Scottish Parliament, 16 December 2010

434 contributions from 85 members. The official report.

Winter Resilience

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a Labour Party debate on motion S3M-7604, in the name of Andy Kerr, on winter resilience. As the debate is very heavily subscribed, I ask members to stick rigidly to the timings given.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

At the start of the debate, it is only proper that I place on record the appreciation of the nation and the many communities throughout it for all those gallant men and women in the public and private sectors who, despite treacherous conditions, fought hard to keep our communities connected and our people looked after. I welcome Keith Brown to his new post as Minister for Transport and Infrastructure.

It is also correct for us to reflect on individual experiences such as that of a constituent of mine, who was concerned, stressed and worried about getting the dialysis that she requires three times a week to treat her life-threatening condition. She was looked after by our national health service at Monklands hospital, whose stalwart service went above and beyond the call of duty. Of course, the weather conditions created similar situations for many of our constituents.

In bringing this debate, Labour seeks to give the Parliament the opportunity to look forward not just over the next few months but over the much longer term with regard to our ability to cope with severe winter weather conditions. In my speech, I want to focus on ideas, options and choices for the future. Although my colleagues and I are quite happy to discuss past events, I believe that it is best to look forward. In that light, we will abstain on the Liberal Democrat amendment, which we believe fights last week’s battle, not this week’s. Of course, had the previous transport minister not decided to resign, we would have supported it.

I share the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth’s view, expressed in the media, that when we have conditions such as those that we have just experienced, which we will experience again, there will be delays and disruptions. However, it is our duty to reduce those delays and disruptions to a minimum. Our economy lost millions; our schools were closed; our workers could not get to their workplaces; our elderly were trapped; and the sick and disabled were housebound. For many, Scotland ground to a halt, and we must put in place as many measures as possible to mitigate such a consequence.

As everyone recognises—indeed, I heard the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure discussing this very issue on the radio this morning—communications are vital in such situations. For a number of years, we on these benches have called for a dedicated phone line or single point of reference, and we repeat our request that the Scottish Government establish a Scotland-wide telephone helpline in preparation for such events. There was undoubtedly a lack of consistency in the messages that were being given by Scotland’s many helplines, which were staffed by people in different councils or different organisations.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I know that Mr Kerr and his colleagues have pursued the matter for some time but, in considering the practical consequences of the situation, the Government has focused on the essential point that individuals who phone helplines must get the help that they require at a local level. That suggests to me that effective mechanisms must be in place in all parts of the country to deliver support to back up any local or national telephone helpline that might be established.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

People still need a single point of access. It is of course important that they are referred on to other public services, but consistent advice must be given on first contact. I believe that our idea still has merit and should be discussed further.

The scale of the problem has also been highlighted by our pensioner organisations. According to the Scottish Pensioners Forum, 200,000 pensioners in Scotland were left vulnerable and trapped in their own homes. The treacherous conditions on our highways and local roads meant that many old people were unable not only to get the support of those who work with them but to go out themselves, get fresh food and supplies and even keep their homes warm.

That brings me back to a point that should be made in this debate. We need to ensure, as neighbours and friends, as a society and as communities, that we personally look in on those who are vulnerable or elderly and that we act as good neighbours. It is not all about Government intervention; there is a role for all of us in society.

I return to communications. Our messages must be clear and consistent, and decisions that have been taken must be communicated effectively to all news and information outlets. I welcome the six-point action plan that the transport minister announced, but I have picked up reservations from local authorities that they were not included in the discussion about that plan. Indeed, my local authority was able and willing to assist Amey Highways when it was having real difficulties with major carriageways in and around South Lanarkshire, but there was a lack of co-ordination in the situation.

We all assume that websites can deliver everything for everybody, but many websites crashed because of the level of demand, and the accuracy of information on websites has been criticised. The websites of the Government, Transport Scotland and ScotRail did not meet the challenge that they required to meet. Further work needs to be done on that. Indeed, some in the media have described those websites as next to useless. If people try to interrogate poorly designed websites that crash and about which our communities express concerns, that undermines people’s confidence in our ability to take on and challenge the inclement weather conditions that we face.

There are other forms of communication, of course. At 10.30 on Monday morning this week, I had a welcome meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and the new transport minister in Glasgow. During that meeting, I said that we should consider whether it is possible, with digital communications, to have a dedicated radio channel just for dealing with such conditions so that our messages can be given out in a clear and unadulterated fashion and people can rely on them.

On leadership, I acknowledge the difficulties that we all face, particularly the ministers, but many organisations that had a role in dealing with what we have seen over the past wee while were unclear about where final decisions were being made and the communication of those decisions. The emergency committees were there, and people from them looked good standing in the Scottish Government’s response room or standing next to shiploads of grit, but if there is a lack of leadership and a lack of understanding of who is responsible for decisions, that can, of course, lead us into difficult situations. We advocate the holding of a national planning day to ensure that we bring together all the agencies involved and iron out those situations. I hear noises from members in sedentary positions, but if one engages with the officers, councillors, agencies, bodies and individuals concerned, one will hear those concerns being expressed. We will find out in future whether they are right or wrong; all that I am saying is that those matters require to be looked at.

We must consider procurement strategies for vehicles and equipment in light of the conditions. Diesel vehicles could not be heated or used, and the police and other services have been unable to provide sufficient four-by-four vehicles. I believe that the availability of registers to get access to those pieces of equipment is being addressed. There has been a big discussion about tyres, particularly for large goods vehicles and private vehicles. We need to consider such matters. I think that the transport minister will have something to say about packs for stranded motorists and how we support them. I welcome the fact that we have had positive engagement with the Government on such matters and that ideas are coming forward.

The retail industry and the supply chain rely on just-in-time deliveries. Therefore, we must ensure that we engage realistically with our freight transport organisations. It is easy to say that we should stack and rack LGVs and other vehicles at the side of motorways or in pens, but we need to understand the impact on the supply of goods and services, and on supplies of essential goods, particularly fuel. We must ascertain the facts, consult now and ensure that the right decisions are made for future incidents. I understand the concerns that road hauliers have raised about views that have been expressed, but it is our job to engage with them to ensure that the decisions that are taken are right and effective so that there is no great impact on the economy as a whole. There is, of course, a balance to be struck in how we handle such situations.

I regret the intervention of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, who felt that he was somehow in a better position than others to judge individual council responses. Headteachers, teachers and education authorities are much closer to the issues and were making more appropriate decisions. They are far more experienced in such matters. They have student education at the heart of their principles, but they also have safety at the heart of their decision making. I saw the letter from Councillor Pat Watters to the cabinet secretary on the issue, which stated that the cabinet secretary’s actions were more about being seen to be doing something than about doing something effective. The fact that the cabinet secretary’s letter to councils was immediately turned into a press release did not help the situation.

In coming to an overall view on the situation, I again place on record my thanks to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and others for their engagement. We on the Labour benches welcome the six-point plan that the transport minister recently announced, as it is the start of a response and an on-going process to manage conditions. I give credit to my colleague Charlie Gordon, who, before the crisis began, recommended that the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee should hold an inquiry into how we handle and manage inclement weather. It should be the responsibility of us all in the Parliament to feed into the process.

Much has been made of the Scottish salt group report of August 2010. I would appreciate, from the cabinet secretary or the transport minister, an up-to-date position on some of the many issues that the report raises on salt stocks and salt storage mechanisms. There are other considerations, including whether we need a dedicated winter emergency fund and clearer guidance on the maintenance of routes; whether we should create national salt reserves that are sustained at a higher level; how we can ensure better working with local authorities and trunk road operating companies; what vehicles and equipment we should specify; what our position is on winter tyres and clearing frontages; whether we need an assessment of the economic impact of measures that we seek to take to ensure that we get them right; and, of course, how we can ensure that we get clarity in decision-making processes.

The availability of salt is of particular concern. From my discussions with the council in my area, I believe that it is fairly well off in its salt stocks. However, that means that it has five or six days of available salt supplies. If that is one of the good local authorities, I worry about the state of salt supplies throughout Scotland. A well-stocked local authority such as South Lanarkshire Council has less than 10,000 tonnes, which is enough for five or six days. Many local authorities are worse off and have much less stock. We have a stock target of 25,000 tonnes in Scotland, whereas Wales has a stock target of 70,000 tonnes. If the weather conditions as described in the long-range weather forecast come true, we might have 30 continuous days of sub-zero temperatures. I have a great concern that the salt stocks are not sufficient to allow Scotland to keep moving during such conditions.

My message to the cabinet secretary and the new transport minister is that it is the responsibility of us all in the Parliament to work together to ensure that our economy and people are not disrupted by inclement weather conditions. I accept that the recent conditions were challenging, but nonetheless we did not respond as we should have done. The job of Parliament and the ministers is to ensure that we respond as we should in future.

I move,

That the Parliament acknowledges that lessons have to be learned about how the Scottish Government and its agencies react to exceptional weather conditions; considers that MSPs must now look ahead and work together to ensure that all possible measures are taken to prevent the experience of recent weeks, which saw older people trapped in their homes, schools shut, people stranded on roads, businesses losing money, diesel and food supplies running low, mail undelivered and bins not collected; calls on the Scottish Government to improve communications, ensure closer and effective liaison with all appropriate organisations and consider more robust planning exercises, and, while acknowledging that severe weather will cause disruption and delays, believes that Scotland needs to keep moving regardless of the weather conditions.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

This is the first opportunity that I have had to address Parliament since the resignation of my colleague Stewart Stevenson. I place on record my appreciation to him for what I consider to be a distinguished period in office with achievements on many issues, including the Forth replacement crossing, which we debated yesterday, the national planning framework, the strategic transport projects review and the climate change legislation. I thank him warmly for his support and for his service to the Government. I welcome Keith Brown to his office and look forward to working with him in the period ahead.

I welcome the opportunity to provide Parliament and the public with a further update on the measures that we have in place and those that we continue to put in place to deal with severe winter weather and to minimise disruption. Mr Kerr characterised the challenge as being to do with minimising and mitigating disruptive issues. That was a helpful observation at the outset of the debate. The tone and substance of Mr Kerr’s speech will help us to make a great deal of progress on the issue. Although the Government will do everything possible to minimise and mitigate disruption, we must accept that, in periods of acute winter weather, there will be disruption to the normal pattern of life in Scotland. The challenge of public authorities is to try to minimise that disruption, which is what the Government is focused on just now.

The amendment that the Government has lodged recognises the outstanding efforts of the many people in the public sector and the voluntary sector within our communities who have contributed towards helping to resolve many of the challenges that we and all our citizens have faced in the past few weeks. The Government records its appreciation for what those public servants have contributed. I associate—

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In a moment.

I associate myself with the remarks that Mr Kerr made about the fact that all individuals in society have an obligation to look out for and help others in any way that they can during these difficulties. I am sure that we have all been touched by examples of where that has been the case within our own communities.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The cabinet secretary is correct to praise those public sector workers who battled through the snow to look after our most vulnerable and elderly people in their communities last week. While warm words are welcome, does he think that it would be a more practical appreciation of that commitment and work if he was to ensure that those low-paid workers received at least the minimum wage or the £250 protection that they are currently not eligible for?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As Mr McNeil knows, in the part of public sector pay policy over which I have control, the exact aspirations that he set out will be delivered. I cannot control all areas of public sector pay because the local authority sector is involved, but I am sure that his words have been heard loud and clear by that sector.

Let me spend a couple of moments looking back at the events of Sunday 5, Monday 6 and Tuesday 7 December, when we experienced sustained, heavy, wet snow falling on already freezing surfaces, which followed a period of sustained snowfall in the preceding week. During the night of Sunday 5 December, the detailed predictions were for fairly small depths of snow of 2cm to 5cm across the central belt with the possibility of up to 10cm on higher ground. The eventual volume of snow that fell and the rate at which it fell were significantly beyond what had been predicted. The heavier snowfall during the morning peak resulted in severe congestion across the network, which restricted the operating companies’ ability to continue with appropriate treatment cycles of ploughing and gritting.

At that point, there was full recognition that there was disruption to traffic, and both the operating companies and the police were fully engaged in responding to incidents, many of which they were able to deal with. However, it is clear from the analysis of the range of incidents that took place during Monday that, when one incident was being cleared on one aspect of the motorway and trunk road network, another incident was happening in close succession. We hoped that traffic would have the opportunity to clear in the early afternoon period—that would be the expectation in the circumstances—but it was unable to clear because of the plummeting temperatures that were experienced during the day. That was coupled with the fact that many people, fearful of the weather conditions, left work early, and schools closed. The motorway and trunk road network had virtually no opportunity to recover on Monday afternoon. Consequently, by the time we reached 4 to 5 o’clock in the evening, there was significant congestion and gridlock across many aspects of the motorway network.

Shortly after the early evening, the situation around the city of Glasgow improved dramatically, but traffic was congested on the M8, the M876, the A80 and the M77. That led to significant difficulties and acute problems for individuals who were stranded in those circumstances. The plummeting temperatures—for example, the temperature fell to minus 12 at Gogarburn in Edinburgh at 4 o’clock in the morning on 7 December—resulted in compacted ice forming on carriageways, and with the continued low temperatures, salting activity became ineffective and ploughing was the only option. In some cases, the ice was so thick that it resulted in the blades of snowploughs breaking.

I assure the Parliament that, in those circumstances, the trunk road operating companies, the police and the Government’s resilience operation were in constant communication to try to address how the issues could be resolved for the individuals who were affected. It clearly took some considerable time to do that, and judgments were formed and applied during the night, in which I was involved, about the extent to which it was better to remove people from the carriageways to rest centres or to concentrate on tackling the carriageway problems to allow the traffic to flow, which eventually, in the course of Monday evening and Tuesday morning, we were able to achieve. I offer that information to explain the difficulties that individuals who were caught up in those circumstances faced.

I assure Parliament that the trunk road operating companies prepared for the weather forecast that was delivered and undertook the necessary preparation of the road surfaces beforehand, but the extent of the snowfall and the nature of the congestion that was created as a consequence of a number of blockages on the motorway network exceeded predictions. On Tuesday, I explained to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee exactly where those blockages, which resulted in significant disruption and the circumstances that I have outlined, took place.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

The cabinet secretary says that the trunk road operating companies were prepared. Paragraph 8.1 of the winter maintenance plan for the south-west sector in relation to snow and ice states:

“Ploughing of snow will normally commence at a snow depth of 30mm”—

which is 3cm—

“and will be accompanied by salt applications.”

The cabinet secretary has told the chamber that the predicted snowfall was between 2cm and 5cm, so why did the contractor not prepare to plough as well as to grit?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As was explained to Mr Gordon at Tuesday’s meeting of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, there are snowploughs on the front of the vehicles that undertake gritting. If snow falls, the plough will come down and plough. I heard a commentator on Sunday morning demand that ploughing should have started before the snow came down—I was somewhat mystified by that concept. The gritters will have gritted before the snowfall; whenever snow accumulated, ploughing activity will have been undertaken. That is part of the trunk road operating companies’ approach.

I will now concentrate on the steps that we are taking. In the past few days, we have received some acute weather warnings, which have been widely communicated and disseminated. On Tuesday, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure announced a range of new measures that will bolster our resilience. Mr Brown announced the establishment of a special multi-agency group to respond to future severe weather events. He presided over that operation in Glasgow last night to assess the contribution from representatives of Scotland’s eight police forces, the trunk road operating companies, Traffic Scotland, Transport Scotland and First ScotRail.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Am I correct in understanding that local authorities were not involved in the operation?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I was referring to the arrangements for operational control last night. If there are operational issues at the local level, of course local authorities will be involved, through their interaction with the police and their interface with the trunk road operating companies. The localities are important when we concentrate on these questions.

The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure announced a series of six additional measures that have been widely communicated and will assist our response. During the debate, we will hear more from Mr Carlaw about the Conservatives’ suggestion that we establish a warning system for the communication of messages. The Government is undertaking work in that area. Mr Carlaw’s amendment contains a helpful suggestion that will advance our efforts to produce greater clarity in the messages that we send. Utter clarity and consistency are required in the messages that are issued to members of the public during winter events.

Mr Kerr asked me about salt stocks, so I will take a moment to address that point. According to the most recent reports, 157,000 tonnes of salt are held by the trunk road operating companies and local authorities of Scotland, with approximately 203,000 tonnes on order. In addition to those numbers, the Government has established a national salt reserve, which we replenish constantly with new orders. Based on the decisions that the Government has taken, I expect that strategic salt reserve to reach about 100,000 tonnes. I further reassure Parliament that, if an individual local authority faces salt supply difficulties, the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland provides a network for communication on that point between directors of roads. SCOTS is working to ensure that no authority is left with an inadequate supply of salt.

I hope that my remarks have given Parliament confidence about the steps that the Government is taking to address these issues and I look forward to hearing members’ contributions to the debate.

I move amendment S3M-7604.2, to insert at end:

“, and acknowledges the significant efforts made by a wide range of public service workers, voluntary organisations and people across Scotland to maintain essential services, support their neighbours and keep communities moving through the extreme conditions.”

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I begin with an uncharacteristic welcome for a Labour Party motion, which we will support tonight. With its Osbornesque language that recognises that we are all in this together, it makes amends in part for the subject of my principal complaint last week, which was that, even as thousands of motorists remained stranded in sub-zero temperatures and were unprepared and uninformed, too many seemed to be concerned with opportunistic political scapegoating and calls for a minister’s scalp.

The objective was not noble. In the face of a national emergency, Scots were wholly unimpressed with politicians who scrambled to do what politicians are inclined to do—to blame one another. People desperately wanted to hear a clear and reliable statement of precisely what was going on and an expression of resolve from politicians of all parties to address the underlying issue—our inability, which we have seen time and again, to provide an effective national response to a weather emergency and to fix the situation so that we have such a response next time.

The public understood perfectly well that Scotland and the minister had been overwhelmed by events. Not for a moment were they persuaded that, had any other party been in office, that would have made a whit of difference. As Mr Swinney said, Mr Stevenson was an experienced and competent minister and is a decent man, but his resignation in due course was probably correct. However, it should not have been the axis on which events focused at the height of the emergency.

Tales of those days will be legion and will live long but, in one respect, they were a time for celebration. When faced with the unexpected and the dreadful, ordinary Scots—those who work and those who do not, those who are in the public sector and those who are in the private sector, as Mr Kerr acknowledged, whether old or young—responded magnificently. There were countless instances of individual kindnesses and of exemplary and heroic conduct, which were all of a character that represents the best in our nation.

What people now require of us and the Government is a convincing strategy. The motion recognises that. In speaking to my amendment, I will concentrate on communication. My colleagues Mary Scanlon and Liz Smith will touch on the challenges that Scotland’s NHS and schools face.

There is no question but that, last week, our transport infrastructure—road, rail and air—suffered a near-total collapse. The consequences are far-reaching and potentially deeply damaging. For Scotland to have an emerging reputation that its roads network is unfit for purpose is a gross and undeserved exaggeration. The decisions of delivery operators to suspend Christmas deliveries to Scotland add insult to the injury that many Scots have suffered. We cannot allow the notion that we cannot cope to become entrenched.

I welcome the transport minister back to his post in Parliament this morning after—as I gather from the press—spending a night at the refurbished Savoy. I welcome, too, his first statement of actions, although I note that some of his remedies were previously unimplemented recommendations that arose from last winter’s debacle.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I take Mr Carlaw back to his point about the transport networks’ robustness. We must deal with the observation that, in the face of uncharacteristically low temperatures, many aspects of our transport networks were severely challenged. That reflects the current networks but also prompts us to consider the most appropriate rail and road infrastructure to have in place to tackle severely lower temperatures than those to which we are accustomed.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I wholly agree with the cabinet secretary. I merely reflect that we must be prepared to tackle the growing noise that emanated from some in the media that Scotland was in some way uniquely incapable of coping.

It was immediately clear last week that the public do not believe that they have access to reliable information that commands their confidence. Over time, we have allowed public information to become devalued. For example, as people drive in perilous snow and look to overhead motorway gantries for essential advice, what is the point of telling them to consider cycling rather than driving or that snow is forecast? When we are told not to make a journey unless it is absolutely necessary, what does that mean? Does it mean that we can proceed with due care and diligence or that we should proceed with no journey unless a life depends on it?

It was inadvisable of some to exploit a decade of mild winters as irrefutable evidence in support of another campaign, however worthy or essential. We are fortunate not to have experienced regularly the severest winter weather that was once commonplace throughout large parts of Scotland. After 25 years in the retail motor industry, I can attest that we were fortunate last week to have the enormous technical improvements that have taken place in cars and commercial vehicles in the 25 years since we previously had a storm of such magnitude. Given that there are far more vehicles on the roads today, had those advances not been made there would have been 10 times the number of individual mechanical breakdowns. Had anti-lock braking not become standard, the number of serious accidents could have been dreadful.

If severe weather events are once again emerging as part of the expected pattern of winter life, what can we do to better inform the public of what might well be coming their way? We should be able to implement an authoritative Government code that traffic-lights severe weather warnings, similar to the system that applies to a national security alert, or the system that was used for the national flu pandemic. For the most severe weather, the advice would be clear: do not travel. At a level that is one step less severe, people should appreciate that they must travel with extreme care and be prepared for an emergency. The introduction of such an authoritative system does not require the commitment of any major budget; it requires the application and energy of current ministers to effect its introduction. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s advice that the Government is specifically looking into that idea.

In addition, I urge the Government to enter into discussions with broadcasters, particularly BBC Scotland, to forge an agreement that, when the severest weather emergency occurs, the public can be assured that authoritative statements will be broadcast at least hourly by a partnership of national and local government, Transport Scotland and the police, to seek to give them reliable information on which they can base informed decisions. For those who are stranded and conserving power, the certainty of the regular timing of such broadcasts would provide reassurance as well as advice, and it would overcome the difficulties with standalone helplines, which the cabinet secretary identified—although I also understand the merits of using a helpline.

Such advice and reassurance was all that many people were looking for last week. They fully appreciated that the event that they were enduring was unparalleled, but they could not understand why they were getting contradictory information and advice that seemed general in character and remote to the challenges that they were facing.

It is truly ironic that we have never had more media to tune into, but with less reliable, helpful or consistent advice broadcast. Neither Government nor politicians can control the weather, but we can do much more to prepare Scotland to meet the challenge that a severe weather event presents. Parliament and Government must convince Scotland that we are ourselves fit for purpose and capable of meeting these challenges with a sense of urgency that will lead to measures that, next time, will demonstrate that Scotland’s national response in the face of a weather emergency is second to none.

I support Mr Kerr’s motion and the Government amendment. I move amendment S3M-7604.1, to insert at end:

“, and further calls on the Scottish Government to give consideration to a traffic-light style graded system of severe weather warnings.”

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

As members were coming across to the chamber, as snow started to fall on the Parliament again, we were reminded that this is probably just the start of the winter season. We can recall that there were almost three bouts of bad weather last winter, continuing as late as March. It is absolutely right that the Labour Party brings this debate of substance on the issue of resilience.

We owe it to the communities that we represent to ensure that the Parliament is holding the Government to account, and we, in all our political parties, should be working in our own areas to represent the public appropriately.

Like other members have done at the start of their speeches, I welcome the new Minister for Transport and Infrastructure to his post. Stewart Stevenson was always courteous and timeous in his dealings with me, for which I thank him.

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I share with members our thanks to the public sector workers who have been out there, going the extra mile. I speak as the son of someone who worked as an ambulance driver for more than 30 years. We owe a real debt of gratitude to our emergency workers, social workers and those who care for the more vulnerable in society.

I do not wish to comment on, and I do not share, Jackson Carlaw’s criticism of Annabel Goldie, but I make no apology for the robust Liberal Democrat amendment. Our concern is that, unless hard lessons are learned, real action might not be taken. In welcoming the new minister to his post, I trust that he will consider what went wrong recently, that he will listen to the many council and public sector workers who were on the front line and who have a breadth of practical knowledge, and that he will learn from the poor handling and the poor communication.

On the subject of communication, we think that the minister is learning from what happened, and we are pleased about that. Jackson Carlaw mentioned the six-point plan that the new minister announced, and one can hardly quibble with its elements. However, we asked the Scottish Parliament information centre what document or strategy the six-point plan was based on, SPICe asked the Scottish Government where the six-point plan existed, and the Government told SPICe that it existed in a press release.

We must learn properly and build the plan into our existing strategies and service plans. A six-point plan in a press release will be fine for messages over a week, but it will not address, as we deliberately say in our amendment, the considerable economic damage that was done over the past week—which continues to be felt, and I will touch on that in the remainder of my speech—

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I need to make progress on some areas, but I will come back to Rob Gibson if I have time.

Reputational damage was also inflicted on Scotland. When I met a member of the board and the chief executive of VisitScotland yesterday, we discussed the issue. We should not deny that the news and broadcast images of the capital city’s airport and of drivers sleeping overnight in their freezing cars on the main arterial road in Scotland damaged Scotland’s reputation, particularly for business tourism.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Ordinarily, I am keen to give way to members, but I wish to make some points.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

It is a ridiculous point.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I hear a comment from a sedentary position that it is a ridiculous point, but it is not.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I appreciate the sincerity with which Mr Purvis has expressed his point of view, but if he had looked at television screens a few weeks ago he would have found that exactly the same circumstances happened in the south of England. Was there reputational damage there? Is there reputational damage in European countries where the same happens? He is making a ridiculously negative point.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I do not deny that reputational damage has also been done in other parts of the United Kingdom. The fact that primarily—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Do not talk us down.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I say to the cabinet secretary that it is about our capital city’s airport and our main arterial route, and we should not deny the damage.

The cabinet secretary also said, I think, that we had had uncharacteristically low temperatures and exceptional weather. There is real merit in saying that. However, it is interesting to read the “Lessons learned and recommendations following the events of winter 2009/10” from the Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others in the Scottish salt group, which I read carefully. That paper says that it is based on the paper that was

“published in July 2009 following the then considered exceptional winter of 2008/09.”

The foreword to the latest paper relates that

“The winter of 2009/10 was exceptional”,

and now the winter of 2010-11 is considered exceptional. If we have three such winters in a row, we cannot consider this one exceptional. That is why long-term planning must be considered.

Many constituents of mine have been in touch with me concerning rural pressures and difficulties with heating oil. We have not simply gone through the difficulties, we are still facing them. I will make a specific point to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure: constituents in rural areas are not receiving heating oil deliveries as of today. When I spoke to Johnston Oils yesterday, I was concerned to hear that, according to some estimates, there could be delays of up to four weeks in the deliveries of heating oil. Notwithstanding that, there has been a peak in the price of heating oil, which has increased by 70 per cent over the past three months.

I know from speaking to filling stations in my constituency last night that they are having difficulties securing product from Grangemouth. There are difficulties with not only reliability but provision. I know that the Cabinet sub-committee on Scottish Government resilience has discussed deliveries, but I make an appeal to the minister, because customers are facing difficulties now and there are forecasts that they will continue over the winter.

I have spoken to many constituents who cannot believe that, unlike in Canada or Scandinavia, pumping equipment in Grangemouth was frozen for a number of days and there continue to be real difficulties in securing product from Scotland’s main refinery. The Scottish Government, whether working alone or with the UK Government, simply must act on that.

I move amendment S3M-7604.3, to insert at end:

“; regrets the damaging economic and reputational impact of the severe disruption to Scotland’s roads, rail services and airports and the Scottish Government’s poor handling of the exceptional weather conditions; recognises that difficulties are ongoing; believes that there are several practical steps that could be taken to help avoid such disruption in the future, including for Transport Scotland to carry out more comprehensive scenario planning, for rail operators to review the preparedness of the network and their communication with passengers and for the Scottish Government to facilitate closer co-operation between trunk road operators, the police service and local authorities in their efforts to keep essential routes open and the public advised, and believes that the Scottish Government should outline the measures that it is taking to rebuild confidence in Scotland’s ability to remain open for business under adverse weather conditions.”

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to the open debate. Members will appreciate that there is no time to spare. Speeches of six minutes only, please.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am happy to contribute to this important debate. I recognise the desire not simply to dwell on the problems of last week but to reflect on them and learn lessons. I am frustrated that all the evidence of the last period is that the lessons of last year have clearly not been learned. That compounded the problems that we faced last week.

The problem with the way in which the debate around the issue was conducted last year, and last month at First Minister’s question time, is that the response to anxieties about the mistakes of last year, and the lack of preparedness this year, was to suggest that those asking the questions were attacking the blue-light services, volunteers and neighbours who dealt with the difficult circumstances. That is simply not true. In acknowledging that selfless effort, we also have to acknowledge that those who are charged with protecting communities from the severe weather—ministers and others—compounded the difficulties and made the circumstances worse for those who gave up their valuable time and made an effort to help others.

My concerns go back a year. Since that time, I have sensed a fundamental flaw in the approach of the Scottish Government, which seems to see the issue of severe weather conditions as one of grit and traffic management. It seems not to see the people and the cost and risk to individuals, families and communities. There simply has to be a shift in attitude. Indeed, the report that the Government commissioned last year focused on little else but salt issues. As far as I can see, when the report was consulted on, the Government did not seek to engage with communities, voluntary groups and organisations.

That approach was reflected in last week’s problems. Even on the roads, as the traffic stacked up, authorities seemed to see the vehicles not the occupants. There seemed to be no strategy for identifying or making contact with vulnerable passengers—those with children and others. Indeed, I have heard that people saw the police only when they were being told to get back into their cars. There seemed to be no understanding why someone with a young child, elderly people or those who needed medicine might want to go to the local services.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I will share with Johann Lamont a conversation with a senior police officer who explained some of the challenges that his officers faced on the road network. In trying to remove the gridlock, they spent substantial amounts of time providing welfare assistance to individuals in the circumstances that the member cites. I appreciate her point, but she has to understand that many of our emergency workers provided exactly the assistance to which she refers.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am not attacking any individual emergency worker. I made that point before. As I said, when we raise these issues, it is unhelpful to suggest that. This is about strategy and approach, not individual instances of assistance.

The challenge that the severe weather presents demands a response that goes beyond Mr Swinney as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and beyond the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. We need a joint ministerial approach in which the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing—who, I am disappointed to say, is not in the chamber today—plays a critical role. I regret her virtual silence on the issue. I cite the example of swine flu by way of comparison, for which rigorous contingency planning was rightly put in place. That included a national helpline, and the information sharing from that—not only on practical issues—saw the Government reaching out to people and giving them reassurance. If we can do that for swine flu, why not for severe weather?

The people who were trapped on the roads were visible, but I believe that we have seen only the tip of the iceberg in respect of those who were trapped in their own homes and therefore invisible. We need more rigour. It is simply not good enough to say without evidence that people were helped. There is no certainty in that. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth does not need to take my word for it. In the middle of the crisis, Age Scotland said on the radio that people were phoning its helpline having phoned their local council for help and being told, “You are not known to us. We can do nothing for you.” Age Scotland also reported that people who phoned its helpline expressed feelings of isolation and loneliness.

Surely, in this context, my on-going call for a national helpline makes sense. The number could be circulated early in the year, including by way of advertisement, so that people had it beside their phone. I agree that people who used such a national helpline could be directed towards other appropriate helplines, but a national number would help where there were local weaknesses, as in the example that I cited. We ask people to surf the web, but the disproportionate number of elderly people and poor people who have no access to the internet means that the most vulnerable are the least likely to have access to information. I have never understood why the Scottish Government is so defensive on the matter.

I join others in commending voluntary effort, but what national and local contingency planning has been put in place to harness that voluntary effort? That should be done when the sun shines. We should get such arrangements sorted and learn from local good practice. My local carers centre has a plan in place whereby, when the weather becomes bad, it does a phone-round. Are we recommending that to others? What are we asking general practitioners to do? Are they identifying vulnerable people to contact once the snow comes? What are we asking of our lunch clubs? Are we asking those who are willing to help to clear footpaths to do so in a more rigorous and planned way? The approach does not need to be bureaucratic; it can harness the energy of people who want to help and provide more benefit more consistently across the piece.

I want to flag up a number of other issues in the short time that I have left. There is a public transport issue that has not been addressed at all—that of people getting the wrong information, walking for miles to get to stations and then being told that the trains were not running.

A final, critical issue is that of some employees in our workforce being discriminated against. Some commentators have asked why people went on the roads when they knew that the snow was coming, but if you are in a low-paid job and your boss tells you that you must get to your work—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Wind up, please.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The irony is that managerial people with their BlackBerrys can work at home without suffering any financial impact, whereas the most low-paid workers are forced to go to their work and are condemned if they do not. We must have a dialogue with our employers across the sector to ensure that those people are protected, too.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I fully understand the need for the Scottish Parliament to have a debate on winter resilience, and I very much welcome this morning’s debate. I believe that we should have had such a debate a long time ago, as winter is hardly new to us. It is a bit ripe of some people to charge on and suggest that the issue is one that just the Scottish Government is responsible for, and that no else has ever had any responsibility for it. However, it is better that the issue is dealt with now than not dealt with at all.

Let us put things in perspective. This is no ordinary winter. Countries across Europe are experiencing their worst winter in decades. There is a reason for that, and a bit of, shall we say, cool and rational thought might help as we prepare for more of the same, which is likely to come our way.

I hope that members will not mind if I provide a wee bit of Open University stuff because, to paraphrase our American cousins, snow happens. It happens as a result of scientific reactions. A large area of high pressure has developed in the Atlantic, which has caused a block to the usual westerlies—the westerly winds—that tend to keep Scotland a bit milder than our latitude would suggest. That has allowed very cold Arctic air to move south across mainland Europe. At this time of year, during the long nights over the European land mass, there is a rapid cool-down from daytime temperatures, with the result that the Arctic blast remains bitterly cold. When that air crosses the relatively warm North Sea before reaching us, evaporation means that it picks up moisture, which then condenses as snow when it reaches the colder temperatures on land.

The weather cycle that Scotland normally experiences does not cause a great deal of problems, but the phenomenon of Arctic oscillation, which happens when opposing atmospheric pressure patterns surrounding the north pole shift back and forth, disrupts the standard weather patterns in the northern hemisphere. Members have got to stay with me here.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Keep going—I was off school that day.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It is a while since some of us were at school, so it will not do any harm for us to remember this.

Since the 1960s, in general, a ring of high pressure has surrounded the relatively low pressure over the pole, thereby keeping the cold air where it should be—on top of the world. However, we have been subjected to a reversal of that situation, whereby high pressure over the north pole has been surrounded by a low pressure system, which has resulted in the cold blast of air that has recently moved down over us and our neighbours, both near and far. Members will be happy to hear that that is the end of the science.

It is necessary to be able to respond to changing weather patterns rather than just react to them in the short term. Now is the time to take a long view of equipment planning and to mobilise resources in readiness for any part of Scotland being as badly affected as has been the case over the past few weeks. I have been hearing calls for that to happen for decades—I know that I do not look old enough—and we have all heard that for many years, but no one has yet delivered, so I welcome the Opposition parties’ positive proposals that members of the Parliament will work together constructively to prepare for future extreme weather events.

Scotland has seen exceptional weather, as have countries that are expected to suffer worse winter weather than we normally get. Paris had its heaviest snowfall for 23 years, and Charles de Gaulle airport was closed. I do not think that people are slagging off the French Government for that situation; it was the snow.

Sadly, 18 homeless people were reported to have frozen to death and another 12 were killed in snow-related accidents in Poland, which is not a warm country. A record -18°C was reported in parts of Germany, which is not a warm country. A state of emergency has been declared in Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro, where schools have been closed, power and heating have been lost and water supplies have been left contaminated. Minneapolis in the mid-west of the US has seen its heaviest snowfall in 19 years. Nashville in Tennessee is experiencing its coldest winter since 1942. It is no fun playing country and western music when your ukulele is frozen to your leg—I have tried.

We all have lessons to learn. However, we are not alone in being hit by a force of nature that is beyond the control of mankind in this country or in any other. With co-operation and good sense on all sides, we can plan for the best of outcomes. We know that we have to do our best for Scotland’s people, and at the same time we know that we are not in control of the climate, even with the best of legislation. However, we must all continue to try, and we welcome the Opposition parties’ proposals.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. I grew up in Shotts, and I and my constituents are accustomed to severe winter weather around Shotts and Harthill. However, even I accept that the recent winter conditions in Scotland are unprecedented. The scale of the problem caused by heavy snowfall and extreme freezing temperatures led to an incredibly challenging situation.

I do not wish to dwell on the failings of the former transport minister in relation to the problem. His preparedness for and response to the crisis were clearly lacking, but I recognise his integrity and his decision to stand down as a minister.

Last week’s crisis on the M8 and other significant trunk roads caused chaos and misery for many of my constituents. We should never again have to face the situation of thousands of people being forced to spend the night in their cars in freezing conditions with no clue about what action was being taken to help them. There was a clear breakdown in communication that exacerbated the problem and led to understandable frustration and anger.

I welcome the suggestions that the cabinet secretary and Andy Kerr have made in this debate. During such a crisis, we need clear messages from those in authority. We need a widely known and simple point of contact for information. I agree with Andy Kerr that we should examine the option of a dedicated radio channel and a single phone number to contact for information. We also need to ensure that Government websites and the telecommunications that support them are robust enough to deal with the large volume of web traffic that such a crisis leads to.

We should also examine closely the adequacy of the infrastructure that is owned and controlled by local and central Government. I understand that that will not be easy, given the cuts that all tiers of government are facing, but the cost to our society and economy of the recent crisis is so great that we must make the investment.

For example, the infrastructure that supports the Glasgow to Edinburgh railway line via Shotts is clearly not up to such weather conditions. My constituents in Shotts and the surrounding villages have faced the effective withdrawal of the train service for almost three weeks. That simply is not good enough. Too many of my constituents in Shotts and the surrounding villages—indeed, all the people who rely on the line from Livingston to Bellshill—were forced into cars and on to the M8 on the worst day of the year for weather because they wanted desperately to get to their work. It is not good enough that our train service was not running and that it continues to struggle to operate even today.

If the trains that run on the line are not up to winter conditions, First ScotRail must invest in upgrading or replacing them. If the rail line and points cannot function in low temperatures, Network Rail must upgrade or replace them. With all of the investment that is taking place in rail in Scotland—investment that I welcome—we must ensure that rail services can operate during the winter months. Perhaps Network Rail and Transport Scotland should look at investing in heated points as part of their plans to modernise our rail infrastructure.

Local government also needs to take steps to improve its response to extreme conditions. I appreciate the scale of the challenge facing our local authorities. North Lanarkshire Council, South Lanarkshire Council and Glasgow City Council have many tens of thousands of kilometres of roads and paths, all of which require to be cleared following heavy snow falls and icy conditions. I understand the size of the task, but we need to find a way of overcoming the problem and of changing the way that we deal with the issue.

The current system of prioritising primary and secondary routes all seems reasonable enough, until we realise that practically none of us can access those primary and secondary routes because the street in which we live and the streets around us are snowed in.

Once again, we may need to increase substantially and modernise the infrastructure that we have in place to tackle the problem. We also need to enter into a clear social contract with local residents with an agreed understanding that, if councils provide sufficient grit to each street, local residents will play their part in helping to clear their street. I know that my constituents would be more than happy to do that, but they did not have any grit last week and therefore struggled to fulfil that bargain. Such an approach works in many other countries across the globe; there is no reason why we should be any different.

I will also mention the need for a joined-up approach to dealing with serious winter conditions. For example, decisions to close or open schools clearly have a significant impact not only on the education of our children but on the traffic on our roads at peak times. It makes sense that those matters should be viewed holistically, and I do not believe that it is appropriate for the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, for example, to put pressure on directors of education to ensure that schools remain open or to leave those decisions to headteachers. I trust headteachers, but when they are in school they do not know the difficulties on the roads or whether the roads are passable. For that reason, the cabinet secretary should revisit the memo that he issued to local authorities.

I hope that we can work together to ensure that in future we deal with severe weather better than we have up until now.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I begin my speech by praising the work of Stewart Stevenson over the past three and three quarter years. His work on transport and climate change was of immeasurable benefit to Scotland, and I am certain that history will judge him in a much more favourable light than it will those on the Opposition benches who played a part in bringing him down. Let us make no mistake about it: the utterances of some Opposition parties in response to the adverse weather conditions of the week before last are grounded more in opportunism than in principle.

Of what has Mr Stevenson been accused? It is said that he did not pay sufficient attention to the weather forecast issued just before the snow made many roads impassable. Only yesterday, Murdo Fraser pronounced in an uncharacteristically pompous and patronising climax to his speech that the lesson of Stewart Stevenson’s resignation was:

“it is always worth paying attention to the weather forecast.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2010; c 31537.]

Can that be the same Murdo Fraser who contemptuously dismissed the science of weather forecasting in his contribution to the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill stage 3 debate as recently as 10 November, only 25 days earlier?

This year, Jackie Baillie, Richard Simpson and Helen Eadie have all dismissed weather forecasting as unreliable, the latter joining Mary Scanlon in rubbishing weather forecasts specifically as they apply to the state of the roads in winter. How is it that their party now holds in such high regard the science that it had no time for before? I will tell you: it is because Dr Petra Meier of the University of Sheffield likened the science of modelling to weather forecasting when she gave evidence to the Health and Sport Committee on the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill and the effect of minimum unit pricing. Labour and the Conservatives had already declared against minimum unit pricing, so it was in their interests to rubbish the Sheffield report, and the weather forecasting remark gave them their opportunity.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

This time, they wanted to rubbish Stewart Stevenson, so weather forecasting suddenly became something akin to a universal truth. As I say, it was naked opportunism with an unmistakable whiff of rank hypocrisy—and all to bring someone down. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Let us consider the reality of the situation. A week last Monday, several factors came together to create an impossible situation. There was a snowfall at rush hour that was far greater than expected. Schools, businesses, road hauliers and the general public had all been anxious to set about their normal activities after the paralysis of the week before, so the road system was congested. Add to that incidents such as the jack-knifing of articulated vehicles and the freezing of compressed snow and we have the circumstances that led to the ensuing chaos.

The Government has admitted that its response as far as information provision was concerned was inadequate. Lessons have been learned. What about closing the motorways sooner? The traffic was already on the roads, and someone as experienced as Chief Constable Kevin Smith, head of road policing at the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, has categorically stated that that would have been impossible. Were gritters in the right places? Yes. Was there enough grit and salt? Yes. Were they ineffective because of temperatures below -10°C? Yes. There comes a time when, because of the severest weather conditions in a generation—there was an avalanche warning for Arthur’s Seat for heaven’s sake—it is simply impossible to cope unless we prepare to a much higher degree of readiness for future winter conditions.

Would things be better if it was made mandatory for vehicles to change to winter tyres for the winter months? Yes. But would people be happy to do that? Probably not. The same goes for a range of other expensive measures. It must be remembered that, before last year, we had many years when most of the central belt had no snow at all. It is the variable severity of winters that so handicaps all who try to take appropriate and proportionate precautions.

I will give way to Dr Simpson.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I might have left the chamber by now. [Laughter.] All those whom the member criticised for their remarks in response to the weather forecasting comments that Petra Meier made also said that the Sheffield report was an excellent report that was peer reviewed. Weather forecasting is important. All that we said was that weather forecasts do not always get it right. In terms of emergency planning, a Government ignores a severe weather warning at its peril.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I know very well that Richard Simpson added that caveat to his negative statements about weather forecasting, but I am absolutely certain that the other members whom I mentioned added no such caveat.

At this stage, I will touch on a sensitive subject that l am sure needs to be aired. As Opposition members have pointed out, a forecast of severe weather conditions in central Scotland was widely broadcast on the Sunday evening, yet thousands of vehicles—from huge artics to tiny Mini cars—still set out on road journeys the following morning. Were all those journeys necessary? Do not individuals and businesses also have a duty to use their common sense and avoid venturing out in such conditions? Do we really think that the omission of a warning from Stewart Stevenson was all that led to chaos on that scale? I think not, especially as we have been told that even when such warnings are issued they are widely ignored. Perhaps what happened last week will encourage more of us to take a little bit more responsibility for our own decisions instead of blaming the Government all the time.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No. He is too near the end of his speech.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

One lesson to be learned from recent events is that the country looks with contempt on those who seem more concerned with gaining a ministerial scalp than with ensuring that sound measures are in place to deal with winter crises of unparalleled severity. Let us hope that today marks a new beginning.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As others have done, I want to thank all those who helped clearing away the recent snow and ice—especially the many hundreds of people whose diligent efforts were responsible for keeping open our essential services.

In particular, I saw at first hand the efforts of pupils, parents and teachers who went to great lengths to ensure that schools could be kept open, especially for pupils sitting important preliminary exams—although I hope not exams in arctic oscillation.

I was enormously impressed by the many thoughtful gestures of good will that were made by pupils to help elderly people—and not-so-elderly people—across the road or safely back into their properties. I witnessed a group of high school pupils whose initiative in distributing a wheelbarrow of grit was impressive and much commended by the whole street of residents, if not by the parents who found the grit missing from their garage.

I should also mention the pupils who gave up their lunch hour to help clear the entrance to a care home and the pupils who set up a 24-hour shopping rota for their elderly neighbours. Those young people turned out to be the salt of the earth in more ways than one, and in a day and age when, too often, young people do not get the best press, it was heartening to see their community spirit, and I am pleased to hear that the Scottish Government will recognise that with some special awards.

Much criticism has already been directed this morning at the Scottish Government for the way in which it handled the extreme weather situation—deservedly so, in many cases, particularly in relation to the gridlock on our roads, which other members have dealt with. The First Minister and his then transport minister were being controlled by events rather than controlling events themselves.

Last week, the First Minister stated that

“the Scottish Government should have done much better in terms of the information flow”.—[Official Report, 9 December 2010; c 31417.]

That point has been dealt with by my colleague, Jackson Carlaw. There was weak leadership and an absence of direction, but there is a much wider issue at stake: the question whether there is a better way of delivering our public services, particularly when our country experiences poor weather conditions. I will, therefore, concentrate my remarks on how we can help schools and nurseries to be better prepared.

Any parent will understand that, from time to time, they will have to take time off work to look after ill children. It is important that employers are as flexible as they can be to allow for that. However, from the communications that I and many other colleagues have received, the lack of communication regarding school closures has been an issue. Fife Council was quick to acknowledge that when it apologised for the inconvenience that school closures had caused and stated that it would move quickly to improve communication to parents and children about school closures.

However, is it really appropriate that local authorities, which are often spread over wide geographical areas, insist upon operating a one-size-fits-all policy in relation to school closures? Across Scotland, at the height of the big freeze, many local authorities took the decision to have a blanket closure of schools, regardless of the fact that the weather patterns varied considerably across the area. Would not it be better if the decision to close a school or keep it open was left in the hands of the senior teachers in that school?

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I appreciate that Elizabeth Smith wants to ensure that young people’s education is not adversely affected and that we do not have schools closed needlessly. However, with the best will in the world, is a headteacher best placed to make a decision about whether a child is able to get home from school safely when they have no idea what the weather conditions are on the roads slightly further away from the school or whether the local authority can grit the roads to allow safe passage of vehicles?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

By and large, I think that many headteachers are, as long as that decision is made in consultation with the local authority and with regard to the information and advice with which the local authority provides them. Headteachers know best what the immediate routes into the school are like, what the conditions around the school building are and what the needs of the pupils and their parents are. I have no doubt that headteachers agree with that. Witness some of the innovative decisions that have been taken by headteachers; for example, the headteacher at Hamilton College who went well beyond the call of duty to look after pupils overnight, and the headteachers who advised hundreds of parents to step in and clear snow so that some of the little ones could get to their classes safely. I think that it is important that such decisions are taken at the local level.

It is also vital that headteachers know that the council will give them backing for keeping schools open and that they should not have to worry about action being taken against them because they have had the courage or, more often, the common sense to do something a little bit different.

There is a lot of misinformation out there, and that can sometimes make headteachers a bit reluctant to keep their schools open. Parent-teacher councils can also have an important role in that regard.

We must ensure that we are better prepared to deal with poor weather. The clearing of paths and access to schools is an issue that was raised in many local authority reports, and I hope that the Scottish Government—as it has indicated this morning—is considering that.

There have been many positive suggestions—for example, that local councils can provide better information by using text messages, or that teachers may be able to report to the school that is closest to their home in order to provide some type of supply service for the period of poor weather.

As has been widely mentioned in today’s debate, the Scottish Government’s response to and handling of the extreme weather situation was inadequate. I would welcome any further details from the minister of the discussions that the Scottish Government will have with local authorities on future preparations for severe weather, and in particular on the contingency plans that it is putting in place for schools.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The debate has been very useful so far in highlighting a number of concerns from members on all sides of the chamber about the problems that we have experienced during the severe winter weather. It is about learning lessons for the future; everyone accepts that we have had an extremely unusual situation in which such severe weather has lasted for so long, and things have gone wrong, but we must learn from that and see what we can do to improve things in the future.

I say to Ian McKee, whose speech I thought was totally inappropriate, that Stewart Stevenson had to resign not because he got the weather forecast wrong, but because he went on “Newsnight” when people were still stuck in their cars—and had been for more than 13 hours—and said that the Scottish Government was doing “a first-class job”. That level of complacency was just unacceptable when a very serious issue was affecting hundreds of people in central Scotland who were stuck in their cars overnight.

Jeremy Purvis’s amendment quite rightly highlights the potential economic consequences of the severe weather, and it is important that we recognise that those exist. It was slightly ironic that one of the first events that was cancelled because of the severe winter weather was the launch in the Parliament of VisitScotland’s winter white campaign. At the same time as VisitScotland was trying to encourage people to come to Scotland to take advantage of the country’s winter, our airports, our railways and even some of our major roads were closed. That was not the message that we wanted to get across, and the economic consequences are potentially very damaging unless we get it right in the future.

Many of our retail businesses have been suffering because they cannot get supplies of goods and people cannot get to the shops. Businesses are suffering because the workers cannot get to work, and individual workers—as Labour members in particular have highlighted—are suffering because they either cannot get to work themselves and are losing salary, or have to stay at home to look after children whose schools are closed and so they are not able to get paid. All those things impact on local economies.

For many people, Christmas will be cancelled because the presents that they have ordered from online retailers are not being delivered, and those retailers are no longer taking orders from Scotland. That is not good news for the Scottish economy, either.

Jeremy Purvis highlighted the issue of heating oil supplies, which I hope the minister will address when he sums up, because it is very worrying. I, too, have had information about serious problems with heating oil supplies not being available until January. Many people who have ordered, or have tried to order, heating oil have been told that they will not get a delivery for several weeks, and heating oil suppliers are refusing to tell them what the price will be—there is evidence that the price of heating oil has doubled, in some cases. That is a major concern that was brought to my attention by a student in my constituency.

However, of more concern to me are the elderly people who may be stuck in their homes over the Christmas period with no heating oil supplies, or with their supplies so low that they have to run their heating at a very low level to avoid damaging the equipment.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I wonder whether I can assist Iain Smith, because I acknowledge the seriousness of the issue that he raises. One thing that has helped to address some such issues has been the derogation of the regulations on drivers’ hours in order to assist with fuel oil deliveries. That has been a welcome area of co-operation between the Scottish Government and the Department for Transport, which has enabled heating oil companies to undertake some of those deliveries. If Iain Smith has specific intelligence on the issue, the Government will be happy to address it, because there is a daily call between the Government and heating oil distributors on the matter.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The issue is that the heating oil companies are being told that they are unlikely to get supplies at present, and the customers are unlikely to get deliveries until January. That is the situation on the ground, and it needs to be addressed. I accept the point about the derogation of the drivers’ hours regulations, but that does not help if there is no heating oil to supply, which seems to be the problem. Someone has that heating oil, but they are trying to make a huge profit from it, and that is unacceptable.

The issue of the railways has been addressed by other members, particularly Karen Whitefield. Many members have experienced the chaos that ScotRail has inflicted on the people of Scotland over the past two weeks. Part of that is simply down to ScotRail’s inadequate information systems: its website has failed to provide accurate information. If we want to find out whether a train is running, it is guaranteed that if it says on the live rail departure board that a train is on time, it has been cancelled. If the board says that a train is delayed, it has been cancelled. The only way of knowing whether a train is running is if it can be seen moving down the line. If we are at the station where the train we want to catch originates, such as Edinburgh Waverley or Aberdeen, if the train is not moving we cannot tell whether it will ever go. ScotRail must do something about improving its information to passengers.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sorry. I am in my last minute.

It is disgraceful that people have been stuck at stations, not knowing whether they will get to work or get home. That is not good enough.

There is also the issue of whether the rolling stock is capable of doing the job. ScotRail says that the brakes freeze and that snow accumulates under the carriages, which causes damage to the equipment. We are told that there are infrastructure problems, such as points freezing. Those issues are all of serious concern and need to be addressed. A once-in-a-lifetime event has happened twice within 12 months, and we need to upgrade our railway network so that it can cope. I have written to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure and to ScotRail. I have also written to Patrick Harvie to ask whether the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee will look into the matter. I hope that the committee asks ScotRail to account for its poor service to Scottish customers throughout the past two weeks.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The fun and beauty of the winter snowfall quickly wore off for many of us when every aspect of daily life was severely interrupted by freezing conditions. For many, it has been an extremely frightening time. Hard lessons appear to have been learned over the past weeks as public confidence in the Government’s handling of the severe weather has been in question.

I, too, respect the integrity of Stewart Stevenson’s decision to go. He has been a decent minister, and Ian McKee has done him no favours this morning.

The severe weather may have damaged the Scottish economy. Many people were stranded in their homes—some unnecessarily because local pathways were unsafe, although with some gritting they would have been safer. The full impact has yet to be assessed.

We are all grateful to those who provided public services during the recent weeks and we deplore employers who withdrew payment from workers who could not get to work through no fault of their own.

As Iain Smith said, Christmas for some people will be affected, because some well-known companies have cancelled their home delivery services, which a completely unfair overreaction that affects Scottish customers. Shame on companies including Marks and Spencer that have announced that they will not deliver anything to Scotland. We should condemn the companies that have overreacted and are not doing all that they can at this time.

The severe weather has brought out the best in people as they help their neighbours and even strangers. I thank my own local heroes. But for the efforts of my neighbour, I would not even have got to the train station. When my car got stuck, two strangers helped me. I hope that I can repay them. The spirit of the Scots has been replicated throughout the country. That is a good thing about our nation.

I welcome the minister to his new post and appreciate the approach that he has taken so far. I welcome the debate, which is crucial to our future for two reasons. First, we need to reassure the public that everything that can be done to keep things moving is being done and that we have a clear strategy for doing that. Secondly, if we are to experience periods of severe weather in the future, we should decide what changes are required to deal with the weather. Considering that periods of severe weather tend to be relatively short, we need to decide how far our investment should go.

Rumours abound that the police have too few four-wheel drive vehicles. I do not know whether that is true. There have also been lots of rumours that we do not have the equipment that we need. That should be clarified for the future. It is appropriate—indeed, it is necessary—to look at such investment because the issue is not just how we in Scotland deal with these conditions; visitors and business outwith Scotland also need to know that the country can deal with its cold weather. It is fair to say that, up until the very cold spell, the public’s expectations were unclear, but last Monday’s M8 debacle has sparked the debate at another level. We must be clear about how the Government and its agencies will respond.

That said, it must also be clear how local authorities will respond, because their standards are varying too widely and the public simply does not know what to expect. I agree with Karen Whitefield that if the public are clear about what to expect from local authorities they will fill the bit in the middle and do what they can to ensure that side streets and surrounding areas are, if necessary, gritted.

On the lack of public information, which other members have referred to, I think that what the public want is easily accessible real-time information to allow them to make choices about what they will do on a particular day. In a number of areas, the provision of such information has been extremely poor. Iain Smith mentioned ScotRail’s failure to give any real-time information on its website or, indeed, any information at its stations on whether trains were leaving. The situation has been unsatisfactory in the extreme, so I ask the minister to outline in his summing up the discussions that he has had with First ScotRail on that failure. I commend ScotRail staff for being helpful in stations and very kind to passengers, even to the extent of offering free tea and coffee, but the company itself has simply not done enough.

As an elected member, I believe that I am entitled to information about what Transport Scotland is doing to keep Scotland moving. It tells me about the good progress on the M74 and the M80 from Stepps to Haggs, but it has not provided me with a single briefing about how it is dealing with this situation, so I urge the minister to give members the briefings that they should receive.

As I have said, local authorities’ performance has varied, so I ask the minister to tell us in his summing up how that situation can be made clearer. Clarity on that would be helpful.

Trunk road network operators must be more visible to the general public and we need to be briefed on what is expected of companies such as Amey and BEAR Scotland. Last Christmas, the A80 was not cleared or gritted on time, and the public did not know who to contact over the Christmas period. We need to be able to satisfy ourselves that those private companies have not skimped but have invested in suitable equipment. I urge the minister to outline to members what those companies have done in that regard and how they can be more visible to the public.

In the interests of the welfare of our Scots people, we need a strategy to help the most vulnerable and to get Scotland moving. In these difficult economic times, the outside world needs to know that Scotland is able to deal with its cold weather. We need to raise our game. I welcome the constructive discussion that we have had so far and I hope that, by the end of the debate, the minister will feel that he has some new ideas—and new challenges—to take on. I wish him all the best.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I will be gentle with central belt members and merely suggest that it would have been interesting had the leaders of the Opposition parties taken any interest at all in the weather conditions in the north and north-east of this country at any time in the past. Those who simply fly over the country and do not have to deal with the road and rail situation in the north do not know what I and fellow members in the Highlands and Islands and rural areas have to do to cope with it.

It would be a good idea to learn some practical lessons and, indeed, to inject some facts into the debate. When the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee discussed the matter on Tuesday, it was pointed out that on the railways only half the units were available for use because the other vehicles were caught up in tonnes of ice. In such circumstances, it is very difficult for Scotrail to put on services. I am sure that it was trying to put on trains; indeed, many of us who make long-distance journeys found that eventually a service was made possible.

The problem is that people have become totally dependent on getting places no matter the weather. That is where our resilience and personal decision taking have got to kick in. The question whether there should be one helpline or one website is part of the issue, but people have become so tied in to the idea of being able to use the arteries of this country that they have assumed that they will always work.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I will not at the moment, thanks.

The arteries of this country will not work in extreme circumstances. In many cases when questions are asked about particular services—Shotts and the railways were discussed earlier on—I would say that the same applies to the far north. What does it take to heat points? We want to know about the work of Network Rail, ScotRail’s franchise and what it takes to give us better information. When that franchise comes up for renewal, we should ask for a more robust service in that respect.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Not at all, thank you.

Passenger Focus Scotland’s experience is that passengers want information and that ScotRail should be told, “You got us into this. Get us out of it, because we’ve become dependent on your service.”

We have learned the lesson that arteries will sometimes not work. They have not done so for three or four days out of 365. Further north and north-east, they have not worked in many more instances because of weather circumstances that are very hard to deal with.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No, thank you.

The contracts that have been made by Amey and BEAR Scotland have excluded mutual support between those transport companies and the local authorities on the major road networks. They have ruled out local authorities taking part in activities. A Transport Scotland report talks about the need for more mutual help.

I am sorry that the convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee is not here, which is a disgrace, to listen to the debate. Transport Scotland’s report was published in August. There have been times in the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee when it might have been possible to discuss that report. The convener of that committee should have had his antennae ready to organise a debate on it. On three occasions, we did not have meetings that were due to take place; discussions about the report could have taken place then.

I suggest to all the other parties that we should ensure that not only the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee discusses resilience; the Local Government and Communities Committee should also consider it, because local government matters are concerned. Like other issues that crop up across the Parliament, winter resilience is the responsibility of more than one committee. I ask the people who have been complaining about local government services to make their complaints through the Local Government and Communities Committee.

I must move on, as we do not have much time. HGVs have been blamed for too much of the problem. There are issues to do with bad driving on our motorways. In our cities, where there has been less traffic, people have been driving faster in terrible weather. People have, to say the least, behaved inappropriately on the roads. We should take the opportunity to take a bit of education from what has happened. We can all learn from this debate and get out of the way of looking for someone to blame. Every path and road cannot be cleared, but councils and others must think seriously about a resilience issue that may need more spending. If that is the case, we need a plan to be able to do that.

On the very day on which the events that we are discussing took place, we had the success of the Cancun climate change talks. Stewart Stevenson and this country should have been able to celebrate that success. The severe weather that we experienced is very much a part of climate change. Perhaps the central belt has woken up to the fact that climate change is a huge issue. Members know that and perhaps the public know it, too. Perhaps people up north understand that severe weather will be part of their programme, so we had better be prepared.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I, too, pay tribute to Stewart Stevenson. He was a good transport minister and I had good and positive discussions with him. However, he did the right thing. He is a man of integrity and he knew that he had not delivered what he should have delivered and so took the honourable decision to resign. The comments of SNP back benchers have done nothing to uphold his decision, but perhaps they have established that, in part, he was brought down by the arrogance of a Government that fails to accept the responsibility that comes with governing and which seeks to abdicate responsibility at every opportunity.

I welcome Keith Brown to his new post. He will bring a lot to the job. I welcome the new plan, particularly the points on the removal of central reservation barriers from motorways and on welfare packs. The measures in the plan are all welcome ones that people talked about last Monday and Tuesday when I spoke to them. They asked why measures were not in place to get people off the motorway. People with young children or who were ill were trapped and needed to get off the motorway. The steps that the minister has outlined will help the next time.

I want to raise a couple of issues that relate to my constituency. Members have talked about train services. Day and daily, people in my constituency make journeys by rail, mainly to Glasgow. When road conditions deteriorate, more people decide to travel by rail for safety reasons, in the main. However, last week, once again, the main rail services to Clydesdale were suspended from Monday until Friday. That is not the first time that has happened. A similar situation arose last year, caused by Network Rail’s strategic decision to fix points to serve the west coast main line. Doing so cuts off huge areas of Clydesdale with the result that, through no fault of their own, people cannot get to work.

It is all very well for us to say that people should not make journeys, but if someone is paid £6.50 an hour and Christmas is coming up, they need to get to work if their employer will otherwise not pay them. They have bills to pay and kids to get presents for. The rail service’s inability to function has caused serious concerns for people.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Did my friend, like me, hear with astonishment the previous speaker talk about ScotRail and what it ought to be doing, when it was his Government that extended its franchise without any consultation of the trade unions and without any inclusion of such safeguards? Should not the Scottish Government accept that responsibility?

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Lord Foulkes makes a good point. I was coming on to that. Rob Gibson talked about taking the issues into consideration when we renegotiate the franchise, but we did not even negotiate the current franchise. The problems are not new. Rail services in my constituency are suspended any time there is bad weather, which is simply unacceptable. Last year, Network Rail said that there would be infrastructure improvements and that it would put in new heaters on the points. Lo and behold, this year, the points shorted again. Network Rail installed new heaters, but it did not fix the amperage properly, which meant that when the heaters were needed they shorted, and it took Network Rail a week to fix them. Once again, services were suspended, which is not acceptable to people.

Similarly, the decision by East Coast to terminate services at Edinburgh and to cut off the rest of Scotland from services on which people rely is not good enough. The plan that the Scottish ministers have drawn up focuses predominantly on road travel. I understand the reasons for that, but I urge ministers to undertake detailed discussions with Network Rail and First ScotRail. We will get more snow during the winter and there will be more difficulties. People cannot be in a position in which they cannot get to work. They will end up losing their jobs, which they cannot afford, particularly in the current economic climate. I am sure that ministers can make those points.

Members have mentioned heating oil; Jeremy Purvis raised the issue. I welcome the comments that the cabinet secretary made on that, but a further issue is that the price of heating oil has gone up significantly in recent weeks. I do not know whether that is because of profiteering—I do not know what the real reason is—but people who live in some of the most remote parts of my constituency have no option but to heat by oil, and many have had their heating installed through the Government’s central heating initiative. The price hike might well force them to choose between heating and eating.

The second issue is the availability of heating oil. My constituents, like people in other areas, are being told that it will be four weeks before they can receive a delivery, which might well leave them without heating over Christmas and the new year. If we have the kind of weather that is forecast, that could well lead to health problems and also to frozen and burst pipes. I know that the Presiding Officer, who is my neighbour, has had problems with that. I urge the minister to get back in touch with the companies to see what can be done to get heating oil to the most vulnerable communities.

Finally, I turn to petrol, which remains a concern. We need to continue to look at the strategic delivery of petrol. People in rural areas in particular are dependent on road travel for many of their journeys. If they do not have petrol and diesel, people simply cannot get about. They cannot get from their village into the town to buy bread and milk and essential supplies. We need a strategic plan for petrol deliveries that focuses on who needs it most rather than on who shouts the loudest.

I welcome this morning’s debate and I hope that the minister will respond to some of those points when he sums up.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I will support the amendment in the name of John Swinney this afternoon. I, too, acknowledge the hard work of everyone in Scotland who has tried to keep Scotland moving in the past couple of weeks.

Much has already been said in this morning’s debate, as well as in the media, about what happened in Scotland because of the weather in the past couple of weeks. I am afraid that some of what has been said is political opportunism, but some of the comments have been valid and legitimate.

One thing is certain: last week’s weather can only be described as appalling. However, it needs to be put in context. Last winter was the worst that I could remember, but this year the snow has arrived that much earlier. For many years, we have mainly had wet winters with a few days of snow. From my recollection, the few days of snow provided some challenges, but they could be overcome quite easily.

I grew up in Port Glasgow. For any member who does not know the topography of Port Glasgow or Inverclyde, I say that it can be challenging to walk up the hill from the town centre even when the weather is fair. I know that the Presiding Officer knows the conditions of Port Glasgow very well, and she will be aware that walking up the hill in the snow and ice provides an even greater challenge. I no longer stay in that part of Inverclyde, but I was speaking to some friends who still stay up at the top of the hill and they were shocked by the conditions and the poor response of the local authority. However, they understood that the snow was extremely severe.

Growing up in Port Glasgow, we could always tell the severity of the weather by how much snow lay down in the town centre. If there was a lot of snow there, we could guarantee that it would be five times worse at the top of the hill. Unfortunately, last week’s weather in Port Glasgow and across the central belt proved to be that bad. The higher ground suffered much more than the lower ground, but the lower ground was caught out by the severe weather conditions as well.

I will give an example of the conditions in Inverclyde last week. Last Monday, a member of my staff travelled down from Glasgow to accompany me to the Greenock sorting office to learn about the activities of the Royal Mail staff in the run-up to Christmas. We arrived at 5 minutes past 8. It was raining outside and practically all the snow and ice from the previous few days had gone. When I left the house, it was snowing but, as I travelled down the hill to the sorting office, the snow turned to rain. When we came out of the sorting office at 20 past 9, there was approximately 1in of snow on the ground. While we were inside speaking to the staff and management, a few postmen came in with their heavy coats on and explained the conditions to one of the managers. Their coats had a fair amount of snow on them, which proved to me that they were telling the truth.

I do not know which weather forecast Inverclyde Council was looking at, but it was clearly caught out by the conditions just as authorities across the central belt were. I could have played party politics and called for the resignation of the relevant councillor in charge of the roads, but I did not want to stoop to those depths. Could they have been better prepared? The answer is clearly yes, but to have councillors resign from councils throughout Scotland would not provide a correct solution.

It is clear that there were failings in many parts of the country last week, and the former transport minister said that lessons had to be learned.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Does the member agree that one of the biggest issues that every MSP must have faced last week—I certainly did—was the number of e-mails and phone calls to our offices from people who were appealing for help? People were living on porridge for three days, or cornflakes, with no tins of food in their cupboards. Why is there not a helpline? It is not about the blame game. It is about putting in place a helpline for those people who are in utter desperation.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The point that has been made about a helpline is certainly an interesting one. I am sure that the member heard the response from the cabinet secretary earlier in the debate.

Last week, there were many failures in parts of the country. We must learn the lessons from those failures. The Scottish Government recognises that some of the preparations that were in place were not as robust as they were previously thought to be.

I welcome the six-point plan that has been produced this week, but it is important to acknowledge a couple of important points. First, information from the Met Office indicates that last winter was the second coldest in Scotland since 1914, with only the winter of 1962-63 being colder. This year, snow has arrived earlier than last year. Secondly, there have been conflicting reports about what the weather forecasters were saying last week. I am afraid that, unlike Bill Kidd, who spoke earlier, I am not a weather forecast anorak. I may or may not catch the weather forecast on the telly—it is not a must-watch in my house. Also, this is December—it is cold, it is winter and it may snow.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I am in my final minute.

At the weekend, I had a chat with my brother-in-law, who thought that Stewart Stevenson was correct to resign. In contrast, my sister-in-law said that he should not have resigned, as he was not in charge of the weather. My brother-in-law stays in Inverclyde and recently started a short-term contract in Edinburgh, so he drives through every day. He told me that, on Sunday night, he checked the BBC website for the weather forecast, which reported some sunshine; snow was not mentioned. As a result, early the next morning he set off for Edinburgh, only to turn back when the blizzards came. A neighbour of mine who is a teacher told me that they managed to get to their school for 8.30, only to hear when they got there that it had been shut, along with all the other schools in Inverclyde. It is clear that there was a local communication issue.

Clearly, there have been problems. We must learn lessons and ensure that we are better prepared for such conditions. I welcome the debate and congratulate my colleague Keith Brown on becoming the new Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. I am sure that he will deal with his post in the way in which he dealt with his previous ministerial portfolio.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I take this opportunity to commend the approach that Nicola Sturgeon took last year to the potential flu pandemic. She kept Opposition spokesmen—Cathy Jamieson, me and others—the media and organisations throughout Scotland updated clearly and regularly on that potentially worrying issue. I suggest that the new Minister for Transport and Infrastructure take a similar approach, which could be helpful in the circumstances that we are discussing.

Andy Kerr argued that a single telephone line should be provided. His point was well made, but it was equally well made by my colleague David Mundell 10 years ago, when it fell on deaf ears. I hope that a single source of information and information will be made available at this point.

The weather has seen off one decent, law-abiding and, in my view, well-respected minister. I hope that lessons will now be learned. I strongly support Jackson Carlaw’s proposal for a traffic-light system as a means of providing further clarity. On the radio this morning, it was suggested that certain roads in the Highlands are “passable with care”. I have often driven on roads that are “passable with care”. Some of those roads were akin to a toboggan run; on others, there was a slight fall of snow. What does “passable with care” mean? The phrase is not exactly helpful. Many people who took the journey that led to such chaos may have heard on the radio that the roads were “passable with care”.

I turn to the six-point plan that has been produced. I have serious concerns about the stacking of HGVs in lay-bys to keep the traffic moving. I understand that, yesterday, the Government had further talks with the Road Haulage Association but, as a regular commuter on the A9, I know how few large lay-bys there are to store the significant number of HGVs that use the road. What will happen to the movement of livestock? Will livestock be stacked up at the side of the road, with no feed? What will happen to essential deliveries of freight, food and fuel? Will they, too, be stacked up at the side of the road?

What will happen to ordinary motorists—such as me and other MSPs from the Highlands—when they need to stop in lay-bys to clear their windscreens because their screen wash and wipers are frozen, but they cannot get in as lay-bys are stacked up with HGVs?

I understand from work in my constituency that the law in Scotland does not allow caravans or mobile homes to be parked in lay-bys overnight, because of serious traffic and safety hazards. I would like to know what those serious traffic and safety hazards are and whether they do not apply to HGVs, too. A little more clarity on that is needed.

Most of the complaints that I have received relate to trunk roads and not to local authority roads. Snow and compacted ice were still on the A96, which is the main trunk road between Aberdeen and Inverness, days into the recent cold snap. In recent times, the Keith area has experienced temperatures at 8 o’clock in the morning of -19°. I do not want to go down the road that Rob Gibson took, but let us not forget that that is a very serious issue, too. At a meeting with Moray councillors on 19 November, BEAR Scotland was asked what lessons it had learned from last winter and what changes would be made. Councillors were told that nothing would change, although the A96 around Keith and Huntly was one of the worst-affected roads in Scotland last year.

People in the farming community have undoubtedly rallied round to support their neighbours. Many have assisted in the snow-clearing effort and have taken water and food to animals with frozen water troughs in snowbound fields. The added problem of heavy snow and limited wind has put severe pressure on buildings and roofs. The quick thaw might have reduced the number of buildings that collapsed, but I hope that the Government will do all that it can to assist farmers who lose buildings, given that some farmers are still waiting—because of hold-ups in funding and planning—to build replacements after last year’s bad weather.

When the roads are dangerous, surely every effort should be made to maintain public transport links. As other members have said, it has been difficult to obtain accurate information on the train system just to go from here to Inverness. On days when no trains run north of Edinburgh, surely it would help to tell people that the buses are running. I thank my friend Rhoda Grant for texting me at 7 o’clock last Friday morning to say that Citylink buses were running and could be booked. Although the bus journey took about eight hours and the driver had to have a 45-minute break in Aviemore because of the travel time, we finally got home.

It is unacceptable that the far north rail line from Inverness to Caithness is consistently closed—as it is again today. When the weather is bad, surely people in Caithness deserve the attention that is paid to the rail network elsewhere in Scotland. I also agree with Iain Smith’s point about the First ScotRail website.

There is little to disagree with in Labour’s motion. Lessons must be learned, changes must be made and a northern country such as Scotland must not grind to a halt because of a severe snowfall.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Cathy Peattie, to be followed by Christina McKelvie. I can give each speaker a tight four minutes.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Four minutes—I will try. I associate myself with the comments about Stewart Stevenson, who is a decent man. I have enjoyed working with him on transport issues in the past few years. I welcome Keith Brown to his post and I hope that my committee will have a good association with him.

In a press release that was entitled “Scotland ready for winter’s worst”, Kenny MacAskill said:

“all the relevant authorities are as prepared as they can be”.

It is clear, though, that he and his colleagues were walking on ice. They believed that they were ready, but they were not. That suggests that they were badly misinformed, that they did not ask the right questions or that they accepted poor information.

Fingers were pointed at weather forecasters—the situation was suddenly said to be their responsibility. Surely the biggest lesson that must be learned is that weather forecasts deal with what is likely, not certain. Preparations for severe weather should allow for variation in where and when the snow starts and in how heavy it is.

We must question whether information that Transport Scotland and others provided on preparedness reflected accurately their ability to deal with severe weather. The mistakes were compounded by people making comments during and after the event. When it became clear that things were going badly, the Scottish Government was slow to grasp the extent of the problem and the need for intervention. Faced with cracks on the ice, the Government kept on walking. If it was clearly an emergency situation, why were no resources deployed? Why were they not deployed sooner? Why was there not a co-ordinated response, with consistent advice regularly issued to news channels, so as to keep the people who were affected well informed about the efforts that were being made to help them—albeit, sadly, belatedly—and to prevent more people from joining those who were already in difficulty?

Conflicting advice lay at the root of several problems. What are members of the public and local authorities to do when the police are saying, “Don’t travel,” but the Scottish Government is saying, “Don’t close schools”? In line with the Scottish Government’s advice, local government resources were targeted towards schools, but they were still not able to open. Those resources could instead have been used to clear access to sheltered housing and hospitals. One of the local housing associations in my constituency was trying to buy salt from commercial outlets, but there was none available. It then saw Jackie Bird with MSPs saying that salt was available to collect from local authorities. Unfortunately, however, the Scottish Government was telling local authorities to conserve their stocks, so there were no handouts to the public.

People cannot get to work if the buses are not running or if they cannot get to the bus stops. Public transport has to be a priority. Some of my constituents did not see a bus for over a week. I congratulate my constituents of Canal Walk in Brightons, who organised a snow party, which was attended by 30 people armed with spades and shovels and home baking, who spent an hour clearing snow. Such instances of locally organised actions are great examples of Scotland’s communities at their best, organising themselves to tackle adversity. Such initiatives should be supported and encouraged by local authorities and the Government.

Then, we come to the aftermath of the severe weather, and the further mistake of trying to pretend that the actions that were taken have been the best that they could have been in the circumstances. The minister’s six-point plan is of course welcome, but I am particularly concerned about road haulage. I am also concerned about the fact that salt and grit should be available for the trunk road network. That is good, but they should also be available for local communities, to help to prepare them. It is not good enough that people cannot access salt and grit.

The fifth proposal in the six-point plan is about better solutions to take HGVs off the road. That might be a welcome announcement to some, but it is not good enough if it means full warehouses, empty shelves and petrol pumps, mail not delivered and businesses losing money.

We cannot cancel Christmas—we need to keep traffic moving.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We often contrast our winter weather preparation and survival with those countries that we believe to be far better prepared and far better in the execution than we are. I was therefore surprised to read about the problems that are being faced in Canada this week, with hundreds of motorists on highway 402 being caught in the snow and stranded in their cars for 24 hours from Monday morning. Back in February, a third of Sweden’s trains were cancelled, the Stockholm metro system was shut down, schools, nurseries and sports halls were closed, and shops and factories were also shut down. However, I did not hear anyone talking about reputational damage in those countries.

Better communication about the problems being faced, the cause of those problems and the movement towards solutions is essential. Preparation is all important, of course, so it was good to see ScotRail moving earlier this week to protect its rolling stock and to prepare for further severe weather. I understand the concern that members have raised today about ScotRail and its preparedness for last week. ScotRail, determined not to be caught out again, is fitting skirts and hot air blowers to its trains—I am not quite sure whether to expect a hover-train or the rail equivalent of a pair of hot pants. It is a start and, hopefully, it will help ScotRail to avoid any repeat of the widespread disruption of last week.

The recently announced Government plan should allow for better winter maintenance to be provided, and it looks like we are at least heading down the right road. Spending on winter maintenance is up. The previous Executive cut it by £5 million in 2003, and it never recovered until 2006. Even then—pardon the pun—it was frozen for the following year, which was the year when the SNP came to power, of course. Resources for routine and winter maintenance have risen in every year in which John Swinney’s hands have been on the tiller. They have increased by £10 million over the four years, to just under £62 million.

All that can come to nothing if the resources are not properly deployed, which is why the Government is right to change the emphasis that it places on its readiness for severe weather. Being able to shut down parts of the trunk road network for safety reasons or to allow gritting and salting to take place and giving the police the power to move vehicles off the carriageway to allow it to be cleared are sensible moves that complement the excellent efforts of thousands of people—professionals and volunteers—who make the difference in severe weather conditions.

I refer to those who look out for a neighbour, clear a path or, like volunteers at the churches in Hamilton and Motherwell, get together to ensure that vulnerable people have hot drinks. The Hamilton Asda staff went out of their way to keep their cafe open to ensure that people had somewhere to get hot food, hot drinks and much-needed sanctuary from the weather. That sense of community holds a nation together and allows it to grow.

I am confident that the steps that the Scottish Government has taken this week—the six-point plan and everything that comes with it—ensure that we are as prepared as we can be. I wish it all the best in the coming week.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I pay tribute Stewart Stevenson. I always found him to be a hard-working, dedicated and honest man, although he took the right decision—an honourable one—when he stood down last week.

Yesterday, I also paid tribute to the new minister. I hope that he is surviving well after having done his first night shift on the job. He seems to be quite awake at the moment, which is fine. So far, so good for Keith Brown.

I am grateful to the Labour Party for initiating the debate. I am sure that most members have a tale or two to tell of personal or constituency problems that they have experienced with the current spell of freezing conditions. Many of my constituents in Dunfermline are still suffering 3in or 4in of ice on their pavements and, indeed, many of the side roads. That is making conditions treacherous for vehicles and pedestrians.

Exactly a week ago, I was one of hundreds of passengers who were stranded on a broken-down train at Rosyth. That was bad enough, but the breakdown was not the biggest problem: the lack of effective communication—as outlined in Labour’s motion—meant that tempers began to fray and were stretched to the limit.

Promises by the chief executive of First ScotRail, whom I had on the phone several times during the journey for more information, often did not come through to the passengers. He claimed that a replacement train would come by a certain time, but it did not materialise timeously. By the time a replacement train came and set off the long way round the Fife circle due to frozen points, those who were left on the train had a four-hour delay in their daily commute.

People outlined to me the poor information on First ScotRail’s website, at the stations and on board the trains. At least First ScotRail has now formally apologised to the passengers and offered them travel vouchers as a gesture of goodwill, for which I commend it.

However, the same cannot be said for the people who found themselves stranded on the M8 last week. Their problems were significant and, potentially, life threatening. Any situation that results in the closure of the main motorway between our two biggest cities is simply unacceptable. Last week’s situation led to Keith Brown taking on his new role.

Some members mentioned the M8 closure. John Swinney fleetingly referred to people being stuck in their vehicles. We are glad to see the six-point plan that the minister announced this week and we support it. Karen Whitefield also touched on people being stuck in freezing conditions in their cars, a situation that she called simply unacceptable. I associate myself with those remarks.

John Swinney also touched on the weather forecasting. We may have different opinions about what we saw from different weather forecasting sources last weekend and at the start of this week. He still claimed that the forecasts were inaccurate but, on Sunday night, I saw information on the BBC saying that people should not travel and that there would be a snow blanket across central Scotland. That is certainly what we found the following day.

I join my colleague Jeremy Purvis in paying tribute to the hard work and dedication of our local authorities. Many people are hammering the local authorities—as I said, in some parts of west Fife, there are still 3in or 4in of ice on pavements, as there is elsewhere—but many authorities and the contractors that they have brought in are doing dedicated hard work in very difficult conditions. Elizabeth Smith welcomed the hard work and dedication of local authorities and, importantly, many members of the public in our communities. She suggested that those people should be awarded for their selflessness. That was a helpful comment.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I am sorry, but I have very little time available.

The main point that many members, including the cabinet secretary, made was about poor communication. That is the key lesson that many need to learn. I welcome Mr Kerr and Ms Lamont’s suggestion of a single phone number, which may greatly help. We would like to see the detail of how that could be rolled out so that people in all sorts of situations can get ready access to the assistance that they need. John Swinney said that there should be clear and consistent information, and I absolutely associate myself with those remarks. Jackson Carlaw, too, focused on communication; he said that people appreciate winter problems but need to be better informed. That is the circumstance that my constituents have told me about over the past week and more.

Iain Smith touched heavily on First ScotRail and its need to get something done about the problems. My view is that Network Rail needs to do something about the points. Frozen points all over the network mean that people do not have the flexibility to travel even where there is rolling stock available.

Andy Kerr touched on emergency response and the effect on the sick and elderly. He suggested that more than 200,000 people were trapped in their homes—I think that many people still are; their situation is difficult indeed. Earlier this week, I took the trouble of visiting the ambulance station in Dunfermline, where I spoke to staff and managers. They told me stories of ambulances getting stuck in back streets whereupon not only council workers but a dedicated army of people—a shovel army, if you like—got out there to ensure that those vehicles got back on the move.

Significant concerns remain about the Government’s ability to ensure that Scotland keeps moving when bad weather hits us. I welcome the new minister to his role. He certainly has a big task and I sincerely hope that he does well. Scotland deserves nothing less.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I join the many members who have paid tribute to the resigning Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Mr Stewart Stevenson. Stewart has an excellent record across a range of policy areas. The circumstances that led him to decide to tender his resignation were not entirely of his making, although later in my speech I will talk about some elements that were.

Those of us who come from parts of Scotland that experience some of the heaviest snowfalls in Britain on a regular basis—including the cabinet secretary—can find it entertaining to see how a few inches of snow or a little bit of frost stops the economy of some of the more intensively operating areas of the country. The weather conditions that we endured last Monday, however, were anything but entertaining. The weather in central Scotland on Monday 6 December was some of the worst that I have seen. The depth of snow that I saw on my journey down from the north-east was extraordinary. The circumstances were very demanding.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Only if it is brief.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member join me in congratulating NHS Lothian employees, 97 per cent of whom turned up for work during the inclement weather?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I congratulate them, as I congratulate everyone who made strenuous efforts to get to work, particularly those whose work was essential to overcoming the difficult weather conditions that we experienced.

The difficult weather conditions are part of the argument that has been developed today. The truth is that they were unprecedented, but we in Scotland should be used to the idea that we must deal with such conditions.

Statistics have been used by many members in the debate. Bill Kidd gave us a complete science lesson on weather forecasting. I dispute nothing that he said. In fact, having made my living as a farmer for many years, the ability to read weather forecasts was crucial to my wellbeing during those years. However, statistics can be used to prove the strangest things. For example, we have been told that the last three winters have been the three worst winters that we have experienced in living memory. That has coincided with the first Scottish National Party Government that Scotland has ever had, but even I would not suggest that the two things are tied together.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am not so sure about that.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The problem that we had comes down to one simple thing—information and the failure to use it properly and to move it properly through Government and through people.

The problems that I experienced were with the rail service that runs north to Aberdeen. The north-east was lucky. We had a lot of snow, but there was nothing in particular that caused us unusual or exceptional problems. However, the first thing that happened when the snow hit the central belt was that the east coast main line and CrossCountry services that form the majority of the trains going north to Aberdeen were stopped at Edinburgh.

The next thing that happened was that trains that should have run north from Glasgow and Edinburgh to Aberdeen and Inverness found themselves tied up in the bad weather conditions down here. Naturally, trains that could not get north could not get south again. The effect was that we lost 90 per cent of our rail system.

What could we do to get information? The websites appeared to tell us nothing. Trains were marked as being on time until the moment of departure, when they were marked as cancelled. A certain Liberal Democrat chief whip went all the way to Aberdeen on a bus to catch a train that did not make it so, unfortunately, he had to go all the way home on another bus.

Members: Aw.

I think that that sympathy was feigned.

Lack of information was the key driver of many of the problems. It was a problem for train passengers and for road users, and—to return to the point that I made earlier—I think that it was a problem for the transport minister, too. Ultimately, the real reason why Stewart Stevenson was put in such a difficult position was that when he appeared on “Newsnight” on Monday 6 December, he made it clear that he believed that the Government’s response had been exemplary and that it had done everything that was required of it and everything that was necessary. I believe that Stewart Stevenson had been misinformed. That lack of information, which started at the grass roots, went right to the very top; Stewart was, I believe, misled.

That is why the new minister, Keith Brown, starts with a massive challenge on his hands. We know that we will experience bad weather. Those in the central belt are getting used to the idea that it may happen more often, but if we are to deal with such problems in future, we need information. Road users must be told clearly when there is a problem, train users must be told when there is a service and ministers must be told what is going on out there in the country and on our roads.

The suggestion by my colleague Jackson Carlaw that we adopt a simple system—not a helpline, which could simply get jammed up if demand increased—that would feed information out through the commonly used media on an hourly basis so that people who were trapped in cars or who were standing in waiting rooms in stations could hear what was going on and use that information effectively is the solution to the problem, and I commend it to members, but the minister needs to look very hard at the information that was supplied to Stewart Stevenson and how he came to receive it.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is right that we have such a debate when everyone in Scotland is talking about the weather and its effects. An issue that is important to the people of Scotland should be important to us.

I start by thanking the various groups of people that some members have mentioned and which form the focus of John Swinney’s amendment. Last night, I had the chance to see some of their efforts up close. I am referring especially to night gritters, who sat for many hours waiting to go out at the appropriate time, police officers and the many people behind desks who do a tremendous job. It was apparent that genuine effort was being made across a number of agencies and communities, whose role has been mentioned. I think that it was a Labour member who made the point that the issue should be about people. That is true, and that idea informs our amendment.

I will try to deal with as many of the points that have been made as possible. I do not think that I will get through them all, but I will be happy to talk to any individual member who wants to pursue a point that I cannot mention.

First, I highlight the fact that some members have taken a fundamental view of some of the issues that have affected us, and I have tried to take those issues into account. I enjoyed Bill Kidd’s speech, although some members did not seem to. It was an interesting exposition of long-term and profound changes in weather conditions. I, like many other members, was not aware of the term “Arctic oscillation”. He made important points about Paris, Poland, Canada and Finland experiencing dramatically different conditions in recent days. Charles de Gaulle airport and the Eiffel tower were closed, which raises the question whether France’s reputation should be damaged. Some people think that we in Scotland like to beat ourselves up; there is no need for us to do that when we have Jeremy Purvis around.

We have tried to take immediate measures. Improved communications are at the heart of the six-point plan that we mentioned. Andy Kerr talked about the involvement of local government in that six-point plan—it was discussed in the presence of representatives from COSLA, SCOTS and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers. Andy Kerr was right that there was not a great deal of time to consult, and action had to be taken quickly, but the plan was discussed with those bodies, and we can have further discussions as necessary.

Some of the measures that have been mentioned by individual members are, as the cabinet secretary made clear, being considered, and others that have been mentioned will be examined. One of those is the point that is made in the Labour motion about planning exercises. Charlie Gordon mentioned that when we met on Monday morning. I do not know whether we are thinking about the same thing, but I envisage local authorities and all the agencies undertaking contingency planning from time to time when they are not under stress. We should look at doing that on a Scotland-wide basis or in an appropriate location in Scotland.

Johann Lamont said that Nicola Sturgeon was not involved. I have attended four daily meetings since I got this job and Nicola Sturgeon has been at every single one to report on the efforts of the health service, which have been tremendous. Some of the figures that could be given out show how it has continued, almost without interruption in many cases. It has done a tremendous job and Nicola Sturgeon has been involved right the way through the process.

Karen Whitefield mentioned the traffic Scotland website. As Alex Johnstone said, the pressure on some of those websites can be phenomenal. On 5 December, that website received 1.1 million hits. On 6 December, there were 21.6 million hits on it. It is not always possible to plan for that, although now that it has happened, we should do exactly that.

Heating fuel provision has been mentioned by several members. There is an extent to which we have to act: there is no question but that we must ensure that we can help with supplies. However, there is a question about the vehicles that some of the companies are using not being able to access some rural locations with large tankers. We have raised that issue. It is also true that the demand for heating oil increased during the cold spell. Fuel distributors are working well to resolve specific problems. The cabinet secretary mentioned the current extension to drivers’ working hours and the rights and derogations that we have achieved. Grangemouth is ramping up its operation, and I understand that it had a further delivery today. We are mindful of the points that members have made and we will take them to today’s meeting of the Scottish Government resilience room.

Pauline McNeill and other members mentioned ScotRail. On the point that Pauline McNeill made about information getting to members, I will ask Transport Scotland to ensure that every member is given a briefing as far as possible about the various things that it is doing so that members are better informed. If something is not covered in that briefing, members can come back to me.

Mary Scanlon mentioned that there were temperatures of -19°C. In my area, which is a lot further south than hers, it was -15°C for a number of days. I have never seen that before. Temperatures below -10°C have a profound effect on ScotRail’s rolling stock. It is not easy to remedy that quickly because of the money that would have to be spent. I mention that as just one of the reasons why some of the services have been disrupted.

I have tried to work constructively with members and I will continue to do so. For example, as the cabinet secretary said, we will accept Labour’s motion. We have demonstrated that we are willing to listen, and to look at constructive suggestions, such as that about planning exercises. As the cabinet secretary said, Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion has been discussed. It is not quite as straightforward as it may appear—I am sure that it will not surprise him to hear that—but it has been discussed because it seems attractive on the face of it. We will try to work through the problems, but the end result will be to have a much clearer definition and a more commonly accepted and understood set of warnings that people can know the integrity of.

Mary Scanlon mentioned HGVs. Let me say that the intention is to stack HGVs—to put them to one side—when we have to get a gritter or snowplough on to a trunk road to clear it. There was a concern that they would be disadvantaged compared with general traffic, which could just go on its way. That is not the intention. The intention is to stack the vehicles so that we can get in for a short time to grit or plough a road. That means that where we can do that—I appreciate that we cannot do it everywhere—there should not be the problem that she mentioned in relation to livestock.

Finally, despite my natural inclination to be constructive, I must mention Jeremy Purvis’s amendment, which is a step too far. As is always the case, there are 50 words when one will do and there is no group of words that includes anything like “suggest”, “collaborate”, “measured” or “balanced”. It is merely a never-ending stream of verbose negativity—not so much a Jeremy as a Jeremiah. He misses the mood of today’s debate and, when we come to decision time, I hope that the Labour motion is accepted along with the Conservative amendment and the amendment lodged by John Swinney, but that we reject Jeremy Purvis’s amendment.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

For the avoidance of doubt, I remind members that I placed on record yesterday my tribute to Stewart Stevenson and my welcome of Keith Brown to his new brief.

This has been an important debate that I have found very useful. Winter maintenance is not something that we debate often, but it is something that I think about a lot. That has been the case since the six years in the 1990s when I had political responsibility for winter maintenance in Strathclyde Regional Council, including the M8 motorway in Glasgow. Later, in my six years as leader of Glasgow City Council, I was ultimately responsible for winter maintenance, and I sometimes used to look over the roads convener’s shoulder, just to ensure that all his ducks were in a row.

Last year—when there was also a severe winter—I made a point in the Parliament to the cabinet secretary about how the need to return nightly and daily to keep the main routes open meant that local authorities were perhaps not giving sufficient attention to side roads and footways. To his credit, he subsequently gave the local authorities additional resources.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Gordon made a point about local authority resources, so I will use the opportunity to tell the Parliament that I have written to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities today to say that I will keep under review the financial implications of the winter weather on local authorities and take a considered position later in the winter.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

That is a welcome intervention. Any budget for winter maintenance is an estimate at best, but we do not stop when we run out of money—we carry on to help people and sort out the financial implications later. That is in the nature of this area of public policy implementation, so I welcome the intervention.

With this year’s derogation from driver hours regulations for gritter drivers and those delivering animal feedstuff, the Scottish Government quickly took on board suggestions from ourselves and others that we look in some cases at driver hours where food and fuel is locally in short supply.

Around 1 or 2 December, I approached the convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee to suggest that we look at winter resilience options for the future. Why did I do that? I was worried after hearing members of the public with unrealistic expectations. Some people think that they can go to sleep and, no matter what nature throws at us during the night, drive on black tarmac in the morning. I also hear loose talk about Canadian or Scandinavian-style responses. We would need to cost those responses and to realise that they would not be used every year.

We do not take any pleasure in the difficulties that we have witnessed. We want the best for Scotland, and we do not want Scotland to be hurt. That is why we wanted a constructive debate and why we welcome the fact that it has mainly been that.

Andy Kerr set the right tone in highlighting a case involving kidney dialysis, and Johann Lamont underlined the point that people are involved in this. We techies must not forget that.

In severe weather, the response must be about minimising inconvenience—it is not possible to eradicate it completely. I hope that the Scottish Government will consider seriously our consistent proposal for a single freephone helpline and look into the establishment of a radio channel. I welcome the fact that it is considering a national dry run for all the agencies, and I hope that we can make further progress with the salt group recommendations. I hope that, before the close of this winter, we will not face the issue with the supply of salt that bedevilled us last winter. Unfortunately, there is still a long way to go.

Mr Swinney made a specific point about the amount of snow that was predicted on Monday 6 December. Even if one based one’s response on the lower level that was forecast, of between 2cm and 5cm of snow, the winter maintenance plan provides for the operation of snow ploughs when 3cm of snow is predicted—that is a fact. From experience, I know that it is difficult to operate snow ploughs in heavy traffic and that it is preferable to have roads closed in advance. The snow ploughs cannot plough until the snow falls, and it is true that snowfall during the morning rush hour is the worst-case scenario. I know from experience, however, that it is also true that the police are capable of closing roads quickly in the event of a major crime, accident or emergency.

Last week, the cabinet secretary paid particular tribute to West Lothian Council and North Lanarkshire Council for helping out with the problems on the M8. Local authorities should be involved in the co-ordinating arrangements, and I think that Keith Brown accepts that.

Jackson Carlaw was at variance with his party leader. At First Minister’s question time on 16 December, Annabel Goldie said:

“Scotland is losing patience and losing confidence in the transport minister, who has been complacent, negligent and belligerent.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2010; c 31422.]

Jackson Carlaw seems to think that that was petty politicking—perhaps he will receive counsel later.

Jeremy Purvis made an important point when he said that we need to gross up the opportunity cost to the whole Scottish economy of what we have just been through.

My fellow Glaswegian, Bill Kidd, explained the Arctic oscillation, which I found useful because I was off school on that day. Apparently, it is nothing to do with the arc of prosperity, but it explains to us Glaswegians why it is pure dead Baltic. Lloyd Quinan, eat your heart out.

Karen Whitefield made an interesting point about the Shotts line. It was a judgment call to keep the west coast mainline trains running, but we subsidise the Scottish franchise and there is a legitimate debate to be had about that judgment.

Dr Ian McKee was his usual self—enough said.

Elizabeth Smith made a thoughtful speech about schools in severe weather.

Another fellow Glaswegian, Rob Gibson—I am outing him—castigated us central belt members. I will return good for evil and place on record my thanks to him for letting me share his taxi 10 days ago, which allowed me to catch my train back to civilisation.

Alex Johnstone made an interesting speech, as usual. I pity him for having exchanged the three-hour meetings of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee for the five-minute meetings of the Subordinate Legislation Committee.

Finally, I welcome the minister’s responses about the planning exercise and, crucially, the resilience of the website. As the saying goes, we are all in this together, but some bear a heavier burden of responsibility than others.

General Questions

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

A few seconds early, we come to the next item of business, which is general question time.

Question 1 has not been lodged.

Single Farm Payments (Deer Farmers)

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive when deer farmers will be able to access support through the single farm payment scheme. (S3O-12344)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Mr McGrigor will be aware from the correspondence that he and I have shared of all the arguments surrounding deer farmers and the single farm payment scheme. I regret that they do not have automatic access to the scheme and, furthermore, I am sorry that there is nothing that can be done under the existing direct payment regulations to change the position.

I have asked our future common agricultural policy stakeholder group, which includes a Scottish deer farming representative, to discuss the recommendations arising from the inquiry into future support for agriculture in Scotland and to consider this particular issue. I assure the member that the Scottish Government will consider carefully any issues that are raised by the stakeholder group when we write our considered response to all the inquiry’s recommendations.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that assurance, as this situation has been going on for a long time.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise the extent of the frustration among Scotland’s historic deer farmers who, for years, have been trying to achieve equity with every other farmer in Scotland, who had an entitlement to the single farm payment given to them by right? Given that most deer farmers already have to adhere to all the cross-compliant rules, will the cabinet secretary explain to Scottish deer farmers why his Government is refusing, so far, to bring them into the SFP system by using the national reserve, which it is perfectly able to do under European Union law?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I assure the member that we have considered the issue carefully. He will be aware that single farm payment entitlements are based on subsidies that were received during the 2000 to 2002 reference period and that Scottish deer farmers, along with many other unsupported sectors, do not receive single farm payments under our historic system of payments. That was not signed up to by this Administration; it was, of course, signed up to by previous Administrations.

I assure the member that we take the contribution that the venison industry in Scotland makes very seriously. At the moment, supply cannot keep up with demand, which is a good sign for that top-quality Scottish product. We have funded a number of feasibility studies into ways in which we can help to grow the venison sector, and we are working with the sector in that regard.

Of course, from 2013 onwards, there will be a new common agricultural policy, which will give us the opportunity to influence who receives support in the future.

Local Authorities (Private Sector Solicitors)

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has had with local authorities regarding the employment of private sector solicitors. (S3O-12348)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I have had no such discussions with local authorities.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that interesting reply. Does that mean that he is unaware that, apparently, the City of Edinburgh Council now spends more on external legal advice than any other Scottish council and that, last year, it spent £2.3 million—a staggering two thirds more than it spent two years before—on such private legal advice?

Against that background, and given John Swinney’s commitment to having no compulsory redundancies in the public sector, is the cabinet secretary concerned that the City of Edinburgh Council is paying around £400 an hour for external legal advice when some of the council’s in-house legal staff are facing possible redundancy?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am surprised at the hostility of a member of the Conservative party to private enterprise.

I meet quarterly with the Law Society of Scotland, which represents solicitors who work in the public sector and solicitors who work in the private sector. It seems to me that this is a matter of balance. Some matters are understandably and correctly put out to tender, particularly large-scale conveyancing, and some matters are deeply complex and are beyond the skills or attributes of those who work in the public sector. I believe that councils seek to strike an appropriate balance between what they can do in-house and what is correctly sent out to the private sector.

If there are particular matters of concern in relation to the City of Edinburgh Council, I am sure that members of Mr Brocklebank’s party who are members of the council will raise them.

Benefits Review

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what effects it considers the United Kingdom Government’s review of benefits will have on vulnerable people in Scotland. (S3O-12426)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Scottish Government welcomes some aspects of the coalition Government’s proposals for welfare reform, such as the simplification of an overly bureaucratic system under the universal credit and the strong links to localism.

However, it is important to appreciate the difference between longer-term plans for welfare reform and the severe cuts to the benefits system that the coalition Government made in the June budget and in the comprehensive spending review in October. I think that it is clear that those cuts will have a significant and hugely detrimental impact on vulnerable groups and individuals across Scotland.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Of recipients of incapacity benefits in Scotland, 45.2 per cent qualify because they suffer from mental health problems. They will all be reassessed in 2014 under the work capability assessment to decide whether they qualify for the new employment and support allowance.

Concerns have been raised about the accuracy of the assessment and 43 per cent of appeals that are made against decisions on grounds of mental or behavioural disorders have been successful. Will the Scottish Government raise the issue with the UK Government? Will it also raise the concern that the descriptors on mental, intellectual and cognitive function are unlikely to change in 2011, despite the recommendations of the Harrington review? Will it ask the UK Government to speed up the process so that fewer people will be placed in that intolerable position?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and I, as well as other members of the Government, have been in touch with Iain Duncan Smith, Lord Freud, Maria Miller and Chris Grayling at the Department for Work and Pensions to make two points. First, we have not been consulted on any of the benefit changes before they have been made and, secondly, we specifically believe that many of the proposed reforms will be extremely damaging, including for people with mental health problems. I am happy to take up yet again with those ministers—as we are doing—our very real concerns about the damage that the reforms are doing.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

What discussions have ministers had with local authorities about the implications of the decision to close the independent living fund, given that many local authorities—including Glasgow—lever in ILF moneys to support people with disabilities to live independently?

What discussions will the minister have with local authorities on how they might meet that shortfall, given the important role of such packages in allowing people to remain in the community, perhaps working, rather than having to go into supported—and indeed more expensive—care? Is that not a very good example of preventative spending that is being lost to many local authorities and families?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We have been heavily involved with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in making joint representations to the UK Government. The most recent meeting that I attended was a joint meeting between Chris Grayling, Keith Brown, who was then the Minister for Schools and Skills, and Councillor Harry McGuigan, COSLA’s spokesperson for wellbeing and related matters.

I am happy to consider the points that Johann Lamont raises. We are all very concerned about the impact of the changes to—indeed, the abolition of—the independent living fund from London, and we want to ensure in particular that vulnerable people are not unduly affected, unless that is unavoidable.

Post-probationary Teachers (Employment)

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive how many post-probationary teachers it expects to be in full-time employment at the start of the 2011-12 school term. (S3O-12390)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The employment of teachers is a matter for local authorities. However, the budget agreement that we have secured with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will ensure, among other things, that there will be sufficient posts for all those who leave the induction scheme in June 2011 to apply for. Of course, no one is guaranteed a job and the posts will be available through open and fair competition to all teachers who are seeking employment.

Beyond that, the agreement will secure posts for all probationers who require a place under the induction scheme in August 2011 and further posts to achieve a reduction in the number of unemployed teachers.

Local authorities have been invited to sign up for the package of measures that are covered by the agreement, and I hope that Michael McMahon will encourage Labour authorities to do so.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Last week my colleague Peter Peacock asked why the Scottish National Party never argued prior to coming to power that there was an oversupply of teachers and yet is doing so now. In response, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning spent a few minutes indulging in rhetorical verbiage—as is his wont—but did not actually answer the question.

He stated that Mr Peacock had conducted an extremely effective smoke-and-mirrors job. I will ask him again: if the teacher numbers that he inherited were just smoke and mirrors, was it the smoke or the mirrors that he pledged to maintain, or was that just one more of the Government’s promises that it had no idea how to fulfil and no real plan for? We cannot trust a word that the Government says about providing probationary teachers with a permanent job.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I was in fact quoting Jackie Baillie on the issue of smoke and mirrors, as I think I made clear at the time. I had hoped that Michael McMahon was focused on the very real issue of teacher unemployment and how we resolve that issue. That is what I have been focused and working on. I am sorry that Mr McMahon does not share my concern and that he simply wants to score his usual cheap political points.

Edinburgh Royal Hospital for Sick Children

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive what support it will provide for the building of the new Royal hospital for sick children in Edinburgh. (S3O-12372)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The Government is fully committed to delivery of the Royal hospital for sick children. The substantial cut in our capital budget means that we have taken the decision that it should now be financed on a revenue funding non-profit-distributing basis. With support through the Scottish Futures Trust, NHS Lothian will take forward the project as quickly as possible.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The cabinet secretary will know of widespread concern in Edinburgh that the new sick children’s hospital will not receive the direct Scottish Government funding that the sick children’s hospital in Glasgow and the Southern general in Glasgow have received. However, will she guarantee that there will be no undue delay in building the hospital and that the Scottish Government will provide on-going revenue support to meet the annual charges arising from a privately funded hospital, especially given that NHS Lothian already receives £69 million less than it should receive according to the distribution formula?

On that point, how quickly does the cabinet secretary plan to close the funding gap between what NHS Lothian should receive and what it actually receives?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Malcolm Chisholm for the close interest that he continues to take in the issue.

As he will be aware, the decision to move to revenue finance for the sick kids in Edinburgh was taken in the context of a 36.5 per cent real-terms cut in capital funding throughout the Scottish Government. In that context, decisions have to be taken that previously we might have preferred not to take. The decision that we have taken on the use of revenue finance and on revenue support for unitary payments will give certainty over the delivery of the project. That is an important assurance to give to the people who will be served by the hospital. I repeat the absolute commitment of the Scottish Government to delivery of the new hospital for sick children.

On Malcolm Chisholm’s point about delay, as I indicated in my first answer, it is our commitment to keep any delay to an absolute minimum. The Scottish Futures Trust is already working with NHS Lothian to ensure that that is the case.

On the funding gap, I am sure that Malcolm Chisholm will acknowledge, because he is a fair man, that it is something that has existed over a period of years and under previous Administrations. Through the national resource allocation committee formula, we are committed to closing that gap.

It is not just NHS Lothian that is affected. When overall funding increases are smaller than they were in previous years, due to the overall funding position, progress towards closing the gap will be slower than it otherwise would have been. I remain committed to ensuring that boards work towards parity where they are currently under parity and that that process happens without destabilising other boards.

I would be happy to keep Malcolm Chisholm briefed on all of those issues, as I am sure would NHS Lothian.

Fuel Poverty

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is on target to end fuel poverty by 2016. (S3O-12337)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring, as far as reasonably practicable, that by November 2016 people are not living in fuel poverty in Scotland. The three principal factors contributing to fuel poverty are fuel prices, incomes and the energy efficiency of housing. We are providing support to tackle fuel poverty through the energy assistance package and the home insulation scheme. However, the major challenges to meeting the target are household incomes and rising fuel prices, over which we have no control—yet.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

I think I asked the minister whether we were on target. I am not sure that I got an answer.

Let me help the minister. In 2007, when this Government took office, fuel poverty was 25 per cent in Scotland. In 2008, it rose to 27 per cent. On figures released recently for last year, it was 33 per cent. The Government has taken us from a quarter of households being in fuel poverty to a third. What does the minister intend to do that is radically different to turn that around?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

If I may say so, anyone on the Conservative benches has a cheek to complain about the situation, given the savage cuts being imposed on the Scottish Government by the coalition Government in London. Cuts were also imposed by the previous Labour Administration in London.

If we consider the capital aspect of our programmes, a 40 per cent cut is planned over the next four years. That makes it extremely difficult for us to achieve any target, particularly when fuel prices are rising so rapidly. No action has been taken on that, either by the previous Labour Government or the current coalition Government.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Rising fuel prices and benefit cuts are indeed two aspects of fuel poverty. However, does the minister agree that, in order to target fuel poverty, we need additional insulation measures and reduced tariffs for those in such poverty? In that respect, is he aware that the New Policy Institute report on behalf of the Energy Retail Association’s home heat helpline has concluded that 400,000 households in Scotland could benefit from energy companies by up to £260, but uptake of that scheme is only 12 per cent? Does the minister agree that every member in the chamber and the energy companies themselves must do more to promote the scheme and, indeed, support the Scottish Government’s excellent energy assistance package?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I agree with every word of Bob Doris’s question. In addition, I remind the chamber of two facts: first, 60 per cent of the fuel price for consumers is determined by the wholesale price; and, secondly, since September, fuel prices have gone up by something like 38 per cent. That is why we welcome the rather overdue inquiry by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets into retail energy prices. I hope that when that report is published, we will see some action from the coalition Government.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Given that bulk buying presents a real opportunity for getting hold of heating oil at the cheapest possible price, what consideration has the Scottish Government given to using public agencies to bulk buy heating oil at a discount on behalf of the most needy households in Scotland, as a means of achieving an end to fuel poverty?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We are open to all suggestions but I point out that the practicalities of bulk buying for such a diverse community make such a move very difficult. Nevertheless, we are having on-going negotiations on such matters. Indeed, I chair the carbon emission reduction target strategy steering group, which includes the energy companies, and with regard to fuel poverty we are looking at every possible way of relieving the pressure on our most vulnerable citizens.

Energy Assistance Package

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive what the benefits have been of the energy assistance package. (S3O-12394)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Since its start, the energy assistance package has provided energy savings advice to more then 134,000 households. The categories of people who are able to access help who did not benefit under the central heating programme, such as families on low incomes, have been widened. We are making Scotland’s homes more sustainable and are able to reach all parts of Scotland with solutions suited to the local environment. Moreover, at a time when the private sector is facing difficulties, we are creating jobs—for example, the new contract with Scottish Gas will support more than 370 jobs throughout Scotland—and providing opportunities to grow the green economy.

By creating home energy Scotland, we have also made it easier for the public to apply for assistance under the package and our other energy efficiency schemes. This one-stop shop offers free energy saving advice and assistance across Scotland and I urge anyone with concerns to phone 0800 512 012.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I thank the minister for his reply and will study his figures very carefully.

Why has the minister decided to cut the energy assistance package budget by more than £20 million—or almost 20 per cent? How many households does he expect to receive no help and remain in fuel poverty because of his decisions?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The decisions to cut budgets were originally made by Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown, and the situation has been exacerbated by the Liberal Democrat and Tory coalition. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is a bit cheeky, to say the least, for anyone on any of the unionist benches to complain about budget cuts. We are doing everything we possibly can to help the most vulnerable members of our community—and we should bear in mind that, under Labour, poverty in the United Kingdom got worse, not better.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Is the minister able to report on Scottish Gas’s progress in clearing the backlog of work in installing central heating systems? [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. Can we have a bit less silence—[Laughter.] I mean, a bit more silence, please.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Myself excluded, Presiding Officer.

Is the minister able to report on Scottish Gas’s progress in clearing the backlog in the Western Isles of work to install central heating systems under the scheme?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We are making substantial progress throughout Scotland, including in the Western Isles, and we have dramatically reduced the turnaround time from what it was under the old central heating programme to under three months under the energy assistance programme. I believe that we will reach a substantial installation figure by the end of the financial year. Of course, demand is rising because of the inclement weather, which is probably the best advert for the line whose number I quoted. In the first week of the inclement weather, the number of calls throughout Scotland totalled more than 7,000, which directly resulted in 1,600 families being helped that week through the home energy hotline.

Engagements

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2781)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Last week’s blizzards obscured the news that our schools have 800 fewer teachers than they had a year ago. Indeed, Alex Salmond has now cut 3,000 teachers from our schools in three years. How many more does he plan to cut?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

If I could persuade Labour councils such as Glasgow City Council to put the same priority on teachers as other councils throughout the country do, we could, of course, maintain the excellent record of record pupil teacher ratios throughout Scotland.

I would have thought that Iain Gray would be prepared to welcome the context. With dramatic cuts coming to Scotland from Westminster—started by Labour and continued by the Tories through the Con-Dem coalition—it should be a matter of satisfaction that we have secured a settlement for local government that is much better than anybody predicted, and much better than Iain Gray forecast, except for Labour councils, which might not want to implement it. That settlement means that education can be protected far more in the face of Westminster-driven cuts.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Let us look at what Scottish National Party councils such as Renfrewshire Council are doing under the deal. I have a leaked council briefing note that contains a cunning plan from Renfrewshire Council to cut another 60 teaching posts. It has already cut 240. The plan is:

“a revised operating model ... In which part of the pupil school week is delivered in primary schools by non teaching staff.”

Councillors were told that classes could be covered by community education workers or—get this—even volunteers. Does the First Minister support that SNP plan to replace teachers with volunteers?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have learned to beware Iain Gray citing documents, because there are so many mistakes and misapprehensions in them. However, I have some definite news from Renfrewshire Council. On securing the class size target of 18 pupils or fewer in primaries 1 to 3, it has managed to get from 8.3 to 33.1 per cent this year. Even Iain Gray and the serried ranks of Labour members should be prepared to admit that that is a significantly good performance in the face of difficulty.

On the situation throughout the country, I now find that two thirds of the reduction in teachers throughout Scotland has occurred in Labour councils. As we know, there are not that many Labour-controlled councils left in Scotland, but they have still managed to achieve two thirds of the total teacher reduction in Scotland. It is time that Iain Gray got a handle on some of his local councils.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

It is time that Alex Salmond got a handle on what is happening in his councils. I admit that I could not believe that that council was really suggesting that it would replace teachers with volunteers for part of the school week, so I checked that and was told that the director of education had said that he thinks that having non-teachers teaching classes is what the curriculum for excellence is all about.

Meanwhile, SNP Dundee City Council has cut £4 million from its schools. However, we have not to worry. The council’s education convener, Liz Fordyce, says that that will make the schools better. Why did she not cut £8 million and make them absolutely fantastic? Is it really SNP school policy that cuts are good for our schools and children do not really need teachers?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As gently as I can, I remind Iain Gray that Alistair Darling, when chancellor, promised cuts in Scotland that were deeper and tougher than those of Margaret Thatcher. Two thirds of the cuts that are being imposed on Scotland were generated by the Labour Government at Westminster.

Let us talk about Dundee. I mentioned the success of Renfrewshire Council in increasing the number of classes with a class size of 18 pupils or fewer. In fairness, I should have mentioned Dundee, which has gone from 6.5 to 27.2 per cent this year.

Furthermore, because the employment of post-probationers has concerned many of us in the Parliament and many councils in Scotland want to do better on that, I point out that Dundee City Council has led the way in employing 68 per cent of its post-probationers this year—that is 41 out of 60. It is closely followed by SNP-led Fife Council, where the figure is 66 per cent. If only all councils were doing that. Midlothian Council—Labour controlled—is employing just 29 per cent of its post-probationers and the figure in Clackmannanshire Council is 33 per cent. Glasgow City Council, Scotland’s largest council, with the principal responsibility for the decline in teacher numbers, is employing merely 42 per cent of its post-probationers. If we all agree that the employment of teachers is a priority, let us prevail upon those recalcitrant Labour councils to join the rest of us and employ the teachers.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Even the First Minister’s silly pantomime voices cannot hide the fact that, for the first time in 40 years—in an SNP council—pupils are to be taught by those who are not qualified to teach. That did not happen even under Margaret Thatcher, but it is happening under Alex Salmond. I gently remind him that he promised parents that they would have the same number of teachers that they had under Labour; he promised teachers that they would have the same number of jobs that they had under Labour; and he promised pupils that they would have the new schools that they had under Labour. He has let them all down. Is not his legacy on education failure, failure, failure?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Luckily, we have not delivered the number of new schools that was promised by Labour, because Labour in its manifesto promised 250 and we have delivered 330. I am sure that the people of Scotland would not want our ambition restricted to the low levels of the Labour Party.

As Iain Gray was moving into the pantomime routine, I could hear someone saying in a sedentary comment, “Oh no, we don’t.” I remember that his leader tried that in Parliament yesterday and was told to look behind him, which would be good advice for Iain Gray. That is what happens to Labour leaders in Scotland. That is why Iain Gray is in post. However, I can see that he has taken preventive action. In Scotland on Sunday, Kenny Farquharson, a reliable commentator, revealed to us that

“Perhaps the most recognisable figure on the Labour front bench is Andy Kerr, the former finance minister, but the gossip at Holyrood is that he may soon be heading for the back benches.”

Rather than looking behind him, Iain Gray is taking preventive action to save his position.

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2782)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Last week, the First Minister’s economic advisers indicated that there was a crisis in the funding of our Scottish universities and that they supported a graduate contribution. Last night, Universities Scotland confirmed that it sees a fair graduate contribution as necessary. Ominously for the First Minister, it also said that the time for talking is over. I know that a green paper is to be published this afternoon and I am not looking for detail, but does the First Minister at least accept the principle of a graduate—not a student—contribution? Yes or no.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We will let Michael Russell spell out the green paper this afternoon, and then Annabel Goldie will be able to address the ideas in it and the Scottish solution that is coming forward. It will be quite different from the position that Annabel Goldie’s party has imposed south of the border. I cannot believe that even the Scottish Conservative party believes that we should go down that route, and the Scottish Liberal Democrats will certainly not believe that.

Annabel Goldie should not misrepresent the position of Scotland’s universities. Professor Anton Muscatelli, who has been quoted by Annabel Goldie in the past, said:

“We are pleased that the Scottish Government has recognised the importance of universities at a time of major demands on the public finances.”

Support has come from the students of Scotland. The NUS said:

“Given the cuts we have seen in the rest of the UK, this is great news for students and a result the Scottish Government should certainly be proud of.”

It was referring, of course, to John Swinney’s budget proposals.

I think that the decision south of the border to withdraw the Government from university finance and to place the burden virtually entirely on the students and families of England is a disastrously bad decision. When Michael Russell outlines the discussion paper—the green paper—later this afternoon, Annabel Goldie will find that we have certainly ruled out going down that disastrous road.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is ludicrous that the Scottish Government can run around briefing the media ahead of a green paper but the First Minister cannot even answer a simple question of principle in the Parliament. He directs me to Mr Russell. Heaven help us. Just listen to what Mike Russell said on the radio this morning. First, there was not a crisis, then he admitted that there is a funding gap, then he said that the money is already there, and then he said that it will all be sorted out after the election.

Quite simply, Alex Salmond is putting his party’s skin before his country’s needs, because it is all about limping through to May. He may criticise me, but my party is prepared to face the facts and is not hiding from the truth. We are ready to do what needs to be done, and the time for talking is over. Instead of another year of fudge, evasion and delay, will the First Minister give certainty, leadership and a solution?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Annabel Goldie should beware of following her colleagues south of the border. They have the human shield of the Liberal Democrats. I doubt that the Scottish Conservatives will be able to rely on the Liberal Democrats to take the flak for them in Scotland.

Annabel Goldie says that we should acquaint ourselves with the facts. I absolutely agree. Perhaps she should pass them on to David Willetts, the universities minister in the House of Commons—a Conservative who was once reputed to have two brains, if I remember correctly. On 9 December, as he was attacking the Scottish position, he declared:

“more Scottish students study at English universities than English students study at Scottish universities.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 9 December 2010; Vol 520, c 622.]

In fact, 12,000 Scottish students study in England and 22,000 English students study in Scotland. Maybe one of his brains was not functioning when he made that remark.

All that I say to Annabel Goldie is that she should not rely on the misinformation, the misunderstanding and the total misapprehension of the traditions of Scottish education that are so evident in the Tory Government at Westminster. We would take Scotland on a disastrous course if we followed the action south of the border. Luckily, we have a Parliament and a Government that is determined to find the right solution for Scotland.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2783)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

As temperatures plunge again, is the First Minister aware that four in 10 Scottish householders, especially older people, are worried about the cost of heating their homes this winter and another third are already struggling with their bills? As people face eye-watering hikes in their heating bills, will he tell me how much his Government will spend on the home insulation scheme and the energy assistance package?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I heard Alex Neil explaining that very point just a few minutes ago. There is substantial investment in energy efficiency, the energy helpline and the assistance package in Scotland, far more comparably than south of the border. It is an important fact that, when we face the exigencies of climate, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament protect the people who are most vulnerable to the full extent of our ability to do so.

I gently suggest to Tavish Scott that, if his party was pursuing a different fiscal policy, there would be more resources to apply to many vital needs across Scotland.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Does the First Minister recognise that the average household energy bill is more than £1,200—nearly double the bills that people were paying five years ago? Four of the big six energy companies have announced price rises averaging 6 per cent, double and treble the rate of inflation. That energy cartel is blaming a 25 per cent rise in wholesale gas prices since the spring but, as the First Minister knows, the big falls in wholesale prices before May were never passed on to customers. Is this market not rigged? Is it not big business versus the consumer?

The First Minister knows that the energy regulator, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, is investigating the prices that all of us pay. It says that energy companies have increased their profit margins from £65 to £90 on every home—[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. There is too much noise around the chamber.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will the First Minister prepare evidence to give to Ofgem about the extra costs that Scottish households are facing?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I confess that the points that Tavish Scott draws to our attention are well made and should be progressed with the energy companies. I gently point out to him that Danny Alexander, Vince Cable and Chris Huhne—all Liberal Democrats—are the ministers with responsibility for competition in energy policy. However, if Tavish Scott were to revert to his previous position of Calman plus, those vital responsibilities could be transferred to the Parliament and this energy-rich country could provide heating for all of its citizens.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a supplementary question from Duncan McNeil.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

This weekend will see the third anniversary of the capsizing of the Flying Phantom tugboat, which claimed the lives of two of my constituents, Stephen Humphreys and Eric Blackley, and of a third crew member, Robert Cameron, who was a constituent of my colleague Trish Godman. Three years on, the bereaved families still have no date for a fatal accident inquiry. I am sure that the First Minister will appreciate the frustration of Helen Humphreys, widow of Stephen, when she says that she believes that the system is grinding her down. Will the First Minister agree to meet the families to reassure them of the Scottish Government’s support for such an inquiry, which is required by the families and to ensure that the health and safety lessons from the tragedy are learned and acted on?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will gladly meet the member’s constituents. I know that Duncan McNeil is aware that fatal accident inquiries are matters for the law officers of Scotland. It should be possible to arrange for him to meet the law officers, as there is no difficulty with a constituency member doing that. He will understand that the decision about when to order a fatal accident inquiry rests with the law officers. However, if it would be helpful to his constituents, I will be glad to meet them.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

What action is the Scottish Government taking in light of the announcement by Aptuit of its decision to close its operations at Riccarton in my constituency and in Livingston in Angela Constance’s constituency, with the loss of more than 300 jobs in the field of pharmaceutical research? In any discussions with the company, will the Government ascertain whether the closures are the result of a decision to relocate these research functions to Verona in Italy and, if so, why the company considers such a move preferable to sustaining that aspect of its business here in Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We were disappointed to learn of Aptuit’s decision to reduce its Scottish workforce. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has already spoken to Aptuit; indeed, he did so before its decision was announced publicly. We understand that the decision is due to global restructuring of the company’s worldwide business services. The cabinet secretary and I will meet Tim Tyson, the executive chairman and chief executive officer of Aptuit, in the new year. Aptuit will also meet Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International officials. We will continue to work with Aptuit’s senior staff in Scotland, in the interests of the employees who are affected by the announcement and to explore potential other options.

Homicide Rate Reduction

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

4. To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Government is making on reducing the homicide rate. (S3F-2788)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As the chamber knows, the progress is substantial. Homicide levels in Scotland are at a 31-year low. The statistics show a 20 per cent reduction in 2008-09, including a 39 per cent drop in the number of homicides involving sharp instruments. We have record numbers of police on the front line and record investment in the violence reduction unit. Our thanks should go to all of them and to the other social partners who are working incredibly hard to tackle violent crime—with substantial success, as the statistics indicate.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the First Minister commit to maintaining the increase in the number of police officers that has been brought about since the Scottish Government came to power and which has resulted in the record low figures for homicide in Scotland’s homes and streets?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We remain absolutely committed to front-line policing services and to maintaining our pledge to put 1,000 extra officers on Scotland’s streets. That has been a key factor in driving down the recorded crime rate to its lowest level in three decades. In the past year alone, the homicide rate has fallen by a fifth.

Despite the overall cut in Scotland’s budget, the package of measures that has been agreed with the leadership of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will maintain at least 1,000 more police officers next year than when we came to power.

I hope that the Parliament recognises the importance of front-line policing. I was very disappointed to see that a correction from Fife Constabulary to a Labour press release had to be made in The Courier today. I understand that Fife Constabulary asked Labour to withdraw the press release from its website but was told, “We don’t take things down from the site.” If parties are caught out misinterpreting or misrepresenting the police force, they should at least make a belated correction, as The Courier has done today. Parties should try not to misrepresent the position, particularly when Scotland is proud of having 1,000 extra police officers on its streets.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does the First Minister agree that all the evidence suggests that the way to reduce homicides and other severe crimes of violence is through a combination of effective policing and targeted diversionary initiatives, such as the Inverclyde initiative and operation reclaim in Glasgow? Does he welcome the fact that those initiatives have led to a typical reduction in crime of about a third? Will he commit his Government to continuing that approach, which tackles the causes of crime, removes knives from our communities and gives young people more positive alternatives, rather than trying to make populist noises that sound tough?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I recognise Robert Brown’s consistent support for the direction of travel on judicial and criminal justice policy. Those of us who have argued for such measures against the often knee-jerk reactions of some spokesmen from other political parties cannot feel complacent about the figures in Scotland, because too many homicides and too much crime still occur. However, the fact that recorded crime is at a 30-year low and that the homicide rate is at a 31-year low indicates that those of us who have argued for the measures that Robert Brown described can at least point to a substantial record of success, which was notably absent when other parties pursued different policies.

Sex Offenders (GPS Technology)

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on using global positioning satellite technology to monitor sex offenders released into the community. (S3F-2790)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government takes very seriously the safety of our communities and the management of sex offenders. The multi-agency protection arrangements that are in place in Scotland are among the most robust systems in the world for managing sex offenders.

The satellite tracking pilot in England was not developed further, because of the cost and because the technology could not be made to work effectively underground or in buildings. James Kelly will have seen the report on the satellite tracking pilot from 2004 to 2006. However, we will continue to monitor developments in technology—including satellite tracking—to ensure that we have the most effective methods to help front-line professionals in protecting the most vulnerable in our communities.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The public are right to be concerned about safety in relation to sex offenders. That is demonstrated by the case of the convicted rapist John Daly who, within four months of being released from jail, carried out a sex attack on a teacher in my constituency. Does the First Minister recognise that improvements in GPS tracking technology continue? Does he accept the comment of Mike Nellis, the professor of criminal and community justice in the Glasgow school of social work at the University of Strathclyde, that such technology would increase public confidence? Will the First Minister agree to consider a pilot project that uses the technology?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As James Kelly knows from previous discussions, the pilot project took place in England between 2004 and 2006. I have said that we will continue to monitor improvements in technology, to see whether the difficulties that the pilot project encountered can be overcome. However, given the indications from that pilot and the lack of willingness from the previous Labour Government—and, as far as I know, the present Conservative-Liberal Government—to proceed in England on the evidence from the pilot there, it would not be right to announce a pilot in Scotland. It is far better to monitor developments to see whether the difficulties that the pilot exercise encountered can be overcome and to take action accordingly.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I do not wish to trivialise the significant problems that people have when offenders reoffend, but is the First Minister in a position to confirm that the vast majority of those on the sex offenders register comply with their requirements and do not appear to constitute a significant problem to the public?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

That is correct, but the ones who do not do so are obviously of particular concern. As Nigel Don and James Kelly know, the Tayside pilot project is being rolled out across Scotland, so as to give further reassurance to communities. That is a welcome development in relation to public information. We tested the ability of that pilot project to answer some of the questions that many people had. It survived that test—it passed that test—hence it is being rolled out across Scotland, as I have said.

It is absolutely correct to say that the multi-agency protection arrangements that we have in place are very robust indeed, but if any sex offender breaks the monitoring conditions, that is a matter of great concern to people, and rightly so.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does the First Minister agree that the type of individual we are dealing with has a compulsion to reoffend, in some cases, and that they tend to be exceptionally devious personalities? Does he agree that anything that we can do to protect the vulnerable sections of our society should be done?

I refer the First Minister to correspondence that I had with Mr MacAskill in 2007, when the Conservatives were the first to raise the issue. I also welcome Mr Kelly’s support today. However, that is inconsistent with the fact that, in 2008, both the Scottish Government and the Labour Opposition voted against our proposals on the matter. Will the First Minister again consider the advisability of having a pilot project under this heading?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

There has been a pilot project. I always argue for pursuing Scottish solutions when I believe that it is necessary. However, if limitations in the technology were exposed in the pilot project south of the border, I do not think that they would be overcome because of the project being transferred to Scotland. Technology changes, and improvements can be made. Perhaps the limitations can be overcome—that is why we are monitoring the position.

Bill Aitken would not wish to give the impression that the Parliament has been inactive on these matters. In the previous session, the Justice 2 Committee reported in 2006, making 33 recommendations to strengthen society’s protection against sex offenders, and 31 of those recommendations have been implemented. Nine of them were implemented during the previous session, and 22 have been implemented since then. The Parliament has been acting on a range of activities, across the parties, to protect and strengthen Scotland’s communities.

Large Retail Properties Levy

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

6. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government had with the retail community prior to deciding to introduce a new levy on large retail properties. (S3F-2793)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Through discussions we regularly hear from small independent retailers, who have been justifying the approach that we have taken in increasing business rates for the largest retailers. It is right that, in tough times, the additional burdens should fall on the largest retailers, for whom business rates account for only 2 per cent of turnover.

Last week, despite the unprecedented £1.3 billion reduction in our budget, we confirmed that the small business bonus scheme will continue. Next year, it will free up about £128 million for small and medium-sized enterprises to invest in their businesses in Scotland. That has removed the rates burden from 63,000 business properties across Scotland. Latest estimates show that almost 60 per cent of retail premises are now in receipt of some form of relief.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth made it clear to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee last week that there was no advance discussion on the specific proposals. The announcement came out of the blue for retailers and has caused damaging uncertainty. The First Minister knows as well as anyone that jobs are needed to grow the economy, and that these jobs will come from the private sector. Uncertainty and increased costs will impact on future investment in Scotland.

Does the First Minister think that it is good practice to impose unexpected taxes on businesses? Will the First Minister agree to hold an urgent summit with the retail sector, together with members from Opposition parties, so that we can all hear what the industry’s concerns are?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The member should understand how finance decisions are taken. I would be interested to know how much discussion there was on the rise in VAT or on the rise in national insurance. Finance decisions have to be made by finance ministers to face the exigencies of the time.

Iain Smith totally underrates the enthusiasm across the retail sector for the small business bonus—which I do not think was supported by the Liberal Democrats in this Parliament. Nonetheless, small businesses in Scotland believe that it is very important.

On the relationship between benefiting town centres and smaller businesses where we can and asking those with the broadest shoulders to bear a larger part of the burden, perhaps, as well as consulting the larger supermarkets, Iain Smith should remember the words of Andy Willox, the Scottish policy convener for the Federation of Small Businesses, on 17 November:

“I welcome the move to redress the balance between town centres with independent retailers and supermarkets and out of town developments.

“The FSB warmly welcomes the moves to retain the Small Business Bonus which has been a lifeline to many small businesses up and down the country during the last two years.”

Of course we listen to all business concerns, but many of us believe that Andy Willox is correct when he says that small businesses are the lifeline of our economy. I hope that Iain Smith pays as much attention to those businesses as he does to others.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That concludes questions to the First Minister. I remind members that we are moving to members’ business, so those who wish to leave the chamber should do so quietly.

United Kingdom Border Agency

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-7490, in the name of Anne McLaughlin, on the United Kingdom Border Agency’s contempt agenda for Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament condemns the UK Border Agency (UKBA) for its actions that, it believes, imply a complete lack of respect for the Parliament and the people of Scotland; deplores what it considers to be the chaotic and unfeeling manner in which hundreds of asylum seekers in Glasgow were informed of the cancellation of UKBA’s contract with Glasgow City Council and their subsequent imminent removal to elsewhere in Scotland; condemns, in particular, UKBA’s decision, following a review, to continue, in its view, to refuse to engage with members seeking to represent constituents; believes that this policy is unique among all UK and Scottish governmental agencies, and considers that both examples demonstrate contempt for asylum seekers, the Parliament and Scotland.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I had hoped that my first members’ business debate might be about something positive and worth celebrating and would congratulate great people on great work. I really did not want to have this debate and, along with many other MSPs, I tried to get the United Kingdom Border Agency to see sense.

Members may recall that I lodged a similar motion last year on the UKBA’s refusal to speak to MSPs. In the end, I did not go ahead with the debate because I wanted to try to convince the Home Office to change its mind. Alas, it did not—but l tried.

I wrote to Phil Woolas when he was in charge and I wrote to Alan Johnson. I spoke to Ann McKechin and to Jim Murphy. They all told me exactly the same thing:

“We get 66,000 letters a year from MPs. We do not wish to take on even more and duplicate.”

The argument is weak, because nobody is suggesting that anyone should be represented by an MP and an MSP, so there would be no duplication.

Then there was an election and a new Government. Despite the fact that it was primarily a Tory Government, it started making the right noises on asylum issues. For all the deserved criticism of the Liberal Democrats’ end of the coalition in recent weeks, I am aware that asylum was one of their red-line issues.

Labour was out and the new Government said, for example, that it would end the detention of children. It also said that it would review the position on dealing with MSPs. Well, it has reviewed it now and guess what it says?

“We get 66,000 letters a year ...”

—blah, blah, blah. That is followed by another oft-repeated reminder that

“immigration is a reserved matter”.

Indeed it is, as is benefits, but the Benefits Agency is perfectly happy to respond to my enquiries on behalf of constituents.

What of health, education and housing? All of those matters are devolved to this Parliament but are perfectly legitimate areas of interest for members of the other Parliament when it comes to representing their constituents.

Alex Neil, the Scottish Government Minister for Housing and Communities, will respond to the debate. What if he were to refuse to respond to MPs? How would that help the constituent? It would not. That is precisely why no Scottish Government agency discriminates in that way and no other British Government agency treats this Parliament with such contempt.

The results of the UK Government’s review, coupled with the disgraceful way in which Glasgow asylum seekers are being treated over the cancellation of the contract with Glasgow City Council, have left me with no choice. The debate had to happen, and I make absolutely no apology for the motion’s title: “UKBA’s Contempt Agenda for Scotland”.

The dictionary definition of contempt is:

“The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior”.

Well, the message to the representatives of this Parliament and the people who wish us to represent them is clear: the UKBA considers this institution “inferior”. The dictionary goes on to describe contempt as

“open disrespect for a person or thing accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike”.

We could forgive the more than 600 asylum seekers in Glasgow who last month received the shockingly insensitive letter that told them that their lives would soon be turned upside down again for feeling disrespected and if not intensely disliked, then certainly not cared for.

Other members will be talking in more detail about the Glasgow situation. I will use my remaining time to say something more general about asylum seekers. When I was elected, I spent time thinking about the areas that I wished to focus on. I have to be honest and say that asylum was not one of them—human rights more generally was on the list, but I had no burning desire to fight asylum issues. That, I now believe, was because I just did not know enough about the subject. I had always understood that asylum seekers are not—I would say that they probably never are—people who simply decide to hop on a plane and cynically manipulate the system. Some come because it is the only chance their children have of any reasonable start in life—who among us would not do the same?—and many others come because they are absolutely desperate and in fear of their lives. Studies have shown that the majority do not set out to reach the UK; they set out just to escape their own country. They do not know where they will end up and suffer painful and often horrific journeys to get there. When I hear some of their stories, I feel like awarding them medals for bravery.

We only have to look at yesterday’s absolute tragedy, in which at least 28 adults and children drowned off Christmas Island as they tried to reach Australia. How desperate would you have to be, and how bad would your life at home have to be, to risk such a treacherous journey? I pay tribute to the Christmas Island residents who did everything that they could to save people—in fact, they did save many. The residents’ natural human instinct was to respond to people’s cries for help and to try to save their fellow human beings. That is what our asylum policy should be about. It should be about responding to cries for help and protecting fellow human beings who did not get to choose where they were born, did not start their country's wars, did not provide them with weapons and did not invite their Government’s soldiers to rape them. Such people do not deserve to be treated with contempt when they reach our shores.

Working with asylum seekers requires sensitivity to people who are in extremely vulnerable positions, an ability to communicate when there are language and cultural barriers and the time to listen to often horrific and deeply personal stories. It is difficult enough for any ordinary member of the public to approach their MP or MSP with an issue, even with something as simple as their bins not being emptied, but to have to tell someone about your time in the torture camps or about running through the forest with your bare feet bleeding from wounds and men with bayonets at your back, to have to talk about the soldiers who came to your home and gang raped your 12-year-old niece and to have to describe how, as a child, you watched your father being gunned down in front of your eyes takes courage—it takes everything that you have got Those are the stories that I have heard from constituents over the past year and a half. You have to build a relationship with the person that you are telling. You have to trust them. To then be told by the UKBA that you have to repeat the entire process in front of another stranger, simply because you went to the wrong parliamentary representative must be utterly galling. How many of us would feel able to start the process all over again?

I will end by quoting a woman who fled Zimbabwe and sought asylum in the UK. She told me about the many things that had happened to her since her arrival in the UK. She said that, although she was grateful for all the support that she had been given, she just could not take any more. After the letter, she said that she felt like

“lying down and giving up”.

Our job, when someone can no longer stand up—when they tell us that they want to lie down and give up—is to stand up for them. That is my job as a human being; it is also my job as an MSP. I call on the UKBA to stop preventing me from doing my job and to start doing its job properly. That means the UKBA treating fellow human beings with respect rather than contempt.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We move to the open debate. Given the number of members who wish to speak, I ask them to keep to their four-minute time limit.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I intend my remarks to be relatively brief, Presiding Officer.

The whole area of asylum and immigration is a difficult one. By definition, if a country has an immigration policy, it will also have failed asylum seekers. The issue is then how the country treats people with humanity once that decision is made. The issue would be a problem for anyone, whichever position they are in.

I note what Anne McLaughlin said about her treatment as a member, but I want to reflect the concerns that exist about the way in which the UK Border Agency treated asylum seeker families in Glasgow when it sent them a letter telling them that they would be going shortly and that they were to take only three bags with them. It seems to me that the agency displayed a lack not just of compassion and understanding, but of awareness of the extent to which those families were integrated in their communities, with their young people attending local schools.

I put on record my thanks to Glasgow, my home city, for the way in which it stepped up to the plate when asylum seekers were to be dispersed throughout the country. Glasgow City Council, unlike any other local authority, chose to take those people, I think, because of its long history of showing compassion and understanding for people who have come into Scotland. It was not always an easy process and the council was the subject of a lot of criticism, but it should be commended for the way in which it tackled the issue, on which it worked closely with communities.

I think that members of all parties would accept that there is a sharp contrast between the attitude of Glasgow City Council and the way in which the UKBA has conducted itself. The reality is that asylum seekers were caught up in contract negotiations. The UKBA took a dehumanising approach, whereby it saw people in such circumstances as bargaining chips. I believe that through its letter, it tried, almost deliberately, to up the ante, but the real consequences were felt not by the council, which was wrestling with the problem, but by individual families.

Members will recall that during an exchange at a recent First Minister’s question time, I highlighted the situation of a young woman at Lourdes secondary school who was being supported by her school community, and the impact that receiving one of those letters, at the very point at which she was studying for exams, had on her family and her mother. It seemed to me that the UKBA’s action reflected a lack of understanding of the human and family dimensions of the problem. When interventions on such matters are planned, there needs to be an understanding that families and communities will be affected.

I invite the minister to give us an update on the role of the Scottish Government, particularly in relation to its responsibilities for the education and welfare of young people. The First Minister responded positively when I raised that and it would be useful to know how progress can be made in that difficult area. It is important that the minister makes his voice heard on that argument.

In addition, I raise with the minister the importance of supporting and funding the integration networks in Glasgow, which were particularly successful when there was tension when asylum seekers first came to the city. An immense amount of work was done by voluntary organisations, church groups and, more broadly, faith groups in welcoming asylum seekers and bringing all the communities together to develop a community understanding and a shared history of change and separation that enabled people to understand some of the dreadful circumstances that asylum seekers had been through.

I would welcome the minister commenting on whether he sees the potential for funding such preventive work, which I think has been so important, and I would like him to give us an update on how services can be delivered across communities such as mine, to ensure that when there are pressures on those communities, the allocation of funding recognises and follows that.

At the heart of Anne McLaughlin’s position is the need to understand asylum seekers as individuals and families, so that when people make decisions, they understand that they can have traumatic consequences for families that have already experienced a great deal of trauma.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I congratulate Anne McLaughlin on securing an extremely important debate.

We all know that Glasgow has received the largest number of asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. As a Glasgow MSP since 1999, I have dealt with hundreds of asylum seekers and refugees. Labour members might not want to hear this, but the Labour MPs who have been predominant in Glasgow would not deal with such cases. We were the people who picked them up. That is the honest truth, which we must get on the record.

I pay tribute to the many groups and individuals who have worked tirelessly to ensure that we have the knowledge and expertise to deal with asylum seekers and refugees. Without that knowledge and expertise, we would not have been able to point them in the right direction or to help them get the right lawyers. They would have been floundering and so would we.

Glasgow is a beacon. The work that it has done is held up by other areas of Great Britain as something that other people should emulate and follow.

I seriously wonder if UKBA decided to send out the letters because the integration of asylum seekers and refugees in Glasgow is so great. They have great community spirit. They are welcomed in Glasgow and people work to help them. I seriously wonder if that is why the letter was sent out.

We are talking about human beings and human rights. For someone to receive a letter that informs them that they will be forced to move within three days and with no idea where they will be moved to is unacceptable, no matter who the person is. To be told that they cannot take any possessions is barbaric, and I have already talked in a previous debate about people being told to take only two pieces of luggage. It is quite harrowing; it brings up memories of a darker era in European history. It is appalling that a UK Government agency should act in that way, but unfortunately it is not surprising.

The way in which UKBA has operated under the previous Labour Government and now under the Con-Dem coalition means that it has been out of control for many years. Successive UK Governments have sanctioned the illegal detention of children and dawn raids, used every means to circumvent the law and denied many asylum seekers their basic human rights.

The way in which the UKBA interacts with elected representatives and local government is equally revealing. It does not want to speak to Glasgow City Council, other groups that I have referred to and elected members. As an elected member, I have dealt with hundreds of asylum seekers. I challenge the Westminster Government and the UKBA to say what I should do if someone comes to my office who desperately wants help, and I have to say to them that I cannot help them. They are constituents who have arrived in the country and are staying in Glasgow, so they are entitled to the representation that we can afford to give them.

We have built up expertise: why should we lose it? We have built up so much expertise that I, and other elected representatives, can pick up a phone and get people housing and some kind of money and put them in touch with groups or expert lawyers who can help them. It has taken years to build up that knowledge and, all of a sudden, we are now being told that we cannot act. I used to be able to phone the immigration office in London and get direct contact, but in the past few years, we have needed a PIN number.

I have to ask what the Westminster MPs are doing. Why are they not saying that we should be treated as equally are they are? It is as if they are protecting something and they do not do any work on it.

If an asylum seeker, refugee or whoever comes to me for advice or help, I for one am going to give them it, regardless of what Westminster says.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The UK, Scotland and the city of Glasgow have a proud record of giving asylum to those who require it. We in this country have a broad mind and attitude to those who require our protection and assistance, so much so that we have, on occasion, become a target for those who seek to use the asylum system as a method of bypassing immigration.

It is unfortunate that we have been landed in a situation in which there has been a breakdown or denial of communication between members of the Scottish Parliament and the Home Office. I will not challenge that, other than to say that members of the Westminster Parliament, whose responsibility it is to deal directly with the Home Office, should be doing so. However, from the members that have spoken in the debate so far, and from other sources, I hear that that work is simply not being done. That might be partly what has created the crisis in the relationship.

As far as the UKBA and its relationship with the city of Glasgow is concerned, there are two sides to every story. The UKBA has made it clear that it has tried hard to negotiate with Glasgow City Council to continue the contract to provide accommodation. In the UKBA’s view, it is Glasgow City Council that has made it difficult to achieve that objective. We also have an undertaking that no one will be moved at the moment because of the termination of the contract, and anyone who is going to be moved will be given a full 14 days’ notice so that they can take whatever action is necessary to make that transition smoothly. I hope that we can accept those reassurances.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does the member think that 14 days’ notice is enough notice for someone to uproot their family and move to somewhere else in Scotland? Does he accept that the damage was done the minute that those 600 families received the letters saying that they would have only three to five days’ notice to pack a maximum of two suitcases?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Yes, I accept that that was damaging. We have come to a situation in which the UK Border Agency has made it clear that it will implement a more lenient approach but, sadly, damage has been done. However, I am further reassured that arrangements that are currently being entered into by Glasgow City Council and Ypeople—formerly YMCA Glasgow—may result in many of those people being able to continue in their existing property. As a consequence, we may achieve a great deal more stability than was originally believed would be achieved.

In concluding, I realise that this has become a major local issue in the city of Glasgow. It has the potential to be an embarrassment for Scotland if we cannot get it right. I urge members of the Scottish Parliament to do as I would do when approached by someone in an immigration case and give advice, the first item of which is to contact their member of the Westminster Parliament, who has the authority to represent their interests. If that is not done, we have a serious problem in how our democracy works.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have finished, but I will give way.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, you cannot—if you are finished, you are finished. I call Christina McKelvie.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will pick up the point that I am sure Anne McLaughlin was just about to make—in lots of cases, people come to us having been to their MP, who has not helped them. That is where the difficulty lies.

I congratulate Anne McLaughlin on securing a members’ business debate on this subject. It is a problem that is all too familiar to many of us. We have all tried to make representations on behalf of migrant and refugee constituents, and we know that the problem exists. It is also an issue that exemplifies the unfortunate attitudes—I am being charitable here, because I have described the UKBA in other terms—that some, but not all, parts of the Whitehall apparatus continue to have towards the Scottish Parliament and its elected representatives.

Colleagues from Glasgow have already spoken powerfully about the recent behaviour of the UKBA towards asylum seekers living in Glasgow, so there is no need for me to say more about that, other than to agree that the approach was deplorable and should be reversed.

I will talk about the UKBA’s refusal to deal with MSPs who contact it on behalf of their constituents. That behaviour appears to be based on the UKBA’s own interpretations of the boundaries of devolution and about the cases MSPs should and should not take up. Apparently, the UKBA believes that it has the right to dictate to elected members of this Parliament what their job is and how they should do it.

Other UK Government departments do not do that. The Benefits Agency does not reply to MSPs who write to it with a refusal to answer their questions because welfare benefits are a reserved matter. Quite rightly, it understands that any elected representative—no matter which Parliament they are elected to—is entitled to receive not just a response but a proper response that addresses the query that has been made.

The UKBA thinks differently. Like benefits, asylum and immigration is a policy area that may be reserved but which nonetheless has enormous implications for a wide range of devolved areas and which impacts considerably on the lives and welfare of many people living in Scotland. That is a reality which the UKBA refuses to recognise. It will not countenance the possibility that MSPs have a legitimate concern about how asylum and immigration policy affects our constituents, nor recognise our right to take up cases relating to it.

The UKBA operates to its own version of the devolved settlement, one in which it can tell members of this Parliament who contact it on behalf of an individual constituent, in so many words, to go and take a running jump. As the title of Anne McLaughlin’s motion says, it is demonstrating contempt, not only for the Scottish Parliament but for the process of democracy in Scotland and the right of our constituents to receive representation from us.

I cannot help but wonder whether there is an element of pique in that approach—a wee bit of revenge, perhaps, against this Parliament and its pesky MSPs, who have been frequently and strongly critical of some of the UKBA’s more unpleasant practices, such as dawn raids and child detention, particularly in Dungavel in my region.

Members of the Equal Opportunities Committee, of which I am one, heard evidence from the UKBA’s Scotland director during our inquiry into migration and trafficking earlier this year. He told us that its handling of devolution

“is still a challenge, but I suspect that I am told less about us getting it wrong than I am about us getting it right nowadays. However, there is still some way to go.”—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 21 September 2010; c 1990.]

No kidding—they can say that again. We are telling the UKBA that, in refusing to deal with MSPs who are making representations on behalf of their constituents, it is getting it badly wrong and that it needs to change its approach now. We are elected to the Scottish Parliament to represent everyone in Scotland and I expect the same service from all the reserved agencies across the UK as they would expect from our ministers. The same should apply.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I, too, congratulate Anne McLaughlin on obtaining today’s members’ business debate on an important subject. I welcome today’s announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister that the Westminster Government will end child detention by May next year, in accordance with the partnership agreement and the promise that was made. That should be welcomed across the chamber, as we were united in making representations to the previous Government over a number of years against a background of no fewer than 7,000 children being locked up in the course of the last five years of the previous Government.

I wish to defend the UK Border Agency to a degree. There is no doubt that the agency is under pressure because of the sheer number of cases that it has to deal with. In fairness, it has indicated in its letter that it will take up policy issues, and I have been able to raise the policy issue of the deal with Glasgow City Council with it and have got a response from it.

Nevertheless, like other members, I do not find it acceptable—nor have I ever done—that it will not reply to normal letters. Over the years, I have had a policy of taking up issues that come to me directly but, broadly speaking, I do not get involved with ones that come as campaigns across a number of different issues when I do not have personal knowledge of the situation. There is a bit of an issue with the sheer number of people who are making representations about the subject that we are debating.

I do not think that it is particularly helpful to major on the claim that the actions of the UKBA have been disrespectful to the Scottish Parliament. That is not the central issue and it gets in the way of a proper approach to the central matter, which is the agreement between the UKBA and Glasgow City Council. There is no question but that its actions were pretty clumsy in that regard. The terms of the letter that was sent out were lamentable and must have caused considerable upset and worry to families and individuals.

The arrangements themselves have been clouded by uncertainty and lack of information. Several colleagues were present at the cross-party group on asylum seekers and refugees a fortnight ago and, even at that stage, the agency did not have clear information about what was going to happen. It was not even clear about how the contract was to be terminated and when the termination would become operative. The whole thing could be described only as a mess.

The number of asylum seekers is falling as the process of case resolution proceeds and more people are granted leave to stay. However, according to the council, the UKBA simply stopped sending further asylum seekers on 13 October, without any intimation. It seems to me that there are two issues. The first and most important is that we must ensure, if possible, that people can remain in their current houses and do not experience disruption in their schools, community support and their all-important sense of security. It cannot be beyond the wit of those involved to ensure that that is the case with the new providers, while accepting that some people will anyway move into more permanent accommodation once their status has been resolved. Glasgow City Council has a good reputation in ensuring security of housing for a goodly part of most people’s stay in the city.

The second issue is that of future support. I have no doubt that the cost issue is valid, but no one doubts the fact that the comprehensive package that has been put in place by Glasgow City Council, the extent of the community support that is available—following painful lessons early on—and the success of our integration arrangements are second to none. The process must be carried out properly and supportively, in a way that meets both the spirit and the letter of our legal and moral duties to refugees from oppressive regimes who seek the sanctuary of these shores.

As a supporter of the UK Government, I suggest that it must make sure that the UKBA fulfils its functions properly. Anne McLaughlin has raised an important issue and I hope that the minister, in replying to the debate, can tell us what the Scottish Government has been doing, as part of the agreed protocols on these things, with the UK Government or whoever to assist and support the refugees who have been caught up by this bureaucratic dispute. That is the central issue, not so much communication with MSPs.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I thank Anne McLaughlin for bringing to the chamber the emotive and important issue of the treatment of asylum seekers, particularly in Glasgow. I acknowledge that Sandra White lodged a similar motion. I know that she has a particular perspective on the matter, but I hope that she accepts that there are Labour MPs in the city who have taken up asylum cases and represented them well.

There has been unprecedented cross-party unity in condemnation of the brutal and inhumane behaviour of the UK Border Agency. Glasgow City Council has made its position clear—with the exception of one Tory councillor who did not sign the letter condemning the behaviour of the UK Border Agency. David Mundell has spoken out, as has the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, and the Equal Opportunities Committee of the Scottish Parliament has taken an interest in the matter as well, and rightly so.

It is for the UK Border Agency to make its case about its contact arrangement with Glasgow; I want to talk about the impact that that will have.

I am concerned that the negotiations that have been taking place might have undermined Glasgow’s proud reputation in this regard. As Robert Brown and others have said, it is important that, whatever the outcome of the contract negotiations might be, asylum seekers do not have to be moved from their homes.

There are 1,300 asylum seekers in the city. We have had the contract since 2000. Like Johann Lamont, I am proud of my city’s record in being one of the first cities to volunteer to take so many asylum seekers, who have come from Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, China and Sri Lanka—in fact, from too many countries to mention.

There was no prior notification about the UK Border Agency’s decision to give a three to five-day notice to asylum seekers. I have to wonder what was in the minds of the officials who drafted the correspondence, and I hope that they have seen the error of their ways. Anyone who had considered the impact on families and children would simply not have taken such a decision.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I do not know whether the member has written to the UK Border Agency, but is she aware that the letters that we are getting back from it tell us that that letter has been used before and has never caused a problem? I am not entirely sure that it will not be used again in other parts of the UK, if the situation should arise.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

My position is clear that that is not an acceptable way of handling this matter, and I have added my voice on that basis.

I do not think that asylum seekers should be required to move, and I think that all efforts should be made to ensure that they do not have to. As others have said, the population of asylum seekers has been welcome in Glasgow. Constituents of mine who live in Kingsway Court tell me that the community has been transformed by the attitude of asylum seekers who will, for example, clean their stairs and who go to their local schools. It would be a great loss if they were to leave.

The UK Border Agency’s letter says that asylum seekers could be required to move anywhere in the “Scottish region”. Leaving aside the fact that Scotland is a nation, not a region, that is still a rather large geographical area, and the letter has created a great deal of uncertainty for those who do not know where they will end up.

Breaking up the association that asylum seekers have had with people in their communities is what concerns me most. The presence of asylum seekers in an area is what has made some schools sustainable. I do not understand why any official would think that an asylum seeker who has been in Glasgow for a few years could cope if they have only two pieces of luggage, particularly if they have a family. I found that to be a particularly facetious instruction.

As we have discussed this morning, we have had a harsh winter, and that must be taken into account for families who might be required to move.

In closing, I note that Blindcraft, an important organisation that has been providing furniture to asylum seekers, will definitely be affected if Glasgow loses asylum seekers.

I hope that the situation can be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank Anne McLaughlin not only for securing the debate but for the tremendous work that she has done in Parliament on behalf of all Glasgow’s communities, of which asylum seekers make up just one part. People who think that Anne McLaughlin focuses on just one issue do not know her constituency casework. She is a credit to this Parliament.

I am not going to talk about the termination of the contract with Glasgow City Council and the letter that has been sent out, which have been well documented. Needless to say, I want to put on record that the UKBA’s decision is absolutely repugnant, and was handled in a way that goes against all forms of humanity.

I want to talk about the relationship between MSPs and the UKBA. I differ from Robert Brown on the issue—it is not about a bureaucratic fight between MSPs and the UKBA; it goes far beyond that. We represent those communities and individuals, and to say that it is a bureaucratic stushie misses the core point.

I will give members one example. A year ago, I held a surgery specifically for the Kurdish community in Glasgow. I had made a few Kurdish friends, and I said to them, “If you’ve got friends, family and contacts in the Kurdish community who wouldn’t normally see a councillor, an MP or an MSP, bring them along”. About 30 Kurdish individuals went to that event, and we invited police officers, interpreters and people from integration services in the city.

For about two to three hours after people had given their initial speeches to the asylum seekers—and to others, because the event was not only for asylum seekers—I was there writing up case notes on what had to be done in response to people’s concerns about schooling, their housing situations or their asylum cases.

At that point, was I supposed to say to the asylum seeker, “I’m sorry, but could you just sit at the back of the room—I’ll give you the MP’s name later on and they can take up the case for you”? An asylum seeker might say, “I’d like to talk to you about my asylum, but I’d also like to talk about the absolute pit that the city council or others have put me in for my accommodation.” I should say that Glasgow City Council do pretty well on accommodation, but others do not. We cannot pick and choose the cases that come to us, and it is stupid, absurd and ridiculous that the UKBA forces us to do so. It is not good enough.

I would gently say that some MPs are better than others at dealing with asylum seekers. I find that the most vulnerable people in society do not go to our surgeries, so we have to reach out to them. MPs are not always particularly good at reaching out, and there are various reasons for that, but they must do better.

If someone went to an MP’s surgery and said, as I have heard people say, that they have experienced a very serious and distressing situation in the health service in Scotland with regard to neglect or incompetence—which has even led to fatalities in some cases, as I have heard from representations to my office—I would not feel threatened if the MP was to write to Nicola Sturgeon or the health board. I would not say, “Back off—that’s devolved”; that is not how it works. It is not good enough for those vulnerable asylum seekers who come to me and tell me stories of torture, rape, exploitation and abuse, and of fearing for their lives. They are often in tears and are reaching and crying out for help, and I have to say to them, “No. Can you just stop there? That is a reserved matter.”

On humanity, human rights, dignity, social justice and respect—all the things that make us human, and which are why we get involved in politics in the first place—we have to say, “Sorry—that’s reserved to Westminster because of some stushie with the UK Government and the UKBA”. The situation is not good enough and it has to change, not for politicians or because of constitutional wrangling, but for asylum seekers. I hope that today’s debate, led by Anne McLaughlin, will go some way towards changing that.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I congratulate Anne McLaughlin, as other members have done, on bringing the debate to the chamber. Her introductory speech was one of the best that I have heard in almost 12 years in the Parliament.

It is deeply shocking that asylum seekers, who are already so vulnerable and often deeply traumatised by their experiences, can be treated so callously by the UKBA. I share the anger that is felt among members in the chamber—and by the elected representatives in other devolved administrations—at the lack of respect that is being shown to the democratic process not only by the UKBA, but by its political masters, who are at present Damian Green, Theresa May, Nick Clegg and David Cameron. The UKBA could not act in that way without the tacit agreement of those ministers.

The disrespect is directed not just at those of us who have had the honour of being elected as MSPs to represent our constituents, but at the people of Scotland and those who have fled their own countries in fear and wish to make Scotland their home.

Like the previous Administration, the Scottish Government takes a different view on the treatment of asylum seekers from that of the previous and current UK Governments. We are clear that asylum seekers who are dispersed to Scotland must be treated fairly and humanely and that while they are in Scotland they must be welcomed and supported. We believe that asylum seekers—who are among the most vulnerable people—should be integrated and welcomed into local life on arrival. The Government is clear that asylum seekers should be treated with respect, and we lead by example.

Despite its being a reserved issue, the Scottish Government, as far as our devolved powers allow, enables asylum seekers and refugees to integrate into our communities from day 1, as well as having access to health care and education. That is why we have provided nearly £3 million over three years to organisations working with asylum seekers and refugees, including the Scottish Refugee Council, the Bridges Programme, Maryhill Integration Network, Integrating Toryglen Community and others that enable asylum seekers and refugees to access services, information, advice and support.

On the fair question that was asked by Johann Lamont, the Scottish Government is clear that all asylum seekers and their children should be treated with respect and should have access to services. Asylum-seeking and refugee children should be given the same rights as all other children to enable them to integrate fully into Scottish society. We welcome this morning’s announcement on moves to end the detention of children of asylum seekers.

We are working with other projects, such as the family return project and the guardianship pilot, to try to ensure that the support and services are made available.

We have given the same access to higher and further education to the children of asylum seekers as we give to other children in Scotland. We are working with Glasgow City Council to ensure that those children have the same access to nursery education as other children in Scotland.

The thoughtless treatment by the UKBA of asylum seekers, who have been welcomed to Glasgow and Scotland by their local communities, is repugnant and shocking.

The First Minister wrote to the Home Secretary on 18 November to express his concern about the termination of the accommodation contract with Glasgow and to urge that the decision be reconsidered. He stated that

“the way this matter has been handled is extremely disturbing and does not appear to have the best interests and welfare of this very vulnerable community at heart. In particular there appears to have been a complete lack of sensitivity shown toward those seeking asylum”.

He went on to say:

“the text of the letter issued by UKBA to the asylum seekers has caused a considerable level of distress, not just to those receiving the letters and their families, but also to those who have worked hard to care for and welcome asylum seekers into their communities … On reading the letter I was astonished by the complete lack of consideration shown to asylum seekers of the impact that this decision will have on their lives, and felt that it was totally devoid of any compassion or understanding”.

I used to work in Romania on behalf of the World Bank, and I heard stories about Ceausescu’s Romania. The action that has been taken by the UKBA reminded me of some of the Ceausescu Government’s worst practices, such as forcing people from their homes.

We know that our concern is shared throughout Scotland. I thank again the young people from Lourdes secondary school for their petition asking for the cancellation of the contract to be revoked. Those young people understand the body blow that such a letter caused their asylum-seeking school friends and the importance of maintaining their friends’ educational and social networks in supporting their emotional wellbeing.

The needs of asylum seekers are at last being considered, and work is under way to transfer Glasgow City Council’s housing stock to Ypeople. If that is agreed—the novation process is complex and yet to be finalised—it will mean that the affected asylum seekers can remain in their present accommodation. That will be a huge relief for all concerned, although it does not excuse the alarm and stress that the initial letter caused.

As many members have said, the Scottish Government is also extremely disappointed that, unlike other UK Government departments and agencies, the UKBA has not moved with the evolving spirit of devolution and still will not correspond with MSPs—or indeed Scottish ministers—on individual cases. If we took the same attitude to Westminster MPs who regularly write to us on behalf of their constituents on devolved matters, they would be the first to squeal about it. Their silence on this matter is deafening and unacceptable.

Over the past couple of years, my officials have regularly raised this issue with their UKBA counterparts and the permanent secretary and his predecessor have done the same with the UKBA’s chief executive. When the First Minister met the Prime Minister on 14 May, the Prime Minister committed to an agenda of “mutual respect”. It is not for the Scottish Government to decide how the Parliament should respond to Damian Green’s letter to all MSPs—that is a matter for the Presiding Officer on behalf of the Parliament—but I assure the chamber that this Government is using every available avenue to get the UKBA and its ministers to understand the “mutual respect” agenda and that all those who are elected to serve the people of Scotland in this chamber should receive a substantive reply on individual cases, an approach that other UK Government departments have agreed and demonstrated.

We hope that the UKBA and its political masters understand and embrace the evolving nature of devolution and practise the respect agenda instead of simply paying it lip service. The First Minister is liaising on this matter with his counterparts in devolved Administrations elsewhere in the UK who share our concern on the substantive issue of the treatment of asylum seekers and the issue of correspondence and respect. If necessary, we will refer the matter to the joint ministerial committee for dispute resolution.

I hope that, in my seven minutes, I have been able to give members as complete a picture as possible of the updated position.

13:16 Meeting suspended until 14:15.

14:15 On resuming—

Retailers (Financial Assistance)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what financial assistance it provides to retailers with the aim of creating jobs, supporting the local economy and bolstering tourism. (S3O-12424)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government recognises the vital role played by the retail sector with regard to employment, supporting local and regional economies, encouraging tourism and stimulating visitor numbers to Scotland and, in so doing, increasing sustainable economic growth. That is why we continue to support the sector through these challenging times. Last year, many retailers benefited from our £60 million investment in the regeneration and growth of our town centres, and we are prioritising skills and training and generating significant numbers of jobs in the Scottish economy through our economic recovery plan. There are encouraging signs that the approach is working, with Scottish retail output rising in the second quarter of this year, and we will continue to work closely with all parts of the sector through the Scottish Retail Consortium.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Recently, a constituent contacted me about the promotion of business and tourism opportunities in Inverclyde. His frustration at trying to move his project forward dates back to the time of the previous Scottish Executive, when money was sloshing about the enterprise agencies. Given the severe financial restrictions on the Scottish Government budget, what guarantees can be given to online businesses that are trying to promote economic growth and opportunities in Inverclyde and the west of Scotland?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The most widely used service for small and microbusinesses that are either getting started or growing is business gateway, which has offices in Greenock and other locations in the west of Scotland. Given the tourism element of the proposal highlighted by the member, I also think that VisitScotland would be happy to talk to his constituent.

I also point the individual in the direction of ScotlandIS and its moves to promote the use of e-commerce among more businesses. I think that, if those courses of action were followed, they would get a better result.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

It is interesting that the minister mentioned the town centre regeneration fund, which Labour, of course, called for. It was such a success that the Government cancelled it after a year, which was a pity. Does he think that the new levy on large businesses in Scotland—which will mean that they have to pay an extra £30 million, or the equivalent of 2,500 jobs—is such a good thing, given that it might well ending up costing jobs?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I recognise the member’s negativity and his track record in terms of cuts that were in the first instance formulated by the Labour Party. However, he will have heard the First Minister’s earlier message to the chamber about the broad shoulders of large businesses and the need to spread the burden to ensure that we come through all this with our town centres having the vibrancy that we want and without undoing the good work that has been done and which the member has just applauded.