S2M-793 Private Prisons (Consultation)

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 29 January 2004

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:30]

... ... ...

Private Prisons (Consultation)

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh): The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-793, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on public consultation on private prisons. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the concerns of many of its members and amongst the wider public about the proposals for private prisons in Scotland; notes that applications for two new prisons have now been lodged in Addiewell and Low Moss but that as yet the public have not been informed if either or both are intended to operate as private prisons, and expresses the view that the public should be entitled to know what kind of operation is being planned for their local communities as part of any consultation and decision-making process.

17:07

... ... ...

17:47

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): If members will forgive me for saying so, it is very nice to see that so many old lags of prison debates are present once again, but of course we are always prepared to welcome new inmates to the madhouse.

Bristow Muldoon: I ask the member to refresh Mr Matheson's recollection by confirming that I was present in the chamber for Jim Wallace's statement on the prison estates review and that I questioned the minister. I have met justice ministers to discuss the issue on a number of occasions.

Stewart Stevenson: I am sure that, if the member says that he was there, there is no doubt that he was there, as he is an honourable man. At that time, I wonder whether he knew as much about Addiewell as any of the rest of us.

In the past 18 months or so, I have visited five prisons, but unlike Robin Harper, I have not been giving guitar tuition. An explanation of why recidivism rates in Saughton are as high as they are might be that people want to go back to complete the excellent tuition that Robin has been giving them. I visited a private prison in Wales at Parc, which is run by Group 4, a hybrid prison in France, at Bapaume, which is about an hour north of Paris, and three prisons in Scotland—Saughton, the young offenders institution at Polmont and my local prison at Peterhead, which I visit regularly.

Among those prisons, there is a mixture of public and private provision. All those prisons—whether private, hybrid or public—contribute to their local communities, so why is it important that the local community be informed of what kind of prison is proposed at the decision-making or consultation point? I will suggest a number of reasons, beginning with the sustainability in the long term of the different models.

It is no news to any member that I am antipathetic to private prisons. They involve long-term contracts with long-term costs. For example, the occupancy rate—the loading—in our private prisons throughout the United Kingdom is locked in for 30 years. The French do things better—they have shorter contracts and they pay only for the places that are occupied. The point is that, if we are successful in reducing the prison population—a goal which I hope we all share—such contracts could be economic albatrosses around our necks. The possibility is that the prisons have to be filled because we are paying for them. One way or the other, that situation promotes prison closures.

I do not know whether that will mean closing a private prison, buying one out because closure is too expensive or closing a public prison because we have capacity in the private sector that we feel we have to use, but it will influence the long-term viability and employment prospects for communities. That is one reason why communities have a right to know.

We do not properly understand the economics of private prisons. The borrowing for Kilmarnock in the long term is running at something in excess of 8 per cent—I believe that it is 8.75 per cent—and the mezzanine finance, which was part of the construction process, was 13.75 per cent. We know that Andy Kerr does not know what he is paying for the Government's borrowing: in the previous debate, I asked him that question and he said that he did not know. It is therefore extremely difficult to work out the issues, and that is why such information should be in the public domain. That would bring more people to the argument, inform the public debate and help us generally.

It is a bit rich of the Scottish Socialist Party to be campaigning in West Lothian. I see that they are on their holidays again; only two SSP members were here at decision time, and none is here now.

Perhaps one way we can break out of the problem is to publish all public sector contracts. The Executive would get a better deal on renewal if companies saw what they had to bid against; publication would inform public debate generally, and so doing could easily be made a condition of doing business with Government.

17:51

S2M-807 Budget (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 29 January 2004

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:30]

... ... ...

Budget (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh): The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-807, in the name of Mr Andy Kerr, on the general principles of the Budget (Scotland) Bill.

15:12

... ... ...

15:47

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): The minister opened the debate by saying that we needed a transparent and rigorous review of the budget. That is hardly a statement that anyone in the chamber would have any serious difficulty with. I want to cover a number of technical issues that can, however, get in the way of achieving such a review. Before I do so, I acknowledge that, over the years, we have seen improvements in the presentation of the data that are important to this process; we have also seen improvements in the scope of the data. However, there is more to be done. In essence, we are the management board of the company and we are reviewing the performance of the officers who have been given charge of the operation. I ask Fergus Ewing not to take away my copy of FRS 17 just yet; I shall need it.

Let me start with income and expenditure. The minister said something quite interesting. I think that he said that he had put in £1 billion to cover pensions liability, but that it was not a cash £1 billion. Of course, that is perfectly proper because we have not yet had to pay any money in respect of that particular liability. The minister placed the liability in the context of income and expenditure. However, were we talking about a company, I would have expected, as does FRS 17, that it would have come after

"Accruals and deferred income but before ... Capital and reserves".

In other words, it is part of the assets and liabilities of the enterprise that is the Scottish Executive, rather than part of income and expenditure. Of course, that figure will move from assets and liabilities to income and expenditure at the point when the liability for future payment of pensions—which has previously been underestimated—translates into our actually paying the pensions. In the Executive—as in many commercial companies—that provision has been underfunded. The minister has therefore immediately opened up a difficulty.

Jeremy Purvis referred to the deficit in the Scottish economy but, of course, he is talking only about identifiable public expenditure—

Jeremy Purvis rose—

Stewart Stevenson: No. Wait.

Jeremy Purvis is talking only about identifiable public expenditure; he is not talking about the other 50 per cent of public expenditure that is non-identifiable. In that connection, I direct him to a Westminster parliamentary answer of 31 March 1997 from the previous Conservative Administration. The answer showed that from 1979 to 1997, Scotland paid £30 billion more into the Westminster coffers than it received. That was a clarification of an answer that had been given some seven weeks earlier, which had suggested a figure of £27 billion. Those are substantial sums of money and they more properly reflect the balance between identifiable public expenditure and non-identifiable public expenditure.

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): Will the member take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson: If Jeremy Purvis has not forgotten why he stood up, I will take his intervention.

Jeremy Purvis: I was highlighting the deficit in the SNP's ability to provide an alternative, rather than the proposed surplus that we would have. Has the member seen the Policy Institute document "Paying our Way", by Professor Ross Harper and Iain Stewart, which is described as

"A definitive guide to the debate on 'fiscal autonomy'"?

That document says quite definitively that, even including all the aspects that Stewart Stevenson mentions and 90 per cent of oil revenues, there would still be a Scottish deficit of £1.1 billion.

Stewart Stevenson: We always welcome contributions to the debate from apolitical sources such as Ross Harper, but if Scotland is doing so badly, that is hardly a ringing endorsement of the present arrangements.

There are other technical issues that we must deal with and I will return to specific points about expenditure. In answering my intervention, the minister was unable to tell us the interest rate that we are paying on average. One of the reasons for his inability to do so is that we do not have a statement of assets and liabilities against which to assess whether the interest rate is sensible, what its nature is and how it breaks down. Furthermore, without assets and liabilities, we have no way of knowing our future private finance initiative liabilities and no way of assessing whether the depreciation that moves from assets and liabilities into the current account is a sensible provision in relation to the nature of the assets and liabilities that there may be.

We have plenty of targets—in the draft budget, there are 147. What is missing—from parliamentary answers, I know it to be missing—is any understanding of whether ministers are getting adequate support from civil servants in taking responsibility for delivering on those 147 targets. Privately, some people suggest that they are not. Sure, the minister can leave office if we fail to meet a target, but the reality is that that will just mean another minister will come in and fail, if the civil service does not change its culture to take on board accountability for the targets. Also, initiatives and projects that transcend both the budget lines and the yearly budgets are not described in a way that helps us to understand them. The minister should consider that point for the future.

I will end by pinpointing one target and commending the Executive. It is rare to miss a target even before we have reached the financial year to which it applies. Target 7 for health and community care states:

"No patient should wait longer than 26 weeks for a new outpatient appointment by the end of 2005."

Nonetheless, the Executive has already failed to reach that target. I have an appointment as an outpatient at Woolmanhill hospital for 14 August 2007—that is more than six months after the end of 2005. I say to the minister that he has problems.

15:54

S2M-742 Food for Good

Scottish Parliament

Wednesday 28 January 2004

(Afternoon)

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 14:30]

... ... ...

Food for Good

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh): The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-742, in the name of Mark Ballard, on food for good.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament commends UNISON on the production of its "Food for Good Charter" and considers that NHS Scotland should adopt the targets set out therein for organic produce, animal welfare and fair trade and accept the UNISON Food for Good recommendations on meat quality, five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, recycling and composting, patients not profit, resources, real food and fair pay as policy.

17:10

... ... ...

17:20

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I draw the attention of members to my entry in the register of members' interests and I apologise in advance because I shall be leaving before the end of the debate to attend another meeting.

I thank Mark Ballard for giving us the opportunity to discuss the important subject of food, something that I am looking forward to indulging in a little later this evening, as usual.

Unison has done an excellent job with its food charter. Like that union, I believe that there are three important strands in producing healthy, quality foods with respect to animal welfare and fair trade. I prefer the Fairtrade coffee that comes from Columbia to that that comes from Kenya and I think that the fair trade movement provides a lot of choice within its boundaries, which I commend.

We have to use our procurement system in a constructive way to deliver on our objectives, but the NHS is but one strand of the considerable public procurement budget. I understand that food for patients currently costs about £55 million a year. If we extend that, it becomes an extremely substantial figure.

We want to aspire to higher standards of welfare and production; in many ways, our standards are higher than those of other countries in the European Union and they are much higher than those of countries further afield. That is particularly the case with regard to pigs: the cost of pig-meat production in Scotland is higher than it is elsewhere because our welfare requirements are higher. At present, procurement practice discriminates against buying that higher quality food.

Local production means local employment, which is often not taken into account in relation to tenders. Of course, local employment means more money circulating in local areas. If we procure food locally, we reduce food miles and we reduce pointless consumption of fuel.

It is a matter of grave disappointment to me—as an SNP member—that I have to commend the situation that has been brought about by the English Government as being substantially in advance of that which exists, at this point, in Scotland. Procurement in the NHS in Scotland concentrates on procurement departments and procedures. In England, however, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has launched a sustainable food procurement initiative that includes five priority objectives: to raise production and processing standards; to increase tenders from small and local producers; to increase consumption of healthy and nutritious food; to reduce adverse environmental impacts of production and supply; and to increase the capacity of small and local suppliers to meet demand. That is what we are after in Scotland.

The English have also addressed the difficult issue of how that interacts with European Union procurement policy and have solved the problem by referring to standard schemes. By the way, the English are being entirely fair to us and the guidelines list a series of Scottish standard schemes, for which I commend them. The point is made—in relation to the EU's procurement rules—that we are permitted to specify delivery frequencies, freshness and taste as criteria that might give local suppliers a competitive advantage provided that a foreign supplier is not denied the opportunity to compete on equal terms by setting up here. That is quite legitimate.

I commend the DEFRA guidelines to the Executive. If it lifted them and copied them, we would probably be happy. Only a word or two would have to be changed.

17:24

S2M-798 Fisheries (December Council)

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 22 January 2004

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:30]

... ... ...

Fisheries (December Council)

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh): The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-798, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the fisheries council in December 2003, and two amendments to that motion.

11:03

... ... ...

11:53

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I listened with interest to the debate that preceded this fisheries debate, during which Mike Watson was spot on when he said:

"the SNP has lots of ideas".

We have lots of ideas to support our fishermen and to ensure that there is a fishing industry in years to come.

In a year when haddock stocks are increasing dramatically and an initial recovery has been seen in cod stocks, whose biomass is 30 per cent up from last year, the restrictions on our industry's ability to catch its life-blood in the North sea—fish—are baffling. Even more baffling is the complexity of the fisheries council's decisions.

Gary Masson of the Northern Producers Organisation Ltd gave members of his organisation guidance from which I will quote. He described several examples that it would be worth while to share with members. He gives the example of a white-fish vessel with a 100mm gear that

"intends to fish round the Fair Isle",

which is outside the cod protection area. He says:

"It may only do so if it carries a permit on board."

Otherwise, any haddocks that are caught in that area will count against the 20 per cent of the quota that is permitted to be caught in the cod protection area.

If that vessel needed to sail east to catch fish, it would have to sail through the CPA. However, a vessel is not permitted in the CPA if it is carrying a permit, so it must return to Orkney or Shetland where the fisherman can offload his permit before he makes his way to the other fishing grounds. If, on his return, he wishes to fish in the vicinity of the Fair Isle, he must once again collect his permit. That would mean a minimum of half a day wasted in steaming time and would be highly dependent on the presence of a fishery officer.

Gary Masson observes that, by default, all vessels that fish in the North sea will be subject to the permit system. A fisherman must not have a permit on board if he plans to fish inside the cod protection area, even if he catches only monkfish or dogfish. If a fisherman fishes outside the cod protection area, he must have a permit on board, even if he keeps a single box of haddocks, because otherwise, those haddocks must be dumped. Members will understand the perplexity of many fishermen at such complex and difficult regulations.

Allan Wilson: That was a wonderful exposition of the permit system. Does the member agree that whether the permit is to fish within or without the cod protection zone, the effect is the same, as the effort is limited within the cod protection zone?

Stewart Stevenson: The problem is that when many of the vessels that do not require or have a permit to catch haddocks, that counts not against the 80 per cent of the quota that is permitted to be caught outside the CPA, but against the 20 per cent that is allowed to be caught in the CPA. I am sure that the minister understands that.

Such a situation leads to discards. We have—rightly—heard the word "conservation" in the debate from many members across the parties. Fishermen are conservationists par excellence. They know that if they do not conserve stocks, their sons and grandsons will have no fish to catch.

The permits are bafflingly complex and require counterintuitive and counterproductive measures. For example, a vessel may not at any time retain on board cod in excess of a limit of 5 per cent. If a vessel fishing for haddocks in the CPA had a first catch of a decent number of cod, that could not be kept against haddocks that would be caught later in the trip. The cod would have to be discarded. That runs counter to the conservation that we earnestly seek.

I will refer briefly to some members' speeches. George Lyon asked for better enforcement. On 6 December, the European Commission congratulated the UK on its enforcement efforts. In fact, Peterhead has more fishery officers than policemen, such is the measure of our effort.

David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con): Name the officers.

Stewart Stevenson: One is Jim McMurdo.

There is no dispute about stocks, but it is interesting that although the logbook must be used for some legal purposes in connection with the permit, fishermen are not allowed to use the logbook as evidence of what is happening in the catching sector.

Mr Morrison suggested that Mr Swinney was on notice. Mr Morrison had his notice some time ago. He is on the back benches, where he deserves to be. One move more and we will get what we need.

Mr Scott referred to my pelagic fishermen in Fraserburgh and Peterhead. Where was he when they needed a track record to obtain what they needed? He was absolutely nowhere.

I close with an observation on the fishermen's statement that they will break the regulations. If they choose to do so, it is because they have little choice. If we support them in doing so, the reason why is clear. If the choice is between supporting the Executive's shabby deal and supporting fishermen, we will support fishermen every time.

12:00

Subject Debate: Emergency Workers (Protection)

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 15 January 2004

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:30]

... ... ...

Emergency Workers (Protection)

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman): The next item of business is a debate on protection of emergency workers. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

15:13

... ... ...

16:15

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Many interesting and thoughtful speeches have been made, which build usefully on the work that Paul Martin did during the passage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. If I remember correctly, Karen Gillon secured a members' business debate on the subject, although I am prepared to be corrected on that if I have got the wrong member.

I turn to David Davidson's speech. It is welcome that the Tories have got out the piggy-bank and found enough money to increase the number of people who would staff the accident and emergency departments across Scotland. That was an unexpected bonus from the Tories.

Johann Lamont and I sit together on her committee—the Communities Committee—where we are presently considering antisocial behaviour. We will continue to debate whether the dispersal powers will solve the problem. One of the difficulties that Johann Lamont and others face lies in deciding how to deal with situations such as Christine May's useful red watch example. Such examples show that existing powers and resources can be used to solve the problem in many of the circumstances that we are discussing. Indeed, our committee heard evidence from a Labour councillor in Edinburgh who described how she co-ordinated resources and agencies in her ward to tackle severe problems. I apologise to the councillor concerned; I cannot recall her name.

I will address directly the topic that is in front of us. Unison Scotland says that it believes that

"attacks on any staff delivering public services should be treated under the law as serious assaults, not just attacks on emergency workers".

I find it easy to agree with that. On 2 June last year, Malcolm Chisholm launched a zero-tolerance campaign in the health service. I agree absolutely that zero tolerance is the right way forward.

I want to introduce a slightly different angle in order to illuminate the debate. I hope that court sentences will reflect the risks that are taken by all who meet the public as part of their normal jobs. The consultation document gives a number of useful examples of good practice in the courts. I hope that the Executive will provide further statistical information that will show the extent to which the courts are responding to the guidance that they have been given.

Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): Will the member clarify whether, in his sympathy towards public sector workers, he believes that they should have specific statutory protection?

Stewart Stevenson: I will develop that point later. If I do not, I invite Brian Monteith to stand up again.

Police drivers are trained in defensive driving. By the same token, all of us have to take some level of personal responsibility for safety, identify the risks in our lives and manage them. One example of that is that we cannot step in front of a speeding bus and blame the driver for the consequences. An important point to recognise, however, is that, once we are employed or we have committed ourselves as volunteers to assisting others in peril—I am thinking of lifeboat people and mountain rescue and search-dog teams—we surrender some of our ability to manage personally the peril into which we are put by the irrational behaviour of others. Indeed, when I was a psychiatric nurse 40 years ago, I was subject to attack by my patients on two occasions. I understand the issues very clearly.

Those who provide public services in shops, restaurants and employment offices, for example, and especially those who staff accident and emergency departments on Friday and Saturday nights, are at very real risk, not all of which they as individuals can manage themselves. If those workers are trained to act defensively, like police drivers, it can help them. However, the unmanaged element remains significant and the consequences of such risks running out of control can be severe, even to the point of death.

I want the courts to deal with assaults, including verbal, written and electronic assaults, with due regard to the surrender of control that is implicit in the situations in which people provide a public service. I also want the courts to punish in a way that genuinely reflects the alarm and distress of the victim.

Of course, sentencing takes place after the event, but we should judge the Executive on whether workers are adequately protected when they are exposed to risk. We know that fire service personnel are likely to be at serious risk—Christine May talked about the experiences of red watch in Glenrothes, which are repeated throughout Scotland. Are police resources on hand and co-ordinated with the fire services to protect fire service workers before attacks happen or other problems arise? Are accident and emergency departments in Scotland equipped not merely to respond post hoc, but to prevent harm from coming to their staff from the people whom they seek to serve? David Davidson raised that issue, but I formulate the question slightly differently.

If the consultation shows that legislation is required, by all means let us have that legislation. We will support it. However, let it apply to everyone who is at risk and let us not get into a position in which the legislation is a cover for the failure to leverage resources to where the need is greatest. A failure to protect those who provide emergency services increases the risk and damages the quality of life for everyone in our communities. A failure to support those in the broader community who provide a service directly to the public, such as shop workers, inevitably leads to poorer services and poorer communities. I include in that category of workers the overworked and under-rewarded staff who work in our constituency offices—there have been tragic consequences of the failure to support such people.

The matter is close to home for all members and for people throughout Scotland. Let us hope that there continues to be a degree of consensus in the debate, as it is important.

16:21

S2M-762 Youth Justice

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 8 January 2004

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:30]

Youth Justice

The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid): Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S2M-762, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on delivering a quick, effective youth justice system.

09:30

... ... ...

10:56

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Today, I am struggling with a disadvantage, as I have forgotten to bring my bifocals, so I can see either my notes or the clock. In some ways, that is like the issue that we are discussing: we have to look out to the community at large and we have to look in closely at the detail. I do not envy the ministers their job in tackling what is a complex issue, in which we can only glimpse some of the issues some of the time—trying to see the whole view all of the time is difficult.

I say to ministers that the Audit Scotland report was valuable. Bill Butler referred to a decline in the number of referrals to children's panels since 1974. That is correct. However, the minister's update makes it clear that, between 1995 and 2000-01, the number of persistent offenders with 10 or more offences rose by 5 per cent. That increase drives the debate and the public's perception of the impact of youth crime. Bill Butler's speech was interesting and well worth hearing.

In his follow-up report, the Auditor General makes some interesting points on the subject of complexity. He also praises the Executive for accepting 35 of his 38 recommendations, which I, too, welcome. A table in the report shows that, of 19 agencies that are involved with youth justice teams, 11 are funded by the Scottish Executive and eight are funded by other sources. That gives us an immediate handle on the kind of complexities that exist.

Social workers are vital to an effective youth justice system. The Auditor General highlights the worrying rise in social work vacancies. In 2000, the figure was about 6 per cent, but by 2002 it had risen to 15 per cent. I recognise that that is partly because we are trying to have more social workers and I do not say that the Executive has failed, because it has created more social worker jobs. However, the figures highlight the issues that we must address if we are to make good progress.

There are other worrying statistics about social workers. For example, the Auditor General's follow-up report says that

"half (50%) of children on supervision are seen by social workers less than once a month."

That begins to open up an understanding of the issues in the debate. The question is not whether the kids go to the children's panel, to the youth courts, to the juvenile courts, which have disappeared for some reason, or to the adult courts. There are important discussions around that, but the really important thing is that the disposals are available and resourced, whichever way through the system the young people who have become offenders have arrived at those disposals. The fact that 50 per cent do not see a social worker more than once a month is particularly worrying in that regard.

The problem is also geographic. In January 2003, the Auditor General highlighted the fact that there were 220 unallocated cases in Glasgow. There were others across Scotland, but there is clearly a specific geographic problem that needs to be addressed. Of course, he also said that social workers see some children frequently, so the system is working well in some places. However, I am not as complacent as Margaret Smith is about the fact that 75 per cent of young people on statutory supervision are receiving support; I do not think that that is good enough.

Margaret Smith: I hope that Stewart Stevenson will acknowledge that the first thing that I mentioned was the 25 per cent of young people who are not getting the services that they require, which is unacceptable. I made the comment about the other 75 per cent simply because I do not believe that we should lose sight of the fact that a lot of people are working hard. As he has just said, some people are getting a good service from social work departments, but I agree that the 25 per cent figure is absolutely unacceptable.

Stewart Stevenson: We have got that message and we must focus on the young people who are not getting the support that they need. People are working very hard; nobody is denying that. However, we must work cleverer rather than harder, because it is probably not possible to work harder to any great extent.

We need a quick and effective youth justice system. Such a system would be to the benefit of victims, communities, witnesses and, of course, offenders. I welcome the fact that my colleague Stewart Maxwell reminded us that the children's panels system is not about offenders, but about the welfare of children. One thing that divides most of us in the chamber from the Tory members is that we believe that good welfare support for children is in the interests of the community as a whole and will deliver social justice for all.

It is worth remembering that our friends who praise us merely reinforce us in our habits. Our critics are, in reality, our dearest friends, because they show us how to improve. The Auditor General is the ministers' dearest friend and I hope that, in the summing-up speech, we shall hear some responses to his comments.

11:03