Yes, I would be happy to—I can imagine what it might concern.

I understand that there is work going on regarding that issue, but I would point out to the member that I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, and I know that Scottish Labour is fighting to ensure that as much as possible is done to make progress as quickly as possible.

Colleagues will be aware that Unite the union has launched its no ban without a plan campaign, which calls for new jobs to be commensurate with current workers’ roles. We need pay protection and training to allow workers to transition to the jobs of the future.

The experience of working people in the past has been of unjust transitions, and they have no reason to believe that it will be different this time. If we allow Grangemouth to close, the situation will be looked at again by working people to see whether warm words have become a reality. In many ways, the closure of Grangemouth is not just about climate change—there are far wider issues there—but we need to build support for the actions that are needed to reduce our carbon emissions. That has cost implications, and such actions need the support of all the community.

We cannot continue with the economy being at the mercy of corporate profiteering, which dramatically increases people’s energy bills. We need to move to a system of greener, cleaner energy at a price that we can all afford, and we need a strategy that gets the support of the whole population for the changes that we need to make. We are seeing the devastating effects of climate change across the world and, increasingly, we are beginning to see that in our own country. We must do more, we must do it collectively, and we cannot wait longer for real action to be taken.

Sorry—I am talking about situations in which the court has ordered that those measures take place, but they do not happen. For example, a court will say that there is to be electronic monitoring—I am referring to the electronic monitoring system that we use, because we do not have GPS yet—but that does not happen. The same can apply to apply community service orders. A court order is made, but the sentence is never implemented, so the offender is never asked to carry out the sentence, through no fault of their own. Do you have any insight into why that happens so often?

You have spoken about the cost of a new prison. We know that prisons soak up huge amounts of money and that the stated policy of the Scottish Government is for a shift to non-custodial disposals. After years of cuts or flat budgets, there was a slight increase in funding last year, which might be partly due to the work of the committee. Given the prisons crisis, to what extent is that new money having an impact, and how much more would it require in the coming budget to make a dent on prison numbers?

My office has submitted a number of freedom of information requests in relation to the implementation of some community-based disposals and electronic monitoring. For example, the issue is not just about the implementation of measures such as community service orders when they are ordered by the court but about whether electronic monitoring happens when the court orders that it should happen. Some of the figures are quite shocking—in half of the cases in some parts of the country, there has not been implementation of the measures.

I am not quite sure who would be best to answer my question. Karyn McCluskey, do you have any insight as to why that might be, from your experience of the system?

The responses that I have had to my freedom of information request have been in the media, but I will provide them to the witnesses, and you might be able to respond in writing afterwards. It would be helpful to understand why, in such a high percentage of cases, there has not been implementation.

I will pick up Rona Mackay’s powerful point about women. I want to get an understanding of the availability of alternatives to custody for women and the geographical spread of that availability. Sheriffs have raised with us the issue that, in some parts of the country, alternatives are unavailable, but that might be partly because there are fewer women offenders in many parts of the country. In more rural parts of the country, there are no alternatives available to sheriffs. Will you say a little about that, and where there is good provision and where there is not?

Is there more provision for men, or is it, again, the case that, in certain parts of the country, there is better provision and, in others, it is not as good? Will you give us a bit more detail on where there is adequate—or something approaching adequate—provision on offer, so that sheriffs have alternatives available to them? If there are large parts of the country where that is not available, is that something that you can talk about today or share with the committee in writing?

The opening of the new women’s custody units was very welcome. Last year, the Bella centre was at 50 per cent occupancy, and the Lilias centre was at 33 per cent occupancy. However, in February this year, the cabinet secretary told me that the assessment criteria had been reviewed and that there had been an increase to two thirds occupancy. Are those units now being fully used? Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is important that those facilities are fully utilised?

[Made a request to intervene.]

I am grateful to all the members who signed the motion to enable the debate to take place.

Ardrossan has been the main ferry port for services to Arran for 190 years, because the Ardrossan to Brodick route is the shortest, quickest and most convenient way to get to and from Arran for most people. Infrastructure has been built around the port at Ardrossan, including transport infrastructure such as railway links, and the town’s economy is heavily dependent on the ferry route.

Eight years ago next month, MSPs and local councillors from various political parties joined members of the public and businesses to demonstrate fierce backing for retaining the Ardrossan to Brodick ferry route. The keep it A to B campaign was launched in response to the announcement by Humza Yousaf, then the Minister for Transport and the Islands, that there would be a wide-ranging feasibility study to examine the future of the Arran route, following a bid to remove the service from Ardrossan and give it to Troon. The study looked at the options under four broad pillars: connectivity, reliability, overall operational cost and socioeconomic considerations. After all the evidence was considered, the decision was taken to retain Ardrossan as the main land port for the Arran ferry service, as that was clearly the best option.

Fast forward to now, eight years after the launch of the keep it A to B campaign, and local residents, businesses and groups in Arran and Ardrossan still do not have any certainty that their lifeline ferry service will continue from Ardrossan harbour, due to the disastrous failure to commence the work at Ardrossan.

The two new ferries, the MV Glen Sannox and the MV Glen Rosa, should have come into service in 2018 and 2019. Despite both ferries being delayed for more than five years, the harbour work has not started and there has been no tender process to ascertain costs. The Scottish Government decided to commission the Glen Sannox and the Glen Rosa with a design that required the reconfiguration and upgrading of Ardrossan harbour to enable the vessels to berth. It knew that the infrastructure in terms of ports and fuel was not in place. The commissioning decision meant that decisions had to be made about the future of the port. The port is owned by Peel Ports, and it was obvious to those with experience of that owner that there might be problems with coming to a decision that it would agree with. Now, despite the ferries being more than five years late, no work has started at Ardrossan.

The delay of the two ferries has already cost the local economy millions of pounds on the island of Arran, which is heavily dependent on tourism. In Ardrossan, which has some of the most beautiful beaches and views along our coast, we suffer from some of the worst deprivation in North Ayrshire, and moving the ferry service would surely tear the heart out of the town.

The Glen Sannox started berthing trials at Brodick this week, and I hope that a service from there will start later this year, but it will not be going to Ardrossan—it has been rerouted to Troon—and there is real concern that the ferry service will never come back to Ardrossan.

Last night, more than 340 people—residents, those in businesses and other supporters—met in the Ardrossan civic centre for the inaugural meeting to launch the save Ardrossan harbour campaign. Many more were unable to get into the room. It feels like groundhog day. Eight years on from the keep it A to B campaign and eight years on from the argument being won on Ardrossan, local people still cannot get a cast-iron commitment from the Scottish Government that the Arran ferry service will keep operating out of Ardrossan in the future.

It has also been six years since Transport Scotland approved proposals to redevelop Ardrossan harbour. Constituents rightly feel angry and frustrated. You could not make this up. We have had enough time wasting and enough excuses. I have no doubt that the work would have been completed by now if the port had been brought into public ownership, which is why Labour has been calling for that to happen for a number of years. The future of Ardrossan as a ferry port, with integrated ScotRail train services, must be preserved. We must get that commitment from the Scottish Government.