Hansard

I endorse everything that the cabinet secretary—and Mr Henry—said on the scope, scale and range of services in which we have such confidence and pride. The extraordinary efforts of so many throughout Scotland are always made without fuss or celebrity; the hallmark is the professional, exemplary and compassionate way in which those involved go about their jobs.

I lodged the small but slightly significant amendment that is in my name for one reason only. I was shocked by the events last week in Paris, as we all were, and I reflected that our history is peppered with such incidents. They are always very much of the moment, but we can go back 100 years and find similar examples of incidents in which services were brought to bear on behalf of the public.

We depend in large part on an anonymous body of people: those who provide the intelligence that can potentially prevent such atrocities from happening in the first place. We have at GCHQ in Cheltenham a world-leading intelligence-gathering operation in which many Scots have assisted in providing services that are vital to the protection of the public beyond Scotland’s boundaries. That work is not just keeping us safe in Scotland; it is recognised as contributing to keeping others safe way beyond our country. We will probably never know who those people are, and we can really thank them only in absentia.

Our tradition of intelligence began at Bletchley Park. By coincidence, I noticed that a book on Bletchley Park was published just this week: “The Bletchley Girls: War, Secrecy, Love and Loss—The Women of Bletchley Park Tell Their Story”. I was impressed to find that there are quite a few Scots still living who were among those responsible for providing that intelligence and security. They include a constituent of mine, Lady Jean Fforde, who lives on the Isle of Arran. She was in hut 8 with Alan Turing—of whom she speaks fondly—working on providing the vital intelligence that saved lives throughout the whole United Kingdom.

Lady Jean Fforde amusingly relates that such work is incredibly dull, repetitive and unrewarding for those at the coalface, because they often do not know what they have discovered for others to interpret. I was amused by one incident that she related, which involved a German who was coding messages and who was so uber loyal that, unfortunately, he signed off every communication with “Heil Hitler”, which of course gave a magnificent way of decrypting everything that he said. I am sure that that was not his intention.

I thank Lady Jean Fforde. When I met her, I had no idea what she had done, because the hallmark of many people who have been employed in capacities of which the public are less aware is that they are so unassuming about the contribution that they have made that they do not mention it or make a fuss about it. It is probably only through thanking them in absentia that we can do justice to all that they do.

We could talk about a long list of people in this regard. There are the armed forces, of course, which assist in many ways—whether it be through adding to the complement of those who kept people visiting this country safe during the Commonwealth games or responding to the call when a bomb or suspected explosive device is discovered. There are also animal health people, who suddenly come to the fore when there is a crisis in that field.

Hugh Henry touched on those who are not in the emergency services but on whom the public depend—those in the public utilities, telecommunications and transport who step in with the same hallmark of professionalism, often at great inconvenience to themselves, to do something that is way beyond anything that they would naturally have to do. We have only to think about the isle of Arran two or three winters ago to remember how paralysed that community was by the weather that came and the extent to which the community totally depended on the efforts of the people who stepped forward to restore services, which thereafter kept people safe on that island.

More recently, when the First Minister had to take hold of the Ebola incident, we depended on the Royal Free hospital in London to step in, because it is the United Kingdom resource centre for providing the services that are necessary for Ebola cases. As we know, that situation is on-going.

Despite all that work, as I pointed out in the recent recess, there is an underbelly that is not quite so attractive. Six times a day, somebody in Scotland thinks it worth their while to make a hoax call to call out an ambulance crew. Six times a day, somewhere in Scotland, somebody thinks that that is a worthwhile pastime. Any of us who have made a 999 call know that the process is quite sophisticated. There are qualifying questions, so people who make hoax calls go to elaborate lengths to maintain the fiction that wastes the time of those who are called out. A hoax is often apparent only when the services present themselves at the location of the alleged incident.

We must be prepared to be much more robust about such hoaxes, because they are a completely unacceptable waste of public resource. We have seen at George Square and other incidents that have been referred to how much we depend on the dedication and commitment of particular individuals when a genuine emergency is occurring. It is totally unacceptable that they should, because of a hoax, be called out, have their time wasted and, frankly, be abused in that way by people in our society. I know that we all share that view, but it is sometimes harder to know how to deal with hoaxes. However, we should be prepared to do that.

Another point that I made in the aftermath of the Ebola incident is that there must be a responsible use of social media in keeping Scotland safe. Social media can be a terrific tool for ensuring that people know what they need to know, but it must be used responsibly. If people know nothing about an incident, they should keep quiet and realise that an incident is not entertainment but something distinct. That is important, because social media will be able to play an increasing role in keeping Scotland safe, if it is used responsibly.

I say on behalf of Scottish Conservatives that we are happy to support the motion. It is a worthwhile motion to put before Parliament and I know that Parliament will be united in making it clear to all those in the emergency services—although I do not know that bringing them here to watch our debate would be the inspiring vote of thanks that they would be looking for—that we support them. As Hugh Henry said, we should also ensure that they receive the resources that are necessary for them to undertake their functions.

I move amendment S4M-12060.1, to leave out first “services” and insert:

“and other services, together with those elsewhere in the UK,”.