Scottish Parliament, 13 December 2001

439 contributions from 86 members. The official report.

Introduction

Cancer Services (West of Scotland)

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Good morning. Our first item of business is the Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-2541, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on west of Scotland cancer services, and one amendment to that motion.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It is clearly a Liberal Democrat group away day today.

The debate is extremely serious. Cancer is Scotland's biggest killer. One in three men and one in four women in Scotland can expect to be diagnosed with cancer by the time that they reach their 70s. Not only do more people in Scotland get cancer than in almost any other European country, but more people in Scotland die from cancer. Every year in Scotland, 15,000 lives are lost to cancer. Our survival rates are the lowest in the United Kingdom and among the lowest in Europe. In spite of all that, the quality of our cancer services lags considerably behind that of other countries.

Only last year, a survey conducted by the Royal College of Radiologists found that one in five lung cancer patients might die needlessly because of tumours becoming inoperable in the average time of 13 weeks that it takes for radiotherapy to begin. A significant proportion of our diagnostic and treatment equipment needs to be replaced. The Government recently announced funding for new magnetic resonance imaging scanners. However, as we heard yesterday, hospitals such as Ninewells in Dundee have difficulty in meeting the running costs of those scanners.

None of that is news to anybody, but it does no harm to remind ourselves of the scale of the problem. It also serves to remind us that, although cancer services in the west of Scotland have been in the headlines of late, we have a long way to go to improve services throughout Scotland. It is worth remembering that, even at full strength, the Beatson oncology centre will have fewer than 30 consultants for a population of nearly 3 million people. Many other European countries have around 100 consultants for a population of an equivalent size. That gives an idea of the gap that has to be made up in Scotland.

Cancer is one of the Scottish Executive's clinical priorities, and rightly so. It is probably a huge relief to patients in the west of Scotland that cancer is a priority. It does not bear thinking about what state the services in that part of Scotland might be in if cancer was not a priority.

The situation that has developed at the Beatson is deeply worrying, especially for cancer patients and their families. Anyone who has visited the Beatson in any capacity will know that its problems of the past few weeks and months have not arisen out of nowhere. The events of the past few weeks and months are symptoms of problems that have accumulated over many years. The problems include outdated equipment, and not even enough of that; dilapidated facilities; a shortage of resources, in particular staff resources, and not just medical staff; and a lack of support for those who work so hard to keep the service going.

Those problems are the result of long-term underfunding and neglect. Before Labour rushes to blame all that underfunding on the Tories, I remind Labour members that, in 1997, the Labour Government became the first Government in a generation to impose a real-terms cut in health spending. At the end of a dark period of Tory rule, when Labour had a chance to invest immediately in cancer services and to act to halt the decline, it chose instead to make a spending cut. We continue to live with the legacy of that decision, just as we live with the legacy of Labour's inability to deal with the symptoms of the Beatson's problems as soon as they became evident. That would have prevented the service from hitting crisis point. [Interruption.] Would Mr Fitzpatrick like to intervene at this point?

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

No.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

He may want to share what he is saying with the rest of the chamber.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member must not solicit questions.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The nationalists tell us something that every Labour member recognises to be a serious issue. However, the member also has a duty to explain to the Scottish public, as she makes those points, the spending plans of her party in relation to the national health service in Scotland. What does £35 million mean for the NHS in Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

If Mr Fitzpatrick listens instead of muttering to his colleagues, he will hear about some of that in just a moment.

At the start of this year, Professor Karol Sikora, one of the world's leading cancer experts, called the Beatson a slum. In March this year, consultants at the Beatson warned of mounting problems. In April, a senior member of staff at the Beatson wrote to Susan Deacon to tell her that the volume of patients that each doctor had to treat was unsafe, that mistakes were being made with radiotherapy and chemotherapy treatment and that a large number of staff were on the point of resignation. That letter was answered by a junior civil servant and no action was taken.

Following the first three resignations in November, I wrote to Susan Deacon, advising her of information that I had about possible further resignations. That letter was also ignored. It was only after the fourth resignation that Malcolm Chisholm showed me the courtesy of a reply. If those warnings had been heeded, some or all of the consultants who have resigned over the past few weeks might still be in post.

I say to Mr Fitzpatrick, in particular, that the point of narrating this history is to stress that lessons must be learned. Never again should professionals working at the coalface of the health service be ignored, as has happened for years with those working in cancer services in the west of Scotland.

What happens now is what really matters. I welcome the decision that was taken last week by the minister to remove the Beatson from the management of North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust and to appoint a medical director who is answerable to the health board. Of itself, a new management will not make the crucial difference. What matters is what it does differently from the old one.

The immediate priority is to attract enough high-quality applicants to the new and vacant consultant posts. That is pertinent on a morning when the newspapers have news of gastrointestinal consultants in Glasgow threatening to resign from the NHS. Will the minister tell us how many applications have been received to date for the Beatson posts? Will he respond to comments made by other senior consultants that, of the five applications that were received at the end of last week for those posts, none was appointable?

We heard yesterday that there is a national shortage of cancer specialists. It will take years to train a sufficient number. In the short term, we must attract people from south of the border and abroad. Does the minister agree that, if the new Beatson management is to be successful in doing that, a new approach will have to be adopted?

With the greatest respect to Dr Adam Bryson, I doubt that the sheer force of his personality will be enough to have cancer consultants flocking to Scotland. In the consultant labour market, Scotland needs a competitive edge. I ask the minister again to examine the powers that the Scottish Executive has to enhance the UK pay and conditions packages for consultants. That would allow us to encourage the consultants that we need so desperately to work in Scotland rather than elsewhere in the UK or the wider world.

The second priority is to protect cancer services in the west of Scotland. Even before the current staffing crisis at the Beatson, the volume of patients seen by each doctor was unsafe. There was already a three-month wait for a computed tomography scan and some patients with suspected bowel cancer waited for up to five months for an appointment with a consultant. That was before the current crisis.

What I have heard since about service rationalisation worries me deeply. It suggests that there will be a significant deterioration in the diagnosis, treatment and aftercare of many patients in the west of Scotland. Today marks the third time that I have raised in the chamber my concerns about the withdrawal of lung cancer, breast cancer and gynaecological cancer clinics from south Glasgow. I have not yet had those concerns addressed adequately.

Patients who should be attending those clinics will instead be referred to the on-call oncologist at the Beatson, who will not necessarily be a specialist in the patient's cancer type. Earlier this week, it came to light that hundreds of women who have had breast cancer have had their check-ups postponed for a year. Those are two examples of what I consider to be a dangerous reduction of service. I could give other examples.

In an interview this morning, the First Minister warns patients to expect

"delays that otherwise would not be there."

That is not acceptable. With cancer, delays cost lives. One of the early indicators of the success of the new management at the Beatson must be that it can put in place temporary staff cover to maintain those services. The minister has a duty to be candid about what exactly is meant in the action plan by rationalisation of services and about what action has been and is being taken to avoid the loss of services in the part of Scotland that has the worst cancer rates in Europe.

There are issues on which it appears that progress is being made, such as the speeding up of the new building at Gartnavel and—so far at least—the prevention of further resignations. However, those matters, together with the ones I mentioned earlier, must continue to be monitored carefully by the minister and the Parliament. The minister must continue to be accountable to the Parliament on a regular basis for developments in the west of Scotland. For too long, cancer services in the west of Scotland have been neglected and allowed to fall into crisis. It may have taken four staff resignations for the Government to pay any attention, but we have a duty to ensure that the minister is not allowed to forget his pledge to make the recovery of the Beatson his No 1 priority.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern recent developments at the Beatson Oncology Centre and the inevitable impact on cancer services in the West of Scotland; welcomes the removal of the Beatson Oncology Centre from the management of North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to now set out in detail what action will be taken to prevent further staff resignations, attract suitably qualified consultants to fill new and vacant posts, ensure temporary staff cover to avoid a rationalisation of cancer services such as the cancellation of clinics, and significantly shorten the timescale for the construction of the new Beatson Oncology Centre at Gartnavel Hospital.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I thank Nicola Sturgeon for introducing the subject for debate today. We all recognise that this is a most important and serious situation. In my first two weeks as Minister for Health and Community Care I have flagged the issue up as being at the top of my agenda.

Nicola Sturgeon began by acknowledging the bigger picture. We ought to reflect on that. There are serious short-term difficulties and our top priority has been and will be to address those. Equally, however, we need to look ahead and acknowledge the many positive developments in cancer services, which came together in the cancer strategy that was issued this year. It is important to do that for various reasons, including the need to raise the morale of staff who work in the Beatson and elsewhere in the west of Scotland and the need to attract staff. If people feel that there is a positive future for cancer services in the west of Scotland, we are more likely to attract the kind of staff that we want.

Members will know about the cancer strategy that was launched in July, which had £10 million attached to it in the first year. Quite a lot of that was spent on the kind of areas that we are concerned about. For example, £4 million was spent on building capacity to speed up diagnosis and treatment. Of the £10.7 million in the first tranche of investment, nearly £6 million went to the west of Scotland.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The minister talks about a recruitment crisis and people having faith and confidence in the service. How would he respond to an article today in The Herald that says:

"A team of specialist surgeons is considering a breakaway move from the NHS to set up ... in a private hospital"?

If there is such trust in the way in which the minister is running those services, why are the top specialists leaving?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I was pleased to visit Gartnavel hospital about two months ago and to meet several of the upper gastrointestinal surgeons who are involved in that. I am extremely concerned to read that story and would deplore any such move. However, I hope that those people, some of whom I met at Gartnavel, will enter discussions with the North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust and resolve the difficulties. The issues that they raise are important. They are concerned about the development of specific cancer services in the west of Scotland.

There are grounds for hope in that the west of Scotland regional cancer advisory group will meet for the first time on 20 December. It is up to the group, with the support of the external clinical support group that we sent in as part of the action plan, to develop the configuration of services in the west of Scotland. Part of that work is to develop managed clinical networks for upper GI cancer and other specific cancers. I hope that those specialists get involved in that process and that some of their difficulties will be resolved through that. They also have concerns about critical care beds but those are being addressed by the trust. Surgeons and specialists have been involved, and I hope that they will continue to resolve their differences in that way.

One of the novel features of the strategy was the nature of the new Scottish cancer group and, in particular, the patient involvement that was part of it. I pay particular tribute to Dr Anna Gregor, who heads that group. I know of her great commitment not only to cancer services but to the involvement of patients. That relates to one of the themes that I was talking about yesterday. She said:

"Patients are the key to this new way of working. In partnership with NHS professionals, patients will be able to influence the way we provide care in Scotland, both for a smoother journey of care and for better outcomes."

Patients were involved in deciding how the first tranche of money was spent. I agree entirely with Dr Gregor. I received a report yesterday of a questionnaire by the Scottish Breast Cancer Campaign. It is important that we listen to women with breast cancer as well. The piece of research I received yesterday will inform our thinking on that important area.

Looking to the future, there is the £44 million we have set aside for the new Beatson. I said last week that I wanted to see the outline business case by the end of this month. I am pleased to report that all the west of Scotland boards met yesterday and backed the outline, which I expect to receive soon. I have confirmed that those plans will be fast-tracked and that decisions will be made by the end of January. We are focusing on the short term—Nicola Sturgeon made several points about that. I agree with her that clinicians have not been sufficiently involved until now, but I am pleased to say that that is changing. As members know, I appointed Dr Adam Bryson as director last week. The new joint management board that we set up as part of the action plan has met twice. I have had two conversations with Dr Bryson this week. He has told me that he will chair the next meeting of that board. The clinicians are more involved now—that is an important development.

In the immediate future, the issue of recruitment is essential. I am told that five people have expressed an interest. They are all well qualified but it is up to experts to appoint people. One of the options is to appoint locums, if that is what the experts decide is best. Concern has been expressed about the clinic rationalisation. As part of the development and configuration of services in the west of Scotland it would have been desirable to reorganise the clinics. I am not saying that every change that is made in the coming period is the result of that. It is simply a fact that it would be necessary to reorganise the clinics anyway.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is the minister saying that some of the clinics that are being withdrawn because of staff shortages may never be restored?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

We have to treat the subject with the seriousness that it deserves and to listen to what the experts say. I have to be influenced by the experts in cancer. Changing the configuration of services is key in the development of services. However, too much alarm has been spread about this. I am assured, for example, that if there were to be fewer clinics in Lanarkshire, it would not mean that there would be no clinics in Lanarkshire; it would just mean that they might be configured differently. There will be changes, but we should not say that every change is necessarily a bad thing.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

This is an issue of extreme importance to people in south Glasgow. It is of concern not only to the patients who use services; the clinicians to whom Malcolm Chisholm has referred have also raised the issue with me. Can the minister guarantee that lung cancer, breast cancer and gynaecological cancer clinics in south Glasgow that may have to be withdrawn because of staff shortages will be restored to the people of south Glasgow as soon as the shortages are resolved?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am not an expert in cancer services. It is up to the regional cancer advisory group, supported by the expert clinical group, to decide how services should best be configured. It is not up to me to decide how clinics in the west of Scotland should be configured.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Is there not a contradiction in what the minister has said about listening to clinicians on the important configuration of cancer services and the failure of the Government for years to listen to the message from the clinicians at the Beatson about the lack of direction in that unit? The minister is trying to have his cake and eat it on the issue of listening to clinicians.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am certainly listening to clinicians. I have had many conversations over the past 10 days with leading clinicians in the west of Scotland and I am pleased to continue doing that. I am determined to listen to clinicians and work in partnership with them. However, the general point I have made about the configuration of services stands.

The action plan is being implemented but other issues may have to be addressed as well. I have received a letter today from the patients support group that has been formed at the Beatson. One of the issues that the group is raising in the short term is whether we can get additional space before the opening of the new Beatson. That option is being considered. It relates to our discussions about Health Care International, since space there is one of the options that can be considered.

My time is up. I have to say in conclusion that the tone of the debate has been slightly regrettable. I had hoped that we would be able to address the subject on its merits. Nobody can question the priority that I have attached to the subject over the past two weeks and over the many years at Westminster and here that I have been committed to cancer services. It would be helpful if we could work together on this subject. I am happy to hear positive suggestions from the SNP and any other political party. I will seriously consider all positive suggestions. It would be regrettable if this most serious of issues were turned unnecessarily into a party-political football.

I move amendment S1M-2541.1, to leave out from "; welcomes" to end and insert:

"if further urgent action is not taken; supports the appointment of Dr Adam Bryson as Medical Director and welcomes the additional impetus and focus this gives to implementation of the agreed action plan, including as a top priority measures to secure appointments both in the short term and on a more permanent basis; supports the Executive's Cancer Strategy, Cancer in Scotland: Action for change, and the additional £40 million investment to support implementation; and calls on the Executive to drive forward the necessary changes, including the construction of the new West of Scotland Cancer Centre, as quickly as possible."

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I commend the minister on what he has done in the past two weeks. Unfortunately, we have reached the depths of a crisis and it would take an awful lot more than two weeks to fix it. It is very unfortunate that the previous Minister for Health and Community Care, Susan Deacon, did not address the problems when they came to her.

Malcolm Chisholm tells us to listen to what the experts say, but breast cancer patients whose cancer is in remission are being told that their clinical appointments are being delayed by six months. I listened to Anna Gregor saying last night that she is reconfiguring the services and that all the clinics are not necessary. I think that the minister should start listening to women who have had breast cancer. He should ask them how much assurance, reduction in anxiety and peace of mind they get when they go along to see an oncologist who tells them that their cancer is still in remission. We would all have far more trust and confidence in the reconfiguring of cancer services if we felt that it was driven by clinical priorities. We are all mature and professional enough to accept that. However, when four oncologists have walked out, when morale is at rock bottom and when resources are desperate, we can hardly be blamed for being sceptical about a sudden reconfiguration of cancer services in the midst of an enormous crisis.

As cancer is one of the top three clinical priorities, we are entitled to expect the best in cancer care. If that is an example of a clinical priority, where does it leave people in Scotland who suffer from asthma, diabetes and epilepsy? God help those whose conditions are not clinical priorities. If the cancer care that is available is the best that ministers can do, there is not much hope for the rest.

To lose one consultant at the Beatson is unfortunate; to lose two is careless. To have four consultants resign is an outrage and an indictment of the Executive's appalling inability to run the NHS in Scotland. The most recent resignation—that of Dr Adrian Harnett, who has no job to go to—has robbed the Beatson of one of the UK's leading authorities on breast cancer. His resignation will also impact on the Scottish ophthalmic oncology service and on patients throughout Scotland. That resignation could and should have been avoided if support had been available from management and sufficient resources made available. As Dr Kemp, the consultant ophthalmic surgeon, wrote in The Herald, those developments could have been avoided if consultants' concerns had been listened to over the past two years. I commend what the minister has done in two weeks, but I cannot commend what has been ignored for two years.

It is unacceptable that services should be allowed to deteriorate at all. What is disgraceful is to be aware of such problems and to allow them to continue to fester. The Beatson, the biggest cancer centre in Scotland, is in a state of crisis. With Dr Harnett's departure, the staffing level will become half of that in Edinburgh. That is certainly no way to run cancer services in the west of Scotland.

Indicative of the performance of our much-vaunted Executive is the response earlier this year to a letter from a doctor at the Beatson warning of near disasters due to staff shortages. As has been said, Susan Deacon did not even deem that worthy of her attention. It is alleged that the reply was given by a junior civil servant without Ms Deacon apparently even being aware of it. The Beatson was clearly not a priority for the Executive. That fact is glaringly obvious and now comes back to haunt ministers.

The current crisis is undoubtedly a headache for the minister. For too long, doctors have been bypassed and ignored by managers and the Executive. Staff morale is at a low ebb. In terms of embarrassment for the Scottish NHS, surely nothing can compare with the words of Professor Karol Sikora, who led the World Health Organisation's cancer control programme, when he described the Beatson as like "going into Bombay". He said that we had a "black hole in Glasgow" and were running the operation like something from the 1950s. It cannot be acceptable for that to continue.

The decline of the Beatson cannot be blamed wholly on mismanagement at the North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust. The buck stops with the Minister for Health and Community Care, particularly when concerns have been raised over a period of years. Although the Beatson is facing so many problems, we heard yesterday that the minister will now embrace the underutilisation and spare capacity in the private sector. Will he tell cancer patients in Scotland how their care will be affected in the new configuration of services? Will he utilise the 540 beds, the 24 operating theatres and the 67 intensive care beds, as well as the expertise in cancer care, for diagnosis, treatment, surgery and aftercare, all of which are readily available at the HCI?

We are looking for a commitment from the minister that health care in Scotland is decided not by dogma but by patient needs. I was pleased to read in The Herald today that Jack McConnell would not "be bound by dogma". He just needs to get his troops to believe that. When the First Minister puts patients first, before political dogma, the Conservatives will wholly and fully support that approach.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I apologise to Nicola Sturgeon for missing the first part of her speech this morning.

On behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I say that I share everyone's concern at the situation. The Beatson centre provides more than half of Scotland's cancer services, covering not only Glasgow but the west of Scotland. Given Glasgow's poor health record and poor cancer record, cancer care is an area that needs investment and the best possible service. It certainly does not need the crisis that it now faces. That crisis has been brought to a head by the resignation of four consultants who were concerned that they were unable to perform their duties effectively because of conditions at the Beatson, which was described by Professor Sikora, the WHO cancer specialist, as a slum.

I agree with Malcolm Chisholm that this is not the time for blame. It would be quite easy to spray blame around and apportion it all over the place, but this is a time for solutions. The minister has said, quite rightly, that he is happy to listen to suggestions from any direction, from political parties or, as Mary Scanlon said, from outside the public sector. All such suggestions must be considered.

We still need answers to a number of questions, and I would like to raise a couple of points. We need to see the situation in a short, mid and long-term context. The short-term crisis must be dealt with and we welcome the minister's decisive action in that regard. To visit the Beatson within a day of the most recent resignation, to remove day-to-day control from North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust and to appoint Dr Adam Bryson to oversee the running of the centre and report directly to Greater Glasgow Health Board, to pledge resources and support and to ask for the business case for phase two of the new Beatson at Gartnavel hospital to be on his desk by the end of the month is to take the sort of decisive, short-term action that we would expect from a minister. If that is a clear message that the buck-passing stops with him, we will be very pleased.

The first question is, what extra resources might be made available and what resources have been made available? The recent announcement of £10.7 million for cancer staff and equipment was overshadowed by the Beatson news. More than half of that money will be allocated to spending in the west of Scotland and the Executive recognises that there is a need for investment in the Beatson. How much of that money will go to the Beatson? What will it be spent on? Has any thought been given to whether some of the £86 million in the chancellor's budget statement that is yet to be assigned to health spending will go to cancer services and specifically to cancer services in the west of Scotland?

There is a crucial short-term recruitment problem in respect of 10 places—there are four unplanned posts and six additional planned posts. Where will those doctors be found? There are different reports on whether the five who have so far applied have the relevant experience. Is it true that Dr Bryson is looking abroad for recruits? How can we possibly attract the best calibre consultants to the Beatson, given its current reputation and the fact that other consultants appear to be contemplating leaving the centre and are apparently being headhunted within the NHS?

To some extent, the minister has given a clear steer today and in his previous actions. However, a clear steer from the minister is needed to show that failure at the Beatson will not be acceptable to any of us and that support will be forthcoming so that consultants who come forward—although they may experience difficulties in the short term—will, in the mid to long term, with specific support and within the broader long-term framework of the cancer plan, be given the full backing of the Executive and the Parliament.

I ask the minister for an update on the progress of the new Beatson project. When is it likely to be completed? What scope is there for speeding up the process, as the minister indicated that he wishes to do?

Nicola Sturgeon spoke of concern about the knock-on impact on services. Five hundred women, who have all suffered from breast cancer, have had their appointments put back by anything up to 18 months. Does the minister have any idea about the anxiety that that delay represents for those women? This morning, the minister said that we must listen to women with breast cancer. Women who have had breast cancer would say that we must address that issue. Incredible anxiety is involved in delays of six, 12 or 18 months before there is a follow-up in the system.

What is being done to ensure that alternative services are in place? What will happen in the 16 other clinic sites throughout the west of Scotland where specialists from the Beatson would ordinarily hold clinics? Nicola Sturgeon made a point about those clinics and the minister spoke about reconfiguration. If those services are to be reconfigured, proper consultation needs to take place. It would be unacceptable for those services to close at this time of crisis—which might be seen by patients as a short-term need—only not to open up in the mid or long term without further consultation, if that were thought to be the best clinical course of action. I will not second guess a clinician any more than the minister will, but we must ensure that there is consultation.

It is obvious that there are short-term issues. We are keen to hear what is happening and to hear the minister's vision for the long term.

I want to touch on two other issues.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member should be brief.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The first issue is staff morale and listening to staff. It is clear that the Beatson's clinical, managerial and resource-led problems did not happen overnight. Press reports suggest that Professor Barrett met health department officials two years ago and suggested that they ought to think about using spare capacity at HCI. There are also reports of letters that were intended for Susan Deacon but did not get beyond a junior official's desk. I said yesterday that it is essential that we listen to staff and act on what we hear.

The second and wider issue is work-force planning. That issue arose in the cardiac surgical unit and at Stracathro hospital. For whatever reason, a few people move on and suddenly an entire unit and service are under threat and in crisis. That is not good enough.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am being very patient. You are two minutes over your time.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Work-force planning must be seen not only in the short term, but in the long term.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

When I came in, I picked up a copy of the report on the west of Scotland cancer service. I do not need to read more reports. They give statistics, but the debate is about the suffering and worry that people go through when they have cancer. A member said yesterday that all of us probably know someone who has attended the Beatson. We should remind ourselves that the debate is about the people and the care that they should receive.

The staff have been mentioned. We must make clear the tremendous debt that we owe to the workers in the NHS. Daily, they demonstrate their loyal dedication to the health service, often working under extremely difficult conditions to service the health needs of the nation. However, the unfortunate reality is that our hard-working health service workers have not had the support that they deserve. The new Labour Government's custodianship has been a catalogue of failure and disasters. The failures are all too apparent to me, as a Glasgow MSP, and to other members.

The Government's record on the health service and on cancer services in particular is not one of which it can be proud. For too long, the Government has buried its head in the sand when confronted by the problems that are faced by cancer services. Those problems are real and have been identified by patients and staff in the health service. That is not scaremongering, as Labour members often say. If the Government had taken those problems seriously, perhaps action would have been taken to solve them at a much earlier stage and the crisis at the Beatson might not have arisen.

I welcome the fact that, at long last, the minister and the Government have taken action to resolve the Beatson's problems by installing new management and removing the centre from the control of the North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust. However, questions must be asked. Why has it taken them so long to act when problems were identified—as has been stated—at a very early stage? The trust that mismanaged the Beatson was a creation of the new Labour Government.

As early as November 1999, Dr Nick Reed, the clinical director at the Beatson, identified the problems. The Beatson serves almost 3 million people in Scotland, but had only six radiotherapy machines when it required 12. As a result, patients waited up to nine weeks for treatment. Unfortunately, some patients had tumours that returned after six to eight weeks. That is a sad indictment of the mismanagement of the Beatson. At the time, the Scottish Executive said that it was aware of the problem, but it washed its hands of it by saying that the problem was purely a matter for the trust. I am glad that that has now been resolved.

The question remains: why has it taken until now to act when the Executive was aware that there was a problem over two years ago? I have spoken to staff at the Beatson and have been concerned about the problems that they face. The new site at Gartnavel has been welcomed, but only now has action been taken to speed up the transfer to the site. Problems remain, as Nicola Sturgeon highlighted in asking the minister about care in the south side. There are many doubts about whether the Executive's plans will result in the improvement that is required in Scotland's appalling cancer rates.

We all recognise that cancer requires the earliest possible diagnosis and treatment if a patient is to be cured. It is an absolute scandal that the situation at the Beatson has been allowed to continue and to deteriorate into the crisis that it is today.

Studies carried out at the Beatson have identified that cancers are becoming inoperable because of a lack of machines. A study identified that 29 cancer patients had to wait between 18 days and more than four months between diagnosis and their second CT scan. In this day and age, that is not acceptable. Five hundred women suffering from breast cancer have now had their check-ups postponed for at least a year as a result of the staffing crisis at the Beatson. Patients who have been identified as low risk have had their appointments put back. I say to the minister that people could die if the crisis is not resolved.

The minister's announcements, and those of the Labour party, about new cash represent a drop in the ocean in comparison with the investment that is desperately needed for the treatment that is required in the 21st century. Scotland is a wealthy country, but that is not apparent from the health treatment that is provided to our people. We can afford better standards of care. The Government must take steps to resolve the crisis at the Beatson and to give back confidence to the Beatson and cancer services throughout the country.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the situation at the Beatson oncology centre, which is based at the Western infirmary and Gartnavel general hospital, which are part of North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust. Although I accept that the Opposition has a legitimate role in questioning the Executive's plans, I hope that no one in the Parliament will play party politics with an issue as important as the cancer strategy.

There is no doubt that the resignation of a fourth consultant oncologist at the Beatson shows that a serious and grave situation is emerging, which has the potential to harm the service in the short term and undermines the public's confidence in our biggest cancer centre. Therefore, I call on ministers to leave no stone unturned in providing immediate solutions for patients who are receiving treatment or follow-up consultations. I welcome the action plan that Scottish ministers have put in place.

The setting for the Beatson oncology centre is the Western infirmary, which is a two-site hospital that provides a medical service in two locations. That is detrimental not only for cancer services, but for orthopaedics and other clinical specialities. The Opposition has failed to call for the speeding up of action on that matter and fails to understand the issue.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I will not take interventions because I have too much to say. Perhaps SNP members will learn something.

Bringing together the two hospitals on one site will deliver better services. That is why Malcolm Chisholm's decision to speed up the action plan and to get the hospital in one location is crucial to patients. That must be understood.

For two years, I have called consistently for the move to be speeded up. I have monitored the situation and called for the speeding up of a one-site option at Gartnavel for cancer patients and orthopaedic patients. Work on that started in 1997. Where do SNP members think that the plans that are being put into operation at Gartnavel came from? Work on the plans has been going on since 1997.

As have other members, I have visited the Beatson oncology centre many times. I accompanied Malcolm Chisholm on his visit to the centre last week. I am well aware of the conditions under which staff work. Doctors do not have proper facilities and the facilities are cramped. Because the centre deals with life-threatening conditions, it is busy and like no other place. The issue is not only about conditions for doctors; it is mostly about conditions for patients. The male chemotherapy ward is of an unacceptable standard. That is why so much effort has gone into bringing about the one-site option.

The Beatson service serves half the population of Scotland and deals with the more complex cancers. The centre of excellence is hosted by North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust, but is delivered across five health board areas. I welcome the minister's decision to remove the service from local management, because it is not a local service but a regional and national one. I ask the minister to consider whether in the future it would make more sense to manage and fund the service directly on a regional basis. Glasgow cannot continue to endure the burden of running the service in the Glasgow funding envelope.

We should pay tribute to the staff who make up the specialist team at the Beatson centre: specialist nurses who are dedicated to cancer patients; clinical scientists—of whom there is a definite shortage that must be examined—who work extremely hard to ensure that cancer treatment is modernised; and radiographers who work all hours to provide the special type of radiography that the service requires. Doctors are crucial, but we must acknowledge the role of other staff in the service.

The NHS faces shortages of specialists and it is unfortunate that cancer services do not attract medics. The discipline is difficult. I ask the minister to consider the possibility of increasing numbers in medical schools. To have more specialists in all areas—not only cancer services—we must consider having more doctors in the system.

There has been underinvestment in imaging services, particularly during the Conservative Government's time in office. That is a fact.

Ultrasound, MRI and computed axial tomography scanning are beginning to rectify that situation. We have a strategy to deal with the underinvestment and, unless we deal with it, we will not be able to resolve many issues in the speciality areas. An adequate supply of radiographers is needed. Again, to reduce waiting times we must do something about the number of people who come into the system.

I want to mention the importance of setting up ambulatory care and diagnostic units in the NHS. The point of ACAD units is to recognise that patients are often most worried about diagnosis because they are waiting to find out what is wrong with them and what treatment they will need. Therefore, investment in ACAD units is a crucial point in the diagnostic debate.

The Labour and Liberal partnership does not believe that it has all the answers. It is not arrogant enough to think that. However, we have many answers. I would like to hear more answers from the Opposition on what can be done about the situation.

Mary Scanlon referred to an article in this morning's edition of The Herald. I do not believe everything that I read in the press and I hope that that article is not true. It would be a disgrace if a profession were to take advantage of the crisis and I hope that members would condemn that.

Crises often give us an opportunity to consider what we could do better. I ask the minister when he examines the future of the Beatson oncology centre—which I hope will be at the one-location site at Gartnavel—to consider doing something bigger and better. We must deal with the issues now. The land at Gartnavel will not be available for ever. We must consider the possibilities for what we can do in the future and we must use the crisis as an opportunity. Everyone recognises that there is a crisis, but they should also recognise that a lot is being done. I ask the minister and the Opposition members in their summing up to mention some solutions and not only problems.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I will speak on behalf of cancer sufferers in Ayrshire and the west of Scotland. I want the Executive to note the headline in today's edition of the Ayrshire Post :

"Cancer fears mount as fourth specialist quits".

That succinctly catches the mood of people in Ayrshire. I also speak on behalf of the concerned constituents who contacted me about the Beatson centre and about the withdrawal of clinics from Ayrshire to Glasgow.

As members have said, the situation at the Beatson oncology centre has become untenable and the prospects for cancer care for the 60 per cent of Scotland's population that is covered by the centre decline daily. Yesterday in the chamber, I heard and welcomed Malcolm Chisholm's Pauline conversion to Conservative policy—his commitment to using private care facilities to treat NHS patients. I welcomed that, because with Dr Adrian Harnett's resignation last week from the Beatson centre, Ayrshire hospitals lost not only a consultant but a highly regarded man who is at the top of his profession.

I understand that, as a result of Dr Harnett's resignation, breast cancer care in Ayrshire will be reduced by up to 50 per cent and post-operative care clinics might be withdrawn from Ayrshire and go to Glasgow in the short term. Like Nicola Sturgeon, I seek the minister's assurance that those services will be reinstated as soon as is humanly possible. Of course, if another consultant were appointed, that cover would be resumed. However, instead of queuing up to join the once-famous Beatson oncology centre, by all accounts consultants are queuing up to leave.

The catalogue of mismanagement and lack of man-management is simply breathtaking. The fact that Dr Harnett apparently resigned without a job to go to paints a picture of despair within the centre—despair among the staff at excessive work loads and at a situation for the improvement of which they think there are no prospects. As my colleague Mary Scanlon said, it is simply unacceptable to have Karol Sikora, an eminent professor of clinical oncology, describe conditions at the Beatson as similar to the third world. It is truly worrying for him to talk of "Stalinist solutions" as having been the management style at the Beatson.

That is why I welcome Malcolm Chisholm's new, pragmatic approach. He will allow patients who would otherwise have been penalised by old Labour policies to be treated at HCI. That is good news for Ayrshire. Waiting lists and waiting times that would have risen immediately as a result of understaffing at the Beatson might not rise so quickly.

If beds and treatment for Ayrshire patients cannot be found in Glasgow or elsewhere in Scotland, the minister must be prepared to find bed space and facilities in England and Wales. In a worst case scenario, bed space and treatment facilities could and should be sought abroad, because it is a fact that if people have—or believe that they might have—cancer, they will travel huge distances to receive treatment, if need be.

Finally, I appeal to Dr Harnett to stay at the Beatson. If he has not yet taken a job elsewhere—I believe that he has not—I am sure that the Parliament, to a man, would ask him to reconsider his position and stay on at the Beatson. With a new minister and a new director in charge, surely things can only get better. For the sake of the people in the west of Scotland, let us hope so.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Anyone who has read "A Cornucopia of Pharmacopeia" by Father George Rutler of New York cannot fail to be impressed by the phenomenal contribution that Scots have made to the betterment of mankind. Although our nation's population accounts for less than one in 1,200 of the Earth's population, 11 per cent of all Nobel prizes have been awarded to Scots. Indeed, throughout modern history, Scots have contributed significantly to all areas of human development, not least in medicine. Scottish medical pioneers include William Leishman, who perfected the typhoid vaccine; William Smellie, the founder of modern obstetrics; John Hunter, the father of comparative anatomy; John Macleod, the discoverer of insulin; Joseph Lister, the founder of antiseptic medicine; James Young Simpson, who was the first to use chloroform in surgery; and Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin. There have been many others.

A nation that has contributed so much to—and still has a worldwide reputation in—medicine now has an Executive that, in the provision of cancer services, has failed to deliver the level of treatment that is so desperately needed by vulnerable patients.

In the recently published "Cancer in Scotland: Action for Change", Mr Chisholm's predecessor reiterates the Scottish Executive mantra that cancer

"is one of our three top priorities".

One can only wonder at the provision of services that are not among the top three priorities of this coalition.

The Beatson is in crisis. Years of mismanagement, malaise and underfunding have demoralised staff, delayed treatment and adversely affected the prognosis for patients. A critical shortage of specialist consultants, a catastrophic reduction from £8.5 million to £3.5 million in medical equipment expenditure in Glasgow during new Labour's first three years in office and an abysmally low expenditure on cytotoxic drugs cannot fail to impact adversely on patient outcomes.

An action plan has been produced, although it is of the closing-the-stable-door-after-the-horse-has-bolted type. We hope that it will be successful, but will it be enough? Will it be enough to overcome the loss of crucial staff, the erosion of confidence or the years of underinvestment? How long will it be before waiting lists fall, waiting times are reduced and the Beatson becomes a centre of excellence in which Europe's finest oncologists aspire to work? Is the minister even able to hint at a time scale and the implications for patients in the intervening period?

Ministers ignored warnings in April that the centre was lurching from crisis to crisis and sat complacently on their hands. Can they be trusted to turn around the situation now? If Glasgow is to lose its title of Europe's cancer capital, the Beatson must be turned around. However, that can only be done by listening to staff at all levels, examining the reasons why four consultants have resigned and acting swiftly to reverse the conditions that forced them to resign in such dramatic fashion.

At the Victoria infirmary, 500 women who have received breast cancer treatment might have to wait a year for scheduled checks. As one patient, Karen Jenkins, said in The Herald yesterday after being told that she would have to wait until January 2003:

"I am very worried. I fear that some of the people involved could die if they have to wait as long as me".

Dr Iain McColl, a general practitioner at Thornliebank health centre, said in the same newspaper the previous day:

"Patients with early treatable cancers are having surgery delayed beyond the curative stage. As a nation we cannot allow this to continue."

We must recruit specialists now, even if that means paying increased salaries and expediting equipment purchases, the construction of the new Beatson centre and the provision of more beds. Specialists must be headhunted, even if only on short-term contracts, to ensure that patients do not die because of the crisis in cancer services. Money cannot be the problem. We should remember that in the past financial year, at a time when the service was crying out for funding, we had the obscenity of a £143 million underspend in the NHS in Scotland. Lack of financial resources can no longer be considered an adequate excuse.

The Executive has paid only lip service to cancer prevention. By its own admission, smoking is

"by far the largest preventable cause of cancer".

However, smoking rates among the disadvantaged have barely fallen and the Scottish Executive has not only failed to deliver on its own promise in "Making it Work Together" to

"ban tobacco advertising by the end of 1999"

but appears to be less than supportive—to put it mildly—of my colleague Nicola Sturgeon's bill on the issue. Hugh Henry is very interested in the issue of tobacco advertising, and I hope that his addition to the ministerial team will mean that that issue will be addressed. If the Executive is serious about reducing the incidence of cancer, backing the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Scotland) Bill would mean that it could deliver—albeit it two, or more, years late—on at least one pledge.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Although I support the Executive's amendment, I ask the minister to recognise that things will have to get a lot better at the Beatson clinic before constituency members whose constituents and families depend on the clinic's services will be satisfied or quietened.

We must not lose sight of the fact that some of Europe's finest consultants and other associated nursing and hospital staff continue to work at the clinic to provide better cancer services for people in the west of Scotland. From speaking regularly to key consultants at the clinic, I know that its medical staff and patients will genuinely welcome the minister's decision to move oversight of the centre from North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust. The trust has proved too large, unwieldy and cumbersome for the tasks that it faces and it is clear beyond peradventure that the trust has been found wanting in its handling of the developing situation. Furthermore, we will have to revisit issues about democratic accountability.

The announcement of the external expert advisory group is but one example. The minister must be congratulated on securing the advice and assistance of pre-eminent advisers such as Professor Cummings from Toronto. I know that the professor will shortly be returning home for Christmas and I wish him a happy and restful short festive break. We look forward to his return.

However, the clinicians at the Beatson clinic have been asking for such external assistance and advice from the trust since early this year. I ask the minister to investigate through the NHS board what has been going on at the trust and why key staff members' repeated requests for and suggestions about improvements were downplayed and ignored. I know those people; they believe in and are proud of the NHS, and will not be leaving the service.

I agree with Nicola Sturgeon that the situation at the Beatson clinic is very worrying. That is partly why I welcome the amendment's support of Adam Bryson's appointment as clinical director. Although I also agree that individuals will not solve structural problems, they can help with the situation, and Adam Bryson's appointment certainly has the full support of members on the coalition benches. Adam Bryson is well known to specialists in the field, and should be well known to everyone who supports the cancer service. He deserves everyone's support.

Although I wish Adam Bryson and his new team every success and although I welcome the NHS boards' agreements concerning the new Beatson clinic—which represents a capital investment of more than £44 million—I urge them all to examine seriously the phase two business case that Margaret Smith mentioned. I am pleased to see Margaret in the chamber, and welcome what she said. The phase two business case should be changed to increase the number of beds and scanners and the scale of the outpatient facilities at the new Beatson centre.

I welcome the comments that have been made by coalition members about what should be done with the additional financial allocations. Members of the coalition parties will have no difficulty in supporting any better and further much-needed resources for cancer services in Scotland.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The history of medical care in my lifetime has been one of increasing specialisation and, by definition, increasing centralisation of such specialisations. The reasons are partly financial and partly down to the colleges' view that consultants' posts can be justified only if there is given and predetermined throughput of patients. As John Scott pointed out, the defects in provision in Glasgow impinge on a wide surrounding area—they apply in equal measure to the whole of the west of Scotland.

As someone who has been lucky enough not to have a life-threatening emergency, I am fairly confident that the system works, be that accident and emergency care or the diagnosis of an immediately life-threatening condition. However, the diagnosis process is fatally slow.

A letter from Dr Iain Campbell McColl in The Herald on Monday 10 December stated:

"a patient, who has worrying bowel symptoms strongly suggestive of cancer, has a seven-week wait before she will be seen for a first appointment by a colorectal surgeon."

That seven-week wait was achieved only after the consultant's secretary was begged to put the person on the waiting list—her original appointment was for April 2002. It was made clear that, at the end of that first waiting period, the patient would be at the end of the queue for a colonoscopy and barium enema and that it might take up to five months before that treatment could be received. The letter further stated:

"national cancer guidelines state that these patients should be seen within two weeks and have their investigations performed within another two weeks".

No one in the chamber is unaware of how dire the situation is. The situation is profoundly worrying, not only objectively, to me in this debate, but also more subjectively, to the patient, whose life may be at stake as a result of the delay, and to the general practitioner, whose endeavours are being frustrated by a system that simply cannot cope. There is a shortage of cancer consultants as there is a shortage of all other consultants. Some hospitals in the west of Scotland have only half of their consultant posts filled. A consultant e-mailed "Good Morning Scotland" yesterday to say that some of his colleagues contemplated going into the private sector only because they wanted to treat more people and because the physical facilities were not available in the NHS to meet the demands for treatment—in other words, insufficient operating theatres are available.

The problem is one of resources and of making supply meet demand. The problem is about hospital boards and managers who have pushed risk management to the margins, to establish how few facilities can be paid for within the budgetary framework without the system collapsing. The system has been pushed too far.

Unhappily, there is an insatiable demand for cancer services in the west of Scotland. I have not even touched on the contribution that proper funding could make to diminishing the need for acute cancer care. Today, we are dealing with the immediate problem, but part of our responsibility is to try to diminish the problem and the demand for the services in the future.

Some 80 per cent of cancers are caused by an unhealthy lifestyle. It is worth noting that, in the 10 years after California's anti-smoking campaign, there was a 14 per cent decrease in lung cancer. Smoking, bad diet, obesity and lack of exercise are all concomitants of hopelessness and urban deprivation, which we have done little to diminish although they cannot be separated from the current crisis.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, given that the cancer rate in my constituency is 12 per cent above the national average. As a consequence of that high rate, my constituents and I know the Beatson unit well.

Members of my family still speak of the day on which my grandfather left his house in Mill Street in Greenock for an operation in Broadstone hospital in Port Glasgow. The whole street turned out, not to wish him well, but to say goodbye—such was the low expectation of survival 60 years ago. Of course, the people in the street were right: it was discovered that he had stomach cancer and he never left the hospital alive. Contrast the fear of yesteryear with the high expectations of today. Now, people rightly demand early screening, early diagnosis, early admission to the hospital of their choice and the best available treatment when they are there. For many in the west of Scotland, the focus for those high expectations has been the Beatson oncology centre, where much good work has been done, continues to be done and needs to be done.

I am proud that the Labour party shares those ambitions. In our manifesto for the 2001 Westminster elections, we recognised that cancer care was a priority and we have put in place an overall strategy to treat, detect and prevent cancers. Early detection will be boosted by improving screening technology, which will in turn improve survival rates. Treatment will be improved by investment in new hardware, one-stop clinics, more specialist cancer posts, MRI scanners and cancer-imaging equipment in all the health boards. At the Beatson centre, where there is no denying the difficulties, hard work is being done by the minister to turn the situation around. I welcome, as does the SNP, the action that the minister has taken.

The Labour party created the national health service, worked to raise excellence and confidence and is now working to tackle decline and meet the public's high expectations. Contrast that action with the rhetoric of the Scottish National Party. Its members have said a lot about cancer this morning, but its 2001 manifesto had sections on referendums, a written constitution and freshwater fishing, but not on cancer. The SNP's uncosted health policies have plenty of room for sections on a national health care commission, the regulation of the content of school meals and on cleaner hospitals, but no room for a section on cancer services. In this morning's motion, the SNP missed an opportunity to tell us—

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Since Duncan McNeil mentioned intervention in the health service, can he tell us why it took more than two years of doctors, clinicians and patients telling the then Minister for Health and Community Care about the situation at the Beatson centre before the Government intervened?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am challenging Ms White and her party to come up with ideas to solve the problems that she mentions. I find nothing in the SNP's policies to explain to anybody what the SNP would do.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Just a minute.

Previously, Richard Lochhead suggested that we should take money from places such as Glasgow and put it into the north-east, although that would diminish the share of the funds that Glasgow gets to fight cancer—that is what the SNP says on the issue.

The SNP should rise to the challenge of improving cancer services and try to meet our vision. This morning, in a 10-minute speech, all Nicola Sturgeon could come up with was a suggestion that we should solve the situation by bribing consultants. "SNP" still stands for "Still No Polices". The minister has issued a challenge to the SNP to join Labour in the attempt to give the people of Scotland the cancer services that they require.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member accept an intervention?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

No. SNP members need to wipe away their crocodile tears, roll up their sleeves and get involved in ensuring that the people of Scotland have the cancer services that they deserve. Moaning and groaning don't solve nothing.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I have a difficult task in following Duncan McNeil, who got the whole chamber excited, but I hope that my contribution will be useful.

I want to broaden the debate beyond the issues in the west of Scotland. We are addressing serious issues there and the minister has indicated that he is personally committed to resolving the problems through the appointment of Adam Bryson and the commitment to fast-track the decision about a new cancer centre for the west of Scotland.

Much of the tone of today's debate has been disappointingly negative. Like many of the debates in this Parliament, it has focused too much on failure and not enough on celebrating success.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

No, as I am short of time.

I want to highlight some of the successes of our health service's cancer services, as those successes can inform the way in which we develop services in the west of Scotland.

Margaret Smith emphasised the importance of patient involvement in shaping services. We can be encouraged by the commitment that Dr Anna Gregor, the lead cancer clinician, has given to that.

In the Lothians, many developments can be seen working in practice. Waiting times for breast cancer treatment have been cut by 60 per cent in recent months. Routine appointments for urgent cases are being offered within two weeks. In partnership with patients, new services that are closer to patients are being developed—the new dedicated cancer unit at St John's hospital in Livingston serves people who are receiving chemotherapy in that area. Also, new cancer treatment and assessment posts are being created in the Lothians. We must learn the lessons of success in the health service and transplant those successes to the areas in which problems exist.

It is important for the Parliament not to concentrate on failure and talk down our national health service. We must also focus on areas in which the Executive's policies are working and have been translated into real service improvements. Through partnership between health service clinicians, patients and the Parliament, we can make a real difference throughout Scotland. I hope that some of the lessons of the health service in the Lothians can be transplanted to the Beatson centre and the west of Scotland.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Bristow Muldoon was right in his concluding remarks to concentrate on the positive. There is no doubt that the Beatson crisis is taken seriously by everyone in the Parliament. It is right to say that the minister has acted speedily and that his actions to impose what I might describe roughly as direct rule at the Beatson centre have been correct. The priority now must be to resolve the short-term problems.

There is no great merit in rehashing the history of the matter except to learn lessons for the future. There are a number of lessons to be learned. There are undoubtedly questions about the way in which NHS management is conducted. Brian Fitzpatrick made some useful points about the way in which we might have to approach that in the future. Too often, management has been unresponsive and unlistening, not only at the Beatson centre, but at the cardiac unit at Stobhill hospital and, for that matter, at the Victoria infirmary.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

When the member talks about the attitude of the Liberal Democrats, will he reflect on their rather scandalous failure to turn out for the debate?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

We are here to speak about the matter that is being debated. As a member for Glasgow, my interest is primarily to speak on that. With respect, Winnie Ewing's point is rather petty.

There are questions about the way in which the NHS management conducted itself. There are also question marks over the respective roles of NHS management and medical staff. If consultants are telling management that certain things need to happen to provide a proper, safe service, there must be a presumption that those things will happen quickly.

As I said in yesterday's debate on the Scottish health plan, the problem is not money. The funds are in place for the replacement consultants and the six new posts at the Beatson centre. What immediate steps do we need to take? Most important are the steps that the minister has taken to beef up the management and accountability of the Beatson centre, to recruit new staff urgently, to speed up the replacement facility at Gartnavel and to seek the advice of the external group.

Kenny Gibson was right to call for urgent headhunting of staff. However, the staff crisis goes significantly wider than the Beatson centre: it is a problem in oncology throughout the United Kingdom. It stems from gross failures in ethos, from the misguided creation of cumbersome bureaucracies and, above all, from the failure of the previous Conservative Government and the Labour Government in its early days to provide adequate numbers of doctors and nurses qualifying from our universities. To get a medical student through university takes six years. It is quite obvious that we cannot just snap our fingers and produce new doctors and nurses overnight. It takes time.

Much has been made of the vacant beds at Health Care International at Clydebank. The fact that the beds are vacant is not exactly a tribute to the business efficiency of that rather troubled institution. The private sector does not have spare doctors any more than the NHS does. That is not just true of doctors; it is also true of other staff and of beds. However, it is certainly worth considering whether the space and facilities that are available at the HCI premises could provide a temporary home for the Beatson centre until the new facilities are available. That temporary home could be staffed and run by the NHS in much the same way that the Parliament has borrowed this chamber until the new chamber is ready.

It must be said that those would be short-term solutions only. We must concentrate on long-term solutions. After all the hassle and complaints—which were quite correct and justified in many respects—it is appropriate for members to back the minister. He has started well. He is on the right track. He has done the right things. Few people have suggested much that he should be doing beyond that. All power to his elbow. We should back the minister in trying to resolve the problems that have been such a blight on the Scottish health service at the Beatson centre.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

When a facility such as the Beatson centre teeters weekly on the edge of crisis, that must surely come as a major embarrassment to the Labour Scottish Executive and former Scottish Office, which declared the provision of cancer services to be one of its leading initiatives. One of the major focuses of the Executive's health policy is failing—and badly. When that happens, we must call into question the Government's competence.

It never ceases to amaze me that a party that is so good at spin and launching initiatives is so thoroughly disorganised and unco-ordinated. One of the most worrying quotations to come out of the affair is from Professor Barrett, who said:

"The Scottish Executive is investing in the cancer plan, but what we want to see is transparency in where the investments are going and a strategy from the management to improve care."

Her sentiment is clear. She implies that, despite all the committees, sub-groups and documents, there is serious mistrust about how the investment benefits frontline services. It is obvious to anyone with any management skills that, when expectations are raised so high yet remain unfulfilled, morale will decline seriously. Part of the blame for that must be laid at the door of the Scottish Executive.

We must also question the incompetence of the previous minister's handling of the situation. It is unforgivable that the junior civil servant who dealt with the written concerns from the Beatson centre did not pass them to the minister. The fact of the matter is that the minister should have been listening and gathering information almost weekly on the state of one of her leading initiatives.

I ask the deputy minister to clarify in her closing speech why the human resources sub-group of the Scottish cancer group failed to do the job that it was given in the Government cancer strategy document. Will the minister tell us how many times the sub-group has met, how many reports have been received from it and whether any of those reports mentions the growing problems at the Beatson centre? Like most of the Government's strategies, the cancer strategy is dominated by committees, sub-groups and action plans that produce a lot of talk and centralised guidelines that seem to buffer the Executive from reality. For example, the Scottish cancer group has to my knowledge at least four sub-groups and three groups of regional advisers.

We heard today from Malcolm Chisholm, in response to Mary Scanlon, that he hopes that consultants will not break away from the NHS. We cannot run an NHS on hope. That is like trying to run it on a wing and a prayer. We need more than hope; we need action.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will we hear clearly from the Conservatives where they stand on that question? Do they want such a breakaway to happen? They are always trying to talk up private health. Do they support the NHS or do they think that it is a Stalinist creation?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We want consultants to be paid properly for the job that they do. If a problem exists that means that consultants are attracted elsewhere, we must put in place pay—not bribery, as Duncan McNeil said—to keep them in the NHS. We must also ensure that they are empowered to do their job. If we take away the power of a consultant or a doctor, he or she will simply leave and go where they can carry out the job that they have been trained to do. Until the Government starts to return the power that fundholding gave, consultants and doctors will continue to leave. That is a reply and a solution, but the Executive will not listen, just as it does not listen to patients or other people on the ground.

The Scottish Conservatives make no apologies for much of the internal market, which gave doctors power and would have allowed a much smoother transfer of resources from the health boards to the network centres. We think that it has a role to play again. It would have increased the swiftness of purchasing of places for patients when they needed them most.

The Conservatives urge the minister to stop creating more and more sub-committees and more and more action plans and instead to do what he should be doing: getting out to meet the people on the ground and monitoring his initiatives constantly. The minister has to lead the health service by getting off his arse and finding out what is going on. We have had enough of committees. That is why people feel that the Executive does not listen to their concerns.

The Conservatives thank the SNP for lodging the motion. I ask members to reflect on whether a crisis at the cancer centre that provides 60 per cent of the cover for Scotland's cancer patients does not warrant a ministerial statement. That the Executive relies on the Opposition to spend its time debating such issues shows the contempt in which the Executive holds the Parliament.

The Conservatives will support the SNP motion. There is little to redeem the Executive's behaviour in the past two years or the past two weeks. The tragedy is that there will be more Beatsons under the Scottish Executive. There will be more gaps between initiatives and what actually happens. That is why we will back the SNP motion.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

s Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, I share this morning's clearly expressed concerns about the current pressures, particularly the recent loss of four consultant staff, at the Beatson oncology centre in Glasgow.

I am aware of the concerns and anxiety that the situation has raised not only among staff, but among patients—and their relatives—who receive cancer treatment in the west of Scotland. I take issue with Ben Wallace's comment that we treat the matter with contempt. I can assure him that we do not.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Is it not contemptible to ignore concerns for two years, only to come up with something when the situation reaches crisis level, as it did two weeks ago?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The way to resolve the difficulties is the approach that Malcolm Chisholm has taken over the past two weeks. Last week, the minister announced new management arrangements for the Beatson oncology centre, to give new leadership there. That shows that we will act and not just offer warm words.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister praised Malcolm Chisholm's speedy action of the past two weeks. Does the minister accept that Susan Deacon neglected to act for two years to stop the Beatson falling into decline?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Nicola Sturgeon will know that the Executive's action plan for cancer, "Cancer in Scotland: Action for Change", was drafted when Susan Deacon was Minister for Health and Community Care. Therefore, Susan Deacon cannot be criticised for the Beatson situation either.

Dr Adam Bryson's recent appointment as the Beatson director will drive forward the implementation of the agreed action plan, which was drawn up by the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow, Tom Divers. Dr Bryson will report directly to him. Tom Divers has also been asked to fast-track plans for the new replacement for the Beatson at Gartnavel—that matter was also asked about frequently this morning. An outline business case for phase two of the Gartnavel cancer centre is expected by the end of this month.

We are also aware that we need to tackle the immediate problems and the imminent staff shortages at the Beatson. That is our and Dr Bryson's top priority.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

No; not just now.

Advertisements for the six Beatson posts have been placed in medical journals and a headhunter has been appointed to help to recruit for the forthcoming vacancies and the new posts that were created last month by the Scottish Executive's additional cancer services investment.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Will Nicola Sturgeon give me one minute to finish my point?

Margaret Smith asked whether those advertisements would be dealt with appropriately. I assure members that only suitably qualified and experience consultants will be employed. There is no question of our taking anything less than the best for Beatson. I hope that Margaret Smith accepts that reassurance.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the minister tell us today how many applications have been received for the new and vacant posts and how many of those applications are from people with the necessary training, qualifications and experience? Will she also tell us what action that is different from that taken by the old management Adam Bryson has taken since his appointment to the Beatson to attract consultants to Scotland? The minister undoubtedly recognises that we will have to attract consultants from south of the border and from abroad.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

There have been five expressions of interest. I am not aware of those people's individual qualifications, but my reassurance must be accepted that only suitably qualified and experienced people will be considered for those posts. I am interested in considering new ways of attracting staff. I am sure that Dr Bryson is taking that matter on board by recognising that difficulties and shortages need to be addressed by looking not just here in Scotland, but in Britain and Europe.

In order to maintain services to patients during the period of consultant vacancies, locum posts have been advertised and the Beatson management team, through established contacts in Europe and at international centres, is proactively headhunting.

New internal management arrangements are being implemented at the Beatson. An external clinical support team has been established and a project manager has been identified to take forward the action plan.

The west of Scotland regional cancer advisory group will hold its first meeting on 20 December, when it will discuss matters such as how to deliver clinical services and how to improve the overall service.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the minister give way?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I will not take an intervention just now.

The head of the Scottish Executive's health department strategy change unit is working with Beatson staff to create an organisational development plan to support the cancer centre and the managed clinical networks. The unit will hold its first development day for senior Beatson staff on Friday 14 December.

All those actions show that work is on-going and that we are seeking to improve the present situation.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

rose—

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I must wind up.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yes. The minister is on her last minute.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Better communications between staff will ensure that everyone works together for the benefit of patients. The minister said this morning that he will listen to the health service staff and will act on what they say. He has shown already that he is ready to act. Change will not happen overnight, but action has been taken. The minister has also said that he will listen to constructive suggestions that arise in the chamber—if any are forthcoming.

Our aim is to provide better and improving cancer services for people throughout Scotland. Given the present situation, we will be particularly looking to the interests of people in the west of Scotland.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I begin with a word of advice for members on the Labour benches. It does not matter how often they say that Labour is managing the health service well; nor does it matter how loudly Duncan McNeil says that Labour is doing a good job for the health service—because the people out there do not believe that. I say to Labour members that I understand perfectly their frustration at their Government's inability to tackle the problems. I suggest that Labour members should direct their frustration towards their front-bench spokespeople and their ministers, who should be getting to grips with the health service, rather than trying to blame the Scottish National Party for the ills of the health service. Those ills can be laid directly at the door of the Minister for Health and Community Care and the health department.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the member give way?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No. The member did not do so. He should sit down.

How did we arrive at a situation in Scotland in which cancer patients who are referred for potentially curative therapy have to wait up to six months after diagnosis before treatment starts? That is the situation for many cancer patients. Members from all parts of the chamber should be concerned that, in Scotland in 2001, that is the case. The situation is not good enough.

I do not doubt that all of us, across all the parties, want that situation to change. However, it is not acceptable for Jack McConnell to have said in The Herald today that people should accept delays in their treatment and that we should learn to accept that that is the way in which the health service operates. We should not accept that; we should aspire to something much better than that.

Nearly everyone in the chamber will have been touched by cancer in some way or another—through family or friends. We know the anxiety and fear that a cancer diagnosis brings. Cancer patients need to know that their chances of survival will not be hampered by a lack of cancer specialists, outdated equipment or poor facilities. It is unfortunate that that is the picture of many cancer services in parts of Scotland. Cancer patients need to know that they will have the best chance of survival.

The situation in the west of Scotland is, unfortunately, in a league of its own. We have heard the history of how the crisis at the Beatson centre arose from many members this morning. I do not intend to go into that again, apart from to say that there was clearly a catalogue of mismanagement and Government inaction. I reiterate the point that John Swinney made. The minister has talked about listening to clinicians. We should listen to clinicians, but for two years clinicians have drawn attention to the looming crisis at the Beatson centre and ministers have appeared not to listen to them. Their calls have fallen on deaf ears.

That is what we take issue with. It is not all about money or investment, although that is important; it is also about the lack of Government action and the arrogance of Government in not listening to clinicians when they told of the developing situation at the Beatson centre— [Interruption.] That arrogance is being ably demonstrated by back-bench members of the Labour party today. Such arrogance led directly to the current situation at the Beatson.

Although the Minister for Health and Community Care's swift action to deal with the management issues at the Beatson centre is welcome, his saying that he will accept a possible permanent reduction in cancer clinics in the west of Scotland is not welcome.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Shona Robison has said that she will not go through the history of the situation, but that is exactly what she has done. What would an SNP health minister in Malcolm Chisholm's place do differently, particularly with regard to staff recruitment?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

We have already made a positive suggestion about an enhanced pay and conditions package to attract consultants to the Beatson, which has, as ever, been dismissed. Jack McConnell gave a line about listening to good ideas from other parts of the chamber, but unfortunately they have fallen on deaf ears once again.

In reply to Robert Brown, we would not ignore the pleas of clinicians. We would have listened and responded to their pleas; we would not have exhibited the arrogance that has, unfortunately, been exhibited by the coalition parties.

As many people have done, I commended the Minister for Health and Community Care for his swift action in response to the management issues at the Beatson, but it is not acceptable for us now to be told about a reconfiguration of services. We all know what that means—a reduction in the number of cancer clinics in the west of Scotland, which is not an acceptable state of affairs. I would have hoped to hear something a little more positive from the Minister for Health and Community Care this morning.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No; we are running late.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

rose—

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I will accept an intervention from the minister.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I wish to clarify what I was saying. I did not say that I would justify every single change; I acknowledged that clinicians are saying that there needs to be some reconfiguration of services. I said that, as part of listening to them, I would go by their judgment on that matter.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Shona Robison must now bring her speech to a close.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Clinicians are saying that they want services in Glasgow back and that they do not want them to be withdrawn. I am suspicious about what is driving the decisions that are being taken.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We can have no more interventions.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

My concern is that the decisions are being driven by a cost-cutting agenda. That should be prevented. I hope that the minister will reconsider the situation. I also hope that the minister, unlike his back benchers, will take a more responsible attitude to the constructive suggestion that was offered by my colleague Nicola Sturgeon: to consider an enhanced pay and conditions package to attract consultants to the Beatson centre.

We need to take radical action. Otherwise, we will be discussing the situation again in a year's time and nothing will have changed. That would not be acceptable.

Scottish Prison Service

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-2545, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the Scottish Prison Service, and on two amendments to that motion.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

There is some justification for describing the Scottish Prison Service as the cinderella service in the criminal justice system. Inmates and employees are out of sight and it is a little too easy also to keep them out of mind.

There are three main purposes of imprisonment: humane punishment, rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of the public. Each of those is absolutely vital to society in the short, medium and long terms. All aspects of our Prison Service should be measured against the achievement of those fundamental aims. Conditions for staff and inmates should be assessed so that we may know whether they contribute to or hinder those three aims.

Let us consider some aspects of Scotland's prisons. First, there is overcrowding, which, in my view, weakens the system's ability to deliver on all three aims. The basic decency of conditions in prisons is a mark of a civilised society. The overcrowding of prisoners is inhumane and impedes work on the rehabilitation of offenders. In 1998, the Scottish Office minister with responsibility for justice, Henry McLeish, said:

"Overcrowding ... means that we cannot spend enough time with individual prisoners. That is why there will be further reforms in the Prison Service to overcome the problem."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 21 July 1998; Vol 316, c 895.]

That was just one of many hollow assurances about the prison system. Despite promises from both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the prison population has continued to rise. This year, we locked up more people than ever before. The peak figure for this year so far is 6,388, which was recorded on 29 June. That is the highest number of prisoners in Scotland ever recorded. Despite previous assurances, the situation is getting worse, not better.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I ask Roseanna Cunningham to cast her mind back to when she was convener of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. Does she recall the Minister for Justice assuring us that the number of prisoners was about to fall, and that he would budget accordingly? Is Roseanna Cunningham able to say what has gone wrong since then, or could she ask the Minister for Justice to do so?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The debate should be about the Minister for Justice taking some responsibility for what has, clearly, gone badly wrong. I remember the constant and consistent assurances from the Minister for Justice and from the chief executive of the SPS that things were going to get better. It was always said that they would get better, but they have simply got worse.

Only recently, the Minister for Justice, replying to me at question time, rather sarcastically washed his hands of responsibility. He said:

"the number of people in prisons is not entirely within the Executive's remit, given that the sheriffs who sentence them are not ministers."—[Official Report, 29 November 2001; c 4382.]

If that is the case, presumably the minister knew that it was nonsense for the Liberal Democrat party to promise in its 1999 manifesto that:

"We will cut prison numbers by encouraging greater use of non-custodial sentences, where offenders pose no risk to the public."

How has the minister fulfilled that promise? Fine defaulters continue to represent more than 40 per cent of new prisoner receptions in Scotland. The Scottish Government now seems to regard its commitment to cut the number of prisoners as a distant aspiration. That is fed, no doubt, by a cynicism that assumes that there will be no public outcry at the Government's failure. Nowhere is that failure more evident than in Cornton Vale.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It might be difficult for her, but will Roseanna Cunningham acknowledge the considerable extension of the range of non-custodial options available to sheriffs since 1999, and that those provide an important part of the Executive's strategy on criminal justice?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I speak to sheriffs on a number of occasions. Many of them tell me that, although there may be plenty of alternatives on paper, those alternatives are not as available to them in practice as might be assumed. They say that they often feel that their hands are tied, despite what appears to be more of an option. The minister ought to address that, instead of asking me about it.

The report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons for Scotland on Cornton Vale calls for a reduction in the number of prisoners. Clive Fairweather, the chief inspector, has repeatedly gone on record with his concerns about the number of women being jailed in Scotland. His report of 1998, "Women Offenders—A Safer Way", showed that most women sent to prison should not be there. The Government accepted the report's recommendations that the number of women in prison should be cut sharply. Since 1998, the number of women in prison has risen to a record level. It is becoming the case that assurances from the Government ought to be treated as promises that exactly the opposite is going to happen.

The only prison solely for women, Cornton Vale, has been seriously overcrowded this year, and the figures for females under 21 are climbing particularly steeply.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Will the member go on to cover some of the positive points that Clive Fairweather made about Cornton Vale in his report?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am well aware of the positive points that Clive Fairweather has made, but I am pointing out his consistent call for a cut in the number of prisoners, his consistent concern about the number of women being jailed and the consistent failure to address that issue.

I recognise that the member has a strong local interest in this matter and has done a great deal for Cornton Vale. However, that should not distract us from the fact that over the years there has been a consistent failure on the issue of women in prison. We already know that 82 per cent of women in prison are the victims of some kind of abuse. However, the figures for the number of women in prison are rising at a time when the chief inspector of prisons is warning:

"what has not changed is the condition of the women arriving at the prison gates. If anything their condition is even worse and they are getting younger and younger."

According to the chief inspector, Cornton Vale, Scotland's only women's prison, is acting as

"a casualty clearing station, psychiatric ward and ... an addictions clinic".

I do not think that it is the proper purpose of a prison to act as any of those things.

Mr Fairweather has called for the number of women jailed to be cut by half. For several years it has been the Government's stated policy to reduce the number of prisoners in Cornton Vale. The Minister for Justice has failed miserably to deliver on that policy. Women who are being jailed are probably women who are most at risk of suicide. Indeed, in recent weeks there have been two more suicides. Warning bells are ringing loud and clear and even the minister should hear them. However, there is precious little evidence that that is the case. Neither were warning bells heard in connection with the degrading practice of slopping out, which hinders the achievement of progress and what should be the aims of the Prison Service. As long as slopping out exists, Scotland's prisons will not provide a basic standard of decency. In 1999, we were told that there was a plan to end slopping out by 2005. Then £13 million was taken from the prison budget, and bang went the plan. However, ending slopping out would save staff time, expense and, possibly, legal costs. Improved conditions for both prisoners and staff would provide a better environment for the rehabilitation of offenders.

The conditions in prisons have a big effect on staff morale, which is at an all-time low despite the complacency of the Executive amendment. The past few years have seen a collapse in staff confidence in SPS management. That has been caused by management intransigence in negotiations on terms and conditions, management cost-cutting through driving down pay and the constant review of the service with a mind to privatisation. Prison staff should be properly valued for the tough job that they do. If the Scottish Prison Service does not treat its staff properly and pay them decently, they will leave.

Prisons are now big business, dominated by global corporations. Those corporations have a track record of forcing down staff pay and conditions and of treating prisoners poorly. They make their money through paying low wages and employing fewer staff, or through financial manipulation at the taxpayer's expense. Privatisation is being used by SPS management to threaten its staff in a way that should be unacceptable. It would have been unacceptable when new Labour was promising no more private prisons, but that was back in the days before the party was elected. Now that Labour is the Government, that has become just one more broken promise.

Privatisation is happening in other ways as well. The privatisation of the general practitioners service in prisons was pushed through without proper consultation. The SPS uses the excuse of commercial confidentiality to avoid revealing the cost of staffing the new service. If privatisation has led to savings for the SPS—because of the secrecy surrounding it, there is no way of knowing whether it has—it has also led to poorer conditions for medical staff and has placed prisoners at risk. The kind of privatisation to which I refer is being kept more secret than the SPS agreement with Her Majesty's Prison Kilmarnock.

In its efforts to contract out social work, the SPS management has shown itself to be a bullying and, ultimately, incompetent negotiator. It appears to have been driven by ideology and the desire to push costs on to local authorities. The policy initiative appears to have come from within the SPS and ministers appear to have been left in the dark until too late. The results of that initiative in Edinburgh have been the loss of an experienced social work unit, harm to vital links with social work in the community, higher costs for the SPS and damage to relations with a long-standing service provider.

I know that the Minister for Justice will spend some time talking about the prison estates review. That has been something of a saga, allowing the minister to spend a considerable amount of his time answering questions about the prison system by not answering questions. The review was announced in autumn 1999 and started in December 1999. It was completed in December 2000 and submitted to the minister. In January this year the minister promised to publish the review, but we are still waiting for it. What is the minister trying to hide? Why have we not seen the review before now? It is extraordinary that so much time has been allowed to pass and that an important review should have been left sitting on the shelf despite the fact that questions are continually being asked about it. Continued uncertainty about the estates review has been another factor in bringing about a collapse in staff morale. However, I suppose that this has been a useful exercise in allowing the minister to avoid what little appears to be left of his responsibilities to the public for the prison system.

That lack of accountability is one of the true scandals of what has been allowed to happen. The minister continually tells us that he is responsible for policy and that the SPS is responsible for operational decisions. The extent to which subjects can be designated operational is interesting. No doubt that is convenient for the minister. Of the 185 written parliamentary questions about prisons that were lodged between November 2000 and November 2001, only 27 were answered directly by the minister. Tony Cameron was allowed to decide that staff bullying at Kilmarnock was a matter solely for the prison operating company. What is more, many of his answers seem designed deliberately to mislead. That makes it difficult for the Parliament to hold anyone to account for what is happening in Scotland's prisons. Cameron is answerable to the minister, who is answerable to us, but the minister will not answer.

My views about the chief executive of the SPS remain the same as they were when, earlier this year, I lodged a motion of no confidence in him. Unfortunately, by extension I must say that I have no confidence in the minister's stewardship of the Scottish Prison Service, as he appears to have washed his hands of all problems in the service.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Executive's failure to bring forward a strategy to address the increasing overcrowding within Scottish prisons and further notes that morale amongst Scottish Prison Service staff is at rock bottom as the result of (a) the deterioration of industrial relations, (b) the continued threat of further privatisation within the Scottish Prison Service, (c) the culture of secrecy within the service and (d) the continued and unacceptable delay in the publication of the Estates Review.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the Scottish Prison Service and to respond to the—to put it kindly—predictable speech by Roseanna Cunningham. At least she had the good grace to admit in response to my intervention that the Executive has rolled out a considerable number of alternatives to custody. More of those are explained in the white paper that I launched earlier this morning.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Will the minister give way?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I ask the member to hold on. Roseanna Cunningham also had the good grace to admit in response to an intervention from Sylvia Jackson that the report on Cornton Vale by the chief inspector of prisons praised the considerable efforts that have been made to improve the regime there.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

In return, will the minister have the good grace to say that drugs courts, one of the principal alternatives to custody that he has proposed, are an idea that he got from the SNP?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There is some arrogance in Roseanna Cunningham's question, but drugs courts are certainly an idea worth considering. We are sometimes accused of not listening, but I accept that the SNP has made a useful contribution to the debate and I am sure that it will prove to have been worth while. That also gives the lie to Roseanna Cunningham's suggestion that we have done nothing to create alternatives to custody. We have introduced drug treatment and testing orders and extended electronic tagging, to name just two initiatives.

The Scottish Prison Service has a crucial role to play—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Phil Gallie should be patient.

The Scottish Prison Service has a crucial role to play in the criminal justice system. Over the past 12 months or so, the Parliament and its committees have—rightly—devoted a considerable amount of time to discussing SPS issues. The suggestion that there is a lack of accountability does not bear examination. Not only have parliamentary questions been answered, but the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service has appeared before the justice committees. I understand that the people who run Kilmarnock prison appeared before the Justice 1 Committee. We also have debates such as this one. It is stretching things a bit to say that there is a lack of accountability.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the minister give way?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mr Gallie was first.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

A few moments ago the minister mentioned electronic tagging. Ms Cunningham claimed credit for the idea of drugs courts. Will the minister acknowledge that the Conservative party came up with the idea of electronic tagging when it was in Government and that he opposed it?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We ensured that initially electronic tagging was confined to a pilot scheme, which has now been evaluated. I am prepared to accept that electronic tagging has proved its worth and am willing for it to be extended. Indeed, electronic tagging will be extended beyond the limited circumstances in which it would have been used under the Conservatives' previous proposals.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the minister acknowledge that, although Tony Cameron has made himself available to the Justice 1 Committee, his answers cannot always be relied on to reflect the true facts of any situation?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I know what issue Stewart Stevenson is referring to. Tony Cameron clarified the position on that very quickly and no one is accusing him of showing bad faith in the evidence that he gave to the Justice 1 Committee. That would be a very serious accusation and I refute it completely.

The SPS has launched its vision statement of "correctional excellence", which commits the service to helping to reduce reoffending and to maximise its contribution to the Executive's commitment to a safer Scotland. Such a commitment necessitates significant changes within the SPS, and much has been done to achieve those changes. Staff attendance patterns have been significantly changed for the first time in 50 years in order to better match staff to business needs.

Roseanna Cunningham failed to mention the investment of more than £35 million in capital projects. Two new house blocks are being built, one at HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont and the other at HM Prison Edinburgh, which will create around 500 places with access to night sanitation for prisoners and improved working conditions for staff. She also failed to mention the recent investment of £16 million in HM Prison Barlinnie, of which £3 million is being spent on B hall, which, when completed in spring 2002, will eliminate slopping out for the remand population in that prison.

The SPS continues to make positive progress in addressing drug dependency, which continues to be a major issue for Scotland's prisons. About eight out of 10 prisoners test positive for drugs when they enter prison. That figure reflects increased levels of drug misuse in the community. It is a significant achievement of and a tribute to the Prison Service that the number of those who test positive in prisons remains low—fewer than three out of 10 test positive, in comparison with the eight or nine out of 10 who test positive on entering prison.

Reducing the availability of drugs in prison is a major task, but one that does not solve the real issues of tackling the causes of drug and alcohol misuse, providing necessary treatment and helping prisoners to lead constructive lives after release. The SPS is one of the major providers of drug treatment in Scotland. Record numbers of prisoners are accessing treatment—more than 7,600 last year, in comparison with 1,650 as recently as 1997-98.

The SPS is introducing new measures to make it possible, for the first time, for significant numbers of remand and short-term prisoners to be assisted in the difficult period around release. Those measures will help to reduce drug-related deaths among recently liberated prisoners, thereby playing a part in the Executive's social inclusion agenda. Scotland is leading Europe in this area, and, over the past couple of years, the Deputy Minister for Justice, Dr Richard Simpson, has been closely involved in developing the care model that is now being taken forward.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I ask Richard Lochhead to bear with me.

The SPS continues to make progress in developing new accredited programmes to address the offending behaviour of prisoners. That action is at the core of the correctional agenda. Roseanna Cunningham was absolutely right to say that prisons are not just about locking people away from society. The aim must be to help individuals to address their offending behaviour and to return them to society less likely to reoffend.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

rose—

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose—

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I think that Richard Lochhead was first.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No. You are in your last minute, minister.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Oh, help. I have been too generous in accepting interventions.

My next point is important, because the motion makes reference to the state of morale and to industrial relations in the Prison Service. Today, I am able to announce that the SPS, working in partnership with the Prison Officers Association Scotland, the Public and Commercial Services Union and Prospect, has reached agreement on the terms of a voluntary industrial relations agreement. In particular, that means that the POA Scotland has agreed not to induce, support or authorise industrial action. In exchange, there will be access to independent arbitration for dispute resolution. The voluntary industrial relations agreement, which will be legally binding on the SPS and on the POA Scotland, will give both the Scottish ministers and the POA Scotland the power to seek remedy for breaches through the courts.

In February of this year, the Home Secretary announced that, when parliamentary time permits, he intends to replace with a reserve power section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which makes it unlawful to incite officers of a prison to take industrial action. Until that happens, the Scottish ministers intend to use the provisions of the voluntary industrial relations agreement, instead of those in section 127.

However, it is clearly understood by all parties that section 127 would be used in the event of a breakdown of the agreement. In the light of that agreement, it is clear that industrial relations in the SPS are far from deteriorating, although I accept that there is a considerable way to go to achieve full partnership working.

With regard to the reference that was made to the culture of secrecy, it is important that I say that work on the estates review has been prepared for ministers. The review is not yet in the public domain, but, as I said in answer to a question on 29 November, our intention had been to publish the consultation before the end of the year. Given the ministerial changes that have taken place, it is only right that the proposals, and the details that go with them, should be brought before the new Cabinet. I plan to launch the consultation early in the new year.

I did not realise that my time was quite so short, Presiding Officer. No doubt the debate will reflect other issues and Richard Simpson will pick up a number of those points at the end of the debate. I hope that we will be able to take an objective view and recognise that both the staff and the management of the SPS in the past year have achieved much—regrettably, the motion does not give credit to those achievements.

Many challenging issues lie ahead and I believe that everyone is playing a constructive part in creating a more effective and efficient Prison Service. That is important in the pursuit of a safer Scotland.

I move amendment S1M-2545.2, to leave out from the first "notes" to end and insert:

"congratulates the staff and management of the Scottish Prison Service on their good work in maintaining secure custody and good order in Scotland's penal establishments; welcomes the partnership between management and staff to improve industrial relations through the voluntary industrial relations agreement; welcomes the prison service's commitment to collaborating on an increasingly transparent basis with statutory and voluntary agencies to provide effective rehabilitation and through care, aimed at reducing re-offending; notes that investment has been made in upgrading the prison estate, but that more must be done; to that end, welcomes the Executive's open approach in planning to consult on the Prison Estates Review early in the new year, and agrees that work to upgrade the estate must deliver prisons capable of providing sufficient humane and secure accommodation while delivering value for money."

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I welcome the minister's conversion to tagging. The Conservatives are very much in favour of the use of tagging as an additional tool in the fight against crime, as long as it does not become an instrument for the Executive to use in emptying our prisons. We believe that an eagle eye should be kept on participants in the scheme. If they breach the terms of their order, they should be returned to prison. The terms of the curfew order should be enforced and, in due course, the effectiveness of the scheme in reducing reoffending should be reviewed.

It is right that we should be debating prisons this morning, as a number of outstanding matters require urgent action.

It is essential that the estates review be published. Henry McLeish, the then First Minister, said on 14 December 2000—almost a year ago—that the Administration expected

"to be able to publish the review in the new year".—[Official Report, 14 December 2000; Vol 9, c 1077.]

His expectation has not resulted in delivery, which is having an adverse effect on morale.

On 11 September, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons for Scotland, Mr Clive Fairweather, made the following remarkable statement:

"Last year, I mentioned two overriding concerns. First, there was a pervasive atmosphere of uncertainty among staff. That was created by the series of unprecedented prison closures, the estates review and hints of further closure or privatisation. I said that staff morale in a number of prisons was as low as I had seen it in six years. A year later, uncertainty about what central management is likely to propose in the estates review is still overarching."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 11 September 2001; c 2629.]

It would be in the best interests of the Scottish Prison Service to resolve that matter with all possible speed.

It follows that we expect decisions to be made in the national interest. In that connection, I strongly support the continued existence of HMP Peterhead. On 10 October, BBC News Online reported that the Executive was set to close the prison

"as part of a cost-cutting drive".

Such a move would mean that the special unit for sexual offenders, which is doing a very good job, would have to close. Mr Clive Fairweather, who is a distinguished and impartial source, commented that the closure of Peterhead would see public safety "gravely compromised".

When Stuart Campbell, programmes manager at Peterhead, gave evidence to the Justice 1 Committee, he stated that 162 prisoners had been liberated since the programme commenced in 1993. Of those prisoners, only six

"have been reconvicted of a sexual offence and four have been recalled because of a breach of licence conditions."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 13 November 2001; c 2752.]

That means that reoffending has not arisen in the overwhelming majority of cases and that the judgment of Clive Fairweather was well founded.

We believe that further prison closures will be contrary to the national interest, as there is no guarantee that there would be a sufficiency of prison places to accommodate the disposals of the courts.

On 30 August 2001, Clive Fairweather published his annual report, in which he stated that the consequence of a reduction in capacity, coinciding with a growth in prison numbers, is a possible return to chronic overcrowding. Five out of 17 establishments are now overcrowded, whereas only two were overcrowded at the same time last year. In particular, Barlinnie is running at 29 per cent over capacity. In such circumstances, the Executive will be irresponsible if it engages in large-scale prison closures, which could lead to a substantial increase in overcrowding and pave the way for discontent and disruption.

The consequence of overcrowding is that prisoners are liable to be locked up on their own for longer, with less emphasis on training and less concentration on addressing offending behaviour. Boredom could become the order of the day, which, in turn, could lead to heightened tension. That is highly undesirable and if the minister goes down that path he does so at his own peril.

It will be of no satisfaction to us if the minister makes the wrong decisions, because the prison officers and the community would bear the adverse consequences. Tremendous steps have been taken in recent years with the development of the STOP programme for sexual offenders and of educational programmes that address offending behaviour, anger management and cognitive skills.

Those have all been developed since previous discontents and their worth has been recognised throughout the globe as well as in Scotland. Experts on sex offending, such as Dr Marshall, regard Peterhead as one of the three top providers in the world for such treatment.

Slopping out currently takes place in about one quarter of prisoner places in Scotland. The practice is degrading and inhumane and should be phased out immediately. The Executive's approach, which would apparently not resolve the issue before 2005 at the earliest, is much too leisurely and could be subject to a legal challenge by prisoners under human rights legislation. The Executive takes the view that there are no votes in prisons; it is wrong, because prison officers have votes. If conditions were improved for prisoners, pressures on prison officers would be reduced. That is true for slopping out, for which extra officers must be readily available to deal with the arrangements first thing in the morning. Frankly, slopping out is by modern standards an abomination.

The Executive should not look for ways to take funds out of the prison estate but give this subject the priority that it deserves.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Please wind up.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

We are acutely dissatisfied with the Administration's policy on prisons. The prison population is growing while the Executive appears intent on closing prisons. As a result, there are now about 6,250 prisoners in 5,800 prisoner places. We should provide a network of prisons that meets the needs of the justice system and protects the public. The prison estates review is long overdue. While the minister drags his heels, overcrowding worsens, slopping out remains, staff morale deteriorates and general confidence declines. In the forthcoming weeks, I hope that the minister will avoid making what could turn out to be a potentially disastrous decision.

I move amendment S1M-2545.1, to leave out from "as the result of" to end and insert:

"and calls upon the Executive to publish the Estates Review, to end slopping out in Scottish prisons and to provide sufficient places in prison to accommodate the decisions of the courts."

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It may have been my mistake that I did not spell out that speeches should be no longer than five minutes.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

When the Parliament first met, one of the first issues that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee dealt with was the report on the Prison Service by the chief inspector of prisons. Devolution of power to the Parliament lifted the lid on the Prison Service and showed us what the public would rather not know: overcrowded Victorian buildings without internal sanitation. Such buildings are often no longer fit for purpose and sometimes struggle to deliver the new rehabilitation programmes that are necessary if offenders are to have a future in ordinary society.

Today's subject for debate is important. I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the issues that the SNP has raised. The SNP motion—and Roseanna Cunningham's speech, I am sorry to say—is negative and divisive and offers no clear indication of what the SNP would have done differently in the past two years or what the SNP proposes to do now. It must be depressing and frustrating for people listening to the debate to hear a catalogue of accusations without being given any alternatives.

I have visited Longriggend, Barlinnie and Porterfield in Inverness and have seen for myself the conditions for prisoners and staff. Longriggend is still closed and nobody mourns its passing. Remand prisoners will soon be housed in a refurbished hall in Barlinnie. I have seen the conditions in the old remand hall—the lack of sanitation and the dirty bedding. However, I have also seen Barlinnie's refurbished hall, its rehabilitation programme for short-sentence sex offenders and Inverness prison's excellent induction programme and education service.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Will Maureen Macmillan join me in finding the pledges on Barlinnie that the Minister for Justice has given inadequate? He referred to ending slopping out only for remand prisoners, but the majority of prisoners are not on remand. At the moment, Barlinnie has only 75 toilets for more than 850 men. In the main, that situation will continue if slopping out is ended only for remand prisoners. We want that inhumanity to be ended for everyone.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Everyone in the chamber will agree with Dorothy-Grace Elder that slopping out should be ended as quickly as possible.

Over the past year, there has been a steady improvement in the conditions for prisoners and in the quality of rehabilitation and educational programmes. As Dorothy-Grace Elder mentioned, conditions are not satisfactory and no Labour member would claim that they were. However, for the SNP simply to say that everything is terrible without proposing any alternatives is disappointing. The SNP minimises the real effort that the staff and management of the Prison Service have made.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Maureen Macmillan referred to Peterhead prison. Is she concerned by the Executive's failure to produce the prison estates review? Will she assure us that she will back the retention of the sex offenders unit in Peterhead?

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I actually referred to Porterfield prison, which is in Inverness. I shall speak about Peterhead shortly.

I want to deal with the motion's main points. First, there can be no doubt that morale has been low. Change is never easy to cope with and mistakes were made in the way that change was managed. I hope that such mistakes will not be repeated. Many Labour members lobbied successfully for disputes to be brought to arbitration, which the minister has just mentioned. SNP members would have crowed with glee if strikes had gone ahead. The SNP uses the Prison Service for its own political ends, which is why it is stirring the pot today.

The SNP has also raised the spectre of privatisation. There is no question of the Prison Service being privatised but, given the litany of problems that the SNP has mentioned, how would the SNP put in the necessary investment to achieve the improvements that we all want to see? The SNP has failed to answer that question. There are legitimate concerns about private prisons, especially over whether private prisons can deliver the quality of programmes that we require. I hope that the Executive will robustly examine the alternatives for financing new prisons and, in particular, examine the comparators that are used to judge between private and public prisons.

Overcrowding is another important issue that we take seriously. Overcrowding is unacceptable. We urgently need new prisons, but we also need to examine how we deal with minor offenders. Too many petty criminals and fine defaulters and too many women end up in jail even though other disposals are available. We must look at why those disposals are not used. Short jail sentences do nothing to rehabilitate people: jail becomes a habit and a revolving door.

Rehabilitation is an essential part of the work of the Scottish Prison Service. As has been mentioned by other speakers, Peterhead prison offers a prime example of rehabilitation and I support its work. The excellence of its programme for sex offenders is well known. Prison officers feel that to have a prison solely dedicated to the rehabilitation of sex offenders is the best way to help such prisoners. The Peterhead facility is very important and I share the concerns about its future. I hope that the Executive will ensure that that good example of rehabilitation continues in Peterhead. It would be a severe blow if the team who deliver the programme were broken up.

We have a tremendous task ahead of us to modernise the prison estate. In the light of concerns that have been expressed about future provision, the Executive was right to take time to have the options thoroughly examined, although I appreciate the anxiety that the delay has caused. The debate will continue when the draft proposals are published, which will happen, I am now told, early in the new year.

As it will be a while before the service can settle back to normality, I urge that there should be understanding of staff concerns. It is imperative that we have a modern prison estate with well-trained staff, who are delivering rehabilitation programmes that will make a difference to offenders. Such programmes need to be followed by support and throughcare for offenders. Let us use the debate to discuss a positive vision for the future rather than to complain and blame, which the SNP is so good at doing.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We move to open debate. Due to our starting late and overrunning, I ask speakers to stick to three minutes so that I can call everyone.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thought that you quite liked me, Presiding Officer, but you have immediately cut my time to three minutes.

It is unjust of Maureen Macmillan to criticise the attitude of members of my party towards the Prison Service. Our criticism of the minister has been robust, but that is our purpose. Rather than waste my time with that, I want to turn my attention to Cornton Vale, which was addressed by my colleague.

Cornton Vale is in a serious position. Since 1998, there has been a great dropping-off from the promises that were made to deal with women offenders. We have had several years of quiet. I commend the role that has been played by Kate Donegan and her medical officer. One is inclined to make a link between the transfer of those two ladies elsewhere and the recent suicides of Frances Carvell and Michelle McElvar. I regret that I must say that, but I believe that the link has to be made.

Between April and November this year, Cornton Vale was 10 per cent overcrowded. The peak occurred in August, when it was 29 per cent overcrowded. Overcrowding has a bad impact for all kinds of reasons. It means that there is too much pressure on the staff and there is an increase in lock-ups, which causes pressure on inmates in a prison population that is already highly vulnerable. Whoever one speaks to—be they the chief inspector of prisons, the National Association of Prison Visitors or the former governor—all say that most of the women in Cornton Vale are sad not bad.

I want to quote something that Kate Donegan told the Justice and Home Affairs Committee when it met in Stirling last year. Ms Donegan had been in the Prison Service for a long time, but this is what she said about when she became governor of Cornton Vale:

"I must say that I was completely unprepared for the physical, mental and emotional condition of the majority of the women in the prison. I found appalling damage, mostly as a consequence of chronic poly-drug abuse, and a variety of mental health problems related to those addictions. I found a population that was characterised by social exclusion, ill health, poor educational attainment, lack of employment skills ... Many of the women were persistent petty offenders and, along with those on remand, were finding the combination of drug withdrawal, uncertainty about the future and separation from friends and family an almost intolerable burden."—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 6 March 2000; c 881.]

Those are the people whom we are locking up for petty crimes—for failure to pay fines for prostitution, or for other small matters. We are disrupting families; we are not dealing with the problems of women offenders. They are sad not bad.

I will quote again from the same committee meeting. Every time I hear these words, it brings to mind just how dreadful it is to imprison 70 to 80 per cent of those women. When asked by Lyndsay McIntosh whether prison was a proper place for two babies who were there, Ms Donegan answered:

"I think that, paradoxically, babies in Cornton Vale get a fabulous start in life. They have more mothers than you can shake a stick at."—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 6 March 2000; c 892.]

Those are the people whom we are imprisoning in Cornton Vale.

The Justice 1 Committee has commissioned research into sentencing and into attitudes to sentencing and custody. I say this on behalf of members of all parties: perhaps, minister, with a great deal of pushing from the justice committees, we will stop raiding the justice budgets—which has been happening—and turn to real solutions for vulnerable women who should never have been imprisoned in the first place and who should be helped to lead positive and fulfilling lives with their children.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I congratulate the SNP on its motion. It is right to highlight overcrowding. Between 1992 and 1997, the average prison population was 5,500. Since Labour came to power—here in the Lab-Lib Executive—the average has gone up to more than 6,000. What has happened in that time? There have been three major prison closures. I suggest that that is going in the wrong direction.

I accept that the Minister for Justice believed that things would go in the other direction. He has already acknowledged that he claimed that prison numbers would go down. There is an element of failure in the fact that they have not.

The SNP is right to highlight problems to do with staff relationships in the Prison Service. There are a number of reasons for those problems. Perhaps one reason is the way in which Tony Cameron came in and—following instructions, I believe—tried to bulldoze through change when he did not really understand the prison system.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I do not have time, Alex—I am sorry.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

That is a pity.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

However, I am congratulating the SNP.

A fundamental reason for dissatisfaction among prison staff is the failure of the Executive to produce the prison estates review. That is shameful. The Executive must get a grip on that and produce the review in the very near future. We were promised it 18 months ago, but the Executive has still not got it on the table. That is not good enough for the Parliament and it is certainly not good enough for the prison officers.

On other issues, I may differ from the SNP. I step back from its arguments on privatisation.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I know the SNP arguments on the situation at Kilmarnock, but I regard it as a model prison, designed to suit the circumstances. At the prison, 92 per cent of the prisoners are working, or are in education or training, for 35 hours a week. We should be aiming for that in all our prisons. Kilmarnock must be commended. It has very experienced staff. I acknowledge that staff payments are not quite as high as payments in the Scottish Prison Service, but conditions of service are improving all the time, and that should be welcomed.

I disagree with some of the comments that have been made on prison sentences. If people commit a crime, they must be prepared to spend the time in prison that that crime merits. We cannot take short cuts; the justice system demands that people are punished and that, at the same time, the public are protected. That is what the Prison Service is there for. However, it is unfortunate that, sometimes, people who some people feel do not deserve it should have to spend time in prison.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I agree that there are problems within the Scottish Prison Service and that there is an urgent need for solutions. Yes, we must find a solution to overcrowding where it exists; yes, we must ensure that prisoners are punished through the withdrawal of their freedom rather than through the withdrawal of their basic human rights; and yes, we must ensure that our Prison Service offers the opportunity for rehabilitation rather than for an education in crime.

Ms Cunningham's motion is more concerned with attacking the Scottish Executive than with working with the Executive to find solutions. It is more concerned with creating divisions than with building partnerships.

Prison officers whom I have met in HM Prison Shotts and in the national induction centre are dedicated public servants who work in what are often dangerous and stressful environments. As in other public services, the staff are at the heart of the service. It is the staff and not the buildings that offer the opportunity for rehabilitation. It is through the efforts of the staff that public safety is enhanced.

The nationalists' motion fails to mention the importance of rehabilitation and education in our Prison Service. Victor Hugo said:

"He who opens a school door, closes a prison."

Prisons can and should play a role in reducing crime levels. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that every effort is made to provide prisoners with the skills and confidence that they will need to re-enter society. I urge the Scottish Executive to continue to prioritise programmes that are designed to reduce recidivism.

Incarceration should be the last resort. It is right and proper that those who have been proven to pose a threat to individuals and society should be prevented from doing so. It is right that they should lose their freedom and that society should be protected. However, it is also true that many people are still inappropriately incarcerated. Tackling offending behaviour—within the community and at an early stage—is not easy, but it is definitely potentially the best option.

I will await the findings of the estates review before coming to any firm conclusions on the state of our prisons, but I think the focus of our efforts must be on providing a service that offers best value to the public. That means not only providing the cheapest service but ensuring that the quality of that service is maintained and enhanced. That must be the basis on which the estates review is judged.

I will conclude by quoting from "The Ballad of Reading Gaol", in which Oscar Wilde summed up all that was wrong with 19th and 20th century prisons:

"The vilest deeds like poison weeds Bloom well in prison-air: It is only what is good in Man That wastes and withers there".

Prisons in the 21st century must not become places where hope and potential wastes and withers. They must be places where the opportunity for change and rehabilitation is offered. To achieve that, we must have buildings that are fit for purpose and staff who are well motivated and valued.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It would be remiss of me not to welcome the support that Lord James Douglas Hamilton offered for Peterhead prison and the kind remarks that Maureen Macmillan made. I would also like to mention Richard Simpson, who will be a valuable addition to the front bench with his knowledge and experience; I know that he has a track record of supporting the work of Peterhead prison.

Continuing in that vein, I would like to welcome something, if not everything, in the minister's amendment. At the end of the amendment, the minister says:

"work to upgrade the estate must deliver prisons capable of providing sufficient humane and secure accommodation while delivering value for money."

Great stuff. Clearly and unambiguously, that gives paramouncy to what prisons do over what prisons cost. After the prevarication, distortions and errors—I use that word out of charity—in the evidence given by the head of the Scottish Prison Service to the Justice 1 Committee on 23 October, it is clear that ministers are not going to heed Cameron's single-minded focus on cost and are going to take a broader and more balanced view.

Running a public service like a business, as Tony Cameron has often said that he wishes to do, is to fail to understand that the dividends that we want from the service are societal, rather than fiscal. We want protection for society, punishment for the offender and reform of their future behaviour.

When, earlier this year, prison staff struck for the first time in 61 years, it reflected their lack of morale in the present circumstances. The Prison Service—I use that word advisedly—is in a state of some disarray because of the delays in taking essential decisions. Is there other evidence of morale problems? Yes. Ian Gunn, the governor of Peterhead prison, in answer to a committee question on 13 November on the delay in the estates review, said:

"The lack of a decision is draining for staff"—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 13 November 2001; c 2753.]

To be fair, he went on to say that he did not think that it had affected morale.

However, the conversations that I have had with prison officers tell a very different story. When officers see a world-class facility kept in a state of uncertainty for an extended period and when the special skills that they have built up over seven years are devalued by their chief executive, who has made a statement to a parliamentary committee that was subsequently shown to have no basis in fact, it is no wonder that morale has plummeted.

I will provide a little illustration of the numbers that Lord James gave us—of the 162 graduates of Peterhead prison's rehabilitation programme, only six have returned. Tony Cameron should think on this: given that it costs £26,000 per year to keep someone in prison, that represents a saving of £2.5 million every year from Peterhead prison's success in reducing recidivism.

I support the SNP motion.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I want to make a couple of points about the SNP motion, which seems to be rather contradictory. It demands that the Scottish Executive produce a strategy on overcrowding in the Scottish Prison Service before the estates review has even been published. Let us remember the purpose of the estates review, which is to identify the likely pressures on the Prison Service estate over the next 10 years and to suggest a series of options to deal with those pressures. The review is examining how to renew, upgrade and improve our prisons to tackle the real problems of overcrowding. It will also tackle the need to improve the conditions for staff in the prisons and will include plans for ending the practice of slopping out in prisons such as Peterhead and Barlinnie. It would therefore be quite wrong for the Scottish Executive to take action before the review is published, as the SNP motion seems to suggest it should.

The estates review will tell us not only what is needed but, most important, it will demonstrate accurately the cost of the various options for funding the upgrading of the prison estate. That information is vital in coming to a decision on which option delivers the best value for the public purse. The SNP has already ruled out one option—the use of further private sector involvement, regardless of whether the report demonstrates that that option might be better value for money for the Scottish public purse. At least on the funding issues, the SNP is quite consistent—blank cheques every time. Every week, in every debate, the SNP makes commitments and promises. No matter how many times the SNP is asked where the money is to come from to fund the proposals, how it will be spent and which budget will be cut to fund it, we never get an answer.

The Liberal-Labour coalition is tackling the problems of the Prison Service head on. We will take hard decisions based on the estates review on how to provide a Prison Service fit for the 21st century. Most important, we will say how and where the money will come from to fund that vision.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Recently, I made a couple of visits to Craiginches prison in Aberdeen and met Tony Cameron, the chief executive of the Prison Service—I assure members that that set the alarm bells ringing. Tony Cameron handed me a wee card that outlined the goals of the Scottish Prison Service. One of those goals referred to "delivering effective prisoner opportunities". I tell the minister that at Craiginches such opportunities are few and far between, because of the staff situation.

I received some figures this morning from Craiginches prison that show that the prison is 30 per cent overcrowded—perhaps it is the most overcrowded in Scotland—and 10 per cent understaffed. There are two vacancies for staff. Every time new officers are recruited for Craiginches, more resign. There are currently 12 people off sick. That is a terrible combination for staff working in the prison.

When I visited the prison, I was told that one hall held 130 prisoners, but that only 40 got to do any work outwith their cells on any one day. The remaining 90 prisoners in their cells are looked after by four staff. I tell the minister that the prisoners are becoming aware of the staff shortages and overcrowding. I do not have to tell him how dangerous that is. It also has implications for rehabilitation work. I remind him that in Aberdeen, 80 per cent of crime in the city is drug related and that 80 per cent of the prisoners test positive for drugs on admission. There is a clear link between drug use and crime in the city. If we are to break the link, it is imperative that there should be a rehabilitation programme in place at Craiginches prison. In his recent report, to which Roseanna Cunningham and others referred, the chief inspector pointed to the fact that addiction staff at the prison spend a lot of time on escort duty.

One of the other goals that the card referred to was that Scottish prison staff are respected by the nation for their professionalism—according to the chief executive of the SPS. Prison officers are respected for the work that they do by the general public. After all, they are being asked to look after the most dangerous people in our society—in many circumstances, for an appalling wage in appalling working conditions. However, they do not get any respect from management. When I met Tony Cameron, he told me that low morale was not a concept that he could recognise. He said that he would recognise the concept of low morale only if every prison officer at Craiginches left their job. He wants all the prison officers to resign before he will recognise any symptoms of low morale. Does the minister think that that is acceptable?

There is a new governor at Craiginches. I hope that that moves things forward. The new governor will need the support of management in Edinburgh and of the minister. The SNP is not confident that that support will be forthcoming.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

My speech will concentrate on Cornton Vale and women offenders. I accept some of the comments made by Roseanna Cunningham about the recent and on-going problems, but she did not give a balanced view. The SNP seems to be incapable of providing a balanced view on the subject of prisons.

I have visited Cornton Vale twice since the two recent and regrettable suicides. I know that overcrowding is an immediate problem. I would like to ask the deputy minister to comment on progress to resolve that issue, be it new buildings or new structures for management of prisoners. What negotiations has he had with the new governor, Stephen Swan?

In the longer term, various proposals have been made in the Parliament, most notably about alternatives to prison for those women who do not present a real risk to the public and who often need extensive support to deal with a spectrum of complex needs relating to housing, education, training, drugs and alcohol. Will the deputy minister also give details of developments to promote alternatives? I am thinking of time-out centres and other appropriate measures. Will he also comment on the appropriateness of the multidisciplinary approach of the drugs courts, where professionals from the legal, medical, and social services come together to address the complex issues faced by those with drug problems. Can the same support that is provided by the drugs courts not be given to women offenders who are looking for alternatives to prison?

Many professionals and volunteers—many of whom are local to Stirling—who work with women offenders have suggested that other changes would have a significant impact. First, social inquiry reports should be provided on all women before they are sentenced in court. Secondly, unduly long prison sentences for breaches of supervised attendance orders should be curtailed.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

In launching the criminal justice bill white paper today, we announced that we are going to change the sentencing arrangements for those who breach supervised attendance orders. We will substantially shorten those sentences, which should improve the take-up of those orders.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

I should add that that exchange was not staged.

Thirdly, a court escort service, which has been proposed, could recruit, train and accredit volunteers to assist in getting women to court so that supervised attendance orders are not breached. I ask the minister to consider a trial of such a service.

Fourthly, there should be more research on the use of community service orders and such orders should be implemented on a trial basis.

Members will know that there is no open prison for women in Scotland. The present governor of Cornton Vale, Stephen Swan—who was not mentioned by any SNP member—is trying to develop independent-living units at the prison to help women to come to terms with life after prison. I ask the Deputy Minister for Justice to comment on that.

Finally, down south, an organisation called Payback works closely with the media on good stories about prison to educate the public on the need for rehabilitation and on its various forms.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will concentrate my remarks on Scotland's first, and I hope last, private prison—Bowhouse in Kilmarnock. I have 10 points to make about Bowhouse and the problems surrounding it. I will do my best to make those points in the three minutes available to me.

The first point is about secrecy and confidentiality. I find it ironic that the minister who sets himself up as the champion of freedom of information presides over one of the most secretive and illiberal prison management regimes in western Europe. When one asks a question about HM Prison Kilmarnock, the answer from the minister is, "That is not my responsibility. Write to Tony Cameron, the chief executive." When one writes to Tony Cameron, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, he says, "That is not my responsibility; it is the responsibility of Premier Prison Services Ltd." When one writes to Premier Prison Services Ltd, it uses the excuse of commercial confidentiality. However, Premier Prison Services Ltd is spending taxpayer's money, albeit on a contractual basis in the private sector rather than on a spend basis in the public sector. If the minister wants to be remembered as someone who believes in freedom of information, let him do something about making sure that Parliament gets proper access to the information about the operation of the prison in Kilmarnock.

I shall give the minister some facts about the operation of the prison in Kilmarnock. We heard a lot of ideological nonsense from Phil Gallie about the benefits of privatisation. However, Phil Gallie—I am glad that he is back in the chamber—did not tell us that, according to the chief inspector of prisons, a prisoner is four times more likely to be assaulted by another prisoner in Bowhouse than in any other prison in Scotland. Phil failed to mention another fact about that privatised prison—"Phil failed to mention" sounds quite well. That is that, under its contract, the prison undertakes a custodial role only, as the chief executive has confirmed. The prison has no remit for the rehabilitation or reform of prisoners.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you confirm that each speaker has only three minutes? That is why I could not make all the points that I wanted to make in favour of HM Prison Kilmarnock.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That is not a point of order. We all understood the circumstances. I give Mr Neil another half minute.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I hoped that Mr Gallie's intervention would have got me another minute.

My third or fourth point—or is it my fifth?—is on comments made by Clive Fairweather. He told the Justice 1 Committee that he could not deny that he was suspicious that the assault figures for Kilmarnock are being deliberately fiddled. We are not sure whether they are being fiddled by Premier Prison Services Ltd or by the management of the Scottish Prison Service, but we know that the chief inspector thinks that they are being fiddled. That is on top of the figures for assaults on other prisoners.

Mr Gallie did not tell us about the profits that will be made from the public purse at Kilmarnock over 25 years—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Neil, we take time off for good behaviour in the chamber.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I have given several reasons—I will publish the others tomorrow—why privatisation is the worst thing that could happen to the Prison Service in Scotland.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That concludes the open session. I thank all the speakers. We are now back on track. I call Donald Gorrie to wind up for the Liberal Democrats.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I have deserted my habitual seat at the back—although not my principles—for two reasons. First, I want to give comradely but not uncritical support to two ministers for whom I have a high regard. Secondly, I want to ensure that SNP members can see me. In a previous debate in which I spoke, they did not notice me sitting at the back. That is a striking example of political short-sightedness.

The SNP is right to raise this issue. The Scottish Prison Service is a major problem and we are not yet dealing with it as well as we should. However, I hope that the Executive will not be overly defensive, because the SNP has overstated its case. Under successive Governments, society has not invested properly in prison accommodation, as that has not been politically sexy. To say that slightly undermines Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's excellent speech, as the Tories are also guilty. We have to put that underinvestment right as fast as we can, although that will take a long time. However, there are other things that we could do to help.

First, the ministers must talk seriously to the sheriffs about alternatives to custody. If, as Jim Wallace said, there is a problem with facilities—the facilities exist in theory but not in practice—we must do something about that. However, if the problem is the sheriffs' mindset, we must do something about that. My visits to prisons have shown me that short sentences are a waste of time and money for everyone concerned. We have to develop alternatives to custody.

My next point is that prisons should be judged largely on their reoffending rates. They would then put real effort into their education programmes and reduce the amount of reoffending. In that way, we will reduce the number of people in prisons.

An underlying issue, which was more clearly illustrated by the Scottish Qualifications Authority saga, is how Governments and elected people deal with appointed, stand-alone agencies. The Scottish Prison Service is not in the same bad state as the SQA, but it clearly has problems. There is an issue as to how far ministers should interfere if they do not feel that an organisation is being well run. Undoubtedly, morale is a big issue and that reflects on the management.

My final point is that, when we decide the public versus private funding question, we need solid and robust figures. I know that one of the reasons for the delay of the estates review is that there has been another survey of the figures. However, we have to be absolutely sure that everything has been properly counted before we can come to as honest a decision as possible on what is the best value for money; we must ensure that we have not made that decision using faulty figures.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Apart from the issue of private prisons, which Alex Neil agonised against, a number of themes have run through the debate: overcrowding, prison officers' morale and women in prison. Those themes probably encapsulate the argument fairly.

I will deal first with overcrowding, which is a matter that should concern us all. Overcrowding results in unsatisfactory and, in some cases, insanitary conditions. It also means that certain things are not done. Because prisoners are locked in their cells for an excessive amount of time, the attention that might have been paid to the rehabilitation process is greatly diminished. Overcrowding also has an inhibiting effect on the courts and sentencing. That, in itself, can be undesirable.

Overcrowding has arisen because the Executive has not reacted to the fact that prisons are being closed while prison numbers are not falling significantly. It is inevitable that that would lead to difficulties, which the Executive should have addressed.

A number of members, including Phil Gallie and Richard Lochhead, raised the important question of prison officers' morale. Members will have seen the recent survey of prison officers' attitudes to their jobs. The results of the survey will lead to universal concern, as it is clear that job satisfaction is at an all time low among those who have a vital role to play in our judicial and rehabilitation process. That situation must be addressed.

A number of members spoke about women in prison. It is relevant and pertinent that that issue should have been raised. All of us will be deeply concerned at the suicides at Cornton Vale. Although I have no wish to pre-empt the findings of any fatal accident inquiry that might be held, we have to look at how that institution addresses drug withdrawal symptoms. There is also a case for examining the number of women in prison. Although I would not say that women should be treated differently from other offenders, the number of women who end up in Cornton Vale on the basis of means warrants is of particular concern. That must be addressed. However, there needs to be a basic recognition that women commit more serious crimes than was previously the case. Prison disposal must be an option.

I found Jim Wallace's speech depressingly complacent, although he raised some relevant issues. Drugs are the most important issue of all for the Prison Service. Action must be taken to ensure that people in prison do not have access to drugs; quite clearly, they have access at present. At the same time, those who are released must be given greater support. When the Social Justice Committee visited Barlinnie, we saw one unit containing prisoners who had volunteered to be drugs free. What happens to those prisoners, who seemed genuinely committed to staying drugs free, after they leave prison? Will they be tapped on the bus as they went home? Will they be left open to the depredations of drug pushers in their own areas? Such prisoners get little support. I appreciate that that issue is not entirely in the minister's remit, but the Executive must address it.

A number of issues have arisen this morning, but sufficient time has not been given to the debate. I am sure that, in the not-too-distant future, the issues will be revisited.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Presiding Officer, would you tell me how much time I have, please?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

You have five minutes, minister.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Five minutes is not long enough to do justice to what is an important subject. It is regrettable that the SNP has made a bad habit of holding short debates in anticipation of the publication of the—admittedly delayed—prison estates review. Although subsequent SNP speakers made helpful points, the SNP's opening speaker produced a catalogue of woes—she said that everything was disastrous. Her approach was wholly negative. SNP members then made the vague and uncosted promise that they would change everything. The nationalist position is clear: no private prisons—the public sector is the answer. Alex Neil tried, with his 10 points, to make that clear. If I have time, I will return to that issue.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

No, I do not have time.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, say that we should not close any prisons, that the private sector is wonderful and that the public sector is a real problem. We are clear about the SNP and Conservative positions. As Donald Gorrie said, our position is that we want a prison estate that is best value. If we have delayed the publication of the report, that is regrettable, but it is because we want robust figures that will allow us to demonstrate the best way forward.

The estates review is important. We have about 6,000 places and 6,000 prisoners, but we have empty spaces in low-security prisons and, as Richard Lochhead pointed out, overcrowding in Craiginches and other places. That is unacceptable. We need new designs to replace the old, out-of-date estate and new correctional facilities that will provide the sort of care and rehabilitation to which many members have referred. We believe that the prison estates review, which we will publish, will give us an opportunity to have a robust debate in the chamber and to take the matter forward.

Slopping out is unacceptable. There should be acknowledgement at least of the refurbishment of Barlinnie, which means that, from March, remand prisoners will not have to slop out. I was there last Monday and I know that that will be an important advance. However, as the housing block is very old, the situation is still unacceptable. We have spent £5 million, although we may demolish the block in the long term. It was important to move towards ending slopping out and that is what we are doing, although not with the speed that members would wish.

Sylvia Jackson, Christine Grahame and Roseanna Cunningham spoke about Cornton Vale, where there are about 260 prisoners in a facility that can take 230 prisoners. I met Stephen Swan at the women offenders group and talked to him about various matters. I will reply in some detail to the issues raised by Sylvia Jackson. Among other things, there are concerns about redesign of the facility. The women offenders group, which I chair, will produce its report shortly. It has considered the issues and will take forward the time-out facility that was referred to.

Let me list some of the measures that have been taken: arrest referral; diversion orders; supervision orders, which we are modifying to improve their uptake; tagging; restricted liberty orders; drug treatment orders; and drug courts, which we have just launched. All those measures are designed to take people out of custodial sentences. Although the situation at Cornton Vale is difficult, only two prisoners are in there for fine default. The number of people received into prison for fine default has gone down from 10,770 in 1997 to 7,700 last year. We are moving in the right direction and I accept that we should put in custody only those people for whom it is absolutely necessary.

We have introduced transitional care, which means that for 12 weeks after prisoners are released they will continue to have the support of the Prison Service and its partners. The partners are important, because the SNP motion mentions the culture of secrecy. If it had moved that motion 10 years ago, I would have accepted it. However, it has failed to acknowledge the radical shift in culture that is occurring, which is undoubtedly opening up the Prison Service and making it much more transparent. The partnership arrangements that are being put in place will have a significant effect. We accept that we have to modernise the estate and that practices are changing, which is causing problems with morale. We need to get the estates review out of the way in order to help with that. However, we should also acknowledge that the prison officers have made significant changes in their practices. I believe that they will continue to do so.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Whether they like it or not.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

No, it will be a matter of discussion and negotiation.

Alex Neil said that Kilmarnock's assault figures were four times as high as those in the rest of the service. However, that comparison was with Barlinnie and not the service as a whole. Kilmarnock's assault figures fall within the broad band of assault figures. Barlinnie's figures happen to have dropped to an all-time low. We should be praising Barlinnie for that. We must be careful with the figures that we use, although there is certainly a long way to go and many things must be done.

I finish with a point that Roseanna Cunningham and Christine Grahame made. The people who are sentencing must be given confidence in the alternatives to custody. That is something that we have not yet achieved. As a consequence, we have not been able to roll out all the measures to the extent that we would wish. I welcome the Justice 1 Committee's investigation into that issue and I look forward to working with the committee to improve our prison system, an aim to which I believe we are all committed.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

If anything, the debate has illustrated the fact that the Government's record in managing the Scottish Prison Service is one of abject failure. Notwithstanding the warm words that we have heard from ministers and from Labour and Liberal Democrat back benchers this morning, the Prison Service is close to breaking point in a number of key areas.

Let us be clear about the purpose of today's debate. It is to hold the Executive to account for its failure to address many of the problems that exist in the prison system. I know that that may be uncomfortable for those in the Executive parties, but that is the reality of a Scottish Parliament being able to bring a Government to account on such matters. The Labour Government has had the opportunity for some five years to start to address those issues—as the Government at Westminster, when it was in control of the Scottish Office, and for the past two and a half years as the new Scottish Executive. Those Labour members who think that today's debate is about bringing forward other ideas are wrong. It is about holding the Executive to account for its failure to address the problems in the first place.

Overcrowding and unrest, which existed during the Conservative years in a number of Scottish prisons, have been brought back to the agenda. We have heard that Aberdeen, Barlinnie, Inverness and Greenock prisons are all something like 20 per cent overcrowded. We have heard Roseanna Cunningham talk about the failure to reduce the number of prisoners at Cornton Vale. As Christine Grahame said, Cornton Vale was at one point overcrowded by about 29 per cent. We also heard from Richard Lochhead that Craiginches prison is currently around 30 per cent overcrowded. A number of members have raised points about overcrowding during the debate.

Another issue that has been highlighted is the continuation of the Victorian practice of slopping out. That practice was condemned by the Council of Europe's torture committee, which investigated the issue back in 1996 and demanded that action be taken then. However, slopping out continues to this day. Ministers have said that the Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish Executive have the objective of ending slopping out by 2005, but that is an aspiration and there is no clearly set date by which the practice will end. Overcrowding and slopping out are key factors that influence the ability of the Scottish Prison Service to undertake the important role of rehabilitation work.

Running alongside that, we have the prison estates review. That review has been on the books since autumn 1999. It started in December 1999. When I asked Jim Wallace about it at the Justice 1 Committee in September this year, he told me that it would be published by the end of the year. As we learned the other week, there has been a further delay, supposedly because of the change of ministers. It is my understanding that Jim Wallace has been Minister for Justice for two and a half years, so I do not see how a change of ministerial role has any part to play in the matter. I begin to wonder whether there is a report. Is the estates review continually delayed because it acts as a continuing excuse for failing to address issues? Whenever we ask about slopping out or overcrowding, we are told to wait for the estates review. It has been a most convenient excuse for the Executive over the past two years for not addressing the problems in the Scottish Prison Service.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To be fair to the Minister for Justice, I should say that he promised the estates review in the new year, although he has not said which new year.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Last year, the minister promised that the review would be published in the new year. I hope that it will be published in 2002. Perhaps the minister will confirm that it will be published then.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I happily confirm that. Michael Matheson is a sensible person and knows that slopping out is not solely about resources—it is also about logistics. Prisoners must be decanted from buildings. Will he give a time scale that he considers unacceptable for bringing an end to slopping out?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Let us be clear. The problem has gone on for many years. For five years, the Government at Westminster has been in a position to address the problem. Report after report has said why slopping out should be ended. I would not take £13 million and another £17 million out of the Prison Service budget, as the minister has done—that money could be used to resource the change that needs to take place.

I suspect that the real reason for the delay in the prison estates review is that privatisation of the Prison Service is at the heart of the Executive's prison policy. Kilmarnock prison is already privately run. Medical services in the Prison Service have been privatised. The result is that fewer doctors provide cover and there is a greater dependency on locums with no experience of working in a prison environment. In the past year, creeping privatisation of social work services has also taken place. Four prisons put their social work services out to tender. The failed Tory agenda of privatisation is at the heart of the Executive's policy.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I must move on.

The Executive's amendment says that the SPS has a

"commitment to collaborating on an increasingly transparent basis with statutory and voluntary agencies to provide effective rehabilitation and through care".

That is not the SPS that I recognise or to which many members have referred. It certainly does not reflect the experience of many operational staff in the SPS.

Let us consider an example of the new collaborative working that apparently exists in the Scottish prison system. This year, the SPS put out to tender the provision of social work services at HMP Edinburgh. In describing the service, the chief inspector of prisons had said that he was

"impressed with the way that the Social Work Unit was integrated into the work of addressing the needs of the prisoner population".

What did the SPS do with a good service that was working well? It put it out to tender. A senior member of staff at the City of Edinburgh Council said that the SPS handled the negotiations in an aggressive and bullying fashion. The council withdrew the services and, for a period, the prison was without necessary social work services—it had to use a private locum company to provide them. When it realised that that did not work, it went back to the council, cap in hand, to ask it to provide the services. By that time, the experienced staff had been dispersed and only one experienced criminal justice social worker was able to go back to the team.

In his intermediate report on Saughton, the chief inspector of prisons said that, because of the social work services problems in Edinburgh prison, risk assessment for short-term sex offenders had not been provided since the termination of the council's contract and group work had not been provided as a result of the incompetent way in which the SPS had handled the whole affair.

The Executive's amendment demonstrates its continual failure to acknowledge the problems in the prison system. Ministers are abdicating their responsibilities and passing them on to officials in the SPS. The Government is failing to address the problems at the heart of the system and it is determined to continue with the right-wing privatisation agenda that started under the Conservative Government. I support the motion.

Business Motion

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-2548, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business— Wednesday 19 December 2001

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Debate on the Finance Committee's Report on Stage 2 of the Budget Process followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-2345 Fiona McLeod: Scottish Science Library and Scottish Business Information Service Thursday 20 December 2001

9.30 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 3 Debate on the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill followed by Stage 3 Debate on the School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Continuation of Stage 3 Debate on the School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-2529 Karen Gillon: New Lanark

(b) that Stage 2 of the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill be completed by 1 February 2002 and that Stage 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill be completed by 15 March 2002, and

(c) that the Justice 1 Committee reports to the Justice 2 Committee on the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Solicitors in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment) 2001 (SSI 2001/438) and on the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Sheriff Officers) 2001 (SSI 2001/439) by 8 January 2002.— [Euan Robson.]

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests.

Paragraph (b) of the motion asks the Parliament to agree

"that Stage 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill be completed by 15 March 2002".

It will be a surprise to many people outside the chamber that such a tight timetable has been set for a bill that took two and a half years to draft. Because of the complexity of the bill, I ask for guidance on the element of flexibility and on the options for extending the committee time that is available at stage 1.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The bill timetable allows for more time at stage 1 than has been the case for any other bill that has come before the Parliament. We have allowed 16 weeks in total for the committees to gather information and produce their reports. I understand that the Rural Development Committee will complete its evidence on the bill before the end of January—some six weeks in advance of the proposed date for the end of stage 1.

The timetable is reasonable, but I can confirm that—as Mr Johnstone knows—if a committee needs more time, it can always return to the Parliamentary Bureau. At this stage, it is too early to make a judgment, but there is a clear commitment that a committee can ask for more time if it needs it. The bureau extended stage 1 proceedings when the Justice 2 Committee wanted extra time for the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Bill. I can only repeat that the bureau will consider any request on its merits.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The First Minister is on record as saying that he would outline a timetable for progress on electoral reform before Christmas. There is no provision in business motion S1M-2548 for progress on electoral reform or for a statement to the chamber before the Christmas recess. Will you remind ministers that important announcements should be made first to the Parliament and not through the media?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That is not a point of order. It is for the relevant minister to request the Presiding Officer for an opportunity to make a statement. However, the Minister for Parliamentary Business is present and, although the point is not a matter for me in my capacity, no doubt the Executive will take note of it.

The question is, that motion S1M-2548, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Question Time — Scottish Executive

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it intends to conduct a review of the present payment arrangements of the Highlands and Islands veterinary fund with a view to addressing any need for increased animal disease surveillance. (S1O-4306)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I recognise the importance of maintaining viable veterinary services in the Highlands and Islands. My officials recently met representatives of the British Veterinary Association and representatives of those involved in the Highlands and Islands veterinary services scheme to discuss future funding and operation of the scheme.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

Does the minister agree that good animal disease surveillance is necessary for good animal welfare and health, and that it is vital to winning back the confidence of our European Union partners? What improvements have been or will be made to animal disease surveillance?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I can report to the member only that I learned at my meeting with the BVA that, as part of its inquiry into the outcome of foot-and-mouth disease, it is considering surveillance in connection with the matters to which John Farquhar Munro referred. The BVA expects to make proposals relatively soon. We will consider seriously what is required to ensure that, on animal health and animal disease grounds, we meet the BVA's recommendations.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of the north channel ferry operators. (S1O-4283)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

On Monday 10 December 2001.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I knew that answer.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

It is a waste of public money to ask a question to which the answer is known.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

People should never ask a question unless they know the answer. [Laughter.]

Does the minister agree that there is a danger that the £100 million investment that is planned by Stena Line will not proceed unless the Executive makes a visible commitment to the roads infrastructure—that is, the A75 and the A77 from Stranraer? If that does not happen, Stena might withdraw ferry services, which will be substantially detrimental to the Wigtownshire economy. I accept that the Executive is inching in the right direction, but we need concrete commitments to solve the problem.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I hesitate to answer the question, because it is clear that Mr Morgan already knows the answer. I met him to discuss the matter last week and he will be aware that Executive officials are meeting the north channel partnership and other interested parties to discuss possible variation in the proposed schemes.

We expect further schemes to be proposed for our consideration, which will allow better overtaking opportunities on the roads closer to the port. That will begin to address some of the issues that Mr Morgan raised. The proposals must be within the budget that we have set for schemes on those roads. We recognise the importance of such schemes and we want the schemes that we develop to be those that are best suited to reducing journey times and improving safety on routes.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Is the minister aware that the Executive owns considerable areas of land in Dumfries and Galloway as a result of the customary foresight of the previous Conservative Government, which purchased the land for its continued road improvement programme, which it would have undertaken had it had the chance? Will the minister audit that land with the aim of reviewing the Executive's road improvement programme to find out whether the programme could be hastened by first developing the land that the Executive owns?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We are setting a theme for this week. Mr Fergusson raised that point with me when we met last week to discuss Stranraer's position. The Executive has made it clear that its priorities will be set by that area's transport needs. We will make maximum use of our resources and continue to examine the options for overtaking opportunities on the routes in question.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans there are to address any discrepancy between means-tested and non-means-tested allowances for disabled students in further and higher education. (S1O-4281)

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Arrangements for most support for disabled students, for example maintenance allowances and study-related costs, are broadly similar in the two sectors. The only discrepancy in relation to support for disabled students is in travel costs.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Does the minister agree that there should not be a discrepancy between higher and further education, albeit in relation to travel costs, and that it would be better to streamline both systems of student financial support? Will the minister also consider the fact that for many students there are still too many complexities in the system and that the onus is on students to investigate their own entitlements, which vary a great deal from institution to institution? Will she consider simplifying and streamlining the system with parity?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I share the member's general sentiments, which is why we introduced the special educational needs allowance this year to address the specific needs of disabled students in the further education sector. The Executive and the funding council are keeping all aspects of student support under review in order to introduce greater clarity and simplicity into the system.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Has the minister been consulted about the review of student finance that was instigated by the UK Government, including a review of means-tested allowances—

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question must relate to disabled students.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It does.

Will that review cover Scotland or is it purely for south of the border?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

On the most recent occasion on which I met Estelle Morris, the UK Secretary of State for Education and Skills, we had a wide-ranging discussion that touched on student support. With respect, I am not sure about the current position relating to the specific matter that Alex Neil raises. I would be happy to write to him on the detail of that matter.

Sheriff Courts (Gaelic)

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is monitoring how many people elect to use Gaelic in the sheriff courts of Portree, Lochmaddy and Stornoway. (S1O-4293)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Yes—the situation is being monitored by the Scottish Court Service. To date, no one has elected to use Gaelic in any of those courts.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for his response. The service was an initiative for the European year of languages, but Comunn na Gàidhlig feels that the initiative is not being publicised sufficiently, in spite of the fact that there are leaflets in Gaelic in the sheriff courts to draw it to people's attention. Will the Executive consider other ways of publicising the use of Gaelic in those courts, perhaps by advertising in the local press?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will certainly consider that. Maureen Macmillan is right to say that notices in both Gaelic and English are posted in the courts. Further explanatory leaflets are obtainable from the sheriff clerk's office and local solicitors were informed of the provisions. I am advised that a copy of the act of court, which provided for Gaelic to be used in civil proceedings in those courts, was published in The Scots Law Times on 22 June 2001. I would be the first to accept that in Lochmaddy, Portree and Stornoway The Scots Law Times probably has a smaller readership than the West Highland Free Press ; therefore I am sure that this exchange between Maureen Macmillan and me will be taken forward by her and perhaps by John Farquhar Munro and Alasdair Morrison as an opportunity to publicise the fact that Gaelic may indeed be used in civil proceedings in those sheriff courts.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps are being taken to address the rise in the number of homeless people in Edinburgh. (S1O-4311)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Scottish Executive has provided more than £9 million to the City of Edinburgh Council over the past five years, and will provide a further £2 million in each of the next two years to address the problem of rough sleeping in Edinburgh. An additional £1 million was provided last year to help reduce the use of inappropriate forms of temporary accommodation for people assessed as homeless. To ensure effective delivery of the increased duties placed on local authorities by the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, £27 million has been allocated to authorities over the next three years, of which Edinburgh will receive an agreed share.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I thank the minister for his reply. I am pleased that, after much delay, there has been progress on the rough sleepers initiative. However, I have a specific question about wider homelessness applications, which had increased according to last month's statistical bulletin from the Executive. Many low-paid workers in this city cannot afford to live in the city in which they work because house prices are going through the roof, the council cannot afford to build houses for rent and the housing association houses that are available will be sold off under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. What will the minister do to ensure that we have a sufficient supply of affordable, low-cost rented accommodation in this city?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The great thing about statistics is that one can use them to build a particular story. The statistics to which the question referred are statistics about homelessness applications, which do indeed show a rise. Those statistics refer to a period that ended some 18 months ago. The point that I tried to make is that we are placing on local authorities the highest-ever level of duty to respond to homelessness applications.

As Fiona Hyslop's supplementary question indicated, the level of applications is less important than the outcome. In the same period, the outcome for applicants in priority need categories was that 82 per cent of applicants were found accommodation. With the homelessness task force, we will continue to consider what further measures we need to take to ensure that the outcomes improve for those who find themselves in need of a homelessness application. We have yet to see the impact of many of the measures that have already been taken. One of those impacts might be an increase in homelessness applications, because people believe and have confidence that a solution will be available for them if they seek it. That remains our priority.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I welcome the new resources that have been made available to local authorities by the Scottish Executive, but does the minister agree that the work that is done by the voluntary sector in providing practical support for people while they are homeless is absolutely vital? Does he agree that organisations such as the Ark Trust in my constituency are doing a sterling job? Can he assure me that the Executive will make efforts to work with the voluntary sector to ensure that such organisations are given full support, just as those organisations support the homeless?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

We are absolutely clear that the progress that we have made, particularly with the rough sleepers initiative, has depended very much on the work that has been done by the voluntary sector. New as I am to the social justice brief, I have already met voluntary sector leaders to discuss how to improve the way in which we work with that sector. Voluntary organisations are also key players in the homelessness task force, whose second phase report will be published in the next few weeks. We will respond to the task force's recommendations as quickly as we can, and I am sure that suggestions on how we cement support from the voluntary sector in addressing homelessness will be among those recommendations.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures are being taken to ensure that places of worship are safe from racist attacks. (S1O-4313)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

In October, the Scottish Executive announced that it would make up to £1 million available to improve security at sites of worship in Scotland that were deemed to be at risk from racially motivated attacks. All Scottish police forces have undertaken surveys, and funding of £234,000 has already been released for security measures in three force areas. Approval for measures in the remaining areas is expected soon.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I welcome the fact that, as part of his series of visits throughout Scotland, the minister last week visited the Islamic centre in Dunfermline. When he visited the mosque, he would have been told that the windows in the former miners' welfare building had been boarded up for the past three years because of repeated racist attacks. That shows that it is not just since 11 September that such attacks have happened. Can he assure me that the moneys that the Executive announced in October can be used to fit an alarm system and security lighting at mosques such as the one in my constituency?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I cannot go into details. Lighting systems are obviously among the measures that can be used to improve security. It is important that the police, in co-operation with those who are responsible for places of worship, work together to identify the most useful and effective security measures. I found my visit on Friday to the Islamic centre in Dunfermline worth while. It was followed by a visit to the mosque in Kirkcaldy. I got the clear impression that there are good, co-operative relationships between the police, the Muslim community and those who are responsible for the Islamic centre in Dunfermline. I have every confidence that dialogue on effective security measures has been taking place. In fact, I can tell Scott Barrie that Fife constabulary has already received £58,000 of the money that has so far been disbursed.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Does the minister agree that the Lothian and Borders police have been extremely efficient in tracing the person who is alleged to have been responsible for the outrage at the Edinburgh mosque? Does he also agree that the police are rightly sensitive to those problems?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton knows that, because a case is pending, it probably would not be appropriate for me to say that. He was present at the reopening of the refurbished Annandale Street mosque following the fire bombing and knows how appreciative those at the mosque are of the police's work following that bombing. It is important that co-operation takes place. As far as Lothian and Borders police are concerned, £110,967 of the £1 million has so far been allocated for security work at places of worship in the Lothian and Borders police area.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Does the minister agree that places of worship might be safer from racist attacks if we all worked harder to try to build a multicultural society of equal citizens instead of demanding that immigrants speak English and swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen? Is not it deplorable that such illiberal demands should come from a Home Secretary and his Government-commissioned Cantle report?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

When I have visited mosques, I have always said that it is a matter for celebration in Scotland in 2001 that we have a diverse community. Scotland should be proud of and should celebrate that diversity. I have been reminded—particularly in Dunfermline—that many people are third-generation Scots. We should recognise the integration that has taken place in Scotland without being complacent about it and we should stretch hands of friendship across the various communities. Real unity comes through celebration of our diversity.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what response it intends to make to recent comments by the director of Glasgow City Council's education department regarding the effectiveness of league tables as a measure of educational progress and achievement, as reported on BBC News Online on 29 November 2001. (S1O-4277)