Severe Weather (Transport and Public Services)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and questions. He is right to refer to the issue of six days' supply of salt. I draw his attention to the UKRLG report, which is a very full report that touches on many of the issues raised. In chapter 8, under the heading "Winter Service Resilience", it recommended six days' worth of salt as an adequate amount. In the group's mind must have been the fact that, in February 2009, we had the worst weather in 18 years. We now have the worst weather in 29 years, and I suspect that once we reach the end of this prolonged period of bad weather and consider our options for reviews and so on, we will need to make a cost-benefit analysis of whether, given that we have had prolonged bad weather in two consecutive years, it makes more sense to save enough salt for a longer period. That analysis would include, for example, investment in salt barns, because one of the big challenges for local authorities and the Highways Agency is the amount of storage space that they have for salt. Local authorities have asked themselves whether it is worth their spending money on salt barns given that they use salt so infrequently. That is for experts to consider, not for me on the Floor of the House, but it is an important question. The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about diversifying suppliers in the chain. Salt is a geological issue and I cannot invent salt in the mines of England overnight, but as part of the contractual terms with suppliers, even domestic suppliers can be asked to have some foreign imports in their supply chain. The Highways Agency does that to ensure that it protects our supply chain of salt. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about mutual aid. We can provide central aid to local authorities, but there are also many really good examples of local authorities helping others that have less salt, for obvious reasons, by giving them salt. That is an example of the generosity of spirit that I mentioned, and we need more of it. The hon. Gentleman referred also to the damage to local authority highways caused by grit and salt, which is one issue that will need to be considered in a cost-benefit analysis of the general pattern of bad weather. He will be aware from the urgent question last week and my response to it that I cannot give advice centrally about which pavements should be gritted and which should not, and Salt Cell, the Government and extreme bad weather cannot be used as an excuse for a local authority not discharging its responsibility as it should. A local authority needs to consider the fact that as a matter of common sense, a pathway that leads to a general practitioner's practice, for example, is probably more in need of gritting than a road that very few people drive down. Once again, it is for local authorities to take that decision. The hon. Gentleman's final point was the very important one of liability, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers). There are concerns about people being risk-averse or using the weather as an excuse not to do things that they should. I was pleased to see the comments of the president of the Association of British Insurers in the press today and yesterday, which will have given some comfort to schools and local authorities concerned about being defendants in a future civil litigation or prosecution if they open up the schools. As far as individual schools are concerned, most decisions whether to open or close are taken by head teachers. Some local authorities are giving out advice and being prescriptive, but other decisions are being taken by head teachers on a horses-for-courses basis. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is, I am pleased that so many examination centres are open today, so that the many students who have revised for long periods can take their exams.