Plenary, 21 Mar 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, March 21, 2002

Official Report 686KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he last met the Prime Minister and what issues were discussed. (S1F-01762)

I met the Prime Minister in Dundee last month on a visit to Cyclacel, where world-class research is being turned into excellent business opportunities. I saw a further example of that on Monday at the new Alba Centre in Livingston. Alba is a great example of how, through entrepreneurship and innovation, we can develop a world-leading electronics design industry in Scotland.

On the future of Scotland's prisons, whom should the people of Scotland trust—Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons or a firm of private accountants?

The people of Scotland should trust themselves. If anybody in Scotland has views about the proposals that were very ably laid out this morning by the Deputy First Minister, they should take part in the consultation and express those views. In pursuing our policies for our prison system, we must ensure that we have adequate, modernised facilities, that we rehabilitate prisoners so that the disgraceful rate of offending in Scotland is reduced, and that not only do we end slopping out but we have facilities that we can be proud rather than ashamed of.

I am certainly all for the people of Scotland trusting themselves. I just wish that the First Minister would give them the chance to do that into the bargain.

Let me show the First Minister the contrast between the opinions that have been put forward. A firm of private accountants has suggested that somehow—almost unbelievably—we can save £700 million in the provision of privatised prisons in the future. That figure is unbelievable in Scotland and is not believed by a large number of members on the Labour benches, to judge from the questions that were asked this morning. Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons has described any decision to close Peterhead prison, which houses many sex offenders, as one that will see public safety "gravely compromised".

Does the First Minister accept that there is widespread concern in Scotland that, when faced with a choice between privatisation and public safety, he has dumped public safety and opted for privatisation?

That is a disgraceful assertion and I hope that Mr Swinney will live to regret it. No action will be taken by my team of ministers, either wittingly or unwittingly, that will threaten public safety. I am disappointed by the way in which debates involving Mr Swinney and his colleagues are sometimes conducted, with certain quotations taken out of context and certain comments misrepresented. Even factual statements made in the chamber less than four hours ago have been misrepresented. Mr Wallace did not say this morning that the figures had been produced by a firm of private accountants. I may not have been in the chamber, but I heard every word. What he said was that the figures that we first saw, which were produced by the Scottish Prison Service—the public body in which Mr Swinney, like us, has a lot of faith—seemed incredible. That is why we had them checked and checked again.

The decisions that have been made have been made on a rational and accurate analysis of the situation. If people have alternative sets of figures or alternative views on the proposals, there is a proper, three-month consultation period, during which they can submit those views, and they should do so.

The problem with that answer is that the private company that is doing the verification has 132 private finance initiative contracts that are worth £18 billion in the United Kingdom. What did the First Minister expect? Did he expect it to say that things would somehow be dearer in the private sector? Does the First Minister accept that the figures that he mentioned are achievable only if staff are cut, the number of people involved in handling prisoners is slimmed down, the cost of such ventures is reduced and public safety is jeopardised into the bargain? Is it true that there is nothing that new Labour will not privatise? The privatisation of our prisons is a privatisation too far.

I think that I said last week that it is a shame that some SNP members are trying to scare old people in Glasgow. It is wrong that Mr Swinney should try to scare people in Scotland.

He mentioned the private finance initiative, which is different from the scheme that Mr Wallace proposed this morning. It is important to relate facts to the situation. I have been inside Kilmarnock prison—I made a point of visiting it as part of our studies. I have seen the closed-circuit television cameras, which ensure that the whole prison is properly scrutinised, and the structure of the building, which allows the employment of different staffing patterns. In the months to come, it is important that we base the debate on facts and accurate analysis, that we study those facts, that we make choices for the future of Scotland's prison service and that we ensure not only that we have the right facilities, but that we use public money effectively. If Mr Swinney is saying that we should take £700 million out of the Scottish budget over the next few years and spend it on prisons rather than on schools and hospitals, I would be surprised. He can make his cheap political points today, but he will not sustain them in the months ahead.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-01763)

Next week's Cabinet will discuss the progress that has been made in recent months in focusing directly on our priorities of education, health, transport, crime and jobs.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. The Cabinet might also usefully discuss the cost to councils and to the Scottish Executive of the chancellor's pensions tax. Since its introduction, it has cost Aberdeen £4 million, Dundee more than £8 million and Glasgow a staggering £15 million—that is the equivalent of an extra £84 on the bills of band D council taxpayers in Glasgow. Moreover, it has cost the Scottish Executive a total of £142 million over that period. Does the First Minister consider that to be money well spent? Are the figures yet another example of the damaging effects of the chancellor's pensions tax, which is leading to the closure of superannuation schemes throughout the country?

Is that it? This is a Thursday afternoon when we could be discussing important issues facing Scotland. On Monday, we launched the new Alba Centre. We took research and put private companies together in a way that will create and sustain jobs in Scotland in the future. I will return to the issue that Mr McLetchie raised in a second—it is ridiculous. On Monday, we launched a plan of action against alcohol. On Tuesday, we launched a new drugs strategy that will be effective in taking young people off the streets and dealing with drugs. Yesterday, we launched a national debate on education. This morning, we launched a transport delivery plan that focuses on fundamental priorities.

The point that Mr McLetchie raised has been discussed in the chamber. When the new pension arrangements were introduced, Scottish councils were compensated. Even if the figure that Mr McLetchie mentioned were correct, £142 million is a drop in the ocean compared to the £5 billion or £6 billion that the chancellor has added to Scotland's coffers since the Parliament was established three years ago, and Mr McLetchie knows it.

I am sure that the pensioners of Scotland will be staggered to find that the First Minister does not regard their future well-being as a matter of concern or interest. I have heard a perverse set of priorities from the First Minister before, but that fairly takes the biscuit in terms of what he regards as important and whom we should be looking after.

The chancellor has created a vicious circle in public sector finance, in which he imposes extra stealth taxes on councils, which in turn pass the costs on to local residents in the form of higher bills or ask the Scottish Executive for more money. Does the First Minister agree with his Labour and Liberal colleagues on the Parliament's Local Government Committee that the solution to such problems is to find new ways to fleece our hard-pressed council tax payers and local businesses? Is not it about time that the First Minister went to the source of the problem and told the chancellor to stop imposing new stealth taxes, which are damaging the governance of Scotland?

I am not responsible for imposing any stealth taxes. It is disingenuous of Mr McLetchie to make the initial point about pensions. This Parliament is not responsible for old age pensions in Scotland and to say that it is—

Answer the question.

David McLetchie said pensions and that is what the old people of Scotland would understand that he meant.

It is important that this Parliament concentrates on its responsibilities—in particular, education, health, transport, crime and jobs—rather than on the responsibilities of Parliaments elsewhere. When the pension changes were introduced, Scottish councils were compensated and, even if what David McLetchie says is true, the amount of money that might have been returned to the chancellor in the course of the past few years is minuscule in comparison to the £5,000 million that has been added to the Scottish budget in that time. That money would not be available if the SNP were ever in charge.

---

National Health Service (Mistakes)

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive intends to take to ensure that patients are informed quickly and sensitively when mistakes affecting them occur in the NHS. (S1F-01774)

NHS staff must ensure that patients are given clear information and good advice. Problems must not be hidden. They must be dealt with effectively and quickly and patients' interests must be foremost. Last December, we published "Patient Focus and Public Involvement", which set out ways to improve how the NHS communicates with patients. We are open to ideas on further improvements, if they are available.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. With regard to the incident at the Western general in Edinburgh that came to light last weekend, does he agree that it was not acceptable for the trust to take eight months to inform patients of an accident, and so face the threat of exposure in the media, when that accident affected many patients and may result in some of them being unable to have children? Does he agree that when mistakes are made in the NHS it is essential that patients are informed quickly and sensitively? In the interests of offering constructive suggestions, I ask the First Minister whether he will now consider issuing to health trusts a new code of practice, which will ensure that when trusts are faced with such circumstances they always ensure that the interests of patients come first?

I hope that Nicola Sturgeon does not find herself in trouble for offering constructive suggestions. I welcome the fact that she has done so and she makes a very serious point.

Malcolm Chisholm and I share Nicola Sturgeon's concern about what came to light last weekend. I understand that Malcolm Chisholm has asked for a report on the matter, which he expects to receive by the end of the week. We will study that report. The suggestion about an improved code of practice, which Nicola Sturgeon made earlier in the week and made again today, is one that we will bear in mind. The existing code of practice was put in place in 1995 so it may need updating. If so, it will be updated.

Is the First Minister aware of the report published earlier in the week that highlighted the high number of hysterectomies that are carried out on women in Scotland? Will he reassure the Parliament that clinical guidelines will be urgently reviewed in order to ensure that no woman is offered a hysterectomy unless it is absolutely necessary?

No one should be in any doubt that a hysterectomy is a traumatic operation. It should take place only in circumstances in which it is appropriate and after full discussion between a woman and her doctor. If there is any need—in the light of the information that came out of the research that was conducted and published south of the border this week—to improve the guidelines in Scotland or renew them in any way, I assure Rhona Brankin that we will want to do that.

---

Community Schools

To ask the First Minister what reassurances the Scottish Executive will give regarding the future of community schools. (S1F-01781)

I believe that the new community school model is a success and should be central to improvements in our schools, as it joins up services to secure opportunities for children, regardless of where they come from. That is why I support the roll-out of the new community school model throughout Scotland.

Will the First Minister join me in congratulating South Lanarkshire Council, which has embraced the concept of community schools and which recently agreed to roll out the programme to all schools in the authority area? That decision follows the success of Cathkin High School in my constituency, where absence rates have fallen by almost 80 per cent, which has an obvious knock-on effect on attainment levels. Will the First Minister assure me that the Executive will continue to encourage and assist other local authorities to follow that lead?

South Lanarkshire Council is to be congratulated. Last night, I attended an excellent concert in Motherwell with the director of that council's education department. The concert, which was supported by schools from throughout North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire, had on show some of Scotland's best young talent. I think that there was a choir from Cathkin High School, which is in Janis Hughes's constituency. I ask her to pass on my congratulations to it. South Lanarkshire Council's commitment to community schools and to the promotion of individual talent should be encouraged elsewhere in Scotland.

The First Minister knows that the Scottish National Party strongly supports the concept of community schools. It is crucial that each element of the mix of disciplines is adequately funded in the roll-out programme for such schools. Will the First Minister undertake to consult the Minister for Education and Young People to ensure that, as the second phase of community schools is rolled out, there are adequate resources? Some schools claim that they cannot do their job because the resources are not adequate.

That is not exactly what they say. They would like to pursue the roll-out of community schools more quickly than is possible within existing budgets. That is good, because it shows that the community schools concept, which this Administration introduced, is a success. Community schools should be welcomed and promoted throughout Scotland, but that can be done only within the available budgets. Over the next two years, those budgets will be increased by £30 million. I am certain that, as the schools succeed in raising attainment in communities, it will be possible to raise the budget further.

The Conservatives, too, support community schools. Will the First Minister say what the point is of a national debate on education if the Executive prejudges the issue, which it did today in relation to community schools and yesterday in relation to the role of local authorities?

It is a bit rich to condemn the Minister for Education and Young People for not having opinions and then to condemn her for having them and expressing a strong view on some of the basics. We need local authorities that run the schools in their areas properly, drive up standards and check those standards against local and national targets. We must ensure that schools are properly managed, that they work with their local communities and that teachers and other professional education staff work closely with professionals in other areas such as health and social work to ensure that children have the best possible start in life. That is the objective of the partnership Government in Scotland; I believe that we are making great strides towards achieving it.

---

Tobacco Advertising

To ask the First Minister what the current position is on the banning of tobacco advertising in Scotland. (S1F-01777)

The UK Government announced on Friday 15 March that it will find legislative time in the House of Commons for the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. That bill will extend to Scotland, and I understand that it will be introduced to the House of Commons shortly after the Easter recess.

That is good news. Does the First Minister agree that a UK ban would be better than a Scottish one and that the best way forward is to pursue the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, which was introduced and steamed through the House of Lords by the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Clement-Jones?

We should praise Lord Clement-Jones for ensuring that the issue is on the agenda. He forced the bill through the House of Lords admirably and quickly. At the risk of completely ostracising Nicola Sturgeon, I praise her for her tenacity on the issue.

I also praise the Health Education Board for Scotland. It is occasionally criticised for the way in which it spends money, but it runs an excellent anti-smoking advertisement, which targets young people and which has been widely praised in Scotland and elsewhere.

UK legislation on this matter shows one of the strengths of UK-wide legislation when it is right. Such legislation would not be open to the people of Scotland if different constitutional arrangements were ever to be put in place.

I am delighted that the UK Government has finally been prompted to take action to ban tobacco advertising and save lives in Scotland. Amid all the individual praise, I ask the First Minister to join me in recognising the role of the Scottish Parliament, through its consideration of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Scotland) Bill, in bringing pressure to bear on the UK Government and ensuring that continued inaction on its part was simply not an option.

I genuinely believe that there was never any doubt that the UK Parliament would legislate on this matter when the time was appropriate. I am delighted that what has sometimes been seen as time that the Parliament could have used for other matters will no longer be required and I hope that the UK bill will be progressed by the House of Commons as quickly as possible.

The First Minister talks about the benefits of the bill covering the UK. Given that the bill seeks to ban tobacco advertising from websites, how does the First Minister propose to ensure that no tobacco advertising will appear on websites that originate outside the UK?

I do not know the exact answer to that question and I am not going to start making up answers on the hoof. I will be delighted to reply to Mr Monteith's question in detail, as I am sure that it has a very reasonable answer.

On that reasonable note, we conclude question time.