 dealing with the latest crisis with the Scottish Government. Thank you to ask the Scottish Government what help it is making available to communities affected by flooding. Storm Desmond over the weekend impacted on a number of areas, particularly at theÇic gyda cyd- Cab hefyd o'r gwrs fynd i gael'r cymdeithaseth deill, i bobl gyda'r font gan bwysig rhoi gymryd, neiddo ychydig hipid oherwydd unig iawn a chi'n gymryd i unig iawn i'r gwoordin ar gyfer y f moistel gyda'r gyda'r cyfricketsol. Mae Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform visduwhich yn hoi gwael arwr i'w ddigon i nhu dyfodol i gael nhw i ddigon i gael ei byd o rhoi i'r cyfestig iawn. Felly, mae'n dweud i'r bobl gwild y bobl sy'n Commons i wro scheme to provide support to local authorities to assist with the immediate and unforeseen costs of dealing with the flood damage? I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. We have seen the devastating consequences of flooding in the south of Scotland and also on our neighbours in Cumbria in the north-west of England. I know that some of the areas in Cumbria that were most devastated have had expensive flood defences put in place. I wondered what lessons we might learn here from the failure of those defences, given that we are planning our own defences in future. Obviously, the circumstances in the north-west of England have been dramatically more difficult for the communities involved than has been the case throughout Scotland, although we have had in Huyg, Newcastleton and also in Dumfries and also in Langham as well some very significant impacts of the flooding that has taken place. Very careful planning has to be undertaken in relation to flood alleviation schemes. It is essential that a very comprehensive assessment is made of the dynamics of water flows in particular areas and the impact of the natural environment and the built landscape in that process. Of course, a particular challenge in the north-west of England has been the fact that the rainfall that has emerged has been significantly greater than was anticipated in the planning for the flood prevention scheme. It is important that, in the planning of those schemes, we look very carefully at a wide variety of different factors to ensure that, when we are making major capital investment, which all those schemes represent, we properly take into account all relevant factors to ensure the capability and the capacity of flood prevention measures. I start by thanking the major emergency team in Dumfries and Galloway for their very prompt action in getting flood prevention materials to communities, including the White Sands and Friars Venil. It is a £2.1 million scheme for Langham in development between the council of sepa and Scottish Water. Given the situation in Langham this weekend, which was not as bad as we feared that it was going to be, would he please encourage organisations and his colleagues—those organisations responsible to the Scottish Government—to work with the council to bring the scheme forward as soon as possible? First, I echo the point that Dr Murray made. I thought that, in each of the three principal local authority areas that faced a particular challenge over the weekend, I thought that preparations were well executed in advance to ensure that we were as prepared as we could be. I think that, without that preparation, the implications would have been significantly worse. I think that the preparations that were undertaken in a number of areas avoided some of the serious impacts that were felt. In relation to Dr Murray's substantive question, there is some work being undertaken by sepa, which looks at flood risk strategies over a six-year flood risk plan cycle. Those are long-term works that take time to deliver, and there will be decisions to be made about the schemes that will be included in that process. A number of schemes have already been advanced by the Scottish Government, whether those are in Selkirk, Galashill, Breakin, the River Ness, Amman Bank, the Water of Leith Elgin forests over the course of the last few years, and that further decisions will be taken in that respect. I will ensure that the points that were raised by Dr Murray are properly taken into account in that process. I also pay tribute to the emergency services and volunteers in the border area who worked very hard to mitigate the flood damage in the borders. My question relates to the flooding in Hoich. The cabinet secretary will be aware that there is a flood prevention scheme for the town, which has been in the pipeline since 2010. Will the Scottish Government now do everything that it can to accelerate the planning and creation of the scheme for Hoich? Specifically, can the Government commit today to providing the full funding allocation to Borders Council so that there are no unnecessary delays in implementing the scheme? Mr Lamont will be awake. First of all, I welcome what he said about the emergency services, and the Scottish Borders Council experienced the greatest degree of difficulty to wrestle with, and it had to wrestle with that over two sites in Newcastleton and Hoich principally, although there were other areas that were affected. On the determination of flood schemes, there is a discussion that is jointly taken forward between the Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to prioritise flood schemes. I certainly know that the Hoich scheme is well advanced, and there will be decisions taken about the schemes that are taken forward as part of the multi-year financial settlements that are put in place as a consequence of decisions that are made jointly with COSLA. I welcome the minister's mention about the Belwyn scheme coming into play. I also recognise all the emergency services and volunteers who came into play. We should recognise Cumbria receiving nearly 14 inches of rain, so I appreciate that. I reiterate John Lamont's play for Hoich and the schemes to be progressed there, but I would be interested in Mr Sweeney's view on the circuit scheme that may have been damaged, and would the Government be happy to support any damage that may have been done to that scheme, which, as Mr Sweeney knows, is not quite completed? I saw some photographic images of the challenges that were experienced in the circuit scheme, of course. As part of the analysis, I would be very surprised if we do not find that even the partial completion of the circuit scheme was of benefit in protecting householders and businesses in Selkirk as a consequence of the work that has been undertaken. I reiterate the comments that I made in relation to Mr Lamont's question. There will be a process of decision making around which schemes are taken forward by as part of the flooding investment undertaken between the Government and COSLA. This is an area of very active co-operation between the Government and our local authority partners, and I will ensure that those issues are properly considered as part of the decision-making in that area. Is the cabinet secretary aware that, in my constituency in Aberfeldy, in Calender and in three parts of the city of Stirling, businesses and homes were inundated with water? Would he help facility a discussion between himself and SIPA to talk about how accurate their floodline information is? The floodline material that came through from SIPA did not reflect the actuality on the ground. I think that that is a very significant issue. Obviously, we have invested heavily in the flood forecasting service, which has been taken forward and in the floodline information. We point members of the public very directly to that information. It was obviously information that I was studying, frankly, minute by minute in the course of Friday and Saturday morning. The importance of its accuracy must be assured. I will certainly raise those issues with SIPA to ensure that members of the public are able to access quality information that will allow them to determine the best precautions that they can take to resolve those issues. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the findings of the fatal accident inquiry into the Glasgow bin lorry crash. Sheriff Becker issued his detailed judgment yesterday, which included a series of recommendations that impact on the medical profession, the DVLA, local authorities and the Secretary of State for Transport. The regulations around driver licensing and assessment are reserved to the UK Government, and those fatal accident inquiry findings raise significant issues for consideration. We trust that those will be reflected on and given the necessary due attention to ensure that road safety measures are as robust and effective as possible across Scotland and the UK. The Solicitor General wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport following the conclusion of the evidence in the FAI setting out the defects in the system and drawing his attention to this and other FAIs covering the same issues. Yesterday she wrote again to the Secretary of State for Transport and Closing a copy of the judgment and offering her assistance and the assistance of the Scottish Government in implementing the relevant recommendations. Letters are in process to the medical profession and local authorities drawing their attention to Sheriff Becker's recommendation. I trust that those bodies will take forward and implement the detailed and sensible recommendations that are made with a view to preventing such a tragedy from happening again. Let me take this opportunity to offer my heartfelt sympathies to all the families for their losses. It is a difficult time of year, leading to the anniversary of the tragedy, and they are in all our thoughts and prayers. I thank the Lord Advocate for that response and add that I too, my thoughts too, are with the families. It must have been an extremely difficult time for friends and relatives of those who died last December to sit through the inquiry. Although they now have some answers about how this tragedy unfolded, other significant questions remain. Opportunities were missed to prevent this crash and the sheriff concluded that Harry Clark, and I quote repeatedly lied in order to gain and retain jobs and licences. It took just six short weeks for the police to conclude their investigation and the Crown a further four weeks only to conclude that there would be no prosecution of the driver. I have a letter here from the Lord Advocate himself that states that the driver was never formally interviewed by the police, never considered a suspect. In light of this, and the evidence that came to light during the FAI, is the Lord Advocate absolutely certain that the investigation into criminal proceedings was as exhaustive and rigorous as it should have been? Well, two points. There was no evidence that emerged at the fatal accident inquiry. No information that emerged that the Crown was unaware of, and there is nothing that emerged in the judgment of Sheriff Beckett that the Crown was unaware of, and nothing in Sheriff Beckett's judgment, in my view, undermines the decision taken not to prosecute the driver of the bin lorry. As you will be aware, the Crown published detailed written reasons at the conclusion of the evidence in the fatal accident inquiry. That sets out a legal and evidential basis for the decision not to prosecute. The Crown well appreciates that this decision is not a popular one, but the Crown cannot take decisions in the basis that they are popular but wrong in law. That would be unconstitutional and an abusive process and would rightly result in severe criticism by the court and a loss of confidence in the Crown. The sheriff recommended that the Crown should review whether its policies prevent or discourage prosecution under the Road Traffic Act. Will the Lord Advocate confirm that they will review that? What is the timescale for this review? Will the Lord Advocate ensure that its findings are made public in order that the public can better understand the decision not to prosecute in this case? The recommendation that was made by Sheriff Beckett referred to two sections of the Road Traffic Act, sections 174 and 94, both relate to making false statements and withholding material information from the DVLA and insurance companies. The sheriff Beckett, in his determination, noted in making the recommendations that he was not referring to any prosecution decisions relating to Mr Clark. It related to Dr Parry of the DVLA's evidence at the fatal accident inquiry that there had been no cases and no prosecutions for these offences from 2005, and Sheriff Beckett was rightly concerned to draw attention to that. In answer to your question, yes, the Crown will reflect on Sheriff Beckett's recommendation. I can advise you that the Crown has already been in touch with its counterparts south of the border, the CPS, to discuss that recommendation, which we will take forward with the CPS and with the DVLA to ensure that any prosecution policy and the reporting and investigation of these offences are fit for purpose and that there is no barrier in relation to the investigation, reporting and prosecution for those offences. I am sure that, like others, we all feel great sorrow for the families affected. Given that the families have now said that they intend to seek a private prosecution, what can the Crown and the Scottish Government do to facilitate that process? Jackie Baillie will understand that I am in a position where I cannot comment on that. First, I have not seen a bill of criminal letters and, secondly, it relates to the prosecution of Mr Clark as a private prosecution, so it is really not for me to comment on that. Obviously, what I can say is that, if and when such a bill is lodged, the Crown will carefully consider that and what its position is and will make that clear to the court and to the families. Again, I am well aware of the sensitivities of that. I am well aware of the tragic loss that all those families have had to suffer and I am well aware of their feelings on that. I just reiterate that this decision not to prosecute was not taken in a vacuum, not taken without full possession of all the necessary information and was not taken without assessing what the law of evidence, suficiency of evidence and corroboration was. Again, it was looked at by a number of senior lawyers in the Crown Office, senior Crown counsel and endorsed by a officer. We will obviously consider any bill of criminal letters to look at whether a suficiency of evidence is established in the bill of criminal letters. Once we have had an opportunity to do that, we will obviously make our position clear to the families and to the court.