insurance is harder to get, premiums go up, and some neighbours just feel trapped”.
That is not a fair price for people to pay simply for living in their communities. They need action, not just sympathy.
The same pattern is evident in Aberdeenshire. In Stonehaven, Inverurie and elsewhere, communities live with the memory and risk of flooding that damages homes and businesses, erodes lands and threatens vital services. One Inverurie resident said:
“The river doesn’t just flood houses, it takes away paths, parks and farmland. It changes how the whole town works.”
That loss of shared spaces matters, especially when they are essential for health, for food production and for community connection.
Aberdeen has a long history of flood risk. Although recent protection works have brought some relief, we must ensure that flooding infrastructure is fit for the climate era that we are now in. This is about people’s everyday lives—their wellbeing and their ability to work, sleep safely in their homes and plan for their future.
The climate crisis will only make flooding events more frequent and intense. Doing nothing—or doing the same things again—is not an option. Flood defences must focus on prevention as well as on protection, and on people as much as on infrastructure.
That means connecting land use, land management, planning policy and flood defence decisions. It also means genuine community engagement from the start: listening to local knowledge, supporting community networks and ensuring that, when disaster strikes, people have accessible facilities, clear information and trusted local support. People in Brechin, Inverurie and Stonehaven want to be partners in shaping the resilience strategies that affect their futures. We must deliver that partnership in every community that is at risk. It also means investing in nature-based solutions, such as restoring wetlands, reconnecting flood plains, tree planting, protecting soils and practising sustainable land management, alongside engineered defences.
Fundamentally, this is about justice. Flood defence policy must be joined up, locally informed and rooted in the simple principle that everyone deserves to live a safe life in their own community, now and in the future.
17:53
I am grateful to Craig Hoy for bringing the debate to the chamber. If he will forgive me, I will broaden it out to cover North East Fife, where my knowledge of the topic derives from my direct experience and engagement with residents, landowners, farmers, various regulators and the local authority. It also derives directly from flooding experiences in Cupar in the winter of 2023, as well as those in Freuchie, Muchty, Strath, Kingskettle and numerous other communities up and down the River Eden that have been affected.
I know that we are in a tight financial situation. I know that big bang flood prevention schemes are incredibly expensive and that construction costs are growing. I know that it will be difficult to implement large-scale, hard engineering projects in every part of the country that is exposed to flooding. We need alternative solutions, some of which have been referenced today. The natural measures that we have talked about might not be the whole answer, but they are part of the answer.
I am grateful to the minister for meeting me and Alex Rowley to talk about water scarcity and flooding, because those two issues are equally important in some of our communities. When we had that discussion, I was particularly keen to see two things: first, a river catchment plan and, secondly, to go along with that, a grant scheme for landowners to introduce change. Those two things must go hand in hand.
However, in my experience, from discussions with farmers, the agri-environment climate scheme simply does not cut it when it comes to agricultural, arable land. The amount of money that they get in return simply will not pay for the conversion and for the sacrifice of that land. In North East Fife, that land is very valuable not only for arable farming but for fruit and vegetables. Therefore, if that is the only scheme that is available, we are asking farmers to sacrifice.
Farmers are people who are embedded in their communities. They understand the dramatic impact of flooding on their neighbours, when the water goes into their houses. They want to do everything that they can, but they still need to make a living and to make their farm work. We know that farm incomes are struggling at this time, so we need an environment scheme that cuts it and that provides the necessary support for them to make that change.
There is then the issue of what kind of change we are looking to make. Despite numerous discussions, forums and conferences all over the country, there is a chasm between what farmers believe works and what many environmental organisations and the regulators believe should happen. We need to close that gap. We need to have an understanding of best practice and of what can work, so that we can make a difference and stop flooding in communities. If we carry on as we are and ignore that gap—it is a massive gap—we will get no further forward. We will simply be talking about the issue forever more.
My plea to the minister is to look at the issue in practical terms, because every part of the country is different. The Eddleston is different from the Eden, the Tweed and the rivers down in Dumfries. A bespoke plan is required for all those communities. My plea is for a grant scheme that works and that makes it possible for farmers to make changes, and we should close that gap through a river catchment plan, supported by Government agencies, to make that work. We might then have a chance of getting some of the natural environment measures to work.
17:57
Climate change is not a distant threat. Our coastal and rural communities are already feeling the pressure, with heavier rainfall, frequent storms and volatile rivers. My Galloway and West Dumfries constituency knows that reality all too well. Newton Stewart endured damaging floods, notably in 2015, and Dumfries sees the Whitesands submerged annually.
Flood protection is essential. I do not oppose flood protection, only poorly managed flood protection. On that basis, let me make it clear from the outset that I, like many people across Dumfries and Galloway—there was some misrepresentation from Emma Harper—oppose the current Newton Stewart and Dumfries Whitesands flood schemes.
In May 2023, Dumfries and Galloway Council published its Newton Stewart flood protection scheme, promising a once-in-200-years standard for about 280 properties. That sounds reassuring, but its publication triggered 58 objections, many of which came from fisheries interest groups and environmental groups. The River Cree District Salmon Fishery Board was excluded from the environmental impact assessment screening—officers failed to meet that statutory duty. That negligence forced Scottish Government intervention and the appointment of an independent reporter, and it required additional ecological surveys and scour modelling. As a result, the EIA process will not conclude until late summer 2026.
On the Whitesands scheme, after a decade, a public petition against the scheme, led by David Slater—now Councillor Slater—attracted well over 10,000 signatures. There has been a local public inquiry, and there was ministerial confirmation in 2020. Despite significant local opposition, the council has struggled to decide whether to proceed. In October 2023, a far from convincing knife-edge vote of 22 to 21 kept the eye-wateringly expensive scheme alive without significant public support. While Labour and SNP administrations put party politics ahead of public opinion, costs spiralled from £37.5 million in 2023 to £68.6 million by December 2025. That doubling demands hard questions about scope, control, risk management and officer accountability.
The delays are a direct result of poor governance. The SNP administration and previous Labour administrations have ignored repeated warnings from residents, businesses and the fisheries board. They have treated consultation as a tick-box exercise, not a genuine dialogue. Governance is about listening, not imposing. On that test, the SNP administration has failed. Consultation is not a bureaucratic hurdle; it is the foundation of good decision making. However, in Newton Stewart, consultation failures have pushed the processes back into 2026. In Dumfries, repeated changes and ballooning costs have eroded trust. People feel that decisions are being imposed, not co-designed.
Where do we go from here? In Dumfries, there should have been a plain-English comparison of all the options that have been considered since 2012, when, incidentally, the estimated cost of the flood prevention bund was £4 million. The comparison should have shown costs, benefits, environmental impacts and operational standards, and it should have explained why each alternative was rejected. We need to scrap the current scheme and develop a new approach with a locked scope, a published risk register and a monthly report on cost movements against the baseline. There should be no more exempt items or meetings from which the public are excluded.
With regard to the Cree, the council needs to commit to an enforceable timetable for completing the EIA, holding the hearing and, subject to the outcome, starting enabling works. We need to ensure genuine consultation and engage fisheries interests, businesses and residents before finalising designs, not after objections appear in the final stages. Critically, we need to improve officer accountability. It is unacceptable that the council has neglected statutory duties, issued notices months late and reacted only under reporters’ pressure.
A balanced approach should underpin every scheme. We should look beyond concrete and glass to natural flood prevention, tree planting, restoring wetlands, reconnecting flood plains, sustainable land management, pragmatic consideration regarding dredging and fair compensation for landowners. Hard engineering alone will not solve flooding problems on either the Nith or the Cree.
Climate resilience requires competence. Dumfries and Galloway Council has had years to get the schemes right. Our communities deserve flood defences that will protect them from the next storm, not defences that drown them with uncertainty. I believe in local democracy, decision making and accountability, but, given the failures in Dumfries and Galloway, I call on the Scottish Government to insist on tighter assurances for local schemes that receive national funding. I call on Dumfries and Galloway Council—the SNP administration, backed by Labour councillors—to stop blaming inflation and start demonstrating control on consultation, cost and delivery timelines.
The next storm will not wait for excuses. It will not wait for another committee meeting. Our communities need competent, transparent and accountable action now. Anything less would be a betrayal of public trust.
18:03
I have listened carefully to the contributions this evening. This type of debate is important, and I congratulate Craig Hoy on securing it. I have a national policy that is associated with flooding, but it is important that I hear feedback on particular local considerations. I do not want to insert myself into decisions that local councillors make, because it is only right that they make decisions on what they do for their communities.
Will the member take an intervention?
Give me a minute to get going.
Although final decisions are made by councils, when we talk in the round about flooding strategy and anything strategic that we are doing, it is important that Scottish Government ministers of any flavour have the ability to hear feedback from around the country about where things have not worked, are not working or need a fresh look.
Given that, in this instance, the majority of local residents think that the council has made the wrong decision with regard to the Whitesands scheme and that, ultimately, it is the Scottish Government that will be committing taxpayers’ money to the project, what interventions can the Government make to ensure that the money is spent properly if the project proceeds? Alternatively, will the Government do the right thing, step back and remove funding for the project and direct those scarce resources towards other flood defence mechanisms?
I do not know whether Craig Hoy heard what I said, but I prefaced my remarks by saying that I am not going to insert myself into local decision making. We are having a members’ business debate about flooding. We are not talking about one particular flooding project that relates to Mr Hoy’s region; we are discussing issues in a lot of areas.
We have heard many important comments about the impact of flooding, and we have discussed in the round the mitigations and protections against it. The science is clear. Climate change means that we are facing record weather extremes, and that includes increased risks of heavy rainfall, more intense storm events and flooding. Sarah Boyack mentioned SEPA’s “National Flood Risk Assessment 2025” report.
Will the member take an intervention?
I would like, first, to make some points about the general premise of the debate.
SEPA’s figures reframed the issue by saying that one in eight properties in Scotland is now at risk of flooding. That is a sobering statistic, and it is something that we need to take seriously. I will go on to talk about flood resilience strategies, but SEPA’s report highlights the importance of not just the climate change plan, which is about emissions reduction and so on, but the Scottish national adaptation plan. It is important that all members know about SNAP3, because it is a vehicle that has been rolled out throughout all agencies and councils across Scotland, and it provides a blueprint for action.
I am not trying to draw the cabinet secretary into a discussion of individual schemes. However, given the points that Willie Rennie and others have made about changing weather patterns and the need for wider systems thinking about whole-river catchments, is the cabinet secretary not concerned about the fact that the various schemes that have existed for a long time and have been kicked about through various processes have not themselves adapted to the change in the weather patterns and the change in thinking and are not looking at the broader picture? Money will be spent on those schemes and they might not be effective.
I will not talk about any scheme in particular, but I note that a number of members made similar points to the one that Finlay Carson made when he said that hard engineering projects alone will not solve flooding. That is correct: there must be a range of interventions, and they must have a cumulative and complementary effect.
Willie Rennie mentioned natural flood prevention and the use of green space for a double purpose. I have visited the sites of a couple of such interventions that have been made around the country, including, a few years ago, one in Inverness—I think that I was with Finlay Carson on that visit—where I saw a site that was used as a football pitch for most of the year but, during floods, became a reservoir for floodwater. Inverleith park is another fantastic example of that approach. Again, for most of the year, it is a beautiful community garden and a space for people to enjoy recreation, but it also serves to take floodwater from Edinburgh in the event of flooding.
There are various other flood protection schemes. Tess White mentioned Brechin, which has a flood protection scheme that was funded with £13 million of Scottish Government investment. However, it was not able to withstand storm Babet, during which the floodwater overtopped and breached the flood prevention infrastructure. That demonstrates that we always have to have an adaptive process with regard to flooding and must build for circumstances that might be beyond what is seen as a once-in-100-years event. I remember the damage that storm Frank did in my constituency, which Maggie Chapman alluded to when she talked about what happened in Inverurie. We were told that that was a once-in-100-years event, but we are seeing flooding events of that nature in Scotland practically every year.
We have allocated £570 million to local authorities for flood protection schemes and flood resilience. Throughout the country, 21 flood protection schemes have been delivered so far. Also, since 2022, local authorities have received an additional £11.7 million to support coastal change adaptation, because flooding does not happen solely as a result of rainfall; it can be caused by the impact of coastal erosion. I think that Maggie Chapman mentioned Stonehaven, which has had its coastal resilience upgraded in the past few years.
I have listened to all the concerns that have been expressed today, and I will continue to listen. However, it is important that, as far as possible, ministers do not involve themselves in local decision making. I agree with Emma Harper’s general point that we elect councillors to make those decisions. It is up to councillors to listen to and consult the local community to determine what is best.
SEPA estimates that the cost of flooding in Scotland is £500 million every year. What more can the Scottish Government do to support local authorities to make sure that lessons are learned and that we have the skills and expertise in every community across Scotland, so that the action that our constituents need can be taken?
There are a number of things to note in that regard, including the measures in the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, which laid out statutory obligations for local authorities.
Just before Christmas, Willie Rennie, Alex Rowley and I had a discussion about adaptation. I hope that Willie Rennie will be pleased to hear that, today, I had a comprehensive discussion with the chief scientific adviser for environment, natural resources and agriculture, who is working on creating formal partnership working groups between agencies such as SEPA, the Scottish Government and the farming community on a range of watercourses. I am very excited about that work. We also have river partnerships, one of which is being piloted in the Dee, which is near my constituency—it is largely in Alexander Burnett’s constituency. It is important that river trusts, land managers, farmers and agencies work together, almost as a project team, because everyone has expertise and knowledge about their own areas and we must harness that.
On the engagement of communities and flood protection measures, the 2009 act lays out clear statutory obligations for local authorities. However, our communities need to be adaptive, and we need to listen to the ideas of the residents of those communities about how things can be managed better.
As the cabinet secretary will be aware, Newcastleton has not yet had flood defences built, but it is at huge risk. There are 140 houses in the village, which is rural and has an elderly population, but the risk puts people off living in the area. Once people are moved out, they will not move back, because they are scared to. Does Gillian Martin believe that the societal impact and the community aspect of flooding in rural areas need to be considered as well as the safety aspect?
There are safety aspects, but, as Rachael Hamilton says, there is also a psychological impact on communities. I have constituents in Methlick, Ellon and Inverurie who were taken out of their homes at 3 am on 7 January in 2016—today is the anniversary of that event—who still have lasting psychological scars from losing all their possessions and from waking up not knowing whether they were going to make it out of their house. We have to take those issues into account.
We also have to look at the massive societal and economic costs. If we do not put flood prevention measures in place, the cost of dealing with a flood event will vastly outweigh the cost of those measures. That is why I encourage everyone to support the interventions that are being made and not to prevaricate. We should all help to get them built, because the funding is available. I hear what Rachael Hamilton says about Newcastleton, whose residents clearly want flood defences.
I will leave it there, because I am well over my time. The decisions about flood prevention schemes are for local councillors, and it is only right they are made locally as much as possible. However, I have listened to the wider points that have been made.
Meeting closed at 18:14.Air ais
Decision Time