Scottish Parliament, 5 September 2002

323 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Introduction

Prisons

David (None, Lothians)

We begin today with the ministerial statement on the prison estates review.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Scotland needs prisons fit for the 21 st century. We consulted on proposals to achieve that goal, we have listened to what people said and we have considered the issues carefully. I now set out our plans to modernise Scotland's prison system.

Our approach combines investment in existing and new prisons. It builds on the existing roles of both the private sector and the public sector. This morning, I shall announce the largest ever investment programme in publicly run prisons, which will set us on the path to ending slopping out. That will be a significant achievement not only for the Executive but for the Parliament. Such an achievement is possible because we faced up to hard facts and hard choices during the estates review. It has not been a time for wishful thinking or political opportunism.

I shall also set out our response to rising prisoner numbers, especially the dramatic increase in remand numbers. I will set out our commitment to openness, accountability and excellence in all the work that is done by and in prisons and with prisoners. I believe that we have made the right choices, which will be welcomed by those who share our commitment to modernising public services and to correctional excellence. Prisons must help make Scotland a safer place by reducing reoffending.

I turn first to the alternatives to prison. Where public safety or the seriousness of the offence demands a prison sentence, the prison place must be there. However, sometimes people go to prison for the lack of a better alternative. We are committed to providing the right mix of custodial and non-custodial sentences for the courts to use. At the time of the estates review, we were already committed to those alternatives. We are in the process of extending the availability of drug treatment and testing orders. We have opened drugs courts in Glasgow and Fife. We have achieved national roll-out of restriction of liberty orders—or tagging orders—and there are early signs of an encouraging rate of take-up by the courts.

We will go further still. I am considering extending the use of supervised attendance orders, which I believe offer the scope to end the use of imprisonment for fine default. That further progress should reduce the projected prisoner population by 700 places, which is a prison's worth of alternatives to custody. I shall also look closely at other proposals to offer the courts a more flexible mix of custodial and non-custodial disposals.

Even the most enthusiastic advocates of alternatives to prison recognise that new prison places are required to reduce overcrowding and to end slopping out. Some of our prisons are more than 100 years old. Most were built for locking people up, not for helping them confront and change their offending behaviour, and some were not even built as prisons. In the decades before the creation of the Parliament, all those prisons were starved of investment. The estates review threw into sharp relief the fact that the public sector has not built a prison for about 20 years and has fallen behind modern standards for the efficient management of prisons. That must end.

As well as building on the role of the private sector, we will invest to secure reforms in our publicly run prisons. All our prisons—public, private, existing and new—must provide an excellent service. The public has a right to expect that and to see the evidence on whether it is happening. We believe that there is more to do to ensure openness, transparency and excellence in all the work that is done in Scotland's prisons and with offenders in the community by the Scottish Prison Service and partner organisations.

The evidence of reform is beginning to come through. The Prison Service has reached a partnership agreement with the unions, which will be signed later this year. The agreement commits them to working together to making the public sector more competitive. That is in line with our commitment not only to excellence in public services but to valuing the staff who provide them. We believe that public services should become more competitive, including by adopting modern flexible working practices. We also believe that those who provide services to the public should be good employers.

We want to see further reforms in the public sector: first, to the way in which performance is managed; secondly, to our existing prison buildings; and, thirdly, in order to provide the new places that we need. In each of those areas, the public sector can learn from, and work in partnership with, the private sector. That is a big challenge for the public sector, but I want to see the public sector rise to that challenge. Above all, I want the Scottish public to have the best services at the best value, whether those come from the public or private sector.

The first area that I mentioned concerns performance management. The chief inspector of prisons has drawn attention to the focus and clarity that has been brought by contract management for private prisons. He has called on the Prison Service to introduce similar measures in the public sector. I have instructed the SPS to bring forward proposals to achieve that. I expect that to result in published performance agreements for publicly run prisons and full reporting of performance against those targets. The Parliament has a key role in holding ministers and the Prison Service to account for the performance of our prisons. I see an important role for the justice committees in that aspect of our proposals. I look forward to discussing that when I meet them in joint session later this month.

Secondly, I want to see our existing prisons transformed. We have set the SPS the challenge of saving £12.5 million out of current expenditure, which it is succeeding in doing. Today, in advance of our announcement of the outcome of the spending review, I confirm that every penny of those savings will go into investment in publicly run prisons. Furthermore, I confirm that we will roll forward the SPS's existing capital investment programme for the next three years. We will top that up with new money in the spending review. The result will be a prison modernisation fund of more than £110 million for the next three years, which is a massive investment in publicly run prisons—more than ever before.

The modernisation fund will be used to back the implementation of development plans, which will start at Edinburgh, Perth, Polmont and Glenochil. Those plans draw on the best of modern prison design and set out to recreate that in our existing prison estate. I hope that we will be able to go on from there to all other publicly run prisons. As we proposed in the estates review, we will continue the work that is now under way at Barlinnie to create a fully modernised 530-place prison. We are investing the equivalent of the cost of a new prison in the publicly run estate. Taken together with other plans and work that is already in hand, that will create the equivalent in modern places of two new prisons spread across the publicly run estate.

Our investment in publicly run prisons will transform the existing prison estate, but we cannot create enough spaces in existing prisons to respond to the current levels of overcrowding and likely future growth. Prisoner numbers are at record levels and are set to go higher still over the next few years. Remand numbers in particular have seen a step change: the remand population is 28 per cent higher now than it was in the same period last year.

We have decided to respond to that growth with two new 700-place prisons, which will be on sites in central Scotland that the SPS will identify in consultation with local authorities and others. I emphasise that a number of sites are still under consideration and that no decisions have been taken.

After careful consideration, we have decided that the first of those prisons should be privately built and privately run. That route brings the new capacity on stream as quickly as possible to respond to the rapid rise in numbers. I have already said that the remand numbers show the biggest increase. To secure value for money, we will procure fully flexible prison places, but our intention is to use those places to respond to the current rapid rise in remand numbers.

In tendering for the prison, we will seek innovative proposals to provide care and opportunities for those on remand, including needs assessment and detoxification services. Innovative proposals may also feature an appropriate role for voluntary and charitable not-for-profit organisations. As part of our commitment to openness and accountability, we will publish the contract for that prison just as we have done for Kilmarnock.

The second new prison is my challenge to the public sector. I want the Scottish Prison Service and the trades unions to have the chance to show that they can bridge the gap between the private and the public sector on competitiveness. If they can produce for me a robust and credible plan for the second new prison—a plan that is competitive, offers value for money and delivers the places that we need on time—I am prepared to take that project forward in the public sector or as a privately built, publicly operated prison. However, I repeat that I will have to be satisfied that the proposals offer value for money to the taxpayer, that they are affordable, and that they will deliver.

I turn now to the question of how we protect our communities by managing sex offenders. The debate has focused on Peterhead, but the issue goes much wider. Peterhead houses some 300 sex offenders and as many again are in other prisons. We have already responded to the MacLean committee's report with the measures that are in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. We are taking forward the recommendations of the Cosgrove committee. I am publishing today the report of an independent expert group of psychologists and psychiatrists, including specialists from Peterhead led by Alec Spencer of the Scottish Prison Service.

The focus of our efforts will now move on to proposals for comprehensive sex offender programmes across the prison estate, integrating existing work for long-term offenders with that for short-term prisoners and young offenders. We will welcome comments on the Spencer group's report before the end of the year. Thereafter, the SPS will hold discussions with partner agencies. Further proposals will be brought forward for the next session of Parliament.

We have listened to the consultation responses on Peterhead. We have heard how we might improve access to night sanitation, and we have heard from the families of offenders that some prefer to visit a prison where there are only sex offenders. We have always recognised the work of the staff at Peterhead as world class. We have always pledged that their work and the ethos that they have created will be protected. As our priority is to develop wider sex offender programmes, now is not the time to move the long-term programmes from Peterhead. Peterhead will therefore remain open and will continue to be the main centre for long-term sex offenders. The SPS will invest to improve the existing accommodation by installing electric power in cells. It is discussing the offer from the Prison Officers Association Scotland relating to prisoner access to night sanitation.

An important influence on our thinking has been the turnaround in the attitude of the local community—from initial, understandable, apprehension, to what is now committed support. I pay tribute to the dignified and effective campaign on behalf of Peterhead, in particular by the partners of the staff and by Aberdeenshire Council.

The decisions that we have reached combine alternatives to prison with investment in publicly run prisons and new prisons, in order to meet the rapid rise in prisoner numbers and to drive forward reforms in the public sector. Those measures meet the objectives that we set in the estates review. They show that we have listened. They are backed by our commitment to the principles of openness and democratic accountability that underpinned the creation of the Parliament. This programme of modernisation sets us on the path to ending slopping out, as the Parliament has long called on us to do. The measures are about more than buildings; they are a necessary further step in our work to modernise and reform the SPS and to sharpen its focus on correctional excellence. The measures have not been easy to shape, but I believe that they have benefited from the scrutiny that the Parliament is here to provide. In that spirit, I commend them to the Parliament.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

We are now nearly three years into what has been one of the worst conducted parliamentary reviews I have ever seen. Three years of shambles is no credit to the minister or the Executive.

I welcome the proposals on Peterhead. However, they are a statement of the blindingly obvious. It has been blindingly obvious—to Scotland, if not to the Executive—right from the start that this would be the result. I congratulate my colleagues Stewart Stevenson and Alex Salmond for the work that they have done in representing the views of their constituents in the face of the threat laid down by the Executive. Closing Peterhead should never have been under consideration in the first place. It is a disgrace that the community in Peterhead has had to put up with that threat for three years.

I have three major questions for the minister on the rest of his statement. He talks about "modern flexible working practices". That theme ran through his whole statement. Will he clarify exactly what he means? Does he mean the dangerously low staffing levels at Kilmarnock that the chief inspector of prisons identified in his report yesterday? Does he mean worse employment conditions for those working in prisons? Does he mean lower wages for those working in prisons? Does he mean less training for those working in prisons?

I turn now to the proposal for two new prisons. The minister has proposed a privately built and privately run prison, despite virtually unanimous opposition—the only person whom we could identify as being in favour was a prisoner, I think in Shotts. Is the proposal not outright privatisation? Is that not what the minister is doing? If the minister is prepared to listen to Peterhead objectors, why was the virtually unanimous opposition to the rest of the review simply set to one side? If one group is to be listened to, why not the rest? Or is it a case of everyone being out of step except Oor Jim? That is how it seems.

On the proposal for the second prison, it is stretching credulity to the extreme to accept that the SPS, as currently managed, and given its track record in terms of its attitude towards public versus private, will come forward with any proposal in which we can be confident. Will the minister confirm that his proposal means market testing? If it does not, it must be compulsory competitive tendering. Which is it? To the Scottish National Party, it looks suspiciously like one or the other.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am grateful to Ms Cunningham for offering a welcome to the fact that Peterhead is not to close.

As her questions went on, we saw clearly how bereft the SNP is in addressing any of the serious issues facing our prisons. After all, only yesterday Mr Swinney was calling for longer sentencing for people carrying knives. That, of course, would lead to more people spending longer in prison. We heard nothing from the SNP on how it will deal with the increase in numbers.

In my statement, I said that we value the staff who work in our prisons. Of course I would not support dangerous employment practices, and of course I believe that training is vital in all parts of public service, not least in the prison service.

I make no bones about this: there is a challenge to the public sector—both to the SPS and to the trade union side—to come forward with proposals that will bridge the gap that has been identified by the evidence taken by the Justice 1 Committee. I have gone on record as saying that, all other things being equal, I would like to see the public sector, rather than the private sector, in the lead. However, ministers have an obligation to achieve value for money for the taxpayer. That is why we are offering the opportunity and the challenge. I hope that the challenge succeeds because I want it to succeed. I assure Roseanna Cunningham that this is a question neither of market testing nor of compulsory competitive tendering. It is a challenge to the SPS and the trade unions. As I have indicated, in the agreement between the SPS and the trade unions that is due to be signed later this year, there are clear indications of what they are doing to make progress. We want to encourage that trend. I have said it before and I will say it again: if value-for-money considerations can be satisfied, I would much rather go with the public sector than the private sector.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I welcome the minister's decision on Peterhead, which is a victory for common sense. The stop: closure of Peterhead prison officers' partners committee has written to say:

"It is our opinion that the Justice Committee has shown what the Scottish Parliament should be doing."

The letter continues:

"We commend your fairness, honesty, unbiasedness and determination to find out the truth, this truth being for the benefit of all residents of Scotland."

Would the minister like to be associated with that very generous tribute to the Justice 1 Committee? Will he say, in detail, how he intends to modernise Peterhead?

Does the minister acknowledge that the public must be protected from dangerous criminals and that there must be sufficient places in prisons to accommodate the disposals of the courts in the public interest, without overcrowding?

Finally, does he agree that there is undoubtedly a role for both the public and private sectors, each of which has a great deal to learn from the other, in a rolling programme of modernisation in the best interests of the Scottish public and the rule of law?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am pleased that Lord James welcomes the announcements that I have made, particularly with regard to Peterhead. The way in which the consultation procedure progressed is a tribute to the Parliament and what many of us who fought to establish the Parliament said that it should do. There is no monopoly of wisdom in the Government. As I said on the day on which we launched the estates review, if we put out matters for consultation we will listen. As I said in my statement, one of the things to which I gave much weight—and I accept that in the past I made quite a bit of the distance to Peterhead and the difficulties that that caused for families in visiting—was the cogent and compelling evidence from families of prisoners at Peterhead that they found some benefit in getting out of their communities to visit a prison where there were only sex offenders. That was an important factor, as was the Spencer report, which was published today. I agree that that shows how a consultative mechanism can work properly.

I accept that there will be people for whom prison is entirely appropriate, either because they pose a threat to the community or because the seriousness and gravity of their offence is such that the community expects a custodial sentence to be imposed. Our obligation is to accept the people sent by the courts. That is why we must address overcrowding. Addressing the problem is not a luxury and we cannot simply wish it away. We would like to see prison numbers reduced, but we are faced with increasing numbers, particularly in remand prisoners over the past year, and we must address that. That is why I have indicated that although the private prison to be procured will have to be fully flexible, our intention, as far ahead as I can see, is that the prison will cater for remand prisoners. That is why we want needs assessment and drugs detoxification facilities built into that prison.

As I made clear in my statement, there is a role for proper partnership between the public and private sectors in the provision of services. Above all, the public want good-quality services and value for money.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I am bound to welcome the £110 million investment in the public sector prisons and the modernisation of some of the draconian conditions that prisoners and staff have endured over too many years. Of course, there are many issues on which I would like further detail and discussion, not least the assurances on workers' terms and conditions, which I have raised over the past few months.

How speedily does the minister believe that he can eradicate the draconian practice of slopping out, which will assist prisoners and staff in doing their duties? How quickly after reducing overcrowding does the minister believe that we can move towards a service that is about correctional work and rehabilitation that will ultimately reduce the offending population?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I recognise the concerns about terms and conditions that Pauline McNeill has raised on many occasions. She will recall that the contract establishing Kilmarnock agreed a baseline for new staff. We might want to consider ways in which that could be taken forward in any future contract. We will give that further attention.

I welcome Pauline McNeill's welcome of the unprecedented investment in our current public estate. That is an important investment to ensure that we address questions of overcrowding and make progress in ending slopping out. The most likely time that slopping out can be ended—for several reasons, including the need to invest in the new estate and the arrangements for decanting and moving prisoners—is probably about a year after the completion of the second prison. The work that we are doing in investing in the public estate should allow us to make considerable strides towards ending slopping out sooner rather than later.

The final question was about alternatives to custody. I confirm that alternatives to custody—as have been debated in the Parliament—are very much part of our agenda. We want to ensure that alternatives to custody are of a quality that will persuade the judiciary and the public to have confidence in them. We want the judiciary to feel that they can impose non-custodial sentences with confidence. Pauline McNeill also said that we should act in order to let the Prison Service get on with addressing issues of correctional excellence. It is not a question of waiting to get on with delivering correctional excellence. That is already part of the vision and remit of the Prison Service. I hope that some of the things announced today, not least those aspects relating to performance monitoring—an issue that I will discuss with the justice committees convened by Pauline McNeill and Christine Grahame—will enhance the important task of the SPS in promoting correctional excellence, thus reducing the risk of re-offending by those who go through our prison system.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I welcome the minister's statement and the changes made since the prison estates review. They show that consultation with the general public and the views of the justice committee were taken seriously. The minister has moved a considerable way. I am among those people who would have liked him to move still further. However, he deserves credit for the improvements that he has made.

I have two questions. First, it is never quite clear from the media whether announcements such as today's or previous statements about prisons and justice are departmental announcements or announcements of Cabinet policy. Will the minister clarify that point? Secondly, will the minister give us an assurance on alternatives to custody and the prevention of re-offending? I know that the minister means well and tries hard—I do not mean to be patronising—but there are huge bureaucratic and legal obstacles. It is a very difficult task and many of the ways in which we do things must be changed. We must invest much more in creating communities that do not produce so many criminals. Will the minister give an assurance that he and the Cabinet will address the issue of alternatives to custody and preventing people from offending and re-offending?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I welcome the fact that Donald Gorrie welcomes the statement. Donald Gorrie referred to some media reports and I know that sometimes there are those who seek to drive wedges between members of the partnership Executive. I know that Donald Gorrie's concern is for unity. I assure him that the fact that the First Minister was in the chamber to hear my statement shows that it is a united view and represents the policy of the Administration.

Donald Gorrie, quite properly, continues to press the matter of alternatives to custody. The Executive has done far more than has ever been done in taking forward a range of proposals to promote alternatives to custody. Recently, there has been the all-Scotland roll-out of the tagging and restriction of liberty orders. We are considering how restriction of liberty orders can be applied in other circumstances. Proposals are currently before Parliament in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which also includes measures relating to supervised attendance orders. Drug treatment and testing orders are an important development—initial evaluations show that DTTOs have been a considerable success—but require a considerable amount of supporting infrastructure if they are to be rolled out. We plan to continue to roll them out in a further seven sheriff courts in the near future, and more beyond that.

I accept the importance of continuing to push that agenda forward. However, as I said, it is important to ensure that there is public and judicial confidence in such methods so that they are used. That is why we have changed the basis of criminal justice social work and have brigaded the criminal justice parts of social work departments into 11 mainland units, allowing them to achieve better uniformity and quality of practice. We also attach considerable importance to the community safety partnerships, which are a significant element in reducing offending in every community.

I reassure Donald Gorrie that there is a commitment on all those points. In criminal justice social work there has been a considerable additional financial commitment over recent years. That commitment indicates how seriously the Executive treats such issues.

David (None, Lothians)

Unusually, the list of members wanting to ask questions goes off the bottom of my screen. I appeal for short exchanges in order to allow more members to speak.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I want to raise two issues. The minister made great play of reducing the prison population by some 700, using alternatives to custody. Will the minister confirm whether that will be a reduction of 700 in the overall prison population or whether it will be nothing more than a reduction in an increasing prison population?

Could the minister also refer to the £110 million modernisation fund that he announced today? The minister will be aware that capital investment is already taking place in Edinburgh and Polmont and that plans have been submitted for Perth. Does the £110 million constitute any new capital investment? Is the money that is already being spent in those three prisons included in the £110 million that the minister announced?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Current investment at Barlinnie and in new house blocks at Polmont and Edinburgh is not included in the £110 million. On what is included in the £110 million, we had already indicated that the £12.5 million savings for years 1 and 2 were going to be applied for capital investment. I have been able to confirm that that will be carried through into year 3.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

So it is not new money.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It is money that has not previously been committed to capital investment. New money will come in the spending review—about £15 million.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Is that extra money or is it already in the system?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That is included in the £110 million; it is new money.

We are rolling forward the £20 million capital investment that is currently in the baseline. That money had not previously been confirmed as being available. By any stretch of the imagination that is substantial investment. Over and above that, there is the current expenditure at Barlinnie, Polmont and Edinburgh, which is about £150 million in total.

The 700 equivalent places in non-custodial sentences will come off whatever the prison population would have been. I made the point that, much though I regret it, the projections are that the prison population will increase. For example, if we had done nothing to promote the alternatives to custody, the prison population would be, for the sake of argument, 7,400, but the fact that we are promoting the alternatives to custody makes it 6,700. That is the basis of that calculation.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I welcome the minister's statement and in particular the recognition of the need to modernise the prison estate. Will the minister agree to meet me, Premier Prison Services and East Ayrshire Council to explore the possibility of extending the current facility at Kilmarnock? Will he respond to the concerns that I have previously raised with him about the terms and conditions of employment of my many constituents who are employed at Kilmarnock?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I preface my answer by saying that I was careful to say that we are not making any announcements or decisions today about sites. However, I recognise—Margaret Jamieson has been arguing the case on the behalf of her constituents—that the option of doing something at the existing prison at Kilmarnock, whether by extending it or building another one nearby, has some attractions. I am certainly willing to meet Margaret Jamieson, East Ayrshire Council and the prison company to consider that option. I have to say that the option would have to offer good value for money and would not mean that the existing prison would come on to the Executive balance sheet. That is not just an accounting matter. It would wipe about £60 million off the money that is available for investment in publicly run prisons. We have not made any decisions yet. I am not ruling the option out and I am certainly prepared to meet Margaret Jamieson to discuss the issues that she has quite properly raised with me.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I welcome the statement on Peterhead in so far as it goes. However, there is no commitment to new build there. The minister said that there is a saving of £12.5 million from current expenditure. Is it not the case that, over the past three years, £40 million to £50 million has been clawed back out of the SPS budget? If that money, together with the £12.5 million, had been applied three years ago to building new house blocks, the minister would not be in this position now. Does he agree that, if that money had not been clawed back, we could have had the new house blocks and that a considered position, reflecting the Justice 1 Committee's views, could have been taken about new build prisons in Scotland?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I suggest to Christine Grahame that she goes to Polmont and Edinburgh to see the new house blocks that are currently being built and will be completed within the next year.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister has talked about the partnership agreement with the unions in the prison service and there has been a lot of talk about flexible working conditions. Does he accept that he needs to ensure the modernisation of Scotland's prison management if he is to secure the modernisation of prison estates? What does he propose to do about that?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

What I have said is clear. We want to take forward the chief inspector of prisons' recommendation that we examine ways in which to improve performance management. Let me reiterate the important points about that. I will instruct the SPS to bring forward proposals, including on published standards for the performance of publicly run prisons and full reporting of performance against the standards. We want to get on with that and I am instructing the SPS to start preparing that work. I can usefully discuss the matter with the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee when I meet them at a joint meeting later in the month. I believe that those committees, as well as ministers, could have an appropriate role, on behalf of the Parliament, in ensuring that the standards are being met and that there is proper accountability and transparency in the management and operation of our prisons.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does the minister agree that the frank admission in his statement and in his answer to Mr Matheson that prison numbers will rise is indicative of the fact that existing alternatives to custody are not working and do not enjoy the confidence of the courts? Will he undertake a study to investigate why the alternatives to custody are not working and will he take any administrative measures that might be necessary to ensure that they do work, including perhaps taking their administration away from social work departments? Does he appreciate that, if he fails to do that, the pressures on the prison estates will become much greater in the years ahead?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I welcome what is implied Conservative party support for alternatives to custody. That is encouraging. However, I cannot accept the premise of Mr Aitken's question.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We suggested tagging.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I indicated that in the first four months of the roll-out across Scotland of electronic tagging orders—which Mr Gallie properly points out were introduced by the Conservative party; I am always prepared to give credit where it is due—there have been 129 orders. That is an encouraging sign in a relatively short period.

The evaluations of drug treatment and testing orders are also very encouraging. However, I do not underestimate the intensity of the scheme—part of the purpose of drug treatment and testing orders is that they involve an intense sentence. A range of agencies is involved in trying to give proper support and in trying to break the cycle of drug abuse and dependency. The initial evaluations indicate that the orders are succeeding.

The number of receptions in prison for fine default has gone down considerably. Dr Simpson has reminded me that it is at its lowest for 10 years. In a range of ways, alternatives to custody are working. I am not prepared to interfere with the independence of the judiciary—that is an important principle and I do not think for one moment that Bill Aitken would suggest that I should do so.

Taking together what we are already doing, such as making changes in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill with regard to supervised attendance orders and making additional resources available to criminal justice social work, I think that we should see alternatives to custody having an impact on the number of prisoners.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I congratulate the minister on his statement. He has demonstrated a genuine willingness to listen and respond to consultation. As he said, the situation is not only a challenge to the public sector; I believe that it is a huge opportunity. With that in mind, what time scale does the public sector have for producing proposals for the building of the second prison? What is the likely time scale for building the first private prison for remand prisoners?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Having made the announcement today, I believe that it is only fair that the SPS management and the trade union side have a proper opportunity to work up proposals. I am not imposing a deadline now. That would be premature. Given the numbers involved, we are not going to hang around, but I could not put a timetable on things today.

I announced the procurement of a privately built, privately operated prison, which, as I said, will be used for remand purposes. We want to proceed with that as quickly as possible, but no decisions have been made about the site, which is an important consideration. Mr Lyon will recognise that we have no control over issues such as planning permission.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Does the minister agree that his statement was nothing more than a testimony of failure? There has been a failure to reduce prisoner numbers generally and a failure to reduce the number of women prisoners. Moreover, the minister has failed to convince anyone of his opinion that Peterhead prison should close. Is not his announcement a complete abdication to the failed Tory privatisation ideology that the state should convict and send citizens to prison, but that the private sector should make profit from imprisoning those citizens? Is not it a disgrace that the Executive now promotes a failed Tory privatisation ideology for the criminal justice system? Is the minister ashamed of that failure?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

No, no, no, no. It is self-evident that I do not agree with Mr Sheridan. Given how often he talks about the public sector, I am disappointed that he failed to welcome the biggest ever investment in public sector prisons. That speaks for itself.

Tommy Sheridan is well aware of the work that is in progress to establish a time-out centre in Glasgow.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The minister has failed.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The time-out centre is not a failure. It is an innovative approach to dealing with the serious issue of women offenders. The complex issue of trying to treat young women, many of whom have chaotic, drug-dependent lifestyles, does not lend itself to the cheap comments of Tommy Sheridan. We are trying to take a serious issue seriously. The measures that we have put in place show our determination to reduce the population at Cornton Vale and to bring order and stability to the lives of people who, rather than being maliciously criminal, have simply found themselves in wretched circumstances.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I thank members of every political persuasion for articulating the case for Peterhead. I am sure that that was an important part of the minister's decision-making process. On members' behalf, I thank the Peterhead prison officers' partners for their dignity and for the way in which they conducted themselves during their campaign. Does the minister agree that their campaign shows that politics is relevant and that people can get involved in the political process? I hope that that relevance will be reflected in a high turnout at next year's election.

I thank the minister for the reprieve of Peterhead, but his announcement of investment from the new fund for building in the central belt—welcome as it is—does not entirely remove the uncertainty over a prison and staff that Clive Fairweather yesterday described as a role model for the Prison Service. Will the minister accept the suggestion of the Spencer report—as I understand it—that the 450-place prison that is required for long-term sex offenders should be built at Peterhead?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank Stewart Stevenson for his welcome of the decision on Peterhead. I repeat what I said about the dignified and effective role of the partners of the Peterhead staff. On the occasions that I met them, they put their case forcefully but fairly, and not without humour at times. That effective campaign shows the importance of ordinary people becoming involved in the political process. When the Parliament was set up, we hoped that that would happen.

I said that Peterhead will remain open and will be the centre for the treatment of long-term sex offenders in Scotland. The Spencer report raises a number of issues, on which I will obviously want to reflect. I look forward to the response of Stewart Stevenson and others to the report. It would be wrong to prejudge the outcome of my considerations.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I invite the Deputy First Minister to focus on what I think is the central issue to emerge from the prison estates review, which is the efficiency and humanity of the publicly run estate in Scotland. As a comparison, I draw the minister's attention to the Accounts Commission report on the education sector that came out earlier this summer, before the publication of the prison estates review. In the education and health sectors, the publicly funded alternatives are now often only at a slight cost disadvantage when compared to the private sector alternatives. However, the prison estates review contains the revelation that the privately funded alternatives are hundreds of millions of pounds cheaper than the publicly funded options. For all those who care about public services, is not the issue why an agency of the Executive runs inefficient services throughout its estate in relation to security, staffing and operational considerations? Those issues were clear to us 10 years ago, when the Kilmarnock experiment was first mooted.

Given those circumstances, what confidence can Mr Wallace or the Parliament have in the management structure of the Prison Service to deliver either value for money for the public purse or humane conditions for prisoners? The present system is not only vastly more expensive than the private option, but fails to monitor the literacy levels or throughcare experience of those in its care. For all those who care about public services, that is the central issue that emerges from the review.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I take the points that Wendy Alexander makes. It is important that we achieve value for money in the public sector and that the services are delivered properly and humanely. That is the challenge that has been set down with the procurement of the second prison.

Clive Fairweather's inspection report on Kilmarnock in March 2000 states:

"The benefits of clear direction and a specified level of performance were apparent. Staff at all levels understood their role and their contribution to the successful operation of the prison. The standards set for Kilmarnock are higher in many cases than elsewhere in the SPS".

Clive Fairweather went on to recommend

"that the SPS considers how the performance management of its other prisons can be improved in light of the experience at HMP Kilmarnock."

He particularly mentioned the clarity and focus at Kilmarnock, which he had not encountered in other parts of the estate. The SPS management are aware of those comments. I made the announcement about future performance management changes on the back of those comments.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I pay tribute to the Peterhead campaign, the Peterhead community and the support of Stewart Stevenson and Alex Salmond.

One reason for the increase in prisoner numbers is society's failure to reduce reoffending. I direct the minister's attention to Craiginches prison in Aberdeen. In that prison, 85 per cent of prisoners are drug users. The area has some of the highest rates of drug-related crime in Scotland, but there is a pathetically low level of drug rehabilitation services in the prison. Craiginches did not merit a mention in the minister's statement, despite the fact that it faces some of the biggest challenges in the prison estate. Will the minister consider the drug rehabilitation services in Craiginches? Will he say what investment he intends to give to Craiginches to begin to reduce reoffending?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I accept much of Richard Lochhead's analysis that drug misuse is a considerable driver of rising prison numbers. That experience is shared in countries other than Scotland. That is why we must tackle drug misuse through a range of policies, not just through penal policy. The emphasis must be on rehabilitation and education as well as on enforcement. Anyone of a fair-minded disposition would acknowledge that the Executive has introduced a raft of policies to deal with drug misuse.

On dealing with drugs in prisons, given the number of receptions in prisons of people against whom there is recent evidence of drug abuse and the number of abusers who are revealed through random drug tests, we can see that a lot of good work is done in prisons to get people off drugs. However, I am not complacent and know that more can be done. The Cranstoun initiative in throughcare has been an important recent development. As I said, we also see the provision of detoxification facilities as playing an important part in the procurement of the proposed new prison, not least because of the problem of drug misuse among people who are remanded in custody. I accept the importance of addressing drug misuse as part of a general approach to penal policy.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I welcome the minister's statement, which has at its heart the long-overdue modernisation of our prison estate. However, the minister referred to a 28 per cent increase in the number of remand prisoners over the past 12 months. Will he tell us how the proposed new remand facility will impact on the rest of the prison estate and how it will free up valuable, experienced prison staff to undertake a more rehabilitative role? That is essential if we are radically to reduce the current reoffending rate.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Scott Barrie is right to highlight the figure that I mentioned. The profile of the prison population shows that the number of short-term prisoners has remained relatively stable. There has been an increase in the number of long-term prisoners, but that is not unrelated to an increase in serious drug offences and the fact that the police are achieving record levels of detection, which means that more criminals are being caught. Nonetheless, the 28 per cent increase in the number of remand prisoners is staggering and we are trying to reach some analysis and understanding of why it has occurred.

When people are placed on remand in our existing prisons, they are often there for a short period and there is a churning effect that puts a considerable strain on prison staff. As we intend to use the proposed new prison for remand prisoners, it will be geared towards dealing with that problem. I have also mentioned the detoxification facilities, as many remand prisoners are received while they are suffering from the effects of drug abuse. Such facilities will be important for the remand prisoners who will use the new prison and for those in existing prisons where staff will have less pressure on them and will therefore be able to devote more time to rehabilitation work.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

In view of the minister's comments on remand prisoners, will he tell us what proportion of remand prisoners are in prison for offences that they have committed when they have been released early from prison sentences that have been set previously by courts? In the light of Pauline McNeill's comments on corrective and rehabilitative procedures in prisons, does the minister agree that short sentences do not allow for those procedures? Will he reconsider the legislative process with a view to making sentences mean what they say and ensuring that there is time to work with prisoners in prisons?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

In an experiment in England, courts had to sentence either under or over a certain length of time, so that sentences were not of a medium length, which Phil Gallie thinks ineffective. As a result, magistrates tended to sentence over that length of time, which led to an increase in the prison population. Phil Gallie's point underlines the importance of having a range of sentences, both custodial and non-custodial.

I cannot answer the question on the proportion of the increase that is made up of prisoners who are released early and have reoffended. As I said in my response to Scott Barrie, we do not have a breakdown of the drivers behind the increase. We are trying to get work done on that, as having an understanding of the increase might allow us to make other decisions. This is purely anecdotal, but the increase may be a result of people reoffending while they are on bail. The number of people on bail is increasing, as is the number of people on remand, but the two figures do not always square. There is a possibility—it is no more than that—that people who have offended on bail are being remanded while they await their trial.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister has gone some way towards answering the main points of my question about the provision of information to the Parliament on the performance of our prisons. However, I would like him to expand on that a little. Will that information be of the quality that is required to enable the Parliament to provide the scrutiny that he seeks? Will it be made public, so that we can get feedback from the public sector and from members of the public? Will he also confirm that the information will include details of the rehabilitation programmes that are taking place and the impact that they are making?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As I said, I hope that, by the time I meet the justice committees, I can flesh that out in more detail. Some of the points that Rhoda Grant has highlighted, concerning openness and transparency, are important and would influence us in the direction of making the information public. Rehabilitation is a vital part of the Prison Service's work, and it would be odd if we monitored performance but did not make available information on that key function and objective.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I, too, welcome the statement and the demonstration of the fact that, when people choose to engage in the political process, they can make a difference. I pay particular tribute to those who made the case for the retention of Peterhead prison: Aberdeenshire Council, for its thorough and detailed report; the prison officers' partners; the local community; and the local elected representatives.

First, will the minister give us an indication of his time scale for decisions and long-term planning for developments at Peterhead? Secondly, Wendy Alexander asked a pertinent question about value for money on the personnel side. On the fixed-asset side, is public build apparently so much more expensive than private build because contractors submit tenders at a premium price for public works? Would it be possible to investigate a fixed-price publicly built prison?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As I said in my answer to Stewart Stevenson, the response to the Spencer report will play an important part in our thinking. Although I could not put a time scale on it, Peterhead is to remain open. We cannot commit for ever and a day but, as far as I can see, Peterhead will remain the centre for treating long-term sex offenders.

On Nora Radcliffe's second question, and at the risk of incurring the Presiding Officer's displeasure, I note that there is a certain public works contract for which he has some responsibility and which shows the difficulties of managing public contracts.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

That is unfair.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Euan Robson says that that is unfair. However, even in France one of the major public buildings—I think that it is the national library—is experiencing some difficulties. Nora Radcliffe raises an interesting point about the possibility of a fixed-price public build contract. I shall reflect on that and decide whether any advantages could flow from it.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I welcome the fact that the Parliament and the Executive are addressing a problem that has been neglected for decades. Does the minister acknowledge the importance of having a vigilant and independent chief inspector of prisons at this time of major change? Will he pay tribute to the excellent qualities that Clive Fairweather has brought to that task? The whole Parliament will expect his successor, Andrew McLellan, to bring the same qualities to that important job.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I welcome the opportunity to say in Parliament what I said in the foreword to the chief inspector's report, which was published yesterday. I salute the work that Clive Fairweather has done in his years as Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons. He has been robust, but he has been fair—he has given credit where it has been due, but he has not held back in criticising when he has felt that criticism has been due. Those are the qualities that make a good chief inspector of prisons. Anyone who followed the work of Andrew McLellan when, as the moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, he visited every Scottish prison will know of his commitment to excellence in the prison service. Ministers will not expect an easy ride from Andrew McLellan.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

After that comment, the words "forked tongue" come to mind.

I draw the minister's attention to the real state of Kilmarnock prison. Far from being a model of excellence, it is an absolute shambles, as illustrated by an article in today's Daily Record, in which a warder who has left the prison confirms what I have been saying for months. Does the minister realise that drugs and weapons are rife in Kilmarnock, that employee morale is cripplingly low, that the warder who left the prison was left in charge of 92 prisoners, that the pay and conditions arrangements mean that, in February, he was paid just 56p above the minimum wage and that, when he was under attack, it took five minutes before another warder was on site? As he says,

"Prisoners are treated like kings while the prison officers are treated like slaves."

Will the minister lift the scales from his eyes, conduct an independent investigation into the running of Kilmarnock and recognise that, if this shambles is the best example of privatisation in the prison service, it should not be repeated?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It is fair to say that figures for serious assaults are the best comparative indicator, as they are classified on the same basis across the prison estate. In the year to 31 March 2002, the number of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults in Kilmarnock was lower than in Edinburgh and the same as in Aberdeen, Barlinnie and Glenochil. Over the same period, there were two serious prisoner-on-staff assaults in Kilmarnock compared with one each in Edinburgh, Barlinnie, Glenochil and Perth. Although any assaults are a matter for concern, those figures do not bear out the claim that Kilmarnock is a particularly violent prison.

It is also worth noting that, in the most recent survey of prisoners, the percentage of prisoners in Kilmarnock who expressed concerns about safety was similar to that in Aberdeen, Glenochil, Perth and Shotts and was significantly lower than that in Edinburgh.

On the ratio of warders to prisoners in their care, I point out that, earlier this week, some people associated with the SNP benches drew attention to the Coleman prison in Florida, wherein, as we found on investigation, one prison officer supervises between 256 and 340 prisoners at any time. That is not the sort of example that we should be following.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Although I am pleased that the minister has announced an increase in funding for the modernisation of the public prison estate, what guarantee can he give us that the vast majority of offenders who are given custodial sentences will serve their sentences within the public Prison Service?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Many prisoners who serve long sentences will serve time in more than one prison. There is a likelihood or a possibility of a prisoner serving part of their sentence in the public sector. It is still the case, following my announcement, that the majority of prisoners will be held in the public sector.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome the retention of Peterhead prison, as that recognises the unique and vital work that is carried out there to prevent serious sex offenders from reoffending. However, I would like to know whether Peterhead will be forced once more to conduct a campaign to stay open in five years' time. As the sex offenders unit is about people rather than buildings, can the minister assure us that Peterhead will continue to carry out its vital work in the long term rather than just in the short term?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I have indicated that, as far ahead as I can see, Peterhead will continue to be the centre for the treatment of long-term sex offenders. I am aware of Gil Paterson's serious interest in the issue of tackling sex offending. I am sure that he will find the Spencer report informative. The report has a number of conclusions and, based on them, we believe that there should be a focus on the shorter-term sex offenders. In those circumstances, we did not think it right to move prisoners from the longer-term prison.

It is important to remind people that treatment of sex offenders also takes place in prisons other than Peterhead. I do not want anything that has been said today or anything associated with the fact that Peterhead will stay open to detract from the valuable work that other Scottish prisons do in dealing with sex offenders.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I agree with the minister that, if we are to meet the central challenge of slowing down the rise in prison numbers, much of which is due to drug misuse, we have to develop alternatives to custody and introduce innovative ways of breaking the cycle of reoffending.

Does the minister agree that, if we are to roll out the drug treatment and testing order and drugs court pilot schemes, we must increase the number of places on day and residential programmes for drug addicts? If we are to break the cycle of reoffending, it is important that we go beyond the provision of detox facilities to much more effective drug treatment in prisons, as we are beginning to do through Cranstoun Drug Services. It is also important that we improve rehabilitation and throughcare, which has hardly been mentioned today.

Will the minister consider holding a pilot scheme for halfway houses, which Richard Simpson, Sylvia Jackson and I have long advocated and which could play a central role in the provision of alternatives to custody and helping to break the cycle of reoffending?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I said in my statement that I am prepared to consider innovative alternatives to custody. As Keith Raffan indicated in his question, it is not possible simply to turn the tap on and immediately have a system of DTTOs across the country. If the orders are to work and to command the public and judicial confidence that we want them to, it is important that they are implemented properly. We are intent on ensuring that that happens. However, there are a number of other initiatives that merit consideration and today is not the last word in the development of alternatives to custody.

David (None, Lothians)

Three members still wish to ask questions. If the minister is agreeable, I propose to take all their questions at once in order to protect the next debate. I encourage Cathy Peattie, David Davidson and John McAllion to ask their questions as quickly as possible.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

How will today's announcement deal with overcrowding in the women's prison at Cornton Vale?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

What we have had today is a postponement of a final decision on Peterhead. Will the minister give us a date when a decision will be made on the long-term programme for the building?

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

If the minister accepts that only the state can deprive people of their liberty, does he agree that it follows that only the state can own and manage the prisons in which people are held? If so, does he agree that the proposal to build and run a prison for profit is not only offensive but runs counter to all the principles that, until these recent right-wing times, underpinned penal policy in this country? He talks about value for money, but what does the fact that we have allowed a few powerful and privileged people to profit from the imprisonment of their fellow citizens tell us about the values of this society?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

With regard to Cornton Vale, what I have said today about the development of alternatives to custody is important. People will have seen the letter in The Herald that commended the Executive for some of the initiatives that we have taken in that regard. Obviously, the time-out facility will be an important development in relation to reducing the prisoner numbers in Cornton Vale.

I totally refute what David Davidson said. Peterhead will remain open and I do not think that I can be more unequivocal than that.

I respect the view that John McAllion expresses but it is important to remember that ministers remain responsible for the welfare of every prisoner who is given a custodial sentence by the courts, be they in the public or private sector. I take that responsibility seriously and I believe that the proposals that I have announced today will allow us to discharge that responsibility more effectively.

Fuel Poverty

David (None, Lothians)

I allowed the questions on the ministerial statement to overrun in view of the importance of the subject and because of the wishes of the Parliament, but we are now tight for time on the next item of business, which is a debate on motion S1M-3350, in the name of Ms Margaret Curran, on the Scottish fuel poverty statement, and two amendments to the motion. I therefore appeal to the opening speakers to be as brief as possible in order to allow others into the debate.

Before I call the minister to speak, I advise members that there is a business motion to be considered at the end of the morning.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I will get moving quickly, Presiding Officer.

I am pleased that we are having this debate on fuel poverty, particularly at this point in the parliamentary session, because I have an agreement with my colleagues in other parties that we will do our best to ensure that social justice gets the debates that it deserves. My colleagues and I will lobby our business managers to ensure that that happens.

The Scottish Executive is committed to ending fuel poverty by 2016. The Parliament knows that fuel poverty blights lives. It results in ill health for, for example, the elderly, young children and sick or disabled people who are already vulnerable. It forces people to choose between heating their homes and buying food or other necessities. We cannot tolerate such a situation and will make every effort to end it.

We have said that we will reduce the number of households in Scotland that are in fuel poverty by 30 per cent by 2006. That is a demanding target. In 1996—the last year for which we have figures—738,000 households were in fuel poverty. Moreover, as we have said many times in debates in the chamber, fuel poverty is the direct result of low incomes, poor energy efficiency of homes and high energy prices. We have taken action on all three issues and we know that the number of households in fuel poverty has fallen.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The member must bear with me, because I am really under pressure and want to move through my speech. I am obviously happy to debate the issues, but I would like to get into the flow and see then how my time is going.

We know that the number of households in fuel poverty has fallen because of our steps to raise incomes by tackling unemployment and through the benefits system. For example, benefits have been introduced such as the minimum income guarantee, the working families tax credit and the winter fuel allowance for pensioners. We have also invested in our housing stock through programmes such as the central heating programme and the warm deal, and we have enhanced building regulations so that we now build homes that can be heated efficiently. Furthermore, we have ensured that the price of energy remains affordable for all. In each area, we have worked to ensure that people are able to heat their homes without having to give up paying for food or other necessities. As I said, we cannot tolerate such a situation any longer.

Through taking those steps, we know that we will have improved the health of elderly and infirm people, people on low incomes and families with young children. We know that their lives have been made better by the action that we and our partners have taken to tackle fuel poverty in Scotland.

We have already achieved much in the three and half years since the Scottish Parliament was formed. For example, we have worked with the UK Government to prepare and publish the UK fuel poverty strategy. We have, in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, made a legislative commitment to end fuel poverty and we have published our own fuel poverty statement under that act. We have improved 140,000 homes through our warm deal programme, which provides insulation for homes, makes them easier to heat and offers a direct contribution to the environment.

Furthermore, we have launched the Scottish Executive central heating programme, which is, in the United Kingdom, unique in its scope and offers social tenants and elderly people free central heating, insulation, energy advice and a benefits check.

To date, we have installed 10,000 heating systems and are fully on course to achieve our target to complete the programme by 2006. Finally, we have continued to work with local authorities and other partners to develop local arrangements that address fuel poverty throughout Scotland. For example, we now have partnerships in place in Dundee and Lanarkshire, which will work with communities to ensure that provision is as broad as possible.

In all that, we have worked to build strong partnerships across the public, private and voluntary sectors to ensure that each contributes to delivering the change that we want for people in Scotland.

The energy companies—Scottish Power plc, Scottish Gas and Scottish and Southern plc—are investing in the energy efficiency of homes in Scotland through the energy efficiency commitment, which is a statutory requirement under the Utilities Act 2000. They are also working to develop programmes and technologies that benefit consumers in Scotland. Moreover, Transco is supporting investment in central heating through its affordable warmth programme and it is providing advice to front-line professionals about energy efficiency measures and health.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations are working with local authorities and housing associations to develop best practice on promoting energy efficiency and tackling fuel poverty. Energy Action Scotland and Friends of the Earth Scotland are working to promote energy efficiency and to identify new ways of working in delivering fuel poverty programmes. In that respect, I am pleased to be able to announce today that the Scottish Executive will provide funding to allow Friends of the Earth to carry out research on energy auditing that will allow us to identify how improving information as part of the house purchase process can be used to tackle fuel poverty.

We have been assisted in developing the central heating programme by all those organisations. Other organisations—such as Help the Aged and Age Concern—have also helped us to understand how we can work effectively to meet the needs and concerns of elderly people in order to ensure that we get the maximum take-up of the programme. In addition, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, energywatch and the Energy Saving Trust have all provided us with assistance in developing our strategy and policies in Scotland and will continue to work with us in developing our future strategy.

Each and every one of those organisations has made a significant contribution both to developing the fuel poverty statement and policy and through their individual and collective programmes for tackling energy efficiency. I want to put on record the appreciation of the Scottish Executive—and, I am sure, of the Parliament—for those organisations' commitment and willingness to work together to end fuel poverty in Scotland.

However, much as I would always pay tribute to the work of the Executive, there is clearly more work to be done and we will continue to work together to take forward the work plan in the fuel poverty statement. By doing so, we will begin to develop better knowledge about fuel poverty in Scotland, which will enable us to evaluate our programmes and to target investment as effectively as possible. We will continue to raise awareness of fuel poverty issues for landlords and consumers, and for others who are able to assist us in meeting our overall target.

We will also continue to improve the housing stock not only through our central heating programme and energy efficiency programmes, but through our investment in stock transfer and other housing improvement programmes.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

As far as evaluating the central heating programme is concerned, will the minister make any announcement today on changing the criteria for the installation of central heating in the homes of the elderly?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am not sure how up to date Mr Sheridan is on the matter, but we have previously announced that we will constantly review the central heating programme. If other resources became available, we would consider extending the programme. Indeed, Mr Sheridan will know that the programme is being extended in 2004. I assure the Parliament that we keep the programme under rigorous review.

The Executive will continue to promote greater domestic energy efficiency through building regulations and new technology. We will also continue to build partnerships, both at local level—by developing the work that we have carried out in Dundee—and at national level, through the fuel poverty advisory group.

We are beginning a key piece of work to review how our energy efficiency programmes are working. I have already said how we have exceeded the target for the warm deal in "Working together for Scotland: A Programme for Government" by offering insulation to 140,000 homes under the scheme since 1999. We want now to examine how we can continue to make our investment work effectively with the investment in energy efficiency that the energy companies are making under their energy efficiency commitment, and with the investment that local authorities and housing associations are making in their own stock. We intend to take that work forward with key stakeholders, including the Energy Saving Trust, Energy Action Scotland and Ofgem. I can also announce today that the Scottish Executive is making £1 million available this year for local authorities to spend on insulation through the warm deal programme.

That work plan—which will be developed further by the fuel poverty advisory group—and the investment that we are already making will ensure that we can meet our target of ending fuel poverty by 2016 and that we can reach our milestone of reducing the number of households in fuel poverty by 30 per cent by 2006.

The Executive and Parliament have a considerable track record on debating fuel poverty and of showing a commitment to ending it in Scotland. Through the partnership between the Executive and the Parliament and the partnerships involving the voluntary sector and the other organisations that I have mentioned this morning, we have made large strides. However, I call on all members to maintain the commitment to tackling the problem and to support our plan of action so that we can truly end fuel poverty in Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament commends the Scottish Executive for its Fuel Poverty Statement and its pledge to work in partnership with Her Majesty's Government at Westminster and a range of organisations; welcomes the milestones for achieving its overall objective to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that people are not living in fuel poverty by November 2016; recognises the substantial investment that is being made in the Central Heating Programme and the Warm Deal and in improving Scotland's housing stock, and further recognises that the Statement affirms the Executive's commitment to tackling fuel poverty and meeting its objective.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I welcome this debate on a topic that might not hit the headlines, but which is of fundamental importance to the hundreds of thousands of Scots who still live in fuel poverty. Indeed, I congratulate the minister on securing two hours for the debate.

Unusually, I turn first to the Conservative amendment, which criticises the Executive's motion as self-congratulatory and then proceeds to be self-congratulatory as far as the previous Conservative Government is concerned. It appears that Bill Aitken realised he had to speak in the debate a minute before his amendment had to be lodged and simply flung something down. I do not think he has taken the issue seriously.

As the minister stated—and as the fuel poverty statement confirms—fuel poverty can have a severe and, for vulnerable people, possibly life-threatening impact. Cold and damp homes not only make people ill but slow down, or militate against, full recovery. The minister has covered the statement well; however, I want to focus on a number of areas outlined in our amendment, some of which were touched on by the Social Justice Committee's report in response to the Scottish Executive's draft consultative statement on fuel poverty.

For example, Energy Action Scotland estimated, when giving evidence to the Social Justice Committee, that there are up to 30 grant schemes throughout the UK, some of which overlap. That leads to confusion not only for the public, but for those who offer advice, which makes it difficult to ensure that the best advice is always provided. The Executive should undertake an assessment, beginning with the schemes that are under its direct influence, with a view to establishing a single entry point while creating the most comprehensive and flexible scheme possible.

Resources are fundamental, and training of additional gas installers is vital if programmes such as the central heating initiative are to expand, and if the Executive's target of eliminating fuel poverty by 2016 is to be reached. Transco and the Gas and Water Industry National Training Organisation have made significant strides in addressing that problem, about which Robert Brown and the Social Justice Committee have raised specific concerns.

Although training is touched on in the minister's statement, SNP members seek reassurances that initiatives such as the retraining of 45 redundant NEC Semiconductors UK ltd engineers will be carried out throughout Scotland. That must be done to ensure that there is no delay in delivery, particularly in light of the Eaga Partnership's evidence to the committee, which described the significant step change in installations that will be needed over the coming winter and beyond. The capacity to target and assist vulnerable groups will exist only if staff are trained to install and maintain systems.

As the statement acknowledges, there are a number of vulnerable groups living in fuel poverty that do not, as yet, benefit from the central heating programme. Although pensioners who have no central heating have, quite rightly, been prioritised, the time has surely come to consider additional qualifying categories, for example to include households that include at least one long-term sick or chronically ill person. Although we do not expect that to happen immediately, planning should be taking place now and a date should be set. Similarly, consideration should be given to extending the programme to families with children.

A number of individuals in Glasgow have expressed concern about the inflexibility of the criteria that are used in deciding who does or does not qualify for the central heating initiative. I shall mention some specific cases that I have dealt with in recent weeks, the last of which was only yesterday.

Mrs McFadyen is 93 and has lived for 65 years in Bucklaw Gardens, Cardonald. A tenant of the Western Heritable Investment Company, she has seen few improvements over the years. Fifteen years ago, with a cold home, she obtained two costly-to-run second-hand heaters to warm her four-bedroom house. Those heaters, which are now more than 20 years old, have denied her the central heating programme. What should she have done? Should she have suffered the cold and risked her health? She appears to be losing out simply because she acted, out of necessity, on her own initiative. Mrs McFadyen is caught between a rock and a hard place. Should she give up the only heating that she has in order to obtain central heating, or should she cling on to what she already has?

Mrs Irvine is 88 and lives in Chirnside Road, Hillington. She has a heart condition. Without even an inspection, she was refused central heating, because she has two wee heaters in her hall and living room. Her bedroom, however, is always cold.

Mrs McCracken lives in Dormanside Road, Pollok. She moved from Craigbank because the house that she owned was scheduled for demolition through area clearance. Because she has not lived in her new home long enough, she has also been denied the heating that she needs.

Mr Speirs of Balgonie Road, Mosspark has a bad heart and needs constant warmth. He would qualify but, as a council tenant, he must wait until the capital programme—likely to be delivered post stock transfer—gets round to him. If he owned his home, he would have a new system installed sooner rather than later.

There are many similar cases. The lack of flexibility available to Eaga clearly means that individual circumstances cannot be considered if they are outwith the strict criteria that are laid down by the Executive. Discretion is vital if delivery is to assist our most vulnerable people, rather than its merely being a box-ticking exercise. The Executive must give Eaga more flexibility.

There are a number of ways of eliminating fuel poverty; income maximisation is one of them. Both the statement and the Social Justice Committee reports make clear the importance of ensuring that those who qualify for benefits obtain them. High-profile campaigns to raise public awareness of benefit entitlement are therefore essential. Debt blocking, whereby consumers—often the poorest—can be denied the opportunity to switch to a cheaper supplier, is another scourge. Although energy suppliers are making encouraging noises in that regard and are undertaking a number of pilot projects, debt blocking remains a significant barrier to the elimination of fuel poverty. On pre-payment meters, the poor also pay a significant tariff compared with standard credit customers. Surely the target must be to ensure equalisation of tariffs across the board—something that Scottish Gas has already implemented successfully.

The statement rightly points out that, along with income levels and fuel costs, poor energy efficiency in a home is a key contributor to fuel poverty. SNP members warmly welcome the measures for improving energy efficiency that are outlined in the statement, but we remain concerned that the private sector—particularly the private rented sector, highlighted by the housing improvement task force—may fall behind. We believe that there should be a new decent homes standard across all tenures, to include dampness and condensation elimination, tackling serious disrepair, and that there should be energy saving measures such as insulation and fuel efficiency through the use of high-efficiency condensation boilers. Those measures are taken for granted in most of western Europe's small, independent and more prosperous nations.

It is unacceptable in the 21st century that 367,000 Scottish children and 119,000 pensioners live in properties that have dampness and condensation and that 39 per cent of all homes have their energy efficiency impaired because they require at least one urgent repair. In improving energy efficiency in the 90 per cent of homes that fall below current standards, it is important that people living in hard-to-heat homes, such as non-cavity-built houses, do not miss out because the insulation measures that are available to them are more limited. Special consideration is required to tackle their needs. I welcome the minister's announcement of the energy audit, but it is disappointing that the Executive has yet to set a target for improvement in national home energy ratings—a key recommendation of the Social Justice Committee.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I agree with many of the points that Kenny Gibson has made about energy efficiency in homes, but key requirements are the provision of cheap energy and the security of that energy. What proposals does he have for ensuring that cheap energy will be available in future to those for whom he shows concern?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

If Phil Gallie wants us to have the power to ensure the availability of cheap energy, he will support our campaign for an independent Scotland.

The Executive has taken great care to explain in the statement its definition of fuel poverty, no doubt because that is an area in which concerns were raised in evidence to the Social Justice Committee and by the Scottish fuel poverty advisory group. We may have to agree to differ on this point, Scotland's party being at one with Energy Action Scotland in believing that the Executive's definition

"will falsely reduce the numbers of fuel poor and so wrongly influence future schemes and programmes designed to assist them".

As Shelter Scotland argued, the Executive's definition will disproportionately reduce the number of private tenants who are seen as fuel poor because of high rents in that sector. COSLA and Citizens Advice Scotland also had misgivings about the definition. Unfortunately, those concerns are not addressed in the statement.

We would like the Executive to reconsider adopting the definition that was suggested by EAS:

"A household is in fuel poverty, if in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime, it would be required to spend 10% or more of its disposable income (excluding housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest)."

As a representative of Glasgow, I consider it a disgrace that Scotland's largest city—a city with more than half of Scotland's poverty and its worst housing conditions—will have to wait two years longer than the rest of Scotland for all homes in its socially rented sector to obtain central heating, as outlined in the process milestones that are listed on page 38 of the statement. Only yesterday, the Evening Times revealed a 25-year conspiracy supported by successive Tory and Labour Governments to do down the city. The fuel poverty statement can only add to Glasgow's sense of being unfairly disadvantaged. I urge the minister to work for the completion of central heating installation in Glasgow simultaneously with the rest of Scotland.

I move amendment S1M-3350.2, to leave out from "commends" to end and insert:

"welcomes the publication of the Fuel Poverty Statement and the positive developments contained within it; accepts the need for a single entry point to the plethora of grant schemes and initiatives available; believes that, to eliminate fuel poverty, resources both human and financial must be in place to meet this aim; urges the Scottish Executive to extend the Warm Deal and Central Heating Programme to disabled people, the long-term sick and all pensioners with partial or obsolete systems at the earliest possible opportunity; considers the establishment of a Decent Homes Standard as fundamental to reducing fuel poverty, not least through energy efficiency measures; has serious concerns regarding hard to heat homes, the inflexible application of criteria used in the Central Heating Programme, the delay in installing central heating in Glasgow's socially rented sector and the Executive's definition of fuel poverty, and seeks the commitment of the Executive to liaise with Her Majesty's Government on issues such as debt blocking, pre-payment meters and benefit uptake."

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

It is ironic that the Conservatives could largely have gone along with the Executive motion today had it not been for the complacent and self-congratulatory tone that inevitably attaches to any Executive motion. I must rebut immediately Kenneth Gibson's claim that, in lodging my amendment, I am in any way seeking to be self-congratulatory. I am basically pointing out the record of the previous Conservative Government and merely telling the truth.

That said, there was much in what the minister said this morning with which we can agree. She was quite correct to congratulate various bodies on the contributions that they have made towards combating fuel poverty. She was right to underline the vital importance of energy efficiency, and she was quite right to express the view that an energy audit is absolutely essential. We have a major problem with fuel poverty, and statistics prove that beyond any doubt.

Let us examine what the Executive has done during recent times. The Executive is merely continuing with our policies; nearly every Executive initiative to eradicate fuel poverty is an extension of policies that were initiated by the previous Conservative Government.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I am very grateful to the member for giving way.

When reading amendment S1M-3350.1, I wondered whether Bill Aitken had in mind the Tory track record on pensioner poverty, lack of investment in council housing and mass unemployment, which the present Government is certainly not continuing with.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am happy to debate unemployment, but that is not on the agenda for debate. Sarah Boyack will find the answers in the detail of what the Conservative Government did and what the Executive has done. In many respects, there is not a whit of difference in their actions.

The warm deal, which was introduced with a great fanfare of trumpets on 1 July 1999, is simply a rebranding and partial extension of the home energy efficiency scheme, which had been running since 1991. The only significant difference is a small rise in the amount of grant. We certainly agree with new housing partnerships, because they are likely to prove extremely beneficial in eradicating fuel poverty. They represent another Conservative policy.

The only measure that the Executive has taken independently has been the central heating programme, which was announced by Jackie Baillie on 18 September 2000. The programme is to be welcomed and I recall congratulating the Executive on it at the time. However, it is predictable that there have been implementation problems.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the biggest single contributor to a reduction in fuel poverty has been the privatisation of the utilities. I recall that such privatisation was resisted bitterly by the Labour party—or was that a different Labour party from today's? If that is the case, the personnel seem to be depressingly similar.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Would the member care to comment on the most recent academic research, which suggests that the privatisation of the gas and electricity utilities has produced no discernible improvement in efficiency, nor has it produced price reduction? All that has resulted is the creation of multimillionaires through share dealing in those former public utilities.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Although Mr Sheridan has the advantage of having seen the particular study to which he refers, I have the advantage of being able to count. A reduction of 29 per cent, in real terms, in the costs of gas and electricity must affect poorer sections of society; there is no way that it could not affect them.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It always helps Bill Aitken with his time to accept an intervention.

British Energy plc is not exactly a major success story. Is the member in favour of bailing out British Energy with up to £500 million of taxpayers' money?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am in favour of doing anything that will result in a reasonable service for the customers who have to utilise energy. However, there are financial considerations that must be examined in every case. The British Energy issue is extremely complex and Mr Neil would not expect me to make an on-the-hoof response.

I turn to the figures, which show the extent of the problem. There are 738,000 households living in fuel poverty in Scotland, which represents 35 per cent of households. That is depressing. Forty-six per cent of households living in such conditions occupy local authority houses. Perhaps the most serious aspect of the problem is that 178,000 households—8 per cent of the total—suffer from extreme fuel poverty, which is defined as having to spend more than 20 per cent of household income on fuel.

Some of the people in that situation occasionally have to make a stark choice between food and heat. We all agree that that is not acceptable. The effects on health, which are particularly manifest in the very young and the very old, are not acceptable. Any move towards alleviating the problem is welcome.

That is why we gave a genuine welcome to the central heating programme. However, there is unfairness in the programme in that priority has been given to 100,000 council house properties and 40,000 pensioner homes in the private sector. As a fair person, the minister will be concerned about the net effect, which is that some people who live in genuine poverty in the private rented sector are not receiving the benefits of the central heating programme. I suggest that that difficulty could be reconsidered in a more sensitive manner.

In spite of the inherent unfairness in the system, in general, we welcome the central heating programme. The minister is rightly concerned about fuel poverty and has done much to tackle it. However, unless we take steps to ensure that the most vulnerable section of our society—the elderly—is safeguarded, no matter who owns the property, we will not achieve our goals.

We support the warm deal and the central heating programme, although we have pointed out a significant unfairness in it. We also support new housing partnerships. How could we do otherwise, when they represent another one of our policies that has been hijacked by the Labour party? We recognise that the economic decisions that were taken by the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and the early 1990s—especially those on the privatisation of utilities—have made a major contribution to ensuring that fuel poverty, bad as it is, is not much worse.

I move amendment S1M-3350.1, to leave out from the first "recognises" to end and insert:

"believes that the Scottish Executive's self-congratulation is unfounded given that substantial inroads into eradicating fuel poverty were made by previous Conservative governments, and recognises that the policies of those Conservative governments have had a lasting effect and that many of them have been continued by the Scottish Executive under a different name."

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Before Bill Aitken spoke, I was struck by the contrast between the uncrowded press galleries for the present debate and the crowded press galleries for the statement on prisons.

Fuel poverty has been debated in the Parliament and in the Social Justice Committee on several occasions. Unlike some other issues, such as e-commerce, which, as a luddite, I regard as the epitome of an undebatable subject, fuel poverty is well worth a rerun. In days to come, people might ask what the Parliament achieved and what it did to better the condition of the people of Scotland. We will have justified our existence if we are able to say, "We got rid of fuel poverty." We spend much time discussing targets, standards and statistics, some of which is political mush. Each house that is insulated and each central heating system that is installed strikes an identifiable blow against cold and damp and illness and unnecessary deaths. In spite of all the technical difficulties and difficulties of definition that have been associated with the central heating programme, the programme bids fair to be the best thing that the Parliament and the Executive have done in the Parliament's first session.

However, I want to raise several issues with the minister. The first is the availability of a sufficient number of gas fitters. Although I am aware of the recent opening of the gas fitters' training centre at Queenslie, it is difficult to be content with ministerial assurances on the matter. A participant as knowledgeable as Transco told us as recently as May, in private and in public, that there will be a shortfall in the number of gas fitters, which will compromise the ability to deliver the central heating programme.

Ministers have examined the support needs of colleges and I hope that they will continue to do so. I also hope that they are aware of the crisis that is looming because of the age profile of gas engineers. A relatively large proportion of such workers are in their 50s and are heading towards retirement.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does Mr Brown agree that the shortage of skilled fitters, which affects many trades in Scotland, is more of a legacy of the Tory years than anything that Bill Aitken mentioned earlier?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I agree, but I do not want to get into an unsatisfactory debate about who is responsible. As members of the Parliament, we have the responsibility of dealing with the issue and it is up to ministers to provide answers to the specific issues that we are discussing.

I ask Margaret Curran to give assurances that the issue has been considered satisfactorily, that the support that is needed is there, that the transition training programme to retrain workers from other industries is being adequately made use of, and that people are getting into schools and talking about the potential long-term advantages of employment in the field.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I looked recently at the figures for further education courses and found that the number of courses for traditional engineering practices had fallen significantly. Would Mr Brown suggest to the minister that she and her colleagues could consider that area to try and improve the situation?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Phil Gallie makes a fair point, and it is a worry throughout the scientific end of the educational spectrum. The answer has to lie in interesting schools, colleges and the people who attend them in getting into that field. Quite a lot of useful work is being done by people who have experience of, or who work in, the industries going into schools, telling people what they are up to and trying to interest them in those particular jobs.

My second concern relates to the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995—Margaret Curran will not be surprised to hear me mention that. The publication of this year's HECA reports seems to be well behind the position in England, which is bad enough. Ministers seem to be reluctant to use the HECA reports as they do in England to allow local people to judge and comment on the performance of individual local councils. It would be useful to consider the idea of requiring councils to appoint home energy conservation officials who would have the job of implementing home energy conservation more effectively than happens at the moment. The 1995 act is a productive mechanism as a driver in the field.

My third point is linked to that. Fuel poverty cannot stand apart from other issues of fuel conservation and conservation of energy. The one is part and parcel of the other. In her introduction, the minister mentioned new techniques. Solar energy techniques are now sufficiently advanced to be considered for inclusion as a major component of housing policy. There are some innovative and successful projects in that field. Are ministers considering the potential of those techniques as part of stock transfer investment programmes for example? Are ministers considering energy audits and looking at the need to integrate, and not only approaching the matter from the point of view of fuel poverty but considering it from the point of view of the world's needs? That was considered recently at an international level at the conference in Johannesburg. The two need to be matched together. There are major opportunities that would also advantage individual citizens and households.

I also mention an incidental by-product of what is hopefully a march to success on the fuel poverty issue—the dust mite problem. That matter has been raised with members in correspondence from the National Asthma Campaign Scotland. I had a meeting with people from the campaign not very long ago in order to be briefed about this issue. In its briefing, the National Asthma Campaign Scotland says:

"At this time of dramatic change in the standards of Housing in Scotland through the Warm Deal, Central Heating Programme ... it is vital that we do not eradicate one cause of ill-health—fuel poverty—only to create another—house dust mite infestation"

with all the problems that that causes to people who suffer from asthma. I would like the minister to assure us that account is being taken of that.

Kenny Gibson and others spoke about the extension of the system and that is something which, as Mr Gibson rightly said, the Social Justice Committee has taken up with ministers. We have had some assurances that the scheme will not stop at the end of the current programme. As I understand it, the scheme will move on to take account of missed-out people, and partial and obsolete schemes.

We must consider the problem of hard-to-heat homes, which is sometimes underestimated. It is simply not possible to bring some houses up to modern fuel standards. We must consider what we have to do about those houses in terms of building standards.

My final point is about the need to use care and repair schemes to help older people in particular to manage the improvements in their energy efficiency once they are in place. That is an important aspect, particularly to technophobes like me who cannot manage the video, never mind anything else.

Fuel poverty is a health issue and a social justice issue; it damages opportunities for children and it damages the quality of life of older people. There are few issues that are more central to the future of Scotland. I support the motion.

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

We move to open debate. I suspect that there are a few members who wish to speak who have not yet pressed their buttons and it would be helpful if they could do so.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Like others, I welcome the Executive's statement on fuel poverty. The range of measures that has been taken to tackle fuel poverty, including the warm deal, the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, and the central heating programme, is evidence of how seriously the Executive takes the issue of fuel poverty.

I am pleased that the fuel poverty statement, which is of course a consequence of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, clearly sets out short, medium and long-term targets to reduce and then eradicate fuel poverty in Scotland. Shelter Scotland, in its briefing for today's debate, comments that the fuel poverty statement

"is a good foundation on which to build delivery of the strategy."

Shelter Scotland also emphasises the need for housing improvement to reduce fuel poverty. Although I agree with that, I argue that other factors such as economic stability, low unemployment and the introduction of a national minimum wage—none of which featured during the Thatcher years of the 1980s—also play a significant part in addressing the fuel poverty problem that faces poor homes in Scotland.

There can be little doubt that improving housing stock can have a major impact on fuel poverty. During the summer recess, I had the pleasure of hosting a visit for the deputy minister responsible for housing, Hugh Henry, during his visit to the new Link Housing Association Ltd homes in Petersburn in my constituency. When I first visited that area in the run-up to the Scottish Parliament elections, I was shocked by the dreadful state of the housing that people were being faced with and forced to live in. The 1960s, flat-roofed, breeze block housing might have looked good on a planner's drawing board, but the reality of almost 40 years of harsh Scottish winters, not to mention summers, meant that not only did those homes look run down but they were among the most expensive properties in North Lanarkshire to heat.

The contrast between what I saw three and a half years ago and what I saw a few weeks ago could not have been greater. Not only do the homes in Petersburn look great, but they have been designed and built to be energy efficient. As many of the tenants told the minister and me, the homes are proving to be significantly cheaper to heat. That is an excellent example of how we can tackle fuel poverty in the long term, by ensuring that future housing reduces the need to burn as much fuel. Not only is that good for the pockets of tenants and residents, it is good for the environment.

I support Robert Brown's comments about the points that were raised by the National Asthma Campaign Scotland. Although the campaign welcomes the many benefits of improved insulation, it believes that improved ventilation and reduced humidity must also play a part in the design and installation of central heating systems to avoid an increase in the levels of house dust mites and the associated increase in asthma attacks. Many of us believe that that point is worthy of consideration and we urge the Scottish Executive to consider it.

The Executive's fuel poverty statement has been welcomed by Age Concern Scotland, Shelter Scotland and Friends of the Earth Scotland. They all see it as an important first step. I am sure that the minister will concede that there is a long way to go before we eradicate fuel poverty in Scotland. However, I believe that the Scottish Executive is to be commended for having the courage to set itself ambitious targets that are appropriate for Scotland in the 21st century.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As many members have said, this is not the first time that we have discussed the issue, and I am sure that it will not be the last time. Surely we should be saying that we are anti fuel poverty, rather than providing for fuel poverty. I always find that such debates take place in a rather strange world, in which we fail to recognise that Scotland is the largest energy producer in Europe. The fact that we, in the 21 st century, are discussing fuel poverty in the country that is the largest energy producer in the European Union is frankly absurd.

The fuel poverty statement is to be welcomed, but, as has been pointed out by a number of people, there are still major problems. It is of little consequence if someone is lucky enough to be eligible to have a state-of-the-art central heating system fitted under the Executive's scheme if they cannot afford to use it because the energy companies are allowed to charge extortionate prices for fuel supply. The charges that are levied on customers by the fuel suppliers are the major issue in fuel poverty. The situation involves many other issues, but the reality is that the cost causes poverty.

In a debate in the first year of the Parliament, while I recognised that we do not have legislative power over the standing charges for energy and fuel, I asked Wendy Alexander, who was then the minister responsible, whether she would consider at least making representations to Ofgem and to central Government to suggest the removal of standing charges, initially for pensioners, then for all people in receipt of benefit, as is done in a number of European countries that are not energy rich. Unfortunately, Wendy Alexander—who is no longer a minister—chose not to take that route. I ask the Minister for Social Justice and the Deputy Minister for Social Justice—who is well aware of the health problems that are caused by fuel poverty—to at least approach the energy companies to seek their agreement to withdraw standing charges for pensioners. That would be a major step forward. I hope that the ministers will consider doing that.

The introduction of the zonal system in Scotland is ludicrous. It would be laughable if it were not a total rip-off. There are nine zones, and the zone that someone resides in will determine the tariff that they are charged. The argument for zoning and charging different prices in different areas is the amount that it costs to transport energy. As I said, for a country that is energy rich, zoning would be laughable if it were not a blatant rip-off. People who live in the shadow of, for example, the Torness nuclear power station or the Cockenzie power station will pay absurd amounts for their fuel because of the tariff zone that they live in.

Another anomaly that has been talked about often is prepayment meters. That is another issue on which politicians, and in particular the Executive, could make representations to the energy companies, because, as is well known, the tariff is higher for prepayment meters than it is for ordinary meters. People with prepayment meters pay a higher charge per unit, and who are those people? The people who are in fuel poverty. Many families and many households on low incomes utilise the prepayment system. They do so not through choice, but because the fuel companies have forced them into accepting that method of payment and supply because they have been late in paying their bills, which could have happened for many reasons. They have been given no alternative. It is straightforward: that is a ludicrously heavy-handed tactic which, unfortunately, is sanctioned by Government. All that it does is make the energy companies richer at the expense of the most vulnerable group in our society.

The Executive has admitted that the cost of domestic gas is likely to rise by 15 per cent and that of domestic electricity by 5 per cent. Coupled with less than adequately insulated homes—although I welcome the suggestions in the statement and the audit from Friends of the Earth Scotland, which may assist us in this area—that just adds to fuel poverty. Addressing the dire need for fuel-efficient homes and cutting the increase in fuel charges would ease the burden for many. There is no requirement for legislation. Let us use our powers of persuasion.

I call on the minister to make real changes—reiterate what I have just said, speak to the energy providing companies, and suggest to them that such measures would be socially beneficial. If we are operating in a world of partnership—and partnership between industry and the Executive seems to be the buzz in the Executive at the moment—let us talk to the energy companies about being socially responsible and removing standing charges.

To anyone in a country that is not as energy rich as this one is, the fact that we are having this debate must seem ludicrous, and it is an example of the low sights of the Executive and, indeed, of many politicians in Scotland.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I agree with one aspect of Margaret Curran's motion, and that is its recognition of the fact that we have to work with Westminster. The motion recognises the fact that fuel poverty cannot be isolated from the overall energy policies that we follow. I make that point to Kenny Gibson.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Give me a chance to get into my speech. I will let Alex Neil in later.

I will pick up on some points that were made by Age Concern Scotland, and one point in particular, which recognises that problems of fuel poverty—for the elderly in particular—stretch across the private sector and cover owners and tenants. We have to examine that issue into the future. Current schemes build on the draught-proofing and so on that the last Conservative Government instituted as far back—I remind Bill Aitken—as 1980, when I became a councillor. Those schemes were welcome, and I welcome the fact that the Executive is building on them.

At the same time, I compliment the Executive on the introduction of the central heating scheme, which it should take credit for. However, it is one thing to introduce a central heating scheme; it is another to ensure that the scheme is affordable. This Parliament should have the grace to recognise that since privatisation of the utilities, prices to individuals have fallen by 30 per cent. That is an important factor when we examine fuel poverty.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Phil Gallie mentioned the need to work with Westminster. One of the things that Westminster has done in the past six months is to impose an additional tax burden of £7 billion on North sea oil over the next few years. Should not that money—or at least some of it—be earmarked to deal with fuel poverty in Scotland?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The money should never have been taken in the first place. It is a highly damaging tax. Perhaps the Executive could talk to colleagues in Westminster about that. I go along with Alex Neil's point.

The SNP's policies will result in massively increased fuel costs in the future if its anti-nuclear programme goes ahead. In Scotland today, almost 50 per cent of energy generation comes from the nuclear industry. We could say that that is renewable energy. If we follow on from Jack McConnell's comment yesterday that we are to meet a target of 40 per cent renewables without nuclear energy at some time in the future, the SNP policy would be a disaster for Scotland and a disaster for the people who suffer from fuel poverty today and in the future.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

This is a debate on the fuel poverty statement. Has Phil Gallie, or any other member of the Tory party, actually read the fuel poverty statement?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Yes, we have, and we recognise its implications. That apart, I will highlight some of the future problems on the energy front that will affect fuel poverty. First, if we drop nuclear energy and go for generation by gas, that will have a major impact on importation and costs. If we go down the line of simply abandoning our nuclear programme and looking towards renewable energy, we will have nothing with which to top up. Nuclear energy is a base-load facility that provides cheap energy for the bulk of our communities. We must consider that.

I wish to highlight problems that we face with the supply of gas in rural communities. People would like gas central heating. Given our natural gas resources, gas central heating is a reasonable way of heating one's home, but when I approached a gas company recently to supply gas to Ayrshire villages, I found that the capital cost to individuals for the supply of gas ran at £3,245 in Crosshill and £4,395 in Maidens and Kirkoswald. That supply would cover about 230 households in Crosshill and 387 households in Maidens and Kirkoswald. The capital cost of installation lies beyond the capabilities of most families and certainly the elderly. I ask the minister to consider that.

Finally, I will talk about alternatives. The people in rural communities who are obliged to use liquid petroleum gas experience problems with the minimum delivery levels that companies set. I acknowledge the problems that those companies face, but many individuals, elderly people and young families cannot find the cash for a 500-litre minimum delivery of LPG, which puts LPG out of bounds. Many requests for LPG deliveries are urgent, which shows that people cannot afford to put their capital into LPG containers. People ask not through choice, but through necessity, for urgent refills at the minimum level.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Since the establishment of our Scottish Parliament, we have already begun to make a difference. The statistics that Margaret Curran reeled off at the start of her speech—140,000 homes helped under the warm deal and 10,000 heating systems installed since last year—are beginning to make a difference to all our constituents. From talking to pensioners in my constituency, I know how much those initiatives are welcomed.

Joint work has been undertaken with the UK Government on the winter fuel allowance for pensioners and the reduction in VAT to 5 per cent on domestic fuel, and action is being taken on low pay and to eliminate mass unemployment. Many good things have happened.

The five approaches that are set out in the fuel poverty statement concern the total elimination of fuel poverty. I will focus on energy efficiency, because it is vital that the Scottish Executive takes the lead on that. I agree with Shelter on the importance of investment in our housing stock. That means decent insulation and efficient heating systems, which are essential if we are to eliminate fuel poverty.

In March, the new building regulations came into effect. They deliver a 25 per cent increase in energy efficiency. That is an example of the benefits of our devolved Parliament. Double glazing, draught exclusion, insulation and combined heat and power systems will all contribute to reducing people's fuel bills.

New initiatives are coming along the track. The new European Community directive on the energy performance of buildings will set a new framework throughout Europe. EC research shows that improved energy efficiency could reduce carbon emissions by 22 per cent. If we think about the debates in Johannesburg, new measures that involve energy auditing and energy efficiency must be strongly welcomed as part of the Executive's package. I welcome Margaret Curran's announcement on work with Friends of the Earth Scotland. That is a big step forward.

I see such measures in my constituency through the warmburgh initiative, which is a great example of partnership between the voluntary sector, local authorities and the energy companies. It means that people who live in tenements, who comprise half the households in Edinburgh, will have new opportunities. In my constituency, free energy audits and free energy saving advice are available. Crucially, grants to install energy efficiency measures can be accessed. The initiative is practical and it works. We would like more of that.

The challenge for the future is to incorporate new technology and examine new ideas. We should consider the opportunities that solar heating systems and photovoltaic technologies present. The new solar grants from the Department of Trade and Industry give us the chance to make a difference. The technology works, so we should roll it out with partnership between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government. It is a win-win solution. We can tackle and eliminate fuel poverty while protecting the environment. We in the Parliament must be in favour of that. Yesterday, the First Minister re-emphasised our 40 per cent renewables target. The fuel poverty statement mentions linking fuel poverty with renewable energy. I strongly welcome that link. That is a radical step forward that the Executive must develop.

I mentioned the new EC directive, which will push up standards. An important implication is that large building renovations will be required to incorporate new energy efficiency standards. That is a big opportunity for us in Scotland if we are thinking about brownfield developments that bring old buildings into new use.

The fuel poverty statement looks to the future. I hope that future legislation such as the building bill and future housing legislation will give us a new legal framework that will enable us not only to make our buildings wind and watertight when we improve them, but to build in energy efficiency standards for the future.

Tackling fuel poverty was one of the key objectives in Labour's 1999 manifesto. I am proud that we have made progress with our partnership Government in Scotland. We are working to eliminate fuel poverty. Energy efficiency must be part of that approach. It might be the less exciting part, but it is vital and will make a difference to people's health and their lives.

The commitments in the fuel poverty statement are measurable and practical. We can return to them, review them and examine progress. We must broadcast to people the facts that we are making a difference and that investment is coming to make that difference. We need to tell people that the work that we are doing in the Parliament is making a difference to their everyday lives. Several speakers, including Robert Brown, Karen Whitefield and the Minister for Social Justice, have touched on that.

We are making a difference. The challenge is to focus on that 15-year target, which is one of the things that we can be proud of. Along with free personal care and free local bus travel, fuel poverty initiatives are practical, tangible measures that our devolved Parliament is undertaking to improve people's lives.

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

The debate is welcome. I know that members of all parties are as committed as I am to ending fuel poverty. I welcome the new research that the minister announced, but we know some facts about fuel poverty already. We know that only those who are poor live in fuel poverty. People who are old, young or who have a long-term illness are more likely to live in a cold, damp home. People who live in cold, damp homes are almost certainly poor, because if they were not poor, they would not live in cold, damp homes—they would have alternatives.

Fuel poverty is a scandal in oil-rich 21st century Scotland. We pay a high price for it in ill-health and excess heating bills and in stress and worry for the families who are involved. I welcome the Government's central heating initiative and I acknowledge that it has made a difference to many people, but I will highlight the adverse effects of fuel poverty on two of my constituents in central Fife and how the Government's programme has not met their needs.

The first constituent is a 46-year-old disabled man whose central heating system does not work. He has mobility problems because of childhood polio and he has sciatica. He also takes medication for irritable bowel syndrome. However, he does not receive disability living allowance. He is unemployed and an owner-occupier. As a result of his illnesses, he spends much time at home, where the lack of central heating exacerbates his health problems. He needs a warm house, but because of his age, he is ineligible for help under the Executive's scheme. My office has spent months trying to assist him. We have contacted the local authority, charities and other agencies to try to find assistance for that young man. So far, we have been unable to offer him any assistance.

I would like to hear from the minister how that young man is to be assisted to get himself out of fuel poverty.

The second constituent is a pensioner from Glenrothes. She is entitled to help under the Executive's central heating scheme, but she has been informed that, because of the backlog, new central heating will not be installed in her home for a further 18 months. That will leave her throughout this winter in a cold, damp home. She phoned me last week and said that she cannot face another winter in that house without central heating. She is arranging to pay from her savings to have central heating installed.

I have pursued fuel poverty over the life of the Parliament. In last year's debate on fuel poverty, I voiced my concerns about the central heating scheme criteria. I will restate that Shelter Scotland said at that time that it would be

"very concerned if the Executive think their central heating scheme will be a major step in eradicating fuel poverty."

It is a step forward, but it is not a major step and we should not allow the Executive to believe that that is the case. I chose to highlight two individual cases to expose the inadequacies in the Executive's scheme. Common sense dictates that those two constituents should be given help and that they should be given help now. They should not have the worry and stress of facing another Scottish winter in cold, damp homes.

I believe that Margaret Curran is personally committed to tackling poverty. I urge her to look again at the central heating programme and consider ways of helping many more people out of fuel poverty.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I would like to bring something of a Highland perspective to the issue. Before I do so, I want to say that real progress has been made and that is a tremendous thing to see. However, progress has not been made without the hitches that have been alluded to during the debate.

One of my constituents, Mr David Matthews of Rogart, had to wait for over a year before all the glitches were sorted out and his central heating system was installed. Before that happened, his hopes were raised and dashed again. Luckily, we have gone beyond that, but the period in which the glitches occurred was not at all helpful. That said, what is being done now is extremely good indeed. One hears nothing but good words about the workmanship and speediness with which the central heating systems are installed.

I echo Robert Brown's description of himself as a technophobe. I am also one, but Mr Matthews describes himself as a reasonably sharp person. However, he told me that the dials and knobs that control his central heating system are almost beyond him. If the controls that operate the systems are wrongly designed, people will end up with radiators on when they do not want them to be on and that wastes money. It is worth bearing that point in mind.

Tricia Marwick mentioned the Scottish winter. Where are the hardest winters in Scotland to be found if not in the Highlands? I say to the minister that it is important that she takes an holistic approach in carrying out her good work. We could have another winter such as the last winter that we had in the Highlands when, under the new snow-clearing regime, some roads were blocked that had not been blocked in the past.

Such a winter means that, despite the best efforts and intentions of the Scottish Executive, lorries carrying oil will not get through to give people, who may have the best Rolls-Royce-quality central heating system, the oil that they need. Indeed, last winter, I spent Christmas day cooking the turkey on a Baby Belling—thank heavens I had one. I ask ministers to co-ordinate with BEAR Scotland and the local authorities. Things can go wrong despite the best efforts of ministers and events can fly in the face of what ministers are trying to do.

Everyone in the Highlands—Alasdair Morrison knows what I am on about—knows that every so often in high winds the hydro lines go down and people are plunged into darkness. I also say to ministers that it behoves them to stay in touch with the power companies. Ministers have to ask the companies what they are going to do and what their programme of investment is.

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

I recognise that the weather in the area that Jamie Stone represents is cold and windy. However, does Jamie Stone recognise that we have a greater number of deaths each winter per head of population in Scotland than is the case in Siberia? If cold, wet, damp, windy conditions can be coped with in Siberia, how on earth is it that, in oil-rich Scotland, we cannot cope with them?

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

It is nice to hear the nationalist drum being beaten from time to time. I ask Tricia Marwick to come and see the northern Highlands. She will get a shock when she sees what the weather is like.

It is important that ministers co-ordinate their work with the local enterprise network. Robert Grant, a coal merchant who lives in the village of Bonar Bridge, is one example of why that is necessary. Robert Grant has been in business for 29 years. His business operates in a way that allows his sales on the east side of the county of Sutherland to subsidise his sales to western parts of the county—places such as Lochinver and Kinlochbervie. Because of competition and the fact that people are converting to the electric, his sales base in the east side of the county no longer supports his deliveries to the west side.

After 29 years of business, and with a son who would take over the business, he is thinking of coming out of delivering coal. What does that do for pensioners, crofters and all the other people who live somewhere like Lochinver and who need coal? It is not good news for them. I have written to the local enterprise company about the issue to ask what can be done by way of grant assistance and what approach the enterprise company will take to address the problem. That is an example of another issue that impacts on what ministers are trying to do about fuel poverty.

I am proud to be part of a Parliament that can look people in the eye and say, "This is what we have done for you." I have received nothing but good letters on the subject, letters of thanks for the central heating systems that have been installed. The scheme has been extremely well received and it makes an incredible difference to people's lives—ministers should be proud of that. That said, ministers have to ensure that what they are doing does not get derailed. I advise the ministers concerned to co-ordinate their work with the power companies, the local enterprise network and—in particular in the Highlands—with the people who clear the roads.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Like many other members who have spoken today, I welcome the Executive statement and its commitment to eradicate fuel poverty.

We are all aware of the lack of robust information that makes the task of identifying those in fuel poverty difficult. We have heard stories from members today that can be added to the minister's list. In trying to reach our shared goal of eradicating fuel poverty, it is crucial that we continue to work in partnership with the voluntary and private sectors and, most important, that we continue to work at local level. Only in that way will we be able to identify the people who have to make a choice between whether they eat or heat their homes.

The Executive statement included mention of its use of continuous surveys to help to identify people in need. I await with interest the minister's findings in that respect and hope that she will decide to continue to use continuous surveys as a way of identifying people. She has promised to announce her decision on that later this year.

Much has been said this morning about the introduction of the free central heating programme for pensioners. The Executive had hard decisions to make and it was correct to take the decision to reach the pensioners who had no central heating at all. Pensioners in my constituency have benefited from the scheme and will continue to do so. Unlike Tricia Marwick, I believe that the programme is a step in the right direction. I would be happy to take her—and anybody else who would like to come—to meet some of the pensioners in my constituency who are delighted with the way in which their systems were installed and the warm homes that they now live in.

I say to the minister that, having accepted that we must prioritise, which was a decision that the Executive considered very carefully, I have raised previously with ministers, both in committee and in debate in the Parliament, the plight of the pensioners who have partial or inefficient systems. Those systems are usually many years old and they could not be said to be energy efficient. My constituents, in common with people up and down Scotland, can spend a lot of money and a large percentage of their income on fuel without getting the benefit of a warm home. I ask the minister to advise me, today or by letter, what is the current position on that, what the Executive's thinking is on the matter and how we take it forward.

In her opening statement, the minister mentioned building regulations and the need for incentives to build fuel-efficient homes. I welcome her announcement this morning that funding will be given to Friends of the Earth Scotland to enable it to carry out energy auditing. I hope that Friends of the Earth will start that work in the private sector. If homes are given an energy rating, one that people can understand and on which they can put a price in real terms, that will provide an incentive to builders to build fuel-efficient homes. If such information were to be shown in sales pitches, it would act as an incentive to prospective purchasers to look out for fuel-efficient homes.

The Executive has set targets for the public sector. I believe that the new building regulations can be used to ensure that public funding is made available to councils, housing associations and individuals who apply for repair or improvement grants only if they demonstrate that the houses that they are building or the works that they are carrying out will ensure that those homes are heated and insulated to an acceptable standard and level to comply with recognised targets for fuel efficiency.

We could discuss the issue at greater length, but I am pleased and proud to be part of a Parliament that has progressed the issue so far. We have heard much from members on the Opposition benches, but they should put a price on their proposals. We all agree that we have set targets that will be difficult to meet, but I look forward to working with the Executive to ensure that we eradicate fuel poverty.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It has been an interesting morning. We have heard about Jamie Stone's cold turkey at Christmas—no doubt with cheese—and Cathie Craigie wants me to put a price on my head. There is no chance of that happening. There is a broad consensus about the problem of fuel poverty, the need to tackle it and give it a high priority—many high-quality speeches have mentioned that. However, some gibberish has been spoken that needs to be corrected.

I want to focus on some key fundamentals in respect of tackling fuel poverty. I welcome all the Executive's initiatives, but we should recognise that, even when those initiatives are fully implemented, there may still be fuel poverty and cold, damp homes, as many people do not come under their ambit and will not qualify or be eligible for assistance.

I want to highlight three issues. First, fuel poverty cannot be isolated from the general issue of poverty in society. Whether we are discussing child poverty, pensioner poverty or any other kind of poverty, we should remember that many people who live in poverty must live in fuel poverty as a consequence. At the end of the day, there is only one fundamental and simple way to tackle poverty—by putting money into the pockets of the poor, one way or the other. We should ensure that they get decent jobs—which is the preferable option—ensure that they have decent pensions and that children have decent standards of living. Until society is prepared to put real money into the pockets of the poor, poverty will continue and fuel poverty will also continue. That is a basic truth—it is a fact of life and not an opinion. The Parliament does not have the power or resources to tackle poverty at its roots.

Secondly, I agree with Phil Gallie, which is unusual for me. He said that there should be cheap forms of energy in this country. However, his suggestion that cheap forms could be obtained from nuclear energy is absolute nonsense. I asked Bill Aitken what the Conservatives would do if British Energy threatened to go belly up. Would he be prepared to put in £500 million on top of the other billions of pounds of taxpayers' money that we have wasted in the nuclear industry to save British Energy? That should happen only if, in return, it comes back into the public sector. If there is any industry that should be publicly owned in this country, it is the nuclear industry.

Nuclear energy is not cheap energy. Lloyd Quinan made the important point that, in Scotland in 2002, we are discussing the incidence of fuel poverty and tackling it in perhaps five, 10 or 15 years, but we are living in a country that is not just the most energy-rich country in Europe—in global terms, Scotland is about the fifth or sixth energy-richest country in the world per head of population.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does Alex Neil understand that the issue is complex and is about more than fuel input? A package of measures from all sorts of directions is required. Does he agree that the aspect that he and Lloyd Quinan mentioned is a bit of an irrelevance to the central debate?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Not at all. After the events of the past few days, I would have thought that for any Liberal Democrat to call someone else irrelevant would be something of a joke, given the situation that the Liberal Democrats face in the Administration. There is no longer either a coalition or a partnership. The old boys are certainly not being pally together.

Scotland is an energy-rich country, and not just in respect of oil. Scotland provides 30 per cent of natural gas for UK consumption. It is rich in uranium, coal, wind power and solar power. According to the European Union, Scotland is the renewable energy capital of Europe. That begs the question, why are we so energy rich, but so poor in respect of fuel poverty?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The report mentions November 2016 as the deadline for eradicating fuel poverty. Does the member appreciate that gas reserves are finite and will be much diminished by then? Will he explain how on earth nuclear energy will be replaced by renewables or anything else by that time, given the current state of technology, and how fuel prices will be kept down?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I would be happy to debate energy supply at any time. I understand that gas and oil reserves are finite, but latest reports on reserves in the North sea and the Atlantic state that they will last at least another 40 or 50 years on the basis of current consumption. Therefore, there is no short-term problem to be faced and I am sure that, in 40 or 50 years, the technology will exist to replace those sources of energy with renewable sources.

Unfortunately, my time is running out. The final point that I want to make is that the Executive's fuel poverty initiatives are welcome, but we should recognise that some policies that have been implemented at Westminster fly in the face of the policies that the Executive has implemented, particularly in relation to certain tax policies that the chancellor has implemented. As we are discussing energy and fuel poverty, I should point out that, in his budget this year, the chancellor levied an additional £7 billion of tax on the oil industry in Scotland. The argument about whether he should have done so seems to be over for the time being, but now that he has done so, we should get that £7 billion into the Parliament and earmark a good chunk of it to end fuel poverty, not in 2016, but by, say, 2006 so that people who are alive today will not need to live another 10 or 12 years in fuel poverty.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

As Alex Neil was speaking, Cathie Craigie re-entered the chamber and sat down. I listened to him and a wee smile came across my face. Other people might not have a price on his head, but last night I read a wee story in the papers that said that Jim Sillars might be suggesting that John Swinney might have a price on Mr Neil's head. Perhaps we will let that stick to the wall.

It is good to put the debate in the big global context and the big picture, although it is right for Phil Gallie, Alex Neil and Lloyd Quinan to speak about energy issues, reserves and the way forward for the future. However, we must remember that gas is not a commodity that can be stored. We should remember that it will last no longer than three days in our pipes—I am talking about wet and dry gas. I returned from a visit to Norway last week where we were well briefed on many such important topics. Globally, we should remember what has been happening in India, where there have been major and massive power cuts in recent months. We should bear that in mind as we discuss the more immediate issues in Scotland.

Like Cathie Craigie, I have reflected on the work that our ministers have done and have done so with real pleasure that I am part of a coalition team that has delivered on a whole range of issues. As Jamie Stone said, our ministers, who are sitting on the front bench, have every reason to be proud.

Out of all the measures that the Parliament has introduced, I was most inundated with phone calls from pensioners and constituents about the central heating programme. It was the biggest issue to affect them. They warmly welcomed and were delighted by the initiative, which was probably part of the biggest-ever programme in Scotland to tackle fuel poverty and which has made a great difference to the people whom I represent.

I think about the work that the minister is doing in that area, but I also think about the new housing partnerships and the housing improvement task force and the impact that its work will have on the quality of homes in Scotland. I think, too, about the strategy that the minister spoke about earlier and how that will be supported by all the devolved Administrations, not just in Scotland but in Wales and Northern Ireland. I hope that we will have eradicated fuel poverty by 2010 for the most vulnerable households. We look forward to that.

I will skip a bit of what I wanted to say because other speakers have said it. However, I want to highlight particular issues that I would ask the ministers to take on board. I have looked at various papers from various sources about issues such as the proposed index of housing quality. An issue that affected me and which many disability groups have raised with me is how controls and appliances are installed in homes across Scotland. Many people cannot get down to the switches to switch them on because the switches are at ankle level. They should be at waist level because people with arthritis simply cannot get down. Similarly, people who have had a hip replaced, as I did, cannot get down to switches for a time either. I once sat cold and freezing, huddled in blankets, until my family came in later in the day to put on the switches. That kind of thing comes home to one when one is personally affected. Since then, I have spoken about the issue with pensioners and I know that they are confronted with such situations all the time. Our standards should be clear and there should be no switches or controls in any homes in Scotland that are not accessible to disabled people, who are always the most vulnerable when it comes to fuel poverty.

Lastly, I want to highlight an aspect that concerns Crossgates, a village in my constituency. I suggest that the minister might consider making a visit to Crossgates, which got an award for being one of the most energy-efficient villages in Scotland. It has had particular regard to aspects that affect our most vulnerable groups. Crossgates is just another example of good work between the Executive, the local authorities and the private sector, which has also been involved. That kind of initiative replicated across Scotland would begin to make a difference to many people.

I applaud the important work that the minister is doing. As ever, he is a shining example to all of us and I wish him more strength to his elbow.

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

We move to wind-up speeches. Times are as indicated, but we have a little time for interventions.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To watch Margaret Curran and Kenny Gibson—two vigorous politicians—agreeing on so much was an illustration of how much agreement there is about eradicating the scandal of fuel poverty from Scotland today.

There were a couple of exceptions, however, to that consensus. One of them, of course, was arguably the best deadpan comic turn outside the festival. That was Mr Aitken, who managed to ignore 18 years, as Sarah Boyack rightly said, of pensioner poverty, three million unemployed—"A price worth paying"—and everything else, to illustrate that everything that the Executive is doing is down to him and a previous Conservative Government. Yes, really.

The second exception was the now sadly departed Mr Alex Neil, who provided a couple of fundamental points from a fundamentalist. I am sure that all politicians enjoyed Alex's creative and positive contribution to his own party in a recent Sunday newspaper article. Few will take lectures on the joys of politics from Mr Neil in that regard.

This has been an important debate. At the start of the last parliamentary year before next year's Scottish general election a warm, well-insulated, energy-efficient home must be the aim of any civilised community, irrespective of health, wealth or age. Society should, through its various means, deliver that objective. Therefore, the Government is right—and I accept that the Opposition has acknowledged that—to endorse and, indeed, enlarge its exacting targets for the eradication of fuel poverty.

I am sure that both ministers have a hard task in ensuring what is probably the most important aspect of the fuel poverty issue, which is the delivery of their objective across all the departments of government. Many members raised in the debate different aspects of the issue that spread across many departments and agencies of government. To ensure that the Government drives in the right direction on one particular issue is a key task and a difficult one. If Hugh Henry and Margaret Curran can deliver that and break down the traditional departmentalitis in government, they will have delivered something valuable indeed.

I will pick up on a couple of brief points from the debate. One is on energy deregulation. The latest studies show that simple free-market energy deregulation helps everyone and is best value, particularly for disadvantaged groups. It does not appear to me to be sensible that Scottish consumers pay more because they are less likely to switch between different suppliers, as happens south of the border. There is a need for ministers to consider that policy within the current debate on energy regulation.

The progress on the warm deal is, as members said, significant and welcome. Between April 1999 and March 2001, 96,300 homes have been insulated and emissions of CO2 have been cut by 77,000 tonnes, which is a point worth bearing in mind in the week of the Johannesburg summit when societies and countries across the globe are considering what contributions they can make. All will recall the Rio statement of "Think global, act local". The warm deal strategy is surely an illustration of that.

The other aspect of the warm deal that I believe is important is the number of people who have been taken out of unemployment and are part of the work going on in home insulation companies across Scotland. In my own constituency of Shetland, Heatwise does an excellent job in that regard.

On the central heating programme, considerable investment is being made on installing central heating and insulation in eligible properties, which are council housing and housing association tenants and pensioners in private homes. However, I raise one note of discord on the central heating programme and that is to do with the performance of the Eaga Partnership. In a week when other ministers have come a little bit unstuck in relation to quangos, it is important for ministers to keep a close eye on the performance of the agency given the task of installing the central heating. I understand that I am not the only constituency member to have had representations about the speed of action from Eaga. I could read the minister various letters. Indeed, I have probably sent him a couple of them. I would be grateful, therefore, if in his wind-up speech Mr Henry could assure Parliament that ministers are keeping a close eye on the performance of that agency. It needs to perform for us to get the benefit of the programme.

I acknowledge that when Parliament is asked in a year's time what it has done as an institution in its first session, the central heating programme will arguably be one of the most tangible illustrations of change that Parliament has achieved. I agree with Sarah Boyack on that point. As a Liberal Democrat, my long-standing aspiration has been to tackle the scandal of fuel poverty. To be part of partnership parties that are doing something about it and to be able to proudly say that during the next election will be a subject of satisfaction for my party and me.

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I too am glad that the Executive has found time so early in the Parliamentary year to debate fuel poverty, particularly in the season approaching our traditional cold and wet winters—but that description could equally describe our summers.

We are indebted to the many organisations that take a strong and continuing interest in fuel poverty. If I do not name them all, forgive me. I am thinking of Shelter, Age Concern Scotland, Capability Scotland, the National Asthma Campaign and the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland. We are grateful to them all.

I listened carefully to all the opening volleys and although there were some spats there was much to applaud in all the contributions. It would be erroneous not to say that we welcome the extra money that the minister has given to local authorities for insulation.

Let us look at the background to fuel poverty. How does it arise? Fuel poverty is caused primarily by a combination of low income, high fuel costs and poor energy efficiency. Members referred to that in the debate. The health consequences of fuel poverty are severe. Members mentioned cases within their constituencies and facts that have been brought to their attention.

The number of cases of hypothermia is higher in Scotland than in England and Wales. Winter mortality rates are also high: there are 2,000 more deaths in Scotland during the cold part of the year than there are during the warm part. Asthma and other respiratory diseases can result from dampness and condensation. One need only look at classrooms of children to see the numbers using inhalers because of breathing difficulties.

Furthermore, if a household has to spend a greater proportion of its income on fuel, it necessarily cannot spend that money on nutritious food and other health-related activity. In this day and age, it is appalling that we make people make such decisions.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Lyndsay McIntosh has given a wide range of causes of poverty, but does she recognise that an even harsher climate and things such as remoteness are extremely important causes of poverty in areas such as the Highlands and Islands?

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am happy to accept Jamie Stone's comments, but if he will forgive me, I shall come to those issues in a wee moment.

I noted Tavish Scott's pejorative winding-up comments, but we should consider the interesting facts about privatisation. In real terms, there has been a 29 per cent fall in domestic electricity prices. Members may doubt me, but those are the figures given in the Electricity Association's press release of 21 January this year. In real terms, there has also been a 29 per cent fall in domestic gas prices. That figure comes from the House of Commons library and is based on figures provided by the Office for National Statistics. To ascribe those changes to the birth of this Parliament belittles the efforts that were made in the past.

Karen Whitefield mentioned Petersburn. Let me describe the area for those who do not know it. Petersburn was like Bethlehem with its flat roofs. Karen Whitefield rightly highlighted how the Link Housing Association in Petersburn—which I too have visited—has made such a difference in the fuel efficiency of the houses. The condition of the buildings is fantastic.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am glad that the member took the time to visit Petersburn, but I would have been grateful had she told me that she was in my constituency.

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

Lyndsay McIntosh, you have about one minute.

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I will talk quickly then.

Karen Whitefield is right that huge strides forward are being made in Petersburn. She also made some excellent points about asthma and the dust mite problem.

Lloyd Quinan mentioned the inequality of pre-payment meters, which can make things difficult and disadvantage people.

Phil Gallie also made a good point. Given that he worked in the energy sector, I bow to his superior knowledge—

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Oh no, please do not.

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

We cannot take it away from him, Jamie. He knows what he is talking about.

Phil Gallie made a good point about liquid petroleum gas. That brings me to Jamie Stone's point about the huge difficulties involved in getting fuels to people because of the roads and because of the minimum fuel payments that are required.

Quite rightly, Tricia Marwick justified what she said by giving us examples of people who fall into those pockets that mean that they do not get to the top of the list. The situations that Tricia Marwick described should shame us all.

Jamie Stone mentioned transport and the problems regarding the requirement for a minimum quantity of fuel delivery. He also highlighted the problems in delivering coal. Such things can happen even if one has a Rolls-Royce system.

I feel sorry for Jamie Stone because he had to cook the turkey on a Baby Belling. Then again, he could have had cheese, of which I know he always has a large stock.

Cathie Craigie picked up on energy audits. Being a technophobe, I do not necessarily understand all the technical data. I am happy to go with whatever has a label saying that it is the most fuel-efficient.

Helen Eadie spoke about disability. There is no doubt that some people have difficulty in operating the controls—like Robert Brown, I am a technophobe and I need things to be clear—especially those who have conditions that come with old age, such as arthritis. We need to have systems that make things easier for people to use.

I apologise and crave the Presiding Officer's indulgence if I have overrun my limit.

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

We are more or less on time. Linda Fabiani has seven minutes.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I speak as a regional MSP who also covers Karen Whitefield's area. I have not yet visited the scheme that was mentioned, but I am going to—and I am not going to tell her when, because I do not have to.

The SNP believes that no one in Scotland should suffer from fuel poverty. Everyone would agree with that. However, as we have heard from Lloyd Quinan, Tricia Marwick and Alex Neil, we generate so much fuel energy that warm housing should not be dependent on wealth. It should be a basic human right in our energy-rich nation.

Low incomes and low benefits are given as the first major factor in causing fuel poverty. The Executive has acknowledged that in its statement. However, the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to alter benefit rates, nor do we have sufficient power over the economy to create the conditions for improving income rates. Fuel costs are given as the second major factor but, as Lloyd said, we do not have the power to regulate fuel prices.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will Fiona give way?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No. I am not Fiona, so I certainly will not. Phil is always on the ball—up to date with everything.

In the absence of the ability to use the fundamental levers to effect radical change, we have to do what we can. The SNP supports the coalition Government in its intent to eradicate fuel poverty. The SNP broadly welcomes the central heating programme and the warm deal. However, as we have heard today—from Sarah Boyack and Karen Whitefield in particular—those things in isolation are not enough to effect change. They can help only if they are part of a bigger picture.

Helen Eadie will be pleased to know that building regulations now insist that socket points should be at decent heights. I am sure that that will be a huge relief to her.

Energy efficiency in housing is crucial. The improvement in building regulations is a start; it is a statement of intent. I hope that we can achieve building standards and thermal efficiency in housing of a level as high as that in Scandinavia, where people do not suffer from fuel poverty and where the weather, in parts, is even colder than ours. However, we have had that debate before.

As Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations never tire of reminding us, without decent housing the expenditure on services for that housing—services such as central heating—will simply fly straight out of the single-glazed steel-framed window, or straight through the roof that has not been properly thermally insulated.

Expenditure and innovation are required, and there are many good examples. Fyne Homes Ltd in Lochgilphead has a scheme that uses a communal heating system for a housing estate. It is fired by woodchips. That is innovation and an example of the way forward.

Phil Gallie mentioned the problem of heating in rural areas where we cannot have natural gas. In Cairndow, people managed at the time—though I still do not know quite how—to get funding from Scottish Homes not only to put in wood-burning fires with back boilers, but to put in storage tanks and gas central heating as well. That gave people options in how to spend their money and heat their homes. It can be done.

The cheapest housing solution is not always the best. We have to acknowledge that we have great expertise among our social housing providers and their agents—the architects. Those people are capable of providing innovative solutions to help with fuel poverty. We have to fund people to make those real improvements. We have to judge applications for social rented housing not entirely on the cost per unit. We should judge housing developments on their long-term sustainability.

Let us set milestones for a decent home standard. That has been done in England. I know that there have been problems, but the intention is to have decent homes by a specific time. With such a standard, we could tie in the central heating programme, the warm deal and all the rest. We could start by improving the minimum tolerable standard, which has been in place for more than 30 years, which is ludicrous. We should be considering raising that standard.

The SNP wants this statement to work. I worry that it will not, because of some of the evidence that I heard at the Social Justice Committee about the lack of skills available to carry on the central heating programme. We must constantly monitor the programme's effect, carrying out investigations as to who it is reaching and pick up all those who are being missed.

We heard evidence at the Social Justice Committee that we should be frontloading the investment. It is only by frontloading the investment that we will ensure that we are not leaving to the end those who are most in need. That is important for people who do not come forward because they do not know that they are entitled, and because we could end up with a backlog of poor housing.

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Are you suggesting that by not frontloading we could miss the 2016 target completely?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It worries me that there is potential for that. I hope that that will not be the case. When new initiatives are set out it is often those in the know who come forward first—those in areas where people are going out and actively encouraging them to participate. There are still houses in this country that have stone walls, where insulation is not possible.

The Deputy Presiding Officer is indicating that I should wind up, so I will, although I could talk about the subject forever. I would like some clarification about one of the process milestones, in relation to private rented sector houses, for 2006. Will that also cover obsolete heating systems and partial central heating systems in places such as East Kilbride, which was used for dummy runs in the 1960s and 1970s for all sorts of nonsense heating systems that are now obsolete?

It is not even worth considering supporting the Tory amendment. I often feel that the Conservative party has a set amendment which rubbishes everyone else and says that the Tories are great, into which they slot the appropriate debate. They do not bother to prepare for the debate—they just come in and spout the usual old rubbish. However, the SNP amendment is marvellous and I urge members to support it.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Debates such as today's present an opportunity for the Parliament to express in meaningful terms what it can contribute to the lives of ordinary men, women and children across Scotland. Although there is a lot of jargon associated with the debate—there are many acronyms and other terms that are only meaningful to professionals—in reality, the debate is about trying to express tangibly our desire, aspiration and determination to improve the quality of life of the people whom we represent.

I am sure that I am not the only person in the chamber or associated with the Parliament who has experienced at first hand just what fuel poverty means. We should not forget what fuel poverty does to the lives of ordinary people. We all know the statistics on mortality and ill-health, but unless one has first-hand experience of waking up in a house with an inch of ice inside the window, or of the humiliation of going to bed in the winter with more clothes on than you wore during the day because your house is so cold, or of living in a house where if you move 2ft away from the only coal fire you are immediately cold, then the rest of the debate is academic. Unfortunately, for far too many people in Scotland that is reality. The pain, suffering, indignity and ill health that go with fuel poverty still blight too many households and the lives of too many people. That is why the Executive is determined to do something about it.

The statement and the Executive's programme set ambitious targets. In a sense, that ambition is relative, because we can look at other countries that have done so much better than us over so many years. In a sense, our ambitious targets are only ambitious because of our abject failure over so many years to have done something about it. We have come late to the debate, but having come late to it we are determined to do something about the matter. In relative terms, it is still ambitious for us to do what we intend to do in a short space of time. I am heartened by the consensus in the chamber—everyone shares the ambition to do something. We may quibble and argue about whether it is being done fast enough, but we all share the intention to do something about it.

I was amused by Alex Neil's attachment to dates and targets. He wants it done by 2006. Having had his fingers burned by the SNP's target to be free by 2003, I would have thought that he might want to ca cannie on dates. Perhaps the target was to be free by 1983 or 1993. All I know is that Alex Neil's ambitions on dates are unachievable. We will do something about this problem and we will do it as soon as is practically possible.

A number of specific points have been made in the debate, which we will try to answer at a later date. Some of those can be dealt with if members write to either Margaret Curran or myself.

I will consider some of the general points that have been made.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Margaret Curran referred to a grant being made to Friends of the Earth for some kind of review. Given what the minister has said, it seems that he has a very firm grasp of the situation with respect to fuel poverty, can he explain the detail of the grant and its purpose?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The grant is being made in response to the issue that Cathie Craigie raised in her speech. There is a need to have an audit of the type of houses that we have and to encourage more energy efficient houses. Friends of the Earth will attempt to identify the energy efficiency of houses that are being sold. The aim is to give buyers information, not only about structural problems that surveys would pick up, but practical information about how much the house would cost to heat and what work would be required to make heating the house affordable. It is a trial to establish what that type of exercise can show us and whether there could be wider applicability. We await the results of the exercise with interest. It is undoubtedly the case, as Cathie Craigie and other members have said, that we need to know more about the type of houses that we have and we need to encourage the creation of more energy efficient houses.

Kenny Gibson mentioned the need for a single entry. We are attempting to do that as far as possible, to ensure that there is simplicity for those who require help and information and to eliminate complexities where possible.

Robert Brown and other members have mentioned the need for training. We are keeping a close eye on that. We recognise that there is a need to have qualified engineers. We are not aware of immediate problems, but we are in contact with the agencies involved to ensure that, if necessary, the resources are put in to have qualified engineers to deliver the systems and meet the targets.

Some interesting points have been raised about asthma and ill health. We will reflect on that matter. Asthma is an increasing problem in our society and it would not be wise to tackle one problem by creating another one. We will examine closely what has been said.

Cathie Craigie, Robert Brown and other members have mentioned partial systems. By 2004, we will move on to public sector tenants who have partial systems. The intention in that phase is to give priority to the elderly. Beyond that, we will have to consider the resources that are available to us for those who are in the private sector. We recognise that partial systems are a problem, as are—as Linda Fabiani said—some of the houses that are now approaching what could almost be described as their mid-life crisis. Those houses were put up with the best of intentions, but some of them had peculiar heating systems. With Communities Scotland, we will examine that matter closely.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

As the minister knows, many of my constituents have benefited from having heating systems installed and others are in the process of having them installed. However, pensioners who rely on peat-fired stoves and heating systems are unfortunately excluded from the initiative. Does the minister agree that it is time to revisit the criteria for the scheme and to include those who are physically unable to cut, dry and take home peat to heat their homes?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Alasdair Morrison raises a similar issue to that raised by Phil Gallie and Jamie Stone, which is the problem of supporting people in rural areas. We must consider that. We do not want to ignore the plight of those in isolated communities.

Tavish Scott mentioned complaints and I have had correspondence from other members and from constituents on that. So far, the Eaga Partnership has met the targets that we set, but we will continue to discuss with Eaga to ensure that it meets targets and deals with complaints. In the first instance, complaints should be directed at Eaga, but if the system fails to respond, ministers will want to do something about that. However, at present, the targets are being met.

There are real and tangible examples of success. Members have mentioned correspondence from people who have benefited from their new heating systems. Mrs Baird, who is in the public gallery, is one such person. She did not have central heating until last Christmas. She told us that it was nice to get up each morning to the warmth.

As Robert Brown said, the central heating scheme might be the single best thing that the Parliament has done. I echo the comments of Mr and Mrs Hughes of Liberton who told me, when I visited their home, that if the Executive does nothing else for them, receiving their first central heating system will have made it worth while. Those are the words of ordinary people expressing gratitude, but also what they think they are entitled to. Such words make the scheme worth while, but they should also make us more determined to ensure that the targets are reached and surpassed as soon as possible.

Business Motion

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

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-3346, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a business programme. I ask Euan Robson to move the motion.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The motion includes the Scottish National Party's debate on Thursday 12 September.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business— Wednesday 11 September 2002 2:30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Executive Debate on Scotland's Links with the United States of America followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business—debate on the subject of S1M-3325 Mary Scanlon: Ferry Services to the Northern Isles Thursday 12 September 2002 9:30 am Scottish National Party Debate on Acute Services Review followed by Scottish National Party Debate on Performance of the Scottish Economy followed by Business Motion followed by Ministerial Statement on Spending Review 2002 2:30 pm Question Time 3:10 pm First Minister's Question Time 3:30 pm Executive Debate on Spending Review 2002 followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business—debate on the subject of S1M-3210 Cathie Craigie: Causing Death by Dangerous Driving Wednesday 18 September 2002 2:00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 1 Debate on Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 19 September 2002 9:30 am Stage 1 Debate on Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill followed by Business Motion 2:30 pm Question Time 3:10 pm First Minister's Question Time 3:30 pm Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business

(b) that Stage 1 of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill be completed by 1 November 2002 and (c) that the Justice 1 Committee reports to the Justice 2 Committee by 17 September 2002 on the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Solicitors in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment No.3) 2002.—[Euan Robson.]

Motion agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

Before we begin question time, I know that members will welcome the chairman and members of the Estonian Parliament's Environment Committee, who are in the gallery. They have been meeting our committees today. [ Applause. ]

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

David (None, Lothians)

: It is with particular pleasure that I call Margaret Ewing to ask question 1. We are glad to see her back. [ Applause. ]

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Thank you, Presiding Officer and fellow members, for that warm welcome back. I thank everyone in the parliamentary complex who gave me such support and encouragement during my recent illness. It is good to be back to see everyone again.

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will make a commitment to improving the road transport facilities in Moray following the representations made to the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning by the Elgin bypass steering group. (S1O-5470)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I, too, welcome Mrs Ewing back to business.

I was happy to hear the views of local representatives when I visited Elgin last week. Moray Council has agreed to let me see the results of its recently commissioned investigation into traffic issues, which will inform future discussions.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thank the minister for his reply and for his interesting visit to Elgin. As a former candidate in Moray, he perhaps recalls with nostalgia the importance that the constituency attaches to an Elgin bypass and to the A96 as a whole. When he receives the results of that survey, will he be able to give us a clear time commitment for the building of such a bypass?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I will not, but I shall await the results with great interest and read them closely. As Margaret Ewing said, Elgin is a town that I know well and I am familiar with its traffic situation. When Moray Council and its partners lobbied me last week, they were clear that they needed to put a case together before looking to us for whatever support might be available. I was impressed with the rational basis on which they put their case and with their broad base of support, which included the town's trade unions and business community as well as Elgin community council. I was also impressed with the informed way in which they recognised that, although it was useful to us to hear views and opinions, we would need to make a judgment on the basis of evidence.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, say to Margaret Ewing that it is nice to see her back again.

As the minister knows, I have also been involved in the campaign for the Elgin bypass. I appreciate what the minister has said, but I am concerned about the present dangers to pedestrians, especially the elderly. The trunk road cuts right through the town of Elgin and, for example, separates sheltered housing complexes from the post office—old people find it difficult to cross that busy road. What progress has been made in dealing with the safety issues on the road?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We are aware of those issues, some of which have been highlighted by the significant roadworks in Elgin this summer. That is why the Executive has asked BEAR Scotland Ltd to undertake a review of pedestrian-crossing facilities in the centre of Elgin. I also understand that the local authority will seek the inclusion of two pedestrian crossings in Tesco's scheme for the development of a new store.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I remind the minister that Elgin is not the only town in Moray that awaits a bypass. The people of Keith continue to wait in hope that an announcement will be made some day, preferably not never. Will the Executive take this opportunity to answer the calls of Scottish business by committing itself to significant capital spending on transport infrastructure in its upcoming spending review, so that it can help to remove the barriers to economic growth, which is currently inhibited by the lack of development of our roads network?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Mr Johnstone will be aware that we have a significant programme of capital investment in our roads and transport systems generally, which will continue to bring the benefits to business to which he refers. There is no proposal in the programme for a bypass at Keith. However, there is an agreed proposal for a bypass at Fochabers, which will make a significant difference to traffic movement on the A96. That will be implemented as quickly as possible.

David (None, Lothians)

To keep it in the family, question 2 is from Fergus Ewing.

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

I am used to my wife having the last word, but nowadays she has the first word as well.

To ask the Scottish Executive whether a submission should be made to the European Commission calling for the west of Scotland total allowable catch of nephrops to be increased by removing the 10 per cent reduction introduced last year and, if so, whether it has made any such proposal to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and what DEFRA's response was. (S1O-5503)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The Scottish Executive has put that proposal to DEFRA and it is in agreement that such a case should and will be put to the Commission.

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

I am pleased to hear that news and I hope that the minister will agree that nephrops in plentiful supply are vital to west coast fishermen in Scotland, not least to those in Mallaig in my constituency. It is also important to note that the nephrops fishery poses no threat to the cod species. Does the minister agree that—to paraphrase Michael Hestletine—never in the history of the common fisheries policy have so many crustaceans survived in vain?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Gosh, I do not know how long it took to come up with that. I am bound to say that Fergus Ewing has not had enough to do during the summer recess.

I support the view that we need to restore the catch in the west of Scotland. For the benefit of other members, let me say that I believe that the nephrops catch should also be restored in the North sea. Fergus Ewing is right about the sustainable level—to judge by the figures, the current quota is way below the sustainable level. First, we will argue for the restoration of what was cut, but we will do so—as we did last year—on the basis that the bycatch is not relevant, as our evidence proves. Secondly, we will continue to argue that the overall catch should be set in line with the science, which did not happen last year.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I appreciate that the minister agrees that that fishing stock is of immense importance to Scottish fishermen and processors. What was his department's view of the fact that no scientific evidence was offered on why a 10 per cent cut was necessary?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The 10 per cent cut and the setting of the total allowable catch were based on a total misconception about the nature of the bycatch. The persistence of the Scottish Executive, and then DEFRA, led to evidence being put to the Commission to demonstrate that the way in which Scottish nephrops fishermen fished did not sustain the Commission's position. We made that case and I believe that the Commission accepted it for that time. It is now important to ensure that the Commission accepts that that was not just a one-off and that it is the way in which we fish for nephrops. What was cut should be restored.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome the minister's commitment to continue to fight the battle in Europe. In his reply to David Davidson, he said that we now have proof that the bycatch is insignificant. What more proof does Europe need to make its decisions? Surely by dint of that proof a decision should be taken to restore what was lost with the 10 per cent cut.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

When achieving the substantial restitution of catch—to a level above what the Commission originally suggested last year—we made that very point. The fact that we achieved that restitution indicated to me that the Commission accepted our case. The Commission has come back and now wants to take averages of figures over several years. We are making our case. We do not accept the Commission's position and the point that I have been making persistently is that the evidence that we have produced and the argument that Fergus Ewing and others are making is that the sustainable level of the fisheries is way above the TAC. There is no reason for Europe not to accede to that, but not doubt we will have to battle the case.

David (None, Lothians)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made in regard to the ex gratia payments from the Scottish Transport Group pension funds surplus. (S1O-5487)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Significant progress has been made and, by the end of last week, more than 2,500 payments had been made to pensioners, to a value of approximately £20 million.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

I welcome the fact that payments are—at last—being made. Is the minister aware that, under the current proposals, the Treasury will pocket more than 60 per cent of the surplus, while the ex-employees will receive less than 40 per cent and will also have to pay income tax? In contrast, in the case of the National Bus Company south of the border, about 60 per cent of the surplus went to the ex-employees, who received tax-free payments, as is usually the case with lump-sum payments from pension funds. Will the minister pursue those matters with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue in order to ensure full justice for the STG pensioners?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We are continuing to discuss with the Inland Revenue the taxable status of individual ex gratia payments. As Mr Canavan will know, the rules of the schemes in Scotland are different from those in England and have produced some differences in terms of their taxable status. In addition, the trustees of the Scottish schemes chose at an early stage not to make payments direct from the pension scheme in the way that the trustees from the English schemes chose to do. That was a matter for the trustees and is not something over which ministers have authority. However, we are continuing to discuss with the Inland Revenue whether there is any way of addressing that issue in order to improve the tax position of the Scottish pensioners.

I should add that, since my appearance at the Public Petitions Committee in the chamber a few weeks before the recess, we have spoken with the Treasury and have obtained an additional £8 million in accumulated surplus over the period to the wind-up of the scheme.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

What progress has been made in considering the claims of families where the bus pensioner has died?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The progress that has been made is that, where a beneficiary has died since the key date of 7 June 2002, which is when the scheme was wound up, the position is now straightforward: the benefit is paid at 100 per cent, as it would have been in other circumstances. We have also found a means by which to address the position in those cases where a beneficiary has died since 18 December 2000, which is the date on which the Scottish ministers announced agreement with the Treasury on distribution of the surplus. Those arrangements will allow 100 per cent of benefits to be paid to those widowed since December 2000.

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

Is it not inconceivable that the Scottish pensioners will be liable to income tax on those payments when their counterparts in England receive the payments free of tax? Does not that amount to a regime of fiscal apartheid and make a mockery of the claim that there is fairness in the United Kingdom?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

If Mr Ewing had listened closely to my answer to Mr Canavan, he would appreciate that the difference between the arrangements in Scotland and England is not one that lies with the Government or the Executive, but one that relates to the means by which the trustees of the different schemes chose to make payments to pensioners and beneficiaries. We are aware of the points that have been made by pensioners, which is why we have sought and obtained additional funds from the Treasury, so that the average pay-out to Scottish pensioners will be at least £1,000 more than the average pay-out to English pensioners. Clearly, we also want to address the tax position, which is why we are continuing to discuss the matter with the Inland Revenue.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with representatives of Railtrack over the upgrading of the west coast main line. (S1O-5490)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Scottish Executive is in regular contact with Railtrack on a wide range of issues, including railway infrastructure projects.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

It was reported in August that Railtrack might look to save money on the west coast line project by upgrading the line only as far north as Manchester. The upgrading is to allow tilting trains to tilt, which increases their maximum speed to 125mph. Full upgrading could cut journey times between London and Glasgow by up to an hour. Does the minister agree that it is essential to maintain a coherent rail network and to keep faith with the train operator that has purchased the tilting trains? Does he agree that, if we are to ensure journey times from Scotland to London that persuade travellers to use the most environmentally friendly mode of transport, which is the train, rather than the most polluting form, which is air, there can be no question of not upgrading the line along its complete length?

David (None, Lothians)

That question was rather long.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I agree with everything that Nora Donaldson said—[ Interruption. ] I agree with what Nora Radcliffe said, even if I cannot remember her name. [ Laughter. ] I apologise to the member.

The Strategic Rail Authority, which is responsible for the project, has made it clear that the upgrade covers the whole line, will increase capacity and will lead to shorter journey times along the entire route, including the Scottish part of it.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the minister give a categorical assurance that the current projected reduction in travel times will be achieved? If so, by what date will that happen? If not, why not?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

As my previous answer made clear, the Strategic Rail Authority is responsible for the matter. Along with its partners, the authority is reviewing its plans to upgrade the west coast main line. It will complete its review very soon and will issue a long-term strategy for this key route. We will then know the answers to some of Mr MacAskill's questions.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to resolve any short and longer-term structural financial problems facing West Lothian College. (S1O-5469)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Scottish Further Education Funding Council is responsible for funding Scotland's further education colleges. The council works closely with all our colleges to promote their efficiency and financial stability. Ministers have provided additional funding for the creation of a new FE development directorate in the Scottish Further Education Funding Council to improve governance and management across a wide range of issues, by drawing on existing expertise within the sector.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the minister recognise that the situation of West Lothian College is unique? Does he understand that it was the first private finance initiative-funded college and that it was set up by the old Scottish Office under the previous Conservative Government? Does he acknowledge that 13 staff members are being made redundant in an area where we need to ensure that students can learn new skills after the job losses at Motorola and NEC? Does he recognise that a one-off payment now to help a successful college that has to turn away students would save the taxpayer money in the long term? Does he agree that even the biggest fans of PFI—I am certainly not one of them—would never have set up a PFI contract of the sort under which West Lothian College has to operate?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I recognise the unique circumstances of West Lothian College. That is why to some extent it has been treated in a unique fashion in its funding regime. The college has received funding growth to 43,000 units of student activity four years earlier than planned. It has received special funding of around £3 million per annum and £120,000 as its share of the capital allocation that other colleges receive but that it does not need because it is a PFI project. In recent years, the college has received significant increases in funding. Last year, the increase was 30 per cent—more than for any other college in Scotland.

I look to the Scottish Further Education Funding Council to work with West Lothian College to ensure its long-term future. I am happy to agree that the college has enormous potential and is doing extremely good work.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I am glad that the minister recognises the potential that West Lothian College has, both because of its location in the fastest-growing part of Scotland and because of the demand for further education that exists in the community. Will he encourage the funding council, in its on-going discussions with the college, to seek a short-term solution to the £800,000 deficit that the college currently faces so that learning opportunities for the people of West Lothian are not damaged?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I met the chair of the Scottish Further Education Funding Council only a week or so ago and that was one of the topics that was discussed. I have certainly made it clear to her that we expect the funding council to work with the college to see what possibilities there are for improving its financial position. I know that Mr Muldoon has also been in touch with and met representatives of the college. There are possibilities that are worth exploring and I expect them to be explored quickly. I think that a meeting is taking place on Monday, at which I hope progress can be made.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will support local education authorities that remove confectionery and soft drink vending machines from schools and what steps it plans to take to ban the installation of such vending machines in schools. (S1O-5449)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The use of vending machines in schools was one of a number of additional issues that were considered recently by the expert panel on school meals in its interim report "Hungry For Success", which is currently out for consultation . The panel took the view that education authorities should establish working guidelines for school vending machines with the objective of promoting healthier choices and improved diet. Ministers will receive the panel's final report by the end of this year.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Yes, but I would like to hear the minister's personal opinion. To most people it is the greatest possible hypocrisy to on the one hand urge children to have a better diet, to eat fewer sweets and to consume fewer sugary drinks, while on the other hand to help to finance state schools—mainly in areas of high deprivation—by having vending machines in front halls. Professor Hanlon, the director of the Public Health Institute of Scotland has called that scandalous. I would like to hear the minister's own view.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Dorothy-Grace Elder knows that I do not stand here to give my personal opinion on any matter, but rather to answer questions to the Scottish Executive. The Executive's view on the matter is very clear. We want to see healthier options in our schools and we are going to take action on the expert panel's report when it is provided. The issue of branding on vending machines is important. We support many of the initiatives that many education authorities have taken on vending machines.

We do not have the power to implement a total ban, but it would be interesting to hear the personal views of members on how such a ban might be introduced. The Parliament could, however, take a lead on the issue because, as members know, there are a number of vending machines in our accommodation across the road on George IV Bridge.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Yes, but we are adults.

David (None, Lothians)

I for one depend on them.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Will the minister join me in congratulating North Lanarkshire Council and the south Coatbridge social inclusion partnership on their pilot schemes to provide free accessible drinking water in four Coatbridge primary schools? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that all Scotland's children have access to free drinking water throughout the school day?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I support those initiatives and—in my view—they should not be pilot projects. I believe that all schools in Scotland and all pupils should have access to free water. There are also a number of interesting pilot projects on access to free school milk. I support Aberdeen City Council's initiative, which was launched last week, to make free school milk available in its primary schools. There are a number of initiatives on the matter. It is not all about school lunches, however. There should be access to high quality food, water and milk from breakfast time on throughout the school day.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I want to go back to vending machines. I wonder whether the minister acknowledges that parents' greatest concern is their children's leaving school premises at break time to buy sweets and drinks in local shops. At least if the schools have vending machines on the premises, it keeps children in the school building and reduces risk to them. Ultimately, decisions about such matters should be taken not by the Scottish Executive or local authorities, but by head teachers in consultation with school boards.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I agree fully that head teachers and school boards have an important role to play in the matter. Dorothy-Grace Elder and other members said that this is a children-versus-adults matter, but we must balance that with parental choice and personal liberties. We should ask ourselves whether we should restrain our children and keep them in their school buildings throughout the day; that is an important question. Unless we change the guidelines and rules, there will always be an issue about choice.

In my view, the best approach is to make our school meals far more nutritious and attractive and to ensure that far more young people in our schools want to take up the school meals, water and milk that are available. That is what the main initiative will be in the Executive's response to the expert panel.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made recently on the joint Scottish-Irish bid to host the European football championships in 2008. (S1O-5488)

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Good progress has been made over recent months. We have secured bid sponsorship from BT, Diageo and the British Airports Authority and we will announce another major bid sponsor next week. At present, we are concentrating on preparations for the Union of European Football Associations inspection visit, which will take place in two weeks.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I thank the minister for his response. Does he accept that having a healthier national game would stand us in better stead when we bid for such prestigious events? Does he further accept that grass-roots facilities are key to such bids? Will he come to my constituency to see the work that is being done by Gourock Youth Athletic Club which, with no Government funding, is working to keep 700 local kids off the streets, off their computers and off drugs?

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

The Executive is very much in favour of youth football and youth sporting activities. We are considering the physical activity task force report and I have no doubt that the sort of activities that will benefit from the spin-off from a Euro 2008 championship bid will include youth football and youth sports in general. UEFA demands such spin-offs from bidders; we are complying with that demand.

On Duncan McNeil's first point about the success of the national team, a successful bid would also have a knock-on effect on the standard of the Scottish football team. For example, there is clear evidence from this summer's world cup in Korea and Japan, and from other tournaments, that countries' performance—during and after such competitions—benefits from hosting the competitions.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will announce the location of the energy intermediary technology institute. (S1O-5462)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Scottish Enterprise is working up details on the proposed ITIs—including the ITI for energy—for consideration by its board. An announcement will be made in the light of the board's decision.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for that reply, although I am not sure why it requires my thanks. The plans have been being worked up for at least two years, but when are we likely to hear the announcement? A time scale would be much appreciated, particularly in light of the implications of the oil tax for the oil industry. The industry's confidence has been shot and drilling in the North Sea is at a low ebb. We need an early answer to questions about when the establishment of the energy ITI will be announced, and where it will be located.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I expect that it will be possible for announcements to be made soon, and that an announcement on the energy ITI will be the first of those announcements. Responsibility for making that announcement lies with Scottish Enterprise which, as we learned last week, achieved 18 out of its 21 targets for last year. The ITIs are central to Scottish Enterprise's programme every year, so we should have a fair degree of confidence that it will make an announcement soon.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

Does the minister agree that it is important that the ITIs get off to the best possible start, given the investment that is required? I hope that the minister will soon be convinced, as I am already, that Aberdeen is the best location for the energy ITI, if it is to succeed. The energy ITI should be in close proximity to the oil and gas industry, which is becoming increasingly involved in renewables. That would benefit all in Scotland who have energy research expertise, wherever they are located.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Before a decision about the location is made, a set of criteria will be drawn up and locations will be judged against them. Given Aberdeen's position as the oil and gas capital of the United Kingdom and Europe, I think that it has a pretty strong case. I should acknowledge that Elaine Thomson has made that case to me more times than I care to remember. I am sure that she will continue to do so.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Does the minister agree that, wherever the institute of energy is located, it must concentrate on the skills shortages that exist in the electricity industry and on the possibilities for the renewables sector? Will he also consider how the institute can link to academic Scotland and encourage more graduates to look for opportunities in the oil and gas industry, which is still a great Scottish industry?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The ITIs are expected to create a link between industry and academic research. That link will work in both directions by commercialising the results of academic research and by commissioning research for which there is a clear market. The central purpose of the energy ITI is to make it clear to people that the sector has a great future in Scotland and that it needs the brightest and best people to work in it.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is helping local communities to tackle drug misuse. (S1O-5493)

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Communities throughout Scotland are benefiting from all four pillars of our drugs strategy. The strategy is backed by about £130 million in new resources over three years. For example, our enforcement organisations are achieving excellent results in seizing the drugs that cause most harm. Treatment and rehabilitation of drug misusers helps them to reintegrate into their communities and reduces drug-related crime. Through our "know the score" communications strategy, we are giving young people and communities the opportunity to obtain factual information about the risks of drugs and about where help and advice can be obtained. This summer, the Scottish Executive and the Daily Record launched the Scottish communities against drugs initiative—SCAD—which gave about £500,000 to 56 community groups across Scotland for anti-drug projects.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

That investment is welcome, but will the minister acknowledge that the structure of our drugs policy depends on our securing local community support and that securing that support depends on providing evidence to communities that we are committed to effective treatment of drug users, including offending drug users? Will he urgently consider making drug treatment and testing orders a disposal that is available to the sheriffs at Dumbarton, as he has been urged to do by Jackie Baillie and me?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Drug treatment and testing orders have proved to be effective and we have published our evaluation of them, which has allowed us to roll out the programme. At the moment, three centres operate—in Glasgow, Fife and Aberdeen—and we have announced seven more sheriff courts in which the disposal will soon be available. However, there are staffing issues and the evaluation showed us that, if the disposal is to be effective, we need to have appropriate staff levels. There are some constraints on us, but we will roll out the initiative as soon as we can.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister investigate the chronically low level of drug rehabilitation services at HM Prison Aberdeen at Craiginches so that we can reduce reoffending and crime in our local communities?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I met the Aberdeenshire drug action team while the Parliament was in Aberdeen and we have had further discussions. There are particular problems in Aberdeen that need to be addressed.

Contrary to rumour, I spent the summer meeting drug action teams throughout Scotland and have found that effective working partnerships are being established and capacity is being built. I will not deny that there are particular problems in the Grampian area that are related to cocaine and to getting quick treatment. We are aware of those problems and will address them.

NHS 24

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

To ask the Scottish Executive when it intends to launch NHS 24 nationally. (S1O-5464)