 The final item of business is the member's business debate on motion 12335, in the name of Willie Rennie, on flood management. This debate will be concluded without any question being put. I would ask those members who would wish to speak in the debate. Please press the question speak buttons and I call on Willie Rennie to open the debate up to seven minutes, Mr Rennie. Seven-year-old Amelia burst into tears at the bottom of the stairs in our house as the still unwrapped Christmas presents were swallowed up by the flood. Caroline watched her house flood, knowing that there was nothing that she could do to protect it. She lost family pictures, personal effects and her home. Soon to be married, Nina had a buyer for the house and was ready to move to a new chapter in her life. But within minutes, the lady burning Cooper burst its banks and flooded their homes with muddy, stinking water. Their distress has now turned to fury. Fury at all the talk, but no practical action. We have had talk about flood studies, management plans, strategies, capital programmes, planning enforcement, gully examination, attenuation schemes, SUD schemes, the promise of consideration of the possibility of government grants. If talk could hold back the water, we would never have a flood in Cooper ever again. There has been lots of sympathy, but the residents do not want sympathy anymore. They know that it is often used as cover for when those in power have nothing else to offer. Instead, when the minister stands up, I want her to announce that the victims of storm Garrett will get the same grant money that the victims of storm Babet have received. Just because the Met Office judged the storm yellow, instead of amber, did not stop the floods. I have been told for months that it has been seriously considered, but how long does it take to consider a small grant scheme? Please give them the money that they deserve without any further delay. The section action that I want today is direct support and clear advice for farmers and land owners along the Eden catchment to slow down the water's speed of flow upstream and to get it away quickly when it gets close to homes and businesses. Some people call it a catchment plan, others are river basin management plan. I do not really care what it is called, we just need a plan and it is going to be an action plan. Despite all the good evidence about managing catchments, there is no plan, no money, confusing advice and a costly application process if land owners want to do anything. Land owners are told by SIPA that removing silt from the river does not really work, but they say that there is no ban and permission can be granted. It is confusing. There is now a view amongst farmers and land owners that they will be wasting their time applying for permission. What we know and what we now need is for some public body in partnership with locals to identify the bottlenecks and the opportunities on the Eden and its tributaries and to secure the necessary permissions so that the farmers can get the work done on their land. That action should be based on the best advice and evidence. We need a comprehensive approach because there is little point in one farmer getting work done in isolation. The whole river system from bottom to top needs to be considered. If those further up remove silt, for example, but those further down do not, the water will have nowhere else to go and will flood the homes again. Up stream we need the same urgent proactive assessment of the potential for fields and burns in the land to slow down the flow of the water and reduce the loss of valuable topsoil in some location. The advice needs to be clear. Do trees make a difference? Are buffer strips wide enough? Does organic matter in the soil help? Do swales and reservoirs help? Should certain sections of land only be grass, which sections should be given up for flood plains? Where could flood storage ponds be located? The Tweeds Forum partnership in the Edelston water demonstrates what can be achieved, but I repeat that advice to farmers elsewhere is confusing and conflicting and there is no grant scheme other than for droughts and riverbank restoration. If ministers are honest, they will admit that nothing is getting done in most of the country, so it is all just talk. Today I do not have my hand out for a large costly flood prevention scheme. They have their place, but I know that money is tight and that they take years. What I am asking for is smaller, faster and relatively inexpensive measures combined with a long-term plan to better manage the water courses and prevent floods if at all possible. It is a plan with relatively modest funding attached that is required. I have been to lots of meetings in the past few months, meetings with residents, businesses, farmers, environmentalists, anglers, landowners and so on, and they have all been packed. Although there are anxieties about how the possible clearing of rivers would be done and the impact on fish stocks and biodiversity, there is so much common ground. I know that there is a path to getting the catchment working to prevent flooding as much as possible and to have an ecologically healthy river, but there is nothing proactive planned by the authorities. That is apart from Fife Council, with another flood study that will take years, then even longer to decide on action, then planning, funding and construction. Seven-year-old Amelia will likely be an adult before anything gets done, yet we are repeatedly told that we are an emergency, a climate emergency. It does not feel like an emergency if you are a flood victim in Cooper. It is not just Cooper. There have been floods in Dunshelt, in Mochde, in Shreffmiglowe, in King's Kettle, in Frookie and in lots of other communities. It has not just happened once, so they live in constant fear that the water could come again any time of the day or the night. They know that the climate is changing and that there are more extreme weather events, but they also expect those in power to act, to do everything possible, not to give up on them. The good news is that Amelia will soon have a little brother or sister. Let's make sure that he or she doesn't live in the fear of floods in the years to come. I move to the open debate. I thank Stephanie Callan for going all the way back to my office for my card and your staff for providing one meantime. Flooding is an issue that countries everywhere are grappling with. Climate change means that flooding and other natural weather-related events are becoming more frequent, more intense and more destructive. We only need to look at events of last year. 2023 was the hottest year on record. That profoundly impacted the global water cycle and contributed to severe storms and flooding. The most potent example was Eastern Libya, devastated by storm Daniel, which killed more than 5,300 people and affected Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria and Egypt. Across every continent, flooding last year killed tens of thousands, displaced hundreds of thousands and impacted millions of people. Closer to home, the most severe and disruptive weather event was the storm rabbit, with seven lives tragically lost. Hundreds of homes and businesses were flooded with break-in, particularly affected after defences were overtaught by South East River. Infrastructure was damaged, farmers lost crops and livestock in around 30,000 homes in North East Scotland lost power during the storm. Unfortunately, we have to prepare for an increasing frequency of such events in future years to come. Analysis from the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research shows that climate models may significantly underestimate how much extreme rainfall increases under global warming, meaning that extreme rainfall could increase more rapidly than current models suggest. It is a place to see the increased need for investment in flood defences recognised by the Scottish Government. In the last year, Scottish ministers invested £61 million in flood defences, compared with the £4 million allocated in the first devolution budget. Since 2007, the Scottish Government has made a total of £814 million available to local authorities for flood protection schemes and other actions. Indeed, £48 million a year has been invested and an average by the Scottish Government, compared with £12 million a year under the previous Labour-Liberal-Scotish executive. It is not just talk, as Mr Rennie asserts. Even allowing for inflation, this is an almost tripling of much-needed investment, which has enabled major flood defence schemes in my constituency. The Upper Garnock Valley flood protection scheme is now virtually finished with only a minor remedial and landscaping works to be completed in spring. The area is a long history of flooding going back to the late 19th century, and I will recall when the River Garnock burst its banks in 2008 with the emergency services from a cross-north Asher called to the devastated streets. In 2020, a flash flood wrote off my car in Glengarnock as I found myself sitting in the driver's seat in three feet of water. The £18 million scheme provides mitigation options that have extended flood protection to 600 at-risk properties in Kilburni, Glengarnock and Dalrai, and a number of major businesses. The £48 million millport flood protection scheme on the end of September began last spring. Work is progressing well on the construction of an offshore breakwater, which will create a calm area of water with completion due this summer. That part of the work is essential to our proposed marina in Cumbria, which is an Ayrshire growth deal to be constructed. Also on the millport with the millburn flood alleviation scheme, the project will be tendered this year and constructed next year, providing protection for up to 124 properties in the island and for a 1 in 200 years flood event. Sadly, the reality is that it will not be possible to prevent flooding everywhere during extreme storm events. When prolonged and intense rainfall does overwhelm drainage systems, it is vital that there is an appropriately swift response. Given the increasing frequency of flood events, organisations of the Scottish Water need to up their game. With recent case, what I found them responding regrettably slowly compared to in previous years merely offering a phone number for constituents to call. That is simply not good enough and contrary to the ex-inservs provided just months ago. We must also do more to raise awareness of flooding risk and increase the insurance uptake. In Scotland, the responsibility for protecting property from flooding rests with the owner is estimated that 284,000 properties in Scotland are at risk of flooding rising to 394,000 by 2080 as a result of climate change. Despite that, I am in my last few seconds. Despite that, more than a quarter of households have no home insurance, with building and context premiums rising, a whopping 36 per cent last year, a figure that will only increase. Those most likely to not be covered by the most vulnerable in our society, the elderly and low-income households. I mean, it is a look to see how we can protect them, not just the properties. I thank Willie Rennie for securing time for this evening's debate on such an important topic. For those flood-hit communities struggling to get back on their feet in my region, it feels as though the magnitude of what happened still hasn't hit Hamzae use of this Government. The Scottish Government's ministerial task force met one month after Storm Babette reaped havoc in the north-east. Communities were left in limbo for weeks, but the First Minister still managed to stage a photo op on River Street in Breakin within 48 hours of the storm. Four months on, the people of Breakin and communities across the north-east are still hurting. The fall-out from the flooding is still being felt. Repairs are ongoing. Homes continue to be uninhabitable. Businesses are trying to make up for lost time. Vital infrastructure has been badly affected, such as Mary Kirk bridge in Aberdeenshire, with repairs due to get underway next month. Following Storm Babette, as many as 82 businesses contacted Angus Council looking for help, and upwards of 300 properties in Breakin affected by floodwaters, 57 council-owned properties still require significant work before they can be reinstated. We've recently learned that Angus Council's interim claim for the bellwine scheme is £6.9 million, but that's just for immediate emergency response, not the recovery phase. Meanwhile, for many, the grants available for residents and businesses haven't touched the sides of what is required. These adverse weather events are costly, both financially and emotionally, and they're happening more and more with a record number of flood alerts issued by CEPA since 1 September 2023. This Storm Babette, some areas have been hit again by flooding, such as cottages in Castleton, which flooded in October and again in December. For these residents and many others with their properties already compromised, this isn't going to stop, it's going to keep happening again and again. That's why I've engaged proactively with communities throughout the north-east on building resilience since I was first elected in 2021. Willie Rennie's motion rightly focuses not just on what has happened but on how to get better management and how to better manage the risk of flooding in future. Information that I received from Angus Council via FOI has confirmed that no climate change adaptations have been made to Breekins flood defence scheme since 2018, when the updated UK climate projections were published. It's all very well having flood protection schemes in place, but maintaining the defences and making sure that they take account of updated climate change projections is key to protecting our communities. I'm very interested to see the final output for the Scottish Government's national adaptation plan later this year, but it's vital that local and national partners work together now to make sure Scotland is not on the back foot when it comes to flooding, when lives and livelihoods are at risk, good enough, isn't going to cut it. We need gold standard protection to keep our communities safe. I thank Willie Rennie for securing debate. It's a very important issue that impacts constituents in our neighbouring regions. Severe weather events are becoming more frequent with each passing year. We can clearly observe them across the north-east, and there's no doubt that climate change is the cause. It is exposing our communities to ever-greater risks. The Dundee and the broader north-east are certainly not known for heavy rainfall, but in recent years the frequency and severity of storms has increased dramatically. The impact of flooding is devastating for families. Homes are ruined, livelihoods are destroyed and lives are put at risk. That disruption and upheaval caused when a property is flooded also brings significant costs. In the midst of a cost of living crisis, this emergency expenditure is something that most households and businesses can afford. It's right that the Government and local authorities step in to support residents at a time of such great need. What I have heard from constituents and councillors in my region is that that process has been far from smooth. It's imperative that the Scottish Government does learn the lessons for the future as severe storms become ever more frequent and takes a proper strategic approach to helping citizens as required. The devastation that Storm Bobet brought to Angus was clear to see with breach and particularly badly affected. SNP-led Angus Council announced £10 million of funding following Storm Bobet, and that money was very welcome, but five months later we're still waiting for the majority of that money to materialise it. I would appreciate if the minister in closing the debate could advise what the Scottish Government can do to support Angus Council in delivering that funding to those who actually need it. I'm certainly happy to fund it. I thank Michael Marra for taking my intervention. I wonder if you could outline what his views are. We know that local authorities have a role to play, we know that the Scottish Government has a role to play, but there are other public agencies that need to be involved in these discussions as well, as well as ensuring that we have local community accountability. Does he agree that all those people, all those agencies, need to be in the room together to ensure that we have a holistic approach to flood resilience? I certainly agree with Maggie Chapman on that point. It's vital that the Government uses its convening power as much as its financial power to make sure that those things are approached strategically. We have to think about, as other members have set out, the long-term consequences of those changes. We have to make allowance in budgets to ensure that we have money set aside for those instances, and it has to be commensurate to the size of that. I'm sorry, I can't at this moment in time, I'm going to make some progress. So road closures across funding of £1,500 for households and £3,000 for businesses as a result of Storm Babette was also very welcome, but only properties with indoor damage were eligible. That money is a lifeline for people, but many residents sustained damage to the exterior of properties and have not received any support. Road closures have meant that other roads in the area are being used more frequently, increasing the demand for maintenance work through the displacement of traffic, but money has not been made available for those repairs on alternative routes, which are a consequence of the floods in themselves, of course, as well. So it's clear, as members are describing, that a more holistic view must be taken about the true impact of flooding on a community. Across Dundee and Angus, many constituents live in areas that are susceptible to flooding. Only recently, Cleaverhouse, parts of Milamains and other areas around the Dictayburn were flooded in Whitfield, where old Toll loan was flooded by the 50. It's clear that those impacts are taking place. Beggars believe, frankly, that Dundee City Council are continuing to try and build a huge secondary school on a flood plain that's been identified as such since the 1960s. I fear only that that's going to cause more trouble in the future. But residents have faced repeated disruption from flooding. I forced them to evacuate their homes for a time and many businesses have been lost. So it's a really important debate, and I think that if we can bring a clear view to the fact that we need a more overarching strategic approach that brings agencies together and makes sure that that funding is available, and I would echo some of Willie Rennie's calls to make sure that his constituents receive the urgent support that they require. I join the others in welcoming Willie Rennie's securing this debate today. Actually, it is a great issue of importance and one that is coming up just more and more every year now due to the storms that we're getting. The focus of Willie Rennie's motion and much of the wider coverage on this issue has been on communities such as Brecon, which are unfortunately just devastating levels of flooding. This resulted in severe damage to homes, businesses and amenities in the area. It also very sadly resulted in loss of life, and I want to offer my condolences to those families that were affected. I welcome the action of members from across the Parliament in calling on the Government to provide additional financial support for the homes and businesses affected. Actually, I agree with Mr Rennie's points about the need for more funding for proposed prevention and for protection of this in the future. However, whilst the Government eventually took action for those most impacted by the storms, communities in Argyll and Bute were less fortunate, where the unnamed storm of 7 October and stormed Badritt, which hit Scotland one week later, caused extensive damage to homes, businesses and infrastructure. It was both disappointing that residents and businesses in Argyll and Bute were not eligible to access the stormed Badritt recovery grants and that, as I understand it, Argyll and Bute Council were not invited to attend the stormed Badritt ministerial task force. Given the impact that that has had on communities in that area that I represent, I would be grateful if the Minister may be able to provide some clarity on those matters in her closing remarks. I do welcome that Argyll and Bute Council were able to access bellwind funding to assist it with the clearance of impacted roads, but it is worth noting that some local roads still remain out of service several months later. One road, the A816, saw more than 6,000 tonnes of debris block the road, but over 200 metres it trapped two vehicles in the process, but fortunately nobody was hurt. While Argyll and Bute Council have managed to open an emergency diversion route under convoy, the main A816 remains closed to this day to the worry of many of those in the community. Roads like the A816 are not just essential access points to a community, but support the local economy, and many locals have raised concerns about the ongoing effects to their businesses. Other sections of roads, including the A815 and the A83, rest and be thankful also witnessed smaller landslips. The A83, rest and be thankful, was an issue that my predecessor Donald Cameron campaigned on extensively. I welcome the fact that progress is being made, albeit slowly, to deliver medium and long term solutions. However, major weather events such as the storms of recent years highlight the need for greater urgency to deliver the much needed replacement for this critical stretch of road. I want to take this opportunity to praise the council staff, particularly those in the roads and infrastructure services team, who acted swiftly to put in place contingency measures and provide regular updates to local residents. Deputy Presiding Officer, the recent storms are among the worst to hit communities, and the increasing frequency of such events not only reinforces the need to continue to meet our environmental targets, but that greater investment in weather defences is still needed. Scotland has a unique geography. We are rightly proud of our rural and island communities, but we need to support them fully with the infrastructure projects that provide for access, emergency and the economy. Those projects need completed now, not later. Our local authorities are often the first to respond to such adverse weather events, especially in communities across the highlands and islands, so it is vital that they are properly supported and funded and that the communities such as those in our Garland butte are not left behind. I really do hope that this debate is a reminder to the Cabinet Secretary and to the entire Government of the need for fair funding for councils and emergency funding to all those who find themselves in need. I now call Michelle Thompson to be followed by Richard Hamilton. I will comment before I start, which I was trying to intervene to Mr Marra. I recently obtained an insurance quote, and one of them asked if I could confirm that my house was no nearer than 260 metres to any watercourse, which is a very, very good drive and a seven-iron to give you a sense of the distance, and I suggest that that is the shape of things to come. Anyway, I speak today in this debate as a constituency MSP for Falkirk East. Of course, this includes Grangemouth, and therefore I reference the vitally important Grangemouth flood prevention scheme. That is the biggest project of its kind to be embarked upon in its progress. The process and outcomes will have a far-reaching impact on other flood prevention programmes, and I certainly do not underestimate the scale of the challenge that we face. I note the efforts with thanks of Jacobs, Falkirk Council and other key stakeholders thus far. The estimated benefit involves 2,760 residential properties, 1,200 non-residential properties, 6,025 people and 23 kilometres of roads. The impact of not doing, as we have seen adverse weather events increase, is incalculable given the importance of the location to Scotland's GDP. As the cabinet secretary notes, and I quote from a letter that I received from her in January of this year, the GFPS is exceptional in terms of scale and financial cost. It is the largest flood scheme ever proposed in Scotland, with a current upper cost estimate of £650 million. It is also worth noting that the wider coastal management strategy and modelling for fluvial events is undoubtedly linked to whatever is designed at Grangemouth. Therefore, certainty and progression is necessary, not only for Falkirk East residents but also for neighbouring local authorities. A number of consultation events have been held on January of this year, and Falkirk Council agreed to move to the next step in the form of scheme notification. After that, the outline business case will be developed. However, the funding elephant remains in the room. The current status in terms of the split of funding that the Scottish Government bears the cost of 80 per cent of the programme and the local council 20 per cent seems to me to be unachievable by either party. Rightly so, the cabinet secretary states that the Scottish Government utilises the entire annual local government general capital grant is simply not feasible. Therefore, I understand the rationale for removing the scheme from this cycle of funding and allowing the Scottish Government to make progress on a variety of other schemes. Various funding models and options have been developed by the council, and the cabinet secretary has asked her officials to pursue a task force model and engage a Team Scotland approach. That is welcome, but serious conversations need to be had regarding funding to allow for the clarity in the staging. I, in a previous life, was a programme manager, and I was always very aware that without a clear line of sight for phases, considerable sums of monies can affect being wasted. It is not unreasonable to assume that the pathway to completion may need to be elongated, reworked and will inevitably turn out to be much more expensive, but clarity needs to be found for the initial stages and on-going dialogue for subsequent stages. I am entirely sympathetic to the predicament that we all find ourselves in, and I note thankfully that the Scottish Government has no plans to claw back with £4.5 million underspend by the council for the scheme, although I understand as yet that there is no clarity on what, if any, conditions may be attached. To that end, I am grateful for the cabinet secretary agreeing to meet me to discuss the GFPS in the near future. My final point is regarding other stakeholders who have an interest in this area. Those include RSPB, Climate Fourth, Bug Life, Nature Scotland, etc. It will be vital to have proper co-design and a full engagement process on plans for mitigation and biodiversity compensation and ensure any environmentally negative consequences of the GFPS scheme are considered. The last thing anyone wants to see is objections from what should be partners in the scheme, and I hope to see their full involvement. I thank Willie Rennie for bringing this very important debate to the chamber. He shares the catchment management approach that I have been advocating for a number of years. We all understand the significant impacts of the flooding events that have had such a devastating effect on the safety and livelihoods of those who live in flood-hipped communities across Scotland, particularly over the years in my constituency, such as Hoik and Newcastleton. Storm Arwyn in November 2021, Storm Babette in 2023 and most recently Storm Garrett in 2023. Every major flooding event has an utterly devastating effect to local communities, and that is why each and every one of us are here tonight. Whilst flooding itself is not preventable, our preparation has to be much better. We cannot afford to lose any further housing stock. We cannot afford to lose key food-producing land, and we cannot afford to let our salmon stocks go extinct. That is not only from flooding, but from drought too. It was quite interesting yesterday because I met the Tay Gillies Association in Blegary, who are concerned that climate change is bringing significant droughts in late spring and summer, causing extremely low flows in our rivers and tributaries, and that is having a significant effect on the salmon spawning grounds. It just seems so ridiculous that we cannot get this right. We have too much rain sometimes, but not enough at other times. I agree with Willie Rennie in terms of the Government initiatives to mitigate the risks against flooding. I agree that so far, to us, it appears that it is all just talk. We know that the words from the Scottish Government have so far been fairly hollow. Their pledges have been lost in a vacuous echo chamber. Sadly, communities have suffered as a result of what this Government has so far not done. They have been wholly unprepared for the flooding events. With each storm, another stark reminder of the shortcoming of what the Scottish Government is doing is evident. In terms of what the SNP may say that flood prevention schemes have taken time to develop and construct, I do not dispute this point, but they have been in power since 2007. The 42 formal flood protection schemes proposed for 2016 to 2021. Only 15 of those schemes have been completed with an overspend of £25.8 million as of January 2024. That overspend pales in comparison to the estimated overspend of the remaining projects that are still under development. Striking examples include an estimated overspend of £87 million in Musselborough, £59.4 million in Stirling and £308.5 million in Grangemouth. At what point will the Scottish Government admit that their current plan is not working? That is why this motion is so important. They are failing to deliver a coherent plan to mitigate this risk to protect residents, to protect vulnerable species. They are leaving our flood-prone rural communities in the dark. In the 2021 manifesto, they pledged to tackle flooding by ensuring that trees, woodlands and natural resources play a key role in flood prevention schemes. However, this year's budgets show that the eggs funding to farmers has been cut by £17.6 million, leaving farmers without that key support, without farmers being able to be part of the solution. Again, in response in this chamber in February, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands outlined the Scottish Government's commitment to consider flood prevention in the round. I would like that the Cabinet Secretary would be able to, if possible, update the Chamber on Mary Gougeon's commitment to a meeting with key stakeholders, regulators and farmers, which she said was taking place in March. I would welcome an update on that. I welcome the calls to explore the benefits of a regional catchment management approach to flood mitigation, as stated in the motion. A catchment approach utilises local and expert knowledge to deliver a sustainable plan to tailor what is needed. Such amazing projects such as the Find Horn catchment project or the Edelston Water project led by Tweed Forum are a shining example of natural flood management. I know that I have only four minutes, so I have gone over time, Presiding Officer, but I just want to complete the argument that I do not believe that the Government are taking the right approach. The expected costs for physical flood defences are close to £1 billion. Natural flood defences can provide a real, and as Michael Morris used the word, holistic approach as an alternative, Roger Cross, formerly of the SNH, believes that concrete-based approaches are ineffective and out-of-date. On that note, I think that we need to ensure that we protect communities, protect our endangered species and protect biodiversity, and we need to ensure that this Government delivers meaningful protection for those communities. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. I now call Stephen Kerr, who will be the last speaker before I ask the Cubsic to respond. It is a pleasure to follow Rachel Hamilton, who I think has given an excellent speech. I thank Willie Rennie for his motion. I would also like to agree wholeheartedly with the speech delivered by Michelle Thomson. I would like to continue in the same vein, because last week I, with many others, I am sure attended a public consultation for the Grange Mouth Flood Protection Scheme. Listening to the experts and the local community, the message was crystal clear. The Grange Mouth Flood Protection Scheme is not just an optional project, it is a lifeline. The total cost at current prices of the project is £672 million. As Michelle Thomson said, Falkirk Council is required by legislation to fund 20 per cent of that total, and it is just not realistic. Falkirk Council cannot afford £134 million that the Government, that the legislation expects them to stump up for the scheme. That is the same Falkirk Council, by the way, that is so underfunded by the Scottish Government that they just had to tap into over £20 million of reserves just to keep the lights on. Members will know that I am not the greatest fan of the SNP Falkirk Council, but on this issue they are in an impossible predicament. The SNP Scottish Government must confront the reality steering them in the face, because Grange Mouth must be a national priority. It is a life blood of our nation, generating 4 per cent of our country's GDP, responsible for 8 per cent of all Scottish manufacturing, 30 per cent of all of our exports move through the port at Grange Mouth. The Grange Mouth flood protection scheme would save at least £2 billion. The economic impact assessments on that probably need to be kept live, but it is at least £2 billion in damages, including, as was mentioned by Michelle Thomson, at least 2,000 residential properties. I thought that one of the most compelling aspects of Willie Rennie's speech tonight was the human dimension of all of this, as we have seen at Breakin, in particular as a result of Storm Babette. Let me just say that I cannot think that it would be possible for us to leave Grange Mouth in this vulnerable position in the hands and in the finances of a local authority as I think it is on the edge of bankruptcy. Tess White mentioned Breakin and Babette. I have just mentioned it. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government does not have a good record of responding to crises such as those that occurred in Breakin last October. I would specifically draw attention to one quote from a freedom of information request that I obtained that showed that the chief executive of Angus Council wrote to the Scottish Government on the 31st of October saying, and I quote, "...it is concerning almost two weeks on that no officer in the Scottish Government has contacted myself to ask how we are coping as a council or discuss how the Scottish Government can lean into the recovery phase of Storm Babette." Now, Deputy Presiding Officer, this is simply not acceptable. Why, when the urgency of a situation is so clear, why did it take the Scottish Government so long to respond? That is in the same vein as the questions that I think Willie Rennie was rightly asking. If I may borrow from Winston Churchill, I think that those are situations that require action this day, that something that this Government needs to improve its performance in respect of action and delivery. Let me conclude with four questions if I may, Deputy Presiding Officer, in light of the financial straight jacket that Falkirk Council is forced to live with, what further financial commitment is the Scottish Government prepared to make to support Falkirk Council to move the flood prevention project forward? What economic impact assessments has the minister received or commissioned in the event of a catastrophic event at Gramesmouth involving the port, the industrial complex and the communities affected? Does the minister agree with the figure that Falkirk Council has produced in its assessment of the economic impact of such a catastrophe as being at least £2.4 billion? I think that that is an important number because it puts the level of the investment required for the scheme into the context of what happens if we do not make this investment. My last question, which I hope the minister will take the opportunity to respond to, is what discussions she had with UK ministers about the Gramesmouth flood protection scheme specifically given the strategic economic importance of the port and the industrial complex. I conclude by saying that the slow response that we saw in Babette is not good enough. That cannot be a slow unraveling because the consequences of inaction hurts communities, hurts people, hurts our economy but, above all, hurts our people. Will the minister please see a step change in response to this impending crisis? I thank Willie Rennie for bringing this member's business in an issue of great importance to me and one that I can tell is of importance to members across the chamber. I should begin by recognising the dreadful impact that flooding can have in household businesses and communities, as was very well narrated by Willie Rennie. I also thank those who have worked tirelessly over, in particular, the recent winter storm period to support their communities in recovery. I am quite clear that flooding is Scotland's most significant climate adaptation challenge and the damage from the 10 named storms that we have seen this winter makes clear the impacts of climate change in Scotland and that they are increasing. I say that they are increasing because the number of properties across Scotland exposed to flooding is expected to increase by nearly 40 per cent by 2080, meaning that many more communities will be exposed. Reducing the exposure to risk and planning to do so is absolutely critical. It will undeniably require considerable investment over many years. Taking just this budget settlement, for example, however, one that members will have heard ministers narrate a great deal that it was the most challenging we have faced in the devolution era. Despite those circumstances, I was pleased to be able to negotiate significant uplifts for my flooding protection and coastal change budget line, which will increase by 42 per cent in the year 2425 to 91 million. That is vital because councils are statutorily responsible for designing and building protection schemes in their communities and the Scottish Government supports them financially to do that. In that regard, councils have delivered 15 flood protection schemes for local authorities since 2016, with five due for completion in the next few years through that co-operation between local authorities and government. That is the on-going annual funding that supports councils to fulfil their statutory obligation. However, in extreme circumstances, the Scottish Government can and will provide additional support. StormBabbit, as has been discussed this afternoon, was one such example when the Met Office issued two highly exceptional red warnings for rain. Those were issued for the first time since 2015, when members will remember Storm's desmond and frank. Babbit led to hundreds of properties and businesses across four local authority areas suffering inundation. I personally attended every single score meeting during the immediate onslaught of the event, and the Deputy First Minister and I set up and run the Babbit task force in the aftermath. That task force agreed a package of additional financial support for residents and businesses. Again, the first time that additional package had been required and negotiated since Storm, Desmond and Frank. That is the emergency support that we are able to provide. It sits atop that, which the Scottish Government already provides, including the Bellwins scheme, the Scottish welfare fund and where occupiers of businesses are flooded out of their properties, the council tax and non-domestic relief schemes offer empty property relief. Just to give a bit of context on claims to Bellwins in 23-24, I will do just after I have finished this point, the Bellwins scheme has been activated five times with a total forecast expenditure of £19.6 million. I will give way to Willie Rennie. I am just sure that she is aware that people in Cooper are watching this debate this evening. What they want to know is the answer to my two questions. One, will they get the grant support equal to that provided in Angus? Secondly, will there be a catchment plan for the river Eden supported by the Scottish Government and its agencies? I am very happy to work on the issue of the catchment plan on the more immediate point about support to households in Willie Rennie's community. I absolutely have sympathy with what was experienced and that was communicated to Willie Rennie at the time. We have since reached out to Fife Council to have an idea of the impacted communities and I remain open to providing funding. If Willie Rennie wants to come and meet with me about that, he is very welcome and I will continue to speak with Fife Council about the impacted communities. I can hear Willie Rennie speaking from a sedentary position, but truly my door is open. He should come and meet me about the impacts. I am a little short of time, but I will be happy to. Willie Rennie, I am sorry, I am shaking my head because this is what has been told for two months. Those people are desperate, they are out of pocket and they need more than sympathy, so is the minister going to end the consideration and just give them the money that they deserve? I do have sympathy, but that is not the extent of what I have. What I am saying is that I am happy to continue working with Fife Council as I have been. I rely on Fife Council to give to me the information about impacted communities, as I rely on having meetings with local MSPs about the impact of that. Again, I offer the opportunity for Willie Rennie to come and meet me about the impact in his community. Something that Willie Rennie also mentioned in his intervention and in his contribution was the issue of whole catchment management. I believe that that approach is at the heart of sustainable flood management. We know that water does not respect property lines or local authority borders, and that is why the Flood Risk Management Act already sets out that there are a number of actors involved here. I am hoping that our new strategy will do is something that we would all agree is required when there is an incident in our constituency, and that is to oblige all of those different actors who have responsibility when it comes to flood risk management, be it local authority, be it SEPA, be it roads, be it the Scottish Government, to collectively work together in the interests of responding to the immediate event and to helping communities in the aftermath. If I have some time in hand— Yes, indeed. Yes, I will take that time. Rachel Hamilton. Thank you to the cabinet secretary. Can you tell the chamber why just 15 of the flood prevention schemes have been delivered by the Scottish Government since 2016 out of a total, as you mentioned, of 42? Why was he overspend £25.8 million, considering that this was way before inflation, and the block grant has continued to increase every year on year? I am afraid that Rachel Hamilton simplifies what is a really complex issue far too much there. I set out that, according to the statute, it is local authority who has got responsibility for flood risk management, and the Scottish Government arrangement is that we fund viable schemes up to 80 per cent. I have mentioned that we have funded that to the total of £42 million per annum over a number of years and have added an additional £150 million over the course of this Parliament to support local authorities in doing that. I understand that it is challenging for local authorities. We know that these schemes can create a diversity of views in communities, and there are myriad reasons why they are complex projects. However, I am absolutely clear about the fact that we will continue to work with local authorities to protect our communities. I am conscious of time, and I do want to conclude. I want to just be absolutely clear by reiterating what I said at the start, which is that I know that climate change is creating and worsening the impacts of flooding in our communities. It is the single greatest adaptation challenge that we have in Scotland, but that is exactly why the Scottish Government is investing hundreds of millions of pounds in this multifaceted, complex yet vital area. It is why we are complementing that investment by working to bring all of those with responsibility for this together. I am doing it in government. I have done it in my constituency, and I know how frustrating it is for representatives across the chamber when you are in the heart of an incident. We all know the human impacts of flooding and the increasing risk, and I want us to work together to respond to it.