 At 3.30 this morning, Police Scotland-Bilson Glen call centre stopped taking calls due to technical difficulties. That was admitted by Police Scotland nine hours later. Police Scotland said that all calls were diverted and there was no disruption to the service, but a constituent told me at 7.20 am this morning that he had tried and failed to get his 101-call answer. The matter of police control rooms is one that this Parliament has spent considerable time scrutinising. It would be right for us to hear from the justice secretary on this today. It appears that there is no parliamentary bureau motion to alter the order of business today to allow for a statement from the cabinet secretary. The precedent from 2004 is that ministers cannot be compelled to make a statement to Parliament even if time is allocated to them by a vote to change business. Under rule 13.2.2, if you have received any indication from Government ministers that they propose to offer an urgent statement to Parliament this afternoon, and if they are doing that when you expect the statement to be taken. Thank you for your point of order, Mr Rennie. I have had no indication from the Government that they wish to make a statement, but the Minister for Parliamentary Business has heard what you have got to say, and I am sure that, as usual, he will reflect on it. We now come to the minister. I think that it is worth saying that we did have a bureau this morning, and since that bureau and now there has been no approach, but obviously I hear what you are saying and there has been no contact with my office. Thank you. We now move to topical questions. Question 1, Travis Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the outcome of the Paris climate conference. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Government warmly welcomes the historic Paris agreement on climate change. The agreement has, as we hoped and argued for, set certainty about the global low-carbon future in the same way as we set certainty about Scotland's low-carbon future in our legislation in 2009. We hope that the agreement will avoid the worst impacts of climate change falling on the global poor and our vulnerable. Can I also just thank Travis Scott for the support that his party provided in supporting my calls ahead of the Paris summit for a cross-party approach in securing an ambitious deal, and I would also particularly like to pay tribute to the efforts of the French Government who, against the background of the shocking terrorist attacks in Paris, displayed resilience and skill in guiding a particularly challenging international negotiation to a successful conclusion. Thank you. I recognise the minister's commitment in this area and the considered remarks that she has made in Parliament this afternoon. The Paris climate change deal spanning 195 countries is an important step towards combating global carbon emissions. The agreement reached brilliantly marshaled by the French Government is now more ambitious for limiting temperature rises than this Parliament's 2009 act. Therefore, will the minister now accept that her Government must detail how they will reverse missing the statutory annual emissions targets for years running? Does she also accept that WWF and many others now see tomorrow's budget as an acid test of this Government's commitment? What therefore new domestic policies will the Government introduce to ensure that Scotland really is at the cutting edge of action on tackling climate change? First of all, I am not in a position to be able to pre-empt the discussions in the budget statement tomorrow, but what I can say to Travis Scott is obviously what I've been saying in previous statements before to make sure that we'll have climate change as embedded as part and parcel of our budget process. To meet Scotland's targets in the future, we are developing the third report on policies and proposals, that is our RPP3. That will also make up for the excess emissions, resulting from revisions to the greenhouse gas inventory. The draft RPP3 will be published after the next batch of annual targets, covering the period for 2028 to 2032, our city legislation no later than 31 October 2016. Advice on the next set of greenhouse gas annual targets is expected from our independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, in March next year, and that will be based on the latest evidence, including international policy. I thank the minister again for that detail. She will be aware that figures published just this morning show that 35 per cent of Scotland's households were fuel poor in 2014, with 9.5 per cent in extreme fuel poverty. The director of energy action Scotland said this morning that unless tomorrow's budget allocates greater funding, the desperate situation of hundreds of thousands of Scottish households will live in cold-damp homes will continue. What is the Government doing to fulfil its statutory requirement to abolish fuel poverty by November 2016, when 845,000 households across Scotland are still in fuel poverty? In light of those figures, can the minister say how a national infrastructure priority will contribute to Scotland's climate change ambitions and whether tomorrow's budget will at least invest more in tackling fuel poverty than in the current financial year? I thank Tavish Scott for that question. Obviously, there is quite a lot of detail that is required in that. I am more than happy to write to the member with that detail following tomorrow's budget statement. However, we are reducing levels of fuel poverty. Since 2009, the Government has allocated over £500 million on a range of fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes, with a budget of £119 million for the current financial year. In June, I announced that this would be a national infrastructure priority for this Government. It is clear from the commentary around the Paris climate summit that there is widespread international support for Scotland's action and ambitions on climate change. It is a pity that international enthusiasm was not mirrored at home by some opposition politicians. Can the minister say what further the Scottish Government's climate justice policy will do to help to reduce the impact of climate change on the world's poorest communities? That the most vulnerable are the worst affected by climate change, the very young, the very old, the ill and the very poor, and women are suffering disproportionately since they are often the main providers of food, fuel and water. The people who have done least to cause climate change and are least equipped to cope with the consequences are the people who are being hit hardest on the scale of that injustice. In 2012, we became the first national government in the world to establish a climate justice fund, and the Scottish Government is doing its part to foster that trust between developed and developing countries by pledging £12 million over four years for climate justice. Over the past five years, the climate justice fund has already invested £6 million for 11 projects in four sub-Saharan African countries. In Malawi, for example, around 30,000 people now have access to safe clean drinking water, and more than 100 committees have been trained in natural resources, resites and management. Our Scottish National Action Plan on Human Rights commits us to continue to champion climate justice. What changes does the minister now envisage that the Scottish Government will put in place in the light of the new commitment for no more than 1.5-degree centigrade rise in global temperatures in the light of that new agreement, and in particular to focus on those 900,000 fuel-poor households—single pensioners, single adults, small pensioners and lone-parent households—who are all struggling most to pay their energy bills? Given the whole focus in Paris on climate justice, what new initiatives are you going to put in place? We warmly welcome in the Paris agreement's aim of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5-degree centigrade, which is a major victory for the climate vulnerable and the poor around the world. Obviously, the expert committee on climate change will be visiting Scotland in January, and we will receive further advice from them in March before setting future targets. Certainly, in relation to Sarah Boyack's question, we will be looking afresh at what the opportunities may be to advance some of the actions that we need to take and develop, and some of that will be set out in our RPP3. Thank you. Limiting global climate change to 1.5-degree centigrade above pre-industrial levels might have been easy if we hadn't had 20 years of global delay before reaching this point, but the Scottish emission targets are based on a two-degree ambition, a fair share of Scotland's contribution to limiting global climate change to two degrees. How can the targets for the two-degree goal still be correct in light of the 1.5-degree goal? Does the Scottish Government intend to revisit them? Certainly, as I said, the advice on the next set of greenhouse gas annual targets is expected for our independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, in March next year, and the Climate Change Committee will be visiting Scotland in January, and that will be based on the latest evidence, including our international policy. What is the response to President's ruling on a potential legislative consent memorandum regarding the UK Government's trade union bill? We remain disappointed by the Scottish Parliament's views on the legislative consent motion lodged last week. We still believe that it is essential that the Scottish Parliament is able to express its opposition to this poorly thought-out piece of legislation in the clearest possible terms to the UK Government. The general policy memorandum sent on Friday to the Devolution Further Powers Committee for their consideration will provide an opportunity to do this to be followed by a debate of the whole Parliament. The First Minister raised the Scottish Government's very clear opposition to the trade union bill with the Prime Minister yesterday, and we will continue to make the case to the UK Government that the bill is unnecessary, potentially damaging, and that banning, check-off and facility time in Scotland impinges on our responsibilities to our employees. It is our view that the best solution would be for the United Kingdom Government to devolve industrial relations to the Scottish Parliament. We will work across party boundaries in order to do so. In fact, we are delighted to be part of a broader coalition on that issue, one that also includes the other devolved administrations, the unions and wider civic society. This Parliament overwhelmingly spoke out against the trade union bill, and on this side of the chamber we welcome the Government's first attempt to lodge an LCM against the Straconian piece of anti-trade union legislation. As a consequence of the bill and the ruling of the LCM last week, a private employer could choose to retain practices such as check-off, while ministers of the Scottish Government could not. Does the minister believe that ministerial executive competence is compromised by this legislation? On what grounds have the Government come to that view and what action will they now take? I indicated in my opening remarks that we are of the view that banning check-off and facility time in Scotland impinges on our responsibilities to our employees. We are absolutely adamant that that is the case. It is from part of the evidence that I gave to the House of Commons Bill Committee in that respect. We are of the view that what is being asked for is simply not required by any evidence whatsoever. I think that that is absolutely clear that there isn't evidence to support the position that the United Kingdom Government has taken. I can say that, for example, the Deputy First Minister confirmed last year that the Scottish Government would continue to offer check-off, and that position remains unchanged. We also do not intend to use agency workers and we will continue to do what we think is right for our employees. On the basis that the Scottish Government believes that ministerial executive competence has been compromised by this legislation, what consideration do you believe the relevant committee should give on this issue? It is not for me to dictate to a parliamentary committee what they will or will not choose to do. I look forward to hearing from the committee. I hope that they will accept our Government invitation to look at the general policy memorandum and what action the committee will take as a matter, as the member will know, entirely for that committee in discussion. I very much hope that they will come to the same view that we have come to. The purpose in our taking that particular position for the Paris Committee is that that will allow us an opportunity for that policy memorandum then to come back to this chamber for a debate in this chamber. I think that that is an outcome that we would all wish. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am aware that the cabinet secretary has been having discussions with trade unions. I wonder if she would be able to provide the chamber with an update on those discussions. Ministers have held meetings regularly with the STUC. Obviously, we meet on a number of matters, but this particular issue has been to the fore. Last week, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister had their biannual meeting with the STUC, where the bill was discussed. In addition, as probably most members know, the FFM addressed the STUC anti-trade union bill rally last Thursday night. Indeed, on 24 November, she also gave the keynote address at the read memorial lecture. That was a large part of what she had to say. I have also recently met the STUC and Unison to discuss the bill on a number of occasions. I do not think that there is any sense, Presiding Officer, that this Government does not take this issue extremely seriously because we have extremely huge concerns about the impact that this is going to have on the working of the Scottish Government in terms of its own industrial relations. In my view, it will endanger industrial relations in Scotland, despite the fact that we have a better record than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. To ask the Scottish Government what regular assessment it makes on the operation of the comprehensive travel plan to minimise journey times since the closure of the fourth road bridge. Minister, David Mackay. Regular discussions continue to take place between transport delivery partners to discuss the effectiveness of the travel plan. That plan is reviewed daily, and following feedback from businesses and communities, we have already relaxed the restrictions along the dedicated transport corridor on the A985. The plan must have the ability to adapt and respond to need. The travel plan is supporting communities, commuters and businesses as best we can during the closure of the fourth road bridge, and key interventions have been made and promoted. Partners include Transport Scotland, Fife Council, Police Scotland, ScotRail and Stagecoach. I thank the minister for that answer. I wonder if the minister agrees with the Federation of Small Businesses, the Fife Chamber of Commerce, that enhancements to the Scottish Government's travel plan, allowing all-night goods vehicles to use the corridor on the A985 will be particularly beneficial to local small businesses, enabling them to make journeys in a shorter time and supporting the supply chain while the bridge repairs are carried out? Yes, I do welcome those comments, and that's why we are continuing to monitor the effectiveness of the travel plan to listen to those affected by the closure. We are doing everything that we can to reopen the bridge in time for people returning to work in the new year. The travel plan must be able to be adapted in light of circumstances, and that's what we're doing to ensure that we mitigate the impact as best we can on the local and regional area. I thank the minister again, and I wonder if the enhanced public transport provisions are being effective and whether he would care to comment on that. I think that everyone would accept that it is incredibly difficult to address all need in terms of the displaced traffic from the closure of the fourth road bridge. However, there has been a massive move to strengthen the rail capacity, some extra 10,000 seats provided in terms of rail and extra seats provided in terms of bus provision as well. Of course, both subsidise, and the bus provision has been further supported with that priority route to try and give better journey times. There has been a shift clearly towards public transport and I appreciate the patience and forbearance of the travelling public as they have adjusted in terms of the necessary closure of the fourth road bridge. We have ensured that the action plan is fully conveyed to the public through the dedicated website, and we meet regularly with stakeholders, including Police Scotland, around enforceability and their intelligence and understanding with local authorities, and of course with businesses as well, to do everything that we can to mitigate the impact of the closure of the fourth road bridge. Incidentally, the repairs to the bridge are very much under way and the reopening time is very much on track. Five councils are advising businesses who have lost money as a result of the closure to direct compensation claims to Transport Scotland. Can the minister tell us how those claims will be dealt with? My priority is to ensure that the bridge is reopened as quickly as possible and to mitigate the impact. I think that the travel plans have been largely effective in that, and do not take just my word for it. Even Alec Rowley has praised me for the work on the travel action plan. In terms of the wider question around compensation, the Deputy First Minister has held very useful talks with businesses. In fact, some of those constructive ideas have led to changes in the travel plan. Mr Swinney will consider the issue of compensation further, but it remains the case that our priority has to be to repair the bridge and to get it reopened as quickly as possible. Businesses and everyone else tells us that that has to be the number one priority, and that is exactly what I am focusing all energy on at this time. The minister will be aware of the pressures being faced in Fife, as outlined by the member for Highlands and Islands. I welcome the huge efforts that have been from ScotRail, but the crowding on the trains in recent days has been particularly difficult, with sometimes only two or three carriages on the rush-air trains that are coming from Kirkcaldy. What assurances can the minister give that this will be addressed? I believe that ScotRail has mobilised as much as it can. As I said in my parliamentary statement, we have located carriages from south of the border. There has been some displacement from other parts of Scotland, but I also pointed out that that was an issue of national significance. It is right that we put extra carriages and extra effort into the Fife area, even though some members of the Labour Party felt that that was the wrong thing to do because it impacted in their area. However, with the national position of recognising the stress and pressures within Fife, it has been the right thing to do to locate extra carriages and trains there, and to enhance the timetable with earlier morning train as well. I think that the ScotRail approach has been helpful in mitigating the impact. That has also enhanced the provision during peak periods, too. I have identified repeatedly the extra capacity that exists on the bus routes, and I encourage more people to look at the availability of bus provision. ScotRail has ensured that stations are staffed and that there is adequate information out there. However, as I say again, it was always going to be a huge challenge to capture the displacement from everyone who had traditionally crossed the fourth over the fourth road bridge. We have made every effort possible with rapid decision making and rapid intervention to ensure by the Monday morning that, while they laugh, people appreciate the action of the Scottish Government to ensure that there are 10,000 extra seats in terms of rail capacity and thousands of extra seats in terms of bus capacity. I say again, if there is any more this Government can do, we will do it, but we will get on with action, plus the Labour Party cart from the sidelines. That ends Topical Questions, the next item of business, point forward to James Kelly. I rise to make a point of order in response to the statement from the Cabinet Secretary that the trade union bill will be referred to the Devolution Enhanced Powers Committee. I do it on the back of the Presiding Officer's ruling from last week that the LCM is not competent. I have taken legal advice on that ruling and I believe that the advice is open to challenge. I do not think that the ruling was correct in terms of executive policy. I am coming to my point of order. If you let me speak, I will make my point of order. Mr Kelly, get to your point of order, please. If you please let me make my point of order, I will go on with it. I want you to know what the point of order is. If you keep interrupting me, Presiding Officer, I cannot. Mr Kelly, please sit down. Please, Mr Kelly, sit down. I am not going to sit down. Mr Kelly, please sit down. I will not sit down. I want to make a point of order. Mr Kelly, please sit down. I want to make a point of order. I was not allowed to make a point of order because she kept interrupting me. Mr Kelly, please resume your seats. I am not going to resume my seat. I want to make a point of order. Sit down, I am speaking. Can I remind the member of the requirement to conduct himself in a courteous and respectful manner and respect the authority of the chair? I am asking you to sit down. Will you please do so? No, I am not going to sit down. I want to make a point of order. Can I remind the member of the powers that I have under rule 7.3 of the standing orders, which give me the powers to exclude a member from the chamber? I ask you now to desist and to apologise. A very reasonably rose to make a point of order. I ask you to desist and apologise, Mr Kelly. No, I am not sitting down. I want to make a point of order. Thank you. Can I say that the member has been asked, repeatedly warned against his conduct and asked to desist and to apologise? The member has refused to do so. Under rule 7.3, I hereby require the member to leave the chamber. Sit down, Mr Findlay. I am speaking. I also exclude the member from participating in the remainder of business in the chamber today and on the next sitting day. Can you please escort Mr Kelly from the chamber? I now suspend until Mr Kelly leaves the chamber. Mr Findlay, you have a point of order. Sorry, Mr Simpson has a point of order. Presiding Officer, we are in a difficult situation in the sense that we are now being invited to have one of the parliamentary committees consider a motion that you have declared is illegal or not competent and I wonder whether it is practical and possible for you, Presiding Officer, to consider suspending your ruling in that matter until the committee have had time to consider it, at which point, of course, you would be perfectly entitled to reimpose your ruling, but it would allow the committee to consider the matter unfettered, unhindered and not under a ruling from you that what they were discussing was actually not competent. Can I say, Dr Simpson, that you are factually wrong? What the committee is discussing is a policy memorandum and that, in no way, impinges on the ruling that I have made. Findlay, you have a point of order. Presiding Officer, at topical questions, the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work said that she was disappointed with the Parliament's view on the decision to reject the legislative consent memorandum on the UK Government's trade union bill. The Parliament has not expressed a view on the legislative consent memorandum, so I wonder if there will be an opportunity for the cabinet secretary to say whether she agrees with Scottish Labour that you are ruling on this matter. That is not a point of order, Mr Finlay. I am coming to the point. Will you get to the point of order, please? I believe that I have to... So far, I have not heard the point of order. Presiding Officer, I believe that I have up to three minutes to make my point of order. Please come to it. If the cabinet secretary will be able to express her view as to whether your ruling is wrong. Finally, I understand that you have legal advice on this matter. Would you kindly publish that legal advice? No, in common with other Presiding Officer, I have absolutely no intention of producing the advice that I may or I may not have been given. Whether the cabinet secretary is disappointed by the ruling, that is a matter entirely for her and I do not intend to ask her to say any more. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 1-5. Mackintosh point of order. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I ask for your guidance, Presiding Officer? Last year, the member... Can I ask for your guidance, Presiding Officer? Can I ask for your guidance, Presiding Officer, on the standing orders, how they allow members from this Parliament to question any guidance that you might have been given and then give the chamber? Is there a procedure under which we can challenge the competency or other competency of the guidance that you have been given? If so, do members have up to three minutes, as I understand they do, to make a point of order? It is certainly true that members have up to three minutes to make their point of order, but what I need to know first of all is what that point of order is. Sit down, Mr Bibby. I am speaking. Once the point of order is clear, then members are allowed to make up to three minutes' discussion on it, but what I have not heard so far has been the point of order, and I need to hear that first. A point of order, Mr Bibby? Can I ask for your guidance, Presiding Officer? Why was Mr Kelly not allowed to make his point of order? Mr Bibby, I asked repeatedly for the member to make his point of order. He did not come to his point of order. If he had explained to me what his point of order was, he then could have had up to three minutes to make that point of order. Now, the next act of business is a debate on motion number 15172, in the name of Shona Robison, on reading.