Plenary, 28 Mar 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, March 28, 2002

Official Report 662KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-1794)

The Cabinet will meet again on 17 April and we will agree the agenda the previous week.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. Last week, the Minister for Justice said that a firm of private accountants had carried out an audit of the figures that have been used to justify the privatisation of Scotland's prisons. Is that statement true?

The firm of accountants, as I explained to Mr Swinney last week, carried out a clear and accurate analysis of the figures that we had been presented with in relation to the comparisons on different options for the future of the prisons estate. In comparing those options, it was clear that the financial decision that was of best value to the public sector in Scotland was to choose the route that was outlined last week in the chamber. That analysis was backed up by the analysis that was carried out by the firm that was employed to do so and the figures were published last week.

The First Minister is clearly wriggling on that issue. The Minister for Justice said last week that PricewaterhouseCoopers had carried out an independent audit of the figures. Page 11 of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, states:

"we have not undertaken work in the nature of an audit".

So there has been no audit; there has been no audit because the numbers do not add up. In that report—which argues for private prisons in Scotland, based on the cost of private prisons in England—the saving to the public purse is alleged to be 50 per cent. Another report on privatisation of prisons in England, which examined the same exercise and the same prisons in England, stated that the saving to the public purse was 14 per cent. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report states that the saving is 50 per cent and the other report, by Mouchel Consulting Ltd, states that the saving is 14 per cent. Those reports carried out the same exercise in relation to the same private prisons in England. They cannot both be true. Is not it the case that the 50 per cent saving that the First Minister is hiding behind is incredible and unbelievable?

No. No one is hiding behind any figures. The figures were published last week, as part of a three-month consultation. If people have any questions or want to put an alternative point of view on the figures, Mr Wallace made it clear in the chamber last week that they should raise those questions and present those figures during the consultation period. I do not know the second report that Mr Swinney mentioned. I would be very surprised if the two comparisons to which he refers are exactly the same comparisons of exactly the same prisons in exactly the same locations and in the same time span. The analysis that was carried out, which has been checked and has now been published so that it can receive this sort of scrutiny, is the analysis on which that consultation should be based.

We now know that no audit of the figures was undertaken. That is crystal clear.

All the information is the same, apart from the fact that the review of the exercise in Scotland excludes the most expensive private prisons in England, which makes the case even worse. Is not it the case that this week we are seeing the unravelling of bogus arguments about privatisation of our public services? In prisons, the numbers do not stack up. In the Post Office and in dockyards, workers have been thrown on the dole for the sake of privatisation. In our hospitals, national health service cleaners are getting the sack and hospital acquired infection is rising. On our railways, private shareholders get public money and the public do not even get their trains. Does the First Minister agree that the only way that he can stand up for the case for privatisation of our public services is to stand up in Parliament and con the public?

Absolutely not. It is important to check whether what some members say—and the statistics that they regularly manipulate and misrepresent—reflect their true vision for Scotland. The document that Mr Swinney published last Tuesday contains 54 pages and 14,308 words on independence and states that it is

"a confident presentation of our vision"

for Scotland.

That document contains 47 mentions of the word "tax". How many mentions does it contain of the word "teachers"? None. It contains 16 mentions of the word "negotiations", but how many mentions of the word "nurses"? None. How many mentions of the word "passengers"? None. It contains 46 mentions of the word "constitution", but how many mentions of crime? None. It contains 211 mentions of the word "independence". Mr Swinney's priorities for Scotland are about constitutional upheaval, not public services. The public know that the partnership Executive puts public services first.

That reply did not contain a single answer to my legitimate questions. Does the First Minister agree that, on this issue, he is flat on his back?

No. It is Mr Swinney who is flat on his back. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The SNP document has 54 pages, but there is not one mention of public service workers. Week after week, we hear the pious claim that public service workers matter to Mr Swinney. The top priority of this Administration is improving the lot of passengers, patients, parents, pupils and the victims of crime. Mr Swinney has been found out; his priority is constitutional upheaval.

---

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 plans to raise. (S1F-1792)

I will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland on 29 April and we will discuss the impact on Scotland of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget.

I am sure that the secretary of state and the First Minister will not spend too much time discussing the achievements of the Scottish Executive's first 1,000 days, for they are not Camelot. The proposals in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill sum up the failure of the Executive's approach. No clear line can be drawn in the sand to provide parents with a guide in every circumstance. Does the First Minister agree that the Minister for Justice's rather muddled and confused explanation yesterday amply demonstrated that? Why will the First Minister not accept that the present legal position provides the flexibility that is required to deal with individual cases? Instead of trying to criminalise the parents of Scotland, why does he not place his trust in their common sense?

Nobody is trying to criminalise parents in Scotland; it is wrong to accuse anyone of that. The proposals in the bill are based on a white paper that was based on full consultation. The proposals have been laid before, and will be debated in, the Parliament and they include something with which the Conservative party is uncomfortable. Sam Galbraith proposed a ban on smacking or the use of implements against children to the House of Commons in 1995, but the Conservative Government of the time voted down that proposal. A ban on the use of implements against children is desperately needed in 21st century Scotland. I hope that the Conservatives will vote for it this time.

The use of implements against children is already banned in 21st century Scotland—it is called assault. That is the common-law situation. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will create a new statutory offence that will not exist in England and which has been rejected by the Welsh Assembly. The creation of more unnecessary laws is a typical attempt by the Scottish Executive to justify its bloated existence and the make-work army of 20 ministers by giving them something to do. That approach undermines faith in the Parliament. When the First Minister came to office, he said that he would change that approach. He has been in charge for five months; when will he get round to doing less, doing it better and, preferably, doing it with fewer?

The good voters of Edinburgh and the Lothians would be interested to know that the following list of items, which are in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, are considered to be small and trivial and not deserving of Parliament's support. The bill includes new rights for victims, which are long overdue in Scotland and will be delivered by Parliament during its second 1,000 days. The bill includes the creation of new penalties for sexual offences in Scotland, which are long overdue and will be put before Parliament in the months ahead. The bill also contains plans to ensure the remote monitoring of prisoners, which will get more people out of our prisons but allow an eye to be kept on them when they are out in the community. The bill has plans for drug courts and for non-custodial punishments.

All those proposals will make key changes in our law. They might not be the kind of matters that Mr McLetchie intended to talk about when he was planning his diversionary question yesterday, but those fundamental proposals will change the face of tackling crime in Scotland and are a priority for the Administration. In the months ahead, we will take forward those proposals, which will give Parliament a good reputation for its second 1,000 days.

That is all very well, but the First Minister avoided the point of the question. Why will we in Scotland have laws banning the smacking of children, which are not required in any other part of the United Kingdom? Let us not have any more flannel and bluster. It is a simple question. If the existing law on looking after children is good enough for parents in England and Wales, why cannot we rely on the same common sense provision for parents in Scotland?

I thought that Mr McLetchie, as a practising solicitor, would have been aware that the legal systems north and south of the border have been different for some time. A key reason for the creation of the Parliament was to create our laws, have our debates and make our decisions. We intend to do that.

---

Employment Losses

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive is taking to mitigate loss of employment at Faslane and Coulport. (S1F-1799)

We will respond rapidly to retrain and provide employment advice to those who need it. That support will be provided to affected workers through local teams that are already in place under the partnership action for continuing employment framework—PACE. However, the scale of any job reductions cannot be confirmed until Babcock Engineering Services Ltd has conducted its review.

The First Minister will be aware of the real sense of anger in the work force about the substance of the Ministry of Defence's decision and the process that was followed. Over the years, that work force has given loyal and excellent service and has displayed a willingness to adapt to new working practices. I acknowledge that the issue matters to the whole UK, but the impact of the decision has a direct bearing on devolved matters.

I understand that the MOD is aware that of a potential 750 job losses throughout the UK, about 500 will be at Faslane and Coulport. That will have a devastating effect on the individuals who are affected, their families and the local economy. The impact will be felt in many areas that are beyond my constituency. I ask the First Minister to ensure that the Executive, working with the MOD, provides additional resources beyond the PACE programme for retraining, reskilling and job creation. Those resources are needed now to prevent people from becoming unemployed through redundancy.

I am happy to give that commitment. I would also be pleased to offer to Jackie Baillie, Des McNulty and West Dunbartonshire Council the opportunity of a meeting to discuss those important matters. The Faslane and Coulport work force is skilled and has an excellent reputation. I believe that the work force will cope admirably with the new situation, if it must. We must talk up that fact as well as express concerns. In the months ahead, I hope that we can look to the wider problems of West Dunbartonshire and ensure that appropriate action secures the long-term employment of skilled workers, other workers and those who are currently unemployed in that area.

Does the First Minister agree that the predicament that the MOD workers are in might have been improved if the UK had a defence diversification agency that was not restricted to technological exchange between civilian and military firms? Does he agree that an active defence diversification council—which was suggested by the white paper on defence diversification, but not established—would also have helped? Does he agree that the end of funding for the arms conversion project in spring 2001 sent a negative message about Labour's commitment to defence diversification and arms conversion?

No, I do not agree. There is much work going on in diversification. Members might have reservations about this week's announcement, but even Babcock has been involved in much of that diversification activity.

I must say, whatever concerns the workers in Faslane and West Dunbartonshire might have, that they would be an awful lot more concerned if a nationalist Government were in place in Scotland. Only a month ago, Mr Swinney was at Faslane calling for the base to be closed, which would result in all its workers being put on the dole. He wants the workers put on the dole; we want them to be retrained and back in work with secure futures.

The First Minister has alluded to the matter of the loss of skills. Is he disturbed by the possible loss of a particular set of skills? The skills in the defence industry are important. Has the First Minister had any discussions with his counterpart in the Ministry of Defence in Westminster about how we might try to consolidate the retention of the skills in the overall defence procurement situation in Scotland?

That would be an important discussion. It is also important to ensure that responses to the situations that we are discussing are tailored to circumstances. When the closure of the Motorola factory in West Lothian was announced last year, one of the main aspects of the response to that was to ensure that those who were leaving employment at the factory were able to take up the European computer driving licence to ensure that they had the skills that would allow them to access work in the Edinburgh financial services sector. When people leave the Clyde shipyards, we ensure that they can retrain to take up new jobs as central heating engineers to do the work that will have to be done to ensure that our policy of giving every old person in Scotland proper central heating in their home is delivered with a high level of skill.

On Tuesday, Wendy Alexander and I attended an event in Glasgow to celebrate the 20,000th member of the modern apprenticeships programme. I met a 37-year-old worker who had come out of the shipyards one month previously. He could see an exciting future for himself with a new job that could be secure over a long time and he was delighted to be in that position. That is the kind of tailored response that we will need to have in West Dunbartonshire as well.

Given the result of the defence review, the First Minister will understand the great disappointment and concern that has been expressed by my constituents who travel to Faslane and Coulport every day. While we would expect and welcome action from the Scottish Executive, we need to ensure that the Ministry of Defence faces up to its responsibilities to the workers and communities who have served it well for a long time. Will the First Minister recognise that the impact of the job losses will affect many communities at the Tail o' the Bank and that any action plans should reflect that situation?

I am happy to take on board the point that Duncan McNeil makes. Clearly, the decision will have an impact on both sides of the Clyde, in his constituency as well as in Jackie Baillie's. I will ensure that any discussions that take place involve him.

---

Tap Water Safety

To ask the First Minister what reassurances the Scottish Executive can give that tap water poses no risk to the health of consumers. (S1F-1796)

Our drinking water monitoring regime is one of the toughest in Europe and our latest figures show that, in 2000, significantly less than 1 per cent of more than 37,000 tests carried out on tap samples failed to meet key microbiological standards. All failures in that set of circumstances would be investigated.

Recent problems in Aberdeen highlighted the fact that health chiefs took five weeks to notify the public and then wrote to hospitals and general practitioners asking them to advise patients who reported to them with symptoms to boil water before drinking it.

Given the commonly held belief that our tap water is clean and safe to drink, is the First Minister concerned by the response of the public bodies to the problems? How will he address the confidence of consumers, given that Athens, Marseilles and Rome have all recently been judged to have better all-round quality water than some areas that are supplied by North of Scotland Water?

There are differing sets of statistics floating around this issue. No doubt some of them accurately report the situation, but others misrepresent it. We must have the facts because the safety of our drinking water is critical. I understand the concerns that members of all parties will have on the matter. Ross Finnie is arranging for his department to ensure that in the Scottish Parliament information centre a report will be made available that will outline the current position exactly so that members can judge for themselves.

It is important to reiterate that Scotland needs to improve the quality of its water provision. We are therefore investing a huge sum of money—I think it is £1.8 billion—over the next four years to ensure that substandard facilities throughout Scotland are improved and are fit for the 21st century.

---

Schools (Streaming)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's current position is on streaming in schools. (S1F-1810)

The most effective way to raise standards in schools is to ensure that teachers match tasks as closely as possible to pupils' individual needs, aptitudes and interests. The framework of national priorities allows education authorities and schools to take a flexible approach toward class organisation to ensure that the potential of every pupil is maximised. Grouping of pupils and classes by their current levels of ability can benefit all levels of ability, but I know from personal experience that flexibility within such an arrangement is also important to allow people to progress.

I am sorry that the First Minister is not as clear as he was on 15 February last year. He said:

"There is no place in the Scottish education system for privatisation, selection or streaming." —[Official Report, 15 February 2001; Vol 10, c 1315.]

That is consistent with the advice that he has received from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and it is consistent with all independent research. Why does not he just say it again?

I do not say it because we need to make an intelligent response to the matter. Mr Russell might be prepared to debate the Scottish education service on the basis of slogans and abuse across the chamber, but that is not the way in which we should conduct the debate now.

I do not believe that what was traditionally known as streaming in Scotland's schools has a place in our modern education service. However, because of the thousands of Scottish youngsters who struggle to cope with the transition between the later years of primary school and the middle years of secondary school, I believe that we need to consider innovative ways to ensure that children can progress at that age.

Mr Russell's comments over the past 10 days would have ruled out those innovative approaches. The Minister for Education and Young People, Cathy Jamieson, is considering and studying those approaches, and ensuring that Scotland's schools are fit for Scotland's pupils.