My experience—and I suspect that it is the same for other members—is that the Home Office is not responding to correspondence from MSPs and MPs who are acting on behalf of individuals who are trying to get out of Afghanistan. An investigation by Open Democracy in December found that more than 99 per cent of calls to the UK Government helpline were unanswered and only 5 per cent of callers received the necessary assistance. Will the cabinet secretary use his role to take that up with the Home Office and ask for more resources to be put into that work?

I think that it is important that, in our response to the cabinet secretary, we push on the deaths in custody issue. However, it would also be useful to ask about the evidence that we have taken and the discussions that we have had about how sexual offences and domestic abuse are dealt with, and how that relates to the budget and, in particular, the new budget strategy. I am not sure, but it may be that the financial implications of the implementation of any measures that are necessary would be dealt with in the new justice strategy. If the Government is talking about significant changes in how sexual offences and violence against women and girls are dealt with, that must have financial implications. It might be quite useful to use the correspondence to see whether we can get more detail on what the thinking is.

[Inaudible.]—which is very sad. However, it is important that the measures are implemented sympathetically, particularly in relation to items of sentimental value. I think that that is a matter on which the committee would want to be kept advised, to satisfy itself that the regulations are being implemented in a way that is sympathetic to individuals who are incarcerated and cut off from their families.

The contacts from families, particularly from children, are incredibly important to that individual. The committee is very concerned about that aspect, so we would want to be kept closely advised on how the measures are being implemented. In particular, we would like to be informed if there were problems and the measures were not working in the way that we understood that they would work.

The committee will be monitoring that issue. We had a full discussion last week. Privately, all committee members expressed concerns about whether the measures would be implemented in that way, as we would expect.

More generally, I think that the committee feels that it needs more information on the scale of drugs in prisons. I hope that, over the coming period, that will be shared with us, along with information about how the regulations will be implemented.

As has been said, mail is only one route that is being used to bring drugs into prison. The problem is a far larger one than that of mail. The committee wants to hear more on that, and expects the Scottish Government and the Scottish Prison Service to provide information to us on that in the coming period.

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour and to welcome the committee’s work on an important issue.

The convener clearly highlighted the scale of the challenges that we have before us. One issue that she focused on is the important role of local government, particularly where councils that have their own housing stock. For example, North Ayrshire Council has installed solar panels on 500 council homes, with tenants keeping the energy savings. It has also built two sustainable demonstrator homes at Dickson Drive, Irvine, which have tested out the various technologies and, in particular, their financial benefits.

As has been highlighted in the debate, one of the big issues is where the money will come from. The backdrop is, of course, a decade of cuts in council spending. To do the work that is necessary on the required scale, we need a lot more detail from the Scottish Government about where the money will come from, so that the burden of investment does not fall on tenants’ rents and on ordinary working people.

As has been said, the cost of house building is one of the issues that need to be addressed, as does the cost to householders of retrofitting. The trend is that more people are living in older homes, so the only way to meet our climate targets is to retrofit the existing housing stock and, indeed, other buildings. The condition of much of Scotland’s existing housing stock means that, in reality, many people are locked into fuel poverty. We know that poor housing conditions are associated with many illnesses and health conditions and that domestic housing stock is, of course, a significant source of carbon emissions. We need to revolutionise both the way in which we build houses—Alex Rowley referred to that—and what we do with our existing homes.

The STUC has estimated that the retrofitting of homes could create between 32,000 and 98,000 jobs in Scotland and that the retrofitting of other public and commercial buildings could create between 8,500 and 10,000 jobs. As well as addressing the climate issues that have been considered in the debate, such actions could also have massive social consequences.

I welcome the debate and the highlighting by many members across the political spectrum of the huge challenges that need to be addressed. I look forward to the minister’s response and to the continuing debate to ensure that we meet the challenges that have been set out in the debate and that we do what needs to be done to retrofit and ensure that we meet our climate standards.

To ask the Scottish Government what recent actions it has taken to support the rural economy on Arran. (S6O-00608)

Last month, I raised the point with the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise that, although North Ayrshire Council has set up a task force to look at the economic development at Hunterston, its ambition has always been that the Scottish Government be involved, with a ministerial task force to look at the development of the Hunterston PARC site.

Will the First Minister look at that, given how important it is to ensure the creation of good quality trade-unionised green jobs? Since the area is of environmental importance and includes a site of special scientific interest, will biodiversity and environmental concerns also be taken into account?

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the problems associated with the ferry cancellations that affected Arran this month. I understand that the islands connectivity plan is overdue. How does that plan link with ferry service levels and contingency plans for the islands when problems associated with ferry cancellations occur? Would the cabinet secretary be willing to meet passenger groups to discuss the challenges?

It is a follow-up on the points that Pauline McNeill raised about mail being opened in front of prisoners.

I would like to get a bit more detail on the extent to which prisoners can see what the mail is. For example, if it was a birthday card, a photograph or a number of photographs, would the prisoner get to see the mail, even if they did not handle it? Obviously, some items of mail have far greater sentimental value than others. What thought has been given to how mail items of more sentimental value might be provided to prisoners? I appreciate that it is relatively early days, so I suspect that how that is being handled might not be consistent at the moment.

I do not know what percentage of items are checked for drugs, but if it is clear that a mail item is not contaminated with drugs and it has sentimental value, there are times when it would be very helpful for the prisoner to be provided with it, whereas with a lot of correspondence, it probably does not really matter whether they get the original. Will you provide a bit more detail on that?

On the point about the prisoner seeing the item, will the prisoner know what the item is and therefore have some opportunity to make representations if it was a particularly important piece of correspondence for them?

I think that you have already said that changing the not proven verdict could perhaps be linked to other changes in the system. If there were a decision to move to two verdicts, would other changes be essential and, if so, could you outline in more detail what they might be? For example, it has been suggested that there should be a change to jury majorities. Would that be a necessary condition? What other aspects of the justice system would we need to look at, as well as the verdicts, if this were being given live consideration?