I'm happy to go first. You won't be surprised, I was publicly critical of both agencies in the immediate aftermath. And, in fairness, senior officers from the Met Office came down to meet me within days, as did the chief exec or the acting chief exec and others from NRW. We've had a robust conversation on some of the information with the Met Office, in fairness. I think they've reflected on it, and I'm grateful for the way that they've responded. I gave them examples of inconsistencies. So, between warnings, for example, Darragh and Bert, very different warnings, which allowed both us, but, in particular, the public, to be ready for what was coming. Thankfully, it wasn't as bad, actually, in terms of flooding to what was forecast. However, for storm Bert, I think I'm right in saying, and they've certainly said through the LRF, that, with hindsight, it should have been an amber weather warning because of the amount of rain. As I say, seven inches of rain falling, that is not a yellow warning. If we had thought seven inches of rain was going to fall in our area, we would have rung the alarm bells.
But also, just to be clear—and I did raise this in a meeting with the Met Office—local authorities get daily updates. When there is a storm coming, we get daily updates. Those daily updates are not made public, only the—. There's a public-facing update, and there's a daily update. The public update, and the daily update to local authorities was clearly inconsistent, because the public update was saying that it could be 100 mm to 150 mm of rain, yet on the Thursday, the update that we had as a local authority for our area said it was 80 mm to 100 mm. On the Friday, they increased it—I believe it was in the 90 mm to 100 mm range, and on the Saturday, the day before the storm hit, there was no update. So, I laid all this out in the meeting, with facts and figures. I also went back over about five years, showing where we'd had previous warnings for the amount of rain, the millimetres of rain. And in fairness to them, they couldn't answer on the day, but they said, 'Look, there does appear to be some inconsistencies.' And I get it as well; they explained their side about how difficult it is to be exact on the areas.
So, I think we've got a better understanding now from both sides, and I understand, from the conversations with the Met Office—and, again, they're coming to see me next week—that they are reflecting on, if there was a storm Bert event again, what they would do differently. So, from that side, it's positive, I think.
In terms of storm Bert and NRW, I did raise concerns about the fact that river gauges were rocketing in the early hours. I was in touch with my senior officer, who attended the committee meeting with me last week, Steve; we were in touch throughout the night. During the early hours, probably about five o'clock, I myself at home was looking at all the NRW gauges and the Met Office live radar, and I made contact with senior officers at about 4.40 in the morning, to say, 'I think this is going to turn into a storm Dennis.' When they contacted NRW at about 6.30 that morning, we had a reply, and the message was, 'You can tell your leader this is no storm Dennis.' Well, subsequently, it was a storm Dennis, practically. And in fairness, on some of the figures and some of the data we've gone back and fore with—again, we've had constructive conversations in the last few weeks.