Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 20, 2004

Official Report 722KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

We come to First Minister's question time.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer—

It would be convenient for the chamber if the point of order could be taken at the end of First Minister's question time. I shall take it at that time.

It is important that the point is taken at the beginning. Can the Presiding Officer—

No. I have ruled on the matter.

Can the Presiding Officer—

Order. Will you sit please, Miss Leckie?

If you refuse to discuss the nursery nurses—

Miss Leckie, will you please sit.

Why cannot the struggles—

Miss Leckie, I am requiring you to sit.

If you will not let us debate the nursery nurses—[Interruption]—I would rather be outside than inside the chamber.

You are now on a final warning, Miss Leckie.

Miss Leckie, will you now please stand and apologise? As you will not, I regret to have to say that you are guilty of disorderly behaviour. I ask you to leave the chamber.

You will compound the offence, Miss Leckie, if you stay in your seat. [Interruption.] With great regret, I have to suspend the meeting.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

Order. I regret that incident. It was not necessary. We could have taken the point of order perfectly adequately at 12.30. When the chair rules, it must be obeyed. [Applause.]

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S2F-880)

The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss our progress towards implementing the partnership agreement to build a better Scotland.

In a letter to his staff, the chief executive of Scottish Opera, Christopher Barron, said:

"the Sunday Herald article covers very recent developments, which were only made known to the Board and myself last Friday. The article was a result of a direct leak from the Executive in which clearly the First Minister has been involved."

Are Mr Barron's comments true?

Frankly, I am a bit bemused by talk of a leak. I understand that the Sunday Herald has said that its story was the result of its best journalistic endeavours. I do not want to be disparaging of the Sunday Herald or any other Scottish newspaper, but it would not have taken a mastermind to write the story. I understand that The Scotsman has been calling this week for an explanation as to how the information got into the public domain. The paper reported on 8 May that the Scottish Executive could pay up to £6 million for the restructuring costs of Scottish Opera. On the same day, the paper reported that the plans for Scottish Opera's future would involve between 120 and 200 job losses.

Last Friday, before the story broke—Mr Monteith has referred to this—The Scotsman reported that the Executive was considering a plan that could see

"more than 100 redundancies among its chorus and staff"

and reported that

"the Executive will finance the one-off restructuring".

In addition, The Herald reported last Thursday that the unions at Scottish Opera had said that redundancies would involve anything up to 180 staff losses and that they had talked of Scottish Opera's problem in financing and maintaining the Theatre Royal.

I have a lot of admiration for Douglas Fraser and the Sunday Herald, but I think that his article last week was well informed by other newspapers.

In that long and tortuous answer from the First Minister, there was no denial of Mr Barron's remarks. If the First Minister is so sure of his ground, why did his spokesman say, "No comment"? On Tuesday, his spokesman refused to comment on speculation; on Wednesday, it was called gossip and, in this morning's newspapers, it was conceded that there was an off-the-record discussion between the First Minister and the editor and an on-the-record discussion with the journalist. In the light of all that confusion and the damaging charge that has been made against the reputation of the First Minister explicitly for revealing private information about the Executive and the organisation with which it was holding discussions, will he authorise an inquiry into the leaking of that important Government information?

I realise that Mr Swinney has problems almost every week in changing his second question based on the answer that he gets to his first one, but that probably takes the biscuit. All that information was already in the public domain and had been in newspapers, which do not seem to have journalists talking to one another from one week to the next. It is important information that has been discussed widely inside Scottish Opera and the Scottish Arts Council, with the trade unions and with others. What the chief executive of Scottish Opera says is a matter for him and for the board of Scottish Opera. I will not get involved in the discussions that might take place between him and his employer.

No matter what attempts Mr Swinney or others might make to sap the confidence of young Scots in the cultural activity that is now taking place in Scotland and which has been reinvigorated by devolution and the establishment of this Parliament, it will not be possible for him to divert attention away from all that progress, all the awards that are being won and all the achievements that are being made in Scotland. There is renewed interest and activity in our schools and renewed success in our national companies. The national companies of Scotland are doing well. They have to stay within a budget, but they will continue to do well with our support and nothing that Mr Swinney can say and no diversions that are planned will take away from that.

The only diversions are those of the First Minister from answering legitimate questions on the issue. I remind the First Minister of what Mr Barron's letter said. It stated:

"the Sunday Herald article covers very recent developments, which were only made known to the Board and myself last Friday."

The great litany of answers that I got in response to my first question to the First Minister went only up to last Thursday; that was as recent as he could get. The issues mentioned in the letter went to the board on Friday and, hey presto, the First Minister was briefing the editor and speaking on the record to the journalist. Why? Because he knew that there was a damaging story in another newspaper from which he wanted to divert attention. Is that not typical of the type of spin culture that the First Minister presides over and is it not time that we had an inquiry that either cleared him or found him guilty of deceiving the public?

Unfortunately, it is all too typical of the debates that we sometimes have in the Parliament, and in the wider public arena in Scotland, that people say one thing one week and another thing another week, and that they cannot even be consistent. It was not that long ago that Roseanna Cunningham, Mr Swinney's deputy, was saying that there must be a change to the unquestioned assumption by Scottish Opera that it can be bailed out every time it gets itself into financial trouble. It is important that this country has a successful national opera company, but it is also important that that opera company stays within budget and does not overspend by up to 25 per cent every year. If any other public organisation in Scotland did that, Mr Swinney and others would be demanding the head of the chief executive and calling for it to be closed down. That would be the wrong approach.

We want a successful national opera company in Scotland that has thousands of young Scots aspiring to play in its orchestra as a result of the music tuition and the encouragement that they get in our schools, but we also want that opera company to live within its means and to ensure that it can do so for the foreseeable future.

I hear all that the First Minister is saying, and it is fair comment to list all the objectives for Scottish Opera. However, what is important is whether the First Minister is telling the truth and whether he is releasing confidential Government documents to get him out of a hole in the Sunday newspapers. Will he give his agreement for an inquiry into conduct that has brought his reputation into question over the past few days?

I remind Mr Swinney that, on 8 May, The Scotsman referred to the Executive paying

"for the restructuring costs of Scottish Opera",

and to how much money that might involve. Last Friday, two days before anything appeared in any Sunday newspaper, The Scotsman said that there would be redundancies and that the Executive would finance a one-off restructuring.

The day before, The Herald reported that the unions at Scottish Opera were saying not only that there could be staff losses, but that Scottish Opera's problem in financing and maintaining the Theatre Royal was under discussion too. All those issues were in the public domain days before anything appeared in a Sunday newspaper. Mr Swinney should change his questions when he hears the first answer. Let us discuss the real issues here in Scotland: maintaining a thriving and successful cultural sector; and ensuring that our national companies succeed not only here but elsewhere in the world.

Members will notice that Rhona Brankin has a question on Scottish Opera. With her agreement, I will take it now, and a limited number of supplementaries thereafter.

---

Scottish Opera

To ask the First Minister whether Scottish Opera has a future. (S2F-893)

I certainly hope so. We want to have a first-class national opera company in Scotland, but it must operate successfully within the budget that is agreed for it by the Scottish Arts Council.

Does the First Minister agree that the SNP is guilty of playing politics with Scottish Opera? Can he assure Parliament that any settlement reached with Scottish Opera will ensure that it continues to produce first-class opera that enhances the reputation of Scotland as a culturally vibrant country, while living within the budget provided by the Scottish taxpayer?

We have an excellent opera company of which we should be proud. However, we should insist that it lives within its means. All parties should ensure that they say the same thing from one month to the next. It is not good enough for the Scottish National Party to call on the Executive, six months ago, to make Scottish Opera live within its budget and then, when we try to do so, to condemn us for that practice. We need a bit of consistency within the Parliament if it is to have credibility among the people of Scotland. Scottish Opera is not alone. We also need to have a thriving cultural sector in Scotland, which is why there is a culture minister in the Cabinet, why we have moved towards free music tuition in all Scottish primary schools, why we have established a national theatre and why we are re-energising the National Galleries of Scotland with capital investment that is making those galleries among the best in Europe.

If the Scottish Executive had taken notice of Sir Peter Jonas's report, which was independently commissioned by the Scottish Arts Council, and if it had given Scottish Opera the funding that Sir Peter suggested, Scottish Opera would not now be in the position of having to look for money to pay for redundancies or part-time working. The Sunday Herald article revealed many things, some of which were not in the public domain. The article revealed that the Theatre Royal was expected to be taken out of the hands of Scottish Opera and run by the Ambassador Theatre Group and that there might be a new, publicly funded venue. Can the First Minister deny that he or a member of his team broke commercial confidentiality by revealing those two facts, which were not in the public domain?

There was a whole range of information in the public domain and I am sure that many people were aware of information in advance of last Sunday. My information about Scottish Opera is that no commercial or other information that entered the public domain this week, last week or the week before will cause Scottish Opera any difficulty with companies with which it is in discussion.

Again, however, we have a problem of consistency. Yet again, on the record, Mr Monteith calls for more money for Scottish Opera when, only last August, he was saying that a Conservative Government must make changes to the way in which arts and culture are funded, so that arts and culture become more self-sufficient and less reliant on state handouts, and so that we are not forever coming to the rescue of companies such as Scottish Opera. Today, Mr Monteith argues for an extra £2 million a year for Scottish Opera; just last August he was saying that it should get almost no money, because it should not live on state handouts. He should be consistent from one month to the next. If we are going to have quality national arts companies in Scotland, let us give them some certainty. Let us ensure that, while they live within their budget, they know what their budget will be. In that way, they can plan for the future and put on performances here and abroad of which we can be proud.

Is the First Minister confident that a budget and an arrangement for running Scottish Opera can be agreed that Scottish Opera's management feels will provide a good company delivering good opera for Scotland and that the Scottish Executive feels is within what it can afford? Will he ensure that the Scottish Arts Council and the other major arts bodies are involved in the discussions, given that they are directly affected by what happens at Scottish Opera?

It is important to clarify that responsibility for that budget lies with the Scottish Arts Council, which has to discuss the matter with Scottish Opera. We would discuss the matter with the Arts Council to ensure that if there were a request for additional resources, we could say yes or no to that request.

Not surprisingly, given that the opera company is way over budget and now in debt, there have been requests that we give it some finance to see it through this difficult period. That is likely to be an important contribution, but there must be guarantees that the company will be sustainable over the longer term. We want there to be a successful national opera company in Scotland, and we want that company to be properly financed, but we are not prepared constantly to pour money down the drain and into debt. Scottish Opera has to live within its means, and it has to manage its budget properly. When it can do that, there will be a proper case for considering additional resources.

The First Minister mentioned credibility. Credibility comes from honesty. Perhaps the First Minister could do the Parliament a favour and show some respect. Will he order an inquiry into the leak?

I have no intention of ordering any inquiry into any leak when, in recent weeks, Scottish Opera, the Scottish Arts Council, the trade unions and all sorts of other people, including those from the company that Mr Monteith mentioned, have been involved in discussions. I have no intention of going into their business and having a civil servant or anybody else question all of them on what they might have said to a journalist at some point about matters that, by and large, were already in the newspapers—which, this week, have been saying that the information was not in the public domain. It is a ridiculous situation.

The important issue is what happens to Scottish Opera in the future. We want there to be a successful national opera company in Scotland. We do not want to plough money into debt and bad management. We want to ensure that the opera company is managing its budget, that it is producing quality performances and that we are investing in a company that can not only deliver for young Scots but ensure that Scotland's international reputation remains high.

I thank members for their patience.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-888)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

I am very sorry to hear that. I had thought that the First Minister might take him to Loch Fyne for a kipper. I would advise him to remember to book a table in advance, so that he is spared a discussion in the car park.

Would the First Minister like to pass on to the Prime Minister, when he next meets him, the views of the Scottish president of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, Ian Clydesdale? He said this morning:

"Because of persistent disruption, teachers are having to spend more time on discipline paper chases and less time teaching classes. Education for the majority is being seriously hampered by the bad behaviour of a minority."

It is hard to disagree with Mr Clydesdale, as the Executive's own figures show that there is an assault on a member of school staff every 12 minutes of the working day. The root of the problem is the Executive's weak-kneed approach to exclusions. Would the First Minister agree with Mr Clydesdale that

"all assaults on teachers by pupils"

should lead to

"permanent exclusion with criminal charges pursued",

where appropriate?

Mr McLetchie chooses to mix two issues—I am happy to do the same. As a former teacher, as an elected representative and as someone who has some responsibility not only for the education system and the professional staff who work within it but for the education of Scottish children, I do not think that children who say something loudly in a classroom—who are regularly recorded in those statistics as committing an assault—should be permanently excluded from the classroom. Teachers should be able to control their classrooms; they should be able to maintain discipline; they should be encouraged to do so; and they should be supported by their head teachers and by the system in doing so. They should be able to achieve that there and then, and not need to exclude children permanently for one "verbal assault"—as it might be described—that might have taken place.

I believe strongly—and anybody who visits Scottish schools today will know this for a fact—that discipline in Scottish schools is significantly better than it was three or four years ago. I believe that the actions taken by local authorities, the Government, teachers and teaching unions, parents and senior pupils—helping to deal with bullying in the school, working closely with younger pupils and protecting and supporting such pupils—have made a significant difference. In every school that I ever visited when I was Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs three years ago, I got comments about discipline in the classroom, playground and school more generally. In every school that I have visited in the past 12 months, the comments are positive, the atmosphere is changing and there is no doubt that the new buildings, the new staff, the new guidelines that ensure that exclusions are used much more appropriately and the new curriculum and assessment are contributing to a much better experience for Scottish schoolchildren and a much better teaching environment for Scotland's teachers.

The First Minister should get out more. It beggars belief for him to say that discipline is improving when, five years ago, there were fewer than 2,000 recorded assaults and there are now 7,000. The school situation that he has described is certainly not that described by the teachers who are meeting in their conference this morning. The Executive's response to this major problem in our schools was typically inadequate: to set up a task force. Mr Peacock's latest approach has been to refuse to believe his own figures and to seek to massage the problem out of existence, which is in stark contrast to what Mr Clydesdale and his colleagues are telling us.

Is it not the case that we now have a total policy void on this important subject in Scotland? The Executive, having abandoned its disastrous non-exclusion policy, is clueless about how to support our teachers. The First Minister is fond of telling us, as he did again in his answer, that he is a former teacher, but why will he not listen to his former colleagues?

Because, as I have said before in the Parliament about a range of other areas of policy, although I have the greatest of admiration for the history, traditions and current work of our trade unions in Scotland, I do not accept everything that every trade unionist says at their annual trade union conference. I do not accept what the representative of the NASUWT said this morning. I think that he is exaggerating the position and I do not believe that it accurately reflects the situation in Scottish schools. It certainly does not accurately reflect the situation as I see it from talking to parents, children and teachers.

That is not to say that discipline in Scotland's schools is not a problem that must be tackled. That is precisely why we have made a difference to the issue not by setting up a task force but by genuinely involving and pulling together representatives of Scotland's teachers, local authorities, parents and other important stakeholders in the system. We have made that difference with better buildings, better facilities and better training for teachers and student teachers; more staff in the schools to help with the problem; better liaison between the schools, the teachers and those outside the schools who have some responsibility for discipline; more involvement from the parents and from the senior pupils in helping the junior pupils; and a range of other initiatives, including improving the use of school uniform and changing the guidelines on exclusions.

All those different factors have made a difference. Scotland's schools are more disciplined and more effective than they were three or four years ago, and the Executive parties are proud of that.

At his next meeting with the Prime Minister, the First Minister may wish to draw to the Prime Minister's attention the BBC's recent troubling exposé of the private security industry, which is an excellent example of courageous investigative journalism.

The First Minister may be aware of my continuing concerns about the impact of the unregulated private security industry, particularly given the significant and welcome construction and regeneration work in the communities that I represent. I ask him to outline when the Security Industry Authority's remit will be extended to Scotland and what action is being taken to work with the police to tackle the culture of intimidation and violence that underpins activities that are little more than protection rackets. I also ask him to act speedily to tackle the increased problem of organised criminals using a range of unregulated private enterprises to strengthen their control on local areas—a development that is in danger of undercutting our shared commitment to safe and secure communities.

I agree with the assertion that that is a serious issue. We would all welcome and benefit from some good investigative journalism in Scotland and it was good to see that on this occasion. The issues at stake are very important and we need to handle them properly and consistently, but we also need to listen to ensure that we have the best solutions. Although three years ago our policy was to have our own Scottish system for regulation, as a result of the consultations—which I notice Opposition members regularly disparage these days—and listening to people who have made representations to us, it is now clear that a better solution would be to have a consistent system of regulation throughout the United Kingdom. We are therefore seeking a legislative slot at Westminster to ensure that legislation on that can be put in place.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-900)

I have no specific meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland in my diary, but I expect to see him again soon.

On 9 October, the First Minister assured us that work with the food-producing sector was going to produce better standards. He said:

"Those measures are already making a significant difference"—[Official Report, 9 October 2003; c 2546.]

in improving food standards in hospitals and schools. I am sure that the revelations about the disgusting and unsatisfactory conditions of food production at Tillery Valley Foods are not among the significant differences that he envisaged when he made that statement. Does he agree that the current contract to supply food to the new Edinburgh royal infirmary should be suspended and that alternative arrangements should be made to allow patients at the hospital to receive a better standard of service?

My understanding is that the contract is a matter for those who hold the contract and that it would be suspended only if the contract was not being properly fulfilled.

When the First Minister launched the Executive's healthy living campaign, he said:

"We have been unhealthy for too long. I want the healthy choices facing Scots to be the easy choices. That means educating people, raising standards in school and hospital meals".

Despite that, hospital patients are being served food that has been cooked at least twice, frozen and microwaved—not to mention driven hundreds of miles to the hospital. It is well known that all those processes degrade the nutritional value of the food. In the First Minister's role as food champion, is he saying that the disgraceful state of hospital food is none of his business? Does he not have a duty to champion quality food in Scottish hospitals? I call on him to tell us now that he will intervene in the situation to ensure that all Scotland's hospitals provide good-quality, nutritional, locally produced food for their patients and—as he intimated on 9 October—give local Scottish producers a chance to get involved in a new contract.

Mr Harper may be surprised to hear that I have much sympathy with some of the points that he makes. I believe that there will be an announcement next week on the matter, which he might wish to welcome.

---

Breast Cancer Treatment (Waiting Times)

To ask the First Minister why the Scottish Executive has not met its 2001 target on waiting times for breast cancer treatment. (S2F-896)

The target is for women who have breast cancer and are referred for urgent treatment to begin that treatment within one month of diagnosis, where clinically appropriate. That is a challenging target, but it is a very important one. Discussions are taking place with local health managers to tackle any problems that are leading to inappropriate delays.

Is the First Minister aware that the Scottish Breast Cancer Campaign stated that it was very unlikely that one in five women diagnosed with breast cancer would delay her treatment through choice, as was alleged by the Minister for Health and Community Care? Therefore, in addition to what the First Minister has said about contacting hospital managers, will he instruct the Minister for Health and Community Care to launch an investigation into the 700 cases that involve people waiting longer than one month for breast cancer treatment?

I do not believe that one in five Scottish women diagnosed as having breast cancer wants to delay her treatment and the Minister for Health and Community Care has made it clear this week that he does not believe that. There are a small number of women for whom—either through their choice or because of clinical advice—treatment is deferred, but far too many women are still going beyond the one-month deadline through no choice of their own and not because it is clinically appropriate. That is still an issue for us. Action requires to be taken at the local level to ensure that the right staff are in place and that the right systems are delivering to the target.

The Minister for Health and Community Care is monitoring the implementation of the work to achieve the target, not only through the statistics that have been released this week, but on an on-going basis. He will report on progress as information becomes available to us.

---

ScotRail (Franchise)

To ask the First Minister how the new ScotRail franchise will maintain and improve the level of rail services across Scotland. (S2F-898)

We set out our objectives for the ScotRail franchise in our directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority. The franchise will build on the existing level of service and will allow new services to be incorporated as and when they are developed.

That is a positive reply. The First Minister will acknowledge that the new rail franchise gives Scotland the opportunity to set the framework for improved rail services throughout Scotland for the long term and, crucially for my constituents, to ensure that one of the new rail services, the Borders railway, is fully integrated into the network. Does he agree that it is vital that the decision on the franchise for Scotland is taken in Scotland? Given that there might be differences in approach by the SRA and the Scottish Executive, with perhaps a different emphasis on risk and revenue, does he agree that advice from the SRA should be a contributory factor, not an overriding one, in the Executive's decision?

This may not be helpful, but it is important that I clarify that ministers must make a decision on the Borders railway in line with our analysis of the studies that we have commissioned. We will make an announcement on that in due course. Not only in the Borders, but in other parts of Scotland, we are looking for enhancements in railway provision and opening new lines, such as that in central Scotland between Lanarkshire and Milngavie. The new franchise will allow those important developments to be incorporated. The decision on the franchise will be made in Scotland by the Scottish ministers and we will announce the result of it in due course.

I revert to the incident at the beginning of First Minister's question time. I have a duty to maintain good order in the chamber and I will not have First Minister's question time, which is a high point of the week, hijacked. Both the majority and minorities in the chamber have rights. I offered Miss Leckie the chance to make her point of order at the end of First Minister's question time, but she refused and continued to speak. When challenged by me, she continued to speak and then refused to apologise. That is a serious matter, but I have no wish to create martyrs in the Parliament. I have the power to suspend members and I have the power to ask them to withdraw from the chamber—I asked her to withdraw. All members should be aware that how the people of Scotland perceive the Parliament and how we relate with them is in our hands and that we should use that responsibility wisely.

Meeting suspended until 14:00.

On resuming—