 Roseanna Cunningham, I'm to speak to and move the motion in her name. I attended the 23rd conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bond, the COP 23. The conference was a platform for me to showcase Scotland as a global leader in tackling climate change, as indicated by our commitment eight years ago to reduce our 2020 emissions by 42 per cent. Here in Scotland, of course, the climate impacts are already evident. In future, climate change is likely to exacerbate the frequency and severity of flood events in Scotland. This risk and actions to address them are set out in Scotland's adaptation programme. Today's debate is an opportunity to review our progress in reducing flood risk and to identify continuing challenges. Climate change increases the future likelihood of flooding, but in many areas it is already a current reality. Its impacts are devastating beyond description and I have seen that on too many occasions in my constituency. We are now approaching the second anniversary of Storm Desmond, during which we saw some of the most significant flood events for some time. Reducing flood risk is recognised in the programme for government because of the devastating impacts of flooding. The Flood Risk Management Scotland Act 2009, which was introduced in 2009, is specifically tailored towards delivering a risk-based and plan-led approach to flood risk management in Scotland. As I look about me, I realise that there are not that many members left in the chamber who will recall that, although I can see that John Scott is indicating that he remembers it very well. It was an important piece of legislation because it provides the basis of an improved modern framework, which moved away from tackling flood risk on the previous ad hoc reactive basis. Importantly, the act also allocates clear roles and responsibilities for flood risk management in Scotland, so that provides clarity for the public and the foundation for successful partnership working. The partnership working includes local authorities, SIPA, Scottish Water and others, which led to the preparation of the 14 flood risk management strategies that were published in 2015. They provide the first-ever national plan for flood risk management in Scotland. They set out the short and longer-term ambition for flood risk management in the country. Across the 14 strategies, there are 42 formal flood protection schemes or engineering works proposed for the period 2016 to 2021. The total number of properties that could be protected by those schemes or works is projected to be 10,000. Since 2008, the Scottish Government has made available funding of £42 million a year to enable local authorities to invest in flood protection schemes. Last year, an agreement was reached between the Scottish ministers and COSLA on a new strategic funding plan for flood protection schemes. The agreement guarantees that, for the next 10 years, the level of flooding capital grant within the local government settlement is set at a minimum of £42 million a year. That agreement between the Government and COSLA is absolutely vital to the good working of the flood risk management act. Is the minister, cabinet secretary, aware in Murray, in Elgin, in particular, what a dramatic difference has been made by the new flood prevention scheme? My colleague Richard Lockhead and my Murray constituents are very welcome for the support that has been given. I well remember the terrible flooding that Elgin experienced as it happened. It was me that signed off on the plan in the first place. It is testament to the length of time that it takes that those get put into place. I, back in the same role, opened formally the plan and the flood risk works more recently. I know what a difference it makes when that happens. I know how important it is for individuals, businesses and communities in areas like Elgin, when they see that work taking place. A key part of increasing resilience has been the development of the Scottish Flood Forecasting Service, which is a partnership between SIPA and the Met Office. It provides local responders with a five-day outlook of potential flood risk. Responders have highlighted that this is an invaluable tool, allowing them to identify when they need to be ready and gives an indication of the likely duration of the event. It means that responders can consider resources and decide when recovery efforts may be required. SIPA also operates floodline, which has now over 26,000 customers. Receiving a flood warning through floodline gives householders time to take action, such as installing floodgates or considering alternative travel plans. Last night's weather showed the value of that investment. SIPA was actively engaged to support responders in the north of Scotland. Flood warnings were issued to the community in Easter Ross and the Great Glen. That effort will continue overnight, given further rain is expected. Alongside that, the Scottish Flood Forum has helped communities to build flood resilience and assist those who have unfortunately been flooded. The Scottish Government provides financial support for the forum, enabling it to offer free advice about property level protection measures. If anybody has had flooding events in their constituency, they will know that the Scottish Flood Forum is on the ground almost immediately to give that help. Historically, householders in flood-prone areas had difficulty getting affordable flood insurance. The launch of floodry in 2016 was a major milestone in ensuring that household flood insurance remains widely available and affordable. I encourage all members to raise awareness in their own areas about the free services that are offered through floodline, flood forum and the availability of floodry. It is important that people know that those things are available to help them. Another part of our success in flood risk management has been Scotland's leading role in piloting and developing approaches to natural flood management. We are supporting the long-term Edelston Water project, which is developing an evidence base to improve our understanding and to encourage practitioners, planners and land managers of the case for natural flood management. Needless to say, some of the money that we have been using to do this through interreg has been coming from the EU, and I am just a little concerned about the availability of funds like that in the future. We are making progress. We have a clear programme of work to do. It is ambitious, but we must recognise that there are still challenges to face. I do not want to pretend that this is a fix for absolutely everything. One of the big challenges along our coasts is that rising sea levels, increased coastal erosion and erosion-enhanced flooding will progressively impact Scotland's soft coastlines, its assets and communities. A first step in getting a better understanding of coastal erosion was provided by the dynamic coast project that I launched in August. We now know that we can expect faster and more extensive erosion than we have been used to, increasingly affecting all asset types, buildings, infrastructure, cultural and natural heritage. We have a window of opportunity to plan, mitigate and adapt in advance of greater impacts, but that will require cross-sector and integrated adaptation and mitigation planning. One way to address coastal erosion at Montrose might be a sand engine. Is the Scottish Government investigating this as an option? If not, why not? If so, will the Scottish Government commit to covering the cost? I am well aware of the difficulties that take place at Montrose, and I know that a great deal of work is undergoing to identify the best options for dealing with the problem there. Whether the one that Mr Kerr raises is that option, I cannot answer because that work has not yet been done. What is important is for us to establish how to deal with the problem and then move on from there. One of the greatest impacts on the health of those who experience flooding is having to leave their homes. Proliminary results from social impacts study that we commissioned after the Aberdeenshire 2015 floods showed that two thirds of respondents were in temporary accommodation for more than six months. The impact on daily lives, financially and socially, is enormous. The challenge here is to ensure that, if or when the property floods, again the building is more resilient to floodwater, we must start to think about making changes following a flood. We cannot aim to go back to normal, we must aim to go back to better. We are working with stakeholders, including the building and insurance industries, to develop an action plan to promote the need for flood resilient properties. That can mean introducing resilient materials and using different construction methods to our homes and business premises. The outcome is often less damage to the building, less cost and less time spent in temporary accommodation. It is important that the work is done. All the information that we are gathering helps us to better understand social vulnerabilities that are associated with flooding. It allows SIPA to take account of that in its flood risk assessments and action prioritisation methodology. It is also a powerful tool for local authorities. We also need to spend some time considering surface water management and connected to that sewer flooding. An issue that I know is dear to John Scott's heart. As the sewerage network is a combined system, draining sewage and surface water from properties and roads, sewer flooding can occur following heavy rainfall events. There are a number of reasons for that, although the vast majority of those reasons tend to relate to people putting inappropriate objects into the sewer system in the first place. Something like 70 per cent of the events that happen in terms of sewer flooding are caused by that. We need a bit of work to be done around that. I know that I will be coming to the end of my remarks. We are constantly aware that flooding is a traumatic event that causes damage, disruption and distress to communities, individuals and businesses. We cannot always stop it, but we can make sure that we are prepared to do what we can to reduce the risk and where it occurs to support those affected. We are making progress. We have together delivered the first set of flood risk strategies and are supporting their delivery. There is an enormous amount of leadership that has gone into that. I recognise that. There is a huge amount of collective engagement. I recognise that as well. The legislation that I have referred to introduced a brand new approach to what was there before. It has been innovative. It has been an amazing journey from the act, the first national flood risk assessment and on to the strategies in their delivery. I look forward to future engagement with partners over the second flood risk management planning cycle as we look to what the future brings with regard to this particular problem. Thank you very much. I call Edward Mountain to speak to you and move the amendment to his name. Thank you Presiding Officer. In the outset, I would like to declare an interest as a partner in a farm partnership and an interest in a wild salmon fishery. I welcome today's debate on working in partnership to reduce flood risk across Scotland. I would like to state at the outset that the Scottish Conservatives will be happy to support the Government's motion. However, we feel that it is vital, considering the increasing rate of climate change, that the Scottish Government should consider all measures of slowing down water transfer from land to river and throughout the catchment. That is reflected in our amendment, which I would like to move at this stage in my name. Each and every one of us knows how much flooding can devastate the lives of our constituents with damage to property, destruction of crops, disruption of energy supplies and, in certain cases, tragic consequences with the loss of land. Although no Government can stop all flooding, Governments can and must find practical methods to manage flood water. King can you prove that you cannot stop the tides and we need actions, not words, when it comes to flooding. Therefore, managing floods, which we accept, is a centuries-old battle that humans have often fought and often lost because they underestimate the power of water. Furthermore, as climate changes, we now need to take account of flash floods, which are, by their nature, very unpredictable. The combination of flash floods and high tides means that pouring concrete and armouring riverbanks, while a visible solution, seldom provides the best answer. We need to look further afield for solutions, managing floodplains to allow them to do what they are supposed to do, and not for use for housing, would be just a good start. I want to look briefly at Inverness. SEPA estimates that the average cost of flood damages in Inverness stands at £5.6 million. Therefore, I welcome the Inverness flood alleviation scheme, which was made possible by the Flood Risk Management Act of 2009. It will protect 800 homes and 200 businesses in the city. However, communities and businesses in Inverness are rightly concerned that the costs have spiralled by £3.1 million over the original budget. That is nearly a 9 per cent increase on the planned cost. Residents rightly expect to want the best flood protections, but at the best price. Lesson needs to be learnt from that scheme. Often, the most expensive scheme is not the best option. We need to be realistic. I am pleased to see that there is now an acceptance that flood prevention can be a combination of sometimes speeding up the flow of water down water courses as well as delaying the speed that water gets into those water courses. Now, that acceptance means that we need to consider, for example, forestry and whether it can play a part. Do forests speed up drainage? Probably. Soil pans under trees and ditches keep waters from trees and are needed in forestry plantations. Planting and harvesting, however, often creates vertical tracks that become good natural drains. Good practice should have stopped this, but I see plenty of examples of this around the countryside when I am driving around the Highlands and Islands. Water moves too quickly now through woodlands and down to water courses, therefore increasing risk not only of flooding but of acidification and silt deposits. Now, I also say that it would like to mention the EU agricultural policy. It has always prioritised farming with pan-European objectives. With the UK leaving the European Union, we now have an opportunity to redesign our agricultural support systems. So perhaps we should be looking at subsidies, which also allow farmers to be compensated if their land is used as emergency planned flooding catchment areas in times of high rainfall. Now, it seems to also be fashionable to point the finger of blame at flooding at the management of upland areas. What is important in the management of these areas is that we have a range of habitats. To be technical, it requires plageo-climax and climax vegetation, as well as pioneer vegetation. This needs management, and experience tells me that mule berm pays a part in this. Furthermore, we need to ensure that the uplands are grazed in such a way as to prevent damage to fragile soils and peat bogs. That means controlling all grazing animals, not just deer. A holistic and balanced approach is what we need. I would also briefly like to mention water course management. Experience tells me that by allowing rivers to shallow with gravel deposits or clogged up with weeds means that they can hold less water. It is really that simple. Surely, it is time to investigate whether the dredging of rivers should be viewed as a natural and effective management tool in the same way that we view the dredging of ditches and drains. I would also like to mention the management of water. Perhaps we need to rethink the management of our locks and reservoirs. For example, if one looks at Loch Ness, having the ability to rise the water in Loch Ness at times of high rainfall would prevent flooding downstream. To give you a really simple example, if the height of Loch Ness was raised by just two inches, it would mean that those two inches would be spread over 56.4 square kilometres. It would be a massive sink holding the water before it drains down into the river. I will leave you to do the maths, but I can tell you that it is a huge amount of water and that it would have reduced flooding in Inverness. It has also become fashionable and rightly so to increase the use of green energy. Wind turbines, which cover many of our hills, provide clean and green energy, but be under no illusion that they add to the flooding risks. You should not forget that under each turbine, there are 250 to 420 cubic metres of concrete to hold them up. That means that each turbine base removes the same amount of peat or sponge, if you will, because concrete does not absorb water. It is not just that. Wind farms need good access tracks, miles and miles of them. Roads cause water to be pushed into drainage ditches, and drainage ditches flow down in water courses, which is a true example of speeding up the water and reaching our rivers. Are we perhaps managing that in the best way that we can? I am sure that the Scottish Government recognises that it is not about how much concrete you pour or how high you build defence walls or how deep you dredge a river. If a tidal surge and there is hard rainfall, we must make space for the water with more natural management schemes to slow down the speed that water reaches the choke points, and more importantly, the speed that reaches our urban conurbations. Scottish Labour will be supporting the Scottish Government motion today, with its emphasis on partnership working and the respect that it shows for it. However, our own amendment is intended to highlight some issues that need to be addressed on an on-going basis if we are to truly tackle the flooding challenges that we will face together over the coming years. I move our motion in my name at this point. We will also be supporting the Tory amendment with the climate change focus that it has today. Over the last two weeks, climate change has been placed at the centre of global diplomacy, and indeed, the cabinet secretary attended the deliberations in Bonn. The Paris agreement saw us reach international consensus that climate change is our shared threat and responsibility. However, now that the international community has spoken on that, it must deliver on those promises, and the nationally determined contributions, known to be insufficient, must be reexamined for greater ambition and equity. This year, the world has faced a deluge of extreme weather caused by climate change, the cost of which is estimated to be $200 billion. While Scotland has hunkered down for the tail end of some hurricanes, the country's main threat from a changing climate is heavy rainfall and subsequent flooding. Since 1961, Scotland's average annual precipitation rate has risen by 27 per cent. Our amendment stresses that there must be adequate research commission to assess the implications of climate change on flooding policy. Let me give you an example. The UK Committee on Climate Change highlighted that barriers to agroforestry must be addressed. Eileen McLeod wrote to me in early 2016, stating, "...whilst we don't have specific research on the impact of low-density woodland associated with agroforestry systems, we will still expect woodlands of this type to be beneficial for water management. Further research is needed and indeed may well be happening, but I make this point to emphasise that we must identify ways in which protection and better flood management can be based on science." Regularity of reviews of planning, mapping and other flood-related strategies is also essential. Planning has a part to play when considering working in partnership to reduce flood risk. I have an example from my own region where agricultural permitted development rights were used to inappropriately exploit the planning system in my view in respect to flood risk. As such, applications do not need planning permission and SEPA has no remit, so SEPA expressed to me their concern about a decision to grant a housing application on appeal, but recognised, of course, that due process had been followed. They stated, "...it is our judgment that the proposal constituted development within an undeveloped, sparsely developed flood plain as identified by the 200-year flood extent and therefore was unacceptable as the land-raising works undertaken by the applicant resulted in the loss of flood plain storage and conveyance. This loophole, in challenging times for flooding issues, should be addressed sooner rather than later. Further, our amendment recognises that no communities, whether urban or rural, should be left behind in those developments. Action must be inclusive and support those in challenged communities small as well as large." I wonder whether the member will share with me that there are also concerns about farmers and others putting in drainage that causes flood plains that are naturally there to dry out so that, at a later date, if water has to go on to them, the hard ground is less able to absorb the water, so there is a very difficult and interlocking set of issues here. Claudia Beamish I absolutely agree with the member, and it is a point well made. There is also on a much smaller scale the issue of concreting over driveways in gardens as well. The 10-year funding for potentially vulnerable areas will be vital to help national-scale flood issues. However, not all locations at flood risk are eligible for that funding, including small groups of less than 50 properties. That is the case of Carthven in Dumfries and Galloway, which is regularly hit by flooding. The First Minister in 2016 gave a commitment to my colleague Colin Smith that the Government would work with SEPA to review this, and I very much hope that this is going to be done and would welcome an update. It is right that an ecosystems approach to flooding is promoted in the land use strategy, which I believe should be given more weight. Flooding needs to be tackled, of course, with natural resources and ecosystems in mind. Man-made flood defences are, indeed, as the Tories have made clear. They have a part to play, but the Scottish Government must and is maximising our resilience through sustainable land and water management. Working in my region of South Scotland, the Tweed Forum is a stellar example of partnership working and sustainable flood prevention. With members of public bodies, local stakeholders and NGOs, the forum has enhanced and protected the river Tweed and its tributaries in terms of natural, built and cultural heritage, using catchment management and, with its two strategic aims, interlinked. There are, indeed, implications for the co-operation fund pillar 2 of CAP as we move forward beyond Brexit for this. Again referring to our amendment, partnership working, if it is really to work, must have the funding that it needs. This year's SEPA has faced a budget cut of £1.8 million, and I hope that that cut will not affect flooding priorities at all. Similarly, reliable funding is essential for the foreign rescue services, and this year again cuts of £19.4 million have taken place. It is challenging to keep up to date with new equipment needed and organised flood response working groups such as in Lanark in my region, which cannot function effectively if there is a risk of closure of local fire stations. Further, will the cut to local authorities affect flooding? I do not want to be negative about those issues, but it is vitally important that there is adequate funding. Just yesterday, pupils from Ulston high school were counted to me in our Parliament chat room that, in times of heavy rain, their school car park has been so flooded that cars were swept along. That takes me full circle to the necessity of research to inform regular reviews of the relevant strategies for all ranges of flood prevention and to protect our citizens here in Scotland now and in the future. We now move to the open debate. Members should note that we are really pushed for time to take no more time than given. I call Graham Day, followed by John Scott, up to five minutes please, Mr Day. Large-scale incidents over recent years have really brought home to people the severe impacts that flooding can have on communities across the country, not only the direct, immediate or residual, physical impacts of the flooding but the subsequent effect on insurance premiums. My constituency has managed to escape relatively lightly. We have tended largely to suffer only relatively small-scale, localised events, but it is clear from elsewhere in Scotland, including Ellen and my colleague Joanne Martin's constituency, of the extent to which the effects of climate change are being felt. Good progress is being made, of course, as we seek to reduce Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions but the impacts of climate change are with us now and they are not going away. There are already significant steps being taken across the country to try to reduce the threat of flooding on homes and businesses, but whatever man-made or natural flood defences we deploy, we will never entirely put a stop to flooding and we have many of our citizens living in or having businesses within areas that are prone to being impacted with all the trauma and upset that causes. With that comes the added subsequent difficulty of securing affordable insurance. Following the cabinet secretary's urgings, I therefore want to highlight the work of Floodry, the first scheme of its kind in the world. Floodry will be in place for a further 23 years and is designed to, among other things, enable flood cover to be affordable for those households at the highest risk of flooding and increase the availability and choice of insurers for customers. Before the introduction of Floodry, only 9 per cent of households who had made prior flood claims could get quotes from two or more insurers. None were able to get quotes from five or more. In the scheme's first month in operation, the number rose dramatically to 68 per cent of those households who were able to get quotes from five or more insurers. By December 2016, that increased further, so that 84 per cent could get quotes from five or more, while 95 per cent could get quotes from two or more. At launch, 16 insurance providers were signed up to the scheme, and that has now increased to 60, representing 90 per cent of the home insurance market. That is extremely good news for everyone who lives in areas that are prone to such events, and we should acknowledge it as such. Lord Krebs of the UK CCC's adaptation sub-committee, when he was appearing before the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, made clear that homes restored under Floodry should be done so in a more resilient way, so if they are flooded in the future, the properties will be insurable and the problems more manageable. I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to working via the National Centre for Resilience with stakeholders, including the Association of British Insurers, the Building Standards Agency, the Scottish Flood Forum and Climate Exchange, to encourage resilient home repairs after a flood, and to provide the most up-to-date information about techniques and materials to householders. Although we cannot of course control the weather, we can seek to mitigate its impact on our communities. There are various stakeholders responsible for minimising the risk of flood damage to Government, councils, householders and neighbours all of their roles to play. There are some councils such as Perth and Kinross and Dumfries and Galloway that provide grants for property-level protection measures, such as barriers for doorways, to those at high risk of flooding. That is not uniform. Another organisation that I would like to pay tribute to is the Scottish Deforement and Scottish Flood Forum, which is a Scottish Government-funded charity that provides support for and represents those who are affected by or at risk of flooding. I found the forum to be a great help when dealing with admittedly low-level, but none the less important to those concerned constituency cases. The Scottish Flood Forum, rather like Flood 3, plays an important role. Let me conclude by focusing on the role that major engineered flood defences can have in improving the lives of those living or working in areas prone to very significant and traumatic flooding. Just over a year ago, and I shall recall that the cabinet secretary visited Breakin in my colleague, Mary Gougeon's constituency, to open the town's new flood defence scheme. It provides a 1 in 200 years' current day standard of defence and includes direct defences, flood embankments, flood walls, upgrades to the existing surface water drainage system, work on the Denburn culvert and installation of three submerged pump stations. Even before it was completed, it had proved its worth during the construction process when it helped to protect the town twice from potential flooding. The proposed brothic water protection scheme, in my constituency, was last year prioritised as one of 42 projects by SEPA for Scottish Government funding, and I look forward to seeing it progressing. Once completed, 530 people will no longer be at risk from flooding, and damage costing approximately £840,000 each year will be prevented. I welcome the steps that are being taken to mitigate flooding damage and help people move on from flooding. I look forward to further effective measures that have been taken as understanding of how best to meet flooding and its challenges that it improves. John Scott, followed by Gillian Martin. Five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and can I declare an interest in this debate as a farmer, although not one as yet affected by flooding. I also remark how much this feels like Groundhog Day for me. I suspect that the cabinet secretary, both of us being survivors of the flood risk management Scotland Bill 2009, has served its purpose well on record the eight years on. Many of the matters under consideration are still under discussion and are now required to be taken on to the next stage. Without hesitation, we welcome the Government's intention to increase the budget allocated for natural assets and flooding. We welcome the 22.3 per cent increase in the river basin management budget, and note that the coasts and flood budget level 3 has been maintained at £1.2 million. However, we regret that SEPA's budget has been cut from £37 to £35.9 million, and notwithstanding the cabinet secretary's remarks, we still think that the intended budget reduction requires further explanation. We note the maintenance of the coasts and flood budget, but we think that that is an area in which, in future, we may have to shoulder significant increases to prevent coastal erosion and inundation. In the evidence taken in the 2009 bill, the evidence available then from the Met Office predicted a sea level rise by 2080 of up to 75 centimetres, but I think that that estimate is now being viewed as a conservative one. Given the prediction of last week of an eight to ten feet sea level rise by the national Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as reported by Business Insider, although land and river flooding have the potential to inflict massive damage on cities such as Perth, those threats pale into insignificance when compared to the threat of sea level rise for our children and grandchildren living in coastal towns and cities. Regrettably, at some point, we in Scotland may have to decide which areas we are allowed to be reclaimed by the sea and which areas we endeavour to protect. I suggest that this is a strategic thinking that should now be taking place by Government, by SEPA, by the Royal Society, by RICS, by CASLA and, indeed, by us all. A national debate on the threat will not solve the problem, but it will at least focus minds. Turning now to land-based flooding and river basin management, again, this is an area in which there is a finite limit to hard flood mitigation measures. There is only so much concrete that we can use and afford, and so we need to look again at the use of natural capital. Again, this was a point that was made at recommendation 13 in the stage 1 report in the 2009 flood risk management bill. I reiterate that we now have to do more and use more imaginatively upstream flood plains and landscapes to take the peaks of floods that have inflicted so much damage in the past. Sophisticated hydrology to achieve this remains at least part of the solution to this growing need. Land managers should continue to be encouraged to help with this as an identifiable public good in a post Brexit Scotland and also on that subject. The illegal release of beavers into the tea catchment area only makes a difficult situation much worse. Managed landscapes, managed hydrology, will perhaps provide long-term protection for the citizens in the tea catchment area. However, uncontrolled beaver re-introduction will only reduce hydrologists and land managers' abilities to use natural capital and landscape assets to provide necessary flood protection. However, no debate and flooding could pass without me mentioning internal and external flooding. That is already referred to by the cabinet secretary in press week, and I am grateful to her for meeting me on this subject yesterday afternoon, as well as senior Scottish Water officials meeting with me on 8 November. I welcome their acknowledgement of the problem and the now-established need to work collaboratively with South Ayrshire Council and other partners to create an integrated drainage and surface water management plan in the longer term for my constituents in response to the rainfall-driven sewer flooding problems that Scottish Water is trying to address immediately. Of course, that will require some millions of pounds of funding, and that is where the Scottish Government can help. I again ask the cabinet secretary to see what she can do in this regard to help my constituents. The 2009 act has made a start to addressing flooding issues in Scotland. It will need to be built on and enhanced to deal with future problems. In 2016, my constituency was ravaged by flooding that was the culmination of heavy rains over the Christmas and new year period. We had avoided the terrible flooding that took place over in the west side of Aberdeenshire, Mr Burnett's constituency, in the new year. However, early in the morning of 8 January, the people from Port Elphinstone, Keith Hall and Verruri—95 homes in total, and Ellen—65 homes in total, and many families in Methlick were rescued from their homes, some in boats and evacuated to local schools who opened their doors for them. Many more towns and villages also suffered flood damage. However, it is the long-term aftermath of a flood that I want to talk about. The road to getting back into your home is long and difficult, and the effects of a flood last a lot longer than the time that it takes to refurnish a house for which some people in my constituency took up to a year. However, people live long-term with the anxiety of flooding ever happening again, and that is why the debate is so important. People want to know that we have a strategy to prevent flooding. I am sure that the words of the cabinet secretary outlining the substantial flood strategy are welcomed. Port Elphinstone, Verruri and Ellen hit badly, and are included in the on-going flood protection studies around the Don, Urie and Aethan rivers. The results of those studies will inform whether flood protection schemes for the areas that I have mentioned are the way forward, as they have been for Elgin and Stonehaven, who escaped the ravages of storm Desmond in 2016. However, one of the things that I discovered in the months after the floods is that on-going communication with residents is absolutely vital, but it is also missing. Just as vital is partnership working between agencies such as our Government, local authorities, SEPA, river management groups, landowners, farmers and Scottish Water. In Port Elphinstone, we had a situation where the river Don burst through a protective bund. Drains could not cope in a privately owned canal called the Laid overflowed, and that all converged to drive people out of their homes. SEPA has a role in the river. The local authority has responsibility for flood protection bunds and Scottish Water is responsible for the drains, and then there is an added stretch of water that is owned by a private company. In the months and years after the event, I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to get everyone responsible for all the pieces of the Port Elphinstone flooding jigsaw in that area in the same room to talk to residents. One of the difficulties has been that residents have not been informed when the repair or flood management work has been carried out, and neither me nor my staff will forget the day that Port Elphinstone residents woke up to find a channel of the canal filled in with soil. That was an attempt by private owners to manage the canal. They said that they had taken advice from SEPA, but we know that they had, but they neglected to form the residents living next to that canal. When flood management decisions are taken, everyone must work together, but they cannot forget that those residents are suffering a trauma and they need to be kept in the loop. That is vitally important. I want to end by talking a little bit about flood prevention and to recognise the work of peatland action. The situation in Elin, Methlick and Inverdory in other areas of my constituency was caused by heavy rainfall, saturating fields that could not soak up any more, and rivers bursting their banks, and a temperature drop that meant further upstream where there was once ice and snow, there was water. We have a natural resource that is vital in soaking up excess water, and that is our peatlands. In Scotland, we have 4 per cent of the world's peatlands. Not only do they hold 140 years' worth of carbon emissions, which we know are leading to global temperature rises and contributing to flood events, the spagon moss in peatland can hold up 25 times the amount of water as a kitchen sponge. The terrain in our mountains and hills are source keys to flood prevention. Spagon mosses and heather, when allowed to regenerate, hold water in the hills for longer and reduce peak flows downstream during high rainfall events. It is not just about how we deal with flood events when they happen, but the environmental work that we do now to lessen the amount of water making its way downstream to cause a flooding event. Restoration of our nation's peatlands are a good start, and we cannot ignore the long-term strategy. The climate change plan, which in itself is testament to how seriously the Scottish Government is in dealing with the environmental causes of flooding. I call Lewis MacDonald to be followed by Mark Ruskell up to six minutes, please. Thank you very much. It is just two years, as we have heard, since heavy rainfall and winter storms brought disastrous flooding to parts of Aberdeen and the northeast. As we go into another winter, the question that many people will ask is whether there has been real and fundamental change that can give them confidence that such a disaster will not happen again. Two years ago, following storm Frank, hundreds of properties were flooded, serious damage was caused and many people suffered both trauma and material loss as a result. A lot of the coverage rightly was of the effects on the upper reaches of the River Deen and the River Don, Balator, for example, in Verruri and Chemnay as well. There were impacts on the city of Aberdeen at the other end of the River Deen, where sheltered housing had to be evacuated at the Bridget D and where there were floods elsewhere in the city. There was rightly a lot of focus on the efforts of local communities to help themselves and on fantastic charitable efforts such as Hope Floats, involving some of the same people involved with Aberdeen's solidarity with refugees, making the point that community engagement works at home and abroad. Today's debate highlights the role of public agencies such as SEPA, local authorities, Scottish Water and the Scottish Government, but public agencies cannot deliver flood recovery or flood resilience unless they take communities and local people with them. Flooding in North East Scotland is nothing new, nor is it confined to major rivers like the Deen and the Don. As Gillian Martin mentioned, Stonehaven was fortunate two years ago, but it has perhaps had the most frequent damage from rain and floods over the years, with flooding from the current water and the cowy water, landslips on the barvy braze and coastal flooding from North Sea storms. The flood protection scheme, which Aberdeenshire Council has taken forward at Stonehaven, is intended to provide protection for nearly 400 homes against a once-in-200-years flooding event. It will cost £16 million and is due to be completed in 2020. That is a very welcome initiative, of course, but the reality is that more and more homes and businesses are at risk from flooding and local councils need resources, as well as a partnership approach to meet the needs of the communities in question. The reason for that increase in the risk is, of course, as has been highlighted already today, climate change. The former chief scientist to the Met Office, Dame Julia Slingo, has summed up the science. Liam Kerr I thank Lewis MacDonald for taking intervention. Just on the point about local authorities, given that Aberdeenshire Council in Scotland, the Shire, the Third Fundist and Angus Council are facing a shortfall of £50 million due to Scottish Government cuts, can they really be expected to cover all of the flood risk? Lewis MacDonald Well, if the point that he is making is that local authorities in the north-east and local authorities across Scotland need more support from the Scottish Government, of course that is a point that I would echo. However, if there is any suggestion that flood prevention and flood risk are not recognised as high priorities for local authorities, then clearly I would take a different view, but I think that the main point that he is making is one that I would support. Dame Julia Slingo told the Royal Society of Edinburgh recently that an extended period of extreme UK winter rainfall is now seven times more likely than in a world without human emissions of greenhouse gases. Seven times more likely because of climate change, and it will only get worse over the next few decades, even if the rate of production of greenhouse gases can be significantly reduced. In other words, planning for low-carbon emissions while dealing with the flood risks that we know about now will not be enough. We also need to mitigate the increased risks of more frequent and severe floods for the foreseeable future, and that means providing the resources to communities and public agencies to allow them to play their part. I was fortunate enough to be an environment minister some 12 years ago, when the Scottish Executive was able to take a major step forward in flood hazard mapping technology. Three-dimensional mapping of the whole of Scotland underpinned the development of higher-resolution river and coastal flood hazard maps that had previously been available, and since then the data and modelling methodologies have been improved further, as the cabinet secretary said, to allow, for example, surface water risk maps to be published three or four years ago. It was good to be involved at a key stage in the development of what is now a sophisticated flood risk management system, but, clearly, more still needs to be done. High-quality digital terrain models are now available, which can help to bring the risk assessment of coastal and surface water risks up to the levels that are already achieved for rivers. New technologies can also help to assess the state of sewers that the cabinet secretary mentioned, and to convert gardens in urban areas. Very important for me as a resident of Aberdeen, but also in other towns and cities, too. There are currently over 100,000 properties at risk of flooding across Scotland. Seat by estimate that this number will rise by an additional 60,000 homes by 2080 due to the impact of climate change. That is a lot of extra risk, and a lot of public expenditure will indeed be required. Because we know whatever flood prevention schemes and early warning schemes are put in place, flooding will happen. That is why we need to improve household and community resilience. Despite the vulnerability of so many properties to flooding, the number of people without flood insurance is higher than in Scotland than it is in England. Over 22 per cent of households are nearly two in every nine. Not only that, but that lack of insurance is unequal. Over half of lowest-income households are not insured for flooding. Tenants often have no contents in rented properties, although some private landowners see no need to pay for buildings insurance for those buildings. Providers—Rosanna Cunningham mentioned it—have developed schemes to reduce premiums in high-risk areas, but that has not helped those who are not insured. There is an urgent need for Government to look at the issue. I hope that we will hear a little from the minister this afternoon on what more can be done to ensure that poorer households have the cover that they need. That has got to be part of planning for future flood risk management, along with the other things that have been mentioned. Mark Ruskell, to be followed by Mike Rumbles up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I welcome this opportunity to debate flooding here this afternoon. It is certainly far better to debate this now, rather than the political melstrom of a flooding crisis. I think that there has been perhaps a few in this chamber over the years. We have already heard the seaper estimate that there are 108,000 properties in Scotland that are presently at risk. We have heard from the Cabinet Secretary that we have got 40 flood protection projects being funded by the Scottish Government. Welcome investment utilising a £42 million capital budget. Of course, that will only support and protect 10,000 properties by 2026. Over 90 per cent of properties at risk will receive no protection. By the time that we get to 2026, the number of houses at risk will be dramatically revised upwards. We have already heard the figure from Lewis MacDonald, the seaper's estimate, that we could be looking at yet another 60,000 properties at risk by 2080. I am starting to see the impact of a lack of available capital funds on the ground. In Stirling Council, multiple competing projects for flood protection work came forward for Scottish Government funding. Some such as Bridges of Allen have been successful in squeezing through the funding formula, and communities are very grateful for that. For many smaller rural settlements, the low number of residential properties weighs up against projects. In the case of Aberfoil, being repeatedly flooded out year after year, it was starting to rip the economic heart out of the town, devastate public services such as the school, but the low number of residential properties kicked the possibility of Scottish Government funding out of reach. I am concerned that, although we cannot protect everything everywhere, a constrained funding model is leaving some communities behind, or it is placing an impossible strain on councils who are having to choose between maintaining roads on one side or building flood walls on the other. I am not under any illusion that hard engineering measures alone will provide the total solution, and sensible planning decisions such as not building on floodplains such as Bridges of Allen's Air through Curse need to be made by planning authorities and then backed up by the planning minister. We also need to take natural flood management more seriously. There were concerns when the original 2009 act went through that natural flood management would not be embedded enough in the solutions and the projects that would come from that new holistic approach. I will go back to the example of Aberfoil again. Stirling Council recently led a big piece of work to look at how such an approach could be used to significantly reduce the extent and, therefore, the cost of hard defence measures in the town. The stumbling block was that landowners did not want to buy into an approach that ultimately would have saved taxpayers' money and helped to save the town. With the land use strategy quietly introduced, there is a need for government to ensure that if land does not deliver public goods such as flood prevention, then it simply does not get public subsidy. I know also that the closure of the environmental co-operation action fund means that there is little support for farmers to co-operate now on a catchment scale in a second. The new rural innovation support service could fill that gap over time, but it only has funding for research and development at present. I will give way to Mr Mountain. Edward Mountain. Mr Russell, thank you very much for giving way. My question really is that for land to deliver public good. I agree that that is the time that it should get any subsidies from the Government, but it is making sure that the subsidies meet the loss in the case of floodplains that is the difficulty. Can you see a way around that? I think that it comes back to the definition of what are public goods. We need to have a debate in this Parliament about how we value natural capital. I would certainly like to see farmers rewarded for the public goods that they are delivering. I think that natural capital is a way to achieve that. However, we need to have this debate in this chamber about what is the purpose of agricultural subsidies post Brexit. We do not have that full debate. I very much like the cabinet secretary, Fergus Ewing, to come to this chamber and debate that with you and me. When land managers get it right, as in the case of the Adelston Water, which we have already heard as an example, they can protect communities. However, when land managers get it wrong, the public sector often picks up the bill. The dramatic floods, for example in Dumblain bridge of Allen in 2012, were caused in part by a farm applying fields in the wrong direction. It is simple to do, but it is a catastrophic result. We have also seen zero successful applications for agroforestry grants in Scotland, with the budget now being cut as a result. Why is that? Where is the driver for natural flood management that should be resulting in dozens of applications for riparian planting schemes? In closing, I hope that the cabinet secretary will have three conversations with cabinet colleagues on the back of this debate. One is with Derek Mackay about the long-term sustainability of an infrastructure fund that only protects 10 per cent of homes from flooding. Another is with Kevin Stewart about the need for consistent planning decisions that do not make this expensive crisis even more costly. Thirdly, a conversation with Fergus Ewing to make sure that the land use strategy is being realised on the ground. Right now, expectations on land managers are low and the delivery is dismal in many areas. Mike Rumbles, followed by Angus MacDonald. Up to six minutes, please, Mr Rumbles. Once again, we have before us a rather on-we-doing-well motion, which we are all supposed to support. Why should we not support a motion that says that the risk-based, plan-led, multi-agency partnership approach to tackle footing is the way forward? Well, of course it is. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats will of course be supporting the motion in tonight's vote, as we will be supporting the Conservative amendment and the Labour amendment. Everything seems so sensible this afternoon. Thank you, Mr Crawford. However, just wait. As Opposition MSPs, we would not be doing our job if we didn't hold the Government to account for their actions, or rather lack of them as well, and that is, of course, exactly what I aim to do in my contribution to this debate. Communities in the north-east have suffered from severe flooding several times over recent years. Major flooding events have occurred in Ballata, a Boins, Dunhaven, Chemney, Inverruri and Huntley to name just a few towns and villages across the north-east. I am going to concentrate on the issue of Government funding for flood defences, and I would not want the minister to think that it is just me criticising the Government's actions on this issue. Lack of time presents me from referring to more than just one report in the Scotsman newspaper of 16 January last year. It reported that. John Swinney said that the Scottish Government had provided flood defences to communities' length and breadth of Scotland, as he defended budget cuts to the country's environment agency. Mr Swinney faced stinging criticism yesterday for reducing funding for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency by 6 per cent, from £39 million to £36 million in the 2016-17 budget. Ten years ago, in 2007, when the current SNP Government came to power, and hopefully it will not be there for much longer, it transferred responsibility for flood defences from itself to our local authorities. However, the cabinet secretary said earlier in the opening debate very proudly that the Scottish Government has provided funding of £42 million a year through the local government settlement for local authorities. However, nine years ago, back in 2008, guess what, it was also £42 million a year. Now, to be fair to the Scottish Government, and I always like to be that, it does provide other funds to tackle flood protection and relief other than through the local government allocation. Let's just take one of these. The Scottish Government's natural assets and flooding budget line. According to information that I received yesterday from the Parliament's information centre, the budget line for flood alleviation and coast protection was £1.2 million in 2013-14, £1.2 million in 2014-15, £1.2 million in 2015-16, and you can guess what the 16-17 figure is, and I'm sure you can guess what the 17-18 figure is, it's £1.2 million. Now, this is not good news for communities like Montrose, for instance, where the town faces a real flooding threat from coastal erosion. Of course. Liam Kerr. Thank Mr Rumbles for taking the intervention. You mentioned Montrose and coastal erosion in the same breath. Flooding looks inevitable, as I put to the cabinet secretary earlier on, unless something is done and done faster. Does the member agree with me that the Scottish Government must proactively step in and do something about it now? Mike Rumbles. Yes, I'm glad to take that intervention. I agree 100 per cent what Liam Kerr has just said. Now, I know that the cabinet secretary is aware of the situation facing Montrose, he mentioned it in response to Liam Kerr's earlier intervention, because she visited it herself to see what the situation was earlier this year. MSPs from across the political divide, such as Liam Kerr and myself, have raised this issue directly with the cabinet secretary to see if funding can be raised to tackle this issue before any flooding occurs in Montrose as a result of this coastal erosion. I pay tribute to Liam Kerr, who has been very willing to work together to see to tackle for the people of Montrose this issue and trying to put party politics aside and get a result. Much better to act now before anything happens than wait for the risk of flooding becoming too great. I am convinced that Montrose is under threat and it's a real threat and we do need some action. We've both approached Angus Council, they don't have the funding to tackle it. I heard the minister say earlier on that we're going to wait until we see what can be done. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could give us an update on the situation in Montrose as she sees it right now in her summing up, because I'm sure members across the chamber would appreciate that. Turning to the Government's motion before us today, I see the time is running out. Who could possibly disagree with it? Who could disagree with it? We certainly don't—no, no, I don't disagree with it at all, Bruce Crawford, from a secondary position day, and therefore we will be supporting it decision time, as I said. However, do not mistake this for uncritical support. I'm sure you couldn't mistake it for uncritical support. Holding the Government to account for their actions is exactly what we are supposed to be doing in these debates that is so much more important than engaging in self-congratulation, which this Government is far too keen to do. Speeches of five minutes from now on, please. Angus MacDonald, followed by Oliver Mundell. Okay, thanks, Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to be able to contribute to today's debate, given the constituency interest that I have, not least the threat of flooding to industry in Grangemouth. Flood risk management is something that, particularly over the last few years, has been an important part of planning in Scotland. The more years go by, the more extreme weather we become subjected to and the greater the risk to our communities and businesses from flooding. Clearly, those changes in weather patterns are some of the effects of climate change in action, and I'd like to pay tribute, in contrast to Mr Rumbles, to the Scottish Government for doing what it can to tackle climate change and putting in place a legacy of protection for the future. However, with sea levels continuing to rise and no doubt further challenges to face us in the years to come, it's important to recognise the work that is being done now to protect our communities and businesses from the potentially devastating effects of flooding. Today's debate is an opportunity for me to highlight the excellent, collaborative work that has been undertaken in my constituency of Falkirk East, which will benefit communities across Falkirk district, not to mention the industries in Grangemouth, which are vital to Scotland's economy and our GDP. The recognition of the importance of protecting our communities is not a recent occurrence. Under the previous SNP administration in Falkirk Council, which I was part of, consideration was given to the effects of flooding that could have on our communities. It was at this point that our administration started to invest in flood defences and protection for communities. The initial plans were put in place for the bonus flood alleviation scheme, which was confirmed in 2006 and built by 2013, which was the first step in beginning to plan for future events of extreme weather. In the chamber, members will be under no illusion as to the importance of Grangemouth and its industry to Scotland. It is only right that we put plans in place to protect it from the risks that flooding poses in the future. One such project, which is already under way, is the Grangemouth flood protection scheme, which, as part of NPF 3 in 2014, was highlighted that the Grangemouth investment zone required the construction of flood defences structures and or the undertaking of works for flood defence where the area of development is or exceeds two hectares. In the national flood risk management strategy, published by SEPA in 2015, the Grangemouth flood protection scheme was ranked first out of 42 identified schemes across Scotland and is recognised as being vitally important. It is recognised that the scheme, when in place will protect 5,000 properties, residential, commercial and industrial, it was estimated that flood damages avoided in the region of £6 billion, so it is clearly money well spent. Grangemouth is surrounded by a number of water courses, including the fourth estuary, the rivers Carren and Avon, as well as the Grangeburn. Members will realise how important it is for the scheme to be in place. Studies have been undertaken on this project since 2015, and most recently, ground investigation works along the tidal reaches of the river Carren and the river Avon have been completed and reported on. Falkirk Council is now at the stage where options have been appraised and considered for the next stage of the scheme. Of course, stakeholders within Falkirk Council are the utilities, industrial partners such as Ineos and elected members have been consulted with the next phase of public engagement scheduled for 2018. To date, and with thanks to the Scottish Government, Falkirk Council has spent £2 million on getting Grangemouth flood protection scheme to this stage, such as the complex nature of the scheme, and the latest estimates put the cost at £139 million to complete the scheme. However, there will be investment from industry in that. Given that it will be protecting against damages of up to £6 billion, it is clear to see the importance of the scheme to Grangemouth and Scotland as a whole, not to mention the communities in Grangemouth. In addition, further work is planned to be carried out along the fourth estuary shoreline near to the village of Earth. It is currently at the study phase, which will now be taken forward for consideration in the next cycle of flood risk management plans. However, that does not necessarily mean that it will be progressed as a formal flood protection scheme. It is encouraging to see Falkirk Council partnership working with SIPA and Scottish Water to deliver functional surface water management plans. In addition, the work carried out by SIPA, Scottish Water and other agencies towards protecting communities is clearly of vital importance. In conclusion, my own local authority Falkirk Council, alongside its partners, are to be commended for the work that they are undertaking to ensure that our communities, industry and vital national assets are as protected as they can be from the potential risk of flooding. However, it is also incumbent upon us, all of us, to ensure that communities and individuals have access to the necessary insurance advice and information to further protect themselves should defences fail in the face of an ever-changing climate. Oliver Mundell, followed by Bruce Crawford. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate and to put across some of the concerns of my constituents and myself and to put those on the record. I recognise that there is a great deal of positive work and engagement taking place around Scotland on flooding issues. My experience in Dumfrieshire is that warm words and interagency working often fall short of action. The design and implementation of solutions often moves at an infuriatingly slow pace and has left many with the ever constant fear of seeing their home destroyed. The scale of the challenge ahead and the dire problems our communities face can be seen from the sheer number of towns and villages across the Dumfrieshire constituency who continue to battle against rising floodwaters. Those include Langham, Estelle Muir, East Riggs, Eaglesfield, Monnie Ive, Thornhill, Annan, Moffitt, Warnlockhead and Dumfries, among others. My mailbag is perpetually full of concerns. Many of those who get in touch feel abandoned and find that their views are disregarded and that, all too often, the process is dictated by the views of the local authority. If we are talking of genuine partnerships, we need to see the views of local residents taken more seriously. Rather than passing the buck, Dumfries and Galloway Council must start taking their core responsibilities for road drainage in particular more seriously. I wish to highlight the ill feelings and serious concerns that exist locally over the White Sands flooding scheme. It will be no secret for members to know that I have consistently called for the £25 million scheme proposed for the River Nith in Dumfries town to be axed. Like many people living locally, I believe that it is the council's incompetence that will ultimately destroy our town centre, not the overspilling of water from the River Nith. Rather than a genuine consultation with local people and business owners, the Labour Party, particularly in the previous administration, have pushed their own pet project forward and have tagged an unpopular landscape gardening scheme on to proposals to build a defensive bund. Even the Scottish Government must be confused as to why local people do not want £25 million spent in their area. However, flood defences are important. However, it is clear that the problem in that case is that people do not want that particular scheme and never will. To be fair, there is no wonder that local residents are skeptical about the council's ability to build a bund designed to keep water out when the same council has spent years floundering in their efforts to build a swimming pool capable of keeping water in it. I am afraid that I am not going to take any interventions until I am very tight on time. Naturally, I welcome an inquiry into the scheme as an objector, but I have continued concerns that it will take up to two years to complete and we still do not know how much that inquiry will cost taxpayers. We cannot be certain of the outcome of that inquiry, but it is alarming that more than 400 local residents and businesses have sent in legal objections to the proposal, despite very legitimate concerns that it seems that the council is absolutely hell bent on proceeding with the scheme by hook or by crook. Meanwhile, residents in Nunholm and Kingham live in continued fear that, if the scheme goes ahead, it will narrow the water channel and lead to water being displaced into their properties. I continue to back local residents throughout the process and I hope that, at the very least, that will allow their concerns to be aired, tested and taken seriously by the council. Returning to my earlier comments about road drainage, I feel that it is important to remember that flooding is not just caused by our natural rivers. In some cases, I have constituents living in damp and miserable conditions because of significant drainage issues on local roads. That seems to me to be an easy fix and members can only imagine the frustration of local residents living in annan and estriggs, who, earlier this year, experienced a great deal of damage following flash floods. Their anger was compounded when they found out that, despite flooding issues being well known in the area, the street drains had not even been checked, let alone cleared, in eight months. It is only a question, but it seems a relatively obvious one to me. Instead of prioritising a grand multimillion pound flood defence scheme in Dumfries, that very few people support, the council might need to prioritise smaller schemes elsewhere across my constituency. Bruce Crawford, followed by Alexander Burnett. The Presiding Officer will know that all evidence suggests that the weather events that create flooding are only likely to increase as a result of human-made global warming. I wish I had more time to address that, but speaking time reductions prohibit. Let me pay tribute to our country's significant achievements in reducing our carbon footprint over recent years. A number of areas across my constituency are severely affected by repeated flooding events. The City of Stirling's relationship with the River Forth presents many challenges. More than 730 residential and 18 non-residential properties are judged at being a risk from flooding. Around 80 per cent of those are directly at risk due to the swelling of the River Forth during and under adverse weather conditions. In rural Stirling and Calander, flooding can often disrupt traffic businesses and homes. Again, it is its relationship with the river and, on this occasion, the river teeth that causes the majority of disruption and damage. I recognise the efforts of Stirling Council in investing in mitigation measures for areas such as Calander, Bridgehawk and Riverside. I have no doubt that they could do more and people would want them to do so, but the measures that they have taken at least have been helpful. So, too, is the Scottish Government's financial help for flooded properties. That has gone some way to alleviating concerns, particularly for businesses who can often lose out on vital trade as a result of flooding. However, today, I want to share in some detail with members the challenging situation in the town of Aberfoil in my constituency. I should say that I also share some of the concerns raised by Mark Ruskell in regard to Aberfoil. Again, situated on the River Forth, Aberfoil is exposed to increased flood risk as a result of sustained heavy rain or snow melt. The effect that has on the community is not just on the day-to-day life and the running of the shops and businesses there, but the overall impact on the villages morale is becoming more pronounced. The situation is also creating prohibition on investment in Aberfoil and it has created a drag on the local economy. For instance, I was saddened recently to see the closure of the Ganag Garden Centre. That business occupied a key footprint in the village centre. In recent years, Stirling Council has looked at support mechanisms from the Scottish Government in order to address the risk of flooding in Aberfoil. A plan based on a 1 in 200-year event was understandably rejected by the local community largely due to the significant visual impact of such hard, large defences. To that, a 1 in 10-year plan that would not have provided the village with an adequate level of flood defence was also rejected. Sadly, however, as a result of a lack of an acceptable firm plan, Stirling Council missed the funding window for Scottish Government support towards flood defences. However, whatever that background might be, wherever the difficulties might have been, we all have to work together to find the best possible outcome for the community. If they do not, I fear further deterioration of the economic offering of the area. Tracking the problem of flooding in Aberfoil, at least some positive forward movement will help to attract new investment into the town. It will make it easier for businesses to secure insurance cover and reunite a sense of purpose for many local people. On the ground, moves are being made to look at methods of tackling flooding rightly for the upstream by the local flood forum. I applaud the work that they do, but they are only just always touched to the surface. The councils continue to assess how it can best mitigate the impact of flooding in Aberfoil with what looks at the face of it now, a plan for a 1 in 100, at least acceptable, while a plan for a 1 in 100-year flood scheme is being promoted. However, the next round of funding for Scottish Government support in this area is not until 2022, and you might imagine that this seems a very long time away in the future for many in the village. However, it is important that a lasting solution is met. Therefore, can the ministers open up discussions with Stirling Council officials about how best the Scottish Government can support an application process for flood defence investment in Aberfoil? Can I say that I have been deeply impressed by the resilience of the community in the face of real challenge? Aberfoil has always been a remarkable place to visit and to set up home. It will continue to be so, no matter what is thrown at it. However, if the threat of flooding can be alleviated, it can continue to establish itself as a must-visit destination, offering an incredible backdrop of scenic beauty that the people of Scotland can continue to access and enjoy for many generations to come. Alexander Burnett, to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'm glad to be able to speak in this debate today. For flooding is a problem that affects families, infrastructure and businesses across Scotland, especially in the north-east and especially in my constituency Aberdeenshire west. I know first-hand how devastating flood damage can be, and I note my register of interests as I also had property damage by Storm Frank. Storm Frank floods caused more damage in Ballater than any other community in the UK, with 300 homes and 60 businesses were flooded. Rebuilding efforts went on for months and businesses are still rebuilding two years later. The extent of flood risk simply cannot be overstated. The Scottish Government estimates that over 100,000 properties across Scotland are at risk for flooding, and one in 13 Scottish businesses remain at risk. As flooding continues to threaten our communities, the current funding framework for flood prevention remains inadequate. Annual flooding damages total an estimated £252 million in Scotland and £1.1 billion across the United Kingdom. However, despite the staggering figure, funding from the Scottish Government has stagnated and will remain so for the next 10 years. The Scottish Government has also announced further cuts in the coming year to SEPA, and as a result, only 42 flood protection projects across Scotland will receive priority funding until 2021. As the gap grows between funds allocated and funds needed for flood relief and prevention, the Scottish Government must change its approach. However, the review of potentially vulnerable areas, or PVA, happens every six years, which will now not be until 2019, though it can be earlier with the Cabinet Secretary's discretion. That becomes especially problematic when an area has not been designated as a PVA is flooded. Chemnay, a village in my constituency, was devastated by Storm Frank, but Chemnay was not identified as an area of significant flood risk in 2011. Although updated flood maps in December 2013 and the flooding of a river Don in January 2016 would have labelled Chemnay a PVA back in 2011, the Chemhill Park flooding group and many others have worked tirelessly to get Chemnay added to the list of priorities in areas in Aberdeenshire for the current funding cycle. Unfortunately, a permanent flood defence system cannot be constructed until Aberdeenshire Council commissions an extensive flood risk assessment from SEPA. Aberdeenshire Council says that this will not happen until Chemnay is designated a PVA, and whether that is correct or not, perhaps this could be clarified by the Cabinet Secretary, but regardless of a response, the fact remains that the council simply does not have the funds. Without a Scotland-wide review of PVA's, flooded areas that were not listed at the beginning of the cycle are being neglected, and on three separate occasions at committee, I have raised flooding with the Cabinet Secretary, including to review PVA's before the end of the six-year cycle. On each of those occasions, she has confirmed that the Scottish ministers have no plans to amend the timetable. In October 2016, the Cabinet Secretary said that the decision not to include Chemnay as a PVA was taken by SEPA based on the best evidence available at the time, including flood maps, historical flood data, health of the area and public consultation. Comments next month with regulations require SEPA must review and update to where appropriate, and submit to the Scottish ministers the document identifying the PVA's by 22 September 2018, and there are no plans to change this date. In May this year, I got the same insufficient response. While Scottish ministers have a power under the Flood Risk Management Act to direct SEPA to review and where appropriate update the document, which identifies PVA's at other times, with this six-year cycle, there are no plans to use this power. Why not? As the Scottish Government reallocates money away from flood prevention, at-risk communities will continue to suffer. Current funding is barely able to support PVA schemes alone, and the Scottish Government must undertake a review. It must provide more support for flood prevention so that flooding does not continue to wreak havoc in our communities, and residents are not in fear again this winter. The last of the open debate speakers is Stuart McMillan. Thank you very much. Splendid isolation. No, not the Tory Brexit Britain that we are going to have in the near and near future, but the Inverclyde's attitude to dealing with flood prevention and the flooding issues that we have had. From Mr Rumble's information, the Lib Dems were in power between 2003 and 2007 on Inverclyde, and they did nothing to try to resolve some of the flooding issues that we actually had. Prior to them, we had Labour for 20 years doing nothing, and we also had eight years of a Labour Liberal Democrat executive who did nothing to try to fix some of the problems that we actually have in Inverclyde and have had for many, many years. It is not a new issue in Inverclyde. It goes back decades, even before the Second World War, but there has been little focus to try to fix and deal with any of the issues. Certainly, as a boy growing up in Port Glasgow, I remember the pinch points in Inverclyde, and some of them still exist today. Since I was first elected in 2007, I have therefore raised the issue of flooding in Inverclyde as an issue that needs to be addressed. After my first article about flooding on the A8 and the Weir Street area of East End of Greenock, I was contacted by a constituent who offered some information to assist. At the end of our meeting, he wished me good luck, but also ended with the phrase of, you have bitten off more than you can chew on this issue. I took that as a challenge. I was contacted by a second constituent who also wanted to raise flooding issues in a different part of Greenock. By raising the issue further and also by getting some further reports in the local media, the Cabinet Secretary may remember her visit down to Greenock and which I hosted at the home of Grant Morton at Capital Park. I also organised the flooding summit with her successor Stuart Stevenson MSP and many local partners. That was a very useful event and it would have been even better if the Inverclyde council had sent somebody to participate in that summit. It did not surprise me, however, as there had been an attitude of, flooding is not a problem here in Inverclyde council. That was put to me by a business who were trying to assist locally, but that is what they were told by an official of the council. Does the member agree with me that he perfectly illustrates the need for ministers and others who have any responsibility to visit communities affected? That is something that this Government has been particularly insidious in doing. Stuart McMillan I absolutely agree 100 per cent. Some Tories are laughing, but ministers going out and cabinet secretaries going out to visit communities is really important. If the Tories do not agree with that, that is their fault. As you and members will know, Inverclyde—I have only got five minutes, I am sorry—as you and members will know that Inverclyde has been in one side and at the top of the hill, we have Loch Tom, the Graff Reservoir, number two and also the conversation reservoir today, and just three. We have actually got some 19 reservoirs at the top of the hill. Now, it is blatantly obvious that water management is the business of every single agency that deals with Inverclyde, and thankfully that is now happening. This SNP Government's action by delivering the flood risk management Scotland Act 2009 has actually forced people and organisations to come together and come to the table to begin to deal with their own responsibilities. In response to the new legislation, Inverclyde Council commissioned Dutch company Gruntmage consulting Noun Sweco to assess the need for flood alleviation measures, at which I welcome. Following the report that identified numerous priority locations regarding flooding, the council established a flood action working group with representation from the Police, Transport Scotland, Scottish Water, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage Network Rail and given states, Historic Scotland, AMA and relevant council services. The group produced a costed flood action plan in 2010 in line with the initial allocation of £500,000 for projects designed to alleviate some of the area's flooding problems, and consequently, in 2014, Scottish Water committed £50,000 to the Fox Street area of Greenock to improve its wastewater infrastructure and tackle a flooding issue at nearby properties in 2016. Four Inverclyde schemes received national funding as part of the Scottish Government's flood project scheme, which was costed £1.54 million, of which 80 per cent was contributed by the Scottish Government and the council funded the remaining 20 per cent. At the same time, Inverclyde Council's central greenock flood prevention project was under way with six out of seven works complete, while the four additional locations' acquiring measures were at the design stage. It must have been noted that this work was largely made possible due to, once again, national funding from the Scottish National Party Government, with a £1.7 million grant to deal with that project, which I lobbied hard for and which I was delighted that, once again, another minister, Paul Wheelhouse MSP, was happy to sign off. Flood prevention and maintenance are vital to help our constituencies and our communities. The splendid isolation approach in Inverclyde ended in 2009, thanks to the SNP's Scottish Government. As John Scott MSP said in his earlier comments, the bill has served its purpose well. We now move to the closing speeches. I call David Stewart up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that this has been an excellent debate with thoughtful and insightful contributions from across the chamber. With considerable foresight, the business managers scheduled a debate on flooding on the day that we have flooding, and I think that they deserve accolade for that. As I learned from SIPA's floodline service this morning, there has been two flood alerts in Scotland, no flood warnings and no severe flood warnings. I signed up to the floodline alert service personally today, and I recommend to all members that they advertise this excellent service for all their constituents. Climate change is inevitable. Even if all emissions were stopped tomorrow, the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere would continue to cause damage for years to come. Because of that, future generations face the possibility of severe weather instance, causing flood, misery and destruction unless we act now with adaptation and mitigation. Our communities, particularly coastal and riverside communities, are already susceptible to flooding and the last few years have faced it with increased frequency and prolonged effects. As we learned from Lewis MacDonald earlier, it is the poorer elements of our society that do not have flooded tunes that are more affected with the terrible effects of flooding. However, the effects will not be limited to our rural communities. Urban buildings, designed to withstand the weather of the past, cannot cope with the conditions of the future, so it is vitally important that we protect our homes, our buildings and our communities from the effects of flooding. That must be the four of our thinking, what can we do to mitigate and what can we do to prevent. Let me give you one example. The Royal Society of Edinburgh looked at research recently and said that if there is a 10 per cent increase in precipitation, it can result in halfing of the flood return period at Pacific Heey on the Clyde. That is so that the likelihood of flooding in one in 100 years would have to one in 50 years, so the whole standards of flood defences would fall, so a key step must be in terms of planning permission. When planning applications for new homes are submitted, seeper is asked for advice to check for environmental risks, both to the environment and the future of our homes. Yet, the advice against building and flood plain areas has repeatedly been ignored, as we have heard from several members in the debate to be. Planning permission granted, building and flood plains took place, and home, lives, businesses and schools are turned upside down with flood water. We took evidence in the clear committee last September from members of the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change, who told us that not all local authorities carry out strategic flood risk assessments when dealing with local development plans. To not look popular at future flood risk seems inherently reckless to me. In Scotland at the moment, when pressures put on increased building and flood plains, it is increasingly important that all developers carry out flood risk assessments. On top of the issues in planning, as we have heard from Mark Ruskell, 90 per cent of at-risk properties are not protected by flood defences, so the responsibility in all of us, developers, local authorities, Government and Parliament, is to ensure that we do the utmost to protect communities from the tragic consequences of flooding. Presiding Officer, perhaps in the wind-up, the cabinet secretary could refer to flood warning systems and responses to flood events in her wind-up. The Rural Affairs and the Violent Committee report in session 3, which I was on the occasional substitute and which was convened by the cabinet secretary, made very strong recommendations on the establishment of 100 per cent high-resolution rarer coverage throughout Scotland and the lack of pluvial flooding warning systems in Scotland. I would welcome comments from the cabinet secretary at that point. I also think that it is important in the debate to summarise a couple of points, and I apologise for the members that I cannot mention. I think that the cabinet secretary made some excellent points about the good example of flood protection schemes in Elgin, and I would endorse as a regional member the points that she made about that. I also would agree the points that Edward Mountain made about the crucial issues around measures to slow down water transfer and the real unfortunate combination of flash floods and high tides is a very good point. Claudia Beamish made a very relevant point about climate change as a shared international threat, the crucial importance of increasing research and development, and looking at having reliable and consistent funding for SIPA and the fire and rescue service. Graham Damon has a very useful point to think about flood rea, about the scheme that shall run for 20 years, providing flood cover for those most in need. That is an excellent point. I think that what Gillian Martin brought to the debate was the human element by bringing out the flooding in her constituency, the vivid examples of the long-term aftermath of flooding. Some people have been out of their homes for over a year. With Lewis MacDonald again, we had other examples of the flooding in Aberdeen, and he made the very important point that 100,000 properties at risk in Scotland marked also by the points that Mark Ruskell made, which said that although there is 40 flood prevention projects, 90 per cent of the properties are not covered. In conclusion, flooding causes misery, destruction, death and injury. It is crucial that all agencies, SIPA and Scottish Water, work together to reduce flood risk and take a strategic approach to climate change and develop sustainable management of flood risk. As Gilbert White, the leading American geographer of the 20th century, said, Floods are an act of God, but flood losses are largely an act of man. I call Donald Cameron up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I refer to farming and crofting in my register of interests. I am delighted to be able to close for the Scottish Conservatives today on what is an issue plainly of great importance. Flooding is damaging to properties and the environment, but it has a particular impact on the lives of many of our constituents. Those include the cost to rebuild a home, the damage to possessions and furnishings, and, of course, the untold stress on the individuals who suffer. Occasionally and tragically, human life is lost. While Scotland is significantly less affected by flooding in comparison to other parts of the UK, it remains a serious issue, particularly in areas where there are no existing flood defence schemes. Whilst I welcome the consensual tone of the debate, I should, however, note that, while funding is allocated for natural assets and flooding, rose in the last budget, we remain concerned by the overall cut to SEPA's budget. It is all well and good to have the funding in place for flood management, but that work will be undone if one of the primary delivery bodies has its budget squeezed. We must also acknowledge a similar difficulty for local authorities who are the first port of call for managing flood defences. On a local angle, I know all too well the impact that flooding has on local communities, given the various PVA's potentially vulnerable areas that exist across the west highlands and island communities. The idea that the highlands are not vulnerable to flooding because of the topography of the area would, of course, be incorrect. Almost all of the major settlements are vulnerable due to their location on the coastline, and there are several islands that are all designated as PVA sites, including Bute and Bambecula. Indeed, most of the US are impacted, and many will remember the flooding that hit Stornoway back in 2014. I should also mention the fact that Coole and Lockyside on the shores of Llock Linney near Fort William are regularly affected by floods. Whilst I acknowledge that the Government has committed to funding new flood protection projects and support local flood risk management plans, I would be eager to ascertain if any of those new projects will be in the west highlands. At present, there are limited flood defence systems in place, and major towns such as Fort William and Oban remain at risk. Of course, many will have seen the news yesterday—I think that the cabinet secretary mentioned this—that the Met Office issued several flood warnings for areas around Caithness and Sutherland. I look forward to working with the cabinet secretary to ensure that the highlands and islands benefit from new investment into flood defences. I would like to highlight and ask the member if he agrees with me that, in relation to the potentially vulnerable areas that he has already raised in his closing remarks, there are a number of smaller communities, particularly properties with under 50 houses in them, that are being excluded. I think that two or three members have raised that. I wonder whether he would agree with me that it is an important issue for the Scottish Government to address. Donald Cameron? Absolutely. It is a very serious issue and important that the Government does address that, because it is not just that we address all communities big and small in this project. Several members have talked about the wider point about climate change, and I think that that is incredibly important. The effects of climate change will play a major role in determining our future approach to flood defence strategy and management. We have to see flood management in that context, with sea levels rising as a result of global warming. We need to do all that we can to reduce our carbon footprint, and that means continuing to lead the way in producing renewable technologies and ensuring that we minimise the impact of carbon emissions. We need a rounded approach, which does not just focus on reducing emissions in the energy sector but looks at how we reduce our impact in housing and transport. Just two of the areas that the recent Committee on Climate Change noted have not seen sufficient strides in reducing carbon footprint. I would like to spend the rest of my time remarking on some of the points that were made across the chamber, which I found particularly compelling. Edwin Mountain spoke of the significance of considering all measures of slowing down water transfer from land to rivers, and that forms part of my party's amendment. John Scott—I hope that he does not take this the wrong way, but having been around longer than many of us—spoke about the earlier legislation of this Parliament, in particular the 2009 act. It is incredibly important to see that in a long-term trajectory to build on what we have already achieved in the past. Lewis MacDonald and Mark Ruskell spoke powerfully about the difficulty that poorer householders have in getting insurance. Mark Ruskell added to that the fact that there is an inter-portfolio aspect to flood management and how it is important to deal with and involve the rural economy portfolio, as well as simply the environment portfolio. Alexander Burnett was one of the many north-east MSPs that is referring to Storm Frank and made the point that businesses are still rebuilding, even now, a reminder of the long-term effects of flooding. Graham Day spoke of the number of organisations—a web of stakeholders that were involved. There is clearly an issue of co-ordination. It was a point made by Gillian Martin, who used the word jigsaw. She gave a very evocative case study of her constituency. I was struck by the point that she made about long-term communication with residents being so important. To conclude, it is clear that, while Scotland takes a commanding lead on devising many of the solutions to tackle climate change, there is still more that we can do to support communities and limit the havoc that flooding can cause. We welcome many of the steps that the Government has taken. We remain concerned over cuts to SEPA, which of course delivers vital services. We are unable to prevent every natural incident. It should not make us complacent in our approach to minimising the outcomes and responding to the challenges that flooding presents. I would like to thank all members for their contributions to the debate, all of which I heard more clearly than you obviously heard my opening sentence. I probably ought to at this point move the motion in my name, which I admitted to do in my opening speech, to indicate that I am simply accepting both amendments today. That does not mean that I agree with absolutely everything that I have heard from every member in this debate. The debate has highlighted the interest in flood risk management and potential impacts in communities across Scotland. Indeed, the parliamentary business manager was clearly quite prophetic in choosing to allocate today for the debate, given the flooding events that have taken place overnight. Obviously, reducing the likelihood of those potentially devastating events is why reducing flood risk has to be a priority for the Government. The debate has highlighted that good progress has been made in reducing the level of flood risk in Scotland. I need to reiterate what an enormous difference there is now compared to what pre-existed before that legislation was brought into being. We now have our first set of flood risk plans based on strategic evidence as to the causes of flooding and the likely locations where it will occur. That did not exist before. The first six-year plans were published last year, and the challenge and opportunity is to implement them and deliver the benefits. At times, the debate reached out to other portfolio interests. I sent my diary filling up with bilaterals if I took up all the suggestions that came from various parts of the chamber, but I suppose that an early warning ought to go out to Derek Mackay and Kevin Stewart, the finance and planning ministers, respectively. I want to go through some of the contributions that we heard from Edward Mountain, who talked about hard engineering and not always being suitable. I absolutely agree with him how could anybody not. He raised big questions about land use issues, but of course he knows how amazingly controversial they can be. In a sense that land use issue is a subject of a whole separate debate on its own. Land use issues were referred to by a number of other members. I will have a little think about whether there is a way to forward with a different way of looking at issues such as flooding and others. I need to speak to some of my colleagues about that, because land use covers so many different areas. It is difficult to encapsulate it in a single debate. Claudia Beamish raised a lot of issues that relate to those bigger land use questions. Claudia Beamish talked about costs. I would make the point of the Scottish Government COSLA agreement that secured consistent funding over the whole of the period 2016 to 2026. I know that there will never be enough money to do everything that we want to do. The point about that was the consistency, the ability to plan forward over that long period of time. Again, that did not exist previously. I ought to say that, as part of the review of planning, the Scottish Government is considering the issue of permitted development rights, which was a particular thing that she was concerned about. With commission sustainability appraisal in this regard, that will inform work on detailed proposals for future consultation. Can I just say to those who raised the issue about SIPA, the chief executive, Terria Hearns? It is absolutely clear that flood risk management and flood warning work will continue to be an organisational priority and delivered through the available budget. That is a specific promise made by the chief executive. A number of members, including Graham Day, talked about floodry and some of the issues around insurance, which continues to be a challenge. I accept that. It is important to say that, as useful as floodry is, it will operate until 2039, which seems like a long way away but is not, perhaps, just as long as everybody thinks. That is to give notice to householders and housebuilders to build in and ensure resilience and protection. It is not something that is going to be there in perpetuity. It is important that we remember that. John Scott raised, as many others did, Lewis MacDonald. Thank you very much. Simply to ask the cabinet secretary if she acknowledges that this issue of insurance is a particular issue for lower-income households and in particular for tenants and private rent property. Roseanna Cunningham. Very much so, as I am aware, in my constituency. I know that, as much good work as floodry is doing, it has not yet reached everybody. There is still an issue out there in respect of insurance that needs to be dealt with. John Scott and others raised the coastal erosion issue. I am indeed very well aware of the problem, but that is why so much is currently being done in order to assess the likely extent of the damage. It is important to remind people that erosion and flooding are not necessarily the same thing. They are interlinked, but they are not exactly the same thing. Flooding aspects of coastal erosion will be applicable to flood funding. There will be funding for that. I need to press on if I am to do justice to the rest of the debate. A number of other members, including Gillian Martin and others, talked about the impact of flooding on individuals and communities. That is an important thing that we keep in mind. Communities are at the very heart of this. Individual householders are at the very heart of this, because this is where it hits them most. She also flagged up again back to the land use issue, the concern around peat and wetlands. That is a big and important issue when it comes to any kind of development, not just flood risk management. Others talked about small communities. I ought to say to those who did—that was Mark Ruskell, Claudia Beamish, perhaps Bruce Crawford and others—that the second national flood risk assessment, which is currently under way, follows a revised methodology that seeks to include small communities that have significant flood risk. It is an issue that we are aware of and concerned to try to do something about. I am concerned that I have probably missed out on a number of people who contributed to the debate and a number of issues that could well have been raised by me. The one that I want to come to is Oliver Mundell's concern about white sands. As he knows, there is an inquiry that will now take place about that. It was precisely because of the number of disputed facts that there were in that. There really is no other way for us to proceed than to do that inquiry. As long as it might take, it is better doing it and getting it sorted out than not. I hope that he will agree with that. I do caution some members, as I said at the outset, that we cannot go back to the previous ad-hoc way flood projects that were dealt with, which is what some of them would lead us towards if we move away from the framework that we have set down. The change in climate presents us with challenges in the future that require continued partnership working involving local authorities, SEPA, Scottish Water and others. Flood risk management is a key component of the suite of measures that this Government has to prepare Scotland for that changing climate. That concludes our debate on reducing flood risk. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 9054, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to say so now, and I would call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. Formally moved. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question therefore is that motion 9054 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion 9052, on approval of an SSI. I could ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. Moved. Thank you very much. So we come to decision time. The first question is that amendment 9019.1, in the name of Edward Mountain, which seeks to amend motion 9019, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on working in partnership to reduce flood risk across Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 9019.2, in the name of Claudia Beamish, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of the minister, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is that motion 9019, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, as amended, is agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. And the final question is that motion 9052, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. And that concludes decision time. When we move to members' business, in the name of Elaine Smith, we'll just take a few moments for members to change their seats.