Scottish Parliament, 11 November 1999

288 contributions from 74 members. The official report.

Introduction

Millennium Date Change

David (None, Lothians)

The first item of business is the statement and debate on the millennium date change problem and a report on the readiness of the Scottish infrastructure. It will be a two-stage process: after the minister's statement, which should not be interrupted, there will be a short period for questions for clarification and then we will move on to the debate.

I remind members that the debate will be interrupted at 11 o'clock to allow the Parliament to observe the national two minutes' silence.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Thank you, Sir David. With your permission, I would like to make a statement on the millennium date change problem, which is really a report on the readiness of the Scottish infrastructure.

The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said on 30 March 1998:

"Our aim is to avoid material disruption to public services over the century date change period, and to maintain public confidence that this will be achieved".

When the Prime Minister made that statement, he made no distinction between services for which Government has direct responsibility and those for which it does not. He accepted that, in practice as well as in theory, the buck stops with ministers to oversee the action being taken across the UK infrastructure by a range of bodies in the private and public sectors.

The year 2000 problem, or millennium bug, is a UK-wide issue and, since autumn 1997, all UK Government departments and agencies, including those in Scotland, have regularly reported their year 2000 progress to the Cabinet Office. Since July 1999, those reports have been given monthly and there has been an accompanying ministerial statement by the President of the Council in Westminster. I have issued parallel reports to all MSPs to ensure that members have been kept up to date with progress. The powerful message is that we want to be open, transparent and inclusive on this issue. I have been in touch with MSPs on 23 July 1999, 5 October 1999, 29 October 1999, and the millennium bug booklet has also been issued.

Today, with only 50 days to go, and with increasing public interest in year 2000 matters, I intend to report on the overall state of year 2000 preparedness throughout the infrastructure in Scotland.

As members will appreciate, the failure of microchips and software could have had a serious impact on so many services on which daily life depends—almost all human activity could have been affected. The problem is all-pervasive and had to be addressed with the utmost seriousness.

Achieving year 2000 compliance in any big, modern organisation requires rigorous, systematic and sustained effort over a substantial period of time and means that the organisation has taken the following steps. First, it has drawn up a comprehensive list of systems and equipment that could be affected by the date change problem. Secondly, it has tested those systems and equipment. Thirdly, it has taken any necessary remedial action to ensure as far as possible that operations will not be disrupted. Fourthly, it has undertaken risk assessment, and, finally, it has tried and tested contingency plans in place.

It is also particularly important that key organisations not only correct and test their systems and equipment but clearly demonstrate to the public and the media that they are dealing with year 2000 problems. Otherwise, our explicit objectives of reassuring the public and answering their concerns could not be achieved. That reassurance of the public is a vital part of the process.

To that end, Action 2000, a Government-sponsored company, was commissioned to manage the millennium infrastructure project on behalf of the UK Government. The project's remit was to raise awareness, provide assistance and support, and establish a public confidence programme to report on the state of preparation throughout the national infrastructure. Part of that process was to instigate an extensive programme of independent assessment and to publicise the results. Action 2000 therefore commissioned a study of key interdependencies in the UK. The study identified the critical importance of infrastructure services to achieving the objective of no material disruption.

On 1 December 1998, we organised the first Scottish infrastructure conference. That brought together the providers of all essential infrastructure in Scotland—the electricity, gas, water, telecommunications and oil companies and the Scottish clearing banks—with public sector consumers of those services such as the national health service, the fire and police services and local authorities. The conference aimed to identify and explore interdependencies; to share information and best practice; to provide mutual assistance and support; and to provide public assurances. From that was born the Scottish infrastructure forum, a group with representation from all the major players in the fabric of the Scottish infrastructure. That was a first: a unique, unprecedented collaboration and information-sharing exercise that helped to bring us all successfully to where we are today, with 50 days to go.

Action 2000 further decided that the year 2000 rectification programme in the public sector, and among those key utilities, would include rigorous independent assessment. No other country in the world attempted such an undertaking, requiring as it did the comprehensive mapping of the national infrastructure dependencies.

The Scottish Executive acts as the responsible body for a wide and diverse range of public bodies that provide infrastructure services in the country. We reported on progress at three national infrastructure forums in London, the most recent of which took place on 21 October when there was a further round of UK-wide disclosure. Those results were published in a series of newspaper adverts in the national press.

While devolution changed the working relationship with central Government, that in no way reduced the co-ordination of our efforts to ensure that this worldwide problem was dealt with properly. The Secretary of State for Scotland is a member of Misc 4—the UK Cabinet committee for year 2000 matters—and of the civil contingencies committee, which is responsible for emergency planning for the UK as a whole. The Scotland Office is also represented at official level on the millennium steering group, the Scottish Executive's co-ordinating group on millennium matters. We are ensuring that effective communication and liaison exists between the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office.

I am pleased to report that all sectors of the Scottish infrastructure are now categorised as blue under the Action 2000 traffic-light system. That classification means

"the assessment process has identified no risk of material disruption."

Some of the press and some colleagues have expressed concerns about two particular Scottish organisations: Caledonian MacBrayne and Loganair. It is right and proper for those concerns to be expressed; indeed that is why the process was made public and transparent. However, I assure colleagues today that the latest situation shows that those organisations are now classified as blue.

Looking back at the enormous amount of work that was undertaken for the operation to achieve that result, I must say that the exercise was not sterile or valueless, but produced conspicuous benefits. Most organisations already had a contingency strategy, which we will refer to as a business continuity plan. It is good business sense to have a plan that is designed to ensure continuity of service, in case problems occur at any time, for any reason. Those plans have been revisited in light of the millennium threat and revised as necessary. Each business continuity plan now contains a plan within a plan.

Those millennium operating regimes, as we call them, refer to the special arrangements that are being put in place to handle the particular circumstances of the millennium period. They enhance, but do not replace, the normal contingency plans or existing emergency procedures. However, they address all millennium issues, whether bug-related or not. We must remember that there are a number of potential risks over the millennium, for example, extreme weather, not to mention all the millennium parties that will be taking place.

We have also established strategic emergency forums in the major cities. I can provide colleagues with details of the activities that are taking place in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee and the steps that are being taken to ensure that those activities go ahead and celebration is enjoyed without difficulties.

Colleagues will have noticed that, throughout this speech, I have stressed co-operation and good communication. I should perhaps mention here the inter-Parliament and cross-departmental collaboration that has been necessary in bringing this all-encompassing project to what, I have no doubt, will be a successful conclusion. I am a member of the millennium date change committee, which enables devolved administrations to continue to participate. I have had talks on the year 2000 issue with Iain Anderson, special adviser to the Prime Minister, as well as with many other representatives from various Government departments and ministries. This has been a genuine team effort.

In order to continue that, and to ensure a successful incident-free transition into the new millennium, a joint communications centre that will be known as the Scottish information liaison centre—or SILC—will be set up in St Andrew's House. SILC will be manned by representatives from the key utilities, the emergency services, emergency planning officials, the media, the Scottish Executive press office and the Scottish Executive year 2000 team from 6 pm on 31 December until 6 pm on 1 January. Arrangements are in hand to extend this until 5 January, or beyond, if necessary. SILC will provide co- ordinated communication and will pull together incident reports from all over Scotland, the UK and around the world and will collate that data to provide up-to-the-minute information to the media on all key services.

This also means that ministers in both the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office will be kept informed of bug-related incidents whether they occur in Scotland, the UK or abroad, irrespective of whether they relate to devolved or reserved matters. I will provide all members with a SILC telephone contact number in due course.

It is only right that I should be keen to involve every member of this Parliament in activities that are designed to ensure that we have a disruption-free programme. To do that, it is vital that every member has access to the most immediate and up-to-date information. The media will be briefed about the Scottish information liaison centre and will be invited to see the operation of the centre during a dry exercise on 17 December.

This will not be a purely bug-related initiative. It is vital that we remember that new year is a time when large gatherings always put a strain on police resources, when large numbers of people always try to use the phone at the same time and when the weather always seems to be at its worst. That means that there is more probability of disruption at that time of year, even under so-called normal circumstances. SILC will, therefore, monitor all incidents throughout Scotland whether they are caused by adverse weather, larger than usual crowds or different patterns of behaviour or travel. SILC will dispel any bug myths on the night.

SILC will avoid duplication of effort and ensure consistency and accuracy of communications, will facilitate links to Whitehall and the Scotland Office and will allow the media to be kept fully informed. The media must be our link with the public and it is vital that every service that we can provide is in place on the night.

Some people might find it hard to understand that central Government would need to have emergency plans. The truth is that good government always has well-established procedures for a wide range of possible emergencies. Very few of those risks ever materialise, but we would be foolhardy and much criticised if we did not plan for them. I am sure that many members have a personal contingency plan, which is generally known as life insurance. The millennium produces its own unique set of problems and we have done our best to ensure that those have been fully anticipated and prepared for.

Before I conclude, however, I should point out that one area of concern remains. A recent study by Action 2000 showed that, despite numerous attempts to raise the issue's profile, many small and medium businesses in Scotland have been slow to recognise the importance of checking their own systems. Scotland has some 300,000 such companies, around 290,000 of which have under 50 employees.

Those companies form the backbone of Scotland's economy and it is vital that they take sensible precautions against the bug. Each was recently issued with the comprehensive "Last Chance Guide", which outlines the steps that they should be taking. I hope that that will lead to an increase in awareness. This is an area where Scotland's press and media could have an important impact in publicising the problem and in urging that action be taken. Ensuring that all necessary actions have been taken is a team effort, and I ask colleagues—all 129 MSPs—to act as ambassadors in their own areas for emphasising, particularly to the small and medium enterprise sector, the importance of being prepared.

I can provide information for any of my colleagues on who should be contacted and where assistance is available. The local enterprise companies, the support units and Action 2000 have myriad ideas and suggestions of what can be secured if small and medium businesses want to do so. I cannot stress how important it is, during the final 50 days, to get that message across. I understand some of the bottom-line constraints that small and medium enterprises face, but it is critical that they do as much as they can. If help is required, we are keen to provide it.

All the work and co-operation will ensure that, in Scotland, the transition to the year 2000 will not be remembered for major disruptions, but for its unique celebrations. I hope that this statement has been of assistance. I seek the co-operation and assistance of all 129 MSPs to ensure that we achieve that success. I would be pleased to respond to members' questions.

David (None, Lothians)

Thank you very much. I take it that those members who pressed their buttons want to ask questions. If any member has pressed their button, hoping to speak in the debate, they should press it again now to remove their name from the list that I have in front of me. I invite questions for clarification.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I thank the minister for his statement and for the inclusive way in which he has gone about this exercise. That is what we have come to expect of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, who sets an example to all. I want to ask him for two points of clarification.

First, he opened his statement with a quotation from the Prime Minister on the responsibility of ministers, which effectively stated that the buck stops with ministers to oversee the action that is being taken on the UK infrastructure by both private and public sector organisations. What does that mean in practice, bearing in mind the comments that the minister later made on the slow preparations that are being made by small and medium enterprises to equip them for the difficulties that may be faced? As the minister said, there are only 50 days to go until the millennium, therefore time is of the essence in ensuring that that ministerial responsibility is met. I would be interested to hear what that means.

Secondly, in all the plans that I have seen, there is a heavy reliance on what the Scottish Executive refers to as independent assessment of the preparedness of plans by public sector organisations. In the contracts that have been issued to those companies to carry out that independent verification, is there any liability on those companies for the effectiveness of their assessment of whether the millennium bug problems have been properly assessed in individual organisations? If something were to go wrong—if there were a breach of practice—would there be any liability on the assessors who have carried out that independent work on behalf of the Executive?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

No. We seek a process for the private sector that will include information, advice, exhortation and help, to take companies to a point of millennium readiness that is equivalent to the amber status that exists in the infrastructure. There has been a magnificent and successful programme. Most of the larger companies—partly because of their resources—have been able to comply and progress. During the run-up to 2000, a lot of the small and medium enterprises may also have reached that point. My main reason for raising this issue today was to give members the opportunity, on an all-party, all-Government basis, to tell the public that this is not a partisan point, but an issue that it is in the interests of Scotland to address. I invite members to respond to that.

Mr Swinney's first question concerned whether the buck stops with the ministers. I am always apprehensive when I say that, as what lies ahead in this world can never be known. In referring to the private sector and small and medium enterprises, my intention is not to pick them out as pretending that, on 31 December 1999, they will be ready, when they will not. It is quite clear that, because we have direct responsibility for infrastructure, as I have described it, we do not have the responsibility for what happens in an individual small or medium enterprise.

That said, it is important for the ministers who are responsible for the leadership of all 129 MSPs, and the members themselves, to say to everyone, whether in public or in private, that it is vital to the nation that they respond to what is happening. I hope that that partly explains my comment. I know that John Swinney will forgive me for using a quotation from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Even on a Thursday morning, that is still appropriate in the context of today's statement.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Like John Swinney, I welcome the minister's statement, which was full and reassuring. I have two practical questions. First, can he give us any information about the coding, under the Action 2000 traffic-light system, for lighthouses and for weather stations and related meteorological facilities?

Secondly, given what happened to the telephone system in the west of Scotland when people tried to procure football tickets by telephone, can he reassure us that our telephone system can cope with any unexpected onslaught of demand arising from problems caused by the millennium bug?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

The millennium readiness of lighthouses is not one of the key issues that I have been able to concentrate on, but I can assure Miss Goldie that I will send her information about that. Every aspect of Government responsibility has been covered, so lighthouses are millennium ready, and I shall ensure that she knows the details of the process that has been undertaken to achieve that. I can confirm that lighthouses and all facilities connected with safety at sea are millennium ready and at the amber position.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Is the same true of weather stations?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Those facilities have also been covered. They are all at blue and are all millennium ready. I shall provide details about that too, so that Miss Goldie can be reassured.

I can also assure members that, despite the historic event that is to take place on Saturday, we are completely satisfied with telecommunications. Telecommunications companies have been closely involved in all our deliberations, they will be involved in SILC on the night and our discussions with them have been productive.

I want to thank the utilities. They have responded magnificently. They see the difficulties at first hand, and I am sure that they are ready for 31 December. I have no reason to doubt that they will deliver on the night.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

That answer prompts me to ask about Glasgow City Council's millennium operating regime and business continuity planning. The problems that arose a week past Friday, when we had two hours with no access to telephones, make me wonder whether the millennium contingency plan, which I understood had been tested, failed on that occasion. I would like reassurance on that point.

The other point that I wanted to raise is this. Will the minister consider inviting MSPs to the dry run of SILC for the media on 17 December to give us a better idea of what we would be phoning?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am happy to consider inviting MSPs. I do not know whether we will be able to accommodate both MSPs and the media on the same day, but I support the idea of MSPs attending. I shall discuss the matter of involving interested MSPs. It would be useful for all of us to see the physical context in which SILC will be operating.

We should not press too hard on Glasgow this morning. What is important is that we are going through a rigorous process, and I am happy explain the details of it to members. The local authority in Glasgow has a blue traffic-light status and we have no reason to doubt that it is ready. Again, I will give Fiona McLeod information about the process so that she can be reassured that what is happening in every other council in Scotland is also happening in Glasgow.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Will any millennium failures abroad have an impact on Scotland or the United Kingdom?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

In committee discussions in London, we consider up-to-date reports from all Government departments, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The United Kingdom is leading the world in the seriousness with which we are pursuing the matter. We are also the only country in the world to have conducted independent assessments. We are clear that we are moving forward on all the things for which we are responsible.

We also consider reports from other parts of the world. For trading purposes and for travelling, it has been critical to ensure that we have the maximum information so that we know what is happening. Of course, it is up to each country to pursue this with the vigour that we would expect of them. The information is positive—this is being taken seriously worldwide.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for his statement and for being so open in his responses to questions. The minister referred to ministerial responsibility. What sums have been earmarked for indemnity claims, in the event of the failure of any facility for which the Executive has responsibility? What provision has been made to put extra resources into departments to redeem such situations?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I do not think that the system works like that. We have been keen to act as the key co-ordinator in ensuring that public and private organisations are millennium ready. That demands an enormous amount of good will from the utilities and from the small and medium enterprises, which we are still trying to involve.

This is not a question of indemnity. It is about ensuring that every conceivable step has been taken to avoid disruption on the very important night when we move from one millennium to another. The objective has always been to get the systems and processes right, rather than to deal with Mr Davidson's points, however important they might be to him.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I want to raise again the issue of ministerial responsibility. SILC will be in full control from 6 pm on 31 December through to 6 pm on 1 January. Which minister will head that team, and which ministers will go to the street parties?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am sad to say that I will not be going to any street parties as I have drawn the short straw and will be on duty. [MEMBERS: "Aw."] I should have been able to elicit a better response than that feeble effort. [Interruption.] Is John Swinney suggesting that he wants to be there as well?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I have not been invited.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

With my ministerial responsibilities, that could be arranged.

The serious answer is that there will be duty ministers. I am in charge overall and will take overall responsibility, although, of course, the Scottish Executive takes collective responsibility. Other ministers, too, will be available, especially for areas such as the health service or the prison service, so that there is coverage. We will not isolate our civil servants without ministers, too, receiving collective punishment.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for his frank statement. Can he assure us—I know that this is not directly in his remit—that he has made representations to the Secretary of State for Defence about contingency plans for the Territorial Army in the case of dire emergency? In view of the letter that appeared last November from the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Donald Dewar, to George Robertson, saying that if the cuts to the TA went ahead, the TA would be unable to cope, can he assure us, as the cuts did go ahead, that there are other contingency plans in the offing?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Again, I am happy to give complete reassurance on those points. The Ministry of Defence has been actively involved in every step of the process of preparing for the millennium.

Governments, whether of the United Kingdom or Scotland, are very large. I have been very impressed by the degree of commitment and co-operation. Ben Wallace's point reinforces the fact that we are dealing with serious issues.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

If I were prepared to believe anything that the Executive told me, it would certainly be statements from Mr McLeish. [Interruption.] That was a compliment, Presiding Officer.

Can we be confident about the state of readiness when we learn that the Government leaflet to which the minister referred has been produced, at a cost of £9.4 million, in English, Bengali, Greek, Turkish, Chinese, Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Vietnamese, Arabic, Gujarati, Somali and Welsh, but not in Gaelic? Can the minister say whether the Scottish Executive was even consulted about that metropolitan omission? Even if Gaels can, by and large, read the leaflet in English, none the less the omission of even considering the Gaelic community is a millennium snub.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

That contribution stretches even my patience. I thank Fergus for helping my career to go downwards by congratulating me on the openness of my statement.

That said, this is not the time to think about snubs. It is not a snub; that is a cheap soundbite. We have tried to make sure that in every part of the UK those who do not speak English have the information. It is not a snub to Gaelic speakers to say that they speak English as well as everyone else. The document has been well received and explains in great detail what the problems are and how we can cope with them. I assure Fergus and the nation that there was no intent to snub in not having a box to tick for Gaelic.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We are all grateful for the statement. The minister said that every aspect of government has been covered and is millennium ready and that we are moving towards a disruption-free millennium. Why then are we spending three hours debating it?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I could give a number of answers to that but I will stick to the text. With 50 days to go it is important that we flag up that this is a crucial issue for Scotland. Beyond today every family will be preparing for Christmas and our eye might be off the ball. We are taking the opportunity in the Scottish Parliament, with consensus on the issue, to send a message that the Government is doing as much as it can. However, we still need to get through to the small and medium businesses where there is still progress to be made. I am sure that a large number of speakers will want to contribute to the debate.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I welcome the minister's statement. Will he explain why additional funding has been given to the police but not to the fire service?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

At the millennium there will be much more activity by the police. They discussed that with us and that is why the extra money was given. Any additional resources the fire service needs will come from within the service, but they are likely to be much more modest. Angus MacKay can give the member more detail on that when he is winding up the debate.

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

We are all likely to be struggling for a soundbite today—it is a very important subject but not dreadfully newsy. I want to ask about a matter that is not devolved, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority installation, Dounreay. What communication has the minister's department had with it and will it be supervised from SILC?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

There have been detailed discussions between the Department of Trade and Industry, the installation, the nuclear inspectorate and the Scottish Executive. We are millennium ready on all activities related to that facility and to nuclear power stations. Again, we are very pleased with the response we have had. I appreciate how important that question is in terms of public perception of potential difficulties, but again I give my assurance and I will provide Jamie Stone with further information on the discussions that have taken place.

David (None, Lothians)

We now move to the debate. If members wish to speak, they should press their buttons now.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I reiterate my thanks to the minister for his statement and for the information that he has given to members in his answers to questions.

The minister made an interesting remark that part of the preparations for the millennium had resulted from co-operation and effective communication between the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office. Bearing in mind the relations between those organisations during the summer, I hope that the co-operation has been more productive than the turf wars that we have read about in the newspapers.

The minister ended his speech on a happy note and with an encouraging tone, saying that we should remember the millennium not for disruption but for successful millennium celebrations. I am almost tempted to wish the minister a happy new year. He confirmed that he will be spending hogmanay at the Scottish information liaison centre, or at least be in contact with it. I suppose that that is the polite title for the Government's millennium bunker.

The minister said that there was to be a dry exercise for the media on 17 December. I have rarely attended dry exercises with the Scottish media, so I am intrigued to know what will be different about 17 December and the ensuing period, and whether it will be drier or wetter.

I am concerned for the minister with regard to his presence at the centre on hogmanay. It might be appropriate that he is not left to go to the ministerial bunker alone. He should be given ministerial company when he is there. He might find himself sharing the bunker with one of his colleagues who has been disrespectfully named Captain Mainwaring by one of the parliamentary diarists. If all the minister's preparations have been appropriate, I hope that at no stage does he have to perform the role of Lance Corporal Jones and rush around shouting, "Don't panic, don't panic." I hope that no one is there to perform the role of Private Frazer, telling the assembled company, "We're all doomed," although I can think of at least one prominent minister who could perform that task.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Name him.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I will not name him because it might help his career.

As each day goes by, I am surprised continually by the wide remit of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. The inclusion of preparations for 2000 and the eradication of the millennium bug take that remit a stage further, but raise the issue of how cohesive is the breakdown of ministerial tasks.

The minister is responsible for dealing with the millennium bug, but he is not responsible for the development of the digital Scotland strategy on behalf of the Scottish Executive. In a week's time there will be a debate on the modernisation of the Scottish economy, followed by a debate on digital Scotland. If there were a cohesive allocation of responsibilities in the Executive, it would be logical for the minister to be responsible for the preparations for digital Scotland, given that he is responsible for year 2000 compliance. I hope that in the summing-up we are told why the demarcation of responsibilities has not been done in that way.

On a number of occasions today we have expressed our concern at the lack of cohesion in the decision-making process of the Executive and at the lack of clarity of the direction given to key initiatives. The Executive is putting a great deal of energy into a multiplicity of technology initiatives, but there is huge concern in the information technology community in Scotland that the Government's work has proliferated. Fiona McLeod has raised that point in previous debates, and I am sure that she will raise it today, because it is important that people in Scotland with considerable expertise in information technology are confident that the Government has a clear sense of direction in that important policy area.

Let me be clear about the purpose of the debate and the approach that my colleagues will take to it. It is in no one's interest—despite my flippancy—to scaremonger or to try to imagine the unimaginable and suggest that anything might be likely to happen or might be in danger of happening. There must be recognition of the colossal task that has been undertaken in the public and private sectors to ensure that the disruption that might have happened is minimised. However, we must recognise that there are concerns in our community about any dangers to which our public services and facilities might be exposed because of the year 2000 issue. Our purpose is to pose some searching questions to the Executive, to inform the public about the approach that has been taken and to test the robustness of the assurances given by ministers.

One issue, which put the first note of concern in my mind, is the way in which the minister handled the points raised by Miss Goldie and Fiona McLeod on the sale of tickets at Glasgow City Council for the Scotland v England match on Saturday. There was a big problem with the telephone system, and Glasgow City Council's business continuity plan was not able to cope with a restoration of the service after the disruption.

That has happened within the past fortnight. It is only 50 days until the millennium, when there might be problems with the telephone network. The minister has told us that everything is okay and that business continuity plans are in place. However, we have that clear example of where the business continuity plan was in place and failed. It failed not just in Glasgow City Council, but in other parts of Scotland. This Parliament was pretty much incommunicado for a considerable period on the day of the ticket sale.

Anyone who saw the interviews given by the organisers at the Scottish Football Association ticket office, when they expressed great confidence in the telephone system shortly before the tickets went on sale, would have to ask genuine questions about the millennium compliance of Glasgow City Council, as it was not able to cope with that pressure on the telephone system. That is a serious issue, which has not been dealt with by the points that the minister made in response.

The Executive and the Government in Westminster have produced a range of interim reports that cover the range of services directly under the control of the Government. That assessment raises issues to which I will return in a moment.

First, I will raise a point about the scope of the Government's work. The Government community is now diverse, as it encompasses a plethora of organisations that deliver public services, which are increasingly remote from what would traditionally have been described as ministerial accountability. Those organisations deliver key public services, which the public expect will continue to be delivered. We need to know how comprehensive the investigation has been.

The minister opened his statement by referring to the Prime Minister, who

"accepted that, in practice as well as in theory, the buck stops with ministers to oversee the action being taken across the UK infrastructure by a range of bodies in the private and public sectors."

That highlights the broad canvas that the Government must cover. Having questioned the minister on that point, I was not reassured that the Government had taken the comprehensive responsibility that that statement by the Prime Minister implies.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Mr Swinney has made some interesting points, covering a wide range from digital Scotland to the Prime Minister's commitments. However, in a serious vein, I must make the point that we could have gone into a tremendous amount of detail this morning—three hours would not have been enough to deal with one department. I am happy to ensure that Mr Swinney receives all the details on how the independent assessment has been carried out. I would not like him, in his political or practical points, to undermine what we have done, because it has been a formidable task for Government departments and utilities. Without his knowing the full facts, which can be put at his disposal, it would be unwise for Mr Swinney to dent public confidence as a remarkable effort has been made, and the results have been positive.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I take the minister's point. The purpose of my speech, as I said, is to ask some searching questions on behalf of the public interest. If I am not here to ask searching questions on behalf of the public interest, I do not know what I am here to do.

It is important that we test what the Government has said. I will compliment the range of work that has been undertaken in a moment, but some questions need to be asked. It might be comforting to know that the Executive and the executive agencies are reported as having reached blue status, but the minister must reassure the Parliament and the country that all the vital services on which we depend are able to operate during the critical period that we are discussing.

I listened to what the minister said in his intervention and in his statement, when he made it clear that our infrastructure is in place. However, I refer him to a statement that the Deputy Minister for Children and Education made the other day, which posed a number of questions about the preparedness of individual schools for the millennium bug, despite the clean bill of health that has been given to local authorities.

I would like to raise four key issues. My first point relates to the focus on 1 January 2000. We talk about the millennium bug, the year 2000 and the millennium date change problem. However, there is a wider date discontinuity problem which, according to some independent experts, might affect the reliability of software for at least the first 30 to 40 years of the next century. We need to understand and appreciate what on-going commitments the Government has to continue the investigation that has been carried out into preparation for the millennium. I say that not to take anything away from those who have worked hard to bring us to the point at which we find ourselves today, but to ensure that we capitalise on the work that has been carried out and that the millennium date change problem is dealt with in the context of a general date discontinuity issue.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

When the Deputy Minister for Justice winds up, he will address the issue that Mr Swinney raised, but I want to make a serious point about his contribution. Mr Swinney is absolutely right. We are concentrating on the problem of the date change from 31 December 1999 to 1 January 2000. However, there are also problems arising from the fact that 1900 was not a leap year and 2000 is a leap year. That makes 28 February a critical point, as there might be problems with systems jumping forward to 1 March. Work is also being done in the United Kingdom and America on a discontinuity period that stretches well into the future.

I want to reassure Mr Swinney on three issues. First, the date change problem has been acknowledged. Secondly, it has also been acknowledged that there will be problems until the end of February. Thirdly, with experts in the field we will continue to oversee the longer period, so that the questions that Mr Swinney raised can be taken care of. This is a very important issue, which is why I do not want to give the impression that all we have arranged is a one-night sit-in to deal with disruption if it happens. The strategy is much wider than that and much longer in duration.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

That was a helpful intervention, and I appreciate the work that has been done to place the millennium in a wider context. That was exactly the reassurance that I was seeking from the minister.

My second point relates to the assessment of preparedness that has been carried out by the Scottish Executive. I have looked through many of the reports, which are comprehensive in their discussion of every aspect and facet of public service. However, they are heavily dependent on assessments that have been made by independent organisations acting on behalf of the Scottish Executive.

The minister has dealt with some of this already, but I would like to know what the arrangements were for selecting the consultancy organisations involved. What assurance can the minister give Parliament that a powerful and rigorous assessment regime has been put in place to test the testers of systems, to ensure that all tests have been carried out to the same standard and with the same effectiveness? We need to know where liability and responsibility rest if some fundamental points are missed, as there are potential problems. Obviously, we do not want anything to happen, but the Government has based much of its thinking on independent assessment work and I would like some reassurance about where that has come from.

My third point relates to availability of resources. From the papers that I have examined, it is clear that a great deal of resources have been expended on guaranteeing that assessment work has been carried out, and that that has absorbed a lot of public and private sector time. However, some key groups are involved. Elaine Smith raised the issue of the allocation of resources to the police forces. There has been such an allocation. The Metropolitan police have been allocated up to £176 million to cover the cost of policing millennium celebrations and dealing with year 2000 problems, but the Deputy First Minister announced additional resources for the Scottish forces totalling only £4.7 million across the country. That seems a little out of kilter with £176 million for the Metropolitan police, bearing it in mind that Edinburgh will hold one of the largest millennium celebrations in the world. I do not plan to obtain a hotel room in Edinburgh on 31 December—probably because I will be at the Government bunker, if the invitation is forthcoming—but I suspect that this city will be very busy. The allocation of resources does not seem to be commensurate with our emergency services' requirement for appropriate support.

The last issue that I would like to raise relates to the planning of contingency. In the Executive's reports, much has been made of the separate business continuity plans that have been developed. I fully accept the vital role that business continuity plans have to play in ensuring the survival of organisations, but will the minister ensure that the plans—which are part of good housekeeping in most organisations, whether in the private or public sector—will be updated regularly? That is particularly important in light of the fact that we might face issues of date discontinuity for a number of years at the start of the next century. Similarly, the millennium operating regimes must be updated regularly. As has been mentioned, the hazards that we will face this hogmanay might be repeated during the next four years. What are the Executive's plans for such eventualities?

While it is clear that many questions need to be answered—I am aware that the minister has already provided some answers—I am happy to offer the Executive the support of the Scottish National party for the work that it has done to tackle the millennium date change problem. I offer the help of the party in tackling any problems that might arise.

The millennium bug was never only an information technology problem. It is a business problem, a public services problem, a problem that has the potential to affect many aspects of everyday life. That is why I repeat the point that I made earlier: it is the Executive's responsibility to complete the job that it has taken on, to ensure that every level of support is provided to our services at the end of this year and that the work that has been done is built on so that any problems of date discontinuity are ironed out.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I thank the minister for his statement, which was full and reassuring. I am also grateful to him for the additional information that he has made available in the course of questioning.

There are many positive aspects of the statement and it is right that they be acknowledged. The Conservative party endorses the stance that the Executive is taking and applauds it for becoming fully prepared for what might be a significant problem, which has taxed minds all over the world. We are reassured by what the minister said about Loganair and Caledonian MacBrayne. I will welcome the more detailed information that he has undertaken to provide, on lighthouses and meteorological facilities. Loganair and Caledonian MacBrayne might find it difficult to operate without reassurance on those points.

The minister should also be commended for setting up the Scottish information liaison centre. It is critical that there should be a central point of contact for MSPs and other concerned people, so that they can find out about the approach that is being taken to deal with problems that might arise.

I was relieved to hear the minister say that the Scottish information liaison centre will not be a one-night sit-in—I was more relieved that it would not be a one-night stand. We acknowledge that we might all find ourselves on a learning curve from midnight on hogmanay. It is difficult to know what problems might unfold, and it is reassuring to know that the Scottish information liaison centre is structured to continue.

Although I have been positive so far, I must now change the tone of my remarks. I address not Mr McLeish personally, but his colleagues in the Government. I do not think that I am alone in being surprised that three hours of debating time in the chamber should be allocated to this topic. If we are as prepared as we can be to meet the challenge of the millennium bug, why are we having the debate? Would not a ministerial statement with questions afterwards have sufficed? If we are not in a state of preparedness and there are some dire and unanswered questions, we should be having an emergency debate on the state of Scotland.

In fairness to the minister, I think that the situation is not the latter, but the former. If that is the case, I allude to a matter that concerns my party and, more important, an audience outwith the Parliament. It is becoming apparent to many that the timetable of the Parliament is within the firm—and some would say dictatorial—grip of the Executive's parliamentary schedulers. I find it curious that while we have allocated three hours to the debate this morning, in yesterday's debate on homelessness we were reduced to a mere 30 or so minutes. That is despite the fact that serious doubts exist about the Scottish Executive's rough sleepers initiative.

I contrast that with previous instances in the Executive's programme. I think that I speak for many members in the chamber and beyond when I say that the people of Scotland would not just welcome a three-hour debate on drugs abuse, but probably would want us to be here for three days discussing the matter. Yet not once have we had a full session devoted to that topic. The public of Scotland would welcome almost a monthly debate on health. It is a huge issue, affecting everybody in Scotland yet, spasmodically, we are offered a debate when a particular issue arises that concerns the interests of the Executive.

I do not propose to pad out this speech by talking about something that—because of the good work done by the minister—does not merit being included.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I appreciate that we should be debating the important issues raised by Miss Goldie, but Y2K is about the preparedness of all our services to meet the problems that they might face. More important, we need the debate today. As we have learned from the statement, and the questions and answers, there are still issues to be addressed—we need to be sure that the Executive takes them on board.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I appreciate Mrs McLeod's comment and do not for one moment disagree with her. What I am saying is that this is a major issue that has been known about for a considerable period. In fairness to the minister—and I hope that I have made this point clear—it is the fullness of his statement that properly indicates the state of our preparedness. There are other aspects on which members might seek or desire clarification, but it should not take three hours to achieve that. My point is that in the context of the issues that matter to the people of Scotland, responsibility has been assumed for this; the minister acknowledges that. There has been full preparation.

It is the people of Scotland for whom the Parliament is supposed to exist. It has been called the people's Parliament, but I am concerned that it is becoming the puppet of the Executive, as it is not being allowed to breathe. It is not being allowed to debate the issues that matter to the people. We are debating the issues that matter to the Executive or, more important, Mrs McLeod, we are not debating the issues that the Executive does not want us to debate. Whenever there is potential contention or controversy, what do we have? We have a sidestep with an inquiry. Abolition of tuition fees? Sidestep it—appoint an inquiry. Demoralised, demotivated, depressed teachers? Set up an inquiry. I would rather have a debate in the full chamber, where the people of Scotland can see what is going on and be reassured that the highly paid members whom they have put here are attending to their interests, not the interests of a microcosm of powerful people called the Scottish Executive.

As I said earlier, I do not wish to pad this speech out with content that is superfluous to the matter in hand. If I have any concern about this, it is the one that I have just articulated, which is the amount of time being devoted to something that could have been dealt with adequately and competently in another manner, taking up far less of the chamber's time and—more important—freeing up time for debate on issues that are significant to the people of Scotland.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

After that speech, Miss Goldie has ruled herself out of the invitation to partake in the bunker on new year's eve. The Conservative party is represented on the Parliamentary Bureau; I take it that those objections were raised during the discussion about the business that would be put forward for debate today.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

There is a question about the seriousness with which the issues that Miss Goldie raised are being taken. I hope that the bureau will look at the record of that point in the Official Report , and of the point that I made yesterday on the amount of time available for the European debate, which was far too short. I remind Mr Lyon that the Executive—the people who run the place—has a majority on the bureau. That is not always taken into account when debate times are set.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Mr Swinney for that intervention. There is a fair degree of consensus on the amount of time that was allowed for the European debate, and I agree with the sentiments that were raised.

In general, I welcome the Executive's statement. There are several key areas on which we need further clarification and reassurance that we will not find our public infrastructure in serious difficulties on the night of 31 December. We also need reassurance that the challenges presented by the year 2000 problem are being adequately dealt with.

I welcome the minister's reassurances on Loganair and Caledonian MacBrayne. Those companies provide services that are important to the constituency that I represent. The last thing that we want is to have any questions over those two lifeline services—without them, we would be in a serious situation. Many of us would fail to get to the street parties that we would all like to attend.

I noticed that the minister touched on the question of industry in his speech. Action 2000 has been conducting quarterly surveys on the preparedness of industry, and its September findings showed that 27 per cent of small to medium enterprises have considerable work to do if they are to trade smoothly into the next millennium. Don Cruickshank, then chair of Action 2000, admitted that that figure was extremely disappointing. I wonder whether the minister can give us an update and further clarification on the progress that SMEs have made since the September announcement.

The Scottish Executive's year 2000 website states:

"The Scottish Executive, in conjunction with the providers of key public services, aim to ensure that there will be no material disruption to essential public services on 1 January 2000."

I am sure that we all welcome those sentiments, but, as the minister said in one of his interventions, 1 January is not the key date. Many of the problems will not occur immediately after the stroke of midnight. The potential consequences and subsequent failure and corruption of data files and processes might not arise, or be noticed, or take effect for some considerable time afterwards. There must be on-going monitoring of the effects well into the next year.

Will the minister clarify the qualification for and use of the blue, amber and red light standards to identify the preparedness of the national infrastructure for the year 2000? I am sure that many of us in the Parliament and beyond will welcome the assurances that the minister has given, that the vast majority of the national infrastructure is moving towards blue light status. I would like a little further clarification on exactly what blue light status stands for. My understanding is that it means that the year 2000 activities of the assigned industry or sector have been independently examined and endorsed by assessors who have not identified any risk of material disruption. That is a subjective statement. I accept that there is always the potential for something to have been missed, but I hope that the Executive will comment on the specific criteria used in awarding the blue standard to various sectors.

For example, the offshore oil and gas industry was examined by W S Atkins for year 2000 compliance. On 21 October, W S Atkins reported to the Department of Trade and Industry that, in applying the Action 2000 red, amber and blue colour coding system to its assessment, it could, with confidence, award the sector an overall 100 per cent blue for preparedness. However, the W S Atkins summary of its October findings states:

"There are a number of elements to be completed, such as the finalisation of remedial work, contingency plans, millennium operating regimes and final assurance/discussions with critical third parties. However, there was no indication . . . that any of those outstanding actions were not being properly managed."

I would like the minister to clarify what blue light status means. Clearly, the industry had not fulfilled all the requirements that the independent assessors were seeking.

It is clear, from the example that I have just given, that having blue light status does not mean that the industry has a green light to proceed into the new millennium. Several areas are still to be addressed. The distinction within the blue classification, between the sectors that have completed the work and the sectors that expect to complete the work, must be clarified.

David (None, Lothians)

Have you finished, Mr Lyon? You took me by surprise.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I have no more to say.

David (None, Lothians)

Before we move on to the open debate, I should like to say that, in order to accommodate everyone who would like to speak, members should aim to speak for no more than five minutes, rather than four. There is time for everyone to take five minutes.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

I welcome the minister's statement and the opportunity to take part in today's debate.

I know that some of my colleagues thought that the debate was strictly for anoraks—I was tempted to go out and buy one for the occasion—but the subject is relevant to everyone in Scotland. This is an important debate. I cannot agree with Miss Goldie that it was not necessary to hold the debate today or to discuss the subject for so long.

The work that has been done over the past year by the public and private sectors in identifying, testing and, where necessary, modifying all date-relevant computer software and embedded chips has been essential. If that work had not been done, the consequences for our society could have been severe. However, we are now able to relax and enjoy the millennium celebrations.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Although I endorse the member's sentiments of approval and appreciation of the efforts made by those involved in ensuring millennium compliance and public safety, I am at a loss to understand what difference the debate will make in any practical sense. What will it achieve to ensure additional compliance?

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

The debate sends a clear signal that the Government takes the issue extremely seriously. It is a further indication to those organisations that have not already taken action on the matter—in the SME sector, for example—that it is time that they did so.

As I was saying, now we can relax and enjoy the millennium celebrations.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Given Elaine Thomson's comments on the SME interest, does she agree that the lack of members in the chamber is sending out the wrong message?

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

We are having the debate and, if I ever get to say anything, we will continue to have the debate. I do not necessarily think that it is sending out the wrong signals.

I believe that the Government programme, Action 2000, has done its job very effectively; awareness in all sectors now appears to be high. All sections of the infrastructure have been checked over and can be relied on—they have blue status, which means that there is no risk of material disruption.

I know that the Y2K issue has left many people confused about what the problem is and why it poses a risk. As someone who, in the late 1980s, was working on non-year 2000 compliant systems, I perhaps have a clearer view than most. What has been demonstrated is the effect of the digital revolution that is all around us. The use of information technology is now a core activity. It is essential to the continued smooth functioning of many everyday activities in society.

There has been an explosion in the use of embedded chips in everyday devices. They are in lifts, washing machines, cars—you name it. Many organisations and companies simply could not function without the support of IT, and the infrastructure of this country could not continue to function without the underlying computer systems.

Some may claim that some of the work that has been done has been unnecessary but, without checking, we could not have been sure. Much of the software that was written 10 or 20 years ago was not expected to be still in use today. Over that period, there have been incredible changes in technology. The constraints in writing software 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago, do not exist now. Software was written using only two digits to indicate the year; it did not include the century. That is why we have the problems that we have now.

Today, almost all sectors have been checked and remedial action has been taken where necessary. We know that, after the new year, water will be safe to drink, food will continue to turn up in supermarkets, our money will continue to be in banks, and hospitals and Government agencies will continue to run and provide services as usual.

There has been a lot of hype around the year 2000 issue—with talk of pensions disappearing into black holes and planes falling from the sky. Those fears have been proved false. Last week, a headline in Computer Weekly, one of the main IT newspapers, said: "Y2K bug will be non-event, say IT directors". That is good news. It reflects the fact that the necessary remedial work has been done and that, in global terms, the United Kingdom is well prepared. Most organisations, as the minister made clear, have also put in place contingency plans to cope with any failures that may occur.

The scale and cost of meeting this challenge have been high across society. In the national health service in Scotland alone, some £45 million has been spent on year 2000 checks and on equipment replacement. Some 78,000 pieces of equipment have been tested, including 37,000 personal computers and 5,000 laboratory items.

Many employees of organisations such as hospitals and banks will spend hogmanay at work, ensuring that any problems that occur are identified and resolved as soon as possible. The oil and gas industry will be monitoring the situation across the globe through the night and feeding information back to the Department of Trade and Industry. Many organisations—banks and others—will be in communication with Australia and New Zealand, where people will know some 12 hours earlier whether any disruption is likely to occur. That will give us more time to take action where necessary.

I believe that the major problems in Scotland will be the ones that we usually have around hogmanay—not enough peanuts and one toast too many.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Like Elaine, I was worried that people would think that we were a pair of anoraks, but I am glad that the contributions so far have shown that people have thought about the problem and realised that it affects everyday matters and so should be a high priority.

I want to concentrate on the date discontinuity aspect of the problem. As John Swinney said, the so-called millennium bug is actually nothing of the sort. It is a problem that could recur intermittently on 1 April and 1 September over the next few decades up to 2035. The phrase "date discontinuity" better indicates the general nature of the problem and helps to identify what types of microchip could be affected. It especially helps us to appreciate that, whatever happens at hogmanay, the problem will not be over then but will resurface for many years to come. I ask the Executive what it proposes to do about those future critical dates—in his statement, the minister reassured neither me nor the chamber that any plans had been made to deal with the longer-term implications.

Such planning is important for Governments and local authorities. It is vital that organisations such as the utilities and emergency services are fully in control at all critical times. The BCPs that we have heard about—I thought that I would be the first to introduce acronyms—should be able to cope with whatever emergencies arise at the turn of the year. We all hope that there will be minimum disruption.

However, what will happen on the other predicted or potential critical dates? Will the same BCPs be effective in nine months' or two years' time? A good BCP tells an organisation how to keep its business running when problems of any sort arise. However, any management plan or routine left by itself will deteriorate over time. Although it is all very well to have emergency co-ordinating offices such as SILC—or, as I gather it is called, the bunker—in operation over hogmanay, if such date discontinuity problems arise in the foreseeable future, I have to ask whether the Executive has issued advice on on- going preparedness.

What is the Executive's advice to organisations which choose to switch off vulnerable systems or equipment over the millennium while we are all having a five-day holiday? What will happen when those systems are switched on after 5 January—after SILC has stood down—and they malfunction?

Although the millennium operating regime will probably work well over the millennium holiday, if too many organisations choose to suspend operation of vulnerable equipment at that time, many of them will find that they have only delayed the onset of these difficulties. That is worrying enough for the owners of small businesses. However, if there any chinks in Scotland's national armour and problems become manifest later, our preparations will have been inadequate.

The day-to-day emergencies suffered by our society can be uniformly addressed. We have a framework of legislation identifying the emergency services that can be called into play on occasions such as cases of fire or murder. As the date discontinuity problem could be with us for many years, the country must decide to cope with it in a similarly coherent and sustainable way.

Scotland needs to develop mechanisms to manage effectively and reliably its knowledge base—how we hold, distribute and analyse information. Furthermore, we need to develop and implement a national integrated information strategy to ensure that there are mechanisms to deal with problems when they arise and not just with such one-offs as the matter that we are discussing today.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

Like other MSPs, I welcome today's statement and debate on the preparedness of the Scottish infrastructure for the year 2000.

The year 2000 poses serious problems for all organisations and businesses that use computer systems and equipment containing embedded microprocessors. The use of computers and computer-based technology has become so pervasive over the past two decades that it is almost impossible to remember how we managed before. Indeed, I am part of probably the last generation to have gone through school without access to the computers that we now take for granted in the classroom.

The problem of year 2000 compliance lies in the fact that dates were stored in computer systems using only the last two digits of the year. For that reason, systems may fail or produce erroneous results in processing dates involving the year

2000. That would be bad enough without the fact that some equipment used by organisations is controlled by microprocessors that use date and time information to function.

When the year 2000 issue was first discussed, I imagined that I could do no better than stand outside my local bank autoteller with a wheelbarrow to collect the wads of cash that would spew out of the machine when the bank's computer system failed. Unfortunately, there are two major flaws in my get-rich-quick scheme. First, today's ministerial statement indicates that the banking sector feels completely year 2000 compliant. Secondly, given previous years' experience, the last thing that I will be able to do at midnight on hogmanay is to stand anywhere.

When I first heard of the potential impact of the transition from this calendar year to the next, I was somewhat sceptical. I thought it might be just another scam by computer anoraks—I apologise to Elaine Thomson and Fiona McLeod—to confuse the rest of us with their superior knowledge or to get a lot of extra cash out of us by pretending that there was a huge problem when there was not. However, graphic descriptions of planes falling out of the sky and heating systems failing in our hospitals soon led me to understand that there might indeed be a major problem that needed to be taken seriously.

It is clear from today's statement that local councils, the utilities and larger businesses have worked hard to ensure that their systems are year 2000 compliant. That will be an immense relief to everyone, particularly the more vulnerable in our society who would suffer directly if there were major disruption to our social or health care services.

It is particularly pleasing to hear that all local authorities made tremendous progress in the summer to ensure that there would be no material disruption to the infrastructure processes during the new year holiday. It is also reassuring to hear that most Scottish infrastructure is already Y2K compliant. I hope that those areas that are not yet fully ready—some of our smaller businesses, for example—will realise the importance of becoming compliant and will take the opportunity of the next few weeks to ensure that they are.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Like my colleagues on the SNP benches, I welcome the minister's statement. I am more than happy at the outset to acknowledge that preparations for the millennium and the provision of information to the public have been good and, largely, extremely reassuring. However, that is not an excuse for complacency. Fiona McLeod, among others, has raised issues this morning that forcibly bring home that point.

I want to concentrate on two issues. The first has been touched on by previous speakers and was to some extent addressed by the minister. The information provided to the public focuses almost exclusively on the millennium date change. Notwithstanding the minister's comments, there is a widespread public perception that, if we all wake up on the morning of 1 January next year and the world has not collapsed around us, the problem has been averted and there will be nothing to worry about. In fact, as Fiona McLeod outlined, the exact opposite is the case.

The date discontinuity problem could affect the reliability of software for 30 or 40 years after the millennium. The date change from 31 December to 1 January may not be the most problematic one at all. It would be reassuring for members of the Parliament and the public if the minister spent some time outlining how the Executive intends to deal with the problem in the longer term and to keep public awareness high enough to ensure that steps are taken to avoid or minimise disruption in the future.

The second issue is the generality of the information being provided to the public. We know that all 32 local authorities in Scotland achieved blue status in October this year, but we know less about the readiness of the different sectors within local authorities. The booklet that is dropping through all our letterboxes this week, for example, goes into detail about the issues affecting the health service, but mentions issues facing schools only in passing. I would like to think that that is because there is great confidence in the state of readiness of individual schools, but that may not be the case. Peter Peacock, the Deputy Minister for Children and Education, raised serious concerns among the public when he said on 8 November that

"it is important at this stage for schools to sit down and consider how they will work around any problems when they go back in January."

When the minister said that, there were 53 days to go until the millennium and it was little over a month until schools shut down for the Christmas and new year break.

The minister's statement can be viewed in one of two ways. It was either more than a little belated or it was unnecessary. Either way, the statement will have caused some panic among head teachers in schools around Scotland. School contingency planning should surely have been part of local authorities' millennium operating regimes and local authorities should have been required to demonstrate readiness before being given blue light status.

Schools face a number of challenges. Over the past couple of years, they have had an influx of second-hand and refurbished computers. I look to the deputy minister for reassurance that those computers have been made millennium compatible. Are we confident that science equipment, boiler systems and other electronically controlled equipment will not malfunction, either at the millennium or at any time in the future?

Those are important issues about which there was great confidence until the Deputy Minister for Children and Education issued his statement earlier this week, raising questions about the state of readiness in Scotland's schools. I ask the Deputy Minister for Justice to address the specific points that I have raised and, in particular, to outline the measures that will be taken to safeguard and monitor schools' contingency planning from now until the new year, so that we can be confident that Scotland's children can return to school in January without having to face disruption caused by the millennium bug.

David (None, Lothians)

I call Karen Whitefield, and apologise if I have to interrupt her speech at 11.00.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

The problem of the so-called millennium bug seems to have been with us for an eternity, yet many private and public organisations have left the bulk of their preparations until the last quarter of the last decade of the century.

I will not regurgitate the roots of the millennium bug problem, which have been sufficiently described this morning. However, we must learn from the past. What seemed like an insignificant memory-saving device in the 1960s—storing date codes in two digits—has had substantial and far-reaching consequences. For example, it has been estimated that the 15 largest banks in the United States expect to spend $3.5 billion preparing for Y2K.

The profound financial impact of what was, at the time, no more than short-sightedness demonstrates the ever-pressing need to evaluate the long-term impact of new technologies. I welcome the statement by the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and recognise the efforts of staff members in all sectors. It is only through thorough endeavours that we can say with some confidence that the Government's stated aim—that there should be no material disruption to the national infrastructure as a result of the millennium bug—will be achieved. It is important that the preparations have been thorough; it is equally important that they have been seen to be thorough.

There has been much scaremongering in the media about the apocalyptic consequences of the millennium bug, and it is important for that reason that we highlight the endeavours of various agencies in achieving the blue light rating. All 32 Scottish local authorities have met the criteria for that rating, as have the three Scottish water authorities and all sections of the national health service, the prison and fire services and the police.

I believe that the Scottish people can have confidence that public services will be functional on 1 January. Part of that confidence should stem from the knowledge that councils and other public and quasi-public bodies have made adequate contingency plans.

The problem of embedded systems will inevitably result in some disruption; the immensity of the problem makes that almost unavoidable. We must continue, however, to minimise the problem through the completion of proper inventories and the testing of equipment.

To conclude, I am confident that Scotland's largest millennium celebration under cover, Masters of the Millennium—which, coincidentally, will be held in Shotts and broadcast across the globe on the worldwide web—will be a raving success. The public address, lighting and internet services will have an undisrupted supply of electricity. The emergency services will be able to deal with those who have celebrated a little too enthusiastically and, the next morning, when it is all over, public transport will be available.

Two Minutes' Silence

David (None, Lothians)

It is now the 11 th hour of the 11 th day of the 11 th month. I invite members and visitors in the gallery to stand and join in the nation's two minutes' silence in remembrance of those who gave their lives in defence of the freedoms that we enjoy here today.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.

Millennium Date Change

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I acknowledge the moment. It is a credit to everyone in this Parliament that there has been such a large turnout for the two minutes' silence, which contrasts with the number of members who were in the chamber earlier in the debate.

Kenny MacAskill expressed some confidence in the minister's statement. He acknowledged that if there is a minister of integrity, that minister is indeed Henry McLeish. I will add to the minister's misery by saying that I endorse that view and that one part of his statement was endorsed in a most unusual way. He said that there were 50 days to go. When I looked at the Forth rail bridge today, I saw that the sign confirmed that. Minister, I guess that Railtrack also endorses you.

At times in his statement, the minister seemed to suggest that the new Labour Government found the millennium bug when it came to office, but that is not quite true. Elaine Thomson was right when she suggested that many people were working on the problem back in the 1980s. The problems that lay ahead were recognised at the time by the company that I worked with prior to my election in 1992. Organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses were well aware of the situation well before 1997, as was the Government of the day.

This Government appears to have done a reasonable job. It was important that it considered the issues as a provider of services and as a co-ordinator, and it has done that. However, it is a little over the top for the minister to suggest that the Government's approach is a first and that no such approach has been taken elsewhere in the world. It bodes ill for us, should that be the case, because we are part of an international market, as the minister and his colleagues constantly remind us. Karen Whitefield mentioned the worldwide web. If the rest of the world has not done its homework—as the minister seemed to suggest—that could mean catastrophe for British business.

Annabel Goldie asked whether we face catastrophic failure. My reply would be that we can be greatly assured by the fact that the Government is prepared to accept the buck; if it is prepared to accept the buck, it must be pretty sure that no real problems are lurking around the corner.

On a more serious note, we must first consider some of the public services such as the health, fire, police and ambulance services, not forgetting—I see that Angus MacKay is here—the Prison Service. The Government must offer guarantees on those areas. All those services are signalling blue lights to represent a symbol of confidence. I welcome the fact that blue was chosen as the colour that would give confidence and signify that all was well. That was surely not by chance, but simply because blue is the Conservative colour and we all recognise that Conservatives are always well prepared and organised. I suspect that there might be some division on that view, but this debate could do with a bit of contention. Perhaps that will do the trick.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I listened with great interest to Phil Gallie's comments about blue, the Conservative colour. If that means that the Conservatives are always well prepared, were they well prepared for disaster, as we are discussing in this debate?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We had 18 years to prepare for disaster. [Laughter.] We kept winning election after election; ultimately our luck had to run out and, of course, it did. I accept that as a factor.

I have mentioned some matters for which the Scottish Executive is responsible, but I warn ministers about some wider areas, such as the facilities that are managed by local authorities. We must also consider social security; I would like an indication that all is well there. We need look back only a few months for examples—such as educational pensions and national insurance issues—of the shambles that arose from the installation of new social security computers. I seek some comforting words on that.

I compliment the private sector, particularly the new private sector—the utilities—and wish to emphasise that it has poured millions of pounds into combating the millennium bug. If those industries had not been privatised, would the public sector have been able to find the money to address the issues? Electricity, gas, water and telecommunications are all essential to the interests of all our citizens well into the new millennium.

I compliment one particular company that I have been able to do a little research on. I do not have to declare an interest because I no longer have links with Scottish Power, but I know that it has advanced its clocks into 2000. I think that it is working on dates beyond March 2000, perhaps to overcome the leap-year factor. That is important from the power generation and systems point of view; it shows that people have looked ahead and that—in some of the major utilities—we can get through without feeling the bump. Very few people in the chamber will recognise that Scottish Power has achieved that.

I am also aware of the efforts Scottish Power has put in to cover the night of 31 December and the morning of 1 January. It has a few hundred staff standing by to supplement resources in all its facilities across the land. Additional resources have been put into call centres. I hope that—I suspect it will—the telephone system holds up, although Fiona McLeod suggested that it might not.

There is always pressure at the midnight hour on that night. This year it will be a special event, but I believe that telecommunications companies will be reasonably able to address the issues. I would welcome an assurance from the minister that the emergency telephone services will be kept fully available and that there is no chance of their crumbling at that time. What special arrangements have been made for the emergency telephone services?

Warning shots have been fired regarding small businesses, where there could be problems. I welcome the minister's apparent suggestion that in the circumstances there will be support into the millennium for small businesses and others.

I would like to welcome the additional £4.7 million of funding that has been put into the police. John Swinney mentioned a figure for the Metropolitan police that far exceeds £4.7 million. Mr Swinney may correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the figure for the Metropolitan police was for a year and was to cover a range of activities including civic visits and goodness knows what else. The £4.7 million here is for the millennium period, but I will stand corrected if that is not the case.

I would like to hear the Government's views on some of the disparities that might arise for those who will be working through the period of celebration. Special arrangements for additional payments have been made for a number of key workers in the private sector and the Government has recognised that there will be a need for special effort in the health service—additional support will be available for health service workers.

There are different circumstances, though, and in the public sector some of those differences could border on unfairness. I spoke to some firemen the other day. They will simply be working to contract. We know that they will provide excellent service.

Finally, I wish the First Minister well in bringing in the new year in the Scottish information liaison centre.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Much of the time one must admire Phil Gallie's brass neck—he and his strange old colours are great.

We accept that the feared general breakdown as a result of the millennium bug has been largely taken care of, but because all such things are run by and for human beings, one can never be too sure. Henry McLeish touched on the matter of the biggest party in the world, which is a staggering thought, both metaphorically and literally. It could be a really big party.

On a visit to Strathclyde police last week, I spoke to the director of operations. He was confident that all contingencies have been considered in the emergency plans. I was particularly worried that if something bad happened in one area, reinforcements should be able to move from another area. He was confident that that will be possible and that most of the awful things that might occur have been considered.

Henry McLeish also mentioned the climate crises that we have from time to time. Some members might recall bits of their roofs taking off on boxing day last year—£1,000-worth of my roof took off. Several days passed before I could do anything about it—without recourse to emergency services.

My concern is that if there is a conjunction of any kind of electronic failure, really bad climatic conditions and the biggest party in the world in all the town centres throughout Scotland, the services could be severely overstretched. For example, some police forces, such as Strathclyde police, are daily 350 officers short of their normal roll.

In the past—although I am not going to rake over it too much—the Territorial Army has always been ready to help. As Ben Wallace mentioned, Donald Dewar made an issue of that last year. The TA has provided signals communication when phone lines have gone down, specialised transport to get in and out of flooded areas and specialised bulldozers and equipment when that has been required. The TA has now been almost halved, and a lot of that specialised equipment has gone. I was a little alarmed that the minister did not touch on the military association at all, until Ben Wallace talked about it.

The regular forces have their communications lined up for the period, as they normally do in their major functions, and territorial troops—especially communications troops—have been put on standby. I would like to hear, in the Executive's summing-up, what arrangements have been made. TA commanding officers are often appointed military liaison officers to counsel emergency planning committees. I hope that we will be given some indication of the extent to which military liaison officers have been associating with their counterparts in the respective councils to make contingency plans against the awesome prospect of the biggest party going wrong and the climate turning severe at the same time.

There has been talk of Henry McLeish's title—the man in the bunker. When Sam Galbraith was leaving the chamber, he made big-headed gestures towards Henry McLeish as well, as if he was going to be the big-headed man in the bunker. As he will be the man in silk on hogmanay, he should probably be the man in SILC for the purposes of this exercise. I hope that he is confident. I am sure he will do everything he can to ensure that, should anything go wrong, either because of the millennium bug or because of climatic adversity, there will be enough reserves to cope.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. We have heard many good speeches. The openness and inclusiveness of the minister's approach, and those of the Opposition parties, has been helpful. We have touched on issues of which I was unaware, which has been useful, as was the minister's statement.

The issue that Annabel Goldie raised, of the time that is allocated to debates, is also interesting. I am sure that the minister will respond to that in his summation. However, some validity is lost when a member makes such a statement in the chamber immediately before they run out to brief the press on it. That statement would have had more validity if Annabel had waited for the minister's response.

None the less, we have heard of new issues—issues that we need to take back to our communities—especially about small or medium enterprises. I hope that local MSPs can play a role in their communities, when they are out on visits or undertaking work with the local newspapers, in ensuring that the issue is taken up by small and medium enterprises. We must ensure that they are listening to the advice from Action 2000 and in the mailings that have been sent out by the Government.

When a member is elected to Parliament—I have never been elected before—they undertake many visits. One of the visits that I undertook during the summer recess was to British Energy, whose headquarters are in East Kilbride. I had the chance to spend some time with the millennium officer. In such an industry, safety concerns are primary. I was heartened by the way in which British Energy has built in best practice for dealing with the millennium bug. It carried out an inventory of all equipment and identified that some 6,000 pieces of equipment would have to be investigated and analysed. That was done, and the execution of that procedure was verified.

An impact assessment was also carried out to identify the priorities, so that those that related to safety could be dealt with first. British Energy has passed all the requirements, which relate to the millennium bug, of the independent inspectorate that monitors its activity. That should give many of us confidence not only in the way in which the public sector is approaching the problem, but in the way in which recently privatised companies—of which British Energy is one—are approaching and dealing effectively with the problem through their own internal measures.

The supply chain of organisations that interact with British Energy must also be considered. All those companies must examine their activities for millennium compliance. It is reassuring to know that those matters have been considered. Action 2000 was useful to British Energy. Its independent assessment was carried out by the Office of Electricity Regulation, which has now been renamed the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—things keep changing. Most organisations have contingency planning mechanisms. That will also reassure us that the services and industries that we all take for granted will be ready for the event.

The minister mentioned Caledonian MacBrayne and Loganair and reassured us on matters over which there used to be a question mark. I have spent time with members of the Strathclyde police force, who are confident that they can deal with all the issues for which they are responsible. All the public services and all the private sector companies are coming together.

I echo Phil Gallie's concerns about payments and awards for the poor souls who will have to work over the millennium period. We should recognise their contribution, not just financially but in this chamber.

I welcome the open and inclusive approach that is being taken. This has been a useful debate. MSPs and the general public will learn from what we are discussing today. We are dealing not just with the transition from 31 December to 1 January, but with potential problems after that. I look forward to the minister's summation.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the calmness of this debate and the good-natured spirit in which it has been conducted.

I am reassured about many of the areas that the minister talked about, which is in contrast to the fear and alarm I felt the other morning, when I received a letter from my bank that told me in breathless and excited tones that, having put each of its independent experts on to my bank account, the money in my account would still be there after the millennium. It had not occurred to me that the bank was going to steal my money in the first place and I refuse to feel grateful to it for doing no more than a competent job.

However, I am rather more worried about one element of the Government's policy. John Swinney and others raised the issue of the difference between code blue and date discontinuity, asking what will happen after the millennium. There is a clear signal from this debate that the Government has not given a great deal of thought to what it will do about that. We asked about on-going monitoring, we asked about future network support, and we asked how we could build on the expertise the Government has rightly put together for the millennium, but we have had no answers.

I hope that, in summing up, the minister will outline exactly what the position is. Either plans exist or they do not. If they exist, he ought to tell us what they are. If they do not, he should be honest about it and tell us where the Government will go from here to ensure that plans are in place for the future. That should go some way to allaying the fears of Annabel Goldie, who felt that this debate should not be taking place at all and wondered what the point was. If the minister can give us a guarantee for the next 35 years after the millennium, perhaps there will have been a point to the debate after all.

Mr McLeish told Mr Swinney that perhaps Mr Swinney did not understand all the issues that are involved because he did not have all the information. It strikes me as somewhat odd to have a debate without first giving the detailed information required for a sensible discussion to take place. Either all the information should be made public so that we can examine it and have a proper debate, or we should not bother with the debate at all. The minister should not criticise us for not being fully informed on topics that he is not willing to tell us about in advance.

I have two specific points to make about health care. The first is a matter that I have been pursuing since September. I hope that the minister can now give me an answer. I am concerned about the millennium compliance of emergency medical equipment. On 1 April this year, some emergency medical equipment in the United States malfunctioned. That is a matter of great concern for people throughout Scotland.

What is meant by the national health service in Scotland being code blue? Can the minister guarantee that the problem of emergency medical equipment has been examined and that international comparisons have been made?

Public services must have the very highest levels of safety. It is simply not good enough to take a best guess at where the NHS is going. I want a stronger assurance than that.

The second issue concerns the prescription pricing division of the Common Services Agency. There was press coverage in August about a new computer system to cut down on the £10 million of fraud that is estimated to exist in that sector. If that computer system does not come in, there is a problem as the old system is not millennium compliant. In August, The Scotsman quoted an employee of the prescription pricing division saying:

"We were supposed to get the new system in February so they could test it and we would get trained by April.

Now they are saying that the computers will arrive in October. It has to be running by the end of the year because the old computers can't deal with the millennium bug."

I asked when the new system would be in place and was reassured that it would be by the end of December. At the end of December we hit the new millennium, so there is not much margin for error. I then asked what would happen if the division does not hit that target, and was told that there were contingency plans. Will the minister tell me today—or, if he cannot do it today, will he write to tell me—whether the system is guaranteed to be in place by the end of the year and, if not, what those contingency plans are?

People want to know that we can give as much of a guarantee as is humanly possible that health services will be protected throughout the millennium festivities and, indeed, up to 2035, as called for by independent experts.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Like most of my colleagues, I welcome the minister's statement on this important issue.

I am not an information technology expert and am just getting familiar with my laptop and with e-mail, which is becoming more popular by the day, so, as members can imagine, I found the concept of the year 2000 bug somewhat confusing. However, when I was told that some systems may not recognise 1 January 2000 or, as the year 2000 is a leap year, miss out 29 February entirely, even I could appreciate the complexities.

Although I might be delighted to get a break from the dreaded e-mail, there are obviously serious ramifications for vital services and our everyday lives. Whatever services we access, a computer or electronic system is likely to have been involved, most of which will use a year date system.

Such implications exist across the public and private sectors, but it would take more than a short speech to consider all of them, so I will focus on local government. Councils provide a wide range of services to the public, so the impact of IT system failure as a result of the millennium bug would be far-reaching and immediate.

Some of our most vulnerable citizens depend heavily on council services and could experience serious difficulties if any major problems were to occur in, for example, care in the community and the payment of benefits. Systems that could be affected include community alarm systems in sheltered homes and lift-monitoring systems in high-rise flats.

Councils also have a general duty of care to the public and are required by statute to develop and maintain civil emergency plans. Those plans are of particular importance now and must be ready to react efficiently and effectively to any possible occurrences.

Due to the serious implications of any system failure in local government services, preparations for 2000 began in May 1997. Auditors have monitored councils' preparations since then. In July, Don Cruickshank, chairperson of Action 2000, expressed concern that two sectors were still reporting a percentage of red, which meant that there was a residual risk to the aim of

"no material disruption to UK infrastructure due to the Millennium bug".

One of those sectors was local government.

To their credit, councils reacted positively to the matters that were identified as requiring action. The Accounts Commission's most recent review showed that councils had made considerable progress over the summer. As we have heard, all 32 councils are now blue, which means that the assessment has identified no risk of material disruption to the infrastructure.

It must be recognised that that progress is not the result of a few months' effort; it is the culmination of councils' work over a much longer period, with the assistance of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It shows that councils have acted on public commitments made by their leaders earlier this year to take effective action to beat the bug. Credit must be given to council staff for their hard work, dedication and professionalism. However, there is no room for complacency. Progress to date must be sustained to ensure that there is no disruption to vital public services. Councils need to continue with their excellent efforts up to and beyond the new year. As has been said, the threat of the bug will not disappear then.

There have been significant costs for councils, which the Executive has recognised and to which it has allocated an additional £10 million. It is also funding specialist units in COSLA to provide advice and assistance. I congratulate the Executive on that, but urge it to consider the actual costs for councils after audit, with a mind to revisiting the settlement if necessary.

Given the pervasiveness of computers throughout society, we cannot assume that nothing will go wrong, but the strenuous efforts made by local government and other public bodies and organisations have, no doubt, corrected the majority of potential problems. Furthermore, as the minister said, achieving blue status has required rigorous contingency planning to anticipate every conceivable failure.

I believe that the public can have confidence that, in the words of the Prime Minister,

"there will be no material disruption to essential public services due to the Millennium Bug as we go through the Millennium date change".

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I confess that, when I first heard of the millennium bug, I knew nothing about it and was as confused as Elaine Smith was. As a responsible and also nosy person, I decided to find out as much as possible. The Government leaflet has some astounding things in it—tips such as ensuring rubbish is out on time and taking a torch abroad as some countries do not have lighting at night.

One of the most frightening issues, which has not been touched on in this debate, is about Trident, the destructive nuclear missile on Scotland's shores. I tried to find out as much as possible about that and I would like the minister to answer these points.

The first is about the technology used in Trident. We know that the problem with nuclear weapons communications systems is made more difficult because it utilises millions of "embedded systems", that is, lots of little microchips and microprocessors that have been recycled.

"These embedded chips are a particular problem for the military. In order to keep the costs down the military have used 'commercial-off-the-shelf' chips (COTS) that are generic and may have time and/or date functions embedded within them".

That is a particular worry.

"In addition there is no general method for assessing Y2K compliance of software, chips or microprocessors therefore every system must be checked line by line and chip by chip in order to ensure compliance".

That will be a mammoth task.

I again quote from the facts and figures I have gathered.

"As of January this year only ten out of one hundred and twenty-five NATO Mission Critical Systems were thought to be Y2K compliant. Of the rest, 29 were not compliant, 4 were under investigation and of the remaining 82 nothing was known."

That is very worrying. I would like answers on that.

There is also an issue of staff availability. We know that the programme has slipped from a target date of January 1999 to December 1999. That is worrying. Again I quote:

"A 'Deterrent Millennium Task Group' was established to ensure the British Trident system is Y2K compliant but the MoD are not able to say how many people are working on the issue or how much it will cost because there 'is no separately identifiable central record'. The job of the Deterrent Task Group is to check 'the missile, the warhead, fire control, navigation, targeting' and other 'associated shore based facilities'."

In September 1998 the MOD review went on to state that

"the MoD might need to delay or stop activities/projects while attention and resources are focussed on Y2K",

that

"some systems might need to be abandoned in the short term pending resolution of the problem"

and that

"Shortage of skilled in-house staff is being identified as a potential risk to the programme in some areas".

Taskforce 2000 described the Ministry of Defence as being one of nine high-risk departments. The MOD has admitted that the findings of the report are correct.

"Taskforce 2000 have correctly recognised the scale of the problem facing the Ministry of Defence and the capability of our programme managers."

That refers to staff shortages, and I would like the minister to comment on that matter.

Let us look at possible consequences. It is extremely unlikely that a missile will be launched. I am not saying that anything like that could happen, but we could have a situation similar to one that has already arisen, which I will tell members about.

In 1993, the North American Aerospace Defence Command—NORAD—simulated a test out of curiosity. Technicians rolled the dates up to 1 January 2000 and the result was a total system blackout. That is a fact. I do not wish to scaremonger, but this is an important debate and that story is relevant. Trident is sitting on our shores, yet neither the minister nor anyone else has commented on the potential effects that the date change could have. I would like some answers from the minister.

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

I note that I address a crowded chamber. Last Tuesday, I did not go to my parliamentary party meeting, so members can imagine the great pleasure I felt when I found that I had been chosen to wind up for my party in this debate.

I am not a huge expert in information technology. The millennium bug will not bother me because I live on a croft in the Highlands. I shall be stocked up with peat and whisky, and the lights go out anyway because the wind pulls the power cables down practically every year. We are prepared for such problems.

On behalf of my party, I thank Henry McLeish, his team and his civil servants for a thorough presentation. I am impressed that Mr McLeish has offered to share information with those of us who have expressed concerns. It is correct that we have a three-hour debate on this matter. Notwithstanding the wise remarks that were made by the SNP, there has been a good deal of scaremongering on this issue, and we have a responsibility to keep that under control.

As an example, I note from a recent news headline that

"Japan advises stockpiling food for Y2K".

The report continued:

"Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi said that while essential institutions appear to have completed preparations to prevent any widespread confusion from taking place over the New Year, people should take precautions in any event since there 'may be small problems', Kyodo news agency reported. These precautions would include stockpiling food supplies as well as checking balances in bank accounts"

and so on. I am not sure that that was a responsible action for the prime minister of Japan to take. I am not privy to his reasons for doing it.

I am sorry that Miss Goldie is not with us because I must address some of her remarks. Perhaps her colleagues can respond on her behalf. When she said that it was wrong to have this debate and suggested that we were sidelining other important issues, she was wrong. This issue is hugely important. It affects everyone and every service so we are sending out the right note to Scotland by taking the time to discuss the issue today.

I wish to put one question to Miss Goldie. Perhaps Jamie McGrigor can put it to her. How many subject debates has Annabel's party requested in the Parliamentary Bureau? Mr McCabe informs me that the answer is a nice round figure; therefore, while I admire Annabel's adroitness in hanging a good soundbite on a shoogly peg, we should stick to the facts.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

If Mr Stone is going to make points of that nature—and I am not here to defend Annabel Goldie—could he advise Parliament on how many occasions the Liberal Democrat representative on the Parliamentary Bureau has voted against, or disagreed with, the Labour representative.

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

Fergus Ewing should put that question to Mr McCabe.

I thought that Mr Gallie's contribution was a positive one. However, I do not quite understand his logic in linking the privatisation of companies to being ready for the year 2000.

The point made by Andy Kerr was typical of what has been a good debate, with measured and thoughtful speeches from all parties in the chamber. That demonstrates the seriousness with which MSPs from every political party view the issue.

My colleague George Lyon referred to the problem of small and medium enterprises. I have been sitting here thinking about this issue, in particular about my brother who runs a small fruit and vegetable business in the north. I wonder whether he has done anything about his computer and is ready for the millennium. I think about him and the other little businesses that we all know and wonder how ready they are and whether they realise that they must get moving. I hope that the "Last Chance Guide" will encourage people to do so.

That leads me to the point that Henry McLeish made, which is that we, the 129 MSPs, certainly have a role. Between now and the millennium, we must go out and advise and help in our constituencies. That is one of the strengths of what Henry has suggested to us. We, the Scottish Parliament, can make a difference. I believe that we are prepared. We will have to roll up our sleeves as there is still work to do, but we have done a good job. It was summed up nicely for me this morning by a cab driver. I am using the private-eye technique of asking advice from cabbies.

The cabbie said to me, "Are you an MSP?" and I said that I was. He asked, "What are you talking about today?" I told him, "I have this tremendously exciting debate about the year 2000." He said "Och, the millennium is rubbish", although he used slightly stronger language than that. He then said, "Your computers will all work on the day. It will all be fine. I don't believe all those people who are putting around scare stories." That is the message that we should put out to the public. We have worked hard and there is more to be done, but it will be all right on the night.

I wish Mr McLeish a happy new year in advance. I hope that he will encourage Mr Lyon to join him in the bunker—I do not want to call it that; it is the control centre. On the Gaelic issue that is concerning Fergus, I suggest that John Munro can parry any Gaelic questions on the night.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Like other members this morning, I welcome the statement. I will go a little further and say that I applaud the Executive for the manner in which it has addressed this issue.

Millennium bug is a catchy phrase but it is misleading. It refers to a computer problem that is neither a bug nor anything to do with the millennium. The problem is caused by the calendar moving into a new century, not into a new thousand-year cycle. If computers had been invented 100 years ago, we would have had this problem in 1900.

Millennium moaners—I am pleased to say that we have not had many in the chamber this morning—have supporting evidence for their gloomy predictions that society will collapse because some computers will misunderstand the date in 2000. Senator Robert Bennett hit the right note when he advised citizens of the United States to prepare for the millennium in the same way as they would prepare for a hurricane. That means that we can expect short-term and isolated power cuts, delayed deliveries and temporary shortages, but not the end of the world.

Computer systems will not break down as soon as 2000 arrives. Instead, problems are more likely to surface when everyone is back at work and computers are used in earnest. The most common failures will be with security alarms, door locks, lifts, fire alarms, car park barriers and other systems with computer chips embedded in them. The sheer number of embedded controllers makes it impossible to identify and fix them all before the end of the year, so problems are inevitable but will not be insuperable.

I understand that China Airlines' top executives have been encouraged to fly at midnight on 31 December. In view of the experience of Mr Reid, the Deputy Presiding Officer, perhaps he would like to test the parliamentary lifts.

Fortunately, the millennium bug has not arrived unannounced and those responsible for running safety-critical computer systems have had time to test those and make corrections. I am reassured by today's statement. I would particularly like to praise the staff of the health service and local government on achieving blue coding categories.

I will now respond to Jamie Stone's criticism of Annabel Goldie. She was saying only that she does not feel that parliamentary time is being used properly. I trust that the Scottish Executive will take the opportunity to make a new year's resolution to address the issues that the people of Scotland elected us to tackle: health, education and housing, to name but a few.

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

Will the member give way?

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. We should not be spending three hours debating the millennium bug, when yesterday just 30 minutes were devoted to the issue of homelessness. We certainly did not have enough time for the debate on Europe. Many more people wanted to speak in one of the most interesting debates that we have had in this chamber. A ministerial statement, with questions, would have sufficed for this issue. It was noticeable that the questions finished at 2 minutes past 10; roughly the same amount of time was spent debating homelessness yesterday. We could have used the remaining two hours of this morning to debate issues that the public want us to address.

I am getting frustrated about the fact that people in the street and constituents keep coming up to me to ask when we are going to start addressing real issues, instead of all this politically correct business on fox hunting and section 28.

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

Will the member give way?

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. Only the other day, the Deputy Minister for Culture and Sport announced a further subsidy of £2.1 million for Scottish Opera, without reference to this Parliament. That is an example of the things that should be debated in this chamber. I do not recall any other debate here in which the Presiding Officer has asked us to extend our speeches. There have either been too many speeches, or speakers have been cut off. Today, we are going to make it to 12 o'clock, but we have spent far too much time on discussing this matter.

New year's eve 1999 marks the end of an era, not the end of the world, so let us sit back and enjoy the party.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I call Fergus Ewing to wind up on behalf of the Scottish National party.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

None of us in this chamber wishes to be churlish about the Executive's approach or to do less than congratulate all those who have been involved in protecting public safety in regard to the Y2K problem. However, I recall that someone once said that there were only two certainties in life: death and taxation. To those I would add a third: human error and fallibility.

My experience of life so far, for what it is worth, is that human error is difficult to avoid, and that when it arises, it is usually followed by further human error. When something goes wrong, it is very often followed by something else going wrong, perhaps as a logical consequence of the first error. As a technophobe among technophiles, it seems to me that technology is intermittently useful, but that when it malfunctions, all sorts of undesirable consequences arise. The concerns that have been expressed in this debate relate more to human error than to the lack of technological skill of those who have carried out the excellent work to prepare us for the millennium.

It is ironic that the minister referred to the reports that were issued on 23 July, 5 October and 29 October to members of this Parliament on the progress of millennium readiness, because on 29 October we saw human error at play in Glasgow City Council—not for the first time in that august body, one might reflect. None the less, it was a very serious error that has led to many people becoming dissatisfied—dissatisfied, on this occasion, at not receiving a football ticket. The error was one of lack of preparation. I imagine that the Executive will say that there have been the fullest of preparations for the millennium. As Mr Gallie pointed out, Mr McLeish has stated openly that the buck stops with him. Rather a dangerous statement to make, but one that we have all noted. We appreciate that, in a spirit of candour, he has accepted responsibly, and I praise him for it.

We have seen human error at play in a number of delays that have been highlighted by contributors to this debate. Sandra White has referred to the problems of staffing at the Ministry of Defence. Duncan Hamilton drew attention to the issue of the delay in securing system compliance from January to December. Elaine Smith talked about the preparedness of the fire service in relation to resources that were placed in the hands of the police. We have heard from Nicola Sturgeon about the preparedness of school computers. Each of those speakers made valid points, as did other members of all parties.

To delay in the accomplishment of something is a human failing. We are trying to guard against human error, which is an impossible task. Some organisations have been anxious to declare that they are millennium compliant and that they are at code blue when they are not. We heard today that one organisation that claimed to be at code blue was at code amber. Who among us is ready to issue confessions at any moment? Confession does not appear to be an instinctive human characteristic. I wonder how many of the organisations that claim to be code blue actually are.

None of us in this debate undervalues the efforts of those who have played a part in ensuring that public safety is preserved, especially in the health service. I am sure that John Swinney, Mrs Scanlon and Miss Goldie value those efforts. It is relevant to point out, however, that there are many issues that we all considered to be more pressing and more worthy of debate than the Y2K problem.

I am grateful that I have been allowed 10 minutes for this closing speech. That is twice as long as I have been allowed in this Parliament before. I do not know whether my material is up to the Herculean challenge of filling in all the time that I have. I am happy to take interventions, incidentally.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member agree that, while this debate is important, the debate is misnamed because the next millennium will not begin on 1 January 2000 but on 1 January 2001?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I was worried for a moment that I might have to agree with Mr Monteith, which I would not normally do. I accept, however, that he has raised a legitimate problem.

Another problem was raised by the speech which showed most technical knowledge, that of Fiona McLeod, who has had to leave the chamber to go to a librarians conference. She noted that the problem will not end on 1 January but will continue for decades. I must confess that I did not understand the reasons for that but I hope that the minister will enlighten me about the matter and reassure the public.

My habitual lack of confidence in the Executive's protestations was reinforced by something that I read this morning in that fount of all wisdom, the Daily Record. The story is headed "Don't be late dome" and refers to the fact that the grandest and most expensive project in the history of construction in the UK—the millennium dome—might have been infected by the millennium bug. It will not be ready by the deadline of 1 January 2000 that Mr Blair set. Construction should have been finished by the end of this month but five out of the 14 main exhibits will not be ready.

The SNP is not overcome with grief at the prospect that we may be unable to visit the millennium dome on 1 January. I can say with great confidence that such a visit on that date, or on any date in future, did not feature among the plans of any member of the 35-strong SNP group. We believe that the millennium dome could be the greatest waste of money that anyone could imagine. I am pleased to see the Scottish Conservatives nodding furiously, as I recall that a certain Mr Michael Heseltine dreamed up the idea in the first place. It is lovely to see devolution infect the ranks of the Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament and that they are taking a stoutly different line to their erstwhile London masters.

In all seriousness, there is grave concern in Scotland about money being wasted, especially on white elephants such as the millennium dome, which apparently will cost £57 a ticket. My constituents in Inverness have first to travel to London—a difficult enough task in itself, especially since the cancellation of the London to Heathrow link that is so important to them. They will have to spend a small fortune to visit—

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

Will Fergus Ewing tell us what that has got to do with 2000? I am getting a bit lost.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Thank you, Jamie. I am ready to accept other interventions, but only from Labour members who think that the millennium dome is a good use of public funds.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Will Fergus Ewing acknowledge that 800,000 tickets for the millennium dome have been sold? The festival of Britain, in 1951, was one of the most profitable enterprises ever undertaken. He should wait to see whether the millennium dome also turns out to be highly profitable as a showcase of Britain.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I am delighted that we are now having a real debate. We are stirring up some controversy. Those are serious points that, as we are having a serious debate, I will answer. The millennium dome is the major project in Great Britain, and if Tony Blair cannot accomplish that, can we have confidence in our readiness for Y2K? I think not. Its lack of readiness is what makes my point about the millennium dome relevant.

I had expected Richard Simpson's point to be raised. The Financial Times—a source that may not be as authoritative as the Daily Record—described a survey of whether newsagents in Scotland have yet sold any tickets for the millennium dome. I may be wrong, but I understood that no such tickets have been sold in Scottish newsagents. While I am happy to be an optimist like Richard, I fear that the project is suffering.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Scottish newsagents have not sold any tickets because they have not been asked to sell them.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Perhaps the newsagents believe that there is no demand. I am sure that Mr Harding would know more about that than me.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is it called the millennium dome because it is planned to be ready for 1 January 2001? Would tickets be sold if the Glasgow call centre was used?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Brian has produced even more helpful suggestions in this debate.

I raise this matter for two reasons: first, it shows that human error is here with us; secondly, we have spent three hours on the matter, when there are far more serious issues that we could have debated. There is no need for me to list those issues.

We all recognise that this is a serious issue and have said as much, while poking a little fun at the Executive, which I hope that it can take. Mr McLeish, in particular, is able to take a joke better than others whom I will not mention.

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

Name them.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

No, I am too much of a gentleman to do that—at least not in such a public forum.

We support the efforts of all those who have helped to prepare for public safety in Y2K. We remain unconvinced that this debate has been a useful expenditure of time in the chamber, and hope that the minister, Mr MacKay, will answer the serious points that have been raised by members of all parties.

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Despite my expectations, we have had an interesting debate this morning. We opened with some knockabout from Mr Swinney on the theme of "Dad's Army", to which I will return. We had mention of anoraks. We have had the spectacle of Mr Gallie being unable to distinguish between Kenny MacAskill and Fergus Ewing, which I found highly entertaining, although I do not think that Mr MacAskill found it quite so amusing.

We had speculation on the colour blue signifying dependability in a code for disaster. While the Executive has responsibility for planning for the millennium and avoiding associated disasters, I do not think that we would be willing to take responsibility for disasters on the scale of that which befell the Conservative party in 1997. Mr Gallie might take that to heart as he reflects on the importance of the colour blue, to which I will return later on.

There are a number of characters in "Dad's Army" that Mr Swinney did not link with anyone in the chamber, but Mr Ewing's contribution put me in mind of Mr Hodges, the genial grocer with the ARP hat, whose purpose in the programme seemed to be to rush about and complain a lot, to no evident purpose. A further point to make about Mr Ewing's speech is that, although he disparaged the millennium dome in graphic terms, he should be gracious enough to acknowledge that it provided substantial padding to his otherwise rather thin closing speech. If no other purpose is being served by the dome, it has at least contributed to Mr Ewing's speech.

Mr McLeish outlined succinctly the reports that we have had from the various organisations responsible for providing Scotland's essential services. They are ready to deliver the Government's promise of business as usual over the millennium period. That is positive news, and I hope that all members have been reassured by the scope and depth of the assessment procedure that has been outlined. Notwithstanding my opening comments, I would genuinely like to thank all members for this morning's discussion and for the points that were raised. I will return to the subject of the quality and length of the debate later on.

I also hope that members will forgive me for not addressing every single point that was raised during the debate. I will be happy to write to members on any points that I omit, and I am sure that Mr McLeish will also be happy to answer any points that are raised between now and the millennium, and beyond.

Before I refer to some of the specific matters that have been raised, it would be useful to recap some of the general themes that have informed the debate. First, it is worth summing up the scale of the undertaking that is now nearing completion. Since the national infrastructure forum was established in 1998, the work of over 10,000 organisations that are responsible for the delivery of essential services throughout the United Kingdom has been assessed. Blue status—to which I shall return—has been granted only when the most comprehensive investigation and testing of service provision have been undertaken; it includes an audit of how organisations have prepared for the millennium period and of the contingency plans in place to cope with any problems that might occur. Those points are worth stressing. Each organisation has been independently assessed. That subject was raised during the debate, and I will return to it in a moment.

It is true to say that no other country has matched the breadth, scope and rigour of the assessment that we have carried out to a common standard. That has been acknowledged by many of the other countries that are thought to be at the forefront of Y2K testing, including the United States and Holland. I am sure that members will join me in praising the spirit of co-operation and information sharing that has characterised the process thus far.

Scotland is inextricably linked with the wider UK, Europe and the rest of the world, and the reports that we have received reflect only the UK situation. Some services, however, such as telecommunications, transport, finance, post and weather forecasting are also dependent on activities outside the United Kingdom. Those areas are, by definition, outwith the remit of this Parliament, and in some cases that of Westminster; they are also those which have been highlighted in recent press stories.

I would like to take the opportunity to reassure members that organisations that have significant international links will continue to collaborate with and monitor the readiness of their international partners as part of their Y2K programmes and prudent business practice. Those are the very issues that contingency plans need to address.

At this point, it is worth pausing to observe that UK-wide arrangements take account of the rolling period in which the year 2000 changeover takes place. New Zealand is the first place that will experience the year 2000 changeover. In advance of the date change taking place in this country, there will be direct liaison and communication with other countries as the year 2000 starts to affect—or not—business-critical systems throughout their public and private infrastructures. That should provide us with additional reassurance that any unforeseen problems can be picked up as they impact in other countries in advance of hitting the United Kingdom.

I now want to refer to some of the matters raised this morning. Members made several useful and important points, which I shall address in no particular order of importance. The issue of our nuclear deterrent was raised earlier. The nuclear deterrent has been thoroughly checked. The Ministry of Defence is absolutely clear that there is no risk of the nuclear deterrent being used or detonated accidentally through computer failure. Beyond that, the United Kingdom has been assured by all other states with nuclear weapons that their nuclear weapons will be unaffected by the year 2000 problem. In addition, they have also given assurances that robust command and control arrangements and contingency plans are in place. I hope that that addresses as clearly as possible the concern raised in the debate.

Nicola Sturgeon raised some specific points on schools. School computers have all been secured and checked. I discussed the matter with my colleague, the Deputy Minister for Children and Education, immediately after Nicola Sturgeon raised the point. Nicola's comments took statements made by the minister out of context. He was speaking at a conference at Liberton High School—I am delighted about that, because the school is in my constituency—about the need finally to double-check the systems that are not under the direct control of the school, but which could have an impact upon it. That was the last in a long series of steps taken over the past two years; it was not the beginning of a programme.

That demonstrates the comprehensive nature of our approach. We are not coming late to the subject and are leaving nothing to chance.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I welcome the minister's comments; I am sure that they will have a reassuring effect. I do not know whether he has had the opportunity to read the statement that was issued by the Deputy Minister for Children and Education on Monday. If he has read it, he will have to admit that the context in which the statement was placed was not the one that he has just described. The context in which it was placed was likely to give rise to some disquiet in Scottish schools. Will he tell us what steps have been taken to ensure that planning is in place—including planning on the aspects that are not directly under the control of schools—and that it will be monitored to ensure that schools do not suffer disruption?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The categorical nature of my response should have set everyone's mind at rest on the specific questions that had been raised. I would be more than happy to write to Nicola Sturgeon about the details of how those problems are now being addressed. I stress that those concerns have now been addressed in full.

A question was raised about the national health service. A great deal of information is available, and I would be happy to arrange to provide written answers to the specific points raised by Mr Hamilton. The Prime Minister's adviser on year 2000 issues has discussed the preparations for Y2K compliance with the Scottish Executive and the NHS in Scotland on two occasions. He was so impressed with the thoroughness of those preparations that he recommended that the Scottish Executive should be a model for best practice in the UK. Again, I hope that that directly addresses the concerns that have been raised, but I undertake to communicate with Mr Hamilton on that specific point.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I accept the minister's comments on education and health. However, earlier on, I emphasised the massive cost involved—especially for private industry—in implementing measures to protect against the millennium bug. Can the minister give an overall figure on how much such measures have cost the Scottish Executive in protecting the health service, the education service, the police and fire services and so on against the millennium bug? Where precisely has that money come from? Can he assure us that it has not come out of main service areas?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I do not have those figures immediately to hand, although I will be delighted to communicate with Mr Gallie about them. I am not sure what specific purpose it will serve, but I am more than happy to do so. I will also be happy to outline some of the benefits that have accrued from the exercise, because there have been some clear benefits for public and private agencies, beyond addressing the year 2000 problem. I will say a little more about that in a moment or two.

The issue of independent assessment was raised in the debate. Responsible organisations, some of which have been mentioned today, have had assessors appointed that were the most appropriate to vet those organisations. For example, local authority assessment has been carried out by the Accounts Commission for Scotland, which is appropriate, because the commission has a series of statutory functions and has a relationship with local authorities. The arrangement allows for an informed approach to vetting the business-critical systems of the local authorities.

For the electricity industry, the Department of Trade and Industry appointed the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. For police forces, the Scottish Executive appointed Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. Those bodies have track records of understanding and vetting the business of the organisations that they are assessing. They were given the remit of assessing the business-critical systems.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the minister say a little more on that point? I have noticed in some papers that the chief inspector of prisons for Scotland has carried out the prisons review, which comes within the minister's direct responsibility. All the organisations that carried out independent assessments had access to additional specialist technical and technological information, which might not have been part of the mainstream audit and supervision process of the Accounts Commission or the chief inspector of prisons, for example.

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

It is fair to say that most of those organisations will have a range of in-house expertise. However, I will be more than happy to research the details and respond directly to Mr Swinney to assure him on that point. It is important—the public want to be assured that the assessors knew what they were doing when they were making the assessments.

SNP members referred to the Territorial Army. The TA has been directly and heavily involved with local strategic working groups. There have been regular meetings at Army headquarters and Scottish Executive level, to ensure a proper dovetailing of preparations. The issue of military involvement has been extensively and exhaustively discussed at the civil contingencies committee at UK level. The representatives of the military bodies and that committee have given assurances that the Parliaments will be able to deal with all scenarios other than the most extreme ones that we are unable to foresee. The Army has given assurances that it will be able to assist the civil authorities in trying to cope with any circumstances that might arise as a result of the millennium date change.

Blue, as the colour for clear preparedness, was used in preference to green so that it was not seen as meaning "all go". Blue indicates that, using all available data, and the results of the inspection, no risk has been identified. That does not mean that there will be no problems, which is an important distinction. However, work will continue up to and beyond 1 January. Private and public businesses have been asked to develop business continuity plans, and by and large they have succeeded. Those plans specifically aim to address the scenarios that might be unforeseen in the vetting of business-critical systems for a blue pass.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am glad that the minister has put on record the clear and important distinction between no risks being identified and no incidents occurring. How does that distinction relate to the firm commitments on ministerial responsibility and accountability that Mr McLeish made in his opening remarks, when he quoted the Prime Minister and said that the buck stops with ministers over the identification, supervision and management of risk?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Scottish ministers are absolutely responsible for ensuring that the Scottish Executive moves forward with the utmost preparedness for foreseeable risks and that such preparations happen with due consideration of the assessment of business-critical systems. We have done that. I do not see how any reasonable person could articulate an alternative approach.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

rose

—

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

If the member wants to comment on that, he can do so later.

I want to make a further point about code blue. Code blue is a mark of robustness for the responsible body. For example, Caledonian MacBrayne received an amber rating because of the failure of one winch on one ferry. Although a compliance certificate was obtained, blue status was not given until further tests were completed. In all circumstances, the responsible testing authorities have been asked to ensure that blue status can be given only once compliance is fully achieved. There are stages to the vetting process.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The minister has made another clear distinction, which should be recognised in Parliament. Ministers see themselves as responsible and accountable for any risks identified in the vetting process. If, after blue status is given, an incident happens that is beyond the vetting processes of organisations acting on behalf of ministers, ministers will not accept any responsibility for such events.

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I have probably given way to Mr Swinney for the last time in the debate. I am happy to have given him the opportunity to make his position clear. I will now move on to other issues, particularly date discontinuity problems after the year 2000 changeover.

The Executive has reminded organisations about the internationally agreed dates that are likely to cause problems. As for the issue of longer-term dates that was raised by several members, some equipment will simply have to be replaced.

The civil contingencies committee has recommended that the Government departments and other non-departmental agencies concerned should use the experience and expertise that they have gained throughout the planning process—particularly with regard to business continuity plans—to create an on-going system of testing, review and re-review of plans and business-critical systems. I expect that that scheme will roll out beyond 2000 to address in advance any glitches that could recur after the year 2000 problem.

Although there have been costs in ensuring compliance and in addressing foreseeable problems, significant benefits should accrue to a number of agencies through ensuring the continuity of their business in all unforeseeable circumstances, not just at the millennium changeover.

The police force and fire services were also mentioned in the debate. The police force will certainly be stretched by events such as millennium parties and parades. However, as the new year is generally a quiet time for the fire service, there are no plans to have extra fire service staff on duty at that time, although staff will of course be on call should there be an increase in incidents.

The police and other emergency services have enhanced their own call-receipt facilities for the new year and have clear contingency plans in case of dislocation of service across the country. It is important that the public use the 999 service responsibly. That will assist the emergency services in carrying on through the new year without exceptionable circumstances.

The issue of the problems with ticket sales at Glasgow City Council was raised. I do not propose to deal with that in any great detail, other than to say that most of the problems were caused by blockages at the organisation's switchboards. The problems that occurred, for example, at the Scottish Executive, were caused by the volume of outgoing calls from the Scottish Executive. At Glasgow City Council, the problem was the volume of incoming calls. In both cases, the problem was the volume of calls to and from specific switchboards, which is unlikely to be replicated at the new year, when traffic will, largely, be personal.

It should also be stated that the problem in that case was caused by the fact that most of Scotland and substantial parts of England were trying to phone an individual organisation for a very specific purpose. At new year, a range of different organisations, local authorities and other emergency bodies will deal with any contingencies that arise. Advanced discussions are on-going about the availability of telephone services across the United Kingdom. Telecommunications companies are playing a full, constructive and active part in those discussions, which should give reassurance that services will be available during the new year period in all foreseeable circumstances.

Another issue that was raised during the debate was the Scottish information liaison centre. The centre is being set up because most people will be on holiday during the period for which the centre will be in existence. Most people will almost certainly be back at work after 31 December and 1 and 2 January, so local authorities and utilities will be functioning normally and normal operational procedures will be in place. Should there be any need for contingency plans to be implemented because of unforeseen circumstances, the Executive has ensured that there will be continuity and that the functions of the SILC can continue and feed into a national infrastructure. I hope that that puts members' minds at rest about the Executive's capacity to function beyond the start of the new year.

Before I move to my conclusion, I want to address one more specific point that was raised during the debate. One of the questions that was asked was whether we should have had this debate and whether it should have been allocated three hours. Because of the thoroughness of the approach that has been taken throughout the United Kingdom and in Scotland, I believe that most, if not all, foreseeable circumstances have been addressed. One of the few things that is left to fear about the date change is panic among the general public because of a lack of confidence in the ability of business-critical systems to operate. Such systems will operate, I am sure.

This debate, at least in part, aims to address the general concerns of the public. Reports of the debate will reassure the public that the everyday services on which people depend will be in place. That is critical. It does not take substantial imagination to predict what would happen if members of the public felt that, for example, autotellers would not operate after the start of 2000 and for some time afterwards: there would be a rush to withdraw cash from autotellers, which would present all sorts of problems for the continuity of normal civic life. That is unlikely to happen, precisely because of the measures that have been taken. However, that must be communicated to the public, to reassure them on that point and on all others that might worry them.

Members of the Parliament have a unique opportunity to ask the very questions that members of the public might ask were they able to take part in today's debate. Many members have taken that opportunity. By answering their questions, I hope that we have addressed any fears that the general public might still have.

The debate is also an opportunity to remind small and medium companies in Scotland that still have work to do that they must check and double-check their preparedness for year 2000 compliance. If that saves money—and in turn jobs—and protects the interests of Scottish business, industry and services, I make no apology for having this debate or taking this length of time over it. The issue of whether other matters are being debated sufficiently is one that would be best raised in other circumstances and at another time.

I hope that I have dealt with most of the questions that have been raised in the debate.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Could the minister give us an assurance about what his party is doing to ensure that the poor people of France can eat Scotch beef at their millennium parties?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Returning to reality, I would like to speak about an issue that falls within my portfolio.

Despite the best, most thorough efforts that have been made in the utilities, in private sector and public sector services and in industry, the possibility remains that a dislocation of services could take place to an extent, because of a variety of factors, including the weather, the celebrations, the millennium bug or a combination of any of those.

One of the most troubling year 2000 myths has been the notion that, after 1 January, everything will be all right, and that that is the seminal date on which everything—or nothing—related to the year 2000 will occur. It is critical that all organisations remain vigilant against the possibility of a longer-term slow degradation in service and function. I hope that all enterprises will take note of that.

We are very fortunate here in Scotland: we have excellent emergency services, backed up by the local authorities, the health sector, voluntary agencies and many other organisations, all of which have considerable experience in dealing with the incidents and emergencies that might prevail. While the millennium will undoubtedly be an enormous celebration here in Edinburgh, for example, City of Edinburgh Council and Lothian and Borders police have had three or four years' experience of dealing with substantial street parties. I expect that that will give them thorough preparation for dealing with any problems in this city. That experience has been extended to other parts of Scotland, particularly the other cities, to help prepare them for their own millennium celebrations.

Sophisticated procedures are in place to scale up any necessary response, including mutual aid to and from the military if that is appropriate. That facilitates the major objective of a return to normality as soon as possible, should normality be departed from.

In recent years, we have had problems with freezing, storms, snow and flooding, but have always managed to cope with them. It is important to acknowledge the potential for complications arising from the number of celebrations taking place, but the public, by and large, have conducted themselves sensibly and astutely throughout previous new year celebrations, and I see no reason to believe that anything significantly different will occur this time.

Ministers have an important role and will, as Mr McLeish mentioned, be on call over the millennium period, not just for the date change but before and after that period. I reassure Mr Swinney that a trawling exercise is taking place at the moment for the availability of a number of ministers. I am not sure whether that will quite extend to an invitation to Mr Swinney to join Mr McLeish on some one-night stand somewhere in the Scottish Executive—Annabel Goldie somewhat floridly took us down that path earlier. Ministers will certainly be available and on duty.

The emergency planning community is ready at all times to respond, as it has done in the past. Ministers have every confidence that the people of Scotland will not be let down, whatever situation may arise. We are geared up, through the SILC and the comparable arrangements made in Whitehall, in full readiness for the millennium and whatever may ensue.

I am sure that there will be no need for any extreme responses. The thorough Y2K preparations have minimised the possibility of issues arising from the bug, and it will be business as usual. I hope that members will take the information learned in the debate back to their constituencies and to the organisations with which they are in regular contact, to send the message that further vigilance is required, but that people can be reassured that the Executive is doing everything in its power to prepare Scotland for the 2000 date change.

Business Motion

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-266, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme.

Before asking Mr McCabe to move the motion, I advise members that the Presiding Officer has accepted a request from the Executive for a ministerial statement this afternoon on temporary sheriffs. The statement will be made immediately after open question time.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees the following programme of business— Wednesday 17 November 1999

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Debate on an Executive motion on Childcare Strategy followed by Parliamentary Bureau motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Debate on the subject of S1M-219 Phil Gallie: Proof of Age Card Scheme Thursday 18 November 1999

9.30 am Ministerial Statement on Publication of draft Ethical Standards in Public Life Bill followed by Debate on an Executive motion on the Modernisation of the Scottish Economy followed by Business Motion followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Question Time

3.00 pm Open Question Time followed by, no later than 3.15 pm Debate on an Executive motion on Digital Scotland

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Debate on the subject of S1M-189: Michael Matheson: Pollution of Bo'ness Domestic Water Supply Wednesday 24 November 1999

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Debate on an Executive motion on Social Inclusion Targets followed by, no later than 3.45 pm Debate on an Executive motion on Land Reform followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 25 November 1999

9.30 am Debate on a motion by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party followed by Business Motion followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Question Time

3.00 pm Open Question Time followed by Ministerial Statement on Freedom of Information followed by, no later than 3.45 pm Debate on an Executive motion on Carers' Strategy

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business— [Mr McCabe.]

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

No member has asked to speak against the motion, so I shall put the question.

The question is, that business motion S1M-266 be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Subordinate Legislation

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Mr McCabe to move motion S1M-257 on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (North Coast) (Scotland) Order 1999 (SSI 1999/125) be approved.— [Mr McCabe.]

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The motion will be decided at this afternoon's decision time.

Question, That the meeting be now adjourned until 2.30 pm today, put and agreed to.— [Mr McCabe.]

Meeting adjourned at 12:30.

On resuming—

David (None, Lothians)

Before we begin, I inform the Parliament that, following the court decision this morning, I have accepted an emergency statement on the subject of temporary sheriffs.

Question Time — Scottish Executive

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is satisfied with the physical state of hospital buildings in Angus and what plans exist for their modernisation and replacement. (S1O-601)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The national health service estate in Angus is considerably older than the average in Scotland. That is one reason why the NHS in Tayside is working to design modern and high-quality acute services that will meet the needs of the population of Tayside now and in the future.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Will the minister ensure the production of a programme of new building and the modernisation of Angus hospitals as a matter of urgency? Will she state whether, in principle, she will allow the resources to do that?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I congratulate Mr Welsh on his tenacity in questioning me weekly on this issue. I am absolutely determined to ensure that, both in Tayside and throughout Scotland, the process of local acute services reviews—which are on-going—will result in an improvement in services to the people those facilities serve, and that an appropriate balance is achieved between local access and quality of service. I stress that, although we are investing in new facilities—and I am sure that that will happen in Tayside—it is important to remember that services are not only about bricks and mortar. As we move into the 21 st century, I shall ensure that quality services are provided in all the different ways.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide a breakdown of the specific areas to which the £3 million pledged to the domestic violence service development fund will be channelled. (S1O-587)

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The distribution of expenditure from the domestic abuse service development fund will be determined by the success of individual local authorities in bidding for grants. Full bidding guidance will be developed and circulated very shortly.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I do not want to take anything away from what the minister is doing in this area—£3 million is very welcome. Would she consider putting resources into some preventive methods, simply because prevention, in many cases, is much better than cure?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I advise Mr Paterson that the full package is £8 million. We are putting money specifically into the three Ps—prevention, protection and provision.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the announcement by the Prime Minister on 25 October 1999 about the transfer of functions from the Secretary of State for Scotland to other ministers of the Crown, whether it or any Scottish public body was consulted on this transfer of functions. (S1O-569)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The allocation of functions in the UK Government is a matter for the Prime Minister. Where any transfer of function affects the responsibilities of the Scottish Executive, we would be consulted.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Does the minister accept that the transfer of responsibility for telephone tapping has implications for the police service in Scotland? Will he accept that there is a strong case for the First Minister to be consulted on those matters and to be given his rightful place?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The transfer of functions was primarily concerned with national security. I assure Lord James that the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland), Government departments and all relevant agencies were consulted on that transfer.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the Scottish Executive to detail any known statistics on the incidence of violence towards ambulance staff in the greater Glasgow area. (S1O-582)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Data collected by the Scottish Ambulance Service show that, in the two years for which statistics are available, the number of incidents of violence to staff in the west central ambulance service were as follows: 17 in the year from 1 September 1997 to 31 August 1998; and 26 in the year from 1 September 1998 to 31 August 1999.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Does the minister agree that ambulance technicians and paramedics are not equipped to anticipate violence at the scene of an emergency but often experience violence, and that some personnel suffer serious assaults and find it hard to return to work? Will the minister undertake an investigation into the issue, considering such matters as a new statutory offence and the use of protective clothing and counselling services? Will she also join me in welcoming the members of Canadian public services unions who are here today?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I can give an absolute assurance that I am committed to ensuring that the safety of ambulance personnel is at all times secured. As the member will be aware, steps have been taken in west central Scotland in the light of recent incidents. I am also working with a range of individuals and organisations to see how safety for workers in the Scottish Ambulance Service and throughout the NHS can be improved.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it proposes to assist the rural economy. (S1O-596)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The Executive is committed to supporting and enhancing all aspects of rural life in Scotland, including through the development of a sustainable rural economy. A wide range of steps is being taken as part of the programme for government.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Is the minister aware of the anger felt by many hundreds of farmers throughout the Highlands and Islands who were led to expect that they would receive financial assistance under the agricultural business improvement scheme? Is he aware of the specific, unequivocal written assurance that was made on 18 February 1999 in a letter to Jim Wallace by Lord Sewel, the then agriculture minister, that any upsurge in applications under the scheme would be met? Is he aware that there is a deep sense of betrayal among farmers who have spent thousands of pounds expecting to receive the money and who will now be let down by the Executive?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

First, I want to put the matter into perspective. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter; it is a serious issue. By the end of last year, 4,598 farmers had benefited from the agricultural business investment scheme and some £14.5 million had been expended on it. The total amount allocated to the scheme under the original objective 1 Highlands and Islands agricultural programme was £23 million. In no year until now have there been any more than £4.5 million-worth of applications. Since August of this year, we have received 3,900 applications, totalling £22.6 million.

Although I am now aware of the letter sent by Lord Sewel, I was not privy to it and I cannot determine the basis on which he gave that undertaking. I am now faced with a programme where, under HIAP, I had £1.2 million available and I have now received £22.6 million-worth of applications. What I am trying to do first of all is to take—

David (None, Lothians)

Is your first point your only point, Mr Finnie?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am sorry. I am coming to the final point of my answer.

I will try to take account of Mr Ewing's very point in considering how to deal with people who have expended money in making their applications. I will also consider the prioritisation that must be given to the scheme. I am examining other schemes to see whether there is any prospect of finding other moneys to meet the need, although I do not want to raise any hopes.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

To ask the Scottish Executive which organisations have already given evidence to the Millan commission and on how many occasions the commission has met. (S1O-551)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I understand that the full committee reviewing the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 has met seven times and has received written submissions from 130 organisations in Scotland in response to a consultation document that it published in April. In addition, more than 160 responses have so far been made to a leaflet issued by the committee, which was particularly designed to obtain the views of users and carers on mental health legislation.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The extent of the response to the Millan commission is interesting. When will the initial report be published? Will there be a second round of consultation? What is the time scale for the completion of the commission's work, which will allow us to deal with important aspects of mental health legislation?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I acknowledge Mrs Ewing's continuing interest in this matter. I believe that it was in response to a parliamentary question that she asked in another Parliament that Mr Galbraith first announced the Millan commission.

Clearly, the progress of the commission's work is its responsibility, but I am happy to report that 1,000 copies of the consultation document have been distributed. As I mentioned, a leaflet for users and carers has gone out. Various visits have been made to day-care services and psychiatric institutions and there are public seminars this month. The commission plans to produce a further consultation document early next year and we expect it to report to Scottish ministers in summer 2000.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to bring forward proposals to replace multiple surveys with a single "seller survey" in the residential property market. (S1O-592)

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

In the programme for government, we undertook to seek to improve the house-buying process in Scotland. We are currently examining whether market-led solutions can achieve our objectives. We will decide, in due course, whether there is a need for legislation to achieve our objectives.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Through the press I have become aware of internet-based schemes. Does the minister agree that such schemes, delivered by a single company, would be difficult to access throughout Scotland and would leave the buyer ultimately liable for the cost? Would not a single survey that is paid for by the seller be a fairer and more cost-effective method of helping people to pay for surveys on homes that they will never buy?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

It would, of course, be unacceptable to rely on a single commercial concern. We expect that a wide variety of firms will come up with solutions to the problem of multiple surveys.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many times the First Minister has met the Secretary of State for Social Security since May 1999. (S1O-565)

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I have had no formal meeting with the secretary of state but I have kept in touch with him and discussed matters of contemporary interest on a number of occasions.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As this is armistice day, will the First Minister agree that we should use this opportunity to express our gratitude to our pensioners for everything that they have done for our country? As a way of expressing that gratitude, will he make representations to the secretary of state on behalf of our pensioners and ask him to think again about the pittance of an increase—75p—that was announced on Tuesday? Will he point out to the secretary of state that our pensioners are paid far less than their German counterparts, whom they beat in the war, who get pensions of £181 a week?

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I regret that Alex Neil has invoked this day of remembrance and then made an extremely partisan point. I do him the credit of thinking that he must know that that comparison with Germany is not like with like. Germany does not have the kinds of occupational pensions structures that we have in this country. Therefore, he is trying to draw a very incomplete comparison.

We all want to improve things for pensioners. I remind Alex Neil that this Government has helped the poorest pensioners by introducing the basic minimum pension guarantee, which is very important to the poorest pensioners. I also remind him that there was a wide welcome for the £100 winter payment, which we have just learned is to be a permanent feature, and that there are free television licences for the over-75s. That is distinct evidence of this Government's commitment to tackling the problems of pensioners—the Government will further tackle them through the introduction of stakeholder pensions. I hope that Alex Neil will pay tribute to that.

David (None, Lothians)

That whole exchange was in danger of being out of order.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-2044 by Donald Dewar on 1 November 1999, what measures it intends to implement to improve on its present performance by giving a substantive answer to all parliamentary questions within the 14-day period. (S1O-584)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

In my answer to Dr Richard Simpson on 2 September, I announced our intention to undertake an audit to promote effective dissemination and efficient use of resources. There is an obligation on all members to consider relevance, costs and how their actions impact on efficient service to other members.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Answer the question.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Ill-considered questions place a strain on the public purse and lead to a deterioration of service to other members.

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

I am not sure that I welcome those supportive remarks.

I thank the minister for his robust and characteristic reply. Many questions are given a holding response and some of the questions remain outstanding after that for quite a long time. For instance, four weeks after a holding response there were 37 outstanding—

David (None, Lothians)

Mr Stone—

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

Could the Scottish Executive, with the civil service, try to clear some of the ones that have been longest outstanding?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

There is an on-going attempt to make more efficient use of resources. In that light, I urge members and their assistants to make full use of SPICe, the Scottish Executive website and the websites of executive agencies.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

We are asking too many questions—is that the problem?

David (None, Lothians)

Order.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many people in Scotland have been assessed as in need of long-term care and are currently in hospital awaiting placement in residential and nursing home care. (S1O-564)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The latest estimate is that in the 35,500 staffed NHS beds in Scotland there are 2,015 patients who have, for a variety of reasons, waited two or more days for discharge. Some, although not all of them, will be awaiting a care home placement.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Thank you. Given that virtually all those people are in acute NHS beds awaiting funding packages from local authorities, and local authorities claim that they do not have the funds needed, will the minister tell us what steps he is taking to ensure that the necessary funding is put in place to end not only the blocking of the acute beds but to ensure that our frail elderly get the appropriate care that they desperately need?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I have given this answer before—the responsibility for resolving that problem in the short term lies with health boards and local authorities working together. Last Friday, the two health ministers met the most senior members of staff from every local authority and every health trust in Scotland, bar one, so that we could make exactly that point, among others—that it is they who must resolve the problem.

There is a problem of information, however. There are 40 possible reasons for delayed discharge; the point under discussion is one of them. A pilot exercise is looking at ways of securing consistent, coherent data to enable us to find solutions to delayed discharge instead of placing blame for it.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware of what plans local authorities intend to make to provide technical support in schools to assist teachers in the light of the provision for information and communications technology for schools through the excellence fund. (S1O-575)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The majority of authorities plan to use some of their excellence fund resources to improve technical support for ICT in schools.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Teachers, like all MSPs, welcome the increased use of IT in the classroom, but there is concern that inadequate support will be available in terms of training and technical support for teachers, who are already expected to wear a variety of hats—

David (None, Lothians)

A question please.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

—and learn a variety of skills. It is essential that they are given the proper back-up—

David (None, Lothians)

A question.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

—but there is concern among teachers that they are not going to get it. Will the minister give an assurance that he will put the teachers' concerns to the local authorities?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I recognise this as an important issue. It is up to each local authority to make detailed arrangements in their area. Guidance issued by the Executive as part of the excellence fund in relation to the national grid for learning stresses the importance of technical support for computers in schools for the reason that Richard Lochhead raises. I am taking a particular interest in this matter and I know that, in the member's area, Moray Council and Angus Council have put services out on a managed-service basis and that Aberdeen has eight extra members of staff working on it. Efforts are being made, but I intend to keep the matter under review.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has made to Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the Scottish economy benefits to the same extent as other areas of the UK from the placing of Ministry of Defence contracts. (S1O-580)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Scottish Executive takes every opportunity to promote the interests of Scottish industry to the benefit of the Scottish economy, including through regular representations to the UK Government.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

In the light of that answer, will the minister explain why, in the most recent financial year, Scotland—which has 8.7 per cent of the UK population—received only 0.42 per cent of MOD research contracts and only 5.7 per cent of MOD defence contracts, resulting in huge losses to the Scottish economy?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Colin Campbell quotes selective statistics. On the basis of the most recent figures available, total defence expenditure in Scotland—approximately £1.9 billion—supports 55,000 jobs directly and indirectly. Clearly, defence expenditure is substantial and important to our economy. UK Government figures for 1997-98 show that the number of people who are employed in Scotland as a result of defence expenditure on equipment contracts is proportionately the same as that for the whole of the UK. Of course, current SNP policy would ensure that large chunks of defence spending would come to a halt overnight, with the loss of thousands of Scottish jobs.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The minister has failed completely to answer my specific question on contracts.

David (None, Lothians)

If I call a member to ask a supplementary, that supplementary must be a question, not a statement or argument.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in discussions with the European Commission to relax or modify the regulations relating to the control of infectious salmon anaemia and what further meetings with the Commission are currently proposed. (S1O-552)

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Following representations from the Scottish Executive, the European Commission published proposals on 21 September 1999 for amendments to the directive that defines the measures that must be taken against ISA. The proposals were given a sympathetic hearing at a council working group of veterinary health experts on 19 October and will now go to a meeting of Community chief veterinary officers later this month. Meanwhile, the views of the European Parliament are being sought. We will continue to maintain close contact with the Commission on these important proposals, particularly in view of the discovery of ISA infection on six Scottish fish farms and in some wild fish last week.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Does the minister accept that the discovery of ISA as far afield as the River Tweed shows that it is a wild disease and that therefore the outcome of the current eradication policy will be simply to eradicate the whole Scottish salmon industry?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

This is a serious issue. We fully appreciate the importance of 6,000 fish-farm jobs to some of the remotest locations on the west coast, in the north and on the islands of Scotland. Tavish Scott is right. The recent evidence of the identification of the virus on six farms, including some in his constituency, and the identification of the virus in some wild fish raises serious considerations.

As he would expect, we are considering this matter urgently and we are working on options for a more flexible approach to the control of the disease. It would be better for all concerned if we could get rid of the disease. I expect to make a further announcement around the end of the month.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to extend the existing provision for exemption from prescription charges to include sufferers from life-threatening conditions such as cystic fibrosis and asthma. (S1O-599)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

We have no current plans to do so.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Is the minister aware that, when the exemptions were decided on, the drugs that are currently used to treat cystic fibrosis had not been developed, so the condition did not fit the criteria that were used? As the British Medical Association accepts, if the guidance were to be applied now, cystic fibrosis would meet the criteria. Moreover, the number of people who would be granted exemptions would be small.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am aware of a number of the points that Mrs Mulligan raised, and I am happy to give detailed written responses to each of them. However, I stress that the subject of prescription charge exemptions is complex and sensitive, and regular representations are received on behalf of many groups.

There was a recent review of this matter at UK level but there is no consensus among clinicians on any changes to the system. However, I am happy to comment further on the points that have been raised and to look at how we can improve services and support generally for sufferers of cystic fibrosis and their families.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-1660 by Mr John Home Robertson on 6 October, whether it has considered any detailed representations from the fishing industry about the financial impact of the ban on scallop fishing and whether it now plans to give any compensation to scallop farmers who have no means to diversify into any other forms of business. (S1O-583)

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

The Scottish Executive has considered representations from the industry and we share its concern about the continuing need to restrict scallop fishing. We have concluded that compensation for the consequences of natural phenomena could not be justified. However, the problem of access to alternative fisheries will be considered at the next meeting of the Scottish inshore fisheries advisory group. We also understand the impact of the restrictions on scallop farmers, and I hope to meet representatives of the industry shortly.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

I thank the minister for that reply. I am sure that he will appreciate that many of the scallop farmers are self-employed so do not qualify for state benefits. Because of the extended ban, they have suffered financial hardship to the point of bankruptcy. Will the minister and his colleagues in the Executive seriously consider lifting the ban, with immediate effect, on all scallop farms where the toxin levels recorded are below the permitted levels on two successive tests?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I stress that the prevention of amnesic shellfish poisoning is primarily the responsibility of the Minister for Health and Community Care. Our scientists are working hard to monitor levels of ASP toxin. I am advised that restrictions can be lifted when they are satisfied that the contamination falls below 20 μg of domoic acid per gram of fish. I am delighted that restrictions were lifted from two scallop farms on Skye on 13 October. I understand that applications from two more farms are making good progress. We must protect consumers from the risk of this disease. That is in the interest of the consumers and the fishermen.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what meetings have taken place between it and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport over the issue of digital television as it affects Scotland. (S1O-604)

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The Scottish Executive has ensured that the UK Government is aware of the importance in Scotland of firm guarantees on coverage of digital television.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

That was not the question. At those meetings, was the minister made aware of the UK Government's policy of switching from analogue transmission to digital transmission the moment that the majority of the United Kingdom—not Scotland but the United Kingdom—can be reached by digital television? Is the minister aware that that could create a digital desert in the Highlands and Islands, where the coverage of digital television is not extended? Will he guarantee that there will be no move to digital television until there is blanket coverage in the Highlands and Islands, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The undertaking is that analogue transmission will not be switched off until coverage is at least as good as it is at present. Mr Hamilton will be aware that at present there is not universal coverage of television in Scotland. I am having discussions to investigate whether there is any possibility of extending that coverage. Some of the people who are not covered, but who will be, will be more than 75 years of age. In the light of the chancellor's recent announcement about the licence fee, that will ensure that they not only get coverage, but get it for free.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Is the minister telling us, for the first time, that coverage in the Highlands and Islands will be the same as it is in every other part of the United Kingdom? If he is, that is a major announcement, which I welcome.

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

If Mr Hamilton listened to me instead of preparing his next question, he would have heard me say that there is an undertaking that analogue will not be switched off until coverage is at least as good as it is at the moment. That is a firm undertaking.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to reconsider the geographical boundaries of health boards to take account of recent health reforms in Scotland. (S1O-556)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

We have no current plans to reconsider the geographical boundaries of Scotland's health boards.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Will the minister assure me that health boards will be encouraged to demonstrate best value, openness and accountability in the planning of services for the populations that we represent?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am happy to give Margaret Jamieson that assurance. Now that there is a new structure in place in the national health service in Scotland—one based on collaboration rather than on the competition of the former internal market—I am keen that, along with those improvements, we should have the highest possible standards of accountability at a local level throughout the NHS.

Open Question Time — Scottish Executive

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the First Minister last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues they discussed. (S1O-593)

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Matters of common concern.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

In that case can the First Minister explain the speech he made this week in Haddington, which was reported as either warning his Liberal coalition partners to bow down on tuition fees or warning the Parliament's committees to bow down to ministers. What he says about his Liberal partners is a matter for the First Minister, but will he accept that the role of parliamentary committees is not to make life easy for ministers, but to hold the Scottish Executive to account on behalf of the people of Scotland?

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I do not know whether Alex Salmond has had the advantage of reading my speech.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I have.

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I am delighted. In that case, he will know that it was a speech in which I went to considerable time and trouble to demonstrate the importance that I attach to the effective working of the committee system. It is one of the characteristics of this Parliament and a mark of the deliberate effort to alter the balance of power between legislature and executive. It is a very important opportunity, and one that this Parliament cannot afford to miss.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The speech was interpreted as the First Minister expressing concern that some members of the Scottish Executive were finding life hot in front of committees. In that case, the solution might be to change the members of the Executive, rather than to change the committees.

In his speech, the First Minister said that some would argue the House of Lords should be a revising chamber for this Parliament. Who would make the ridiculous suggestion that a chamber in which the only elected people are hereditary peers and the rest are Tony's cronies should be a revising chamber for this Parliament, which is elected by the people of Scotland?

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

There is always a danger of arguing by caricature. Alex Salmond should wait to see what the revised composition of the House of Lords will be before jumping to assumptions. At the end of the paragraph that he cites, he will see that I reject the argument for a revising chamber and suggest that effective and properly operating committees are one of the best safeguards against that kind of thesis. I hope that no one will object if I say that the speech was subtle, in the sense that it dealt with the way in which this Parliament works and ought to work. No one is more committed than I am to making it work. I do not interpret the speech as a criticism of individuals. It was a useful contribution to a debate, and I am delighted that it has attracted so much attention from so distinguished a source.