Plenary, 11 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Thursday, November 11, 1999

Official Report 791KB pdf

---

Millennium Date Change

Resumed debate.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Will the member give way?

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.

Will the member give way?

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.

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

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.

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?

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—

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

Name them.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.