Scottish Parliament, 21 March 2002

382 contributions from 90 members. The official report.

Introduction

Transport Delivery Plan

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

Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by Wendy Alexander on the transport delivery plan. As the minister will take questions at the end of her statement, there should be no interventions.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

This morning I make a statement in Parliament on the Executive's much anticipated transport delivery report, "Scotland's Transport: Delivering Improvements", which is currently being published. The purpose of the report is twofold. First, it sets out an impressive range and number of transport improvements—across Scotland and across all modes of transport—that have already been carried out. Secondly, it sets out the Executive-led transport vision for the future.

I begin by paying tribute to the achievements of my predecessor, Sarah Boyack, who began the efforts to create the public transport system that Scotland needs and deserves for 2021. Much has already been achieved in setting the new direction for Scottish transport policy, which is built on recognising the significance of public transport—a matter that was so whole-heartedly neglected in the 1980s and 1990s. In contrast, the Executive's transport priorities reflect our commitment to sustainable development and our obligations to future generations and to the proper stewardship of the environment.

Transport emissions generate nearly 25 per cent of the United Kingdom's greenhouse gases, so we are working in partnership with the UK Government to meet Kyoto targets and to reduce CO2 emissions to 20 per cent below their 1990 levels, as outlined in the Scottish climate change programme.

Promoting high quality, affordable public transport is vital to our determination to create a more sustainable Scotland. Our investment is already making a real difference to the quality and availability of public transport throughout Scotland.

The number of bus journeys being made in Scotland increased in 1999 and 2000—the first increases since the 1970s. There have been encouraging increases in the number of rail journeys. Passenger numbers on the Glasgow Queen Street to Edinburgh line are up by 45 per cent and passenger numbers on the Fife circle line are up by 25 per cent. We must now strive to build on these successes.

During the first three years of the Scottish Parliament, we have concentrated much of our effort on improving the rural public transport network—for example, through the rural transport fund—on supporting almost 500 projects across Scotland and on significant new investment in Caledonian MacBrayne, Highlands and Islands Airports Limited and the northern ferries routes. We will continue to provide that support, encouraging new proposals for local community transport—proposals that are even more focused on local needs. We will continue to maintain the lifeline air and sea links that are so vital to the economic and social well-being of Scotland's most remote communities.

Much has already been achieved, but today's report takes the next step and looks forward to provide a real vision for the future—a statement of vision, intent and direction that is every bit as fundamental as that laid out in the 1960s. In the 1960s, the Government in Scotland built a national consensus around a vision that was based on linking up Scotland's major towns and cities through a major trunk road and motorway building programme. The aim of that "main routes" strategy was to strengthen our internal links, shorten journey times and improve the competitiveness of the Scottish economy by improving access to our principal markets in the south and beyond.

Today, the principal transport challenge facing Scotland is quite different—road traffic congestion. Road traffic is predicted to grow by more than 27 per cent in the next two decades, yet in rural Scotland the car will remain a primary means of getting around. We have to dig below the surface of that bald statistic to find the central insight that shapes this vision for Scottish transport. Eighty per cent of that predicted rise in road traffic in Scotland will be concentrated in and around our four major cities, so tackling urban congestion is the overriding challenge in Scotland today. Urban congestion is hampering Scotland's economy and damaging our environment.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Will the minister give way?

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

Not during the statement please.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Congestion causes stress, increases emissions and reduces the quality of life for millions of Scots daily. Above all, it costs both time and money—costs that Scotland can ill afford.

In an age when changing patterns of work mean that Scots will increasingly be commuting further and longer to work, they need convenient travel choices. This cannot just be about city centre transport choices. Think of the modern workplaces of friends and family. More often than not, their final destinations are not urban centres but are spread throughout our major urban areas. Therefore, existing public transport systems, where they simply serve city centres, cannot cater effectively for the future pattern of demand. Yet, crucially, when convenient, safe and reliable public transport is available, people will use it.

Today we provide a new route map for Scotland—an Executive-led vision of the changes that we want to see to improve access to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen and so deliver a transport system that is fit for the 21st century. Our aim is to stabilise road traffic levels at 2001 levels by 2021, by investing in an integrated package of specific measures that are designed to improve public transport and to create travel choices so that many more people can choose to leave the car at home. Nine of the top 10 transport priorities that are highlighted in the report are targeted at improving public transport.

I will describe our top 10 transport priorities. First, we will improve the rail infrastructure and the overall services to passengers by letting a new 15-year passenger rail franchise from April 2004. A long-term franchise can help us to deliver—in partnership with the operator—the strategic improvements that the Scottish rail network needs and that have already been identified in the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan. The whole journey experience must be made radically better so that passengers are treated like the valuable customers that they are. Trains should be reliable and clean and journey times should be predictable.

Secondly, we want to increase the overall capacity of the Scottish rail network through the redevelopment of Waverley station to provide more platforms. If that is not done, Waverley will shortly reach capacity, thereby limiting options for growing rail passenger numbers and our capacity to improve rail services throughout the network. In partnership with the Strategic Rail Authority, work on Waverley should begin in 2004.

Thirdly, we will develop rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, opening up direct access to the rail network for business, leisure and tourist travellers alike. By autumn we will have received a report and will be able to decide on progressing routes for development.

Fourthly, we want to create an effective and modern 21st century public transport system for Edinburgh, worthy of a capital city, in partnership with City of Edinburgh Council and private sector partners through Entico. City of Edinburgh Council is doing preparatory work on a tramline for north Edinburgh and we have invited the council to seek further funding from the Executive for preparatory work on a west Edinburgh tramline.

Fifthly, we want to address the concerns of business and the wider community in and around Aberdeen by tackling Aberdeen's congestion before it reaches the proportions that are seen elsewhere. Earlier this week, when Lewis Macdonald and I were in Aberdeen, we announced more than £500,000 for the development and implementation of the north-east Scotland transport partnership's modern transport system and a further £600,000 for the development of Aberdeen's urban realm project.

Sixthly, we have to tackle congestion right across the centre of Scotland by delivering the top priority public transport projects flowing out of the A8, A80 and M74 corridor studies. We will take receipt of those studies by the summer and I will announce decisions on priorities and their delivery in the autumn. However, in advance of reaching a decision on the corridor studies, I can announce today £5 million for the expansion of park-and-ride facilities at Croy railway station. That new funding will enable the construction of a new 250-space car park, which will more than double the current capacity. Work on the car park will start immediately and construction will be completed in just over 12 months. That is one of the priority public transport projects that emerged from the initial findings of the A80 corridor study.

Seventhly, we will open up the Borders area by progressing the central Borders rail link. The next stage in the process is the lodging in Parliament of a private bill seeking permission to construct the railway. The timetable for that and for subsequent stages in the bill's progression will be at the discretion of the Parliament.

Eighthly, we will tackle social exclusion by delivering free off-peak bus travel from October 2002 for elderly people and people with a disability. Negotiations are under way with the aim of introducing those improvements on a voluntary basis by enhancing current schemes in operation throughout Scotland.

Ninthly, we will improve travel information by providing travellers with customised information through an improved traveline service. A further £1 million will be spent this year on more detailed information for travellers, internet access and the formal launch of the overall high-quality service in the summer. We will encourage local authorities to adopt through-ticketing arrangements on local buses.

Tenthly, we will examine urgently how vital missing motorway links on the A8 and A80 might be completed. The central Scotland corridor studies are currently reviewing all possible options and we will announce our decisions in the autumn. However, it is clear that short-term action is required to address the most pressing problems on the key strategic corridors connecting Edinburgh to Glasgow and central Scotland to the north. I can announce that the Executive has committed an additional £20 million for a new junction at Auchenkilns on the A80 and junction improvements at Shawhead on the A8. Work on the design of both projects will start today.

That is the first announcement of spend on both those key roads since devolution—apart from money for routine maintenance. That is in addition to work that will begin on the Baillieston to Newhouse section of the A8 in early summer; we will be spending £25 million on the reconstruction of the A8 carriageway, the provision of hard shoulders and junction improvements along the route. The benefits from that work will be improved road safety, reduced congestion at junctions and better flow of traffic on the A8, especially at peak times.

The report does not purport to be the answer to all of Scotland's transport problems—it cannot be that. However, it clearly articulates what the Executive is striving to achieve and provides a vision for transport following more than two decades of underinvestment, which created a backlog of desirable projects. We have made significant progress in the past three years and that must continue.

The detailed sequencing of the 10 priority projects that the report highlights will be a key priority when decisions are taken in this year's spending review. The clarity in the report about what we are seeking to achieve creates an explicit agenda for partnership with other bodies, which is vital if we are to lever in the resources that are needed to deliver. By establishing a clear Executive-led vision for tackling congestion, it will be easier to work in partnership with others to deliver the transport system that Scotland deserves. Fundamental to achieving our vision will be working with local authorities and the voluntary regional transport partnerships—the west of Scotland transport partnership, the south-east Scotland transport partnership, the north-east Scotland transport partnership and the Highlands and Islands transport partnership—to improve local roads and bridges and tackle the growth in road traffic congestion.

We have achieved much since devolution, but many more transport improvements are needed if we are to have the transport system that Scotland deserves. Delivering the new vision will be a huge challenge, but today we are establishing clear priority projects that the Executive is committed to making happen over the next decade and beyond.

The challenges are clear but the route map for the future is clear, as are our priorities. It is time for action and to commit to what we will tackle and when. The level of detail in the transport delivery report is essential if we are to achieve the transport system that Scotland deserves for the 21st century.

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

The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I will allow about 30 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

A new day has dawned, but it is not a new age for public transport in Scotland. Several questions arise from the report. It appears that we are long on rhetoric, but short on detail. The plan gives us yet more studies and reports—studies and reports on on-going studies and reports. By my calculations, more than half the 10 projects referred to by Wendy Alexander are dependent on the outcomes of current studies and new studies or on interaction with partners from whom we have heard nothing and have no guarantee that they will deliver what the minister wants.

I want to raise some specific points in regard to four critical areas: airport rail links; providing 21st century public transport in Edinburgh; Borders rail, which is so important in the south of Scotland; and the missing motorway links, which are so significant for vehicle traffic in Scotland. The report is considerably devoid of detail in those four areas and we have no "route map", as the minister called it. Can she answer three points relating to those four matters? First, when will building commence? Secondly, who will provide the funding? Thirdly, what funding mechanism will be used? If those three questions cannot be answered, I regret to say that the report will be not a route map but another example of the Executive being long on rhetoric and short on substance.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Would Kenny MacAskill clarify his third question?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

What mechanism of financing will be used?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I am happy to deal with those three questions for each of the proposals that Kenny MacAskill has mentioned—the airport rail links, the Edinburgh public transport system, Borders rail and missing motorway links. I judge that to be 12 questions and, if the Presiding Officer is happy to indulge me, I will be delighted to respond to them all.

I do not know of any previous Government—I will not say Scottish Executive, given that we are the first Scottish Executive—programme that committed to 10 specific projects. Kenny MacAskill should reconsider his claim that we are short on detail, as we have been more specific than any Government ever.

I will deal with the earliest start date for each project and then I will outline who will provide the money. The first project is the airport rail links. The study report on Glasgow airport rail link is expected in autumn. We expect the project vehicle to be established in 2003 and the necessary bill to be lodged in 2004. There would be an opportunity to consider the issue in the parliamentary process in 2005. That would create the earliest opportunity for tendering in 2005. Planning permission would be necessary and that would be arranged in 2005-06. That would allow design and construction in 2006 and would create an earliest possible opening date of 2008. The timetable for the Edinburgh link is comparable.

The introduction of the bill in respect of the Borders rail link is at the discretion of the Parliament. It will be possible to introduce the bill at any time from 2003. Powers to construct will be given in 2003-04, procurement will take place in 2004-05, start on the site could happen any time after 2005 and the service will commence some time after 2008.

As Kenny MacAskill knows, planning is already under way for the tramline to the north of Edinburgh. We have invited City of Edinburgh Council to bring us plans for west Edinburgh in the next few months. After that, there will need to be planning permission, design and planning work, and we would expect to see the first elements of the light rapid transit scheme in place in 2004-05.

Building the missing road links depends on the recommendations that the multimodal study will make in the autumn. We have to consider the time it would take to get Parliamentary permission, do the design and preparatory work and examine different financing arrangements. The start date on the A80 would be 2008-09 and the start date on the A8 would be 2007-08.

I will run through who will provide each project. In the case of rail links for the airports, we are in discussion with the Strategic Rail Authority—as members will know, the links are one of the priorities in the SRA plan—the British Airports Authority, Strathclyde Passenger Transport in the case of Glasgow airport, and the local authorities. I expect to see all those bodies make a contribution on the financing of the airport links. Those discussions are already under way.

As to who will provide the financing in Edinburgh, members will be aware that last month we announced the establishment of Entico, which is a joint venture with the private sector, led by Ewan Brown. We have asked Entico to draw up the congestion charging scheme, or at least work with City of Edinburgh Council to finalise the scheme. We expect to receive that in autumn 2002. We also expect further details on financing when City of Edinburgh Council and the private sector players have reached agreement.

On the central Borders rail link, members know that the consortium has been established, but I expect contributions from the Scottish Executive, local authorities and the private sector. I have been encouraged by the willingness of the Edinburgh financial community to enter into discussion about contributing to that vital rail link. It is key to the development of Edinburgh as a financial centre and the heart of Scottish corporate life.

The A8 and A80 corridors are partly dependent on whether we choose to use a public-private partnership. As Mr MacAskill knows, we are considering whether a PPP would be appropriate for the M74. A PPP could free up additional resources for public transport improvements. If the corridors are trunk roads, there are permissions available to use tolling should we so wish. If it turns out that those corridors are not new roads, tolling would require legislation and we would want to discuss that in the context of the multimodal study.

All that I have said alludes to the wider point. Until we specify the 10 projects that we are trying to complete, it is not possible to put together all the necessary funding packages. To minimise the burden on the public purse, we are looking for the optimal and speediest financing arrangements for each Those arrangements will vary from project to project.

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

We have plenty of time in hand this morning and the minister has already agreed that we can run on a bit.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I think that my questions can be answered more briefly.

First, I thank the minister for advance notice of her statement. I first read it in The Herald on 6 February. There is not much left of Sarah Boyack's original proposal for a 15-year strategic plan. What we have is a number of 15-second soundbites that will no doubt be spun out endlessly over the next 15 months as we approach the Scottish Parliament elections.

How does the minister expect anybody to take seriously a report that ends with a picture of an aircraft taking off and the line

"The report will be rolled forward into solid plans"?

Is that not as clear an admission as we could have that the Executive has no concrete plans?

How can we have any confidence in the minister's ability to deliver anything when her term as minister has been characterised by transport chaos? Rather than producing nine or more glossy leaflets, is it not time to get into the real world where people judge delivery of public services on their experience of strikes, congestion on the roads, potholes and unreliable transport?

Does the minister's statement in The Sunday Herald that rural transport problems have all been fixed not show contempt for people in rural areas who have never experienced roads in such a poor state?

Finally, where is the money? In the minister's statement and in all the spin around it, not a penny piece is being proposed for expenditure beyond 2004. We cannot have a plan to deliver into the next decade if there is no money behind it. Where is the money?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The only difference between this plan and the one that might have emerged from my predecessor, Sarah Boyack, is that my plan has an implicit time horizon of 12 years rather than 15. It is fair to say that every one of the priority projects and the studies on each of them was started by Sarah Boyack, ably assisted by Lewis Macdonald, who has provided continuity.

It is significant that nine of the 10 projects are public transport projects. Publishing the plan today was only possible because Ms Boyack pioneered the shift from less than 12 per cent of the total transport budget being spent on public transport when she acquired the portfolio following the characteristic stewardship of Conservative party. At the end of her tenure, she had shifted 53 per cent of the transport budget into public transport.

I move to Mr Mundell's second point about delivery. It is because we think that delivery is key that in Scotland—unlike in England—we have pioneered specifying the projects that need to be completed to change the experience of passengers. We have not gone down the route of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, whose 10-year transport plan focused on more general targets. That is right for a larger geographical area, but it would be inappropriate for Scotland because it would mean disconnection between targets and projects. Scotland needs to know what is going to happen, which projects will happen and when. That is what we have sought to do in the statement.

It is not the case that all the projects in rural Scotland have been completed. Indeed, it is for that very reason that Ross Finnie and I announced this week the extension, and shift in emphasis of, the rural transport fund. As members will know, the support for lifeline services, Caledonian MacBrayne, HIAL and the northern ferries, is now at an all-time high. The reason why Sarah Boyack and Lewis Macdonald had to focus on the lifeline services was the underinvestment in those services by the Conservative party.

Finally, when it comes to finance, transport has sometimes been neglected by many Governments. I note that there have been 20 ministers responsible for transport in the United Kingdom in the past 20 years. That neglect is not just due to the volume of transport ministers. It has been caused by a lack of clarity about what we are trying to achieve. That was why the previous Conservative Administration could plan for the first two years of the Labour Government to have a declining line on transport.

There are less than four weeks to go before the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces the expected uplift in public expenditure in the next comprehensive spending review. With less than four weeks to go, it would be foolhardy to try and look backwards three years and specify moneys associated with the previous spending review, which is now more than two years out of date.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I will introduce a positive note into the issue. Although there are problems and there have been years of underfunding, things are happening. Local projects have come out of the rural transport fund that have benefited communities in my area. There are park-and-ride facilities on the periphery of Aberdeen that have benefited my constituents and me when travelling into Aberdeen. The things that are happening might be small scale, but small scale is how people live.

However, there are many big things to do. I was pleased to see that Aberdeen and the north-east are at number 5 in the list of priorities. The minister mentioned the 1960s vision of linking up Scotland's major towns and cities, but that vision ran out before it got to Aberdeen and the north-east and we are still awaiting the completion of the links to the main cities of Aberdeen and Inverness—the A96 is a long-neglected main travel route. When it comes to prioritisation, I ask the minister to take into account the fact that she has a lot of catching up to do from the 1960s.

Priority 10 is the central Scotland corridor study. The report points out that it occurred to people that the central Scotland transport model should be extended and enhanced to include Aberdeen and the north-east. Will the model be extended and enhanced, and will a more inclusive transport model for Scotland be used, rather than the model that is confined to the central belt?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

First, the order in which the 10 projects appear does not imply any order of priority; we should correct that view now. The logic of the order in which they appear is that seven of them are to do with tackling congestion in our principal cities, two are to do with integration—traveline and access for pensioners—and the final one is about the missing links.

We are seeking to make the rural transport fund more responsive to local communities. Frankly, in the past when local communities felt that no money was available for public transport, they did not get together to think about whether a community taxi or a community bus service would be right for them. With the funding of 500 projects, more debate is being generated in local communities about the right transport solution for them and about whether the best solution is a community taxi or a community bus service. Ross Finnie and I are trying to make the next incarnation of the rural transport fund more responsive to local communities that are coming up with proposals that are right for their areas, because they now believe that there will be resources for the projects.

On the 1960s vision, I will resist the opportunity to talk about the road improvements that were made at that time in the north-east. Suffice to note that, taking a Highland analogy, between 1962 and 1970 the travel time between Inverness and Carlisle was halved. That is a measure of the consistency of purpose and national consensus that was built at that time. We seek today to build the same national consensus around access into Glasgow, Edinburgh and critically—as Nora Radcliffe says—Aberdeen.

I offer Nora Radcliffe reassurance on the north-east roads system. As she will know, there have been three multimodal studies in Scotland—on the M74, the A80 and the A80. It is clear from the study of the A80 that the benefit of upgrading that road is that it will improve the freight route linking the north-east of Scotland to the west of Scotland. One of the key drivers for the people who are involved in that study is getting congestion off that corridor to provide that vital economic link to the north-east.

With regard to the announcement that Lewis Macdonald, who has done much of the work on this matter, and I made on Tuesday, the significance of extending for the first time an Executive-sponsored road traffic model to the north-east is that it will give us data of the same quality that would be obtained from a multimodal study in the north-east. Of course, it was open to us to say, "Stop now. Could we start all over again and have a multimodal study for the west of Aberdeen?" but that seemed inappropriate. It was more important to work with NESTRANS to update the quality of its data so that it was of the same quality that would be obtained from a multimodal study, so that we can figure out the right way forward for roads west of Aberdeen and into Aberdeenshire.

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

I have allowed substantial questions and answers so far, but I expect significantly shorter questions and answers from this point.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

With her enterprise hat on, the minister has given prominence to the regeneration of the Clyde corridor. I highlight the importance of developing vital transport links there, in particular along the north side of the Clyde. That must be considered in the next prioritisation exercise.

In the context of the rail franchise and her investment strategy for public transport, what priority will the minister give to speeding up the journey time between Glasgow and Edinburgh, which is currently five minutes slower than it was more than 30 years ago in 1971? It is important that we upgrade the rail line so that it is a proper express intercity line, instead of the suburban line that it seems to be becoming.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I share Des McNulty's view that the west of Scotland is important. That is why people will note that the Glasgow and Edinburgh airport links are noted as vital linkages; neither is given priority. Most of the airport linkage schemes are south of the River Clyde and do not cross the river. I expect my colleague Lewis Macdonald to make a statement on that in early summer, around the time we discuss the aviation work that has been done in Scotland. I expect that statement to bring people up to date with progress on the linkages.

The member may know that through the public transport fund we have given WESTRANS and Strathclyde Passenger Transport just short of £300,000 to commence a study to determine the right public transport infrastructure for north of the River Clyde. In particular, it will examine the right options for the Glasgow harbour area. I have recently been briefed on the study, which has now commenced.

On the rail franchise and speeding up the Glasgow to Edinburgh rail link, the member will be encouraged to know that the Strategic Rail Authority identified three projects in Scotland for major improvement: the first was Waverley station; the second was airport links; and the third was the central Scotland study. One of the reasons why we cannot speed up the rail journey time between Glasgow and Edinburgh tomorrow is that, quite simply, there is not enough room at Waverley station. As many members know, there is only one platform 14. Another problem is that the trains currently have to stop at Croy, Lenzie, Polmont, Linlithgow and so on. If we had more track capacity at Waverley, we could instantly have a non-stop service, if that was agreed with the operator.

Increased track capacity and further line enhancements are also under consideration. I discussed the Waverley project with Richard Bowker of the SRA in London last week, because the SRA and Railtrack will have a major role in pursuing the project. If we have a 15-year rail franchise in Scotland, it will become possible to talk to the operator not just about service enhancements, but about infrastructure enhancements, as part of the franchising process.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I hope that the minister's reference to the potential work on the A80 being of significant benefit to the north-east is not in any way the fulfilment of the promise that she gave in Aberdeen this week that she will provide a level playing field. A commitment to do something about the A80 is welcome, but I do not know that it is the principal concern of the people of the north-east.

I have two questions. First, the minister told us that nine of the 10 priorities relate to public transport. For the sake of clarity, will the minister tell us whether Aberdeen's congestion will be tackled solely through a public transport solution?

Secondly, the chapter of the transport delivery report entitled "The Vision" states that the Executive will prepare

"a robust assessment of whether targeted road improvements, including the Western Peripheral Route, could contribute."

Does that mean that the minister thinks that the western peripheral route proposals may not contribute to a reduction in congestion? Can she give us some idea when we will have a final decision on whether the Executive will accept its responsibilities for providing what should be a trunk route, to complete a significant link in the north-east that has been missing for a long time?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I can genuinely give Brian Adam most of the reassurance that he seeks. I will draw an analogy with the south side of Glasgow. As he will know, when we were thinking about the M74, we noted that there were two principal reasons why people use major ring roads: to deal with local congestion and because they are major strategic arterial routes for goods to market. In the case of the M74, that means vehicles going from Ayrshire, Inverclyde and Renfrewshire to markets in the south. There is also an analogy with congestion issues and how to get from the south side of Glasgow into the centre of the city.

The same issue applies to the creation of a modern transport system in Aberdeen. This week, we reached an important agreement in Aberdeen. Two issues are how we get traffic from Peterhead, north Aberdeen and Bridge of Don to the south and how we help people to enter Aberdeen. We do not have sufficient data about the percentages of strategic and urban congestion. As we did when we completed the multimodal study on the south side of Glasgow, we had to make choices about the route and the number of off-ramps, which depended on whether the principal problem was congestion or the route to market.

This week, we agreed that, for the first time, we would say to NESTRANS not, "We will do the multimodal study for you," but, "We trust you and we will give you our model." That will allow what is strategic congestion and what is congestion to the west of Aberdeen to be assessed, as it was in the multimodal studies in the south. I cannot give a commitment on how the outcomes of the study will be financed. I will receive the A8 and A80 multimodal studies next month. We have not resolved how their outcomes will be funded completely, because issues such as whether tolling should be part of the agenda must be addressed.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I agree with the minister that dealing with urban and interurban congestion is the most pressing transport issue in Scotland. The statement goes a long way towards addressing that issue.

The minister is correct to identify a move to a 15-year franchise as the most effective way of making a substantial step change in Scotland's rail services. Does the minister believe that there are opportunities for us to make progress in improving services before that franchise is let?

I congratulate the minister on her comprehensive response to Mr MacAskill's questioning. Does she agree that the comic element in today's exchanges was the accusation that the minister was short on detail and long on rhetoric, when Mr MacAskill has made a career of being that?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

In the interests of brevity, I say yes, yes and yes.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister confirm that her only new announcements were of £20 million for the A80 and of the park-and-ride scheme at Croy? Is she aware that, in each of the past three years, her predecessor made a detailed three-year projection of trunk road improvement projects? Will a further tranche of projects for 2004-05 be announced this year? Does the minister realise the significance for huge areas of Scotland of those announcements, which recently have been annual? They have established projects that tackle the real problems of rural areas—road safety, inadequate carriageways and the peripherality that stems from poor transport links.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

A number of road transport improvements will go ahead shortly. If I find the list, I will tell the member about the projects that will commence this year. In my statement, I tried to set the vision for the next 10 years. In the interests of brevity, I did not say which of the 94 projects to which we are committed will commence in the next few months. When invited to, we circulated this morning a list of the 15 or 20 projects that will happen this year. I am more than happy to send that list to the member.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I have such a big smile on my face that I can hardly speak. I welcome the minister's statement and the commitment to Croy railway station's park-and-ride scheme. I thank the minister's predecessor, Sarah Boyack, who showed much commitment to the project. Croy station's improvements are a perfect example of how improving public transport services creates demand. The station has been a victim of its own success and I look forward to that success continuing.

I welcome the minister's announcement about the Auchenkilns roundabout. People who live in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth have long recognised that improving that facility will move traffic on. I await with interest the publication of the multimodal study.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Please be brief.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

In response to the attacks from the SNP and the Tories—the SNP said that the announcement was short on detail and the Tories said that it was full of soundbites—does the minister agree that SNP and Tory transport policies are nothing more than hot air?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Yes.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

When the Opposition spokespeople can tell us their top 10 priority projects, they can lecture the Executive on lack of detail.

Croy station's park and ride was the most pressing scheme to emerge from multimodal study work. We hope that the scheme will be the first of many. It is astonishing that even after doubling capacity to 250 park-and-ride places, opportunities for further expansion are built into our plans.

As people who use the Auchenkilns roundabout will know, the safety issues that it raised were so pressing that we had to move ahead now.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I welcome the announcement on the Glasgow airport link. Will the minister confirm that the Glasgow link will go in tandem with the Edinburgh link? In previous statements, the Edinburgh link seemed to have priority. Does the minister recognise the palpable disappointment that will exist in Glasgow at the lack of public transport provision announcements for Glasgow, particularly about crossrail or other such developments? That is against the background of huge social exclusion in Glasgow. Does she recognise that the statement is short on vision and short on realistic answers to congestion problems in the city of Glasgow?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

As I said, the consultants have completed phase 1 on the airport links. We expect to have something to say in late summer about the routes that are under consideration. The member should be aware that links to both airports and cross-links through Glasgow to link the airports to the central Scotland network are being studied.

I would be disappointed if people in Glasgow felt disappointed by the statement. Pensioners form a high proportion of Glasgow's population and will benefit from the free public transport scheme. The excellent service that Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive has provided may mean that Glasgow pensioners will benefit disproportionately from the scheme, because of the number of bus services in the city. Glasgow is seeing the construction of the M74 extension. The Executive has made a substantial contribution to that. The increase in platform capacity at Waverley station will benefit both sides of the Glasgow to Edinburgh route by allowing more trains to travel from Glasgow. Similarly, I do not imagine that everyone who parks their car at Croy station goes to Edinburgh.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I welcome the minister's statement. The minister drew attention to our Kyoto commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and I welcome the commitment to get people out of cars and on to public transport, thereby reducing congestion. Will the minister assure me that the plans for the Waverley line and for Edinburgh city will be developed in an integrated way that examines the needs of constituencies such as Midlothian, which falls between the two? Sixty per cent of Midlothian's population travels to work in Edinburgh and faces appalling congestion at Sheriffhall roundabout.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

On the Kyoto targets, I know that some criticism has been made about why we have not set targets local authority by local authority to achieve the Kyoto reductions that we want. We have not done that yet for a simple reason. The likely road congestion and contributions to emissions in Caithness, Sutherland, Stornoway and Shetland are different from the likely contributions to emissions from road congestion in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. That is why my predecessor, Sarah Boyack, put in place a detailed study that will let us set targets by authority to meet the Kyoto targets. We expect to publish those targets towards the end of the year.

One great advance, which the Parliament began a couple of years ago, is the establishment of regional transport partnerships, such as SESTRANS and NESTRANS, which allow us to consider the regional dimensions of planning. When I talk about people entering and leaving Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, I stress that I am talking not only about how people move in and out of urban areas but about how they access workplaces, which increasingly are not in city centres but at diverse points in urban locations.

In addition to the main routes strategy, another great achievement of the 1960s was Barbara Castle's legislation to establish regional passenger transport authorities. Many other parts of Scotland look enviously at what the SPTE achieved and continues to achieve, as part of SPT, in the west of Scotland. We hope that SESTRANS, NESTRANS and HITRANS evolve in a similar direction.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister mentioned that various authorities would be expected to contribute towards the costs of airport links and crossrail. Do the authorities know that they are to contribute and how much they are to contribute? I understand that SPT does not have a lot of money. Is the minister aware that the Stansted rail link was funded by national Government? If so, why is that not the case for the rail links to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

At the moment, the individual local authorities that are involved contribute through the planning and design stages.

On the funding of SPT, the member knows that SPT is engaged in a dialogue with the Executive to examine its financing arrangements. We are sympathetic to the continuation of that dialogue.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

As the MSP for Stirling, I, like Cathie Craigie, welcome the improvements in Cumbernauld, which will help commuters travelling to Glasgow. I ask the minister for reassurance on her commitment to car parking at railway stations including Dunblane. Unless we extend car parking at railway stations, we will not be able to encourage more people back on to trains.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The chamber can take our commitment to Croy station park and ride as a signal of intent when it comes to the spending review. Clear evidence is emerging from the multimodal corridor studies that 86 per cent of the traffic at peak times on the A80 in the member's constituency is generated by single-person car occupancy commuter traffic—in west Edinburgh, the figure is 81 per cent. The key method of getting rid of congestion is to make park-and-ride facilities and comfortable interchanges available to commuters.

The facility at Croy will not be the only park-and-ride facility to be built, but it was the most urgent facility and the one that we could most easily move to the top of the queue. I expect park and ride to feature prominently in the multimodal studies that we are to receive in the summer.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I forget how many speeches the minister has made this morning, but in her first one she mentioned congestion in Aberdeen. Later, in a reply to Brian Adam, she said that Aberdeen might not get a western bypass. The document that the minister released this morning included a commitment to support road charging and an endorsement of the provision of wider powers for local councils to introduce charging systems. Does that mean that if and when Aberdeen gets a western bypass, it will be a toll road?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I would like to clear up the matter, but I do not want to take up time in the debate to do so.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We can allow the minister until 10.30 am to reply to questions.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Until now, there have been only three multimodal studies in Scotland: one on the M74 on the south side of Glasgow; one on the A80; and one on the A8. This week, we created a process similar to the one that underpins the multimodal studies for the north-east. It is to be undertaken by NESTRANS, but the modelling process that is involved will have the full support of the Scottish Executive.

The M74 helps to relieve congestion by getting people in and out of Glasgow. It also provides the strategic function of getting goods out of the city and on to through routes. A western peripheral route that was part of a modern transport system for Aberdeen would fulfil a dual function in exactly the same way as all the roads that were examined in the multimodal studies. I hope that I have not drawn a false distinction in that respect.

In trying to establish how such plans might be financed, I have initiated a different review in relation to the M74. I am considering whether it should be funded through a PPP, as happened for the A80 and the A8. We have said before that we need to await the outcome of the multimodal studies, but we welcome the willingness of the Confederation of British Industry and others to examine the means by which a contribution could be made to the process.

Given that we have not yet undertaken the modelling for the area to the west of Aberdeen, it would seem presumptuous to single that area out for a particular form of funding. Although we are approaching the end of a two-year multimodal study period on the other corridors that I have mentioned, we will not specify the outcomes until we have taken receipt of the studies. There is no doubt that the character of road usage will influence the decision on the appropriate balance of funding. We are assessing the balance between strategic and local needs on a like-for-like basis.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I welcome the significant investment of £3 million that has been allocated to the transport interchange plan for Gourock. Through her involvement in the area, the minister will know of the delays that have plagued the project. Will she tell the chamber what she has done, and what she will do, to ensure that the project goes ahead as soon as possible?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I am acutely aware of the collapsing sea wall at Gourock, which is causing problems for the upgrading of the station. As the chamber is aware, four projects are caught up in Railtrack's decision that all of its signalling resources should be concentrated on post-Hatfield safety work. The difficulty for all branches of Government is that it would be wholly inappropriate to interfere in decisions about safety priorities, as they are the judgment of the rail regulator.

That said, when signalling resources become available, we are anxious that resources that are not required for essential safety work should be diverted into projects in which we have made a financial commitment, such as the Gourock project.

Last week in London, I discussed that very matter with Richard Bowker, the head of the Strategic Rail Authority. I am hopeful that, when Railtrack begins to have the signalling resource that allows it to do things other than safety, the four Scottish projects—including Gourock—will be very near the top of the list.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Does the minister accept that to invest in CalMac, the northern isles ferries and HIAL is to invest in infrastructure? Welcome as that is, it does not change the fares that people in the outlying areas of Scotland face. Does she accept that, while the investment in HIAL has improved the company's position, it has not led to changes in the exorbitant price of flying to and from the northern, western and other isles in the outlying parts of Scotland? Will she give an undertaking that she will look at innovative transport policies, such as public service obligations, to counter the cost of living in those areas?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I think that I heard three questions struggling to get out.

There is no question about the level of infrastructure investment that we have made. The challenge for the management of CalMac and HIAL is how they use their much-improved infrastructure to provide a better service to passengers.

Last Friday, en route to Gigha, I talked to the managing director of CalMac. I asked him about how CalMac's new route managers will create a service that is more responsive to passengers' needs. To take Gigha as an example, a very slight change to the ferry timetable would allow schoolchildren to get home every night. At present, they have to spend four or five days each week in Campbeltown. A critical change for the future of that community would be made possible by shifting the ferry timetable by half an hour. We should look forward to that sort of flexibility being introduced in many other parts of rural Scotland. The MD of CalMac was talking enviously about the quality of the new ships for the northern isles, which he had seen recently while they were under construction.

High air fares are a problem for rural communities and the Executive raises the issue regularly with the commercial air operators. The Executive's commitment has been to upgrade the HIAL facilities. Shortly, Lewis Macdonald will accompany the First Minister to one of the new airports that is to open in, I believe, Tavish Scott's constituency.

A case can be made for public service obligations in the provision of ferry and lifeline air links. We are committed to the public service obligation route where it is appropriate.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister is aware that, in the regeneration of rural communities, it is important to improve the transport infrastructure. A major challenge exists in rural Aberdeenshire, given that the area has little access to bus services and few rail links. Indeed, there is not one inch of rail track in Banff and Buchan. Will the minister explain how the statement will be of benefit to Aberdeenshire and the transport infrastructure in the north-east of Scotland?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Yes. The motorway and trunk roads programme will include the A96 at Coachford; the A96 at Newtongarry; the A90 at Hatton Bends; the A90 at Cammachmore; and the A90 from Laurencekirk to Oatyhill. As for public and integrated transport fund projects, there will be more than £3 million for a bus priority park-and-ride scheme; £766,000 for Aberdeenshire station improvements; £745,000 for the Peterhead and Mintlaw park-and-ride scheme; and £0.6 million for the Ellon park-and-ride scheme. I will not list all the rural transport projects in the area, but there will be funding for services in Portsoy, Banff, Fraserburgh, Strichen and Turriff; the central Buchan dial-a-community-bus scheme; the central Buchan circular bus service; an enhanced Peterhead bus service; enhanced bus services between Peterhead and Ellon, Fyvie and Inverurie and Methlick and Ellon; the Ellon and district transport club initiative; and so on.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I welcome the minister's statement. It is imperative that the people of Fife have an improved, good-quality rail network that will allow them to travel. As many of my constituents commute to Edinburgh and Glasgow, what improvements will the Executive make to improve their rail journeys?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Everyone involved in public transport in Scotland has been surprised by the demand for public transport services from Fife into Edinburgh as the city grows and prospers. That demand has been illustrated by the fact that, in the past two years alone, there has been a 25 per cent increase in the use of the Fife circle service. The single most important improvement to Fife rail services is the redevelopment of Waverley station, about which I have made a further statement this morning. We hope that work will start in 2004 to improve the volume of services from Fife. In addition, we are aware of the need to improve rolling stock and of the issue of platform extensions.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That concludes the minister's statement and questions on it.

Parliamentary Bureau Motion

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We move to consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to find a microphone and to move business motion S1M-2921, which is a timetabling motion on the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman Bill.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Presiding Officer, I apologise for not being in my proper seat. Mr Robson's absence caught me slightly unawares.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that, at Stage 3 of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill, debate on each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated (each time limit being calculated from when Stage 3 begins and excluding any periods when the meeting is suspended)— Groups 1 to 3 - no later than 1 hour Motion to pass the Bill - no later than 1 hour 30 minutes.

Motion agreed to.

Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill: Stage 3

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We move to the stage 3 proceedings on the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill. I do not intend to read through all the usual script. However, members should be aware that, for the purposes of the debate, they will need the bill, the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings that have been established by the Presiding Officers.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 1, in the name of Peter Peacock, is grouped with amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

At stage 2, Iain Smith lodged amendments that were aimed at harmonising the ombudsman's remit across all bodies in Scotland within his or her jurisdiction. The issue was raised in the Local Government Committee's stage 1 report as well, and I advised the committee during stage 2 that the Executive was sympathetic to the principles behind Iain Smith's amendments. However, I asked that the amendments be withdrawn while the Executive reviewed their wider effects and, in particular, checked that there would be no overlap with other regulatory regimes that had been established to monitor public service delivery.

Amendment 1 extends the ombudsman's remit to allow him or her to investigate complaints from an individual of injustice or hardship arising from service failure by a listed authority. That brings the ombudsman's remit in relation to other bodies into line with his or her remit in relation to health service bodies.

Amendment 2 inserts a definition of the term "service failure", which includes

"any failure in a service provided by"

a listed authority, and

"any failure ... to provide a service which it was a function of the authority to provide".

Amendments 3, 4 and 5 are consequential changes to paragraph references.

At stage 2, Iain Smith stated that it was not his intention to extend the ombudsman's remit into discretionary decisions or professional judgments. I assure the chamber that the amendments will not widen the ombudsman's remit to the extent of questioning discretionary decisions that are made by public authorities, including decisions on whether to provide a service which an authority is not statutorily required to provide, or decisions on how to provide a service.

Section 5(6) specifically states that section 5

"is subject to sections 6 to 8"

which impose a range of restrictions and exclusions on the matters that the ombudsman may investigate. In particular, section 7(1) prevents the ombudsman from questioning a decision that has been taken without maladministration in the exercise of a discretion vested in the authority. Moreover, the amendments will not affect professional judgments in the public sector. I should also clarify that the amendments will not alter the ombudsman's existing remit in relation to health service bodies.

We are now satisfied that the amendments will not result in any overlap between the ombudsman's remit and other arrangements for monitoring public service delivery, and I ask the Parliament to support them.

I move amendment 1.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I thank the minister for the helpful way in which he has dealt with this matter and the other amendments that the Local Government Committee suggested should be made to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill, including—as members may note—to the title of the bill.

Amendment 1 will helpfully allow the ombudsman to investigate any public concerns about service failure in any public body. It is important that there is consistency across the public sector in this respect, particularly as we move towards more joint working among various public bodies. For example, it would have been a rather strange anomaly if the ombudsman had been able to investigate the health service aspects of a complaint on a community care matter because there had been a failure of service, but had not been able to investigate the local government aspects of the complaint because there had been no administrative failure by local government. Amendment 1 will mean that the bill avoids such anomalies.

I emphasise that the provision is not intended to stray into discretionary areas. The question is not about the decision on whether to provide a service, but about whether, once the decision to provide a service has been made, that service has failed. For example, a complaint to the ombudsman about a local authority's decision to collect refuse every fortnight instead of every week would not be permitted. However, a complaint that centred on a local authority's failure to collect refuse regularly from a particular household could be investigated by the ombudsman as a failure of service. In fact, section 7(1) makes it clear that the ombudsman does not have the powers to investigate a local authority's discretionary powers.

Furthermore, amendment 1 does not give the ombudsman the power to investigate matters of professional judgment. The judgment of teachers and social workers in exercising their professional duties should not be subject to investigation unless there is a question of maladministration.

I welcome the minister's positive response to my stage 2 amendments on this issue and indeed to all the concerns that the Local Government Committee raised at stage 1. Those concerns have all now been addressed, and I urge the Parliament to support amendment 1.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I seek the minister's clarification on a point about amendment 2, which defines the term "service failure". Will the ombudsman be able to investigate a grievance about service failure by a social inclusion partnership?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I ask the minister to wind up.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I have very little to add. Iain Smith's point about consistency across the public sector in how we treat such matters underlies amendment 1. Iain Smith usefully explained why he did not want to extend the provision to include discretionary decisions and also pointed out that the ombudsman's remit will not include matters of professional judgment. It is important to underline that we do not intend to open up those matters.

I will have to write to Sandra White on her question about SIPs, as the answer will depend on their precise constitution in any given circumstance. However, if SIPs operate under the banner of a public authority, they would be subject to the ombudsman's interest. I will clarify that matter with Sandra White in due course.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 to 4 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 6, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendments 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 seek to implement the Executive's policy aims of providing a clear and consistent framework for the ombudsman to consult and co-operate with equivalent ombudsmen in England and Wales, and of enabling the ombudsman to share information with the UK information commissioner and Scottish auditors.

Amendment 9 inserts a new section in the bill that provides for consultation and co-operation with equivalent UK ombudsmen. The chamber will note that, for reasons of legislative competence, amendment 9 does not include reciprocal provisions for the UK ombudsmen to consult and co-operate with the Scottish public services ombudsman. The Executive intends that those provisions will be made by way of an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, to be taken forward by the Westminster Parliament. That should ensure that the intended policy is implemented properly on a UK basis.

Amendments 8 and 12 would insert a new section and schedule in the bill to make provision for the ombudsman to disclose information to the UK information commissioner and Scottish auditors.

Amendment 7 is consequential on amendment 8.

Members will note that the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 already provides for the UK information commissioner to disclose information to the existing Scottish ombudsmen. Amendment 13 simply updates references in that act to refer to the new ombudsman.

As a consequence of the provision in the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000, amendment 6 provides that information that is obtained by the ombudsman from the UK information commissioner must be treated in the same way as information that is obtained in connection with a complaint or a request for an investigation.

The Executive originally anticipated that amendments 8 and 12 would also cover the sharing of information between the ombudsman and the Scottish information commissioner. That position will be created under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill, which is being considered by the Parliament. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill is at a more advanced stage of parliamentary consideration than the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill, therefore it will be necessary to include the provision to which I referred in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill. That will ensure that cross-references between the two bills are correct.

I ask the Parliament to support the amendments, and I move amendment 6.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I seek clarification on amendment 9. I am pleased that there will be consultation and co-operation with other bodies. Subsection (1)(a) of the new section that amendment 9 would insert in the bill refers to the parliamentary commissioner for administration. Would that provision also apply to the Scottish Legal Aid Board? I understand that, at the moment, investigations cannot be conducted in respect of contractual or commercial transactions. Will the Scottish public services ombudsman have the power to conduct such investigations? Will they be able to consult the other ombudsmen on the matter of legal aid funds?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The amendment would not alter the powers that exist, but it would give the ombudsman the proper power to consult under powers with which they are provided elsewhere in the bill. It would not alter, in a legal sense, the situation that Sandra White describes, but it would make it possible for the commissioner to consult on the matters to which the amendment refers, in a way that is consistent with the remainder of the bill.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will the minister clarify whether the effect of the amendments will be to ensure that people cannot hide behind the ombudsman in order to prevent the disclosure of information that would otherwise be subject either to the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 or to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill? It is important that the minister should make it clear that that is the intention of the provision.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am happy to confirm that that is the case.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendment 7 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 10, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 11.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendments 10 and 11 are technical amendments to schedule 2, which lists the authorities that are subject to the remit of the ombudsman.

Amendment 10 seeks to make explicit reference in schedule 2 to the Auditor General for Scotland, as the existing reference to Audit Scotland does not cover the functions of the Auditor General, who is a separate legal entity. The amendment ensures that complaints that are made against the Auditor General can be considered by the ombudsman. That has always been our policy intention.

Amendment 11 removes the reference in schedule 2 to Community Learning Scotland. As members may know, that body will cease to trade from 1 April this year.

I ask the Parliament to support the amendments, and I move amendment 10.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Amendment 11 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That ends consideration of amendments.

Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2853, in the name of Andy Kerr, on the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I presume that this will be a fairly short debate to seek Parliament's agreement to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill.

I want first to deal with a formal matter. In accordance with rule 9.11 of standing orders, I advise Parliament that Her Majesty has signified her consent to the bill in so far as it affects her interests.

The Executive has a continuing commitment to ensuring modern, open and accountable government that delivers first-class public services for the people of Scotland. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill is a further example of the Executive's continuing commitment to doing that. Devolution has again proved to be of benefit to the people of Scotland. It has enabled the Executive to legislate to establish ombudsman arrangements that are specifically tailored to Scotland's needs. Through the bill, Scotland will create a public sector complaints system that is on a par with the most progressive systems elsewhere and that will provide a lead for the rest of the UK.

The Local Government Committee's stage 1 report has provided the focus for developing the bill since its introduction. The report supported the general principles of the bill but identified some areas in which the committee felt that it could be improved. I am pleased to say that the Executive was able to respond with a range of amendments that addressed the concerns that were expressed by the committee. For the benefit of the chamber, I will briefly summarise the main amendments that have been made to the bill since stage 1.

During the stage 1 debate, the Executive indicated that it would consider changing the title of the main office holder created by the bill to the Scottish public services ombudsman, and we lodged appropriate amendments to do that at stage 2.

The Local Government Committee questioned whether the bill sufficiently safeguarded and enhanced the ombudsman's abilities to resolve complaints by informal means. Again, the Executive lodged amendments at stage 2 to make specific provision for informal resolution of complaints.

Concern was expressed by the existing ombudsmen that the bill did not sufficiently meet the principles of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—otherwise known as the TUPE regulations. The Executive lodged appropriate amendments at stage 2 to put that matter beyond doubt.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee sought clarification about the private and public nature of the functions of some bodies. The Executive lodged an amendment to the bill at stage 2 to address that matter.

I am pleased that the Local Government Committee agreed to all the amendments that were lodged by the Executive at stage 2.

A further concern that was raised in the Local Government Committee report was that the bill did not provide a consistent investigatory remit for the ombudsman across all the bodies within his or her jurisdiction. Today, the Parliament has debated and agreed Executive amendments that reflect the comments that were made by Iain Smith and address the concern to which I have referred.

The bill has benefited from the development that has been achieved in open dialogue with the Parliament. I thank Trish Godman, the Local Government Committee and the clerks to that committee for their work and their valuable contribution to improving the bill in its passage through Parliament. They have helped to improve the statutory framework that is before us today.

The stage 1 debate on the bill confirmed that members broadly welcomed the Executive's proposals for reforming the public sector complaints system. I hope that the chamber will now add its endorsement to what I consider to be another good example of the Executive working in partnership with the Parliament to produce legislation that seeks positively to serve the people of Scotland.

The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill provides a strong platform from which the new ombudsman will no doubt endeavour to improve further our already highly regarded public sector complaints system. I commend the bill to Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill be passed.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for replying to my questions and I look forward to receiving written replies.

On the whole, the SNP welcomes the bill. It makes a lot of sense to have a one-stop shop for the sort of procedure that the public can understand and can access quickly and more easily. I am almost sure that the minister gave us assurances on this point at stage 2, but I urge him to advertise the changes in procedure, perhaps with a booklet or leaflet that the public can access in post offices, shops, libraries or local government buildings. It is important that the changes are advertised so that the public are aware that the Scottish Parliament's intention is to make the system much easier, more open and transparent for those who want to express their concerns. I look forward to the minister doing that work to ensure that the public are aware of the changes and of how easy it is to access the ombudsman.

The SNP is thankful that the minister has acted on the concerns about the TUPE regulations that were raised at stages 1 and 2. I am sure that the staff will be most grateful for that.

My only concern is about the change of name. Everyone said that they would like a more politically correct name, but I am sure that we can all live with the new name. I welcome the bill and the SNP will support it in its entirety.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Conservatives also welcome the bill, which should, as intended, establish a simpler and modernised, one-stop shop, public sector complaints system. We are pleased that the minister took on board many of the comments and amendments that were suggested by the Local Government Committee, and we are pleased to support the bill.

I am sorry to make such a brief speech, but we have discussed the bill at length in committee. [Applause.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I have never heard such warm applause.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

How does one follow that? I could say that that was the best speech that I have ever heard Keith Harding make, but that would be a little cruel.

The Liberal Democrats also welcome and support the bill. It is a sensible measure, which has been improved, as Peter Peacock said, by the good dialogue between the Local Government Committee and ministers throughout the process. That is a good example of how the Parliament's committees and the Executive can work together to introduce and approve good legislation.

It is valuable for the public that we now have a one-stop complaints shop for their concerns about public services. Important aspects of the bill include, for example, the fact that there is no need for an MSP or councillor to be involved in referring a complaint. Members of the public can go straight to the ombudsman with their complaints. That is an important step forward, particularly in relation to the parliamentary ombudsman; at Westminster, the public still need to go through an MP to make a complaint.

We have managed to ensure that the informal resolution processes that the ombudsmen all operate are clearly embedded in the bill and will continue as the main way in which complaints are dealt with. It is important that there is an option for public bodies themselves to refer a matter to the ombudsman when they have reached an impasse with a member of the public. Those of us who have been elected members for many years are aware of the problems that can arise when a member of the public and a local authority cannot reach agreement on whether a problem has been resolved. It is useful that the ombudsman will have the opportunity to consider such issues.

The improvements that we have made at stage 3 in relation to consistency are also important. The bill is now a good example of legislation that will benefit the public in Scotland and all of us in public service. It will ensure that complaints from the public are properly identified, addressed and considered, without there being artificial barriers about what constitutes administration and what does not.

I welcome the bill and urge the Parliament to support it.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

As Keith Harding said, the policy objective was to establish a one-stop shop, headed by the new Scottish public services ombudsman, which would be open, accountable and easily accessible to all and which would have the trust of the Scottish public. There is no doubt that we need a simpler and more effective means for members of the public to make complaints about maladministration in the public sector.

I want to mention a couple of changes that have been implemented by the Executive, which was persuaded to make those changes by the Local Government Committee. The committee agreed that existing expertise needed to be retained, but we did not believe that the most appropriate way of doing that was to designate a deputy ombudsman's post. There is no need, for example, to have a deputy ombudsman for health or for housing; to do so would be to defeat the purpose of the bill.

The committee considered the confidentiality of information that is provided by the Scottish Legal Aid Board and asked that safeguards should be put in place to ensure that applicants are protected, so that the quality and extent of information that is provided is not adversely affected. The minister has written to me with assurances of those safeguards.

The committee welcomed the assurances from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on retaining the independence of the ombudsman's post. We are satisfied that sufficient safeguards have been put in place to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest. We were concerned that conflicts of interest could arise because the pay, allowances and pensions for the ombudsman are determined by the SPCB, while at the same time the SPCB is liable to investigation by the ombudsman. As I said, we are satisfied with the assurances that the minister has given.

The committee was concerned about the lack of publicity concerning the ombudsman. We all know from our surgeries that the information that is available to the public is woeful. It is difficult to find and not altogether clear. Most people who come to MSPs with complaints that are quite clearly for the ombudsman have never heard of an ombudsman and have never used such procedures. We therefore welcome the inclusion in the bill of the requirement to publicise the service.

I hope that the Executive will remember that it is not only information on where to find the ombudsman that is important. Information must also be made available about the ombudsman's powers, whether oral or written evidence is acceptable, whether people can take a representative with them when they are interviewed and whether they must exhaust the local complaints procedure before they approach the ombudsman. In other words, as Sandra White said, there must be as much information as possible and in as many places as possible. I am pleased that the Executive has seen the sense in supporting the committee's position on publicity. The bill will be effective only if there is easy, accessible information about the complaints system.

The committee sought assurances from the minister on staff transfer arrangements. Staff must be protected, and we have noted the minister's assurance regarding safeguards for staff.

The changes that were accepted by the Executive at the behest of the committee have improved the bill. It is right that we have a well-advertised one-stop shop for a public services ombudsman. I urge members to support the bill.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I welcome the elements of the bill that are designed to procure accessibility and the mechanisms that have been identified for the investigation of complaints.

When I was reading through the bill, it occurred to me that there was no good reason why the office of the ombudsman should be located in Edinburgh. However, I noticed from some recent advertisements for jobs in the ombudsman's office that the assumption was being made that the office should be in Edinburgh. I can think of a number of good reasons why the office should not be in Edinburgh. In fact, there are strong arguments for such offices to be relocated to other parts of Scotland. Jackie Baillie and I would be absolutely delighted to have the office in West Dunbartonshire, and other members might be able to make an adequate case for their areas. When we establish such offices, there should almost be a prejudice against locating them in Edinburgh, rather than centralising everything in the capital city. I urge the minister to give that point serious consideration.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the all-party support for the bill, which is a sensible measure to improve the complaints system in Scotland. I commend Keith Harding on the brevity of his speech and trust that that will be repeated on future occasions.

I take seriously the point that Trish Godman and Sandra White made. Having approved the new arrangements, it is important that we make the people of Scotland clearly aware of what is now available to them, what the powers of the ombudsman are and what the access arrangements are. The points that Trish Godman raised, such as being able to take a representative to an interview or being able to complain orally as well as in writing, are important. The importance that the Parliament attaches to those matters will be made clear to the new ombudsman's office.

I share Sandra White's slight anxieties about the name. We considered a range of different names, but could not find a better one. I understand that the name is of Scandinavian origin and is gender neutral, despite its appearance.

Trish Godman made a point about the ombudsman's freedom to appoint deputies as he or she sees fit, and about not constraining the ombudsman to have specialists in health, local government or other aspects of public service. I have no doubt that specialisms will emerge from the office, but that will not be required by the bill. There will be freedom for the ombudsman to make decisions in that respect.

Des McNulty commented on the location of the office, and I think that an orderly queue will form from different parts of Scotland in respect of where the office might be. However, on the general point about relocation, the Executive's policy is that consideration should be given to entirely new offices being established probably outwith Edinburgh. The question arises of whether the office is new or an amalgamation of existing offices. That said, I will consider the point that Des McNulty made. If it were decided to open up the question of the office's location, there are established procedures to follow.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

There are many ways by which bureaucrats can wriggle out of relocation, but the minister should regard the idea that the office is not new with considerable concern. Under the previous Conservative Administration, there was a pattern of offices ending up in Stirling, which was an interesting variation on the Edinburgh theme. We should consider such matters seriously. We should identify where the pattern of work is and try to identify an appropriate location that sensibly relocates Government jobs.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I do not think that there is any difference between Des McNulty and the Executive in respect of the principles behind what we seek to do. I think that Des McNulty has lodged a parliamentary question on that point, which is waiting to be answered. I do not want to pre-empt the answer, but there is a question about the independence of the ombudsman's office and the extent to which the Executive can direct it in such matters. Nonetheless, I take his general point and wish to see the continuation of the relocation of jobs throughout Scotland, not least to the north and west of Scotland, and to all other parts over time.

As others have mentioned, the bill is designed to improve the public complaints procedures, to create a one-stop shop and a streamlined system for the public to make complaints about failures in public service duties by public authorities and to create easier referral arrangements for complaints to be made. It is designed so that public bodies use the complaints system to improve their service constantly, use their internal complaints procedures to examine systems that fail from time to time, and improve those systems and eliminate faults in the public service as much as possible. The bill is part of our drive for better and more responsive public services in Scotland, and I commend it to the Parliament.

Business Motion

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-2920, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business— Wednesday 27 March 2002

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Executive Debate on Tourism followed by Executive Debate on the Size of the Parliament followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 28 March 2002

9.30 am Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Business followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

3.30 pm Stage 3 Debate on the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business

(b) that the Justice 2 Committee reports to the Justice 1 Committee by 16 April 2002 on the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Amendment Rules 2002 (SSI 2002/107), the Police Grant (Scotland) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/116) and the draft Police Act 1997 (Enhanced Criminal Record Certificates) (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) (Scotland) Regulations 2002; and

(c) that the Justice 2 Committee reports to the Justice 1 Committee by 15 April 2002 on the Restriction of Liberty Order (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/119) and the Adults with Incapacity (Public Guardian's Fees) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/131).— [Patricia Ferguson.]

Motion agreed to.

Prison Estates Review

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a statement by Mr Jim Wallace on the prison estates review. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I would like to outline the Executive's proposals for the future of the prison estate in Scotland, which are being published today for consultation.

Prisons are a crucial element of the criminal justice system. The public is entitled to protection from those who commit serious crimes and it is our responsibility to ensure that those who are imprisoned are held in secure custody. It is also the Executive's responsibility to ensure that prison conditions meet modern standards. Many of our prisons were built in Victorian times, but their role has since changed. Prisons are no longer merely places for holding prisoners; they should help to reduce crime by working to help prisoners to change their behaviour so that they do not re-offend on release.

It is an uncomfortable but undeniable fact that the existing prison estate does not meet the needs of many prisoners, nor does it address the public's interest in effective rehabilitation as well as it should. That is not to denigrate the efforts of prison staff, who display dedication and expertise in dealing with a wide range of often very difficult prisoners. However, many staff work in poor conditions, which makes it harder for prisoners to address their offending behaviour and for staff to help to rehabilitate them.

Three main issues need to be addressed if we are to have a prison estate that is fit for its purpose. First, the number of prisoners is rising and is projected to continue to rise. Overcrowding is already an issue in some prisons and the situation will worsen unless additional prisoner places are provided. The need for extra prisoner places over the next 10 years cannot be met simply by refurbishing existing accommodation and building on existing sites. It is our responsibility to plan now to meet that need.

Secondly, we must deal with existing accommodation that falls well short of an acceptable standard. We inherited a prison estate that suffered from serious underinvestment. Her Majesty's Prisons at Barlinnie and Peterhead fall well below modern standards and at Low Moss, prisoners are held in wooden huts that were built 60 years ago as temporary accommodation. The buildings at Low Moss and Peterhead are reaching the end of their useful lives.

The third issue is slopping out. That a quarter of Scotland's prisoners must still slop out is wholly undesirable and we are committed to making that a thing of the past.

Prisons are important, but they are only one part of our criminal justice system. We are taking action to achieve a safer Scotland. That has had some success already, as falling levels of crime demonstrate. We will continue to build on that progress.

For many less serious offenders, imprisonment is not the answer. That is why our criminal justice strategy makes available to our courts an increasing range of tough, high-quality, non-custodial options. For example, restriction of liberty orders are being made available to all Scottish courts later this year and drug treatment and testing orders are being established. However, serious offences will remain, for which deterrence and the protection of the public require prison sentences and therefore prisons.

The proposals that we are publishing today have taken a long time to develop. We have been clear that we needed robust information on which to base our decisions. The issues are complex and the decisions have long-term implications and involve large sums of taxpayers' money. Our proposals meet immediate needs and long-term requirements and deliver value for money. Before I describe the proposals in detail, I will explain the basis on which they have been developed.

The remit of the estates review was to identify the likely pressures on the prison estate over at least the next 10 years and to generate options for dealing with those pressures. The review was conducted with an open mind. As I said in Parliament, nothing was ruled out and nothing was ruled in. To supplement the review, PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted an in-depth study of the cost of public and private sector options, and of a mixed option of private sector building and public sector operation for the provision of new prison accommodation.

Today, we are publishing not just our consultation document, but the estates review, including the statistical background to our prisoner projections, and the PricewaterhouseCoopers study.

The latest projections for the next 10 years are an increase in the prisoner population from the current population of 6,300 to a level that will range from a low of 6,700 prisoners to a high of 8,500 prisoners. Given the uncertainties that exist, and taking into account the Executive's policies to provide more alternatives to custody, we concluded that we could prudently plan on the basis of 7,200 prisoners. If numbers begin to exceed that prudent projection, there will be flexibility in the new capacity and time to put measures in place to meet greater demand. Projecting future trends in the prisoner population is not an exact science.

Although overall the level of crime is falling, levels of serious crime remain high. Detection rates are at their highest level since 1939 and the average length of sentences has increased by 40 per cent since 1980. I will never apologise for a criminal justice system that locks up serious and violent offenders for a long time. Those factors are driving up prisoner numbers and are central to the projections that I outlined.

The review concluded that to meet the projected demand for increased prisoner places and replace existing poor quality accommodation, a total of 3,300 new prisoner places must be provided. A significant programme of public sector investment in the refurbishment of existing accommodation or construction of new buildings can provide about 1,100 of those places within existing Scottish Prison Service establishments, so about 2,200 places in new prisons are required.

The optimum size for a new prison is about 700 places, although the actual size of any new prison will depend on a number of factors, including site availability and location. Prisons that are significantly larger than 700 places can be much more difficult to manage, while smaller prisons are often less economical to run. In order to meet the requirement for about 2,200 prisoner places, we need to plan for three new prisons, although a final decision on the third will be taken in the light of updated projections of the prisoner population.

How should those prisons be provided? As I said, the review considered public, private and mixed options. In order to compare the costs of the options, they have been assessed on the standard Treasury-approved net present value—or NPV—basis over 25 years. Using NPV, an option that would involve expenditure's being incurred over a long time can be compared objectively with one in which a greater proportion of the expenditure is incurred up front.

The NPV cost of three new public sector prisons would be approximately £1.3 billion. The mixed private-public option would cost between £1 billion and £1.3 billion and the wholly private sector option would cost £0.6 billion. The difference between the wholly private sector option and the public sector option is £700 million. No responsible administration can ignore such a difference. We should remember that if we choose the public sector option, there will be £700 million less to spend on other public services.

The public sector and hybrid options would take about 11 years to complete, but the private sector option could deliver the prisoner places in five or six years. That means a considerable difference in the time scale for ending slopping out. A number of factors lead to that difference. The experience of other private prisons is that the private sector can deliver major building projects more quickly and efficiently than the public sector. A public sector option would require longer for preparation and design. The need for the new prisons is too pressing for such a delay to be acceptable, and we would be failing in our duty if we did not take the route that offered the best value for money.

Some people oppose the use of the private sector in prisons because they believe that it is wrong to entrust the care of prisoners to the private sector. Others argue that the private sector will not be able to deliver to an acceptable standard, but experience in Scotland and elsewhere has demonstrated that the private sector can deliver successfully against very demanding requirements. The objective evidence is clear that the new prison at Kilmarnock was delivered quickly and economically, and is now operating as an effective part of the Scottish prison system. It is beginning to deliver accredited programmes and has the highest out-of-cell time of any Scottish prison.

Although we propose that the private sector would provide the new prisons, about two thirds of prisoners will continue to be housed within establishments that are operated by the public sector.

I turn now to issues concerning the public sector estate. The Executive remains committed to supporting the Scottish Prison Service in its management of the public sector prison estate. As I speak, a refurbished hall is opening today at Barlinnie. That represents investment of another £2.5 million in our public sector prison service and another £35 million of investment is already under way in new house blocks at Edinburgh and Polmont prisons. Further investment in the public sector prison estate is a key priority.

The estates review concluded at an early stage that the majority of the existing SPS prisons ought to be retained, but questions remained about the future of Barlinnie, Low Moss and Peterhead.

There is no doubt that Barlinnie is in an excellent location. It is close to the busiest courts in Scotland and has good transport links. Without Barlinnie we would need to establish a replacement prison near Glasgow. I can make it clear that we propose to maintain the prison at Barlinnie. However, the accommodation at Barlinnie falls far short of modern standards. Public sector investment in substantial improvements to the accommodation at Barlinnie is a high priority and progress has already been made. One of the halls at Barlinnie has been fully refurbished and another is being partially refurbished. However, refurbishing halls is very costly, and the resulting accommodation is less flexible than new build, so we propose to clear part of the site and build a new house block, which will provide 360 prisoner places. Combined with the investment that has already been made, that will secure the long-term future of the prison with at least 530 places.

The accommodation at Low Moss is also highly unsatisfactory and is nearing the end of its useful life. It is very poor in terms of security and fire risk. Refurbishment is not an option, so it is proposed that Low Moss should close as soon as possible. However, the site is well placed to serve the main population centres in the west of Scotland. It could be considered as the location for one of the proposed new prisons.

Peterhead raises particular issues because its population is made up of long-term sex offenders, although nearly half of all sex offenders are held in other prisons. The accommodation there is also reaching the end of its useful life and all prisoners there have to slop out. Because refurbishment of the buildings, including the introduction of night sanitation, would be a lengthy and extremely expensive exercise, the cost would be very difficult to justify. Given the age of the buildings, refurbishment could not in any case be a long-term solution and so would not represent good value for money. New accommodation could be built on the site but that, too, would be a very expensive process, as a result of being constrained by the need to build while the existing accommodation remained in use.

The fact remains that Peterhead prison is distant from the central belt, from where most of its prisoners come. That makes it difficult for many prisoners to maintain appropriate family and other links, which are important in their rehabilitation. We therefore propose to close Peterhead prison. That would take at least three years to implement.

Peterhead has delivered excellent work with sex offenders in recent years. However, many sex offenders are already housed elsewhere and the STOP 2000 programme, which addresses sex offending, is already being delivered in a number of existing central belt establishments. The role of Peterhead in delivering sex offender programmes will be retained within the public sector.

We estimate that of the current total of about 4,600 SPS staff, about 670 would be likely to be affected by reduction in the size of Barlinnie and the closure of Low Moss and Peterhead. However, the SPS has given a commitment that there will be no compulsory redundancies and no cuts in cash pay for any staff as a result of the estates review. I endorse that commitment. Prison closures will inevitably take time to implement, which will provide the time to deal with staffing issues at the affected sites.

I will conclude. The key principles that underlie our proposals are: that the estate should have the capacity and the flexibility to cope with the projected number of prisoners; that slopping out must be ended and a definite timetable set that accelerates progress; that the prison estate must be modernised to provide secure prisons that facilitate effective rehabilitation through high quality programmes; and that the estate must meet the requirements of best value.

The public sector will retain the leading role in our prison system, with elements of best practice being identified and spread throughout the estate, regardless of where it comes from. Our commitment to rehabilitation will be a key part of contracts with the private sector.

That approach is reflected in the proposals that we publish today for consultation. I look forward to what I am sure will be a constructive public debate on a crucial issue.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The minister will now take questions on the issues that have been raised in his statement. We can be reasonably flexible about time this morning. I have a long list of members who want to ask questions. I invite remaining members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

So much for the Liberal Democrat manifesto before the 1999 Scottish Parliament election and new Labour's promises before the 1997 general election.

It is an amazing coincidence that nearly everything that the minister said in his statement appears to have been in the public domain since last Friday, when every journalist in Scotland who is interested in the matter tried to contact members through their pagers and mobiles. One can assume only that there was a great deal of unofficial briefing.

The minister has had the review since December 2000. Will he explain why—although the review took 13 months from when it landed on his desk to come before Parliament—he is prepared to allow only a 12-week consultation period? That is utterly ludicrous.

Will the minister undertake to ensure that the veil of commercial confidentiality is removed from Kilmarnock prison so that we can all compare the public and the private sector provision of prisons? At present, we are not permitted to know, for example, the number of prison officers at Kilmarnock, the conditions in the medical centre, the extent of staff bullying and the extent of staff turnover. Such information is necessary to establish a real comparison between the private and the public sectors. Does not the minister realise that Kilmarnock—in terms of cost and of the prison regime—is nothing like an ideal model for the future of the prison service in Scotland?

How on earth does the minister justify the closure of Peterhead prison? The prison system appears to be one in which the reward for success is closure. Dungavel prison, which was as close to being drug-free as a prison can be, was closed. Now, Peterhead, which has an internationally renowned sex offenders unit, will be closed. According to Clive Fairweather, that closure will set back the progress of the sex offenders treatment programme by three years. Where will the offenders in that unit go? I presume that the new recipient community will not be too happy about it.

Conditions in Scotland's prisons need radical improvement. Does the minister realise that most people in Scotland believe that the proposals are not the way in which to deliver that improvement?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I did not brief anyone on the proposals and no authorised briefing took place—I gave specific instructions that no briefing should take place. It was not rocket science for the press to eliminate some of the options, but it is interesting that some of the weekend press reports, which Roseanna Cunningham suggested were the result of a briefing, mentioned cost differences of £300 million, whereas the actual figure is £700 million. Those reports were out by a long way.

Roseanna Cunningham asked why the review took 13 months to come before Parliament. During that time, I have given explanations to the Parliament's justice committees, but I am happy to put them on the record again. First, when I received the estates review, I thought that there should be an independent audit of the costings in the review so that when the consultation began, the work had been done. The PricewaterhouseCoopers financial review of the Scottish prison estates review, which is published today, is a robust piece of work and gives details of how the costings were arrived at. I recommend it to Roseanna Cunningham and to the Parliament.

Secondly, the former First Minister, Henry McLeish, Iain Gray and I took the view that the estates review that the Scottish Prison Service originally presented to Scottish ministers considered the private build, private operate option and the public build, public operate option. We took the view that there ought to be an examination of the case for the private build, public operate option. That examination took PricewaterhouseCoopers considerable time, not least because there appears to be no model of that type anywhere in the world. That is another reason for the period between the review landing on ministers' desks and today's statement.

Thirdly, significant changes in the Cabinet led to a re-examination of some of the figures. One matter that particularly concerned us—especially Richard Simpson, who has done a considerable amount of work on the matter during recent weeks—is the projection of prisoner numbers. I take no satisfaction from the fact that, with the exception of two jurisdictions in western Europe, Scotland has the highest rate of prisoners per 1000 head of population. It gave me less satisfaction to discover that that figure is projected to rise. Given that the Executive is committed to tough non-custodial alternatives to prison, we wanted to analyse carefully the statistical basis for that figure. The statistical basis of the population projections is published with the review. That issue is important, which is why we took the time that was required to consider them carefully.

Roseanna Cunningham asked about the 12-week consultation period, which is a perfectly normal period for Scottish Executive consultations. Replies that are one or two weeks late will not be ignored or put in a separate pile. Given the amount of material that has been published today, I hope that the debate will be informed and constructive. I accept that Roseanna Cunningham has not had time to absorb all the information, but she did not propose an alternative to our proposals, nor did she challenge the need for three new prisons.

Roseanna Cunningham asked about commercial confidentiality. On 8 March, the contract for Kilmarnock prison, with very few omissions, was made available on the SPS website. I think that it was the first PFI contract to be published in Scotland. She asked about the figure for Kilmarnock's staff turnover, but that figure is in the public domain—the present figure is 14 per cent, compared to about 30 per cent 18 months ago. She asked for other comparators—I will give an example. A 2001 prison survey showed that prisoners feel safer at Kilmarnock than do prisoners at comparable establishments, and that Kilmarnock is in the mid range for prisoner-on-prisoner assaults. Mandatory drug testing applies as much to Kilmarnock as it does to other prisons—recent figures for positive test results show Kilmarnock at 24 per cent, which is almost identical to comparable establishments such as Edinburgh, which is at 24 per cent, or Perth, which is at 26 per cent. Over 90 per cent of prisoners at Kilmarnock do on average a 35-hour working week, compared to 43 per cent at Edinburgh and 70 per cent at Perth. A significant amount of information is available on Kilmarnock.

I salute, as I have on many occasions, the quality of the work that is done by the staff at Peterhead prison. We are concerned about people, not buildings, but Roseanna Cunningham's question suggested a greater concern for buildings than for people. I defy anyone to say that the buildings at Peterhead are fit for a modern prison estate. The STOP 2000 programme is run in other parts of the prison estate. As I made clear, the intention is that Peterhead's role in dealing with sex offenders will continue to be carried out in the public prison estate.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will allow questions to run beyond the timetabled 30 minutes because of the extensive list of members who want to ask questions. I emphasise that members should ask questions.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Is the Deputy First Minister aware that his commitment to private prisons is similar to the conversion on the road to Damascus. Has he forgotten that when the draft Criminal Justice Act 1991 (Contracted Out Prisons) Order 1992 was debated and passed on 6 July 1992, he—with Malcolm Chisholm and John Home Robertson—voted against it, as did other leading figures in the present United Kingdom Government, such as Robin Cook, Dr John Reid and George Foulkes? Given the success of Kilmarnock prison, which was confirmed by HM chief inspector of prisons for Scotland, we welcome the minister's astonishing U-turn and the increased use of the private sector.

Will the minister endorse the cardinal principle that, to accommodate the disposals of the courts and children's panels, there must always be sufficient places in prisons for adults and enough places in secure accommodation for children? Will he take into account our view that the dismantling of Peterhead and its sex offenders unit might turn out to be a retrograde step and might lead to an increase in the risk of such prisoners reoffending? If the proposals are merely a cost-cutting exercise, they will not necessarily strengthen the rule of law.

Can the minister tell us what the cost would be of rebuilding Peterhead prison and how that compares with the cost of building a new prison elsewhere? Thirdly, will he acknowledge that there is a continuing need for special units to accommodate the small number of prisoners who disrupt mainstream activities? Finally, will he confirm that the degrading and deplorable practice of slopping out will be ended well before 2005?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

James Douglas-Hamilton has used the 15 months to undertake some worthwhile research to find out how various people voted in 1992. I do not deny that the view I took was as he said. I have had misgivings about the private sector in prisons, but I have been prepared to listen to the arguments and have visited Kilmarnock to see what happens there. It is not unreasonable to judge, on the basis of the evidence, that there is good work in the private and public sectors. It would be a sad day if everyone retreated to the bunkers. The Conservative party has experienced enough conversions over the past two years and should not be giving lessons on that subject today.

James Douglas-Hamilton asked about children in secure accommodation. I understand that that matter falls primarily within Cathy Jamieson's responsibilities. The numbers in relation to that issue are being considered. However, today we are talking about the prison estate for adult male offenders, not children in secure accommodation.

I made it clear that the options for Peterhead were examined closely. The existing building, with its stressed concrete, cannot be adapted. Adaptation would not do the job properly and would not last—the building would have to be refurbished again relatively soon and that would not represent good value for money. We considered the possibility of building on the site at Peterhead but, as I said, there are difficulties with that. Trying to build a substantial new prison there while running the existing prison would be very difficult and would slow down the process.

If we were to build a 700-place prison at Peterhead, that would accommodate considerably more prisoners than are currently accommodated there. It would not only house people on the sex offenders programme; it would have to accept other prisoners, many of whose families would have to travel considerable distances to the north-east of Scotland. Questions would also arise about the future of Craiginches prison in Aberdeen, in the light of the fact that the obvious place for short-term prisoners from the north-east would be the bigger prison at Peterhead. For those reasons, we decided that the future of Peterhead was not an option.

Nevertheless—I have said it before and I say it again—we acknowledge the quality of the work that is carried out at Peterhead. It is also important to recognise that more officers in other parts of the prison estate are trained in the STOP 2000 programme. That expertise must be retained in the public sector so that such valuable programmes can continue to be delivered to sex offenders.

James Douglas-Hamilton's final question was on slopping out. If we go down the road of having three prisons in the private sector, slopping out can be ended in five to six years. If we choose any other option, that time could extend to 11 years. I am determined to end slopping out. There is a contradiction in James Douglas-Hamilton's question. If we keep Peterhead, we will not end slopping out. I have considered all the factors and I believe that what we are proposing today will end slopping out as early as is physically possible.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Although I acknowledge the poor state of the prison estate and the Executive's desire to change it, how can the Minister for Justice expect Parliament to accept that the private sector can build and run prisons as cheaply as he has described this morning? I think that Parliament will agree that that is beyond belief. Can the minister assure Parliament that he will not accept any proposals that are based on a reduction in the terms and conditions of prison officers and other staff? Furthermore, can the minister tell us how the private sector can be trusted to deliver quality rehabilitation programmes if it has little expertise in correctional and rehabilitation work when compared to the Scottish Prison Service?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Pauline McNeill asks how we can justify such a wide difference in costs. The vastness of the difference is one of the reasons for the delay. We wanted to ensure that the figures stood up to robust analysis. I invite Pauline McNeill to read the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which gives some of the reasons for the difference.

In getting public sector comparators for the costings, we accepted that the proposal would involve a modern prison in the public sector with some of the operational advantages that that gives. A fair comparison was made between the public sector and the private sector, in terms of buildings. The various documents set out the differences in operational costs, bit by bit. Even if a 20 per cent reduction in operating costs were made—which, as the report says, would lead to significant staff reductions in the public sector—there would still be a considerable difference between the public and private sector options. It is not intended that there should be any transfer of staff from the public sector to the private sector. I have given the undertaking and confirmed the SPS's undertaking that no one in the state sector will be made compulsorily redundant or receive any reduction in cash wages.

Kilmarnock prison delivers a range of rehabilitation programmes. Accreditation is given not only for a programme, but for its delivery on a specific site. When a prison opens, it does not have the track record immediately to get accreditation, but accreditation is now coming through for programmes at Kilmarnock. The SPS management monitors the delivery of those programmes in Kilmarnock and there is close scrutiny of what is being delivered. I emphasise the fact that our commitment to rehabilitation will be a key feature of the contracts that will be let. It is important that, in any prison system—whether in the public or private sector—we stress the importance of work that leads to rehabilitation of offenders.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

It is clear that the Scottish Executive and the Minister for Justice have spent considerable time investigating the differences between the two models before coming to a decision. Nevertheless, the figures must have a sound basis. The decision must be based on best value and £700 million is a huge cost difference. That amount of money could build many new schools and hospitals.

I have two questions for the minister. First, can he tell us why prison numbers are rising and are projected to continue to rise? Secondly, will he elaborate on how slopping out can be ended more quickly under the option that the Executive has chosen?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

George Lyon correctly points out that the difference in cost is such that, if we were to forgo that £700 million, we would have fewer resources to spend on the health service, schools and public transport. The £700 million would not be on a straight line over 25 years, because of the bulge that there would be at an early stage for capital build. That would impact significantly in the years that are not too far ahead.

I have indicated why slopping out would be ended sooner under the private build-and-operate option. The private sector has consistently shown—not only in Kilmarnock, but in England, where eight private prisons have been built and delivered—that it delivers more quickly. The truth of the matter is that, since Shotts prison was built, there has been no public build of a prison in Scotland. The SPS has no design team and to set one up would be costly and time consuming. The resources that are available to the SPS to manage a public sector prison build would mean that it could not deal with more than one prison at a time. It takes considerable time to commission prisons in the public sector. However, in the private sector, a combination of reasons leads to a different time scale. When the contract starts, the prison must be in a position to go ahead immediately.

We are serious about delivering the ending of slopping out and I invite anyone who has a better configuration that would end it earlier to come forward. I would be more than delighted to look at such a proposal. However, I assure Parliament that the issue has been looked at from every angle. We believe that the proposals in the consultation document represent the best and quickest opportunity to fulfil a commitment to end slopping out in Scotland's prisons.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The minister advised that about 670 staff will be affected by the reduction in size of Barlinnie and the closure of Low Moss and Peterhead but that there will be no compulsory redundancies. Can he explain what will happen to those staff? Will they be absorbed into the current estate? Will he also advise us whether the staff in the new prisons will be on a similar rate of pay to that of the current public sector staff? Will the ratio of prison officer staff to prisoners be the same in the new private prisons?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I confirm again that there will be no compulsory redundancies among those 670 staff. However, we are talking about something that will happen over three or four years, so there will be a natural loss in numbers. There will also be redeployment within the existing public sector prison service. Following the closures of Penninghame, Dungavel and Longriggend, it was possible to absorb the staff and there were no compulsory redundancies. The contracts for new prisons have not been tendered, so questions about staff ratios are at an early stage.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Can we have a guarantee on that issue?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Order.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will there be different rates of pay?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I cannot say that there will be the same rates of pay because, as members know, there are different rates of pay in the private sector. [Interruption.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Order. If Mr Swinney wants to ask a question, he can, like other members, press his button.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We require of any private prison contract that those in custody are securely maintained and that numerous programmes, including education, are delivered. Those programmes are monitored and the company faces penalties if it does not deliver on those specific requirements. When looking at pay, we compared estimated pay levels in private prisons with comparable existing pay levels in the public sector. Those levels were for important professional jobs, but the public sector pay levels were in the same range as the estimated levels for private prisons.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Will there be an opportunity to extend Kilmarnock prison? If so, will that provide an opportunity to renegotiate the current contract, thereby addressing the problems of pay that were raised with the minister when he recently visited the prison? Does the minister agree that lessons have been learned from the first private prison contract, which was for Kilmarnock prison? Does he also agree that a review of that contract, taking staffing levels into account, would address the concerns of many members, including my concerns as the constituency member for Kilmarnock?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I recall that Margaret Jamieson accompanied me on my visit to Kilmarnock prison. On the contract, lessons have been learned and those lessons will be reflected in the contracts for new prisons. It is also possible, within parameters, to change the priorities of the various programmes that are delivered at Kilmarnock. However, it is not possible to renegotiate the contract fundamentally. The SPS does not set the rates of pay at Kilmarnock prison.

The possibility of extending Kilmarnock prison was raised with us late in the day. I do not want to postpone the consultation to examine that possibility in detail. However, if such a proposal is prepared during the consultation period, we would consider it.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I generally welcome the review. I regret the time that it has taken to bring it to Parliament, although I perhaps understand the reasons for that. Given the answers that the justice committees received in the first two years of the parliamentary session, why has the forecast number of prisoners risen so steeply? I seem to recall that, when the budget was being set, the number was considered to be declining, which concerned the committees.

The minister referred to longer prison sentences. One problem that prison staff face is that those sentences are reduced by early release, which does not give staff the time to do rehabilitation work with prisoners. Does the review deal with that?

The minister referred to the quick build of the new private sector prisons. Does he accept that there is also swift commissioning? Does he accept that the commissioning of Kilmarnock prison was highly successful, compared with what happened with Shotts prison in the 1980s, when commissioning was followed by a series of disruptions?

Will the minister re-examine the drugs situation in Kilmarnock prison? Instead of giving out general criticism, perhaps he will praise the Kilmarnock staff, because the higher than average throughput of remand and short-term prisoners creates a situation in which drugs are much harder to deal with.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will take Phil Gallie's points in turn. Projections of numbers are not accurate predictions or precise science. The further one goes more than two or three years ahead, the more difficult it is to make accurate projections. We are conscious of that. Phil Gallie can study the details, as we published the basis of the statistical projections.

The numbers have increased significantly in the past 12 to 18 months. There is no apparent reason for that, but several points must be considered. There is a higher detection rate now than there has been at any time since the second world war. We are focusing on dealing with serious violent crime and drugs crime. For example, the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency is becoming more effective in targeting big dealers, who tend to get longer prison sentences. Strathclyde police's spotlight initiative for safer streets has been effective in finding people who carry offensive weapons, which is also the kind of crime that attracts higher sentences. Therefore, the number of prisoners who are serving longer sentences is increasing. We must take account of that fact. However, much is being done to promote non-custodial sentences for less serious crimes, for which custody is often inappropriate.

Phil Gallie asked about commissioning. He is right to point out that there were many difficulties in the commissioning of Shotts prison, whereas the period from the signing of the contract to the opening of Kilmarnock prison was relatively quick. The chief inspector of prisons for Scotland said in his 2000 report on Kilmarnock prison:

"Following an initial, turbulent period, HMP Kilmarnock has settled quickly and is enjoying a period of stability, due to a combination of generally sound preparation, co-operation with other parts of the SPS and a great deal of hard work and determination."

Phil Gallie also mentioned drugs. I did not think that I was being critical of Kilmarnock in terms of drugs. I indicated that mandatory testing for drugs finds about the same incidence in Kilmarnock as in other comparable establishments such as Edinburgh and Perth. I gave that figure not to criticise in any way, but to show that the problem is not peculiar to the private sector. In comparable public sector prisons, the figure is much the same. It is important to note that in between 80 and 90 per cent of prisoner receptions in Scotland's prisons there are indications of current drug abuse. The fact that that is driven down to 24 to 25 per cent in prisons is a remarkable achievement of prison officers and the work that is done in Scotland's prisons.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

The statement is important and I sympathise with the Minister for Justice as he tackles the problems, some of which have been neglected for many years.

The statement was about the public interest, public safety and having a modern, efficient and effective penal system in the 21st century. Against those criteria, I will pose two or three questions to the minister. I hope that members can unite around the debate for the next three months, because what we debate and discuss will be crucial to the people of Scotland, not to the politics of the chamber.

One of the difficulties that Jim Wallace faces and that I faced, which is why the report has been delayed, is that the differences between the figures for public and private provision are staggering—£1.3 billion as against £700 million. At a time when the public are concerned about comparisons, I ask the minister to ensure that we revisit the figures over the next three months. I do not think that the Scottish Prison Service is aware of the innovations and changes that are taking place in private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships. We should forget the issue of private versus public and consider the costs. It is important to ensure that the figures are absolutely right.

My second point is about Peterhead prison. That prison has an award-winning sex offenders treatment programme. It provides jobs and has public acceptability in the environs within which it is located. Over the next three months, should we consider the possibility of a new prison there? I do not think that concentrating everything in the central belt makes sense, given that the Parliament serves the wider interests of Scotland. I would welcome comments on that.

I turn finally—thank you slightly for your indulgence, Presiding Officer—to the projection of prison numbers, which is absolutely crucial. I make a plea to the minister about Cornton Vale prison. There are some serious offenders in that prison, but the overwhelming majority are there not because they have stolen or have not paid fines, but because they are involved in drugs. Given the situation in Sweden, Finland and Denmark, does the minister agree that we have to make a powerful push to reduce in the prison population the number of people who could be dealt with outside prison? Does he agree that we should ensure and demand that those who are in prison are there because they have received high tariffs for murder, rape or serious violence? If that issue were tackled over the next three months, I am sure that a positive picture could be presented to the public about difficult circumstances.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I invite no one to take that indulgence as an example to be followed.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank Henry McLeish for his questions and for taking a keen interest as First Minister in the work that was being done on the prison estates review.

As I indicated, we commissioned the PricewaterhouseCoopers report because when we saw the huge difference between the figures for the private and public sector provision options, we found those figures barely credible. I ask all members to consider carefully what is said in the consultation document and the PricewaterhouseCoopers study, which shows what factors have been taken into account and where many of the differences in costs arise.

During the consultation period, it is open to anyone to examine the figures; if anyone believes that anything has proceeded on a false premise, I ask them to draw that to our attention. The figures have been pored over so often that I would be greatly interested if anyone were to find serious flaws in them. That is not to say that we are not open to that possibility, which, if it were to be highlighted in the consultation, I would have regard to.

I recall the time when Henry McLeish and I met Alex Salmond in January last year. We gave him an undertaking that we would take into account the importance of the valuable work on sex offending that is carried out at Peterhead. I assure Henry McLeish and the Parliament that that was the subject of considerable discussion between the SPS, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons and me.

Let me put Peterhead in context. It has targets for 91 prisoners to complete skills programmes, 40 prisoners to complete cognitive skills programmes and 35 prisoners to complete sex offenders programmes. Sex offenders programmes are being carried out at Barlinnie prison and in a modified form at the young offenders institution at Polmont. It is important to point out that those programmes are not being delivered solely at Peterhead. In the light of what the chief inspector of prisons said to me, which is partly what led me to make the statement today, the work that Peterhead plays in the sex offenders programme will continue in the public sector. I am happy to reiterate that.

Henry McLeish has a long-standing interest in Cornton Vale and the plight of women offenders. He is absolutely right to point out how many of them are in prison because of drug misuse. The estates review does not examine the women's prison at Cornton Vale, but I remind Henry McLeish that the report by the ministerial group on women offending, "A Better Way", was published earlier this month. It suggests a three-stage approach to tackling women's offending, focusing on prevention and early intervention, providing a framework of community disposals and working with women in Cornton Vale to address the problems of addiction and offending behaviour. Much is going on to tackle the important issue of women offenders and to try to treat the real problems, rather than relying on incarceration.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am beginning to get pleading notes and there are a lot of members on the list of those who wish to speak. I ask members to make their questions snappy.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I will press the minister on the question of alternatives to custody. Will he assure us that adequate resources will be made available for providing services and that any obstacles that are alleged to discourage sheriffs from putting people into alternatives to custody will be addressed seriously? Will he assure us that whatever we can do legally to make use of such alternatives will be encouraged? From the information that I have seen, short sentences seem to be a total waste of time, if not harmful.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I give Donald Gorrie the assurance that he seeks. We set considerable store by the development and resourcing of alternatives to custody. The fact that we will roll out electronic tagging throughout Scotland, that we have drug treatment and testing orders and that we have established drug courts in Glasgow, which we will extend, is indicative of that. The criminal justice bill, which is likely to be published next week, will also address a number of ways in which non-custodial sentences can be implemented. The budget for criminal justice social work has been increasing—it is funded 100 per cent by the Scottish Executive.

The important point to bear in mind is that the nature of short sentences—I accept that some people would be better off outside prison—tends to increase the number of receptions in prison. There are some 35,000 receptions a year—albeit that the current daily population is in the range of 6,200. A substantial reduction in the number of custodial sentences would be needed to impact on the daily population.

The base load—if we want to call it that—is increasingly made up of prisoners who are serving longer sentences for more serious crimes. I assure Donald Gorrie that our commitment to securing tough but worthwhile alternatives to custody is as strong today as it has ever been.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I thank Henry McLeish warmly for his support for Peterhead prison. Will the minister take account of that support? As it is based on a full understanding of all the issues, beyond what has been published today, he should give considerable weight to it.

Does the minister recall the answer to written question S1W-17717, which showed that the lowest figure for sickness per head among staff in the SPS is at Peterhead? Does he recall the answer to written question S1W-17716, which showed that the highest build-up of time off in lieu is among staff at Peterhead? Does he accept that those two answers show the commitment of staff at Peterhead?

Does the minister recall the answer to written question S1W-17669, which shows that Peterhead has the lowest level of self-harm in the SPS? Does he recall the answer to written question S1W-19663, which shows that there have been no reports of complaints from prison visiting committees about the treatment of sex offenders in the SPS? Is he aware that prisoners' families feel safe visiting Peterhead, whereas elsewhere they are abused and attacked?

Is the minister aware of the answer to written question S1W-12540, which showed that the price of keeping a prisoner in Kilmarnock was £23,000? Is he aware that the cost per prisoner at Peterhead has been shrinking over the past few years and that, after rebuild, it would be £19,800, whereas the SPS target continues to rise year on year and is £32,800 for this year?

Is the minister aware that more than 50 per cent of prisoners have offended against their own families and that that is an adequate justification for keeping prisoners away from their families?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Make this the last question please, Mr Stevenson.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

During the three years when the STOP 2000 programme would be disrupted by any move from Peterhead, will the minister meet the families of every child who is molested, every woman who is raped or any victim of any other sexual offence that happens as a result of the wrecking of the rehabilitation programme that would be caused by the closure of Peterhead prison and the transfer of that programme elsewhere?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I acknowledge that Stewart Stevenson has an important constituency interest and that it is proper that he should state the case for his constituency as best he can. However, I do not think that he did so in that contribution; he overstated the case considerably. I have written to him to offer to meet him to discuss the matter in greater detail.

I am aware of the written answers to which he referred because I answered most if not all of the questions. On more than one occasion today, let alone in the past, I have paid tribute to the valuable work that the staff at Peterhead do. I do not retract one iota of what I have said in their praise.

I have attempted to show that we examined the options for maintaining a prison at Peterhead, but that we did not believe that those options could be sustained for a number of reasons. I do not want to repeat what I have said. The reasons are set out in the consultation document and I have explained them at some length.

Stewart Stevenson said that there may have been family involvement in 50 per cent of crimes. That means that, in 50 per cent of cases, there is no family involvement. In those 50 per cent of cases, the families were not the ones who were sentenced to prison. Although that is by no means the determining factor, it is a factor in our decisions.

I assure the Parliament that the issue of Peterhead was thoroughly pored over. We came to conclusions, which are set out in the consultation documents. Stewart Stevenson and others from the north-east can make their representations, which will, of course, be considered. However, I am satisfied after exhaustive consideration that it is possible to deliver the STOP 2000 programme in other parts of the SPS. Indeed, that is already being done. It will continue to be delivered in the public sector of the prison service.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I welcome the assurances that I understand have been given on staff protection following any closure. The minister's statement necessarily touched on prisoner rehabilitation. Does the minister acknowledge the considerable forbearance of my constituents in Bishopbriggs and their acceptance of the remand and short-term prison facility at Low Moss? Will the minister assure me that he will consider not only the whole prison estate but the wider public estate, including any opportunities for land swap, not least because of the challenges that might arise on planning permission for any early build?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I welcome what Brian Fitzpatrick said, not least his mention of rehabilitation. I know his constituency interest in Low Moss. As with Stewart Stevenson, I have offered to meet Brian Fitzpatrick to discuss the issues in greater detail.

I indicated in my statement that Low Moss is a possible candidate site for a new prison. However, I am also well aware that planning permission would be required. Those issues can be considered in far greater detail in the weeks and months ahead. I look forward to discussing them with Brian Fitzpatrick.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The minister said in his statement that to build three new prisons through the private sector would save the public purse some £700 million. He also said that half of the sex offender programmes were being run outside Peterhead.

Does considering the effect of closure on the economy of Peterhead not change the way the minister does his calculations? He mentioned costs and savings to the public purse. What will be the cost of closing Peterhead, which will be the third Government-induced hit on the Peterhead economy? The first was the running-down of RAF Buchan, then there was the fallout of the decommissioning of fishing vessels and now we have the closure of Peterhead.

There will be a cost to the public purse. Has the minister considered taking the other sex offenders, putting them with those who are in Peterhead and creating a new centre of excellence in Peterhead, which might be more effective?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Even if we did so and built a new prison of 700 places, some short-term prisoners, possibly from far away from the north-east, would almost inevitably have to be housed in Peterhead. The solution is not as simple as putting every sex offender in Scotland in Peterhead.

The economic impact on Peterhead was, of course, raised and considered in the course of our deliberations. Aberdeenshire Council, as Mr Davidson is no doubt aware, is already doing work on the economic impact of Peterhead on the local community, not only in staffing but in resourcing various provisions for the prison. I have given a clear steer to the SPS to co-operate fully with that study. I fully expect that Wendy Alexander's enterprise and lifelong learning department will engage with Aberdeenshire Council in examining any economic impact of the decision on Peterhead and the surrounding area.

I remind Mr Davidson that the closure is likely to be phased and is likely to take three to four years to come to pass. That time can go quickly, but we are conscious of the impact and already want to engage in addressing it with the local authority in particular.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

The minister is no doubt aware that there are real concerns about the involvement of the private sector in the SPS. Will he therefore confirm that the public sector will remain the main provider of prison services in Scotland? Will he also confirm that the best practice that has already been developed at public sector establishments such as Shotts in my constituency will be adopted in any new establishments? And will he confirm that any staff who choose to transfer to new establishments will do so with their rights, terms and conditions fully protected?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I confirm that the public sector of the Prison Service will retain the lead. About two thirds of prisoners will still be held in custody in public sector prisons. Members should not overlook, as perhaps they have done so far in their responses to my statement, that I also announced that 1,100—that is one third—of the places that we need would be provided by the public sector.

I was at HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont to see a £17-million house block that has been put up there. At Edinburgh prison, £18 million is being invested in a house block. I have also announced a new house block for Barlinnie. In addition to that, there will be work on other prisons. I am aware that Perth prison requires refurbishment, as does the YOI at Glenochil.

I can give Karen Whitefield the reassurance that there will be a substantial investment in the public sector. Where there are examples of good practice in the public sector, we want to spread that. I have been to Shotts prison and was very impressed by what I saw there, not least by its employment programme. Whether that good practice comes from the public sector or the private sector, we are determined to improve the quality of the work done. Great strides forward have been taken in recent years, but we can always do better.

It is not anticipated that there would be a transfer of staff from the public sector to the private sector, and I can assure Karen Whitefield that there will be no compulsory redundancies among public sector staff as a result of these measures and no cuts in their cash pay.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Is the minister aware that, in evidence given to the Justice 1 Committee on Peterhead prison—which we are visiting again on Monday—it was plain to all that the success of the sex offenders programme was to do with the culture in the prison and with the dedication and experience of the 240 staff, who are now extremely worried people? It was made plain to us by a senior academic that that programme would not transfer elsewhere.

The minister referred to the governor of Barlinnie. In evidence to us, he said that to run a sex offenders unit in Barlinnie would be like running a prison within a prison and would be extremely difficult. Why does the delivery of what is an excellent programme seem to count as nothing against bricks and mortar? If a new prison for 700 is to be built, does that mean that the 250 sex offenders will be mixed with other prisoners, or does the minister propose to do what the governor of Barlinnie describes as almost impossible?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am aware that there are arguments for monocultural, homogeneous prisons; I am also aware that they are not, by any stretch of the imagination, universally accepted. That is an issue. We will obviously think very carefully about where the core work now done at Peterhead is transferred.

I cannot accept that that work can be done only at Peterhead. To date, 39 sex offenders have completed the STOP 2000 programme, 33 of them at Peterhead and six at Barlinnie. There are a further 43 offenders at Peterhead who are undertaking the programme, and seven at Barlinnie; 10 young offenders are on an adapted course at Polmont. Eight establishments have staff available to deliver the programme. Of those, nine officers are based at Peterhead, with 42 staff, including 16 officers, based at the seven establishments in the central belt. There are officers who are already trained to deal with the programme and who are already in the SPS but not based at Peterhead.

While I have every respect and praise for the dedication of the officers at Peterhead, I do not think that we should demean the work done by prison officers in dealing with sex offenders in other parts of the public prison estate. I met some of them in Polmont on Monday, and they are doing a good job. It would be regrettable if the message that came out of the Parliament was that their contribution is not valued too.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

It is no secret that Labour members, and I am sure others, are cautious about the involvement of the private sector in the Prison Service. Some, like me, would go a bit further, and suggest that there is a moral argument against such involvement, which requires to be considered alongside that of value for money.

Is the minister satisfied that the experience of Kilmarnock prison to date shows the correct way forward? Can he assure me and other members that the vital work of rehabilitating prisoners prior to their release, which is as key an ingredient of imprisonment as pure containment, will not be compromised by the Executive's proposals? How exactly will the Executive ensure that rehabilitation, and not simply containment or indeed profit, will be the main priority?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I certainly understand Scott Barrie's concerns about and approach to the use of private prisons. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton pointed out, I voted against them myself in the House of Commons in 1992. I hope that I am not totally misrepresenting the former Moderator of the Church of Scotland, Andrew McLellan, in saying that, after his visit to Kilmarnock prison, he found that his prejudices were not confirmed. I found that my prejudices were not confirmed when I went to Kilmarnock.

I recognise and treat with great respect the anxiety and caution that is felt among Labour and other members. I would like to think that some of what motivates that support for public services is the same motivation that makes us want better investment in the health service, in schools and in public transport. Quite frankly, if we were to go down the public-build, public-operate road for prisons, there would be significantly fewer resources for investment in those other important public services.

Scott Barrie is absolutely right to press the point about rehabilitation. I consider that to be one of the key functions and objectives of the prison system. It is therefore important that that takes place in the private sector, as it does in the public sector. One way in which we can help deliver rehabilitation in the private sector is by stipulating in the contracts what targets have to be met. It is not only a matter of setting those rehabilitation targets—such targets are very closely monitored. I can assure members, and Scott Barrie in particular, that when those contracts come to be drawn up, the issue of rehabilitation programmes will be carefully examined. We want to carry through our commitment to rehabilitation at that time.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Could the Deputy First Minister give the Parliament a flavour of the criteria that will be used for the selection of sites for the new prisons? Unlike Peterhead, they are unlikely to be greeted with overwhelming enthusiasm by the local communities next to which they are sited. Can he assure us about the consultation that will take place?

On the public-private dispute, can the minister give the Parliament a flavour of the extent to which the difference between the two sets of figures that he has quoted—which have been regarded, to use Henry McLeish's word, as staggering—is endemic to private and public provision respectively? To what extent might the different practices that have developed be regarded as transferable between the two sectors?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

On the selection of sites, I have already indicated that Low Moss may well be a candidate site. The Prison Service has been looking for other sites. Be they public build or private build, sites are required. For obvious reasons, we do not wish potential developers to get wind of where the sites are and to step in ahead and make the public purse pay a high premium. I do not have the information about what sites have been considered. From what I have said, somewhere in central Scotland would, for obvious reasons, appear to be the likely place. Full planning procedures will, of course, apply. The local community will have adequate opportunity to make their case known at the planning stage.

On the matter of comparisons, I draw the attention of Robert Brown and the Parliament to paragraph 64 onward in the consultation document. It gives a number of reasons for the cost differences between the various options. On running costs, it is fair to say that some of the difference between the figures has been because of practices that have developed over the years. The Parliament will remember that the changing of attendance patterns last year was not easily achieved. We allowed for making a reduction of some 20 per cent and, even then, the costs were considerably different.

I commend to members a careful read of the consultation document and of the PricewaterhouseCoopers review. Frankly, I did find the difference between the figures to be staggering, as Henry McLeish said. One of the reasons why this has taken so long is that we wanted the figures to be gone over again, to ensure that they stood up. I believe that they do stand up, and the reasons for them are set out in some detail in the consultation document.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I think that the Deputy First Minister's statement has delivered a blow to the north-east of Scotland, to the community of Peterhead, to prison staff and to the justice system itself. As someone who represents the town of Peterhead as a regional list member and as someone who lived there for a number of years, I can tell the minister that the prison plays an enormous role in the local community. As Henry McLeish and others have said, that must be taken into account.

Has the Deputy First Minister spoken to or consulted any authority in Scotland, apart from his own civil servants, that has indicated support for closing Peterhead prison? Can the Deputy First Minister today give the chamber an assurance that the consultation to be carried out over the next three months will be genuine, and that if the case for retaining Peterhead prison remains overwhelming, he will give a guarantee to save it?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

First, I would like to thank Richard Lochhead for the moderate, but effective, way in which he advanced the case for Peterhead. I have given a number of the reasons behind the decision to close Peterhead. I do not know how often I can do this, but I repeat that nothing that I have said today detracts from what has been achieved at Peterhead. However, we do not believe that it is the only place where that work can be done.

Obviously, evidence and contributions that we receive during the consultation will be considered. However, I want to make it clear that our proposal has not been made lightly. The issue has been considered with very great care indeed. I believe that what we have proposed today is far from being damaging, as Richard Lochhead says it is, to the Scottish criminal justice system. By ensuring that we have a modern prison estate, we can end slopping out and we can promote effective rehabilitation of offenders in the kind of prison environment that is conducive to that, rather than in outmoded Victorian buildings. That will be a positive contribution to the development of the Scottish criminal justice system.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The Deputy First Minister has already answered a question on sites. He did not mention specific sites in his statement, but I am sure that he is aware that various rumours have circulated in the past year concerning potential sites—particularly in the central belt and, indeed, in my constituency of Glasgow Rutherglen. Notwithstanding the minister's comments about commercial confidentiality, will he tell me whether it will be possible to include in the consultation process an opportunity for communities in which sites have been identified to play a part?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I do not know which sites have been considered; I deliberately sought not to find out so that, if challenged about a particular site, I could quite genuinely say that I did not know. It would not be helpful if one were to say that there was to be a site in, for example, Cambuslang or Rutherglen. Developers might rush out to try and buy it before the Prison Service got in. I am certainly aware of rumours, but I do not know whether they are correct. Until sites are purchased, it is not in the public interest to identify them.

I assure Janis Hughes that, when it comes to the planning process, we will ensure that there is adequate opportunity for the local community to be engaged and to make its views known. I acknowledge the sensitivity that, for obvious reasons, surrounds any proposal to build a prison in any particular area. That is why the planning process will be so important.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We are all having great difficulty with the minister's figures. I have not had the benefit of reading the report, but I wonder whether the minister is costing screwdrivers and hammers at 90 quid a throw and wheelbarrows at the cost of a brand-new Jaguar.

The minister has referred to the unit at Peterhead and to the treatment that is taking place in other prisons in Scotland. However, the point that many people want the minister to listen to concerns the uniqueness of the unit at Peterhead and the work that is done there in regard to re-offending. What impact will there be on that work if the unit at Peterhead is done away with? I do not think that anyone believes that the unit can be replaced anywhere else. Given that it has already taken 10 years to get the world-renowned unit in place and working well at Peterhead, how and when could it be re-established elsewhere in Scotland?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I indicated that the closure of Peterhead would take some three or four years, which will allow a considerable time to ensure that alternative provision in the public sector of the Prison Service is made available and is properly established. We have to ensure that officers other than those at Peterhead are delivering that work.

On the first part of Gil Paterson's question, we asked PricewaterhouseCoopers to go over the figures because I wanted to ensure that the debate took place on the basis of comparing apples with apples. That is why net present value has been used as the basis of comparison. As Gil Paterson will recognise, cash flow would differ if everything were done in the public sector. There would be an early bulge in the public sector route because of the capital needed to build a prison, whereas the money is spread more evenly if a fee is paid to a private contractor. Net present value is the Treasury-approved and most widely accepted way to ensure that there is a fair and proper comparison between the two options.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

When the state imprisons its citizens, should it not keep direct responsibility for them? Could the minister outline how that moral responsibility is maintained under his proposals?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It may not be widely known, but the Scottish Prison Service has a senior officer—of the rank of a governor—in place at Kilmarnock. He has two important functions: to monitor whether Kilmarnock prison is delivering according to the targets that have been set and to perform disciplinary and other statutory functions in relation to prisons. Disciplinary action taken against prisoners in Kilmarnock is carried out by the public Prison Service rather than by the contractors.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

I listened to the response that the minister gave in relation to Cornton Vale and I understand that that will be dealt with separately. However, I am conscious of the great pressures on the system when prisoner numbers increase. Can the minister tell us when we will have greater detail on alternative strategies such as the time-out centre? What is the projection for the reduction in prisoner numbers? When can the minister give me that information?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will elaborate on what I said earlier about female prisoners. It is our intention to create time-out and independent-living centres, which are far more appropriate for dealing with many women offenders, whose problems are often drug related, rather than being those that require custodial sentences. Richard Simpson tells me that, by the end of the year, we will be in a position to see how that can be developed.

The main prisoner population projections do not distinguish female prisoners, because the total number of female prisoners is relatively small. However, I accept that, for various reasons, the number of women in prison has been increasing. There are several women in our prisons who have been convicted of far more serious offences and alternatives to custody are not always appropriate. I should also point out that the number of fine defaulters in prison has decreased. I assure Sylvia Jackson that Richard Simpson and I accord considerable priority to the issue of female prisoners. The time-out and independent-living centres are certainly part of our programme.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

In the light of the concern expressed regarding the future of Peterhead prison, does the minister accept that it might help if he were to detail how the costs of a new-build prison at Peterhead would be more expensive than elsewhere? That seems a likely proposition because of the location, but it would help if we were to have the figures in writing.

The minister neglected—inadvertently, I am sure—to answer Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's question about segregation units, which are necessary for prisoners who disrupt the system. Will the minister confirm that the requirement for such units has been included in future planning?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The prison estates review has not gone into the detailed planning of individual prisons. In most prisons—I think that I am safe to say all prisons—there are units where people can be segregated if operational needs require that to happen. I imagine that the situation would be no different in any prisons that it is proposed would be built. I will certainly undertake to write to Bill Aitken—and publish the letter in the Scottish Parliament information centre—about the particular build and refurbishment options that we considered for Peterhead prison.

I cannot swear blind that we have all the particulars down to pounds and pence. I have tried to indicate that there are other considerations. Not least is the fact that if a 700-place prison was to be built in Peterhead, there would be issues about how that prison would relate with the existing one, which would have to be taken down. It might also mean that there would be prisoners from the north-east who would have to be housed in Peterhead. That raises questions about Craiginches.

The question is not solely one of money, but a refurbishment of Peterhead would be a sticking-plaster solution, if I can put it as bluntly as that. I do not believe that that would represent proper value for money.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Minister, at this stage we have passed the time when I had intended to close the meeting. There are three members remaining who have sat for an hour and a half. It has been a marathon session for them as well as you. Are you willing to take the further questions?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Yes.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. You have taken a wise decision to extend the debate because of the interest in the statement.

I have two questions for the Deputy First Minister. The first question is about location. I was concerned about the response to Janis Hughes's question about the involvement of communities in the decision-making process. It is a problem if communities are not given the opportunity to contribute to that process until after sites have been purchased. Sites will already have been purchased by the SPS and the ultimate arbiters on the planning process will be the Executive. Can the minister reassure me that any consultation on locations will be meaningful, as expansive as necessary and not restricted to the normal planning process?

Secondly, I reiterate members' concerns about the question of the public-private mix. As the minister has suggested, I will read the document with great care over the forthcoming months. For there to be such a variance between the figures for public and private provision, some assumptions must have been made about levels of pay in private prisons and about levels of staffing compared to prisoners. Will the minister indicate what those assumptions are?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

On the choice of sites, I cannot say much more than I have already said. The purpose of the consultation is not to consider specific sites for new prisons, for the reasons that I have already indicated. It would not be good news for the public purse if someone could step in and purchase a site and then hold the public sector over a barrel.

I emphasise that the planning process is not a rubber-stamping process. It ought not to be and it will not be. If planning permission is not granted for a site that has been purchased, other sites will have to be found. That is one of the reasons why I say that the ending of slopping out might take five to six years. One of the factors in that is the length of time it will take to get planning permission. I assure Bristow Muldoon that the SPS's approach is that the planning process is a genuine exercise and nothing is taken for granted.

Bristow Muldoon also asked about the private sector and what assumptions were made in examining the issue. Private sector figures are available, not just from Kilmarnock prison but from the existing private prisons in England that we considered. The costings of the private sector are therefore reasonably well established. That comes through in the material that has been published today.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for taking extra questions.

I return to the issue of Low Moss prison. On a few occasions, the minister said that Low Moss prison was nearing the end of its useful life. He then said it would close as soon as possible. Will the minister define "as soon as possible", given that the time scales for a new build he had been talking about range from five to 11 years? If Low Moss prison is going to be closed before a new build is produced, can the minister tell us where prisoners and staff will go in the interim? Is the minister aware that there are already plans for a new build on the site at Low Moss and that the project is one step ahead of most others?

Finally, I ask the minister to extend to me, as a West of Scotland MSP who also has a constituency interest in the future of Low Moss prison, the courtesy of the invitation that he gave to Brian Fitzpatrick.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We would be happy to have a conversation on that point. With regard to Low Moss, I said that it would close as soon as possible. As we have seen, there are some factors about which we cannot be specific, not least the ones that I have just explained to Bristow Muldoon. Prisoners from Low Moss will have to be transferred elsewhere before we can close Low Moss. That will require a lot of reconfiguration, and possibly also one of the new prisons to be built.

Low Moss would be a candidate for closure before Peterhead, because the Low Moss site is a potential site for a new prison, but it would have to be cleared before a new prison could be built on it. I regret that I cannot be as definite as Fiona McLeod would like me to be. A lot of logistical arrangements will have to be made, for example, with regard to when new house blocks at Barlinnie will be brought on stream. There are a number of different configurations. Saying that Low Moss will close as soon as possible is the best I can do at the moment.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Finally, I call Maureen Macmillan.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Last, but not least, I hope.

I wish to ask the Deputy First Minister about local prisons. Does he agree that the projected rise in the prison population will affect local prisons that are away from the central belt, such as Inverness, which is the smallest prison in Scotland but which serves the Highlands and Islands courts? How will the building of new prisons in the central belt relieve the pressure on Inverness prison in future, given that it is an old building on a restricted site? Does the minister have any plans to create more capacity at local prisons such as Inverness prison?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I think that I am right in saying that it would be difficult to increase the capacity at Inverness because of its location and layout. Equally, it would be wrong to build a 700-place prison in the Highlands and Islands. I assure Maureen Macmillan that the future of Porterfield prison in Inverness is secure. It provides an important local prison for the Highlands and Islands. Off the top of my head, I do not know if it is one of the candidates for refurbishment. It is a good and effective prison, but I do not know if there is any scope to extend it.

Point of Order

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

On a point of order.

David (None, Lothians)

Good heavens—before we have even started.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Alain Baxter has been stripped of his Olympic medal by the International Olympic Committee. Does the Executive have anything to say in support of that young man, who has been unjustifiably castigated?

David (None, Lothians)

Order. That may be an important issue, but it is certainly not a point of order. Let us move to question time.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to review the grounds for objecting to the designation of a site of special scientific interest to include economic, social and other factors. (S1O-4911)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I have no plans to review that particular aspect of the matter. Scottish Natural Heritage may not take non-scientific objections into account when confirming the notification of an SSSI. The selection is made on a scientific basis to ensure that the SSSI series represents the most important examples of Scotland's habitats, species and geology. SNH can, however, take social, economic and other factors into account when making decisions about the management of SSSIs. We are considering giving local communities a stronger voice in those management decisions.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I thank the minister for that reply, the terms of which I was broadly aware of. Does he not accept that, although it is necessary to protect plant and animal species, it is also essential to protect the human species? Increasingly, in many parts of Scotland—not least on the islands of Yell, Islay and Arran—communities are extremely concerned about the sometimes unfair and draconian impact of SSSIs. Does the minister not accept that the designation, with its detailed and onerous conditions, is perhaps really more suited to preserving and protecting meadows in Sussex than it is to preserving and protecting tracts of land in Scotland?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

One really has to draw a distinction when there is a serious attempt, on a scientific basis, to protect Scotland's natural heritage: having designated a particular area, one must then consider how to manage it. When people consider the list of potentially damaging activities that is issued for SSSIs, there is a slight tendency to conclude that the whole of the list must be applied in every case. However, that is simply not the way in which the regulations are written.

We are considering involving a wider body of people to discuss the management of SSSIs so that we can have a proper and informed discussion as to precisely which PDAs are to be applied in each case. Fergus Ewing may be right to think that there have been instances of over-zealous application of the regulations, but it is not intended that that should happen. We do not wish to dilute the way in which we protect Scotland's natural heritage, but there may be more sensible arrangements for applying the regulations. We are considering that.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Is the minister aware that recent market research has indicated that 71 per cent of owners were proud to have an SSSI on their land; that 78 per cent said that they had a good relationship with SNH; and that 71 per cent did not see the SSSI as causing them any problems? Does the minister agree that Scotland's natural heritage is a wonderful asset for Scotland? Will he join me in condemning Fergus Ewing's rather shabby attempt to undermine essential conservation measures in Scotland?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am well aware of the very high percentage—in the 70s—of people who think that SSSIs are effective and who are very happy to have them designated. I hope that Fergus Ewing is not attempting to undermine the basis on which such sites are designated. The figures show that there is a high degree of satisfaction where practical and co-operative steps are taken in the management of SSSIs. We must ensure that that applies across all SSSIs.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I would not want to undermine SSSI designations, but I am sure that the minister is aware of the strong objections to the proposed SSSIs on Arran, Barra and Yell. Has he considered making a special case for island communities such as Arran, Barra and Yell, whose social and economic infrastructures will be jeopardised by the designations?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The premise that those communities will be damaged is quite erroneous.

There is already an SSSI on Arran and it operates effectively. I have visited Arran because of the particular problems that have arisen there. I am staggered that people who are well aware of the way in which potentially damaging activities are regulated in the existing SSSI are making erroneous claims about the impact that the regulations would have on current activities. Mr Scott shakes his head, but I say to him that we have had a serious look at that. The real issue is the practical management of SSSIs, rather than their designation.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what visitor number and revenue targets have been set for the proposed Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. (S1O-4920)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

No such targets have been set by the Scottish Executive. That will be an issue for the national park authority when it is established.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for the revelation that no targets have yet been set. Is he aware of the remarks by Councillor Gillie Thomson, who is the Labour chair of the road services user group and chair of the national park interim committee, that £20 million is required to upgrade Stirling's roads? As the funding to the national park remains £1 million or more lower than the budget requested, is the minister confident that the roads in the national park will take the strain of additional visitor numbers?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The figure is not £1 million lower. I presume that Mr Monteith is referring to the Scottish Natural Heritage figure of £5.3 million to £5.8 million. However, that applies to the amount needed for the third year of the park's operation. That might be £1 million more than the amount allocated for the first year, but it is not a comparable figure.

Some preliminary research for the park authorities is under way and when that is complete we will have an indication of the number of visitors that can be expected. However, that is not directly related to the issue of funding for the roads network, which will be considered in terms of the total figures. That will be taken into account when the research is complete.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

While recognising that the roads infrastructure is a problem, does the minister agree that the focus of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park is the future sustainable development of the area, which will involve local action points being fed directly into the national park plan? That will continue to involve working in partnership with local community groups, such as the community futures group, a meeting of which I attended recently in Lochearnhead.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I agree. That is the essential difference between the structure of national parks in Scotland and those that were designated in England, where local communities were excluded from the development of national parks. I agree with Sylvia Jackson that the correct approach for developing national parks must be partnership with local communities. We must also recognise that we are creating a national park for the benefit of the whole of Scotland.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

There is genuine concern in my constituency about the total budget that is available to set up and implement Scotland's first national park. Will the minister reassure my constituents that he is confident that the budget will secure the success of the national park? That is an important issue for the Cowal and Argyll forest park area.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I agree that funding is of extreme importance. The most recent communication that I had from the interim committee was to the effect that it is satisfied with the £4.8 million allocation and that it believes that that money is sufficient to ensure that the national park gets off to the best possible start.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to take into account the opinions of pupils, parents, teachers and employers in developing future education policy. (S1O-4933)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The national debate on education that I launched yesterday is an opportunity to have an inclusive dialogue with pupils, parents, teachers, employers and everyone else with an interest in the future of school-age education.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I thank the minister for her response. It shows that the Parliament has at its heart real engagement with the people of Scotland and, in particular, with our children and young people. Will the minister reassure concerned parents in my constituency who want to educate their children in Catholic schools that they will be able to continue to choose to do so?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am happy to give Elaine Smith that reassurance. The Executive believes that denominational schools make a positive contribution to the Executive's aims of raising attainment levels for pupils and promoting social inclusion. I look forward to hearing further information, views and opinions from the constituents whom Elaine Smith represents in the forthcoming national debate. I am sure that they will continue to put forward those views.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what proposals are being developed on fluoridation of the public water supply. (S1O-4923)

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

We propose to consult on a range of measures to improve children's oral health, including ways in which fluoride could be made available, maybe through fluoridation of the public water supplies. Details of our proposals for the consultation will be announced shortly.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I hope that the Parliament will acknowledge that tomorrow is world day for water. Given the outcome of the court cases involving Northumbrian Water, whose refusal to add fluoride to the water supply was upheld in the absence of a full indemnity from the Westminster Government against all claims, will the minister confirm that fluoridation of the water supply in Scotland is a complete non-starter unless the Scottish Executive provides such indemnity to Scottish Water? Is the minister prepared to do that?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

It would be for the courts to determine liability in such circumstances. However, under current guidance and under section 172 of the Water Act 1989, the Executive will indemnify against any legal challenge a water authority that is carrying out fluoridation schemes that are requested by a health board.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

On the eve of world day for water, which has the pertinent theme of water and health, will the minister join me in congratulating North Lanarkshire Council and the south Coatbridge social inclusion partnership on initiating pilot schemes in four Coatbridge primary schools to provide free accessible drinking water to pupils? Could the minister comment on that kind of provision for all Scotland's schoolchildren, given the obvious benefits to health and well-being?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am happy to congratulate North Lanarkshire Council on that project. I acknowledge the benefits of water being available. It is up to local authorities whether they want to implement such provision, but I urge them to consider North Lanarkshire Council's pilot scheme.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is tackling suicide amongst young males. (S1O-4918)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

As part of our drive to improve mental health and well-being, I launched a consultation last October on our draft national framework for the prevention of suicide and self-harm. I hope to publish the final version of the framework later this year. We are also providing financial backing for a new phone line that will go live on 8 April for people with low mood and depression who might be at risk of suicide.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Would the minister care to comment on the experience we had at the Edinburgh City Youth Cafe on Victoria Terrace? We hosted a health board pilot scheme offering counselling to potential suicides. From that, we learned first that it is a good scheme and that we need more such schemes offering counselling and, secondly, that there must be better support in social work for people who end counselling. People cannot be in counselling for ever.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The issue is complex and that is why the framework proposes a series of actions. Part of that is targeting actions on people who are at risk. As Donald Gorrie said, that is what happened in Edinburgh with some success. Again, he highlighted the important role of the voluntary sector. The important thing is that local alliances form and local action plans take a series of initiatives to deal with such a serious problem.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

As the minister will know, young males constitute the largest age group of people who commit suicide in our society. As the cross-party group on children and young people heard at a meeting earlier this year, there are many complex and different reasons for that. Does the minister agree that organisations such as the Samaritans, and other voluntary and statutory agencies, have a key role to play in offering counselling and support to vulnerable youngsters? Will he ensure that sufficient resources are available to ensure that their work will continue?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Those organisations certainly play a valuable role and I pay tribute to them. I hope that the phone line that I announced in my first answer will complement the splendid work that the Samaritans and others have done for such a long time.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I ask the minister and his colleague the Minister for Justice to examine the specific circumstances of the spate of young male suicides in the private prison at Kilmarnock. I ask them to identify whether any aspect of that regime needs to be improved to avoid a repetition of those suicides in the future.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

It is extremely distressing when any young person commits suicide. That applies to young people in a range of prisons. The specific matter that the member has highlighted falls within the remit of the Minister for Justice. Unfortunately, we have heard of suicides in quite a large number of prisons.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what financial or other assistance it is giving to local authorities to ensure that all those seeking a probationary year under the teachers induction scheme are able to secure such a position without the cessation of any existing temporary contracts for teachers already in post. (S1O-4901)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The guarantee of a one-year training contract for all eligible probationary teachers will be met. Appropriate measures are being taken in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ensure that that is achieved and that it is adequately funded. As with all teaching posts, the position relating to teachers who are on temporary contracts is a matter for individual local authorities.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister's reply will not satisfy many of the young teachers already in temporary posts who are being told that their jobs might well not last beyond the summer. Everyone supports the teachers induction scheme but, as the father of a young female teacher in Glasgow said to me yesterday, it would be unacceptable if that scheme were to be implemented at the expense of existing teachers. Will the minister ensure that local authorities have the additional assistance that is necessary to ensure that experienced teachers and teachers who are already in post do not suffer as a result of the introduction of the induction posts?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I will undertake to do that. We have been having close discussions with all the local authorities. We wrote to them last week to reconfirm the number of training posts that will be available. We are discussing with them the significant number of new teachers who are coming through the system and who have been given the guarantee, not only by the Executive but by COSLA and the teaching organisations that are represented on the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers.

It will be difficult to achieve success in this matter by August 2002. If we do not work hard, there could be unfortunate knock-on consequences. I accept that, but we will work hard and, wherever possible, ensure that teachers who are in the system are not disadvantaged by the introduction of what is widely regarded as an excellent new system for probationary teachers throughout Scotland.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

I welcome the new move forward. What will be done about teachers who qualified in 2001? Some of those teachers are still not in jobs or are in temporary jobs. They have two years of probation to do and are concerned that they will not be able to complete their probation.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The point is the same. We are moving from an old system that was unsatisfactory and in which there were problems. The average time taken to complete the probationary period was three and a half years. We are moving to a new system in which the probationary period will be completed in one year. Significant improvements will be made. Some young teachers are still in the old system. Because arrangements for the new scheme might be unsatisfactory for them, we have made concessions that will speed up the process of their training. That has been agreed with the SNCT. Other issues will arise during the next few weeks and months. I am determined that those issues should be tackled fairly.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support it will provide for regeneration of the River Clyde. (S1O-4915)

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

In November, I established the River Clyde working group to progress an ambitious strategy to maximise economic development along the River Clyde. The working group will bring together and add value to the many regeneration initiatives that are under way.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister will be aware of the appalling scenes of dereliction that scar both banks of the Clyde along much of its course from Glasgow to Dumbarton and Greenock. What action will the Scottish Executive take, not just to restore derelict and vacant land to productive use, but specifically to decontaminate all the toxic sites that are adjacent to the Clyde? By what date will that task be completed?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

As Kenneth Gibson will know, the Executive is currently involved in the Glasgow harbour project at Meadowside, the "Wall Street on the Clyde" proposals and the Pacific Quay proposals. I find it rather difficult to take that the SNP should want to encourage land development in Glasgow while opposing the proposals for the rebuilding of the city's council housing and of every secondary school in the city. The SNP has also opposed our transport plans for Glasgow.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will respond to Scottish Natural Heritage's review of the national scenic area designation sent to it in 1999. (S1O-4903)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I hope to be able to do so shortly.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I hope that "shortly" will be shortly.

Does the minister agree that, now that the national parks are almost up and running, it is important that we implement the recommendations of the NSA designation? Can he indicate when he thinks that he will be able to give NSAs a new statutory base to define their purpose? Does the minister agree that the NSAs should be more comprehensive and that they should be more representative of Scotland's best scenery than the present 40 areas, which have been criticised for placing undue emphasis on the mountainous areas of Scotland to the exclusion of lowland landscapes.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am happy to agree with most of what Mr Raffan has said. The question has been one of priorities. We have had to implement a range of Scottish statutory instruments dealing with the legislation for the national parks. SNH's recommendation that the statutory obligations for the existing 40 NSAs should be reconfigured to allow greater flexibility and to recognise the degree of diversity to which Keith Raffan referred clearly needs to be brought forward as quickly as possible.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will make representations to Her Majesty's Government on the possible impact on rural areas of any reorganisation of post office services. (S1O-4926)