Scottish Parliament, 27 February 2003

319 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Introduction

David (None, Lothians)

Our first item of business is a statement by Malcolm Chisholm on "Partnership for Care: Scotland's Health White Paper".

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Today's white paper, "Partnership for Care", is about the promotion of health in the broadest possible sense, and the creation of a health service that is fit for the 21 st century. At the heart of the white paper's vision is a culture of care that is developed and fostered by a new partnership between patients, staff and Government.

In the next session of Parliament, we plan to increase investment in health from £6.7 billion to £9.3 billion, which is an annual increase of 5.5 per cent in real terms. That is high by historical standards, but it will deliver the necessary improvements only if it is matched by a programme of modernisation that is based on patients' needs. Our aim is to have a national health service that delivers faster and better-quality health care and that delivers that care at local level whenever it is safe and practical to do so. We want a service that responds to patients' needs and the interests of local communities and that meets national standards of health care.

Those objectives require new reforms that will streamline the NHS so that it relies on simpler structures that have stronger local roots. That will require devolution of authority to front-line units and promotion of integrated services for the convenience of patients, which is what the white paper aims to deliver. The white paper sets out radical measures to achieve those objectives. Of course, the implementation of the measures, including the legislation that is involved, must be a matter for the next session of Parliament.

By redesigning services, we can deliver a new pattern of local health care services. At local level, health professionals have established local health care co-operatives to enable them to plan and manage services on behalf of their communities.

We propose to build on the LHCCs, to match them better with local authority social work services and to ensure that they have stronger roots in their communities. We will strengthen the LHCCs to become new community health partnerships, which will be based on those teams of primary care professionals, and we will empower them to serve their communities within local NHS systems, with appropriate resources and devolved authority.

Our emphasis on integration and decentralisation has implications for the future of NHS trusts. The existence of separate NHS trusts that cover the same areas as NHS boards has not yielded clear benefits, but has confused accountability and obstructed the integration of services. We shall require NHS boards to submit plans to dissolve trusts and to establish decentralised operating units that have a strong role for front-line staff. By bringing together the boards and trusts, we will reduce bureaucracy and produce efficiency savings for front-line services.

Within NHS boards, we shall ensure that there is a leading role for health professionals to drive forward the necessary changes in the service. We will require each NHS board to establish a service redesign committee that has the strong involvement of clinicians and other health professionals and which includes representation from each community health partnership. We will require boards to produce service redesign plans to show how they will tackle the challenge of modernising services. We will support the boards with a new change and innovation fund, which will provide an extra £26 million for NHS boards in the next financial year. The centre for change and innovation will also support boards by funding pilot projects, supporting redesign and helping to share best practice.

The challenge of redesigning services will not be met by professional experts working in isolation; rather, NHS boards will need to engage better in public consultation. A new Scottish health council will promote the involvement of patients and the planning and delivery of better services. At local level, we will require community health partnerships to engage with their communities through local public partnership forums.

Our first priority in improving services must be to improve waiting times, because that is what we hear patients express concern about first. Today, the latest quarterly report on the performance of the NHS in reducing waiting times is published and it shows how the service is making real progress. By the end of 2002, the NHS had met its target of ensuring that no one waits more than 12 months for in-patient treatment. The number of people who had to wait nine months before receiving treatment had fallen to the lowest level since the census began in 1992, and there was a 48 per cent reduction in those waiting more than nine months for in-patient and day-case treatment between September and December last year. Therefore, our initiatives to tackle waiting times are now bringing concrete results. A lot has been done, but there is a lot more still to do.

If we look more closely, we can see actual examples of sharp cuts in waiting times that have happened through the redesign of services. For example, in Ayrshire and Arran, the development of a one-stop diagnostic clinic in urology, and the nurturing of team working have reduced waiting times from about 40 weeks in August 2002 to 12 weeks now. Major national work has been launched to reduce out-patient waiting through redesign and other changes.

Earlier this month in Dundee, the First Minister announced the next stage of our approach on waiting times. For the first time, we are giving a guarantee of treatment on time. We will guarantee treatment within national waiting times—initially for coronary heart disease procedures—for all in-patient waiting by the end of this year. We will set new clinical targets for specific conditions such as hip operations or cataracts, and NHS boards will set new local targets to drive up performance ahead of the national targets.

Waiting times, however, are just one element of the new emphasis on standards and quality of service in NHS Scotland. In Scotland, we have an international reputation for our work on measuring the quality of care; we are determined to sustain that. We will underpin the drive to tackle standards by ensuring that there is independent inspection and audit, as well as by publishing the findings. We will review our systems of incentives for good performance and support for weak performance, and we will ensure that we have powers to intervene effectively when there is service failure.

A key theme of the white paper is the importance of partnership working among different parts of the health service, patients and social care. We believe that that approach will encourage the development of integrated services that are in line with the wants and needs of patients. We shall break down the traditional barriers between primary and secondary care and between health and social care. One important way of doing that will be through support for the development of managed clinical networks for cancer, coronary heart disease, diabetes and many other conditions. Community health partnerships will also have an important role to play; they will establish substantive partnerships with local authority services and will act as the focus for integrating local health services, both primary and specialist.

Information technology, or e-health, is an important tool for change and integration. We shall invest in clinical information systems, require the appointment of a clinician as director of clinical information in each NHS board area to champion that work, and work towards an integrated care record that is owned jointly by the patient and their health professionals.

Patients must be at the centre of all this drive for reform. We have talked for some time about patient-centred services, but today we are signalling a step change so that looking at services from a patient's point of view becomes the key driver of change in the health service. That will have specific outcomes, such as a new complaints procedure, a patient information initiative and a new statement of patient rights and responsibilities. However, underlying those specific initiatives is a more fundamental culture change that involves patients at every stage as partners in care and as key contributors to quality improvement.

There is also a new emphasis on the role of staff, particularly front-line staff, as leaders of change in the health service. We shall increase the capacity of the NHS work force, develop new work force planning arrangements, improve opportunities for continuing professional development and establish reformed pay systems. We shall also ensure that health care teams are given the support, the tools and the freedom to redesign services and improve patient care.

All those measures will ensure the improvement and modernisation of health services, but we will never achieve the health outcomes we want unless there is parallel progress on the broader health improvement agenda. That will require a sustained effort that involves not just the Scottish Executive and NHS Scotland but local authorities, employers, trade unions, community planning partners and local communities.

We will publish soon a health improvement challenge to set out in more detail how we will focus actions on four groups: children in the early years, teenagers, people at work and local communities. We are backing that up with plans on a range of measures to improve health that will cost almost £250 million over the next three years. Underpinning all that will be action to narrow the health gap between the poorest and richest communities through targeting health improvement initiatives and particular focus on community action. The NHS itself has an important role to play in promoting good health. We need to ensure that front-line NHS staff, especially the primary care teams in communities, work to promote good health.

The "Partnership for Care" white paper signals a direction of travel to enable us to go forward together. It takes a broad view of health and it puts patients first. It recognises the importance of national standards of health care and of independent inspection of performance, and it sets out specific reforms to devolve power, involve health professionals, modernise services and so reduce waiting times. It is a comprehensive but pragmatic set of reforms that address the real challenges that face the NHS in Scotland. Many of those reforms will require legislation by the next Parliament and I commend them to the Parliament.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for his statement, which is an attempt—albeit a poor one—to deflect attention from the fact that, according to today's figures, there has been no improvement whatever in median waiting times.

There are one or two good ideas in the white paper, but I say that because most of them are SNP ideas. Does the minister recall that, in May 2002, I said that we would strengthen local health care co-operatives? Today, he says that he will build on LHCCs. Does the minister recall that, in May 2002, I said that we would abolish health trusts? Today, he says that he will dissolve health trusts. Does the minister recall that, in May 2002, I said that we would establish an independent health inspectorate? Today, he says that he will ensure that there is independent inspection. I am glad that the minister is listening.

However, will he listen a bit more closely? Will he agree that the proposals in the white paper will, on their own, do nothing to reduce waiting times—which is, after all, what matters most to patients? Will he agree that, in order to do that, he must adopt two more SNP policies that are designed to tackle the core problems in the national health service, which are undercapacity and the fact that there are too few beds and too few front-line staff? First, will the minister today commit to a national beds review, such as that which has been carried out south of the border, to ensure that the health service has the right number of acute beds to meet demand? Secondly, will the minister pay our nurses 11 per cent more than the United Kingdom settlement, to give Scotland a competitive edge in recruitment to ensure that we have enough nurses in our hospitals to treat more patients and to do so more quickly?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I note with interest the fact that Nicola Sturgeon says that she had a policy in May 2002—although she has not been promoting it very widely in the past year—to strengthen LHCCs. I refer her to the debate on primary care on 25 April 2002—which, by my reckoning, was before May 2002—in which I made strong statements in favour of primary care throughout my speech. I have been consistent in advocating that more power and responsibility be devolved to primary care, not only during my time as the Minister for Health and Community Care, but for several years before that.

The main point that Nicola Sturgeon made was about waiting times. I am glad that she spared us the disgraceful misrepresentation of the issue that she gave in a press release yesterday, the most disgraceful misrepresentation that I have seen since I became an MSP. In effect, she said that everybody who has waited longer than nine or 12 months should be counted. I am quite happy to speak from experience today and advise Nicola Sturgeon that I have been on a deferred list for a minor leg operation; however, I will now be transferred to the single list, because I have abolished the deferred list. I will have a guarantee exception code, as I should have, because I have said that I do not want the operation at this time: people will understand that I am quite busy. Why should I be counted among the figures that Nicola Sturgeon cited yesterday to peddle misinformation about the state of waiting in the Scottish health service?

Nicola Sturgeon says that there is nothing about waiting in the white paper; perhaps she will read it more carefully in the next hour or two. There is a major emphasis on service redesign. I admitted in the debate yesterday that we need to take more radical approaches to out-patient waiting in particular and we will do that. That is the centre for change and innovation's first priority.

On in-patient waiting, Nicola Sturgeon should acknowledge the progress that is reflected in today's figures and the fact that the series of initiatives that we have taken in relation to using the private sector and the Golden Jubilee hospital has had some effect. It would be better if members took a more balanced attitude towards such problems—as they did yesterday—and recognised that what I said about a lot having been done, but there being a lot still to do is the correct approach to these matters.

David (None, Lothians)

I advise the Parliament that 14 members would like to ask questions. If there is to be any hope of calling them all, we need brevity in these exchanges.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I find the white paper interesting. It feels very familiar to one who has read the Executive's health plan, "Our National Health: A plan for action, a plan for change". As we have received the white paper only in the past hour, I have examined the summary, which is the best thing to do when time is short.

The white paper proposes: "Unified NHS boards", which have already been delivered, under section 4 of the health plan; change and innovation centres, which are promised in section 9 of the health plan;

"A Patient Information Initiative and a new complaints procedure",

which are mentioned in section 5 of the health plan; health improvement initiatives, which appear in section 2 of the health plan; "New Community Health Partnerships", which is a new name for the joint future agenda;

"A new Scottish Health Council",

although health councils already exist; and guarantees and targets for waiting times, which the Executive has been giving us for four years. My question for the minister is this: what is new?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

We are prepared to admit that we are building on the health plan. I have talked to NHS staff over the past year, and the last thing that they want is complete structural upheaval of the health service. The white paper builds on the health plan and carries it forward in significant ways. My statement indicated the new ways in which we are carrying the initiatives forward. I highlight in particular the move towards a decentralised and integrated system that carries forward significantly what was outlined in the health plan.

Everything that I mentioned in my statement is new. The community health partnerships will strengthen LHCCs and build on their good aspects. We have set up a new body to provide independent inspection, building on the health plan and carrying it forward in significant ways. Our health improvement strategy started with the £26 million health improvement fund, but we are now putting far more money into it and we are targeting our efforts to achieve the step change that is required in health improvement. I am proud to announce continuity that is balanced with significant new steps and a new emphasis on the devolution of power to front-line staff, with a more fundamental role for patients at the centre of the health service.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I thank the minister for his statement. There is quite a lot to welcome in it, especially the health improvement challenge. Not only the concept of the challenge, but the £250 million are very much to be welcomed. I also welcome the devolution of decision making.

However, one of the concerns that many members have had about the LHCCs is that they have been patchy throughout the country. In certain areas they have been very good, but in other areas they have been non-existent. Can the minister tell us whether community health partnerships will spell the end of LHCCs? When the appropriate resources and responsibilities are devolved to them, will they also become fully accountable, and will he anchor them in legislation in due course?

It would also be interesting to know how community health partnerships will work with local authorities to deliver the whole community care joint future agenda. I agree with the minister that NHS staff who talk to us tell us that they do not want wholesale reorganisation of the service. Can the minister assure us that this is not change for change's sake, that NHS trusts will be replaced by local alternatives that have been well thought through, and that there will not be a vacuum?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I agree entirely that we do not want wholesale reorganisation. That repeats the point that I made to Mary Scanlon: we want change without upheaval. What we propose for LHCCs is a good example of that. We will see the evolution of LHCCs, building on the strengths of LHCCs but using them as a basic building block for the health service.

In my statement, I talked about strengthening the LHCCs. We will anchor them in legislation and, to ensure local accountability, we will set up public partnership forums for each LHCC. Therefore, we will build on the strengths of the LHCCs, which we consider to be fundamental building blocks, especially in terms of our emphasis on devolving decision making and power to front-line staff.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I welcome the minister's statement and its attempt to tackle bureaucracy and give patients a greater say. The minister will be aware that Argyll and Clyde NHS Board is creating a single board structure and that staffing difficulties are creating a pressure to centralise services, especially maternity services. How can the minister reassure my constituents that the reforms that he outlined in his statement will give patients a real say in the NHS and halt the march towards centralisation of services?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am glad that Duncan McNeil welcomes our pledge to tackle bureaucracy to a greater extent. It is obvious that we have made great advances from the internal market bureaucracy that existed under the previous Administration. Argyll and Clyde NHS Board is a good example to give, because it has made the decision to go for single-system working. I know, having talked to several people in Argyll and Clyde, that the board's decision has been widely welcomed. Clinicians in particular welcome the fact that they are involved in discussing how the new forms of services will develop.

Duncan McNeil made an important point in relation to his concerns about centralisation of services. A key message of the white paper is that, over time, more services will be developed in primary care settings and community settings. The fact is that upwards of 80 per cent of health service activity takes place in communities.

However, some services must be concentrated in specialist units. That is the hard issue that arises in relation to acute service reviews; it is an issue in Argyll and Clyde and in Glasgow. One of the white paper's points is that we want to, and will, involve the public far more effectively in discussions about reorganisations than we did in the past.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the minister appreciate how fed up the public are becoming with glossy documents being produced but no action being taken? Is not it time that there were fewer documents and more action to address the core problems in the NHS, which are lack of beds and a lack of staff? When will we see progress on those matters? Does not the minister think that it is a bit desperate on his part to describe progress on waiting times as being encapsulated by an increase in out-patient waiting times? Does he think that progress on in-patient waiting times is represented by—according to the figures that were produced today—a staggering 0.4 per cent increase? Does not his claim that those facts show progress in waiting times reflect desperation on his part?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am not sure what the 0.4 per cent refers to. I have been open and frank about the need for more radical solutions to tackle out-patient waiting times. That is why the issue has been at the top of my agenda and the First Minister's agenda over the past few months. We have started work on waiting times with the centre for change and innovation. I am always willing to admit failure to make progress in an area but, equally, opposition parties should acknowledge that progress has been made in some areas. That point was a key feature of a parliamentary debate yesterday.

I talked to staff at Edinburgh royal infirmary today and a doctor said to me exactly what I said in the debate yesterday, which is that there is nothing more demoralising for staff than to hear relentless negativity. Let us hear about the problems, but let us also hear about the success stories. Shona Robison knows that in her part of the world, which I have visited more than once recently, Tayside NHS Board has many success stories. That health system has been turned around in the past three years and is trail-blazing in many important ways for patients.

We are, of course, taking action on staff; staff numbers will be announced tomorrow. The numbers of qualified staff—nurses, doctors and other staff—are increasing. We said in the Scottish budget that there will be 600 more consultants in the next three years of the spending review period. No issue has been more important to me over the past year than recruitment and retention of nurses. The issue is partly about pay, which the agenda for change seeks to address, but many other issues are involved in recruitment and retention of nurses, including issues around continuing professional development, which is highlighted in the white paper. We believe that, as a fundamental part of dealing with those problems, we must increase the health service's capacity.

However, the difference between the Labour party and the SNP is that we realise that more is required and that we must work differently. A key message that I also got this morning at Edinburgh royal infirmary is that we need people in health-care teams—which are the basis of the white paper—to work in different ways and, in some cases, we need people to perform different roles. We are prepared to put in the money and to modernise and reform, but the SNP wants to put in money—which it does not have—and to change nothing.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I must begin by declaring that I am a member of Amicus MSF, the British Medical Association, the Scottish Association for Mental Health, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

I welcome the tenor and approach of the minister's statement, which builds on the changes that we have been making since 1997. The recognition of the need for service redesign is now made explicit, as is the imperative of integrated primary and secondary services. A clear definition of the role of community health partnerships, which embraces the best practice of the LHCCs, is particularly welcome.

I want to ask the minister about the IT systems that are needed to underpin an integrated national health service. The NHS IT systems are ineffectual and dysfunctional. The general practice administration system for Scotland, which is the primary care system that is used by 85 per cent of GPs, has always been the poorest of the UK systems. What will the minister do to ensure that the IT proposals in the white paper will not be just another piece of rhetoric, such as we he have heard repeatedly from health service executives over the years? In addition, will the minister consider using the proposed new community hospital in my constituency, which is to provide integrated primary and intermediate care, as a model for the vertically integrated networks that are crucial to the delivery of care for diseases such as diabetes and respiratory disease? Finally—

David (None, Lothians)

Order. I think that that is enough. Mr Chisholm will reply.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I welcome the proposed community hospital to which Richard Simpson referred, which is precisely the model of care that is encapsulated in the white paper in terms of more being done in community systems to link in an integrated way with more specialist services. Richard Simpson is right that IT—or e-health, as I prefer to call it—is fundamental to integration; it is one of the subjects about which I have listened this year. Certainly, I was no expert in IT matters a year ago.

Clinicians throughout the country have told me repeatedly about the fundamental importance of e-health for developing integrated care. That is why we have such an important section on e-health in the white paper. We will require a clinician to be appointed director of clinical information to lead change in each NHS board area because one of the messages that I have heard is that e-health should be led by clinicians. However, I shall chair the e-health programme board as a mark of the importance that I attach to e-health.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for the advance copies of his statement and the "Partnership for Care" white paper.

Page 35 of the white paper, on the development of partnership integration and redesign, states:

"If necessary, we will bring forward legislation to require NHS Boards to devolve appropriate resources and responsibility for decision-making".

Does that mean that the minister will devolve funds to LHCCs or to community health partnerships? Will he allow those partnerships to commission care from outwith their board areas? If he answers yes to either of those questions, will not that just be the reintroduction—under another name—of the internal market?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Resources and decision making will be devolved; that is a fundamental message of the white paper, but trusts will be dissolved only on the condition that decentralisation schemes are in place.

However, we do not believe in recreating the internal market. In fact, the abolition of trusts will get rid of the last vestiges of the internal market because the funds that primary care will have will not be for the commissioning that existed under the Tories. That is a key point, because there is no doubt that people will try to make general descriptions of what my statement proposed. What we propose is a non-market system of decentralisation that contrasts with the Tories' internal market, which was a centralising system. There was never as much command and control in the health service as there was under the most recent Conservative Government's management executive.

People will try to distort what I have said today as being about centralisation, but the key or fundamental message of the white paper and of my statement today is that we will have a more decentralised health service with more power to front-line staff.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I welcome the minister's commitment to scrap the health trusts, but I seek an assurance from him that there will be a genuine cull of the unnecessary bureaucracy and senior management posts in the trusts. Will the resources that are freed up by that process be made available to the front-line staff who serve in our local trusts and provide an excellent service?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

As I indicated in my statement, there will be savings in bureaucracy. At the same time, I want to send out the strong message, which is contained in the white paper, that we attach a high importance to operational managers. It is important that we recognise that the health service has not been well enough managed. We want improved management. I want to send out a positive message about management, but I link that with the strong message that managers and clinicians must work together better, as that area has been one of the historic problems in the health service. I expect and will encourage a culture of mutual respect, in which the importance of clinicians and managers is recognised.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister please review the position on in-patient waiting times for cardiac surgery? I ask him to do so particularly in light of the fact that the existing spare capacity in both Grampian and Lothian is being used to allow private patients to queue-jump using NHS facilities and NHS surgeons. Will he give us an assurance that the existing capacity in the NHS will be used for cardiac surgery so that people do not have to be sent to private hospitals or abroad?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

In-patient waiting times for cardiac surgery is one area in which we have had a significant fall, although we want to see further improvements. The median waiting time for cardiac surgery has fallen from more than 150 days at the beginning of the Parliament to fewer than 50 days now, but there is room for further improvement. I shall certainly ask questions about how that works in Grampian and I shall write to the member when I have a full response from his local trust.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I welcome the minister's statement. As Duncan McNeil said, Argyll and Clyde is already moving to a single NHS delivery system. I can tell the minister that that has proved to be not only popular but, more important, sensible. Already, we have seen a reduction in bureaucracy, with much more focus on patient care and people in the service working together rather than against each other. There is also a renewed emphasis on front-line delivery.

I welcome the enhanced role for LHCCs. However, does the minister agree that it is important that general practitioners not only have a closer working relationship with social work, but are involved in shaping acute services? I am particularly keen that, alongside clinicians, the public are directly involved in shaping services, too. Will the minister indicate how that will be realised, as it is clear that we will require a fundamental cultural change among some clinicians as well as managers?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Once again, I acknowledge the way in which the changes in Argyll and Clyde have been welcomed. Jackie Baillie's comments are in accord with all the conversations that I have had in that area, where the move to a single system has been welcomed. If people want to see what the white paper proposes, they should perhaps look at what is happening in Argyll and Clyde, where work is already going on to come up with more integrated arrangements at locality level.

On the enhanced role of LHCCs and GPs, I said in my statement that someone from each LHCC will be on each board's service redesign committee. One problem has been that people in primary care have felt that they do not have enough influence over the rest of the health system, including acute services. Through the white paper, we are taking direct action to deal with that problem, as I know is happening in Arygll and Clyde.

Finally, Jackie Baillie referred to the importance of public involvement. People should perhaps remember that there are two parts to patient/public involvement. There is the public involvement in service change—the white paper proposes that that should happen quite differently from the way it has in the past—but there is also the whole patients agenda, whereby individual patients are involved as partners in their own care. We need to listen far more carefully to what patients are telling us, as patients are a key factor in improving the quality of services. The white paper gives a good example from Ninewells hospital in Dundee, where nurses asked patients about a whole series of issues concerning their experience of care. That feedback was then used to improve services. That is an important model of how we can improve the quality of care.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The headline figures that the minister came up with at the beginning of his statement were very big indeed. He suggested that the Scottish health budget would rise to £9.3 billion by the end of the next parliamentary session. For those of us who take an interest in how money is raised as well as in how it is spent, that is a big number. Will the minister explain to what extent he believes that that number is achievable? Has the number simply been plucked from the ether in order to be placed in the Labour party manifesto so that he can buy back the votes of the people whom he has been letting down for the past four years?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The number has not been plucked from the ether. I would have expected Alex Johnstone to have some knowledge about how spending reviews are carried out and the role of Westminster in announcing spending plans. All the matters to which he referred are matters of macroeconomic policy. I have great confidence in Labour's management of the economy and that confidence is borne out by what has happened in the past six years. I am therefore confident about the figures in the white paper.

It was slightly foolish of Alex Johnstone to raise the question of money given that the fundamental problem with the Conservatives' proposals at Westminster is that that money would not be available for the health service if ever the Conservatives were to come into government. Fortunately, I do not think that my spending projections are threatened by that possibility.

David (None, Lothians)

We are running out of time for the statement, so I will take the final three questions together.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

I welcome the minister's statement and I assure him that there is nothing wrong with following Susan Deacon's lead. He should try that more often in other policy areas.

A major gap in the redesign of the NHS is the continuing lack of local democratic accountability at the health board level. Partnership forums are fine, but the 15 NHS boards will remain appointed, unelected, undemocratic and unaccountable to the local communities that they serve. Will the minister assure me that the democratic reform of health boards is still on the Government's agenda, as we consider the white paper?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I was interested in the minister's opening sentences, in which he said that he wants to ensure that the NHS

"responds to ... the interests of local communities".

In the light of that, when will he and the First Minister respond to the communities of Kirkintilloch and Bishopbriggs by accepting their invitation to come and explain to them why, month after month, they see department after department at Stobhill hospital closing and transferring to the Glasgow royal infirmary?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

In welcoming the statement, I note the contrast between the minister's substantive comments and the lack of substance and relentless negativity that has come from the Opposition benches this morning.

Given the bruising experience of the Glasgow acute services review and other such experiences around the country, does the minister agree that we have a major task on our hands to re-establish trust among our constituents in the principle and practice of local accountability? I welcome his clear commitment to patient involvement. People accept that difficult decisions must be made, but they want to see good examples of when and where their views will be taken into account and they want to be clear about the criteria that will be used and the limits that might exist in that process.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

On John McAllion's question, my mind is certainly not closed to further local democratic accountability, but we should also acknowledge the progress that has been made. I certainly pay tribute to Susan Deacon and to the way in which she constructed the unified boards, which have given a much greater degree of local accountability both through the involvement of local authority members and through the important contribution of staff members. We have a whole agenda around patient focus and public involvement. The correct way of viewing the issue is to recognise that patients and the public can be involved in a variety of ways, so I would not say that John McAllion's proposal was the only way.

Fiona McLeod and Ken Macintosh raised important points about public involvement in service change. If there is a choice between two sites for a hospital—Fife perhaps illustrates the difficulty better than Glasgow—it is not always possible to satisfy everybody. The white paper has a section about acute hospitals. We cannot avoid the fact that, in the interests of patient care, some acute hospitals must be organised differently. I accept that we have not always persuaded the public of the merits of that, which is why it is important to pursue public involvement far more effectively, although I accept that it will not always be possible to keep everyone entirely happy with what is going on. On patient involvement, I think that it is possible to be far more responsive directly to what patients are telling us about the quality of care.

National Galleries of Scotland Bill: Preliminary Stage

David (None, Lothians)

We come to the debate on motion S1M-3935, on the National Galleries of Scotland Bill. I call Rhona Brankin to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the National Galleries of Scotland Bill Committee.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

As members will know, the National Galleries of Scotland Bill is the second private bill to be considered by the Scottish Parliament. The bill was introduced on 28 October 2002 by its promoters, the trustees of the National Galleries of Scotland.

I present the National Galleries of Scotland Bill Committee report to the Parliament today as convener of the committee, on behalf of the members of the committee, and not as the member in charge of the bill. Private bills are introduced by a promoter, who can be an individual, a company or a group of people who wish to obtain powers or benefits in excess of the general law. Private bills are not introduced by a member of the Scottish Parliament, as is normally the case, and as such cannot have a member in charge.

It might be helpful to the Parliament if I take a few moments to outline the process of consideration of the bill to date and the procedure that will follow if the Parliament agrees to the general principles today. Following the introduction of a private bill, any person who feels that their interests would be adversely affected by the bill can object to it. They have 60 days in which to do so, which is known as the objection period. The objection period for the National Galleries of Scotland Bill ran from 29 October and no objections were received.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

On that subject, will the member comment on whether she feels that a fee of £20 for lodging such an objection is appropriate?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I do not believe that the fee would necessarily stand in people's way, but the Parliament will have to reflect on that in due course.

The National Galleries of Scotland Bill Committee was established in December and consists of five members, none of whom lives in, or represents, the constituency that is directly affected by the bill and none of whom has any connection with the promoters of the bill. Before I turn to the detail of our report, I record my thanks to the committee. The procedures were new to the members and I thank them for their work and assistance on the bill to date.

Preliminary stage consideration of the bill began when the committee was established in December. The committee's role at preliminary stage is to report to Parliament on two issues: the general principles of the bill and whether the bill should proceed as a private bill. The committee could also give a preliminary view on objections, but we had no objections to consider.

The committee took evidence on the general principles of the bill earlier this month at a meeting in Edinburgh. Prior to that meeting, we visited the National Gallery of Scotland and the Royal Scottish Academy buildings to see the site of the works that the bill relates to. I take this opportunity to thank the promoters for their time in showing us around the site. I also thank all those who came to the meeting to give evidence to the committee.

We published our preliminary stage report on Friday and today's debate provides the Parliament with an opportunity to consider our recommendations. If the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill today, the bill will move on to consideration stage. Consideration stage is similar to stage 2 of a public bill, but it is in two parts. First, further evidence can be heard from the promoters and, secondly, the committee will consider any amendments to the bill. The final stage of a private bill is broadly similar to stage 3 of a public bill. It takes place at a meeting of the Parliament and begins with the consideration of any amendments to the bill, followed by a debate on the passing of the bill.

Although the bill must be one of the shortest to come before the Scottish Parliament, it is nevertheless considered to be an essential part of the Playfair project. The Playfair project is the overall name for the galleries improvement project, in which the foundations of the Royal Scottish Academy will be stabilised, the RSA will be restored and a link below ground from the RSA to the National Gallery of Scotland will be created. The project began in the late 1990s and received planning permission and listed-building consent from the City of Edinburgh Council in spring last year.

The land that the bill relates to is a rectangular strip adjacent to the Mound on the east side of Princes Street gardens. The promoters wish to build a new entrance to the galleries on that strip of land. Most members who use the Playfair steps will walk past the land, but few will probably notice it. It currently has the Spanish civil war memorial located on it and until recently had an air monitoring station. If the bill is approved, the war memorial will be moved further along the bank, underneath the steps up to Market Street.

Until August last year, the land was held by the council for the common good, as part of Princes Street gardens. In order to dispose of land held for the common good, a court order is required. One of the conditions of such a court order can be that the land is substituted for another piece of land. In this case, the council swapped the land for a piece of land on the Mound in front of New College, which the promoters owned. The transfer of ownership of the land from the council to the promoters was granted by the sheriff in Edinburgh in August last year.

The bill is small and focused. It does two things: it removes the piece of land from Princes Street gardens and it disapplies section 22 of the schedule to the City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991. Section 22 prohibits any type of building in Princes Street gardens, except those specified in the act, such as gardeners' lodges and bandstands.

The promoters contend that the bill has to remove the land from the gardens, because simply transferring the ownership of the land from the council to the promoters does not remove the land from the gardens—it would still be part of the gardens even though the ownership had changed. The promoters also have to disapply the restriction in section 22 of the schedule to the 1991 act. Until that section is disapplied, they cannot build on the land that they now own.

Our committee was in what will probably turn out to be an unusual position for a private bill committee in that no objections were lodged to the bill. To enable us to scrutinise properly the general principles of the bill, we invited interested parties and groups with heritage experience to give evidence to the committee. At our meeting at the start of the month, the people who gave evidence raised some interesting issues, which I will take some time to go through.

The Cockburn Association raised two concerns. The first was the effectiveness of the statutory protection of the gardens from detrimental development. However, the committee heard evidence from the council and the Scottish Civic Trust, which both thought that the 1991 act had been effective in preserving the character of the gardens.

The Cockburn Association's second concern related to the fact that the promoters were seeking permission from the Parliament to disapply section 22 of the schedule to the 1991 act midway through the Playfair project. The association felt that the promoters should have sought that permission before commencing work on the project as a whole. The association was concerned about the message that the bill could send out to future developers that they, too, could start their projects before coming to the Parliament to seek statutory permission, perhaps viewing the Parliament application as little more than a rubber-stamping exercise.

During our site visit we noted that no work had yet taken place on the walls or area subject to the restrictions of the 1991 act and, in their evidence, the promoters explained that contingency measures are in place should the bill fall. The bill relates to only a very small part of the Playfair project and does not confer authority for the project as a whole. As I said, planning permission and listed-building consent have already been granted, so there was no requirement for the promoters to come to the Parliament before the overall project started.

The bill does not set a precedent for future developers. Each project will be dealt with on its merits and it will be up to developers to seek the appropriate consents at the appropriate times. It must be noted that, if the promoters of the bill had started to build on the land before coming to the Parliament or without the bill being passed, they would have been in breach of the terms of the 1991 act.

The Edinburgh World Heritage Trust, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland and the Scottish Civic Trust in their joint submission and evidence raised concerns that the extension of the galleries into the gardens might commercialise the character of the gardens. However, the promoters confirmed in evidence that they would take measures to prevent the commercial nature of the project from impinging on the gardens. For example, at night, the light levels from the new part of the galleries will be lowered and will be consistent with those from the other floodlit buildings around the gardens. Tables from the restaurant will not be situated in the gardens.

The primary concern of the witnesses who spoke to the committee was to ensure that the Parliament, in agreeing to the bill, did not open the floodgates to other developments in the gardens or set a precedent for future building in the gardens. The committee agrees with the bill's promoters, the City of Edinburgh Council and the minister that the bill is a one-off and that any other project to build in Princes Street gardens would have to be scrutinised by the competent authority at the time and judged on its merits. The bill is tightly drafted and relates only to a small piece of land next to the Mound. It will not set a precedent for future building in the gardens.

If the Parliament is minded to agree to the general principles today, the bill will move to consideration stage. The committee will meet in March to hear from the promoters again and to consider any amendments to the bill. Thereafter, the bill will move into final stage consideration at a meeting of the Parliament. On behalf of the committee, I ask the Parliament to approve the bill's general principles.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the National Galleries of Scotland Bill and that the Bill should proceed as a private Bill.

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

The Executive welcomes and supports the private bill and I am pleased to see from the committee's report that the committee supports the bill, too. I thank Rhona Brankin, who is the committee's convener, and her colleagues John Young, Maureen Macmillan, Alasdair Morgan and Margaret Smith for their consideration of the bill.

Rhona Brankin referred to the work that the National Galleries of Scotland are undertaking with the Playfair project. It is fairly well known that the Royal Scottish Academy's stabilisation works are completed and that the internal refurbishment is nearing completion. The RSA is on course to open in August this year, to coincide with the Edinburgh festival. It will open with a flourish with the Monet exhibition, which I am sure will be a huge attraction. The link building will provide a series of facilities for the RSA and the National Gallery of Scotland, including dedicated education and information technology areas, as well as restaurant facilities.

It is important to say, in response to some concerns, that the work in Princes Street gardens cannot begin until the bill is passed. The National Galleries have taken the work on the link as far as it can be taken until royal assent is given. The project managers expect to gain access to the site in Princes Street gardens at the end of March, when they will put up hoardings, undertake the enabling work and begin intensive site investigation within the new site boundaries. Of course, no substantial building work will take place until the bill has been given royal assent. As would be expected, the National Galleries have contingency plans should the bill not be passed, but it is not suggested that that might happen.

The RSA and National Gallery buildings date back to the mid-19th century and have over many years as a tourist attraction given much enjoyment to many people from Edinburgh, from Scotland as a whole and from much further afield. Facilities needed to be modernised and upgraded and the Playfair project is designed to improve and extend the galleries.

The Executive has contributed £10 million towards the overall cost, the Heritage Lottery Fund has provided £7 million and the National Galleries are raising the remainder, which is about £12 million, from several sources.

The RSA building is of great architectural significance and Princes Street gardens are an important and popular venue. The National Galleries have always been conscious of the need to make the architecture involved sympathetic to the surroundings.

A relatively small strip of land is involved—it measures about 320 sq m—but the Playfair project will enable the National Galleries to widen access to the collections and to educational facilities by providing about 2,500 sq m of additional facilities. Part of the complex will be a lecture theatre to promote further the arts and culture and to contribute to greater cultural awareness in the community—that is one of the aims of the national cultural strategy, which was launched two years ago. As part of that, we are trying to promote Scotland's image overseas. The national galleries, which are already world-class institutions, will be further enhanced by the work that is being undertaken.

When completed, the project will enhance the National Galleries' extensive educational programmes, which are under the tutelage of Roberta Doyle. The programmes are part of the galleries' outreach work and their attempts to increase the people of Scotland's participation and involvement in the treasures that are to be found in the galleries. I also wear a tourism hat and, as I said, the project will benefit tourism.

The foresight of the National Galleries of Scotland will provide a tremendous resource for people to enjoy, for the exhibiting of art even more effectively and for the conservation of art. It will also provide improved facilities to display permanent and temporary exhibitions. Many members have enjoyed those exhibitions and that experience will be further enhanced. I look forward to the bill's being passed and I reiterate the Executive's support for it.

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

Our capital city of Edinburgh has, arguably, one of the most magnificent townscapes of any European capital. That townscape is a combination of the natural, as in Arthur's Seat; the natural with some man-made protuberances, such as Edinburgh castle; the man-made built environment of the old and new towns; and what might be called the man-made natural environment of Princes Street gardens. We must be cautious about anything that alters that townscape. I am glad, and I agree with the committee, that the development will not be taken as a precedent.

We should note that other developments in the gardens did not set precedents and mostly enhanced our capital's appearance. Those developments include the Scott monument, the Playfair buildings—the Royal Scottish Academy and the National Gallery of Scotland—and Waverley station and the lines that lead into it. Although railways are not necessarily things of beauty for everyone, Edinburgh has at its heart a railway station, which makes many other cities envious, and the station is largely in sympathy with the townscape.

It is interesting to note that, in 1890, Waverley station suffered from severe overcrowding—that remains the case today—after the Forth rail bridge was opened. Passengers would wait for hours for trains that could not enter the station. On one day in the summer of 1890, trains full of passengers stopped at every signal between Waverley and Dalmeny and could not enter Waverley station because of a lack of platforms. In comparison, ScotRail's performance today seems pretty good.

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

No.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Did Alasdair Morgan clear that statement with the SNP's transport spokesperson?

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

It is all relative. Having sat on a train for a considerable time yesterday between Waverley and Dalmeny, I note that such delays continue.

The solution of enlarging Waverley station to its current size and building the extra tunnels that exist today was hugely controversial. The development was considered a desecration of Princes Street gardens, but it was approved. I hope that most of us would say that, on balance, the development was of great benefit to Edinburgh. We should not be afraid of approving proposals for the gardens on their merits, even if they deal with only 319 sq m.

I have one concern, which relates not to the bill but to a matter that arose in evidence on the bill. As the convener of the National Galleries of Scotland Bill Committee said, the bill will disapply section 22 of the schedule to the City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991 for the Playfair project. As the convener said, section 22 prohibits the construction of buildings in the gardens, except those of certain types, which are

"Lodges for gardeners and keepers, hothouses and conservatories, monuments, bandstands, public conveniences, police boxes and buildings for housing apparatus for the supply of electricity or gas."

When Jim McKay of the City of Edinburgh Council gave evidence to the committee, he said of the council:

"we adhere strictly to the 1991 act. For instance, a proposal was agreed that a kiosk be erected in east Princes Street gardens, immediately to the east of the RSA. That kiosk was designed in the shape of a bandstand, which is permissible under the 1991 act."—[Official Report, National Galleries of Scotland Bill Committee, 3 February 2003; c 17.]

It seems to me that a kiosk is not a bandstand, even if it is built in the shape of a bandstand. Anyone who walks past the kiosk will notice that one would be hard pushed to get a band inside it. I have certainly never seen a band inside it—indeed, if that happened, it would be much to the consternation of the kiosk proprietor. It is not a particularly happy situation for the City of Edinburgh Council to play fast and loose with the 1991 act for its own purposes.

One of the committee's duties was to consider that point when it was raised in evidence. I am not sure who is responsible for enforcing the 1991 act, but others who are listening to the recording or looking at the Official Report of the debate might want to take some action in respect of that case.

That aside, I welcome the bill that is in front of the Parliament today. It is an essential part of what will be a magnificent addition to the cultural fabric of Edinburgh and, indeed, the whole of Scotland.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On behalf of the Conservatives, I am pleased to welcome the bill. As a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, I have taken a keen interest in the bill and have read the Official Reports of the committee meetings.

It is particularly important that we recognise the impact that the buildings on the Mound create in Edinburgh's townscape; many members said that in their speeches. Those buildings are famous all over the world from shortbread tins, postcards and all sorts of photographs. We owe a debt to William Henry Playfair for designing those buildings and giving them to Edinburgh and the Scottish nation. Playfair was one of Scotland's greatest architects. It would have been fitting if the Parliament been sited in the Donaldson's school building, but sadly that was not to be, even though it would have been a more appropriate choice.

It is important that the bill is seen in the context of yesterday's news about Titian's "Venus" being acquired by the National Galleries of Scotland in an agreement with the late Duke of Sutherland's estate. As the minister said, there is absolutely no doubt that the National Gallery of Scotland is a world-class gallery. We owe a debt of gratitude to Sir Timothy Clifford, Michael Clarke and their team for their work over the years to get the galleries into that position. They have driven up visitor numbers as a result of some terrific exhibitions and great acquisitions. The Playfair project is ambitious and will take the growth of the gallery further.

Quite properly, concern has been expressed about the project with regard to its intrusion, if we can call it that, into Princes Street gardens. Indeed, in respect of the provision of toilets for the gallery, one could call the project Edinburgh's own Clochemerle. The Official Report of the committee's evidence taking makes it clear that committee members pressed the promoters of the bill about those difficulties.

The promoters were asked whether it would be possible for the design to be changed to accommodate the extra facilities for visitors without intrusion into the gardens. The answer was that, although it could be done, that would restrict the use of daylight and the space available to gallery visitors by about a third. Those are important considerations. A number of members said that the project will not set a precedent. I accept the assurances that we have been given in that respect and I believe that the bill is worthy of support.

It should be noted that the development started even before the bill came before the Parliament. The National Galleries of Scotland already have a footprint on the Mound. As a result, they were able to start the building works on the Mound, but, as has been explained, the development has not progressed into the area that is the subject of the bill.

Those concerns are quite different from others that have been expressed by many people, including myself, about the proposed subterranean shopping mall in east Princes Street gardens, which the City of Edinburgh Council through its development arm, the EDI Group, is keen to see. I have no doubt that, were any works to begin on that development, a bill would have to come before the Parliament before a sod could be cut.

I agree with the committee that the project does not set a dangerous precedent. The bill is necessary to allow the gallery to grow in a way that helps to keep Scotland's cultural heritage at the forefront. I look forward to the Playfair project being completed and the gallery going from strength to strength. That will mean that we will be able to see works such as Rutherford's "Fountain of Salmacis" and Gabriel's "Last Supper" along with the Titians and the Turners.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate as the Liberal Democrat member of National Galleries of Scotland Bill Committee. Because of family circumstances, I have not done as much work on the bill as my colleagues on the committee did, and I thank them.

The committee agrees that a statutory power is required by the promoter, the National Galleries of Scotland, to remove a small piece of land from Princes Street gardens. The promoter also requires statutory authority to supply a restriction on the construction of buildings in the gardens.

All of us who live or work in the city agree that Princes Street gardens are a unique landscape. I know that the word "unique" is overused, but I can say, having travelled around the world, that it applies in this case. It is beholden on us all to ensure that any work that impinges on the gardens is done only because we have given the project the fullest and best scrutiny to ensure that the landscape is not affected. The project must be for the positive common good of the people not only of Edinburgh, but of Scotland and of the many thousands of visitors who come to the gardens every year.

Alasdair Morgan said, rightly, that Edinburgh is a city with a long tradition not only of conserving the best in its landscape and cityscape but of moving with the times, albeit that it moves more slowly than other cities. When we see a real need for an improvement that will achieve a benefit for the common good of the people of the city and the wider country, we should seize it.

I am pleased to support the efforts to complete the Playfair project, which will improve the National Gallery of Scotland and the Royal Scottish Academy, both of which have a long tradition of presenting and conserving art, not only to and for the people of Edinburgh and Scotland, but internationally. Mention has been made of that today, most notably by Brian Monteith and the minister.

If we are serious about improving our cultural life, we should be supportive of the promoter's attempts to deliver a world-class exhibition facility. Crucially, the project will improve access for disabled visitors to the galleries. We must appreciate that the National Galleries of Scotland are competing not only for the time of the people in Edinburgh, but with world-class facilities elsewhere in the world.

Other members have touched on the main concerns about the project. Those include the fact that work had gone ahead before statutory approval was granted and the spilling out of commercial activity into the gardens, which the committee was assured will not happen.

Most important, concerns were raised in evidence by the Cockburn Association, the Edinburgh World Heritage Trust, the Scottish Civic Trust and the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland that the project would set a precedent for future building in the gardens. However, the City of Edinburgh Council made it clear that the project is a one-off. Planning legislation makes it clear that the council would examine any other applications on their own merit; all of us have the proposed Princes Street galleries plans in mind. Such applications would have to go to the council, and because the plan is being promoted partially by EDI—an arm's length council company—it would also be called in by the Executive.

We are all keen to ensure that any development that impinges on the gardens is sympathetic to their unique world-famous location, and enhances the attractiveness not only of the galleries, but of the city as a whole. I am happy to give my support to the bill.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

It is difficult to know what to add to what has been said. There were some initial concerns at the start of the planning process that any lifting of restrictions on development in Princess Street gardens would create a precedent for something less desirable than an entrance to the National Gallery of Scotland. However, those fears have been allayed to the satisfaction of the committee. We have before us a project that will enhance the gardens and the city of Edinburgh.

As other members have said, the National Gallery of Scotland and the Royal Scottish Academy are magnificent landmarks in the city, but they are in need of repair and modernisation. The underground facilities that are being created—a restaurant, a lecture theatre, an information centre and more exhibition space—will be enhanced by an entrance from the gardens. The new entrance will encourage greater numbers of different people to visit the galleries—people who might not yet have braved the magnificent Grecian porticos at the foot of the Mound.

I remember being totally overawed the first time that I entered the Royal Scottish Academy building. That was in the early 1960s, when I was a student and my husband-to-be was a law apprentice in the firm of solicitors, Morton Fraser, which was secretary to the Society of Scottish Artists. Before the exhibition, the apprentices had to carry the entries, some of which were heavy, across the floor, while the judges looked at each one for about three seconds, and dismissed most with a flick of the eye. Because of my husband-to-be's sterling work, we were invited to the first night of the exhibition. I remember thinking that the RSA was the poshest place that I had ever been to. I regret to say that I do not remember any of the pictures, but I remember one point in the evening when I was standing next to a renowned artist, the late Anne Redpath. I can remember exactly what she was wearing: a black dress and a colourful shawl. That obviously made a greater impression on me than anything hanging on the walls.

It is important that art is accessible, not only physically, in terms of wheelchair and other users, but culturally. The proposals to have the entrance to the gallery from Princes Street gardens will make a great difference to the numbers of people, and, I hope, to the class of people—if I may use that phrase—who come to see the pictures. I hope that the numbers will grow and grow.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I should mention that I have been a patron of the National Gallery of Scotland—my wife is a patron currently. Local MSPs were not allowed to serve on the National Galleries of Scotland Bill Committee under new procedures, but that does not mean that local MSPs cannot support the project, which we believe to be very much in Edinburgh's interest and that of Scotland.

The national galleries are some of the best in the world, and under the inspirational leadership of Tim Clifford, supported by Michael Clarke, a considerable number of unknown masterpieces have been discovered. The Conservatives believe that creating 2,500 sq m of space with ready access will make a tremendous difference to Scotland's art and culture, and to those who appreciate the great treasures of the nation. It will also make a tremendous difference for education.

The galleries give enormous stimulation to children. I remember some years ago hearing Tim Clifford, in his enthusiasm, describe one picture as defying all criticism but being beyond all praise. When somebody can impart such enthusiasm to young people through the medium of great art, which is being made much more widely accessible, great treasures of the nation will be more greatly appreciated. The works will be appreciated not just by tourists and citizens, but by young people who want to take part in the expression of great art and contribute through their own work.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Technically, the members who opened the debate have the right to make a winding-up speech, but if they want to speak they must be brief. Does Margaret Smith, Mr Monteith or Mr Morgan want to add any comments?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

No.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No.

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

No.

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I should like to reinforce some of the comments of others. It is important that the issue of refurbishment is fully appreciated, and the speeches that I have heard suggest that it is. There will be obvious benefits to a wide range of groups that will make increased use of the galleries—for example, schools, students studying art, tourists from home or abroad, and, let us not forget, Auld Reekie's citizens themselves, who have this magnificent facility on their doorstep. I reiterate the congratulations to Tim Clifford and Michael Clarke for their foresight in the plans that they have overseen.

Parts of this debate form a link with this afternoon's debate on the European year of disabled people, in which Margaret Curran and I will participate. There is a clear sports, arts and cultural input to both debates, and that is why we are talking about the benefits of accessibility to the new facilities, which will primarily be from Princes Street gardens. That is important, as it will enable greater numbers to enjoy what the National Gallery of Scotland and the Royal Scottish Academy have to offer.

There is also the commercial aspect of the project—I thought that Alasdair Morgan would mention that, as he did when the committee questioned my colleague Elaine Murray. The question whether commercial facilities should be provided is important to the modern visitor's experience. Four days ago, I was fortunate enough to visit the Musée d'Orsay in Paris. The facilities and galleries there bear comparison with anywhere in the world. I want the national galleries in Scotland to be able to bear similar comparison. The National Museum of Scotland, for example, has the new Tower restaurant—many members will have experienced it—and we should consider having such facilities elsewhere. The current facilities of the national galleries hardly do them justice and the new restaurant facilities will be important.

The Executive supports the bill. I hope that it makes speedy progress through the parliamentary stages and that it receives royal assent.

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

How does one follow that? We have heard some brilliant speeches in the past half an hour. I thank everyone who spoke, including the committee's convener who, as usual, gave a lucid presentation.

The subsequent speeches were also interesting. We heard Mike Watson telling us where all the money was to come from; I welcome all the various millions of pounds. I found Alasdair Morgan's speech entertaining and informative. He referred to the fact that we were waiting for trains to get into Waverley in the 1890s, and that we are still waiting more than 100 years later. He also mentioned a kiosk that was designed as a bandstand. If only we could bring back the people who, in thinking that up, displayed brilliance at getting around rules and regulations and get them into Parliament. Brian Monteith talked about shortbread tins, postcards, Titian's "Venus" and Clochemerle. It was a colourful speech that was nevertheless full of necessary information.

Margaret Smith mentioned disabled visitors and very correctly pointed out that the bill was not to be taken as a precedent. Maureen Macmillan talked about Anne Redpath's wardrobe, among other things, and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton quoted Timothy Clifford's statement about a particular work of art defying all criticism but being beyond all praise. Sir Timothy is wasting his time down at the galleries; we should get him into the Parliament. After all, he sounds exactly like a politician.

As convener of the committee, Rhona Brankin deserves every thanks. She conducted the proceedings in a proper manner and kept us all in order, as she usually does. I think that being a former schoolteacher must have helped her in that respect. All the other committee members and officials were also helpful.

I will not mention all the organisations that submitted written evidence. However, I should point out that we heard from five major parties and various other consultations were carried out. Of course, the Deputy Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, Elaine Murray, appeared before the committee and was helpful.

It is interesting to note that a detailed pamphlet entitled "Information for objectors to private bills" was approved. Although that seems an unusual step, it shows that we are being very democratic.

We all agree that, although a bill to remove land from the gardens is necessary in this case, it is not to be taken as a precedent. The City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991 provides adequate protection and the bill's promoter has made adequate contingency plans.

I think that Brian Monteith just whispered in my ear that I should mention the issue of the £20 fee, which was also raised by Dr Richard Simpson. Some anonymous person has sent me a note about how the fee came about. It seems that I must be party to the measure, because the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body approved it some time ago. Apparently, the fee was set under powers in the standing orders and is identical to the fee that is charged at Westminster under the equivalent procedure. All fees and procedures are under constant review, which probably means that the fee will be increased at some point. One must also remember that a fee is set not just for monetary reasons; it might stop facetious objections, which can happen in such matters.

I thank all members who took part in this informative debate, which has been one of the best that I have heard in the Parliament. It is just a shame that we did not have a larger audience of MSPs. I thank everyone who has been involved in this matter and wish them all success, as I am sure the Parliament does.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I invite the author of the anonymous note to explain later to Mr Young how the whole process works.

Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3939, in the name of Margo MacDonald, on the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

It is with great pleasure that I invite Parliament's approval for the principles of the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill.

Members will be pleased to hear that the bill is a short one and has only eight sections. It is an enabling measure, which would empower a local authority, if it so decided, to designate an area forming part of the authority's area as a prostitution tolerance zone. By that, I mean a zone

"within which loitering, soliciting or importuning by prostitutes is not an offence under section 46(1) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982".

The bill seeks to exercise a duty of care towards prostitutes and to minimise annoyance, inconvenience and embarrassment to the general community. It does not seek to condone or promote prostitution; instead, it seeks to minimise the criminality that is associated with prostitution and to enable health and social services to be delivered more easily to a group of very vulnerable people.

I introduce the bill because for some years now I have been associated with the Scottish prostitutes education project—or SCOT-PEP—which is the voluntary organisation in Edinburgh that supports prostitutes. I was asked by officers in Lothian and Borders police to convene a steering group to investigate how best to build on the successful tolerance, or non-harassment, zone that had operated in Edinburgh for the best part of 20 years. The steering group became necessary after the area around Coburg Street in Leith, which had been the original tolerance zone, was redeveloped and residents complained of nuisance and embarrassment caused by the women who solicited there.

After discussions with SCOT-PEP, which represented the prostitutes, the police moved the zone to a strictly defined part of Salamander Street in Leith. As members will see from the evidence that was submitted to the Local Government Committee, such a solution might have proved possible if the police had had enough time to consult local people in the area before a very unfortunate spate of mass media reporting made any calm assessment of the matter well nigh impossible. The Salamander Street tolerance zone was discontinued on 30 November 2001 and a new solution was sought, which is how the steering group came about. In fact, I should point out that the group has greatly influenced the production of the bill.

Therefore, as members will appreciate, the bill is not ideologically based. Instead, it is a pragmatic, workable and legal way of managing the problems that can arise from street prostitution and of exercising a duty of care to prostitutes and the wider community. I dare to suggest that such a duty will be needed for as long as there are street prostitutes. In their evidence to the Local Government Committee, even the bill's opponents conceded that street prostitution is likely to remain a part of life in Scotland's four big cities for the foreseeable future.

At this stage, I should assure members that we are talking only about the four big cities. To the best of my knowledge, no other area has street prostitutes. There might well be women who work indoors as prostitutes elsewhere, but the problems and challenges that are presented by street prostitution are to be found only in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow. I will explain the differences among the cities later.

Because street prostitution in those cities is a fact of life, even though we might not wish that to be so, local councils, health authorities, community drugs action workers and the police in Aberdeen and Edinburgh have indicated their support for the bill's intentions and principles. Both cities have operated acknowledged informal tolerance zones. Moreover, having heard evidence on Glasgow's red-light area, the Local Government Committee has concluded that it, too, is a tolerance zone by any other name.

Because the pattern of prostitution is different in those three cities, the bill itself is non-prescriptive. However, Dundee is something else. I can say that because Kate Maclean is not here this morning. Dundee has a very small number of women who work as prostitutes and who are known to the police. That system works, and if it ain't broke, I would not be so presumptuous as to say that it should be mended. However, representatives of Tayside police attended meetings of the steering group, contributed to our discussions and did not raise any objections to the bill's principles.

Grampian police and Lothian and Borders police noted that the benefits of operating a non-harassment policy within an agreed area include the very low levels of criminality within such a zone. Attacks on women are much less frequent and underage women are not tolerated either by the women who work there as prostitutes or by the police who patrol the area. Pimps, managers or other exploitative people who live off the women's earnings are also not tolerated. Some people who enjoy dancing on the head of a pin would say that there are no such things as pimps in Scotland. I have used the word "pimp" to describe someone who lives off the earnings of a woman who works as a prostitute. Such people certainly exist.

Grampian and Lothian and Borders police officers cited the intelligence gained by the police as the most effective way of preventing or minimising alcohol and drugs offences and other crime. Obviously, as the law stands, soliciting is a crime. However, no other crime is tolerated within the zones that have been, or are, non-harassment zones.

One of the most urgent reasons for reinstating an agreed tolerance zone in Edinburgh centres on police officers' concern that, without knowing where prostitutes are working at any given time, they are finding it more difficult to prevent developments that are worrying municipal authorities all over Europe, including—as some members might know—those in English cities.

The new Mafias from eastern Europe and Albania are trafficking women from there and from elsewhere. Some of those women were discovered in Glasgow, not in its de facto street tolerance zone but working indoors, where it is much more difficult for them to be noticed by regular policing and the intelligence that builds up, as I described a few minutes ago.

Police in Edinburgh are concerned that, with the tolerance zone suspended, trafficked women might be working as street prostitutes. That would be an entirely new development and one that we should fear and attempt to meet as quickly as possible.

The ending of the tolerance zone has made it easier for drug dealers to infiltrate prostitution. During the time in which the Coburg Street zone was operational, it was estimated that about 20 per cent of the street prostitutes in Edinburgh were injecting drugs. In the 15 months since the zone was suspended, that percentage has grown to more than 50 per cent.

Aberdeen and Glasgow adopted their sensitive or tolerant policing policies later than Edinburgh, which might go some way to explaining why there should be such a difference between the 90 per cent plus drug injectors among prostitutes in Aberdeen and Glasgow and the much lower percentage in Edinburgh. To take members back almost 20 years—I can do that because I was there—when heavy drugs such as heroin first came on to the streets in Edinburgh, there was a fear that the HIV virus—and the hepatitis virus before that—could be spread through the prostitution route via drug dealers and drug trafficking. The drug scene gave rise to the management of prostitution. That did not happen until a few years later in Glasgow, which might explain some of the differences between the cities.

When the bill reaches stage 2, I want to lodge an amendment to include in the list of persons to be consulted under section 2(4) community councils and drugs action groups. I want to do that before a tolerance zone has been established, even when the zone has been triggered by the local authority.

The bill makes provision in section 2 for voluntary and statutory agencies to consult residents, business people and prostitutes. There must be a partnership to effect the bill's provisions in order to maximise the benefits to public health, security and good order in the entire community.

Members will note that health boards are listed. The director of public health of Lothian NHS Board gave evidence to the Local Government Committee in support of the bill because of the perceived benefits to public health in a tolerance zone. The zone makes it easier to deliver preventative measures such as condoms or medical examinations for sexually transmitted infections. In support of that, during the time that the tolerance zone was operational in Leith, there was not a single recorded case of the HIV virus being transmitted via a prostitute. That is a record that no one else can lay claim to, certainly not among the people whom I have consulted when introducing the bill.

If there are measurable benefits from having a tolerance zone policy—even an informal one—why do we need legislation? The Local Government Committee recommends that Aberdeen, Edinburgh and presumably Glasgow—as it has a de facto zone—could apply the well-being provision of the new Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 and install whichever facilities those cities think necessary in a suitable area to deliver health services, support to get out of prostitution and security to prostitutes. Soliciting would remain a criminal offence. At this stage, I say that those are precisely the services that are being delivered via SCOT-PEP in Edinburgh. Aberdeen would like to replicate the delivery of those services to its street prostitutes. Aberdeen would deliver the services via Drugs Action.

Under the scheme suggested by the Local Government Committee, soliciting would remain a criminal offence. I might have been tempted to accept that but, unfortunately, I have had legal advice from local authority solicitors and others who doubt that councils would have the necessary legal basis to instigate that informal style of tolerance zone. Local councillors in Edinburgh have told me that they are not confident that they could proceed on that basis after the breakdown of the previous policy and the ensuing publicity. Perhaps the convener of the Local Government Committee or the Executive could help to allay councillors' fears about that matter and I sincerely hope that they will be able to do so.

For a successful tolerance zone policy, there must be compliance from prostitutes, such as there was in Edinburgh, even when the tolerance zone was relocated. The women knew that if they observed the code of conduct agreed by SCOT-PEP and the police, they would not be prosecuted for soliciting. There was a strong argument for them to operate inside the zone and to respect business hours of opening and so on.

The suggestion from the Local Government Committee is that soliciting should remain a criminal offence. As evidence to the Local Government Committee has shown, there can be different views among procurators fiscal and police as to how rigorously the law against soliciting should be enforced, which might not induce an easy system of partnership among the relevant agencies. In time-honoured tradition, I have got my retaliation in first.

Finally, I record my thanks to the men who did such a professional job of producing the bill—Neil Brailsford and Kenneth Campbell from the Faculty of Advocates. I am also greatly obliged to the Parliament's draftsperson who gave advice, dotted the i's and crossed the t's, and to the Parliament's non-Executive bills unit. The clerks to the Local Government Committee, its committee members and the distinguished members of the superb Subordinate Legislation Committee are all to be thanked for their consideration and help with the bill. I also thank my advisers and SCOT-PEP, the researchers in my office who put up with me and all those who took part in the consultation and gave evidence to the committees. Thanks to their efforts, I am now able to ask Parliament to agree to the general principles of the bill.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill.

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

I start by thanking the clerks to the Local Government Committee and the Scottish Parliament information centre for the considerable efforts that they have made with regard to the bill.

Let us be clear about one thing: prostitution is not a career choice, nor is it a service that women provide for men. Prostitution is an abuse of women. The effect of the proposed legislation will be to allow local authorities to manage and legalise an activity associated with the abuse of women. The Scottish National Party will oppose the bill.

The Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill is essentially a bill of two parts. The first part allows local authorities to set up and manage facilities in a particular designated area and to provide, for example, closed-circuit television, cleansing and other services. The other part of the bill seeks to decriminalise soliciting in the designated area.

As Margo MacDonald has rightly said, hers is an enabling bill. No local authority is obliged to set up such zones and, of the 32 Scottish local authorities, 31 are either opposed to the bill or have not responded to it.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Some 133 organisations and agencies were approached in the consultation process and only Glasgow City Council and South Ayrshire Council objected to the bill. The others either did not object to the bill or supported it.

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

I repeat what I have just said: of the 32 local authorities in Scotland that the bill seeks to enable to set up tolerance zones, 31 either are opposed to the bill or have not responded to it. Glasgow City Council is opposed to the bill and the City of Edinburgh Council is in favour of it. Dundee Council did not respond and Aberdeen City Council has taken no decision on the matter.

During the evidence sessions, I asked repeatedly—I have not yet had a satisfactory answer—why the bill is needed, if there have been two informal tolerance zones in Edinburgh during past years and a tolerance zone currently operates in Aberdeen. What more can be done though the bill that present legislation does not allow? The answer is simple: nothing. Aberdeen City Council, which has an informal zone, recognises that

"From a purely practical point of view, if the bill were not passed, that would not make too much difference in Aberdeen because the arrangements that we have do not rely on the bill."—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 7 January 2003; c 3790.]

Therefore, Aberdeen, which already has an informal tolerance zone, does not believe that the passing of the bill will allow it to do anything more than it does at present.

Current local authority powers and the additional power of well-being that is included in the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 give sufficient powers to local authorities to designate an area and to provide the infrastructure and other services designed to protect the health and safety of prostitutes and the communities in which they operate. The problem exists in Edinburgh—this is a problem only in Edinburgh—not because there is no tolerance zones act, but because there is no public agreement about where a tolerance zone should be located.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

The member will recall that as part of the evidence given to the Local Government Committee, the deputy leader of Glasgow City Council admitted that the city's tolerance zone arrangements were likely to break down, exactly as they had in Edinburgh, and that there would be a problem in relocating the women. How does she envisage that could be done without any legal basis?

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

Certainly, every local authority must look at its own arrangements. I am confident that Glasgow will manage the situation. This is a problem purely for Edinburgh. It is not a matter for legislation; it is a matter of location. If the Salamander Street tolerance zone were still in operation, we would not be seeing this bill today. Public opinion forced the closure of that zone and, even if the bill were enacted, it would not allow for a zone to be set up if the public did not wish it to be there.

I am concerned that the general public have not been fully consulted on the bill. Prostitutes and pimps travel to existing zones from elsewhere in Scotland and England. We have heard some evidence of nuisance in the surrounding community to do with condoms being dumped, but most of us in the Local Government Committee would agree that the community view has not been put to us. It is a matter for procurators fiscal and policing policy whether they prosecute for soliciting. It is they who make the judgment in the public interest whether to prosecute—just as they did when an informal tolerance zone operated in Edinburgh. Although that approach is not perfect, it is more pragmatic, and preferable to decriminalising an activity in one area while retaining the legislation everywhere else. As the submission from the Scottish Police Federation made clear, the Government should challenge the notion that prostitution is acceptable and inevitable rather than provide for its decriminalisation in defined geographical areas.

The debate that we should be having is not about tolerance zones but about prostitution. That is why I fully support the Local Government Committee's recommendation that further investigation is needed by way of a ministerial committee. Prostitution may be the oldest profession in the world, but in Scotland it deserves a considered response. The bill has been useful in that it has highlighted an issue that many would prefer remained hidden. However, the bill is neither needed nor practicable, and it should be opposed.

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

A very full consultation took place on this matter. Senior police officers were consulted, as were major local authorities, health boards, social work groups, drug addiction teams, and the Deputy Minister for Finance and Local Government. Various responses came in; of particular interest were those from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, but there were also observations from drug and HIV groups, churches and even the Scottish Young Fabians.

The deputy minister, Peter Peacock, responded to Trish Godman, who initiated the consideration as convener of the Local Government Committee. His letter stated:

"Your specific question was about whether the power could be used to provide community safety infrastructure to enhance the safety of prostitutes operating in an area, even thought it could be seen as action in support of illegal activities. The power could not be used in a way that was promoting illegal activity so a council acting in a way that was encouraging soliciting or importuning for the purposes of prostitution in a particular area would be acting outwith the power to advance well-being, and would also be acting in an unlawful and possibly criminal manner."

I am not a lawyer, but I get the impression that there are blurred, grey areas regarding the legality—

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

Does John Young accept that the power of well-being will not allow local authorities to decriminalise soliciting, but that it will allow local authorities to work with other people, organisations and agencies? The power of well-being will give local authorities the right to provide infrastructure such as CCTV and for the servicing of such zones, because it is for the betterment of sections of their communities.

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I accept a large part of what Tricia Marwick has said, but I still think that responses from the Crown Office and others show that there are legal grey areas.

The point was made that prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, and that is probably true. Most of us have great sorrow for women who are driven into prostitution. It must be one of the most dangerous activities to pursue, as they just do not know what they are coming up against. The cardinal thing is that prostitution will probably be with us as far as we can look into the future. It was here in the past and it will be here in the future. Margo MacDonald is trying to propose something that would perhaps make it safer for women, but there were problems in Salamander Street and Coburg Street, where residents were concerned about the area deteriorating. If they owned their own houses, they were concerned that the values of those houses might go down.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

As I have already conceded, there was obviously great concern among business people and residents who own property in Salamander Street. However, after the zone had been operational and after there had been a level of consultation and information supplied to people, the number of complaints to the police dropped drastically. What we have now in Leith is a much greater level of hazard for the security of the prostitutes, and also annoyance to residents. Because there is no tolerance zone, the police cannot operate in the way in which they operated before, which minimised the level of associated criminality and annoyance.

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I thank Margo MacDonald for that information.

There is a point that I feel I should make, which may be relevant in some ways but may not be relevant in others. Some years ago, Glasgow City Council had a visit from an Australian woman who was an international expert in the field of prostitution. She said that prostitution, of course, existed in Melbourne and that there was harassment from the authorities. The people who owned the brothels in Melbourne then tried to go respectable, and indeed they formed a company, which they floated on the Melbourne stock exchange. It became so lucrative that women—and, sadly, children also—are now being flown in from south-east Asia for such ventures, and the Russian Mafia appears to have moved in. I am not suggesting that that could happen here, but who knows? In Melbourne, they did not think that it could happen there, and there are major problems.

I still have a problem with the unlawful and possible criminal activity that can take place. In some ways, one could argue in favour of tolerance zones, but what worries me is that the clients often take the women elsewhere by car. They may take them to some isolated site on the outskirts of the city, and those poor women are not only abused but may also be violently attacked or even murdered.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will John Young accept an intervention?

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I do not know how it works, but perhaps Margo MacDonald will be able to answer my question.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Certainly, if John Young will accept an intervention from me.

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Margo MacDonald may well have spoken to a number of the women. Does she find that those women themselves are happy about that arrangement? Are they concerned about being uplifted by a client and taken elsewhere?

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I am glad that that point has arisen, because there seems to be some misunderstanding as to the details of how prostitution operates, particularly in Glasgow and Edinburgh. The tolerance zones were, in effect, what was described at the Local Government Committee as pick-up zones. That was where clients engaged with prostitutes. They then went to another part of Glasgow, usually the lanes, which I think are well known to former Councillor Anderson, in a professional capacity, of course. In Edinburgh, they usually go in cars.

I am sorry. I should have said former Councillor Young, not Anderson. I was thinking about someone else whom we both know.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I think that we had better change the subject and move on.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

We are going to. It is an interesting subject, but we can go into it later.

What happens is that—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member's intervention is very long.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

It is indeed, but I was giving information that is pertinent to the debate, Presiding Officer, and crave your indulgence.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

You should give that information quickly, please.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

The police have intelligence about who uses such zones and know whether women are there. Women can look out for one another. SCOT-PEP had an ugly-mug system. If a client abused somebody, a record of that was kept by SCOT-PEP and shared with the police, so there was a much greater flow of information as to what happened in prostitution. That is why women like to work in tolerance zones.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will give you one more minute, Mr Young. You should not take any more interventions.

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That was probably the longest intervention in the Parliament so far.

I am not the only former Glasgow councillor in the chamber—indeed, Trish Godman was a prominent Glasgow councillor. One cannot equate Glasgow to places such as Edinburgh, as Glasgow city centre's geography is entirely different. Prostitutes can operate at the end of each lane. I believe that there was an idea whereby a prostitute would operate at one end of a lane to try to keep an eye on her colleague who was at the other end—that was their only safety.

It is difficult—almost impossible—to establish tolerance zones in a city such as Glasgow. I am not an expert on prostitution or prostitutes—I must say that, as it might sound as though I wander around the streets of Glasgow like Gladstone or his father used to do in the streets of Leith. However, there are too many unanswered questions. I appreciate what Margo MacDonald is trying to do, but I think that we would end up in a legal quagmire or nightmare.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The topic that is being debated is not easy. The Liberal Democrats do not believe that the issue should be a party-political one. Individual MSPs should consider all the evidence and reach their own conclusions.

The Local Government Committee took a considerable amount of evidence at stage 1, as our report shows. We took evidence from many people, there were long evidence sessions and we took a long time to deliberate on the careful wording of our report.

I have considerable sympathy for the case that Margo MacDonald has put in support of the bill. No one should be in any doubt about her commitment to promoting the welfare of women who find themselves trapped in street prostitution, or her genuine belief that the bill provides a real route for dealing with some of the many issues that surround street prostitution.

We considered carefully all the evidence that was presented to the Local Government Committee. Strong views were expressed both by those who were in favour of the bill and by those who were against it. Those who were in favour of the bill saw it as a pragmatic approach to a real and existing problem that would allow the effective targeting of services to a very vulnerable group. Those who opposed the bill did so from a principled standpoint and said that if the bill were passed, it would constitute a legitimisation of prostitution. I echo what Margo MacDonald said and what the committee said in its report—that was not her intention in the bill.

I have no doubt that street prostitutes are victims rather than criminals. Routes into prostitution include sexual and physical abuse, poverty and drugs. Almost all street prostitutes have a drugs habit and are involved in prostitution to fund that habit or that of a male partner, which Margo MacDonald mentioned. Routes out of prostitution must involve dealing with those fundamental causes. It would be preferable to prevent women from going into prostitution in the first place, but the bill deals with how best to support women who are in prostitution to get out.

There are health and safety benefits not only for prostitutes, but for the wider community in having clearly defined zones in which street prostitutes can operate. The evidence from Edinburgh is compelling—particularly the worrying rise in violence against prostitutes since the loss of the non-harassment zones. It is clear that there are benefits in being able to target services at women who work in defined geographical areas rather than attempting to provide services to women who may be scattered over a wide area and are difficult to identify. The safety of women cannot be guaranteed—particularly as the sexual acts will be conducted elsewhere—but there is no doubt that the provision of adequate lighting and CCTV, sensitive policing and mutual support help to improve the security of women who are involved in prostitution. Voluntary groups and health services can target their services more effectively, from the provision of condoms, needle exchanges and health clinics to services such as drugs counselling and routes out of prostitution programmes. The police can develop effective liaison with prostitutes, which helps to combat problems with pimps, drug dealers and under-age girls and helps to identify possibly violent clients. Councils can also target cleansing services to deal with the inevitable debris that results from street prostitution, which has benefits for the wider community.

One reason for the bill is the concern that local authorities that attempt to assume a duty of care towards prostitutes by installing or providing safety features such as CCTV or other services could lay themselves open to accusations of aiding and abetting an illegal activity. The Local Government Committee considered that matter carefully, along with whether local authorities already have sufficient powers to provide services in specific areas where there is street prostitution, particularly in the context of the new power of well-being.

The key paragraph of the Local Government Committee's report is paragraph 90. The committee concluded:

"Whilst the power to advance well being cannot be used to create Prostitution Tolerance Zones as proposed under the Bill, the Committee considers that existing powers available to local authorities and the additional powers available under the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, are sufficient to enable local authorities to provide infrastructure and services designed to protect the health and safety of prostitutes and the general public whether generally or within defined areas. Policies regarding arrest or prosecution within a defined area would be matters for the police and the prosecuting authorities."

That is the crucial paragraph in the report and is the reason why I do not believe that the bill is necessary to achieve its aims. Powers are available to local authorities to work in partnership with health services and the police to develop the best solutions for their areas. Indeed, the additional powers under the community planning provisions might provide even more powers to develop such solutions.

One of the committee's particular concerns was the variation in prosecution policies throughout Scotland. The committee took the firm view that fining prostitutes for soliciting and jailing them for non-payment of fines was not the way forward or in the public interest. Indeed, as most prostitutes are in prostitution to fund a drugs habit, fining a prostitute is more likely to lead them to increase rather than reduce their activity to allow them to pay the fine and finance their drugs habit. We believe that a more appropriate route would be to consider using drugs courts and drug testing and treatment orders, for example.

For those reasons, the committee concluded that we should not support the general principles of the bill, although we recognised that the existing legislative framework is far from satisfactory. That is why we have urged the Scottish Executive to establish a cross-party working group with a ministerial chair to examine issues surrounding prostitution in Scotland, including the effects of drug abuse, and to recommend appropriate primary and secondary intervention measures. I hope that the minister will respond positively to our suggestions.

I commend our recommendations to the Parliament and urge members to reject the general principles of the bill.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We now reach the open part of the debate. As Trish Godman is the convener of the Local Government Committee, I will allow her a little extra time.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I, too, thank members of the Local Government Committee for all their hard work on the report, and the committee's staff. I am keen for the Official Report to record the fact that the committee has every sympathy with the bill's aims and Margo MacDonald's motivations and intentions—I want to make that clear.

The committee had to address the duty of care towards and the safety of prostitutes, and whether tolerance zones would or should be part of that duty of care. We considered the reasons why women become prostitutes. There is no doubt that we are talking about a very vulnerable group of women. Most have suffered emotional, physical or sexual abuse—indeed, some have suffered emotional, physical and sexual abuse. Many have children who are in care. They find it difficult to establish routines, particularly those who have a drugs habit—I will speak about them later. Some of them are in a vicious circle, because, as Iain Smith said, they have to pay fines, so they solicit to pay them or to feed a drugs habit.

What is to be done? Some people genuinely believe that tolerance zones make it safer for prostitutes to work and for statutory services to deliver the necessary support systems—that was a clear position. Other people do not believe that tolerance zones are necessary. To say that we heard conflicting evidence is to put things mildly. There was conflicting evidence from parts of Scotland and England. Some people said that tolerance zones would be safer for women, but others said that they would not, as violence takes place outwith zones. Zones are for soliciting, but the business takes place elsewhere.

There is a gender imbalance in respect of offences. Soliciting is an offence, but kerb crawling is not. Should we consider making kerb crawling an offence? There was conflicting evidence on that. Some evidence suggested that if kerb crawling became an offence, it would become less safe for the prostitute, because she would not have time to assess who is in the car, whether she knows them and whether it is someone with whom she would not want to do the business.

We have evidence from a project in Middlesborough, which supported the arrest of kerb crawlers. However, in its evidence, it agreed that the initial impetus of the campaign would be lost if it did not continue to receive serious media support—that is, after people have been arrested and prosecuted, their names, addresses and car numbers should be prominently placed in the local press. We need further investigation of the matter because there is an imbalance.

We were surprised and extremely concerned by the percentage of the women who are intravenous drug users. Of 1,200 prostitutes in Glasgow, 97 per cent are drug users. As I said, women who are fined for soliciting go on the streets again to pay the fine or—as Iain Smith said—to feed a partner's habit or their own. The question that I asked and which Iain Smith mentioned is: should we send prostitutes to the drugs courts instead, or to the kind of time-out centre that they have in Glasgow? That would be one way of ensuring that the drugs issue, which is the big issue, is dealt with right at the beginning. However, that is a question for another day.

We had to consider routes out of prostitution. That was the most important part of our deliberations. There is no doubt that it is easier for statutory agencies to deliver work to a prostitute when there is a defined area. However, services should be geared towards individuals and not necessarily to a geographical area. The Deputy Minister for Justice stated:

"such work is not dependent on legalities".—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 21 January 2003; c 3860.]

Agencies must work together, wherever the prostitutes are.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I have great sympathy with the idea of women being treated as individuals and services being geared to their individual needs, but the business of prostitution is not the same as a nine-to-five job. Women go in and out of prostitution. In some periods of their life they act as prostitutes, and in others they do not. Therefore, location is central to the delivery of services.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I accept that there is an argument that it is easier for services to be delivered in that way, but that does not mean that it cannot be done in other ways. We did it with young kids in respect of drugs. We went to where they were and brought in other young kids who talked to them. There are ways of providing services, although they might take more time.

My feeling is that we must take a huge step back. I was impressed by some of the examples that we were told about, including projects that go into schools. I have to say that young boys of 12 who were asked, "Why do you think women are prostitutes?" responded, "Because they like sex," or, "Because they want to buy a new frock." That threw me right back to the zero tolerance campaigns that we had for Women's Aid, when boys of the same age said that it was all right for a man to slap a woman if their tea was not ready or if she was not doing what she was told. We have changed those attitudes—not as much as I would like, but we have changed them—and we must also change attitudes to prostitution.

We aim to stop women entering prostitution but, as John Young said, it is the oldest profession in the world. We will not change that, but we have to give the women a choice.

This may sound strange, as I am recommending that we do not agree to the general principles of the bill, but Margo MacDonald has to be thanked for bringing this serious problem, with all its attendant difficulties, before the Parliament.

I do not agree to the general principles of the bill, but the Local Government Committee will leave a legacy report, and I will ensure that the matter is central to it, and that we have a working group with a minister in the chair. We will ask the incoming Executive to pursue that.

Much more needs to be done, and it needs to be done thoroughly. These women deserve no less.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Margo MacDonald is to be congratulated on having the courage to bring a matter of this type to the chamber. She has done so with some well-thought-out and reasoned arguments.

The whole question of prostitution and its management raises a number of practical and moral issues. We should not be judgmental about those who seek to make a living out of prostitution. Some have made a life choice, but most are victims. As Trish Godman said, many are drug abusers. They should attract our sympathy rather than our criticism. As a Glasgow justice, I frequently had to deal with cases of prostitution, and I have to agree with the committee report that the existing system of dealing with prostitutes is an exercise in futility. What is the point of fining them when the only way that they can get the money is to go out on the streets and commit further offences? That is why I am strongly of the view that the cases should be taken to the drugs courts to enable the women to get the assistance that they need. Unfortunately, when I made that proposal in an amendment to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill last week there was rather less than unanimous support for my idea.

My main concern about Margo MacDonald's bill is not about legality or morality; it is about practicality. The obvious problem, which all members who have spoken so far have identified, is where the tolerance zones would be situated. That issue is clearly problematical. The fact is that nobody wants to have a tolerance zone in the area in which they live or in which they conduct business. It must be recognised—and this is evidenced in Salamander Street—

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I agree that no one wants to have a prostitution tolerance zone in their street, and the bill seeks to ensure that that would not happen. However, the committee received evidence from Annie Rhodes, who owns commercial premises in Salamander Yards, who said that if the zone were operational in the way in which it would have been operational had there been time to put the plans into operation in Edinburgh, there would be no great hazard to businesses in some areas.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I accept that. There is clearly evidence to justify that.

One of the problems in respect of commercial areas that arose in Glasgow, where there was a quasi-tolerance zone, was that women leaving premises where shift working took place—in particular, call centres—late in the evening were approached. They understandably found that offensive. The obvious solution is to take tolerance zones out to industrial estates, away from everybody, but evidence suggests that the women would not find that acceptable.

In Glasgow, there have been six murders of prostitutes in recent times.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Eight.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The figure is eight. I stand corrected. As Assistant Chief Constable McLean said in his evidence, much of the violence perpetrated against prostitutes takes place outwith tolerance zones. The remains of two of the prostitutes were found a long way from the pick-up point.

Those are some of the difficulties. What happens, for example, when the nature of an area changes? That is what happened in Leith, where a former dockland area became gentrified and private dwellings were built. What was acceptable at one stage was no longer acceptable.

It must be recognised that the issue is difficult. The Local Government Committee has made a genuine effort to deal with it as sympathetically and constructively as possible. I accept that there is no easy answer. Prostitution is the oldest profession, and much as we all wish that it did not exist, sadly it will almost certainly always exist. I accept that we must seek a way of managing it, but I honestly do not think that the bill is the tool that we need to do so.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I declare my membership of the Routes Out of Prostitution social inclusion partnership in Glasgow, which aims to support women in finding routes out of prostitution.

I commend Margo MacDonald for introducing the member's bill. Her approach has been very thorough. It is a brave proposal and I think that, so far, we have had a mature debate. I must also commend the Local Government Committee for its excellent work. Iain Smith pointed us to paragraph 90 of the committee's report. I think that the proposal in that paragraph is an ingenious way forward.

I represent an area in Glasgow city centre that is often referred to as the drag. In my role as an MSP, I regularly discuss the problems of managing prostitution activity, which include women who go missing from the zone and complaints from local businesses and residents. That is a very active part of my duties as an MSP.

Police in Glasgow must also be commended, because they take seriously the protection of those vulnerable women. As we have discovered, the area is to all intents and purposes a tolerance zone. The police managed the problem for 20 years before any Parliament got round to discussing the problems involved.

It is important to note that we are talking about street prostitution activity, which is not to be confused with indoor brothels and so on.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Does Pauline McNeill agree that prostitution takes place not only in the area that she represents? Glasgow green is currently experiencing the phenomenon of daytime prostitution, which is causing considerable offence to young girls coming home from school, men collecting their children and others. Does she agree that such changes are some of the most worrying elements of the new situation?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Dr Simpson is correct; the problem is far more serious in Glasgow green than it is in my constituency.

The police have raised with me concerns that the new luxury development that is planned for the zone in my constituency will inevitably lead to the break-up of the zone and will increase the difficulties that they have in managing the problem.

Women leaving work in Glasgow are already being approached by men asking whether they are available for business. An uproar is being caused, and it is right that the Parliament should discuss what might be a solution.

We must start with an understanding that women enter prostitution because they are desperate. They have poor health and many of their children are already under supervision orders. Women are harmed by this activity. They face danger, are exploited by men and their lives are at risk. The issue is partly one of violence. The Glasgow stick men are so called because they carry sticks as offensive weapons.

A tolerance zone, official or otherwise, would provide only a measure of protection in relation to soliciting. As others have said, the place where the private sex act takes place is where the women are likely to be harmed. The fundamental issue is that a tolerance zone will not protect women from that harm. Eight prostitutes have been murdered in eight years—we know that the activity is not safe. Although street prostitution in Glasgow is not organised in the way in which it is organised in London, the London police have already warned us that Glasgow could become a focus for human trafficking and organised crime.

This is probably the most complex issue that Parliament has dealt with, and we know that it will not go away. As I have said, there is a view among the experts that we should take account of the impact on tolerance zones if human trafficking or organised crime were to become more prevalent.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

The only activity that would be legal in the zone that is currently illegal outwith the zone would be soliciting. Therefore, the trafficking of people and any breach of the peace would be treated in exactly the same way as they are now: they would be criminal offences.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I understand that, but I also think that there would be more activity if there were an official tolerance zone. I am only asking people to think about what might lie ahead.

Tricia Marwick is right about the precedent that would be set by allowing local authorities to decide that something is a crime in one area but not in another. That has to be thought through because I cannot think of another example where that would be the case.

What is the solution? First and foremost, there is a drug problem in Glasgow. It is a mystery to me why prostitution has not been tackled as a drug addiction problem. Bill Aitken is right to point out that drugs courts are one way forward and I would like to hear from the minister whether he thinks that we should use that route.

The Routes Out of Prostitution social inclusion partnership is important. It has the hardest job of any SIP, but it is beginning to make progress. I do not underestimate how difficult its job is.

Issues of rehabilitation and unemployment are important. We know about the cycle in which unemployed people get caught up when they are unable to find jobs whose salary matches the benefits that they get. That is also a problem for women involved in prostitution. The Routes Out of Prostitution social inclusion partnership is trying to tackle that. A woman must be given a viable alternative to prostitution in the form of employment that matches her previous financial circumstances.

We know that there is gender discrimination in the law. What we do about that is important. Women cannot be targeted while men are not.

We all recognise that prostitution is harmful to women. We have achieved a lot in today's debate. I thank Margo MacDonald and the committee for their work and urge the Parliament to think about the issue further and not simply to ignore the problem.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

In a perfect world we would be debating not the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill but an eradication of prostitution bill. However, I do not live in a perfect world; I live in Edinburgh.

When I consider the issue, I mostly think about the concerns that have been raised by our local police. The tolerance zone in the city became established during the 1980s as a reaction to the city's problems with HIV and drug addiction. Since then, the debate has evolved. We accept that one size does not fit all and that we must consider the issues that relate to particular locations.

I am sympathetic to Margo MacDonald's bill and appreciate the tremendous work that she has done to make it an effective piece of enabling legislation. It would allow councils to take forward plans for zones in their areas that would have to be consulted on in the widest possible way.

The local police have told me that, since the end of the tolerance zone, street prostitutes have drifted to areas as far away as Lothian Road and Bruntsfield links. I was driving home from East Lothian the other evening and saw prostitutes in four locations in Leith. The impact on the wider community is greater than it was when there was a tolerance zone.

The local police have also told me that they are concerned that they have less control over the situation and that their intelligence regarding associated criminal activities has been considerably reduced. They say that much of the good work that has been done in the past 20 years is being eroded quickly. They are also concerned about the possibility of trafficking and believe that some of the prostitutes have come from eastern Europe. A further concern that the police expressed in that regard is that some women might start to arrive via the African route, with all the problems that that could bring in relation to HIV.

I have listened to my colleagues and agree that the issue is difficult. It might come down simply to a balance between pragmatism and principle, and this might be one of the occasions on which we have to be pragmatic. We have to listen to what our police tell us—I make no apology for listening to my local police—and to what our health service tells us.

As Bill Aitken and others have said, these women have to be supported. We are more likely to be able to support them if we establish a geographic area in which they can be accepted, dealt with, treated and provided with services that will help with sexually transmitted diseases and drug abuse. I stress that sexually transmitted diseases do not stop at the edges of a tolerance zone but go home to the living rooms of Morningside and the bedrooms of Cramond, as do the problems of drug abuse. Those problems affect every one of us.

Sometimes, we have to be brave. We should say that we agree with much of what is contained in the committee's report and applaud the work that the committee has done. We should also say that we support what the committee has to say about the need to examine the wider issues. However, we must also say that in Edinburgh, we need action right now. Therefore, I will support Margo MacDonald at this stage. I will also support the committee's call for a ministerial commission, because we have to move towards a situation in which we can debate an eradication of prostitution bill in the chamber. The wider issues have to be examined in that context.

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

Does Margaret Smith accept that, even if the bill were passed, locating a tolerance zone in Edinburgh would still be a problem? The problem is location, not legislation.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I do not know whether Tricia Marwick heard what I said at the beginning of my remarks. I said that the bill is an enabling bill, which would require councils to consult fully not only local communities but the different services that are available in those communities. If the bill were to impose a tolerance zone on anybody, I would be opposed to it. However, we have a problem that I can see with my own eyes is spreading throughout Edinburgh, part of which I represent.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I am not unsympathetic to Margaret Smith's argument, but she has not addressed the harm done to the women and the fact that that harm is generally done where the private sex act takes place, which is outwith the tolerance zone. Does that not concern her?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

There will have to be a combination of CCTV and controlled policing, for example. However, because of what has happened since the ending of the tolerance zone, the local Edinburgh police tell us that they have less control over what is going on in the prostitution industry and over the criminal acts that go on round it than they had when the zone existed. SCOT-PEP, which has worked on the tolerance zone, also tells us that there have been five times as many assaults on sex-trade street workers in Edinburgh since the zone was ended than when it existed.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for the point that Pauline McNeill raised, but on the evidence that I have been given, I have to accept that a zone is safer for women. They can look out for one another; the wee kids up an alley off Bread Street about whom I have been told will not have that extra level of protection.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I congratulate Margo MacDonald on introducing the bill and putting the issue so firmly on the Parliament's agenda. I also thank the Local Government Committee for the work that it has done to develop the debate.

Members have spoken honestly and openly about the dilemmas that we have all had when dealing with the issue, whether in committee work or as local MSPs. There is no question but that there are very different but equally deeply held views on the issue or that there is conflicting evidence.

All that any of us can do in reaching a view is look to our own experiences, and although I do not tend to sit on fences, I have struggled to know what to do on the bill. From my experience in my constituency, I am in no doubt that, since the ending of the tolerance zone in Coburg Street and the subsequent failed attempt to set up a tolerance zone in Salamander Street, the situation has worsened for local residents and for the women themselves. Margaret Smith has spoken eloquently about the information that many of us have heard from local police and other agencies.

One of the consequences of the ending of the informal zone has been that prostitutes have dispersed to many parts of Edinburgh. Many have moved into the Leith links area, most of which is in my constituency. Residents in that area have experienced many problems as a result. As well as the general discomfort caused by soliciting and kerb-crawling taking place close to residents' homes, there have been a number of confrontations—largely, I am pleased to say, verbal—between residents and prostitutes and, indeed, pimps. The strength of feeling on the issue in the Leith links area is palpable. It is demonstrated most clearly by the local community's decision to establish nightly patrols, which are due to start within the next couple of weeks.

Like other members, I have spent a great deal of time on the issue with residents, representatives of prostitutes in the area and the police, and I am struck by the problem's complexity and apparent intractability. Street prostitution is a reality, and, as the Local Government Committee's report states, it is the

"manifestation of deeply rooted, interlinked and complex social, psychological and medical problems with a range of causes and effects."

Given all that, we will not resolve the issue through one bill or in this debate.

I also note that the committee

"acknowledges the challenges facing local authorities and police forces in Scotland in balancing the needs of women in prostitution with those of the wider community and considers that shared objectives and multi-agency working are imperative to enable these challenges to be faced."

We can all agree with that, but we know how difficult it is to do.

I am struck that the local residents who have been affected by the issue in my constituency are not simply anti-prostitute. They are realistic about the fact that street prostitution takes place and are generally sympathetic to the needs of the women, whose health and well-being they are keen to see properly protected. Nonetheless, they do not want their street, homes and families to be exposed to the realities of street prostitution daily. Only yesterday, I spoke to a local resident who was somewhat confused and perplexed when he was approached at 10 o'clock in the morning on his way to buy a newspaper by a man who said "Where are the prostitutes, then? They're here, aren't they?" Everybody is grappling with the issue. I have detected willingness from people from all quarters to come together and try to make progress. I note, as Margaret Smith did, the efforts that Lothian and Borders police have made to implement practical measures. However, more could be done on a multi-agency basis, and I use this opportunity to appeal directly to Lothian and Borders police, Lothian NHS Board and the City of Edinburgh Council to step up their efforts to work together to address the issues that we face in Edinburgh, which have particular characteristics that need to be addressed in ways that suit the area.

Whatever the outcome of the vote, I hope that the Executive will implement actively and enthusiastically in the next parliamentary session the expert group that the committee proposed. I hope that, through that group, we will be able to address some of the apparent inequities in the law. Many of us are concerned that the law appears to focus more on the women who supply the service than on the men who demand it, and the women are criminalised more than the men are.

I know that deep issues are involved. My time is up, so I cannot begin to address them, but I hope that the Parliament will, and I congratulate those who have started to do so.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

Prostitution has been with us for a long time, but that is not to say that we should not acknowledge and tackle some of the underlying causes that lead women to enter prostitution. Those causes are, as Trish Godman eloquently said, physical, sexual and emotional abuse, together with poverty and drugs. Drugs in particular, as many have said, are driving the current increase in prostitution.

Margo MacDonald's bill has much to recommend it and I have great sympathy with many of the issues that she raises. However, but I do not support the bill in its current form. Given the evidence that it received, the Local Government Committee has come to the correct view, which is that we should take a longer and wider look at the issue in the form of a ministerial review, which would allow an examination of the different factors and an update of the legislative underpinnings.

Several witnesses from Aberdeen, which operates a tolerance zone, gave evidence to the committee. Aberdeen is a seaport, and there has always been some prostitution associated with the harbour. The current tolerance zone is within the traditional red-light area. It has grown out of what was already there, which would continue to be there under any circumstances. Moreover, the zone is in an entirely industrial and commercial area.

During the 1970s and 1980s, prostitution in Aberdeen grew due to the oil industry. As I recently heard from Grampian police, it attracted women from England—from one or two cities in particular. That route now acts as a conduit for drugs, which can be sold on the street in Aberdeen for four times the price for which they can be sold down south.

During the 1990s, the drugs problem in Aberdeen escalated. That is what drives the number of women who are involved in street prostitution in Aberdeen. Almost all of them support a drug habit or support somebody else who also has a drug habit. It has been suggested to me that as many women in Aberdeen as in Edinburgh—a city twice the size—are involved in street prostitution.

It has been recognised that the establishment of the tolerance zone in Aberdeen has had some beneficial effects. It undoubtedly allows the police to build better relationships with the women involved in the sex trade. By helping the police to maintain public order, it also allows better relationships to be built with businesses in the area.

I argue that Aberdeen urgently requires the development of further links between various agencies, in particular between Aberdeen Drugs Action, which is the voluntary sector group that provides most of the needle exchange and other drug-related services, those involved in health promotion and the police.

Some outreach work is already taking place, but Grampian police's main objective is to get a drop-in centre set up in the harbour area, as that would support further action. That proposal is supported by other agencies, too. Work is progressing, and I hope that the drop-in centre will open later this year. The establishment of such a centre could start to provide better routes out of prostitution, especially by addressing the drugs problem.

Drug treatment and testing orders have recently been introduced in Aberdeen, and they are really effective. When I asked whether they could be applied to women involved in prostitution in Aberdeen, I got negative replies. Nevertheless, I would like the minister to consider how a drugs court could operate in relation to the women who come into contact with the criminal justice system, as it could provide an alternative route for women involved in prostitution. At present, they go to the district court where they are fined, which does not address the underlying drugs problem.

We require straight alternatives to existing sanctions under the criminal justice system, which perhaps does not assist and support the women in the most appropriate way. Such alternatives could include non-custodial sentences, in which the establishment of the drop-in centre could have a role.

In order to make progress on services and work in this area, we do not absolutely require legislation on tolerance zones—certainly not in Aberdeen. However, it would be useful to consider tolerance zones in the wider context of a ministerial review. I look forward to that and to the many issues associated with prostitution being addressed effectively.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

This has been an excellent debate. Members have been wrestling with their consciences and with the problems involved. This is a personal matter, and I think that people should vote in a personal capacity. I would greatly regret it if any party—as seems to have been indicated—were to have a party line on the issue.

The Local Government Committee has produced a very good report. Although I happen to disagree with one or two points in it, it is a fair and serious attempt to address what is obviously a difficult issue.

I support the bill, because it gives councils the opportunity to put in place tolerance zones if they so wish. The local community and the council have to agree with the police in working out how the zones would operate, so the bill involves a local democratic measure.

It has been argued that this is a matter not of legislation but of location. However, if the legislation does not exist, it is not possible to do anything, even if a location is found. If the legislation exists and a location can be found, something may be done; if a location is not found, nothing will be done. That is fairly straightforward and democratic—I thought that that is what we were here for.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Donald Gorrie said that if the legislation does not exist, it is not possible to do anything, but there is an unofficial tolerance zone in Glasgow despite the absence of legislation.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

There seem to be indications that that zone could unravel at some stage in the future. If a zone already exists, it would better to legislate rather than to keep it operating unofficially.

The Local Government Committee called for a working party to be set up and I hope that the minister will agree that one should be established. It would be disappointing if the minister proposes not to implement that important recommendation, whether or not Margo MacDonald's bill is passed.

We have to tackle kerb-crawling and the male contribution to prostitution. I have always felt unhappy with the current situation. Perhaps we should be dealing with kerb-crawling—I do not know. Morally, it is just as bad for men to go to prostitutes as it is for prostitutes to offer the service, but we are still in the Victorian position of dealing with the women but not with the men.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Will Donald Gorrie comment on Iain Smith's remarks that we might use community planning and the power of well-being to make a start on tackling the issue? Is there anything wrong with that proposal?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

What is wrong with that is the innate caution of local government officials and, especially, of their lawyers. If there is any doubt as to whether a power exists, they will not use it. It is much better to make such powers specific. With all due respect, I think that that is a false argument.

It is also a false argument to say that the violence takes place outside the tolerance zone. As Margo MacDonald has repeatedly said, and as the evidence has shown, the intelligence that is gathered from the tolerance zone and the co-operation of the prostitutes—who have a very effective network—help to identify people who are violent. That violence takes place outwith the areas concerned is not a strong argument.

It is a question of local choice. A little while ago, we passed a bill—now the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001—under which councils could, if they wished, introduce congestion charging. Whether or not they do so it is up to them, but they have the option. Likewise, under the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill, councils could have the option of setting up tolerance zones. It would help in many cases and authorities should have the chance to introduce zones if the local communities concerned agree.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Susan Deacon was absolutely right to talk about the intractability of the problem. The most contentious aspect of the bill is the location of the zones. Should they be placed in industrial or business areas, for example? The reason behind the zones' creation could be contradicted, as such areas are often isolated or scarcely policed, and it is possible that the threat of danger to the prostitutes could be increased if zones were located in those areas.

The creation of tolerance zones in residential areas could give rise to many objections from local residents. The zones might make children and young people in those areas witness actions that people would rather they did not see. The possible increase in kerb-crawling might intimidate women residents, and the large amount of debris left behind, including syringes, presents obvious health hazards. Zones in residential areas could lead to conflict between the public and the police, with the public becoming tired or irritated by the police's non-action. Edinburgh's unofficial tolerance zone, which was in operation for 20 years in the Coburg Street area of Leith, was eventually ended because of complaints from residents following the considerable renovation of that area.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

As Donald Gorrie said, the measures enabled under the bill would be a matter for local democracy. No local democratically elected council would place a tolerance zone in a residential area. As regards the cleansing of business areas, that is part and parcel of the policy. It is not just a question of geographical location; a set of services would be delivered in partnership inside designated areas.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I applaud Margo MacDonald's courage but, if I may say so, she speaks entirely for herself. When I put the point to Deputy Chief Constable Tom Wood at the Justice 1 Committee, he agreed that it would be virtually impossible to re-establish in the same location the tolerance zone that has now been removed if there were strong objections from residents. That presents a real problem in the choice of location for a tolerance zone in Edinburgh. It is indisputable that the police evidence to the Justice 1 Committee was strongly divided on the issue.

We believe in a zero-tolerance approach to crime and we take an extremely hard line against underage prostitution and the criminal exploitation of children. We also believe that there should be high health standards for the women concerned. In that regard, we want to choose the option that is the least objectionable to the community as a whole—and the community as a whole is entitled to have its view taken into account.

We do not want legislation in this area to be rushed through. The Justice 1 Committee was able to dedicate only one evidence-taking session to the bill, which in our view was not sufficient. Prostitution in Scotland requires further study, with particular attention given to the high level of drug dependency among the women concerned. In an e-mail to me, Jan Macleod of the Women's Support Project (Glasgow) urged a full review of prostitution in Scotland. Like her, I believe that the whole issue, including the health, law-and-order and practical implications, must be properly addressed. That does not mean that consideration should be given only to possible tolerance areas.

Margo MacDonald had the courage to raise one aspect of the issue, but I remind her that as great a person as Prime Minister Gladstone was confronted with the reality that no easy cure can be found on the issue. In my view, her case for prostitution tolerance zones, as stated in the bill, remains unproven.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the clerks and committee members for their work and, although I will not support the bill, I also thank Margo MacDonald for raising the subject and for giving us the opportunity to debate it.

My colleagues Tricia Marwick and Iain Smith mentioned the legal and practical powers that local authorities now have and those that they have always had. They rightly pointed out that legislation on the matter is not required and I support that stance. If we consider honestly and carefully what has been said, we will find that the bill is really about the management of prostitution. We must ask whether we want to manage prostitution or help women to get out of it—that is the crux of the matter.

Various facts have been mentioned, including that 95 per cent of prostitutes are drug abusers, that most prostitutes have a history of abuse and, as Trish Godman eloquently said, that most of them do not enter prostitution through choice. We must remember that.

In Trish Godman's excellent speech, she explained the difficulties that the Local Government Committee had in discussing and reaching a decision on the bill. I think that we reached the right and proper decision, which is to have further debate on the matter. I hope that the Deputy Minister for Justice will say whether he intends to set up a working party.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I am curious about something Sandra White said and I ask her to clarify it. Why cannot we manage prostitution and at the same time help women to get out of it?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Prostitution can be managed to the extent that we can have outreach workers, and prostitutes can get to health centres and so forth. Some members, including Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Donald Gorrie and others, made strong points about areas with residential properties. Prostitution can be managed for the benefit of the women's health, but not for the benefit of such areas.

I greatly object to some things that Donald Gorrie, in particular, said. He said that it is not an argument to say that the violence occurs outwith the tolerance zone, and I would like to challenge him on that. That is the crux of the whole argument. What is the point of having a tolerance zone, which Margo MacDonald recently said was part of a "duty of care" to prostitutes? That is part of what the bill is supposed to be about. How can that be a duty of care to prostitutes when violence happens outwith the tolerance zone?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sorry. I do not have much time, but I may take up the issue with Mr Gorrie privately after the debate.

I would like to return to what Trish Godman and Bill Aitken said regarding the drugs courts. We must look very carefully at that. Trish Godman also mentioned that legislation must be implemented to deal with the user, or as I call them the abuser or buyer, of those services. We must consider introducing criminal legislation so that the men involved are brought to justice. That will mean that the women get justice. It is wrong that the woman and not the man is always seen as the criminal.

Concentrating on the zones, Margo MacDonald said that they are not pick-up points. They are, and I have already mentioned that the violence happens outwith those zones. That is why I cannot possibly support the bill. However, we must look at that point carefully.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and a few members mentioned residential areas. However, they never mentioned the fact that women are being abused. Residents may complain that their area is being used as a tolerance zone. However, are those women supposed to be shipped out to an industrial area? How will they get there? There is absolutely no sense in that proposal. Those people are basically saying that the tolerance zones are an annoyance. Margo MacDonald said that the bill aims to minimise annoyance and embarrassment to the public. What about the annoyance, embarrassment and violence that the women suffer? That is what we should be looking at. I cannot support the bill for those reasons.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

This is a welcome opportunity to discuss a complex, often controversial, but socially very important issue, which affects many individuals and, as we have heard today, many communities. It is a problem that, all too often, we try to forget about despite the length of time that it has been with us.

In introducing the bill, Margo MacDonald has enabled us—through the excellent work of the Local Government Committee and her own excellent work—to give wider and more detailed consideration to the way in which we should tackle the problem. We have heard legitimate concerns about the women who are involved in prostitution and about the need to offer them routes out of it. We have heard legitimate concerns about the violence that they may face and their drug habits. We have also heard concerns about residents in certain communities. All those concerns are worthy of careful consideration.

We have also heard, in the work of the committee and again today, that there are clear differences of opinion within the Parliament and outwith it, not just among different groups, but concerning the different experiences in Edinburgh and Glasgow. The committee heard that those who were involved with the tolerance zone that existed in Edinburgh would welcome the measures in the bill and see them as the way forward. However, a number of contributors to the committee's work and several members today, including Pauline McNeill, mentioned the need for support services to help the women who are involved. Those services must be at the heart of anything that we do.

We know that Glasgow has a different opinion and does not favour a tolerance zone. However, Glasgow has a long record of well-structured support to help people out of prostitution. Pauline McNeill mentioned one of the organisations that does that, which is funded by the Executive. We must give careful consideration to all the different opinions. As I said to the committee, we should not make hasty decisions. Although the committee has done a commendable job and has spent a lot of time on the bill, there are still many questions to be answered and issues to be addressed. The committee recognises that, and that fact has been acknowledged again in the debate.

As members have said, we do not want women to be forced into prostitution to earn a living or, in some cases, to feed a drug habit. That point has been made consistently in what members have said.

The Executive's view was that it would wait to see the committee's report. We have done that. We welcome the general thrust of that report and agree with the committee's recommendation to reject the call for immediate legislation to enable the setting up of tolerance zones. We think that that is the right conclusion in the present circumstances. The issues are not clear, and it would be premature to rush to legislation on the subject.

We understand the arguments that have been presented by Margo MacDonald and others who are in favour of tolerance zones. However, it is clear that there is, as yet, no consensus as to whether tolerance zones would improve or worsen the overall safety of the women who are involved in prostitution or of the communities in which they operate. Another key goal for public policy should be the provision of more effective support to help women out of prostitution. At the moment, however, there is no evidence to suggest that tolerance zones would assist in that.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I refer the minister to SCOT-PEP's experience of successfully operating a pre-employment training scheme to help women out of prostitution.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

There is evidence of good work in both Edinburgh and Glasgow in helping women out of prostitution. However, there is no evidence yet that tolerance zones would assist that process. The Local Government Committee recommended that an expert group should be set up. Members will recall that in recent years several high-profile groups, including the ministerial working group on women offending, examined prostitution but were unable to agree on a way forward. Nevertheless, we agree with the committee that an expert group would be a sensible way forward. We think that such a group, which would be taken out of the political framework, would be able to do objective, expert analysis and investigation, and could help to inform views. I think that it could present a productive set of proposals to the Parliament and to the Administration.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

In case the minister is not going to mention it, there has been much discussion about the power of well-being and whether we or local authorities could use that power in relation to prostitutes. If the minister thinks that local authorities could not use that power, can he give an undertaking today that he will revisit the issue to ascertain whether changes could be made that would allow local authorities to use the power of well-being?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services in his reply to the Local Government Committee articulated some of the concerns about how the power of well-being would and could be used. The power of well-being cannot be used for illegal activities, but it can be used to promote the well-being of different groups in different areas within local communities. The power of well-being is flexible, but there must be constraints on how it operates.

I return to the question of the proposed expert group. I propose that, given the expertise that Margo MacDonald assembled through her work and brought to the debate, she should be invited to participate in the work of the expert group, to consider issues such as health, social justice, poverty and re-offending. However, I make it clear that, given the time constraints, it would be difficult for this Parliament to move forward on the expert group proposal. The next Parliament and the next Administration would have to take that forward. However, an expert group that was supported by and involved Margo MacDonald would be of considerable benefit.

I will quickly address the issue of the drugs courts. As I said to the Local Government Committee, there is nothing to prevent women from being referred to drugs courts. It is obvious that there are concerns in some quarters about the fact that that is not happening. We will consider that further.

Margo MacDonald has done an excellent job in helping to bring the issue of prostitution tolerance zones to the attention both of the public and of the Parliament. She and the Local Government Committee must be commended for their work. I hope that the rejection of the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill as premature and the creation of an expert group will help to ensure that in the coming period we will be able to have a reasoned, sensible and sensitive discussion on a difficult problem. I thank Margo MacDonald for enabling us to look forward to doing that.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

In winding up the debate on the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill, I thank all the members who have taken part. I not only enjoyed the contributions, but learned from them, which surprises me because I had thought that I had heard it all. I should also mention absent friends of the bill who, for various reasons, are not present. Tommy Sheridan, Mary Scanlon and Kate Maclean indicated to me that they would have taken part in the debate if they had been able to be present.

I turn to the points that members made during the debate. Tricia Marwick said that legislation was not needed. I wonder whether I can draw her attention to a letter that was sent to Councillor Donald Anderson, who is the leader of the City of Edinburgh Council. He has been advised by the council's solicitors that, although the power to advance well-being that is provided for in the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003

"is indeed a quite deliberately worded ... provision, it is still nonetheless a statutory provision which, like other statutory provisions, is exposed to judicial challenge."

Given that the council's solicitor immediately raised a doubt about that provision, which, as an enabling measure, depends on the council acting in what it considers to be the best interests of its constituents, the likelihood is that the council would choose not to act.

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

We heard the minister say that, under the power to advance well-being, local authorities have the duty to put in place services that will help individuals or groups of people within their communities. The provision of infrastructure and facilities for a tolerance zone could therefore be covered by that power. If it is not covered, I am sure that the Parliament will introduce legislation to make that clearer. In my view, and in that of the committee and the minister, that power could be used. However, the power to advance well-being cannot tackle soliciting. That is absolutely the right thing.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Let me reiterate the views of the solicitor to the City of Edinburgh Council. He continues by saying that any such zone could be subject to a potential challenge by local residents. Such a challenge could be based

"on it being legally unreasonable for the local authority to connive at breach of the criminal law and/or to be action which was not expressly sanctioned by statute and involved a contravention of the rights of local residents to their right to respect of private and family life in the terms of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights."

I prefer to go with the expert opinion. I also prefer to go with my own knowledge of the situation in Edinburgh when we come to the difficult business of finding a location for the tolerance zone that my proposed policy would enable. I have never said that setting up such a zone would be easy but it would be possible if the will was there.

John Young said that we would enter a legal quagmire if we adopted bill. However, as he knows, the Local Government Committee said that the present law is unsatisfactory. We need to weigh the balance of evidence by weighing the benefits that may be gained from this imperfect measure against the detrimental effects of continuing with the current, imperfect law.

Iain Smith said that, for him, paragraph 90 of the Local Government Committee's report was the most important paragraph. I welcomed his speech, which I found interesting, but I disagree with him. The most important paragraph in the committee's report is paragraph 92, which states:

"the new power to advance well being, for provision of support services to prostitutes, should be monitored and kept under review by the Executive."

Of course, I agree with that point. The paragraph continues:

"Should experience or changing circumstances show, in due course, that the powers available to local authorities are not adequate, it would be a matter for the Executive of the day to decide whether it was necessary to bring forward further legislation."

The committee already admits that its idea is not watertight, so let me try to persuade members of my case. Now, I hear the convener saying that she has never claimed that the current law is perfect. I do not claim that my solution is perfect either, but I do not believe that the one position contradicts the other.

Trish Godman's speech was excellent. Indeed, I must thank her for the care and attention that she and her committee gave to the issue. In her speech, she stressed the need to change attitudes. I could not agree more, but changing attitudes takes time. As we heard from Margaret Smith, we may not have time, given what is happening in Edinburgh just now. I appreciate that the situation may be different in other cities, but the bill is an enabling measure that would allow each city to adopt a pragmatic policy of management to suit the conditions that exist now. Local authorities would not be precluded from adopting a longer-term strategy for dealing with prostitution, which is what the committee favoured.

Bill Aitken asked what the police would do about drug users. He said that drug usage drives prostitution. He is right that it drives prostitution in many instances and drug use is most certainly allied to the growth of underage prostitution in Glasgow. As I pointed out, in Edinburgh—even with the deterioration over the past 15 months, since there has not been a tolerance zone—only 50 per cent of the prostitutes are estimated to be intravenous drug users. What are the police to do with them? Are they to be treated differently from other prostitutes?

I turn briefly to the differences in the record as regards violence and the number of murders committed. I certainly do not want to do a head count. In Edinburgh, which had the tolerance zone, there have been two murders in the past 12 years, both of which were solved and the culprits found and charged within 48 hours because, the police assure me, of the intelligence that had been built up. In Glasgow, there have been eight murders, but none has ever been solved and no one has ever been brought to court for them.

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

Will the member give way?

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

We are very tight for time, I am afraid.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I am very tight for time and I have already given way to the member. I will come back to one of the other issues that she mentioned.

I stress that the Routes Out of Prostitution approach described by Pauline McNeill is not at variance with the tolerance zone that was operated in Edinburgh, because SCOT-PEP played the same sort of role in helping women come out of prostitution and supporting them while they were in it. The police in Edinburgh have also said that they think that the preferable way of policing involves having a tolerance zone.

I took everything that Margaret Smith said very seriously, because, like her and Susan Deacon, I represent Edinburgh and I am concerned that we must deal with the matter urgently.

Elaine Thomson suggested that the drugs courts might be used as a method of disposal. Yes, but that is not the whole answer—certainly not in Edinburgh.

Donald Gorrie reminded us that this is a matter of local democracy—I could not agree more. However, he also said that he regretted the fact that there appeared to be some whipping in at least one party in the chamber. I regret that also, but that might be because the SNP's policy was to decriminalise prostitution per se, which this bill does not seek to do. If the SNP has changed its policy I would be glad to hear about it.

I feel that there was a lack of understanding in what Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said—I hope that he does not mind my saying that—but I will talk to him afterwards and explain how the services and location are indivisible. It is unfortunate that I do not have time to go into that just now.

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

No, you must wind up I am afraid.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I welcome and greatly appreciate what the minister said and the intention to properly investigate the whole situation, particularly as it affects street prostitutes and residents affected by their activities. The situation has assumed urgency in Edinburgh. I wonder whether it would be possible, should the bill not pass at stage 1—there is just a chance of that—to institute a pilot scheme, perhaps in Edinburgh, to test the propositions in the bill so that any review would have the fullest possible information available to it. I believe that any review could proceed alongside implementation of the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill. The bill could be amended in any way that the Parliament wanted to amend it at stage 2. For example, the bill could be a renewable piece of legislation that is up for approval every year.

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

I am afraid that you must close.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

The longer-term process of eliminating prostitution is not compromised by a duty of care to prostitutes and the pragmatic management of the social and health problems associated with prostitution.

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

I remind members that Pat Cox, the President of the European Parliament, will address members in the chamber at 1.45 pm today. Clerks and staff should be in their seats by 1.30 pm.

David (None, Lothians)

Before we begin question time this afternoon, I invite members to give a very warm welcome to two distinguished European politicians who are with us in the gallery today: the president of the European Parliament, Pat Cox; and the Netherlands member of the European Commission, Frits Bolkestein. [ Applause. ]

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it is taking to improve child protection. (S1O-6551)

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

Improving child protection and preventing abuse and neglect are key priorities for the Scottish Executive. In response to the recent child protection review, we are engaged in a three-year programme of sustained activity to reform child protection throughout Scotland, which will include the setting up of an expert team to oversee reforms.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Can the minister assure me that all the agencies that are involved in child protection are committed to effective joint working to ensure that there is no repeat of recent tragic incidents?

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

I assure Rhona Brankin that all the agencies were brought together at the recent child protection summit, which the First Minister and I held. At that summit, I made it clear that we will seek to ensure that any gaps in current provision are closed. We recognise that agencies must work together, although each has unique responsibilities. We will continue to pursue that joined-up agenda.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I appreciate that the minister might not at the moment be able to comment on the issue that I intend to raise. If that is the case, I would like her to write to me with an answer to my question.

Concerns have been expressed about the exclusion of smaller voluntary organisations from the work of the child protection committees. Has that issue been raised with the minister? If so, how does she think the problem can be rectified?

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

There has already been some discussion of the future role of the child protection committees. I am keen that that role should be expanded to ensure that the committees have the status that they require to do their job effectively. I have committed myself to considering whether the committees should be placed on a statutory footing, but I am not aware of representations having been made in connection with the points that the member raised. However, I will look into the matter and write to him about it.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Will the minister ensure greater protection of children's right to pre-school education in the light of recent reports that nearly 9,000 three-year-olds are being denied that right?

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

Let me put the record straight: 9,000 children are not being denied pre-school education. The take-up rate for pre-school education is now 96 per cent for four-year-olds and 85 per cent for three-year-olds. It is simply not the case that 9,000 children are being denied that right and I want to put that very clearly on the record.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what meetings it has had with stakeholders following the Office of Fair Trading report on pharmacy services. (S1O-6512)

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The health department hosted a forum on 6 February at which representatives of key stakeholder groups exchanged views about the report.

I also met the chairs and the vice-chairs of the Scottish Pharmaceutical General Council—SPGC—and the Scottish department of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society on 20 February. Yesterday, health department officials also met the corporate members of the Company Chemists Association. In addition, we have encouraged all interested parties to send to the department their views in writing by the end of February.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Following those meetings, is the minister convinced that the provision of the national health service primary care prescription-dispensing service in the community is not a matter for competition law, and that access to pharmacy dispensing services must remain available in all communities, especially those in rural and suburban areas? Does he further agree that it is not in the public interest to reverse the planned service approach that was introduced in 1987 under the previous Conservative Government?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The department is still collating information, so it would be inappropriate for me to take a firm view. However, I said at a meeting of the Health and Community Care Committee on Tuesday afternoon that we are adapting our approach by looking at what we have already accepted in our report "The Right Medicine: A Strategy for Pharmaceutical Care in Scotland". The Scottish Executive makes a decision on access to the lists and will take all those points into consideration as soon as it arrives at a decision. It is to be hoped that that will happen sooner rather than later.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The deputy minister may be aware that one aspect of "The Right Medicine", which was the department's review of the care strategy of the pharmaceutical services, was about improving community pharmacy services. Is the deputy minister aware that community pharmacists, such as the 25 throughout the Scottish Borders, provide invaluable local knowledge and services? For instance, at Duns and Newtown St Boswells, pharmacists have recently extended their premises to include the privacy of a consulting room. Will the deputy minister confirm that the OFT proposals fly in the face of the minister's own strategy, and that they will be resisted accordingly?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I welcome the partnership approach that we have adopted with the pharmacy industry throughout Scotland. As part of our primary care modernisation, we have released funds to facilitate examples such as that which Christine Grahame mentioned. As I said, we are utterly committed to "The Right Medicine", and any assessment that we make of the OFT report will be predicated on what is contained in the principle agreement that we have adopted on partnership on this issue through "The Right Medicine".

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

Can the minister assure me that he will do everything in his power to ensure that the views of the 12,000 constituents of Glasgow Rutherglen who signed petitions against the OFT report will be taken on board; that he recognises the potentially detrimental effect on our growing elderly population if the community pharmacy set-up that exists ceases; and that the Executive will do what it feels is right in Scotland, irrespective of the outcome of the OFT report?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

In line with what the First Minister said last Thursday, and also with the submission that I made to the Health and Community Care Committee on Tuesday, we are absolutely committed to the role that community pharmacies play in communities throughout Scotland. We believe that "The Right Medicine" is an appropriate assessment in understanding how best to take forward the process. As I said, it is important that we take note of the deliberations that were submitted to us. I hope that we will arrive at a decision, and I hope to respond to Janis Hughes and other members, sooner rather than later.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has held with Dundee City Council about proposals for investment in public sector housing. (S1O-6517)

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

There were extensive discussions with Dundee City Council leading to the successful transfer in December 2001 of nearly 1,500 council houses on the Ardler estate. That will result in 1,000 new houses being built. Discussions continue about progress on the comprehensive study that the council is currently undertaking of the condition of, and future options for, the rest of its housing stock.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

Does the minister accept that the council and the Dundee Federation of Tenants Associations want to keep council housing in Dundee through the mechanism of arm's-length organisations, which are being pioneered by John Prescott in England? Does she also accept that they are unable to do so because the level of residual housing debt and the poor condition of the stock are such that Executive assistance with debt write-off is required—assistance that has been denied them unless they go for whole-stock transfer and they close down council housing? Why will the Executive empower tenants to do what the Executive wants, but not to do what the tenants want?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

That really is quite wrong and misguided on two points. First, central Government answers the debt issue and clears the debt, not the Scottish Executive. Secondly, why would we propose a ballot of tenants if we were not prepared to hear what tenants have to say? John McAllion and I disagree fundamentally, because I say listen to all the tenants, not just to a small clique of them.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Can the minister confirm whether Dundee City Council will be entitled to apply for prudential borrowing—an question that was also asked by Dundee Federation of Tenants Associations? Does she acknowledge that the level of investment that is needed in Dundee, and the high rents, might bar the council from being able to take that route?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

As I am sure many members are aware, I announced a major development in housing policy on 7 November, with the introduction of the prudential borrowing regime in relation to housing, to allow local authorities to examine strategies that they wish to develop. I have always made it clear—it is abundantly apparent to anyone who gives a cursory glance to housing in Scotland—that given the level of investment that is required, we need to consider other means to lever in investment in order to ensure that we drive up standards in housing. Part of my announcement in November was about housing standards, because we will not tolerate a situation in which standards are poor. We are considering a variety of strategies, including the prudential borrowing regime, but it might still be the case that local authorities will have to lever in extra investment.

However, we have made it clear that we will work in partnership with local authorities and other housing organisations to ensure that we maximise the opportunities that are available, to ensure that we discuss them with tenants, but also—critically—to ensure that we get the required investment in housing.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take to advance plans for a Glasgow airport rail link. (S1O-6529)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

We have recently received the consultants' final report on the provision of rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. That report is being considered and we will in due course make an announcement on the way forward.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I remind the minister that on several previous occasions feelings of frustration have been expressed about the on-going consultants' reports and recommendations. In light of the production of the final report, I invite him to commit to a time scale to show that the Executive remains committed to the construction of the Glasgow airport rail link. What time scales will be involved?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I have made it clear on a number of occasions that the Executive is committed to rail links to both Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. As Mr Brown will know, the final stage of the consultants' work was to consider the short-listed options. It was only on Tuesday that my deputy, Lewis Macdonald, and I were presented with the consultants' full findings on that. Although it will take slightly more than 48 hours to decide the way forward, it will be only a matter of days or weeks before we make that decision.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister will be aware of the British Airports Authority's announcement about bringing forward plans to upgrade Glasgow and Edinburgh airports five years early. Will the minister assure us that the link to Glasgow airport and the crossrail scheme will coincide with the plan that BAA has just announced?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

There is a real synergy between the potential for providing rail links and the potential for expansion at Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. The development of that work involves a wide group of stakeholders and a steering group. As the BAA is very much part of that, it is aware of the work on the rail links. The answer to the member's question must be; "Yes."

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the minister confirm that a heavy rail link might not be the only option for Glasgow and that there might be merit in considering the alternative of a monorail link, which has far less expensive capital-cost implications and which would make land acquisition far simpler?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

It would be hard to convince me that a light rail system provided solely as a link to the airport, or any of the other options that have been mooted, would work as stand-alone developments. I know that there has been talk about potential light rail options in Glasgow and, indeed, in Edinburgh and the potential of extending such developments out to the airports has been discussed. The consultants examined light rail options, but their shortlist of four consists of heavy rail options for both airports. On previous occasions, other members have indicated that there is an appetite to proceed on the issue as quickly as possible. Along with value for money, that is probably the overriding consideration.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive how much of its committed spending on public transport projects will be spent directly on public transport infrastructure and how much will be spent on public transport feasibility studies. (S1O-6537)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Of the sum of about £300 million that has been committed from the public transport fund and the integrated transport fund, about £274 million will be spent directly on public transport infrastructure, about £3 million will be spent on a range of public transport feasibility studies and nearly £23 million will be spent on preparatory work on various public transport projects.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

January's ministerial announcement on the central Scotland transport corridor studies committed the Executive to reopening the Bathgate to Airdrie railway. Will the minister make a commitment that, rather than shifting responsibility for delivering that key project on to local authorities, the Executive will lead on its delivery, so that it does not end up being just another feasibility study of a feasibility study?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

There has been some speculation in this week's press about what an engineering study is. An engineering study for a rail link that we are committed to opening is not a feasibility study—it represents stage 1 in the construction of the Airdrie to Bathgate rail link. Anyone who thinks that a railway can be built without first doing an engineering study has little idea of how a rail network operates.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Does the minister share my concern that, in spite of a significant and welcome investment in the public transport infrastructure at Lockerbie station, Virgin Trains intends to reduce the number of services that it operates from that station and has gone back on a commitment to provide an early-morning service to Glasgow and Edinburgh?

David (None, Lothians)

Order. That has nothing to do with feasibility studies.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It does, because a feasibility study was carried out.

David (None, Lothians)

Order. Bring your question to order.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am asking the minister about public transport infrastructure investment and the feasibility studies that have previously been carried out in relation to providing an early-morning service between Lockerbie and Glasgow and Edinburgh, and the fact that Virgin Trains has now gone back on its commitment to provide that service, despite the Scottish Executive's welcome investment in the station.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Mr Mundell will be aware that the Scottish Executive does not have responsibility for cross-border links. We have said before that it is disappointing to see a reduction in services, although more reliability would be welcome. I am happy to accept Mr Mundell's endorsement for the Executive's investment in Lockerbie station.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I welcome the minister's endorsement of the reopening of the Bathgate to Airdrie line, which was the subject of some doubt among the nationalists in West Lothian. What will be the impact of the investment in public transport infrastructure, such as the expansion of the existing Bathgate to Airdrie line that was announced earlier this week by the minister's deputy, Lewis Macdonald?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The extension to the platform at Bathgate means that when the new rolling stock begins to arrive later in the year, rail users from Bathgate will have the advantage of far less overcrowding in the trains that they use; indeed, overcrowding should be eliminated.

Yet again, we made a good-news announcement of £100 million for new rolling stock and an attempt was made to undermine it by suggesting that it had not occurred to us that we had to extend the platforms—of course, it had. Later in the year, the benefits will be seen by passengers in Bathgate and elsewhere.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what concerns it has about the key statistics contained in the 2001 Census. (S1O-6545)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Detailed results from the 2001 census were released by the Registrar General for Scotland in two reports on 13 February 2003.

The census contains a large amount of detailed and useful information that will form a vital part of the evidence base for future Executive policies. As the reports have just been released, it would be premature to comment until more detailed analysis has been undertaken.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I point the minister to a key statistic that will be of particular concern to him. Does he agree that it is concerning that more than 40 per cent of Dundee men of working age are regarded as long-term unemployed, which means that they have not worked since 1999 or earlier? That is the highest figure in Scotland.

Does he agree that that is more evidence of the failure of the Labour-Liberal Government, and the failure of the Labour council in Dundee to tackle the core economic problems that face the city?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It will come as no surprise to Shona Robison when I say that I do not agree. The Executive has taken a range of economic and industrial initiatives to address unemployment. The fact that unemployment in Scotland is below 100,000 for the first time in a generation should not be minimised.

To be fair, Shona Robison makes an important point in as much as it shows the importance of the census data, and it shows that we can get detailed breakdowns. That allows us to identify where there is most need and where our policies should be directed when we develop future policies.

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Is the Deputy First Minister aware that in "Scotland's Census 2001: The Registrar General's Report to the Scottish Parliament" there are seven different categories of person set out on page 10? One category that does not appear to be included is potential asylum seekers who have not yet been processed. Can the Deputy First Minister help me out with that matter because, in essence, those people do not come under any of the categories that are included; for example, people who have "another usual address" on census day, or people who live

"in a special establishment or residential home"—

David (None, Lothians)

Order. We do not need to hear the list.

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Could the Deputy First Minister assist me on that question please?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

No, with regret, I cannot. However, I will look into the matter and if I can help, I will.

Robert Burns

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment has been made of the importance of the birthplace and artefacts of Robert Burns to the Ayrshire and Scotland economy and heritage. (S1O-6518)

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

The Scottish Executive has not carried out an assessment of the economic impact of Burns's birthplace and artefacts. However, I understand that an analysis of figures from Scottish Enterprise, Ayrshire and Arran Tourist Board and industry bodies was undertaken recently by the World Bank on behalf of BBC Radio Scotland. That produced a figure of £157 million as annual income that is generated for the Scottish economy through the celebration of Burns and his legacy.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I go along with the figures to which the minister referred. Does the minister accept that much of those earnings come from the central attraction of Burns's birthplace itself—the cottage—and the museum that stands alongside the cottage? Does he acknowledge that the museum is not perhaps up to the standards that we should expect? Manuscripts of Burns's writing and other artefacts are leaving the museum to come to Edinburgh; does the minister acknowledge that that is wrong and that it should not happen? For the sake of Ayrshire's economy and Burns's heritage, will the minister say what he could do to help the situation?

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

It is interesting that Phil Gallie, a representative of a party whose leader, Iain Duncan Smith, has advocated a 20 per cent cut in public expenditure, should be asking me to spend more. The Burns cottage museum is part of the Burns National Heritage Park, which has submitted an application to the Heritage Lottery Fund, which is being considered, for the upkeep and various other aspects of the museum.

We are aware that the 250th anniversary of Burns's birth is approaching; that is why we are putting money into a number of social inclusion areas to encourage young people to get involved in actively studying Burns. We will continue to do that and we will continue to put money into the Burns festival, the first of which was very successful last year. We will continue with that; we feel that that is, at this stage, the best way to ensure that access to Burns's legacy is as wide as possible for people in Scotland and people coming to Scotland.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Whatever happened to Allan Wilson's pledge some two years ago to put Burns at the heart of the Executive's efforts to boost cultural tourism? Does not the total lack of support from the Executive for the Burns museum in Alloway expose the hollowness of its rhetoric on this, as on so many other issues?

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

No it does not, because I have just outlined the resources that we are putting into Burns. We are putting in £300,000 to the projects that I mentioned and last year we put £100,000 into the Burns festival, which will play a major part in attracting people to Ayrshire. The Burns Heritage Trust is an independent organisation that is not funded directly by the Executive, which is why it has gone to the Heritage Lottery Fund for the funding that it believes it needs. It has raised about half of the money that it needs through other means. The idea that the trust is somehow being ignored is not the case; the trust is an independent organisation and we happen to be putting our money into other aspects of celebrating Burns and his legacy.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Does the minister think that VisitScotland is doing enough to promote Burns to tourists in Scotland and overseas?

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

The "Burns and a' that" festival that I mentioned is being taken forward with the assistance of VisitScotland. Could we do more? Yes, I suppose that we could always do more; that is what we are trying to do. VisitScotland is directly involved, as are local enterprise companies and Scottish Enterprise, in taking forward our marketing of Burns. I will continue to ensure that VisitScotland has an important input to that in the years ahead.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive how the £107,000 funding package for Highland NHS Board will help the provision of dental services in Caithness. (S1O-6522)

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The £107,000 allocated to NHS Highland is to support improvements in primary care dental services. It is for the primary care trust in conjunction with the dental profession locally to agree how best to target the funding.

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

The minister will appreciate that, although £107,000 sounds like a lot, it does not fund an enormous number of dentists. As I have said in previous questions, many—perhaps thousands—of my constituents do not receive NHS dental services. Does the minister agree that, if we ignore the problem, we are merely storing up a bigger and much more expensive problem for the years to come?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I assure the member that we are in no way ignoring the problems that people who cannot access dental services locally face. We are totally committed to ensuring that, as far as is possible, people can find dentists that are accessible. For that reason, I have announced several measures—including access grants, golden hellos and support for practice improvements—that are aimed at ensuring that every person in Scotland who wishes to can access a dentist under the NHS.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister is aware of my concern about dentists who provide NHS services in remote rural areas. Will she examine the mechanisms that trigger support for dentists who provide NHS services in remote rural areas? We must ensure that those mechanisms do not in fact act against such dentists. Will she examine the remote and rural areas support package for those dentists to ensure that we can offer them further help?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am grateful to Rhoda Grant for her contribution to the suggestions that have been made, such as to improve the amount that we pay dentists under the rural initiative. We intend to examine that. At present, rural dentists receive £1,500 to assist them in delivering their service. We will consider trying to increase that to ensure that people who provide such a service face no financial penalties.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to combat climate change. (S1O-6528)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

We work in partnership with the United Kingdom Government to deliver an equitable contribution to the UK's Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to its domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Our Scottish climate change programme sets out the policies and measures for devolved matters through which we can deliver our contribution. We are also taking action to adapt to the predicted impact of climate change. For example, capital resources for flood prevention and coast protection schemes are proposed to increase to £40 million over the next three years.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

In targeting energy waste and unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions from poorly insulated buildings, will the Executive continue to extend the effective use of building standards regulations to improve new build and pursue vigorously ways of ensuing that existing buildings are progressively brought up to higher energy efficiency standards?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The member might be aware that the improved Scottish building standards, which the Executive introduced, set the highest standards for thermal insulation and energy efficiency in the UK. Those standards came into force last year and projections suggest that an energy saving of 25 per cent will be achieved for a typical new dwelling.

The member asked how we would extend that. The Building (Scotland) Bill, which the Parliament has passed, will be enacted this year. It identifies the achievement of sustainable development as the central aim of the building standards system. That will make it possible for us to create a more efficient and flexible system that is better able to deliver the objectives to which the member referred.

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

The use of renewable energy is important in relation to climate change. The minister said some time ago that the Executive was having discussions with the Ministry of Defence on the ministry's veto on wind farm development in Dumfries and Galloway. What were the results of those negotiations?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The Executive is consulting on many matters, including the impediments to the development of renewable energy policy, following our suggestion that we should set the more ambitious target of generating 40 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020. We are in the closing stages of finalising that consultation, so it would be inappropriate to give details. I will respond shortly with a balanced answer about all the matters that have been raised.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

In the stage 3 debate on the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill, the minister spoke of an ad hoc ministerial group that would examine and report on flooding. Has that group reported yet? If so, what were its conclusions? If it has not produced conclusions, when will it do so?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The ad hoc group, which my colleague the Deputy First Minister chaired, has concluded its work and will report shortly. It examined a wide range of issues that encompass the work of departments other than my department to ensure that we make a collective response that covers the various agencies that are required to tackle the implications of flooding.