Plenary, 05 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, September 5, 2002

Official Report 675KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

Before we begin First Minister's question time, I should say that I always appreciate notes from members beforehand if they feel that they have a particular reason to be called to ask supplementary questions. It is impossible to deal with such requests if the notes are simply passed up to the desk, especially as one of this afternoon's notes was unsigned, which makes it very difficult.

I do not normally reveal my hand in advance but, in view of the statements yesterday and today, I do not propose to call any extra supplementaries on questions 3 and 4. In that way, I hope that we will get to questions 5 and 6 and perhaps allow other members in on questions 1 and 2.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-2046)

As I heard other members doing when I arrived this afternoon, I welcome Margaret Ewing back to the chamber. It is good to see her back in action. [Applause.]

Next week, the Cabinet will, as ever, discuss matters of importance to Scotland. We will also have a presentation and discussion on improving performance and management in Scotland's public services—a key part of our investment and reform package, which will be announced in the spending review.

I thank the First Minister for his answer and also for his kind words about Margaret Ewing, which are warmly welcomed on this side of the chamber.

In April, the First Minister told the Scottish Trades Union Congress conference that any privatisation under his Government would not lead to a two-tier work force. In Kilmarnock prison, experienced prison officers will be paid £9,000 less than their counterparts in the public service. If that is not a two-tier work force, what is?

I warmly welcome the statement that the Deputy First Minister made this morning. With both public investment and a proper mix of public and private provision, it will ensure the improvement and modernisation of Scotland's prison services. Within that, there will, of course, be contracts in the private sector and contracts in the public sector. The objective in all those contracts should be the service that is provided and the outcomes that are desired, and that is what we will continue to concentrate on.

That was a very revealing answer, as it gave absolutely no commitment to the First Minister's claim that he would attack two-tier work forces in Scotland. The situation looks bad enough judging from the figure that I gave in my first supplementary question, but the staff ratios in private prisons are also a cause for concern. For every 100 prisoner places, there are 104 staff in the public sector prison in Aberdeen. In Inverness there are 100 staff and in Edinburgh there are 82 staff, but in Kilmarnock private prison there are only 53 staff for every 100 prisoner places. Is it not the case that the only way in which private prisons can work is by driving down the cost of staff and the number of staff? Is that not the intention of the First Minister's reforms?

Absolutely not. Many of those issues will continue to be discussed, as they should be, in the working group that we have established, which is discussing the two-tier work force with the STUC and the trade unions. That is right and proper. It is also right and proper to put on the record the fact that the work done by staff, the conditions in which they work, the physical environment of the prisons and other matters are different in the design of public and private prisons in Scotland. Such differences contribute greatly to the figures that Mr Swinney quotes, but again he distorts those figures to scare the Scottish public, and that is wrong. I advise Mr Swinney to consult occasionally—

The First Minister is desperate.

Right. I shall advise Mr Crawford as well. I advise both Mr Crawford and Mr Swinney to consult someone else on this subject, rather than just me. I advise them to consult someone who said, in January 2001, in a comment on prisons, that they were

"neutral on the issue of whether the service provision is from a public or private sector provider, judging each case on the merits of quality and efficiency of service. Value for taxpayers money is the priority."

The person who wrote the article from which that quotation is taken was the SNP's finance spokesperson, Andrew Wilson.

I have given the First Minister the facts from the Scottish Executive's consultation documents on the prison service. If he will not listen to the facts, perhaps he will listen to the opinions of a former member of staff at Kilmarnock prison, who said in today's Daily Record:

"I was often left on my own on a wing in charge of 92 prisoners … Management are only interested in making as much money as they can."

Those are the types of reform over which the First Minister is presiding. Is it not the case that the First Minister's plan for private prisons is morally repugnant and that it puts private profit before public safety?

It is certainly not. The plan to modernise Scotland's prisons that was announced this morning is the best plan for Scotland's prisons and the best plan for Scotland. It will ensure that we have the right prison for remand and the right investment in the public sector and it will ensure, above all, that we meet the objectives that we set.

We have done that work with absolutely no assistance from the Scottish National Party. SNP members have come to the Parliament month after month to criticise the proposals that were put out to consultation. The new proposals that were announced this morning outline a real alternative. They demonstrate that we have listened to people in making our decisions. One of the reasons why it was easier to listen to the members who sit behind me rather than to SNP members is that the members who sit behind me at least responded to the consultation. There were only two SNP responses to the consultation. No SNP councils responded, but let us give credit where it is due. Stewart Stevenson made a submission to the prisons consultation on behalf of his constituents and I congratulate him on that. He also deserves some credit for his involvement with the campaign by partners of the staff.

There was only one other response. It did not come from the current leadership of the SNP; it came from Alex Salmond. [Interruption.]

Order.

The SNP leadership might have some credibility if Mr Swinney agreed with his finance spokesperson and came up with some ideas of his own. It would have helped if, this morning, Ms Cunningham could have welcomed the progress that has been made and the listening that has been done to the people of Scotland.

Is the First Minister aware of the proposed closure of the Burntisland plant in my constituency, which was announced today by Alcan? Will he assure me that urgent action will be taken to ensure that everything is done to explore all options in the 90-day consultation period and that Alcan's customer base is aware of that?

I have been aware of Marilyn Livingstone's concern about the matter. In recent months, Iain Gray, the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, has been involved in discussions with Marilyn Livingstone and with the company. He sought to ensure Alcan's continued presence in Burntisland and, once it became clear that the company was considering leaving the area, he sought to ensure that it would try to find a buyer rather than announce a closure. Today's extremely disappointing announcement requires discussion with Fife Enterprise and other local bodies. We will do all that we can to assist in the provision of alternative employment in that area. I am sure that Marilyn Livingstone will want to be involved in that process.

---

Cabinet (Reshuffle)

To ask the First Minister whether he has any plans to reshuffle his Cabinet. (S1F-2049)

As First Minister, I have no plans to reshuffle my Cabinet. Members of my Cabinet remain focused on delivering improvements in education, health and transport, on tackling crime and, most important, on growing the Scottish economy to create jobs.

That answer will come as a surprise to very many and a relief to very few.

In case he is unable to recall it, I remind the First Minister that water was the portfolio that Wendy Alexander did not want in March 2001. It was dumped in the lap of Mr Finnie, in whom the public has so little confidence that he is now being parodied as a latter-day Little Bo Peep. We all know that the First Minister is stuck with the man because of the coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats, but the man does not have to be stuck with the job. Will the First Minister consider reshuffling responsibilities and perhaps give water to a Cabinet minister who is able to give it the attention that it deserves?

I will absolutely not do that. Presumably the enthusiastic response that we heard from the Conservative back benches was encouraged by Nick Johnston's most recent remarks.

Water is an important issue. I was here yesterday afternoon. I heard Ross Finnie apologise for the error that he made in good faith during the course of the debate. I also heard everything else that he said. Frankly, it is far more important that we invest in the water supply systems that we need in Scotland and that that is completed in the way in which progress has been made in recent years, and in the way in which further progress will be made in the years to come.

Secondly, it is important that we set the right standards, get the right scientific advice and take prompt action on that advice. Both Ross Finnie and the Minister for Health and Community Care have been actively involved in that over the past month and I have every confidence that they will see it through to the right conclusion.

Perhaps the First Minister might like to consider the potential cost of that confidence. The First Minister will be aware that a number of businesses in Glasgow were already considering making compensation claims against Scottish Water in respect of the interruption to their supplies. There is now a real prospect of 150,000 domestic consumers joining in because of the failure of the minister and Scottish Water to implement the recommendations of the health board report—a failure in their duty of care that was vividly illustrated by the minister's performance yesterday.

Such claims could cost millions. Could the First Minister tell us who is going to pay? Will it be the rest of us as Scottish Water customers, or all of us as taxpayers? Will the water industry commissioner be able to recommend payment of compensation to customers to forestall a flood of legal actions?

Those matters will all be dealt with in the proper way, with the right advice and ensuring that the right decisions are taken in the public interest, in Glasgow and elsewhere.

However, it is entirely wrong to paint a picture in which either Scottish Water or the health services in either Glasgow or Edinburgh appear to be entirely negligent in the matter. In my view, in both cases, serious mistakes were made in communication and mistakes were made in co-ordination. However, in both cases, the public health officials, in particular, did their jobs and did them well.

Scottish Water spotted that the levels of cryptosporidium had increased. That would not have happened in years gone by. The main reason why it would not have happened in years gone by was chronic underinvestment. One of the reasons why today's standards are different in Scotland—as in England—as was described yesterday by Ross Finnie, is that the level of investment in Scotland by the Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997 was appallingly low. That is why the programme of investment that we now require will take those high standards in Scottish Water even higher. That programme of investment is right and Ross Finnie is the right guy to do it.

What representations have been made to the United Kingdom Government over the pay claim of the Fire Brigades Union? What arrangements have been put in place in the event of a strike? The First Minister is bound to be aware that limited action has been taken by the fire brigades in both Fife and Strathclyde. The Scottish public would expect some reassurance that arrangements are in place and would like to know what arrangements the Cabinet has made.

The Cabinet is discussing every possible eventuality and paying particular attention to the progress of the negotiations. However, in the past half hour we have welcomed the announcement by Nick Raynsford of the office of the Deputy Prime Minister in London that there will be an independent inquiry into the fire service. That inquiry will consider the role of the fire services, pay and conditions and future arrangements for determining pay and conditions. That is a significant step forward. It is the step forward that should contribute to there being no strike.

I strongly advise the Scottish National Party to join with all the other parties in the chamber in asking the firefighters to resist striking and putting lives at risk, and in asking all those involved to get on with the negotiations and to ensure that we find a solution to this long-standing problem.

---

World Summit on Sustainable Development

To ask the First Minister what the outcome will be of his visit to the sustainable development summit in South Africa. (S1F-2038)

While the summit may not have delivered everything we would have wished, some important international agreements were reached. In addition, on education and energy we developed links with South Africa that will deliver significant benefits for the future. As I said in the chamber yesterday, I am committed to ensuring that the summit outcomes will be minimum standards in Scotland. Wherever possible, we can, we must and we will do more.

I welcome the fact that Scotland was represented through the First Minister at the summit in South Africa, despite the fact that it was not at the heart of the negotiations, where many of us would like it to be. Is the First Minister aware that many people are referring to the summit as the world summit of shameful deals, because there was no clear road map towards sustainable development in the action plan that was produced? Does the First Minister recognise that here in Scotland we do not have our own strategy towards sustainable development? Will he explain why that is the case, and will he give an undertaking to the chamber today to bring one forward in the near future, so that Scotland can make her own contribution to saving the planet?

I presume that Richard Lochhead was not here yesterday, so I would be happy to send him a transcript of my statement and the discussion that took place afterwards, and to send him the variety of documents, press releases and information that has been produced by the Executive over the past three years and three months to take forward our work on sustainable development, on which we have a clear strategy. We have action plans that are now delivering and which work towards targets that are more ambitious than those in many other parts of the world.

Although many of the outcomes of the summit, in particular in relation to energy, are disappointing for those who believe passionately in sustainable development, a number of other positive agreements were reached, in particular on water and sanitation. It is important that we take those agreements forward, and ensure that the action that is carried out makes a difference, in particular in the developing world. I hope that Richard Lochhead, when he learns more about the outcome, will be able to support that.

---

Scottish Prison Service (Estates Review)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will ensure that public safety is paramount in all decisions relating to the Scottish Prison Service estates review. (S1F-2051)

We made it clear when we launched the prison estates review that public safety was paramount and central to the decisions that we would take. As the Deputy First Minister announced this morning, the Scottish Prison Service has been instructed to bring forward proposals to improve the management of prisons in Scotland and for full reporting of performance against those standards. One of the key performance indicators will cover public safety.

I hope that the First Minister will forgive me for taking a second bite at the cherry by asking him to meet me to explore ways of improving the terms and conditions of my many constituents who are employed at Kilmarnock prison. That would lead to greater public confidence in safety at Kilmarnock.

Those matters are rightly primarily for discussion between the trade unions that represent the people who work there and the employer. It is right and proper that they have discussions about terms and conditions. I understand that this morning the Deputy First Minister gave a guarantee that he would have a discussion with Margaret Jamieson on this matter. I am happy that that discussion will take place but, ultimately, these matters are for the private employer and the trade unions to resolve.

---

Release of Convicted Prisoners

To ask the First Minister what consideration the Scottish Executive will give to an amendment to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to allow prosecutors a statutory right to be heard on behalf of the public interest before convicted prisoners, including those convicted of rape, serious assault, murder or culpable homicide are released. (S1F-2033)

Although bail in such circumstances is rare, it is clearly a matter of great concern to the public and to me when someone absconds while on bail after being convicted of a serious offence. Decisions on bail are rightly a matter for the courts, but we want to be sure—we all need to be sure—that courts have proper information before them when they take these decisions. Jim Wallace will shortly discuss this matter with the Lord Justice General.

I welcome the First Minister's answer. As a non-practising advocate, I ask the First Minister whether it is not shameful that such decisions can be made about people who have been convicted of serious crimes. They can be released on bail after conviction without the prosecution's having any opportunity to present issues to do with protection of the public. Could the matter properly be addressed by the Justice 2 Committee in due course?

I understand the concerns that the member raises, but I do not want to exaggerate them. The case that the member and others highlighted recently was the only case last year, so we should not scare the public into believing that loads of murderers are out there on bail and are therefore a threat to public safety. Every case that might cause such concern is significant in its own way. I understand the concerns and I have some sympathy with them. I hope that the Justice 2 Committee might consider the issue. We would welcome any advice that the committee wanted to give.

I ask the First Minister to consider whether a bail hearing on an indictable offence and a bail application in an appeal against conviction on an indictable offence should be heard in public and not in chambers. In the first instance, which occurs pre-trial, the accused's rights are protected by section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. At present, those proceedings take place in private. It would assist the public if they were in the public domain.

As I said, the Minister for Justice will discuss those matters with the Lord Justice General soon. The minister will have heard what Christine Grahame said and I am sure that he will include those issues in his discussions.

Another concern is striking the balance between releasing alleged criminals on bail and remanding them into custody. Will the First Minister assure me that our justice system does all that it can to get that balance right, so that minor offenders are not on remand in prison and the public do not find that people who are charged with more serious violent offences are out on bail, to the dismay of their alleged victims? I also ask for assurances that the proposed new remand prison will separate those who have been charged with serious violent crimes from those who have been charged with lesser offences, so that they do not come into contact with one another.

I was a member of the Cornton Vale prison visiting committee back in the mid-1980s. At that time—never mind now, when the figures are significantly worse—I was surprised by the number, even in a women's prison, of remand prisoners who were in the same area as prisoners who had been convicted of serious offences.

The increased use of remand by our courts requires our attention. That is why the Deputy First Minister was right this morning to propose a new prison that will be for the purpose of remand, at least initially. If, through that measure, we can secure a different arrangement for those who are on remand and keep people who may be innocent or involved in minor offences away from those who have been convicted of more serious offences and from the possibility of being dragged into a life of more serious crime, that will be an important step.

We should also continue to discuss with those who are responsible for our courts the number of people who are being put on remand. We must do that to ensure that our health services can deal with the treatment to which prison is in some cases thought to be the only alternative and that only those who require to be detained are in our prisons. For others, when there is a safe alternative for the public that holds people in some restraint but not in prison, that alternative should be available.