Scottish Government’s Programme
The next item of business is the continuation of the debate on the Scottish Government’s programme. I advise members who know that they will be speaking in the debate to please put their microphones up.
14:40
You know that it has been a long parliamentary debate when you start it in one Government job and end it in another. [Laughter.]
Let me take the opportunity, as it is available to me, to say a few words about the Government changes that the First Minister confirmed earlier today. First, I want to say, from the bottom of my heart, that it has been an extraordinary privilege to serve as Scotland’s health secretary over the past five years. I am very proud of what has been achieved in those five years, in what have been extremely challenging times. We have the lowest waiting times and the lowest hospital infection rates on record, and patient care is safer than it has ever been. I am particularly proud to have steered through the Parliament the groundbreaking, world-leading legislation on minimum pricing, which I hope to see implemented as soon as possible.
I want to thank everyone with whom I have had the privilege of working over the past five years—officials in the Scottish Government, managers in our health service and the chairs of health boards, trade unions and interest groups. Above all, I want to thank those people who work in the front line of our national health service. We are incredibly lucky in having the health service that we have and the people who work in it. I am particularly proud of having been able to protect not just the budget but the founding principles of our NHS, and I know that Alex Neil will continue to do just that as he takes over as health secretary.
I am extremely excited to be taking on new responsibilities in Government. The new responsibilities that I take over as of today closely reflect the twin priorities of the programme for government that we are debating, which the First Minister outlined yesterday. As Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities, I will be pleased to work with the First Minister and John Swinney on the Government’s strategy for economic recovery. In that regard, I look forward to working with my ministerial colleagues Keith Brown and Margaret Burgess—whom I particularly welcome to her new post as Minister for Housing and Welfare—to pursue the procurement bill and the better regulation bill, as well as all the other priorities.
In taking on responsibility for infrastructure and investment, I have very big boots to fill—I say that only in the hope that Alex Neil says the same about his predecessor in the new role that he takes over today. At this moment in time, nothing can be more important than responding to the real pressures that individuals and families across Scotland face. We must do everything that we can within our powers and our resources to get our economy growing, to create jobs and to challenge as vigorously as we can the disastrous economic policy of the Tory-Liberal coalition.
I repeat the message that the First Minister has already sent loudly and clearly to the United Kingdom Government: our economy needs capital stimulus and it needs it now. We have the shovel-ready projects. It is now incumbent on the UK Government to provide the funds. If it cares at all about the human cost of unemployment, it will not delay in doing so. I want to be able to do so much more than lobby an unresponsive UK Government for a sane economic policy—I want to be in a Government with the power to make for ourselves the decisions that we need to make to get our economy growing.
That brings me to the second part of my new Government responsibilities. For all my adult life, I have believed that Scotland should be an independent nation. For me, it has never been about flags or status symbols; it is all about how we make this country of ours the best that it can possibly be. That is based on the fundamental belief that if we want a strong economy, we must have access to all of Scotland’s resources—not just the portion of Scotland’s resources that the UK Government chooses to give us. It is based on the inescapable reality that if we want to tackle, once and for all, the scandal of child poverty, we must be able to make our own decisions on tax and benefits—and we must be able to prioritise spending on the early years of our children’s lives over spending on weapons of mass destruction. It is based on the irrefutable logic that if it is right—and it is right—for this Parliament to take decisions on health, education and justice, it cannot be anything other than right for this Parliament to also take decisions on the economy, welfare and defence.
I believe passionately that the best people to take decisions about Scotland are those who live here. I look forward immensely with my colleagues to making that honest, positive and upbeat case over the next two years, and I look forward to winning the independence referendum in 2014.
14:46
Just as I was putting the finishing touches to this speech over lunch, so much happened. Indeed, there appears to be rather more excitement in the lobby and, in particular, on the Scottish National Party benches over the Scottish Cabinet reshuffle than over this legislative programme, which is entirely understandable. However, although I welcome Nicola Sturgeon to her new role at infrastructure and capital investment, that central move of the reshuffle reflects what is at the heart of the legislative programme that was announced yesterday—at the end of the day for the SNP, breaking up the United Kingdom is the be-all and end-all. Nicola Sturgeon has quit the health brief so that she can spend more time on debating independence, although I can tell her that the infrastructure and capital investment brief is not only time consuming, but crucial.
I would like to say how sorry I am to see Mr Neil move on from infrastructure and capital investment to his new role, but we all know that that would be stretching the bounds of credibility—something that Mr Neil does all too often. Actually, I do wish him well.
No, you do not.
No, I do not.
Mr Neil’s performance in his former brief also speaks of where this legislative programme fails. Although we will look forward with interest to the sustainable procurement bill, the fact is that in that key area of policy the Scottish Government’s underperformance has been damaging to our economy and to key sectors, including the construction industry.
When it comes to the key issue of the economy, too often we have had warm words and not the action required from the Scottish Government. Yesterday, the First Minister talked again about shovel-ready projects, but his Government has delayed a host of key infrastructure projects at a time when our construction sector is crying out for work.
Over the summer, I wrote to Mr Baker to ask whether, as Labour’s capital investment spokesperson, he would back the Scottish Government’s calls for the UK Government to bring forward shovel-ready projects. To date I have received no reply. Perhaps he would like to give me the answer now.
Well, I did not get a letter. I say to Mr McDonald, “Just keep trying, Mark. Eventually you’ll get there—persistence will pay off. Try not to be too disappointed about today.” Even with the best will in the world and my many abilities, if I do not get a letter, I cannot reply to it.
As for the construction and capital investment that should be taking place, we find today that, on the basis of a draft report, the budget for the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail improvement programme was cut by £350 million. In Aberdeen, our energy sector requires 120,000 new recruits. Where is the plan to deal with that crucial issue for the economy of not just Aberdeen but Scotland?
The call in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report for an energy academy has come at a time when the SNP is slashing college budgets. We heard yesterday that because Aberdeen City Council will not back the First Minister’s pet project, the Government is withdrawing support for new development in the city—and, in so doing, failing Aberdeen again.
Will the member give way?
No.
In the previous session of the Parliament we were told that the Government’s overarching purpose was to secure economic growth. To emphasise the point, the issue was referred to as “the Purpose”, with a capital P. However, the debate about the Government’s programme has shown a Government that has taken its eye off the ball on the economy and whose purpose is only Separation, with a capital S.
We will engage on the sustainable procurement bill, but Mr Neil has told us again and again that he cannot take the action that is needed on procurement because of European Union rules. We need to ensure that by using community benefit clauses and awarding smaller contracts we give small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland a better chance of benefiting from public sector investment, thereby growing the economy. Far from blocking such action, the EU has proposed a directive that will encourage contracting authorities to divide public contracts into lots, to make them more accessible for SMEs, and which will oblige contracting authorities that decide not to do that to provide an explanation. Why does not the Scottish Government take such action, for which a bill is not needed? Why is it doing the opposite and creating contracts that are so big that only big businesses can bid for them?
Will the member give way?
I had better take him.
Let me confuse the member with some facts: 75 per cent of all the contracts that are let through the Scottish Government’s portal go to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Mr Neil never lets the facts get in his way or confuse him. I refer him to the Jimmy Reid Foundation report that contradicts many of his comments on procurement.
Yesterday, the First Minister said that the Government will
“ensure that community benefit clauses are included in all ... public sector contracts”.—[Official Report, 4 September 2012; c 10901.]
Why has not that been done already? On the Forth replacement crossing, the ship has sailed and Scottish firms have lost out, which is unfortunate.
We know how important new housing is to our economy and our construction industry. However, the most recent budget slashed housing investment by £86 million, and the vaunted housing bill that was expected in the current programme is conspicuous by its absence. That is not an auspicious record for Mr Neil to take to the health department.
It is not good enough to say that everything will be sorted after separation, as if that would free us from Tory Governments, when the SNP’s proposal on monetary policy is that future UK Governments, whatever their political complexion, will still make key decisions on our economy, with zero influence from politicians in Scotland.
Will the member give way?
I am in my final minute. I apologise to Margo.
Separation is the SNP’s obsession, but it is no solution. For all that the SNP says that the economy is its focus, the current programme of bills and today’s events show that the SNP Administration has its eye well and truly off the ball when it comes to taking the action that we need to restore Scotland to growth. That is why we need to get beyond the process of the referendum and get on with making the decision, so that once Scotland has decided to maintain our membership of the United Kingdom we can all get on with what we should be doing in this devolved Parliament: delivering on the priorities that really matter for the people whom we represent.
14:53
Our programme for government focuses on opportunities for Scotland, not least by ridding ourselves of the economics of Westminster and, I hope, the kind of speeches that we heard yesterday from Johann Lamont and today from Richard Baker, which I politely characterise as ideas-free zones. It is not enough to come to the chamber and repeatedly criticise SNP ideas, with all the positivity of someone who is chewing on a wasp, without suggesting alternative courses of action that could be taken using the powers that are available. We are perfectly aware that there is much that the Scottish Parliament can do and so much more that we could do if we had the full powers of independence and were a normal nation that was able to govern our affairs.
In the spirit of his request for ideas, will Marco Biagi comment on where we might be with shovel-ready projects if ministers in the previous session had taken up the proposal to mutualise Scottish Water and make it a public interest company, which is what John Swinney seems to be intent on doing anyway?
Perhaps Liam McArthur might be able to provide the assurance—which his Lib Dem colleague in the Treasury was never able to provide—that the UK Government would not take advantage of the ability to claw back all the money. The privatisation of Scottish Water has enough flaws to begin with as an idea, but to suggest that it could happen and we could end up even worse off is quite ridiculous. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why no one ever takes the Lib Dems seriously any more.
I want to talk about two bills in the legislative programme. The first is the post-16 education reform bill, which will set down legal frameworks for some of the changes that are already in progress, such as changes to colleges and rest-of-UK student fees, and will also—crucially—deliver a wholly new process of widening access agreements for universities.
Yesterday, Liz Smith said that the widening access debate should not be restricted to universities. It should certainly go beyond them and include schools. I look forward to the day when our state schools are so good and well performing across the whole country that people will look back bewildered and wonder why anybody would ever pay £21,000 to send their children anywhere else. We must recognise that there are steps to be taken right now to extend the work that universities have done for many years to reach out and bring in recruits and applicants from schools that are perhaps not currently sending as many people to them.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
A series of steps has already been taken. We have free higher education in Scotland and the highest-ever support for students to deal with their living costs. All the steps have helped, but looking ahead, it is hardly revolutionary to suggest that admissions teams that look at potential applicants should consider the wider pupil—not simply how the pupil has done before, but how they may do. They could be like job panels, which take into account the person’s previous employment record without it being the sole circumstance. The definitive study from England of 8,000 A level students found that an independent or grammar school pupil with two As and a B will perform just as well at university as a comprehensive pupil with three Bs. No wonder. At university, the state school pupil sits next to the Eton graduate and they go to the same lectures and seminars. We should see universities as having the levelling effect that they have. If Liz Smith would like to explain the levelling effect of £9,000 a year tuition fees, I would be happy to take an intervention from her.
I do not disagree with some of what Marco Biagi says, but does he accept that there has been huge and very satisfactory progress in Scottish universities on widening access, and that it is the universities themselves that have made the decisions? Perhaps we do not need legislation for that.
I certainly welcome the action that universities have taken and the progress that has been made. As long as we work in that spirit and spur them to go even further, we can achieve remarkable results. I look forward to considering the post-16 education reform bill in the Education and Culture Committee.
The other bill that I want to single out is also a landmark. It will focus on opportunity and will directly affect perhaps only 2 per cent of Scotland’s population, but it is a sign of where we want to go to as a country. As I grew up, gay people were censored out of existence in schools. When I came out, we had relatively recently won at the European Court of Human Rights the right to join the armed forces and an equal age of consent. Adoption rights, civil partnerships and legal protection from shops being able to put up signs saying “No gays allowed” were all yet to come. This far on, it is easy to forget how bitterly all those steps were opposed.
Research just this year from the University of Cambridge found that 54 per cent of young Scots who come out in their teens are driven to self-harm by the attitudes that they hear often every day. The issue should not divide religion and the secular; this is a division of opinion. In my constituency, there are five congregations that wish to perform same-sex marriages. This is not the middle ages. It is not for the state to choose sides. I look forward to supporting the marriage and civil partnership bill so that, in marital rights, we do not have to sit at the back of the bus.
14:59
We meet this afternoon in the shadow of the kerfuffle of the reshuffle of the Scottish Government. Never in the short life of this Parliament has the reception of a Government’s programme been so lacklustre that the First Minister has felt it necessary to reshuffle his team within 24 hours of it being announced, but that is what we have seen today. I note that we are to debate the changes tomorrow afternoon and I look forward to commenting in my own way on some of the new ministerial appointments.
I want to congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on a personal level. She has been an effective cabinet secretary for health and I thank her for the courteous way in which she has conducted business. I have previously put on record the fact that I believe that she has proved herself to be an extremely capable pair of hands in a crisis, and I can therefore well understand why the First Minister has felt it necessary to put her in charge of the SNP’s constitutional debate, such is the mess that has been made of it over the summer.
There are some worthwhile measures in the Government’s programme. I look forward to the progress of the adult and social care integration bill. It has relatively few words in the programme, but I think that getting it through Parliament and getting it right will be a much more complicated matter than the simple title suggests.
The children and young people bill and the procurement reform bill are to be welcomed, and the Forth estuary transport authority bill seemed a sensible proposition at the point when we progressed the Forth crossing.
The land and buildings transaction tax might prove to be a difficult measure—any new tax is, and I will be interested to see exactly how the Government unfolds the detail of that, and what support for it can be found among the wider Scottish public.
The marriage and civil partnership bill, which Nicola Sturgeon has spoken courageously on, and which I understand that Alex Neil will take forward, is a bold piece of legislation. On a personal level, subject to the provisions of the bill, I hope to be supporting the bill as it goes through Parliament.
Yesterday, the First Minister described the initiatives as
“good things to do at any time”.—[Official Report, 4 September 2012; c 10905.]
However, over the course of the summer, is that what the SNP’s talk was full of in the briefings that it gave to the media? Was that the centre of its discussion? No. Its discussion centred on an internal row about the membership of NATO—oh, how some of those rash heads must be regretting the bold stand that they took on that issue this afternoon. It was about the future of the BBC; Scolympia; and independence.
Yesterday, on television, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth said that the Government was focused on the economy. Would that it were. It is clear from the reshuffle that we have seen this afternoon that the reshuffle and the Government are focused on only one question—independence—at the expense of the wider debate in Scotland.
Yesterday, the First Minister said:
“the people of Scotland recognise that Scotland’s referendum should be made here in Scotland.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2012; c 10902.]
But by whom? Not with the participation of the leaders of any of the other elected representatives in this chamber who, in trying to participate in the construction of a question, have been loftily dismissed; and not by members of the legal establishment, who were told by Mr Russell that they were nothing but a kangaroo court.
This is not a debate that has been shaped here in Scotland. This is a debate about Scolympia, being shaped on Mount Scolympus, for Scolympians, by McZeus, by the SNP, by Alex Salmond, who will decide this matter unilaterally, on behalf of the people of Scotland.
The only encouraging thing that the First Minister said on the issue yesterday was that he would be meeting the Prime Minister in a few weeks’ time and would come to an agreement. I hope that we can come to an agreement sooner rather than later. I hope that we can have the debate sooner rather than later. I hope that we can have the vote sooner rather than later. What the people of Scotland want is a debate and a vote on a single clear question—the question that the SNP has a mandate to put: whether Scotland becomes an independent nation from the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Government’s record on health is quite good. I paid tribute to Nicola Sturgeon before. I do not stand here as an Opposition politician and simply say that everything that the Government does is dreadful, because I do not believe that to be true. Some of its decisions—such as dismissing the outcomes of the Stracathro pilot, which were encouraging and perhaps offered a model, and the move to free prescriptions—are decisions for which there are consequences. I think that there is a fraying at the edges of the health service, with fewer nurses, and there are considerable challenges, regardless of the finance that is available to the NHS.
However, I would particularly like to see progress being made on cancer. The programme for government states that the Government is keen to identify cancer in advance in order to try to reduce premature mortality. We advanced a proposal for a cancer drugs fund. Such a fund operates in England and some 12,000 people had benefited from it by January. I recognise that, although that remains our policy, it does not command support elsewhere in the chamber. However, we are in an era in which drugs are being developed that can potentially radically improve the life chances of people with diseases for which, for all our lives, we have hoped there would one day be a cure. I will write to the new cabinet secretary and see whether there is an opportunity to find some common ground between the parties and a way in which we can embrace the introduction of new technologies for the benefit of the health of the people of Scotland.
I am sure that the new health secretary will be delighted to receive Jackson Carlaw’s letter. Does Mr Carlaw agree that the biggest challenge around cancer is getting it detected much earlier? In that vein, will he join me in welcoming the groundbreaking new advertising campaign to encourage women to report earlier with symptoms of breast cancer?
Absolutely. Of course I welcome that.
The previous SNP Government was a minority Government that reached across the chamber. I think that history will judge it more favourably than this one. This Government has to be careful, because it is becoming belligerent and showing a lack of candour and an inability to accept error. It refuses to accept advice and is becoming arrogant and showing hubris. A focus on the agenda of Scotland must take precedence over a focus on an independence agenda for Scotland.
15:06
With all that talk about Scolympia, it is quite clear that Jackson Carlaw had been drinking Skol before he started to speak. I am not quite sure how to follow that performance, but I can say to my colleague Mark McDonald that it is quite clear that we can identify at least one shovel-ready project that Richard Baker is willing to support—I refer, of course, to Johann Lamont’s leadership of the Labour Party.
I am delighted to be able to speak in the debate. Yesterday, it was interesting to hear criticism of the Government’s programme as being somewhat legislation light. My understanding is that in any given parliamentary year an average of 12 bills are passed, but the Government programme includes 15 bills.
I found it interesting to read the 2011 debate on the programme for government. Jackie Baillie said, in criticism of the Government’s programme:
“What about the bold measures that could have been brought forward to deliver a better integration of health and social care?” —[Official Report, 8 September 2011; c 1478.]
Iain Gray said:
“Why is there no reform of procurement?”—[Official Report, 7 September 2011; c 1384.]
Murdo Fraser criticised the absence of an independence referendum bill and John Lamont talked of the absence of legislation on victims’ rights. What do we have this year? We have an adult health and social care integration bill, a procurement reform bill, a victims and witnesses bill and a referendum bill. I must have missed the welcoming of all those articles of legislation that were demanded last year and which were announced yesterday.
Let me leave the member in no doubt that I do indeed welcome them, because where Labour follows—[Laughter.] I know, I know. As the member knows, where Labour leads, the SNP will follow.
What can I say? I very much welcome that intervention by Jackie Baillie.
I will consider in a little more detail some of what was said in yesterday’s debate, then—I hope that I have enough time—talk about some of the specific legislation that I particularly welcome. It was interesting to hear criticism yesterday that the NHS budget has been cut by £300 million. Of course, we know that the NHS revenue budget has in fact been protected and that by 2014-15 we will see a record £11.6 billion resource funding for health in Scotland, which is £826 million more than was provided last year. That might explain why more people now are satisfied with Scotland’s health service than in the 2005 Scottish social attitude survey under a previous Administration.
It was also interesting to hear the leader of the Labour Party talk about the Scottish Government policy on physical education being a sham. We know that 84 per cent of primary schools provide two hours of PE per week to all pupils, which is up from the figure under the previous Labour-Liberal Administration. We also find that 92 per cent of secondary schools are providing two periods of PE in secondaries 1 to 4, which is double the figure of 46 per cent in 2004-05, when the survey was last carried out. It is important to place those facts on the record because, as far as I am concerned, some of what we heard yesterday was, frankly, a travesty of public debate.
I turn to some of the specific pieces of proposed legislation in the programme for government, beginning with the proposed marriage and civil partnership bill. I very much support the principles behind that proposed bill. The comments yesterday from Patrick Harvie and Willie Rennie—I appreciated the first half of his speech, if not the latter part—and today from Marco Biagi that the issue is about freedom of religion were well made, and we should reflect on them. We need to see the final details of the bill, but I look forward to looking on it sympathetically and I hope to be able to support its passage into law.
I also want to discuss the proposed children and young people bill because, during the recess, I became a father again. My experiences with my children make me all the more determined to support the ambition, which my friend Aileen Campbell has stated so often, to make Scotland the best country in the world to grow up in. That is a noble and well-stated ambition and surely one that we can all support. We should all unite around a bill that is designed to embed a new approach that is based on prevention, appropriate early intervention and child-centred service delivery. That proposed legislation is particularly welcome. The First Minister was right that the bill is all the more relevant in the context of the UK Government’s welfare reform agenda.
This is not a specific part of the programme for government that was announced yesterday, but I also look forward to the regulations on passported benefits that the Scottish Government will introduce. Those will be important and I look forward to considering them as part of the Welfare Reform Committee.
The welfare reform agenda is a huge reason why the referendum bill is so important. With independence, we would no longer be subject to the vagaries of an unelected Tory Government with its welfare reform agenda and austerity measures. It is interesting to see the Labour Party getting involved in the better together campaign with a party that is taking forward such an agenda. I am sure that Labour members will come to rue the day that they got involved in that and I hope that, when we become independent, they will apologise to the people of Scotland.
15:12
I join in with the general welcome back to the new parliamentary year. I hope that everyone has had a good recess and an enjoyable break, if they had one. I was going to say that it is great to see everyone again, but that is probably stretching things a little far.
Oh, thanks.
It is great to see most members, Ms Robison.
Of course, the start of the new parliamentary year is an opportunity for the Government and Parliament to reaffirm our purpose and our sense of mission. It is a chance to refresh our thinking on where we are heading as a country, to consider our key policies and to think again about what we are trying to achieve—or, failing that, to have a reshuffle. I take this opportunity to congratulate Nicola Sturgeon and her colleagues Alex Neil, Margaret Burgess, Paul Wheelhouse, Joe FitzPatrick and Humza Yousaf on their ministerial appointments. I also offer my thanks to Stewart Stevenson, Bruce Crawford and Brian Adam for their substantial contribution to the Government over many years.
Equally important, the start of the new parliamentary year is an opportunity to assess our progress towards the goals of the Government. When looking back at the past five years of the SNP Administration, it is difficult for me to get a sense of progress towards anything other than a referendum on separation. When I was out and about on the doorsteps during the summer, as I am sure many colleagues were, there was absolutely no doubt that the economy was the number 1 issue on everyone’s minds. There is scarcely a family in the country that has not been affected one way or another. People are worried about bills, petrol costs, wage freezes or cuts and their job security or lack of employment. Times are tough and too many people are feeling the pinch.
“Jobs” and “growth” were the watchwords of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, yet we are still not seeing economic growth and there are precious few jobs.
A survey out last week suggests that real unemployment—the joblessness that affects families and communities across Scotland—is far worse than the official figures suggest. Even for those in employment, too many are becoming part of the working poor and are stressed and struggling to keep their heads above water.
Our country is in the grip of a double-dip recession, but the only answer that the Scottish Government keeps coming up with is to ask Westminster for more money or to blame the Tory Government for everything. I am not saying that there are not problems emanating from the Tory Government, but surely we can do more with the powers that are at our disposal here in Scotland.
The construction industry—which should be the spark to get the economy going—is in the doldrums, yet the SNP’s response in last year’s budget was to cut £100 million from the housing budget. Unemployment is running at record levels. Youth unemployment in particular is a hallmark of the recession and one that could scar a whole new generation, yet the SNP’s answer has been to cut college budgets by more than £70 million.
In answer to Mark McDonald, I say that, yes, of course more capital to spend on shovel-ready projects would be a huge help, but why is the SNP delaying its own projects, which could be shovel ready, such as the sick kids hospital in Edinburgh? Why is it ripping hundreds of millions of pounds out of projects such as the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme?
Even the programmes that are in the gift of Scottish ministers, such as the Forth crossing, could be used to better advantage in the Scottish economy. Instead, the droopy mantra that we hear repeatedly from the Scottish Government is that only independence will give us the levers of control that will allow us to reshape our economy. We heard that yet again from the First Minister yesterday and from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning today—that sounds to me less like a policy and more like an excuse.
I am delighted to see everybody back from the holidays because I am glad that we are all here.
Ken Macintosh has asked for expenditure in three more areas—which is to be commended—yet he has criticised the Government for saying that it wants more money from Westminster. Given that all our money comes from there, what would he want us not to spend money on so that we can balance the account?
I also welcome Nigel Don back to the chamber—[Interruption.] And Christine Grahame—[Laughter.] Please stop now before we get to my—
Yes, you are coming into your last minute.
Mr Don says that the only thing that we can do is to ask for money from Westminster—surely that cannot be the limit of his ambition. If the Government were to grow the economy, more money would be generated. There are so many things that could be done to reshape the budget, but the whole point about the Scottish budget is that it is not designed to grow the economy, it is designed to appease popular sentiment.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not now.
The member is in his last minute.
I suggest that promising jam tomorrow—independence in two years’ time—is no answer to the problems that the Scottish people are facing today.
Let me make it clear that there will be areas where the Labour Party will work with the SNP and the Scottish Government, such as on preventative spend, childcare and working to protect our NHS and to care for our elderly. We will work with the Scottish Government where we can. However, we need to remind ministers that the difficulties and unfairness that blight communities and families today need answers today, not the promise of jam tomorrow.
We need a Government that is driven by the need to get Scotland working again; to get people back into jobs and to ensure they are not paid poverty wages; to boost housing and construction and get the economy firing on all cylinders; to offer childcare to those who need it and education, skills and training to those who want it; to use the purchasing power of the Government to greater benefit; and to use all the powers of this Government and Parliament to build a better Scotland today.
15:19
I am delighted to see Mr Macintosh back.
To call the programme “legislation lite” is not doing justice to justice. The members of the Justice Committee will know that because they have three bills coming before them, and I will address those if I have time.
First—as referred to by Jamie Hepburn—is the victims and witnesses bill. The bill is important because it will enable support for witnesses from the point of the police investigation. That support should run not only through to the discharge of the prisoner—if proved guilty—but for a period thereafter. However, I have a caveat—it must always be remembered that the victim is the alleged victim and will be the prime witness until the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the Crown with a presumption of innocence. Sometimes we are sloppy in the use of language and we must always be wary of that.
However, there is no doubt that when people take the trouble to report to the police and end up in the court process, they become bewildered. They have no idea what plea bargaining is. Whispering goes on at the desk in front of the sheriff and somehow the case is discharged. They do not know what has happened and they do not know what the disposal is. That is still happening, despite years of trying to change it.
Sometimes, the alleged victim has no idea at the end of the court process what the disposal is. The sheriff says something and, when they come out, they do not know what has happened. Sometimes, the case does not proceed on the day that they expected. That is all very unsettling for a witness and an alleged victim. It is important to deal with the issue, so that people feel free to come forward to report to the police in the first instance and to continue through the court process. They should also know thereafter that it is not an end for them and, if somebody is put in prison, they should know when that person is being released and what will happen in the community. Indeed, the committee will have a debate on the role of the media in dealing with court proceedings in criminal matters, because there are concerns about people being seen on television going into a court to give evidence, which might create difficulties for them in their communities.
The bill also contains the very important suggestion of a victim surcharge, which means that the accused has to pay for the distress or loss to the victim. In practice, that might be quite difficult to deal with, but it is important that we test the proposal out and possibly deal with it in legislation.
I think that the criminal justice (Scotland) bill will be quite controversial—it certainly is for me. My first comment about the Carloway recommendations is that they were the recommendations of Lord Carloway himself. Before the Justice Committee, he made it plain that they were not his committee’s collective recommendations.
I have concerns about the abolition of corroboration. Sandy Brindley from Rape Crisis Scotland thinks that it will make prosecutions for rape much more successful, but I take a divergent view. If it is simply about the credibility of the accused and the credibility of the witness—the alleged victim—it is perfectly open to the defence advocate to conduct a rather brutal cross-examination of the alleged victim on behalf of his client. Some people will look like victims and some will not. Some people will look like rapists and some will not. In addition, we retain majority verdicts. Remember that the Crown must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If a member of the jury says—rightly, it is about credibility in such a serious case—“I have a wee bit of a doubt,” there may be many more acquittals or not proven verdicts. The issue for me is that we cannot take away corroboration without looking at majority verdicts and the not proven verdict.
I am not prepared, as a back bencher—I make this plain as the convener of the Justice Committee—to roll over on the matter. For me, if members forgive me for saying this, the jury is out on abolishing corroboration in serious cases. We need to look at what has happened elsewhere, where there is no corroboration in serious cases. In such jurisdictions, there are unanimous rather than majority verdicts and there is no place for the not proven verdict. We must compare apples and apples, not apples and pears. It is time to have a really good look at the recommendation, bearing in mind that it was Lord Carloway’s view alone, rather than the view of his entire committee. I do not know what its view was, but the recommendation was his view alone.
It would be unfair not to mention tribunals, which are very important in relation to mental welfare and private rented housing. I am glad that we will deal with the issue and make the tribunals more user friendly, because a lot of people feel out of their depth and unable to deal with day-to-day issues. Having said all that, surely what we are discussing belies the argument that for the next year this Parliament will not be dealing with serious issues that matter to ordinary people. We certainly shall.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order for so few members of the Government to be in attendance for the debate, given the serious and important concerns that the previous speaker just raised? The First Minister appeared to be present purely to have his photograph taken. The Deputy First Minister opened the debate today but has now left us.
That is not a point of order, but it gives me the opportunity to remind members that this is the continuation of the debate. Members who have taken part should be in the chamber for the closing speeches.
15:25
Drew Smith’s comment kind of made the point that I will make. The better together contributions to the debate have been a combination of the ad hoc, the ad hom and the ad nauseam. That was started yesterday by Johann Lamont’s lamentable lament, which set the tone for today’s debate.
Richard Baker told me not to be upset. I say to him that the only thing that was upset was my digestion while I listened to his speech. Apart from that, I am perfectly chipper, thanks very much, Mr Baker.
There is much to be positive and ambitious about in the legislative programme. It is unfortunate that the better together parties are trying to criticise a substantial legislative agenda. For example, Johann Lamont rather pooh-poohed the better regulation bill when she suggested that nobody would look back and welcome it in 50 years’ time. That is a judgment call for her to make, but she is obviously not speaking to members of the business community, who have welcomed the bill and who I am sure will have raised their eyebrows at her contribution.
I heard Patrick Harvie say that he hoped that the better regulation bill would not be simply a deregulation bill. It is important for the regulatory landscape to strike a balance—it must work for wider society and for business, to ensure that businesses are not inhibited unnecessarily. I am sure that the Government will bear that balance in mind as it introduces the bill.
I will focus a little on capital expenditure. The Government must bring forward projects where it can. It is restricted in doing so by the cuts—of 30 per cent since 2009—that are being brought to bear on the capital budget. To lever in funding, we are forced to ask Westminster to release more funding, as we have no borrowing powers. I say to Mr Macintosh that saying to Westminster, “Please give us more money,” is not a choice that we make; it is the only game in town as long as the money that is available to us is restricted.
In response to the reasonable intervention by my colleague Nigel Don, Mr Macintosh seemed to perform bizarre gymnastics of logic to say somehow that the limit of our ambition is to ask Westminster for more money. I am afraid that that is the limit of the ambition of the Labour Party, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats for this Parliament. If they have their way, that will continue to be the situation—the Parliament will continue to have to hold out its hands and say to Westminster, “Please, sir, I would like some more.” We want this Parliament and this nation to control their own destiny and to shape their own future by taking control of powers over capital expenditure and borrowing, of the levers of the economy and of welfare and pensions—things that matter greatly to the people whom Ken Macintosh and I represent and which are currently not in the Parliament’s competence.
What would Mr McDonald do with any of the powers to which he refers? Would he borrow more money? Would he raise or cut taxes? Does he want control over the Bank of England and over the currency? I want to know what he would do with any one of the powers.
We have made it clear that we believe in sustainable borrowing to stimulate the economy through, for example, investment in shovel-ready projects, which create more jobs and increase the income tax take, because more people are in employment. That is a simple economic argument, for which I believe that Mr Macintosh’s colleagues south of the border are arguing in a pan-UK context, so I do not understand why he has such difficulty with it in a Scottish context.
I will describe the simple point that Mr Macintosh fails to realise and which Mr Don neatly nailed. As Labour Party members have stood up in the past day and a bit, I have listened carefully for suggestions of areas in which to reduce spending in order to increase spending for their pet projects and other areas in which they wish spending to be increased. I have yet to hear a single suggestion. That is simply not credible for an Opposition that aspires at some stage to be the Government again. It is Labour’s responsibility to present itself as a credible alternative and, in order to do that, it must demonstrate that it would be able to spend the money that is currently allocated to the Scottish Government in what it perceives to be a more suitable way.
Will the member give way?
I will in a second.
Labour members cannot simply stand up and tell us to spend more money on colleges and housing without, as a consequence, telling us to spend less money on this or that. That is simply pulling the wool over the eyes of the Scottish people and assuming that there is some money hidden somewhere. Maybe there is a money tree in East Renfrewshire and Mr Macintosh could take us to it later so that we can harvest it and use it to pay for some of our priorities.
I give way to Margo MacDonald.
Very briefly, as the member is closing.
I will be very brief. There is an alternative—we could be a parish council.
I hear Tony Blair’s description of this place echoing in my head.
The referendum ties all of this together. Only by gaining full control of the powers of our nation can we drive it forward to a better future, taking control of welfare, pensions, capital expenditure, foreign affairs and defence—things that matter fundamentally to the people whom we represent. We have demonstrated over the lifetime of this Parliament that we can run health and education—there is no reason why we cannot run those other things. That is why we need to be an independent Scotland.
15:31
I am afraid that the First Minister’s speech yesterday will have reinforced the belief among a growing number of people outside the chamber that politicians and those whom they represent live in different worlds. The reality of life in Scotland is not the nirvana that the First Minister attempts to portray. Contemporary Scotland is a pretty ugly and brutal place for people who are out of work with no savings or who are ill, disabled or vulnerable. It is a place where almost a million Scots live in relative poverty and 160,000 children live in absolute poverty. It is a place where 650,000 households are experiencing fuel poverty at the same time as the six big energy companies are making £15 billion in profit—and the situation is getting worse through Scottish Government inaction. Do not take my word for it; listen to Brenda Boardman, the person who coined the term “fuel poverty”. This week, she criticised the “feeble, inadequate and namby-pamby” approach of the Scottish Government in tackling increasing fuel poverty.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
Scotland is a place where, in our most deprived communities, people are living almost 19 years less than those in affluent areas. It is a place where, for those who are in employment, wages are cut or at best frozen, conditions are reduced and rights at work are threatened. It is a place where people are going without food, as Citizens Advice Scotland reported this week, and where we see the demand for food parcels dramatically rising.
It is a scandal that we sit here, in this very comfortable building, on our very generous salaries, and there is no national outcry—no coming together or genuine collective effort—to bring people and parties together to concentrate our efforts on providing for the most basic needs of our people, especially through the provision of nutritious food.
I do not disagree with anything that Mr Findlay has said. I live in the 35th poorest data zone in Scotland, which is in Aberdeen—some folk do not believe that. Does Mr Findlay not agree that, in order to tackle many of the issues that he has raised, including taxation of fuel companies and various other things, we need the levers of power here? To deal with the things that he wants to see righted and which I want to put to rights as well, we need those powers. We could do better. Why is he quite happy for Westminster Tory Governments to control the reins of power on those important issues?
If Mr Stewart is correct, why were those things not among the First Minister’s six big demands when he went to meet Cameron after the election? Why did he not demand the power for the Scottish Government to take action on poverty issues? What did he prioritise instead? Broadcasting, to get his mug on the telly more often.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment—I could not bear it.
If this Parliament does not act on this issue, it betrays the mandate that it was given when people supported its establishment in the first place. The words on the mace at the front of the chamber are no more than window dressing for tourists. That is Scotland’s real shame and not one word in the legislative programme will address it.
In his speech, the First Minister made great claims about the economy and employment, but, in the real world, youth unemployment in towns and villages in my region is running at 30 per cent. Such levels have not been seen since the 1980s. Seventeen hundred workers—and many more in the supply and contractor chain—will be threatened with the dole if the Dutch multinational closes the Hall’s meat processing plant, and that is not to mention the knock-on impact on the agricultural industry. Nevertheless, I give credit to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, who has been very active on this front.
Looking back at last year’s legislative programme, I remember being told that the Government’s top priority was to accelerate the recovery, boost jobs and promote economic security. It was claimed that capital investment had increased construction jobs by 11.6 per cent, compared with a 0.2 per cent drop across the rest of the UK. This year, Scottish construction jobs have fallen by 6.6 per cent, while there has been a 1.8 per cent growth in such jobs in England and Wales. Sole traders, small businessmen, joiners, painters and roofing contractors—many of whom I have previously worked with—tell me that they have never seen the construction industry so bad. This is the reality of the world out there.
The First Minister tells us that he is creating demand by freezing council tax, but the hard facts are that 27,500 public sector jobs are being lost and a centrally imposed tax freeze is exacerbating service decline. What demand are those redundant workers who cannot spend money on food, clothing or services fulfilling? How does a strategy of mass public sector job loss square with the stated priority of providing economic security? Although we are told that the no-compulsory-redundancy policy will continue in the NHS and Scottish Government, nurses and civil servants are flying out the door. If the Government is so serious about no compulsory redundancies, it should let the chamber legislate for the policy.
Please come to a conclusion.
With regard to procurement, Patrick Harvie raised the issue of tax avoidance and we need to come back to that during scrutiny of the procurement bill. Finally, I have to ask why it needs a Labour MSP to introduce a member’s bill on the living wage when the SNP Government knows that it can bring in the measure but, instead, chooses to hide behind EU directives.
15:37
The last speakers in a debate are always worried that some of their speech might already have been covered by other members. However, this afternoon’s debate has been very interesting. I was particularly taken with Jackson Carlaw’s Scolympia and Mount Scolympus. At first, I thought that he was moving a bit far from the Government’s programme, but then I realised that Mount Olympus is a place far from here, where the fate of individuals and nations is changed at the whim of a select few elite individuals who are far removed from the mere mortals whose lives they affect and who have no mandate to do so. Perhaps, then, he was quite close to the mark.
I am, of course, very excited about the referendum bill, because it gives us an opportunity to discuss and debate the issue and engage with all Scotland’s people on the type of country we aspire to and the type of constitution that we want to live under. However, I want to concentrate on what this Government is doing and delivering for Scotland’s young people.
Over the past two days, the debate has varied in tone and content. However, listening to the speeches, I have become increasingly surprised at the rewriting of history by, and the somewhat collective amnesia of, some of those on the opposing benches and have to wonder what message some of the comments made in the chamber yesterday are sending to our young people, our teachers and our parents.
The delivery of more than 25,000 modern apprenticeships is a success story. Every one of the 26,427 young people in modern apprenticeships in 2011-12 should be congratulated on their commitment and dedication to the training that they have undertaken to reach their goals. Grahame Smith, general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, has said of apprenticeships that they
“offer a real chance of a job and a decent future. And few would argue that, with two-thirds of people in work given no training by their employers, it is a good thing to at least offer them the chance to train and gain a qualification through an apprenticeship.”
Will the member give way?
Yes, please.
To make a serious point, does the member accept that there is a real difference between an apprenticeship and vocational training?
Of course there is, but the modern apprenticeships are defined as such—modern apprenticeships. Attacking the fact that young people in work are taking up that opportunity sends out a message that they are somehow a different class of apprentice, somehow undeserving of their position, when we should be celebrating them. What is worse is that we are sending out a message that that opportunity is costing another young person a job, which is simply not true. We should be celebrating all our young people who are taking advantage of the modern apprenticeship programme.
I also make it clear that the modern apprenticeship programme exists and runs under the same terms and conditions as it did under the Labour-Lib Dem coalition. In 2006, when Labour was in power, 49 per cent of apprenticeships were given to young people who were already in work. Under this Government, the most recent figure for apprenticeships given to 16 to 24-year-olds who were already in work is 23 per cent, so to claim that somehow we are fiddling the figures or doing anything inappropriate is simply not true.
There also seems to be a bit of confusion among Labour members about council tax in particular, which was mentioned by Mr Findlay today and by Hugh Henry yesterday. Labour stood under a manifesto commitment to maintain the council tax freeze, but yesterday Hugh Henry called into question why we have universal benefits such as the council tax freeze, free prescriptions and free personal care.
In what was almost an aside in his speech, Mr Henry also commented that current nursery pupils would be lucky if the curriculum for excellence was being delivered when they were university students. What message does that send out to our young people who are currently studying and preparing for their exams in the curriculum for excellence, to their parents and to the teachers working hard to deliver the curriculum for excellence? It is fit for purpose and we should commend our teachers and the people who are delivering it. I wonder what message Mr Henry’s comment sends out to Labour North Lanarkshire Council, whose educational director has commented in the press that the council is going to be in a position to deliver the curriculum for excellence. What irony to cast doubt on the delivery of the curriculum when, in March, Mr Henry stood in this Parliament on a motion to delay the curriculum for excellence even further.
Mr Findlay mentioned the rights of workers in his speech—what trade union legislation did Labour reverse in its 13 years in power?
The Government is committed to our young people. The children and young people bill will be transformational for the young people of Scotland. By providing £274 million to support early years, implementing the curriculum for excellence, implementing a national domestic abuse delivery plan to help our most vulnerable young people, rolling out family nurse partnerships for our youngest and most vulnerable people, and introducing minimum pricing for alcohol, which will tackle some of the problems that blight our young people—
Will the member come to a conclusion, please?
Westminster has delivered for us Thatcherism, the de-industrialisation of Scotland, the poll tax, illegal wars, nuclear weapons and the Trident replacement. However, Labour seems to have written out things such as the 10p tax rate, which attacked the most vulnerable and low-paid workers in our country.
15:44
I whole-heartedly commend Clare Adamson for her excellent speech.
One of the most powerful motivations for us all as parliamentarians is to secure the brightest and best outcome for the nation’s children and to ensure that they grow up in communities that are safe, secure and offer opportunities to them regardless of their backgrounds.
Throughout my 19-year career prior to entering Parliament, I took a keen interest in the role of tertiary education in facilitating economic development and social mobility. We are often told that information is power, and that is absolutely true. A well-informed population that is given a good quality of education is an empowered population with empowered communities. It is therefore crucial that as a Parliament we focus on ensuring that education provides the people of Scotland with the opportunities to equip themselves with the vocational and life skills that they need to succeed. It is for that reason that the Government’s post-16 education reform bill is so important.
On the form of governance, in a previous life I was involved in reviewing the governance of Scotland’s colleges, and I whole-heartedly endorse the intention of creating better links with employers, communities and stakeholders because there have been weaknesses in the Scottish college sector in the past—although they were not deliberate but a result of the structures within which the colleges were working.
I was pleased to hear that Borders College has been designated as a lead college within the Scottish Borders region and is not to be absorbed into a larger region. That was warmly welcomed locally, and it gives local stakeholders the opportunity to work with their local lead college in delivering skills that the Borders economy needs.
As Marco Biagi outlined, widening access in the post-16 learning world is vital. We must recognise the fact that the secondary sector does not work for all pupils. We know that the traditional learning environment does not provide the right methodology and context for many. The tertiary sector is therefore crucial because it can provide a second chance for the achievement of those people’s hopes and dreams.
I am also proud of the Scottish Government’s commitment to 25,000 modern apprenticeships and its delivery of more than 26,000 modern apprenticeships in the past year. As other members have said, all those apprenticeships are linked to an employment opportunity.
I am proud that the Scottish Government has committed to a capital investment programme that includes a new campus for Kilmarnock College. That is a vital investment following the transfer of jobs from Kilmarnock to Fife.
I have seen for myself the fruits of investment in the Borders with the development of a highly successful modern apprenticeship programme in the textiles sector. It was organised by the Scottish Borders knitwear group training association and is already providing 100 apprenticeships in a fragile rural economy. I hope that it will be an example for others.
Opportunities for all, with its guarantee to those in the 16 to 19 age group, is a tremendous commitment to Scotland’s young people. The appointment of Angela Constance as Minister for Youth Employment and next week’s summit on women’s employment in partnership with the Scottish Trades Union Congress show the importance that the Scottish Government is placing on unemployment among young people and women, with both groups being adversely impacted by the UK Government’s austerity programme and welfare reform.
I am going to disappoint Ken Macintosh slightly by referring to independence. The austerity programme and the lack of action on capital investment—one of the means that the Labour Party identified by which we could tackle the economic decline—are very important and could be tackled through constitutional reform. We could also address the cuts to services that impact on Scotland’s budget through constitutional reform. Welfare reform and its impact on children and other vulnerable groups, particularly the disabled, veterans, families on low incomes and young people, can also be addressed through constitutional reform.
If this independent Scotland adopts the Bank of England as the lender of last resort, and it sets the borrowing requirements for Scotland, how can we borrow more than the UK Government is currently giving us?
It is extraordinary for Ken Macintosh to talk about the Bank of England when we have no say in its monetary policy and the interest rates that apply in Scotland. We are talking about a situation in which we would have enhanced powers and more say about the interest rates that are set in the UK. [Interruption.]
Order, please.
My colleague Fiona McLeod says that anything is more than nothing; that is quite true.
Clear education policy differences are emerging between Scotland and the rest of the UK. There is clear water between the UK policy and the approach that we are taking in Scotland, which is about access to education being based on the ability to learn and not the ability to pay. Ken Macintosh and other members referred to college budgets, but they seem to have a lack of humility around the fact that colleges in the rest of the UK are suffering a 7 per cent greater reduction in their budgets than colleges in Scotland. If the Scottish Government had passed on the Barnett consequentials in full, I am sure that the Labour Party would have criticised us for that. The Scottish Government has made a smaller reduction in college budgets and is doing everything it can to sustain capital expenditure in the college sector through non-profit-distributing finance.
England has £9,000 per annum fees for English domiciles, whereas in Scotland we have £0 per annum fees for Scottish domiciles. We also have a commitment to a minimum student income. I would have expected a party such as the Labour Party, which believes in social democracy, to strongly support those aims.
I am conscious that my time is passing but I just want to talk about the independence referendum. We have to lift ourselves out of the debate that we had yesterday, when I felt that we dug ourselves into a hole and there was in-fighting between the party groups. We need to look at the benefits that constitutional reform could bring. We are looking for the Labour Party and others who claim to believe in home rule to provide an alternative to the dire message that they produced yesterday.
15:50
Christine Grahame showed why we should not talk all the time about the referendum. She talked about serious stuff that has to be tackled now. By the way, in my opinion Lord Carloway was wrong and Christine Grahame is right about corroboration. However, that is only one bill, and there are umpteen bills in the Government’s programme that require our attention.
People outside the Parliament are not living for every wee discussion on devolution. They are fed up with hearing them. They want to know what is going to happen, because there is so much pressure in their lives and they fear so much for their children’s futures. We should get on with what we can do and make the best job of it, and we should reserve a space to discuss what might be.
Ken Macintosh, who gave a thoughtful speech, suddenly bobbed up and asked Paul Wheelhouse what he was going to do about the Bank of England. The answer is nothing, because if we are independent we will not have a currency that is the English currency or the Bank of England determining our rates of borrowing. I think that we should have something called the Scottish dollar, because that will be a petrocurrency. It will be serious and it will be controlled in the interests of Scots, in Scotland and by Scots.
In the same vein, I wonder whether Margo MacDonald has had a discussion with Mr Russell on the Government’s front bench, who thinks that we should have the ducat. Where I come from, that is where you keep your pigeons—but Mr Russell has a different view. I wonder what Margo MacDonald thinks of that as a currency.
Before I call Margo MacDonald, I ask members on the Government’s front bench to take their conversations outside.
I wonder who is speaking.
Was it a ducat? I think that it is a ducat that Mr Russell would want, which I think was a medieval coin. If we decide on that, that is fair enough, but I will go for the dollar. It is a bit more modern and it shows an intention to mix it in today’s world.
We took a debate that was meant to be about the Government’s economic programme and we allowed it to be overshadowed by the referendum. It is going to be difficult not to have that situation, because a parallel argument runs alongside everything that John Swinney does when he produces his spending plans.
I note the Government’s economic strategy is due to be published later this month, and I hope it will separate the reality from what each side in the referendum is promoting, because that is what is confusing people outside this building. We should not kid ourselves that people have a clear notion of where the demarcation lines lie between devolution and independence or sovereignty. They are not sure about these things and we need to explain them, and it is not fair to take up the time that should be spent attacking the problems of poverty that folk are experiencing now.
We know it is impossible to do all that work on our own. Johann Lamont is far too honest a woman to try to make out that everything to tackle poverty can be done in this chamber. She said yesterday that she was concerned that we are not doing as much as we could do with the limited powers we have. I am with her on that point—we should be doing more—but we should not be kidding on that that would amount to the best we can do.
We can do very much better. If we cannot, it means that the people who live in Johann Lamont’s constituency will be thirled to a life of misery, dying earlier than anyone else and with their children having worse health records than anyone else—the worst social statistics in the United Kingdom. That is the record of the union as far the people living in her constituency are concerned, and she cannot on her own, using the powers of this place, reverse that. She wants to tackle poverty, and I want to help her because it is my fight as much as hers. We have failed to stand up for these people through the British system.
That is why I was very sarcastic about the better together and the better Britain campaigns and so on. There is a case to be proved. If the SNP is being asked to prove the case for independence, the people who support the union must prove the case for the union being a better option. We have the present record to judge it by and it does not come out looking very well. Jackson Carlaw knows that perfectly well. The record of the union does not look good, whether on social policy or economic policy. I give the member the chance to correct me and to tell me how it is. [Interruption.]
You have one minute left, Ms MacDonald.
In the absence of an intervention from Mr Carlaw, I have a question for Margo MacDonald: was the NHS a creation of the union or a creation of Scotland? It is a creation of us all, and a benefit to us all.
That was then and now is now. I give full credit to the people who created the national health service. I can see why, after two world wars and the provision that was available at the end of the industrial revolution, there was a coming together of the interests of working-class people—poor people—across the kingdom, but we have now reached the stage at which those groups are being denied the best possible remedy because we have allowed the institution to become something of a false god.
I must ask you to come to a conclusion.
Ken Macintosh and I must discuss this much more, later.
15:56
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, and I would like to help out the Labour Party. I thought that it was the job of an Opposition party to scrutinise the legislative programme, but Labour Party members have singularly failed to do that at any point over the past two days. I will talk about the legislative programme that is before us, unlike Labour members, who have been more obsessed with the constitution than SNP members have been, which is quite remarkable.
We have 15 pieces of legislation before us. First, I want to look at the rights of children and young people bill. I welcome the bill and, in particular, how it will build on the 20 per cent increase in nursery provision for three and four-year-olds that has been delivered since 2007. It will guarantee a statutory minimum of 600 hours of childcare per year, which once implemented will represent a 50 per cent increase in nursery provision since 2007. That level of growth is remarkable, and we should all welcome and support it.
Some people have levelled the accusation that there might not be a need for legislation, but I believe that it is because childcare must be practical and flexible to maximise the benefit to parents, to children and to the economy that we must legislate. We must ensure that, when local authorities deliver that childcare, they meet their responsibilities to provide it in a flexible way. That is why I believe that legislation is necessary. Therefore, I will follow that aspect of the bill closely, to ensure that such flexible provision is offered to our communities.
I also welcome the move to include vulnerable two-year-olds within the ambit of such nursery provision. Labour members were shamefully disparaging of that move and demanded more provision without highlighting how any additional provision could be funded. It is not the job of the Opposition to do that. I strongly believe that expanding early years provision is the right thing to do and that the Scottish Government’s move to provide childcare for vulnerable two-year-olds should be welcomed.
That move can, of course, be built on. I would be keen to know whether there is any prospect of the £18 million for families from the early years change fund that was announced yesterday being used to extend the provision of early years childcare for two-year-olds in some areas of the country. Another avenue that is open to the Scottish Government when it comes to identifying a potential funding stream is to consider using some of the European structural funds for the period 2014 to 2020 to help to deliver additional care for two-year-olds—if Parliament chose to do that.
I would be keen for such an approach to be piloted in a small number of deprived areas in Scotland, and I can think of areas in north Glasgow that would be ideal for such a pilot. I fully accept that, in difficult financial times, the lion’s share of such funds is likely to go to attempts to boost employment and infrastructure, but a long-term approach to early years investment could be partly funded from any pot of cash that is spent between 2014 and 2020.
I therefore welcome the rights of children and young people bill, which, importantly, will also make provision for a new kinship care order. I will follow the bill’s progress through the Parliament and will help to scrutinise it carefully, which the Labour Party does not seem to be capable of doing.
I also welcome the integration of adult health and social care bill, which is essential to break down the barriers to integrated provision that are often spoken about but not always acted on. Those barriers are often budgetary—I will come back to that in a second—and cultural. It is vital that the public money that is used to support our ageing population is used to keep people happy and healthy in our communities and in their homes for longer. Issues related to when older people are discharged from hospital—indeed, their early discharge from hospital—need to be addressed. Does cost shunting go on from time to time? Many people think that there is cost shunting between local authorities and health boards.
The money that it costs to look after an older person in hospital, at home or in a residential care facility should ideally come from the same budget, and services and budget should be seamlessly integrated. Under the legislation, that will happen. Of course, community health partnerships were supposed to take that forward but, despite some efforts, there has been cultural resistance and progress has been slow.
Placing such integration on a statutory footing is vital to drive change. With Scotland’s over-65 population set to rise by 62 per cent by 2031, and the cost of health and social care predicted to rise by an additional £2.5 billion over the next 20 years, it is important such integration happens, and happens very soon. There is no other option.
I was genuinely disappointed that when the ruling administration in Glasgow looked at health and social care integration last week it was seethingly negative towards it. It identified two aspects that it did not particularly like, which were integrated budgets and accountable officers in charge of the money. It was shying away from those two things, which are fundamental to making the integration of health and social care work and on which Jackie Baillie—Labour’s health spokesperson in this chamber—agrees with the Scottish Government. I ask Ms Baillie and her national Labour Party colleagues to have a word with Glasgow City Council. We need that council to be on side for health and social care integration, or it will let down the constituents in Glasgow whom I represent, which would be simply not good enough.
I hope that we have some positive and constructive scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s legislative programme. If Labour cannot provide it, I will be happy to do so. Labour should really reflect on its attitude over the past two days.
16:02
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this afternoon’s debate.
After all the hype and spin at the weekend, there is no doubt that the programme that has been brought before us is a triumph of process rather than progress. Nobody in the Parliament will disagree with a programme that introduces better measures for procurement, improves the bankruptcy process and stands up for the victims of crime, but this programme fails to look at the substantive issues on the ground, as Margo MacDonald identified.
What does the programme say to the people in the country—the young people in my constituency who have been unemployed for six months or more, the family who stay in an overcrowded house and cannot get suitable accommodation, and the pensioner whose appointment has been stuck in the bureaucracy of the health service? The answer, from many of the SNP members over the past couple of days, is, “Give us independence. Take us to the land of milk and honey, and everything will be okay.”
Look at the process of the referendum bill. The SNP has been in power for five years, and it has taken five years to bring a draft bill to the Parliament. Then we hear that it will be two years before we actually get a vote on independence. Where are all the zealots? Where are all the principled nationalists? It appears that the bravehearts on the SNP benches are bottling it.
It is interesting that Mr Kelly seems upset that the referendum bill is taking so long to introduce, given that his party has continually said that we should be focusing on government rather than the constitution. Surely that is a non-sequitur.
Since the election, we have consistently said that the issue must be brought forward and resolved, to end all the uncertainty. The sooner that happens, the better.
Let me talk about the priorities of the people of Scotland. There are real concerns in communities in our constituencies. There are families who are £1,200 worse off than last year. Long-term youth unemployment has increased by 270 per cent—[Interruption.] That is not something to chuckle about, Mr McDonald. Calls to housing charities have gone up by 40 per cent recently. In my constituency, people on the waiting list for the Rutherglen and Cambuslang Housing Association face an 18-year wait, yet the housing budget has been cut by £100 million.
Will the member give way?
Not now.
Housing is an example of a portfolio area that could make a real difference to the economy. Some 12,000 workers have lost their jobs in the construction industry. More investment in housing would provide not only jobs for those construction workers but more housing for the people in my constituency who are struggling to find adequate housing.
I absolutely agree with the member, but there is a difficulty. In Edinburgh, a scheme to preserve the old buildings is waiting to be rolled out, which would create new jobs for stonemasons and so on. The plan is to have more apprenticeships, but nobody wants them—people who have or want to have the skills are not coming forward to fill the jobs. What do we do about that?
We need the Scottish Government to bring forward a proper apprenticeship programme to address such issues.
In relation to the £100 million cut to the housing budget, I want to deal with SNP members’ questions about how programmes could be funded. Let us be clear: the Scottish Government is wasting a lot of money. We heard recently from Audit Scotland that £133 million has been wasted on information technology projects that have had to be closed early. During the summer, the NHS spent £2.6 million on spin doctors, which includes £0.5 million spent by NHS Lothian. What a great success that was—not.
The priority in the legislative programme should be to look at the forthcoming budget bill and use the armies of civil servants that are available to ministers to identify where money is being wasted, so that the Government can bring forward a proper programme that will address the country’s needs, consider issues such as youth unemployment, tackle the housing crisis and make a difference to the people of Scotland.
Before I call Maureen Watt, who will be the final back-bench speaker, I advise that members who participated in this debate over both days ought to be present for closing speeches, unless they have given the Presiding Officer prior notification of absence.
16:08
I am delighted to speak in the debate and to have listened to all the speeches, but I cannot understand the negativity of Opposition speakers—bar a few. Labour speakers tried to convince themselves that the SNP Government has done nothing and will do nothing but concentrate on the referendum and securing independence. I politely suggest that it is the Opposition parties who are obsessed with independence, given that they raise the issue in the Parliament more often than SNP members do.
Let me remind members of a few of the SNP Government’s achievements. In relation to justice, most adults rate their neighbourhood as a very good place in which to live. That continues a rising trend, and the success is due in no small part to the fact that we have maintained the presence of 1,000 extra police officers, which has led to the lowest crime levels since 1975.
In health, the majority of people—there has been a rise of 16 per cent since 2005—are either very satisfied or quite satisfied with the way that the NHS runs, and a record 4 million people are registered with NHS dentists, including 99 per cent of six to 12-year-olds. That is a real achievement that is very welcome, especially in the north-east given the shambles that we inherited in the area from the previous Labour-Lib Dem coalition Government.
In housing, the Government has exceeded its target to deliver 6,000 affordable houses. In 2011-12, the figure was 6,882.
In education, a record number of school leavers qualified to at least standard grade level, and a record number of school leavers are in positive destinations. A record 22,292 young Scots will go to university in Scotland this year, and Scotland is one of only three European countries to increase investment in higher education.
On the environment, there has been continued investment to make Scotland greener and in our agricultural sector to provide food and drink. Those exports are at an all-time high.
The concentration on early intervention and preventative spend is making a real difference to many families, and the programme that the First Minister announced yesterday will continue to make Scotland safer, healthier, smarter and greener.
Perhaps the Labour Party does not like to hear about that progress, but the public do. Let me remind the Labour Party of its most recent poll ratings. The SNP is on 47 per cent, which is up 2 per cent, while Labour is on 32 per cent—that figure has not changed. Some 71 per cent trust the Scottish Government to act in Scotland’s best interests.
Even in the current economic climate, business confidence in Scotland is the highest in the UK. It used to be the case that, if England caught a cold in recessionary times, Scotland would get the flu. John Swinney’s shift of money to capital spend has made a real difference. That is why it is so important that money is released from the UK Government for shovel-ready projects.
That business confidence and other confidence among Scots do not automatically happen. The Scottish Government is creating the conditions for business in Scotland. The confidence comes from the Government but also from other organisations, such as the Aberdeen city and shire economic future, which drives the economy of the north-east. We are all judged by our actions rather than our words. Labour politicians in Aberdeen threaten to pull the funding from that body precisely because it is driving economic growth. Perhaps Richard Baker—who is not in the chamber at the moment—might have a word with Ms Eagle and stop her decrying an Aberdeen-based business for winning a contract in the rail industry. Just what is it that the Labour Party has against Aberdeen? Aberdeen is the economic driver for Scotland and the UK. There are jobs aplenty in the oil and gas industry.
I am not saying that there is not much more to do—of course there is—but we are making progress with one hand tied behind our backs. As Kevin Stewart has said, it would be great if we had both hands on the levers of power.
What does the Opposition want to do? It wants simply to continue chugging along with mediocrity, while the SNP Government wants drive and ambition for our country.
The status quo is not an option. Yesterday, we were told on the radio that
“three quarters of the pain still lies ahead with widespread cuts to spending and benefits likely to have a bigger impact on voters’ wallets than the tax rises and reduced investment to date.”
Britain’s recovery from the financial crisis is slower than that of other countries. Apart from the Italian economy, the British economy is the only one of the world’s 20 biggest economies back in recession and, to our shame, the UK is the fourth most unequal country in the world. Instead of supporting hope and ambition for Scots, Labour members are in bed with the Tories to maintain the status quo and support worsening conditions for our citizens. Shame on them.
We are about to move to the closing speeches, but members who participated in the debate yesterday are still missing. I would be grateful if they could return to the chamber, unless they have previously notified the Presiding Officer of their absence.
16:15
Like others, I congratulate those who have been promoted to ministerial office today. Like Kenneth Macintosh, I acknowledge the contributions of Bruce Crawford, Brian Adam and Stewart Stevenson. I have always found each of them extremely approachable and willing to listen, even when we have agreed to disagree. I thank them for that and wish them well.
I also put on record my condolences to Astrid and the rest of the Gorrie family. As Willie Rennie reminded the chamber yesterday, Donald Gorrie was a parliamentarian who enjoyed the respect and friendship of members across the chamber for the work that he did. Although Government special advisers were never his favourite species, I am grateful to Donald for the courtesy that he showed me when I was in that role and for his advice and support upon my election in 2007. He will be greatly missed.
Of course, Donald Gorrie would have approved of the Government’s plans to introduce legislation on same-sex marriage—not, as Willie Rennie quite rightly observed, so that the state can dictate what happens, but so that we can provide the churches and celebrants with the freedom to conduct same-sex marriages, where they are currently prevented from doing so.
I know from my own mailbag the strength of feeling that exists on the issue. It has not been an easy decision. However, for the reasons that Marco Biagi powerfully set out this afternoon, it is the right decision, and I congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on the way in which she has handled it. It is a shame that she is to be denied the opportunity to pilot the bill through Parliament. I think that her removal from health to concentrate on the referendum will strike many people in Scotland as indicative of where the SNP’s priorities now lie. That is not to dispute the importance of the referendum or the debate leading up to it, but the decision illustrates the problems that have been created by the First Minister’s determination to delay until 2014 a decision that, as Margo MacDonald warned, has come to dominate every debate and every issue that we consider in the Parliament.
Some members have commented on the impact that the delay is having. Other members will dispute that and say that the on-going uncertainty is having no effect at all. However, I do not think that there can be any doubt about the extent to which the issue hangs over the work of the Government and, by extension, the Parliament in a way that ensures that other issues and other priorities struggle to get the attention that they deserve.
The SNP’s result in last year’s election was remarkable. However, one of the crowning achievements of last May was Mr Salmond’s success in persuading many Scots voters that they could safely vote SNP without the need to support independence. Although that helped to deliver a dramatic result for Mr Salmond last May, it has left him with a problem ever since. Despite the SNP’s success, support for independence has remained static and has even fallen back in recent months. As a consequence, the First Minister has spent more of the past 16 months arguing for a second question that he does not support than for the independence that he does.
Indeed, as Willie Rennie and others have said, over the past 16 months independence has been redefined at a rate of knots, with ever-larger swathes of the British state being clawed back into Mr Salmond’s vision of an independent Scotland. It has even got to the stage where a number of Mr Salmond’s back benchers have started to come out over the summer and publicly question the leadership’s actions. Retribution could be severe, and some of the NATO rebels may yet find themselves playing more of a supportive role in the construction of the new Forth crossing than they might wish.
Of course, following the reshuffle, Alex Neil will now have no hand in that project. I wish him well in his new role, and am grateful to him for the way in which he always engaged in the issues in his previous post. Procurement was key among them, and I welcome the Government’s intention to bring forward a bill on that issue. An urgent rebalancing of the procurement process is needed to enable more of our small and medium-sized businesses to bid competitively for public contracts. That need not result in higher costs, and achieving it will be good for jobs and wealth creation in communities across Scotland, including my own. Nevertheless, Mr Neil has raised expectations, particularly within the SME community, and Nicola Sturgeon must now deliver.
Expectations have similarly been raised in relation to the Government’s children and young people bill. I understand the reasons why ministers have chosen to combine the two pieces of legislation, but that will present problems, and not just in relation to the scrutiny of the proposals. From discussions that I have had with children’s charities, I believe that the enforcement of entitlements to free early years care and education and the requirements that are placed on councils to assess provision locally might be more difficult as a result of wider-ranging legislation. As Bob Doris noted, welcome though the commitment to additional free early years care and education is, there is a question about why that cannot be put in place immediately, given the SNP’s promise to deliver it by 2010.
The same attitude is also evident in the SNP’s reluctance to press ahead with changing Scottish Water into a public benefit corporation, which would ensure that its future would remain firmly within the public sector but would potentially release a windfall of £1.5 billion. Up until the previous election, we were told by SNP ministers that they were opposed to such a move in principle. We were also reliably informed that, even if they were to act, the money could not be reinvested immediately. Now, John Swinney has confirmed that he has no principled objection in that regard. Indeed, he is entirely happy to see Scottish Water mutualised or become a public benefit corporation, but only if Scottish voters vote for independence.
That demonstrates that the dither and delay that we have seen on the issue have deprived Scotland of much-needed investment of precisely the sort that ministers and a series of back benchers now claim that they need for the shovel-ready projects. Instead of acting by using the powers that they have to deliver the investment and projects that Scotland needs, SNP ministers are content to delay, blame Westminster and insist that they will not act until they have more powers.
As I have said, there are elements of the legislative programme that I fully support, but there are others that raise serious issues. I agree with Margo MacDonald in that regard. Christine Grahame raised a number of important issues in relation to justice. However, the sense is—and it has been confirmed by our first Scolympian reshuffle today—that the primary focus of the Government over the next two years is on preparing the ground for the referendum. If everything is always someone else’s fault, if the solution to every question is always independence—however quickly that is being redefined—and if a parliamentary majority is wielded in such a way as to suggest that criticisms or concerns about what the Government is doing are somehow unpatriotic or talking Scotland down, we are in dangerous territory. The Government must not conflate the interests of Scotland with those of the SNP.
16:21
I congratulate the new ministers who were appointed today and I pay tribute to Bruce Crawford, Stewart Stevenson and Brian Adam for their service to the Government.
To see a Government’s purpose revealed, we must look at its legislative programme. What does the First Minister’s statement on the Government’s programme tell us about his Government? I think that Johann Lamont put it rather well yesterday when she said that the country is “on pause” while the First Minister pursues the one thing that interests him, which is his constitutional agenda.
We heard about some worthy measures in the legislative programme but, overall, it looks devoid of big ideas to take Scotland forward and address the people’s priorities. If we needed confirmation of that, it came today when we saw the Deputy First Minister, the most senior member of the Government bar the First Minister himself, moved away from the health service—a people’s priority—to the SNP’s priority, which is constitutional change.
I welcome some of what was proposed yesterday. I welcome more focus on early intervention, which is something for which we Conservatives have been calling for years. I welcome more emphasis on childcare, which is also something for which we have been calling for years. However, I note that, even with what is proposed, what will happen in Scotland will not match what is happening south of the border. Of course, what is happening on childcare was promised not just in last year’s SNP manifesto but in the SNP manifesto of some five years ago, so it is five years late.
Where are the other bills to cover what was promised by the SNP five years ago? Where is the bill to reduce class sizes to no more than 18 in primaries 1, 2 and 3? Where is the bill to pay off the debts of Scottish students? Where is the bill to replace student loans with student grants? Where is the bill to bring in a first-time buyer’s grant of £2,000 per household? Maybe we will have to wait until next year before those come forward.
The claim from the SNP, as we have heard from a lot of its back benchers yesterday and today, is that there is no money to pay for those things, but it seems that the SNP can find the money when it suits it to pay for the things that it wants. There is more money for students, early intervention and childcare. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but it shows that there is plenty of money for the SNP to do what it wants. Maybe those Westminster cuts do not look so draconian after all.
The First Minister touched on the economic aspects of the Government’s programme yesterday. He talked a lot about improving Scotland’s economy and he made much of Scotland’s economic performance compared with that of the United Kingdom as a whole, forgetting to mention that that might have something to do with the relative size of the public sector in Scotland or the relative strength of the oil and gas sector in Scotland. However, I remind the SNP that 1 million new jobs have been created in the private sector across the UK since 2010—more than double the number of jobs that have been lost in the public sector.
We have heard a lot from the SNP about the need for greater capital spend. The UK Government has said that it will consider that but, if we are to pay for more capital spend only by borrowing more money, we must remember that that is precisely what got this country into the mess that it is in in the first place. Further, more capital spend will do little good if all the money goes overseas. Anybody who has been out there talking to people in the business community—as some of my colleagues and I did just last week in Fife—will have heard the constant refrain that too many public sector contracts are awarded to overseas contractors, which means that the money goes out of the country. Large infrastructure contracts are awarded to Irish companies that bring in labour from overseas, who then live in portakabins, with the result that hardly any of the spend goes into the local economy. Therefore, more capital spending does not automatically deliver an uplift in economic performance. That is why the procurement reform bill is so important and needs to be scrutinised closely.
I appreciate that there is a difficulty with EU procurement rules. I would be the last to advocate any breaking of EU rules on anything, but we have to get this issue right. Other countries seem to get round EU procurement rules and ensure that their home companies get a fair crack of the whip, so things can be done within the law. That issue is vital.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
Will Mr Fraser give way?
I have so much choice. I give way to Mr Stewart.
If so much can be done to change European procurement rules, perhaps Mr Fraser can tell us what the Tory-Liberal Government in London has been saying at the top table to try to change those rules.
I know that Mr Stewart has had a bad day and that he did not get the phone call from the First Minister that he was hoping for, but there is no need to take it out on me. As Mr Stewart well knows, the coalition Government is working hard in the EU on those issues.
Of course, the SNP has powers on the economy, but it has used them to penalise business. One of the hardest-hit sectors of the economy is the retail sector, with retail figures down again yesterday, but the SNP has brought in a specific tax to hit the retail sector. The property sector is in difficulty, with landlords unable to rent their properties at any cost, but the SNP has brought in a new tax on empty properties. Rather than bleat about the need for more powers, the SNP needs to start using its existing powers to help business, not hammer business.
Will the member give way?
No—I need to make progress.
Only one bill caused any excitement among SNP back benchers yesterday, and that, of course, was the bill to bring forward a referendum on independence. We still have no detail on the timing, no question and no detail on the franchise. Five years on, we have no more detail or information and we still await the consultation outcome that was promised us by the end of the summer. We need to know all that so that we can get on with the real debate and move away from process and on to the issues. The more that people look at the real issues, the more convinced they are that we are better together.
Even SNP members are coming round to that view. It seems that an independent Scotland will be so much like the UK that no one will notice the difference. We are going to keep the Queen, the pound, the Bank of England and common financial regulation, and we may even keep NATO. On that point, I have something to say to the rebel SNP back benchers. That is not a term that we hear very often in this chamber, so let me repeat it—the rebel SNP back benchers. I have a list, Presiding Officer.
Please do not read it, because you have 30 seconds remaining.
They are Jamie Hepburn, Jean Urquhart, John Finnie, Dave Thompson, Gordon MacDonald, Sandra White, Marco Biagi, John Wilson and John Mason. I am sorry if I missed anybody out. They are the notable nine, although I note that none of them was put up for promotion today by the First Minister. I ask them to keep up the good work and keep the rest of us entertained. I hope that Joe FitzPatrick knows what he has let himself in for because—whisper it—if we stay in NATO, how long will it be before we say that we are going to keep Trident on the Clyde?
You must conclude, please.
It is not so much independence lite; it is more, “I can’t believe it’s not Britain.”
16:29
The programme for government has always marked the start of a new parliamentary year. At its most basic, it forms the work programme for the Parliament over the coming year. At its best, it represents our ambition and aspiration for our people and for Scotland. I genuinely think that people will, in the challenging year that is to come, reflect that this programme has been a wasted opportunity.
The SNP has a parliamentary majority. It can be radical and ambitious, and this was the moment to show Scotland what it could do. Instead, we have timidity and an astonishing paucity of ambition, albeit with one or two notable exceptions. I thank Jamie Hepburn for illustrating so well that Labour has led the debate on issues such as integration of health and social care, and welfare reform, and that the SNP has followed.
Yesterday and today, we have heard much assertion in place of fact: talk instead of action and shouting by SNP back benchers and, of course, by Alex Neil, to cover up the lack of intellectual rigour in the SNP’s proposals. As the First Minister said—on this point, even I agree with him—he does not have a monopoly on wisdom, so perhaps it is worth listening to the other voices in the chamber, rather than simply trying to drown them out by shouting.
I will highlight a couple of areas in the legislative programme, but first I commend the Government and Nicola Sturgeon on bringing forward proposed legislation on equal marriage. I welcome the intention to ensure that that legislation is accompanied by protection of freedom of speech and religion. To that end, the SNP Government has made clear that it wishes amendments to be made to the Equality Act 2010 and that it will work with the UK Government to do so. I ask, therefore, what progress has been made in the dialogue with the UK Government. I wonder whether Alex Neil—who, disappointingly, is not here—will use the opportunity soon to confirm his support for the legislation, because he has not so far done so.
Secondly, on the proposed integration of adult health and social care bill, Labour supports the integration of health and social care. However, my view is that the bill will not go far enough, given the scale of the demographic challenges that we face. Instead of the radical approach, which I had hoped to see, to ending the postcode lottery of care, to ending delayed discharge and to ensuring that older people do not fall through the net, we have a set of proposals that are, on the one hand, prescriptive and, on the other, are so vague that it is clear that the author has little idea of what the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy wants. The bill should specify national standards of care as well as outcomes, so that whether a person lives in Dumbarton or Dunbar, Dingwall or Dumfries, a consistent approach can be expected. We would have introduced a bill without a set of confused governance arrangements—reporting to the cabinet secretary, the council leader and the health board chair—and which would have put local councillors in charge. That would bring democratic accountability to parts of the NHS. Surely the SNP would welcome that.
Is Jackie Baillie revealing that, having supported the Scottish Government’s plans for health and social care integration, we are now seeing an exhibition of the Labour Party playing politics with that subject, as was revealed by local government Labour in The Herald?
That is not at all the case. We have been consistent and clear in our plans. My shame is that the SNP has failed to copy the plans adequately or be radical enough in pursuing them.
We would also have introduced a single budget, merging social work and health budgets for older people, rather than there being a confused and convoluted set of negotiations between a number of different partners. Our approach is to focus on the needs of older people. My regret is that the Government’s bill is likely to be too timid to produce the cultural change that we need for our older people now. I am happy to work with the Government to get that right. I am sure that Bob Doris will share my disappointment that the approach of SNP councillors in Glasgow was to reject key proposals in the Government’s consultation.
On the proposed children and young people bill, although I welcome the increase in nursery hours, I am genuinely disappointed that it has been so long in coming. The SNP promised exactly that in its manifesto way back in 2007. The proposal was then, as it is now, to entitle three and four-year-olds to a minimum of 600 nursery hours each year. It could well be 2014 before that is delivered—seven long years after the SNP first promised it. Families are crying out for help now. They need more than part-time places. Families need access to affordable wraparound care—access to childminders, and to before-school and after-school care.
Why is childcare more expensive in Scotland than it is in England? We know that improving access to affordable quality childcare is good for families, but it is also good for the economy. Is it not astonishing that a Scottish Government that spends much of its time telling us how progressive it is, is to be trumped by the Tories on provision for two-year-olds? Only 1 per cent of two-year-olds will get a nursery place with an SNP Government, but in England—under the Tories and Lib Dems—37 per cent of two-year-olds will get a nursery place. Where is the SNP’s vision and where is its ambition for two-year-olds?
We do not often hear MSPs talk about secondary legislation and it never merits a mention in the programme for government. However, this year there will be a swathe of secondary legislation on welfare reform. Members will not be able properly to scrutinise the regulations, which will cover council tax benefit and a range of passported benefits, because the SNP does not favour transparency. Will the regulations be any different from those that will be proposed at Westminster?
The SNP is very fond of telling us that things would be so much better if only it had the powers, and that everything is the fault of those terrible people at Westminster. I must confess that when I look at Cameron’s Cabinet of right-wing millionaires—which is increasingly male, pale and stale, and three quarters of its members went to Oxbridge—I concede that the SNP may have a point. However, it is not good enough to blame someone else. The SNP Government has the power to do things differently. Some of the benefits are now devolved, but instead of protecting the interests of the people of Scotland, the SNP Government simply shrugs its shoulders and passes on the Tory cuts. Where is the ambition?
Let me remind members of Strathclyde Region, which was a model in terms of its protection of its people from Tory cuts, in that it had the vision to have a social justice strategy. It is a shame that the SNP Government does not have the same level of ambition. At a time when the number of people who are receiving food parcels in Glasgow has doubled, it is shameful that the Government’s legislative programme is largely technical. When every family in Scotland is £1,200 a year worse off under the SNP, the legislative programme does not do anything for jobs or for growth. That, too, is shameful.
Johann Lamont was right yesterday, when she said that this is “a country ... on pause”. Forget the real-life problems that people face—unemployment, fuel poverty and child poverty—and let us just talk endlessly about a referendum. This is where I differ from the SNP: the thing that gets me up in the morning is not an obsession with the constitution, but an ambition to tackle poverty, to improve the life chances of our people and to build a strong economy. As someone who is half Portuguese, half Scottish, and was born in Hong Kong, the politics of identity that are espoused by the SNP leave me cold, because I believe in powers for a purpose—not in some half-articulated vague promise of jam tomorrow if people vote for independence, when the SNP Government does not even use the powers that it has now.
The First Minister is very fond of telling us that decisions about Scotland are best made by those who live and work in Scotland. Can someone please explain to me why, if that is the case, the SNP is ceding monetary control to the Bank of England, ceding control of financial regulation to the London-based Financial Services Authority and is about to cede control over much of defence policy to NATO? That hardly represents decisions being made in Scotland.
I welcome the referendum bill. We need clarity about the question and the franchise, but we need to look beyond that to engage in a debate about the best future for Scotland. Let me touch on John Swinney’s evasive performance on “Newsnight Scotland” last night. On the basis of John Swinney’s discomfort, I am beginning to wonder whether the First Minister has already conceded the second question. We all know that the First Minister wants two questions because he will not get the right answer to the first one, but what John Swinney’s performance tells me is that the First Minister has singularly failed to take his back benchers and his party with him.
This is the SNP’s golden moment. This is the SNP’s once-in-a-lifetime chance to tear Scotland out of the United Kingdom, but no amount of calculation or guile from the First Minister—he is capable of much of both—will stand in the way of its ambition. I understand that Nicola Sturgeon believes that there should be only one question, too. Although I will say more about Nicola shortly, I cannot help but think that we are seeing succession planning before our very eyes. I wish her well.
The independence debate may, to all intents and purposes, be fascinating to us in Parliament, but the real challenges are being faced in our communities, outside Parliament’s doors. They are the challenges of putting food on the table, of clothing children, of heating a home and of getting a job. None of those will be helped by the SNP’s referendum. In fact, none will really be helped by the legislative programme or by the reshuffle.
It is interesting that the Tories reshuffled their Cabinet yesterday and Alex Salmond has done his today. It is clear that the umbilical cord stretches to Bute house; I wonder whether they are “better together”.
Regardless of that and of the differences that I have had with the Deputy First Minister, I have always respected her talent and energy and I have always enjoyed working with her. I am not quite sure whether she would say the same of me, but we are missing you already, Nicola. It is a shame that her talent and energy are being diverted. The fact that she has been moved to run the referendum campaign shows the SNP Government’s priorities: separation is the first priority, the last priority and the only priority of the SNP.
Nicola Sturgeon’s replacement is none other than the Parliament’s own pantomime dame. He is a master of diversion if the facts do not suit him, but that will not work with the NHS. I hope that he gets to grips with the job quickly. Yesterday, the SNP said that reshuffles without changing economic policy are meaningless. Yesterday, the SNP launched a legislative agenda that fails to address the pressing economic issues. It has nothing to say to the many thousands of Scots who are worried about making ends meet, about their jobs and about their children getting jobs in the future.
The obsession with separation has been shown yesterday and today and is evident from the Deputy First Minister’s having been put in charge of the referendum when problems are emerging in the NHS. Alex Neil faces a challenging agenda. He faces the fact that the NHS has fewer staff than it has had at any point in the past seven years and the fact that the SNP has cut the NHS budget by £319 million. Accident and emergency waits are increasing, cancer-treatment waiting time targets are not being met and basic issues of dignity are not being addressed.
I call Mike Russell to wind up the debate. He has 17 minutes—[Interruption.]
16:42
I thank Parliament for that warm welcome.
Programme for government debates are very much ritual theatrical occasions. I have sat through many of them. I missed those from 2003 to 2007, but it was a pleasure to return to see them, as a minister. I am reminded of a poster that I used to have on the wall of my room at university. It was a historic Pan Am poster that showed a cartoon figure pointing over its shoulder, and the caption said, “The real world’s not in here—it’s out there.” That is the reality of the debate.
Such debates may be theatrical occasions and may have great ritual. The Opposition says that not enough is being done. Murdo Fraser said that
“the country is ‘on pause’”,
but the legislative programme is some pause. The reality is that an enormous amount of hard work is in the document and that each of us will have to do that work, because bill after bill will require the scrutiny, care and support of the Parliament. My plea to the Opposition, in undertaking its ritual, is not to talk down the achievements that we must all make for the people of Scotland in the next year; let us put our shoulders to the wheel and make them.
Of course, the debate this year has a sharper edge, because another theme has come up again and again. Jackie Baillie just said:
“I believe in powers for a purpose”.
In the debate yesterday, Hugh Henry—I shall return to his speech—said:
“tackling poverty and injustice is central to what we do.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2012; c 10951.]
At the heart of the programme is a bill to tackle poverty and injustice; at the heart of the programme is a bill that will do what each of us in the Scottish Parliament should do, which is make a better Scotland for everyone who lives here. That bill is not an end, but a means to the end that we should all share. That means to an end is a referendum leading to independence.
Part of this ritual, however, is something else that we need to pause to consider. I have found, over the years, that the angrier the Opposition is, the bigger is the vacuum in its own proposals; the angrier the Opposition is, the bigger is its fear of what is being done by the Government. This debate has been starkly illustrative of that.
I will start with the opening of the debate, but will pass over the speech of the leader of the Tories, who has just arrived in the chamber. She had beside her a lean—no, not lean, but hungry-looking—Mr Carlaw. I suspect that his time might be coming, on the back of his performance yesterday.
I say to Mr Rennie that his speech was the best speech that I have heard him make. It was a speech from the heart, although I did not agree with all of it. It is a pity that he has so few followers, because it was a speech worth listening to.
The real problem in the debate came from the leader of the Labour Party, whose speech was not worthy of her or her party. It was a speech of the most astonishing negativity and pure anger. It was not anger for change in Scotland or anger to ensure that we get that change, but an anger that had its roots—it still has, and regrettably it is taking Labour a long time to get over it—in Labour’s failure to achieve office in 2007 and again in 2011. It was an anger born of the sense of entitlement that Labour still shows in this chamber, although that entitlement has gone completely. A party needs to have ideas to earn office, but hers was a speech that was devoid of ideas.
We have heard in the speeches from Labour members yesterday and today great fear and anger—in the knowledge that there is no policy backing what is taking place, but just recognition that they are as far from office as they could possibly be. We have also heard the conflict in those speeches. I will mention two, in particular, because I think that they are significant. I did not disagree much with what Neil Findlay said. He is attempting to be the new Tommy Sheridan, and his sense of anger at some of the things that people in Scotland are suffering is undoubtedly correct, but how conflicted his statement was. He has spent the summer in his red collective, arguing for change in Scotland, but when he gets to the point of what that change should be, he cannot face reality. The logic of what Mr Findlay said was undeniable: the logic is that there must be full constitutional change in Scotland with full powers for this Parliament, then we can act and persuade others to act. Until that happens, Mr Findlay cannot achieve any of his ambitions.
Neither can Mr Hugh Henry achieve his ambitions. I listened with some interest to Mr Henry yesterday. I do not think that any member should—from what one might call the Militant school of rhetoric—lecture us on a variety of issues but refuse to debate. [Interruption.] I am happy to accept if he wants to intervene, but he does not want to intervene. One has to go through a speech like that and point out when the so-called facts that have been given might not be facts.
I have here 10 points that I want to draw to Mr Henry’s attention—10 things that we need to know about what is happening in Scottish education and in Scotland generally. Let us start with poverty. Mr Henry made assertions about poverty, but in reality the percentage of people in relative poverty fell in 2009-10 and in 2010-11. That was an achievement of the Government against the most appalling economic circumstances and without the full powers that we need. Mr Henry also accused the Scottish Government of allowing better-off people to flourish and allowing the poor and marginalised to suffer. Between 2009-10 and 2010-11, the proportion of working-age adults in relative poverty fell by 70,000. Could we do better? Yes, we could do better. How could we do better? By having independence. Nevertheless, that figure fell. It did not rise.
Mr Henry then talked about teacher numbers. Circumstances have changed—I will give him that—and we are now in difficult times. Cuts have come that have—as the First Minister said, quite effectively quoting a former Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer—been “deeper” than Thatcher’s.
“Tougher”.
“Tougher” than Thatcher’s. I am sorry to have misquoted the First Minister.
It was both.
“Deeper and tougher” than Thatcher’s. I have got it right now. The First Minister is always a great assistance to me.
However, here is a fact: even in such circumstances, not only have we met our class targets, but we have done better. In 2006—when, I think, Mr Henry was the Minister for Education and Young People—the average primary 1 class size was 23.1. According to the latest census, it is 20.5. In 2006—when, I think, Mr Henry was education minister—there were 16,845 pupils in primary 1 classes of 26 or more. According to the latest census, that figure has been reduced to 609 pupils, which is a 96 per cent reduction. Also, teacher unemployment in Scotland is now lower than anywhere else in the UK.
Mr Henry also dealt with unemployment and, indeed, unemployment amongst women. According to the latest data that have been produced by the Office for National Statistics, unemployment among women has increased—the figure is too high—but we also know that the work programmes are being effective. If Mr Henry had an ounce of fairness in him, he would have reflected that work and the work of the first Minister for Youth Employment in all these islands.
Mr Henry’s next subject was college budgets, which we have heard a great deal about over the past two days. However, what we have not heard about is the reform agenda that we are pursuing in colleges—except earlier this afternoon. I very much welcome Lewis Macdonald’s question on that matter at question time, because he highlighted what is actually taking place: the focusing of colleges on employment need. Our colleges have responded to the challenge. We have the best higher education student support package, colleges are prioritising young learners and the opportunities for all programme is, for the first time ever in these islands, providing education, training or a job to every young person.
Lewis Macdonald rose—
Can Mr Macdonald surpass his earlier contribution?
I am very grateful to Mr Russell for giving way. He should develop the habit, because it becomes him.
My point was about the need for colleges to meet the economy’s needs. I alert the cabinet secretary to the fact that the particular colleges—in Aberdeen and Banff and Buchan—that have raised the concerns that I expressed have, as a result of changes to budgets, faced the need to reduce core education and training over the past two years. Will Mr Russell use this opportunity to assure us that that pattern will not be continued?
I see that the thumbscrews have been applied in the course of the afternoon. Mr Macdonald’s earlier helpful contribution has been clawed back.
Core educational opportunities are not being reduced; instead, those colleges are focusing on employers’ real needs. We are also—which Mr McNeil asked about earlier this afternoon—ensuring that we bring together those who need work and training, and that they get both through our college system. Mr Macdonald will want to encourage—not discourage—his local colleges in those activities.
Let us move on to modern apprenticeships. I note that I am on only point seven of 10, and am conscious that time is passing. Despite Labour’s claims, modern apprenticeships have always been open to those who are seeking employment and to those who are in employment. Indeed, under the previous Administration, the balance was tipped further towards training for those who are already in employment. In 2006—was not Mr Henry the education minister at that time?—49 per cent of modern apprenticeship starts aged 16 to 24 had been in employment for more than six months; however, by last year, that figure had fallen to 23 per cent.
We have been here before. The point is that, in 2006, Scotland’s economy was booming. In 2012, the economy is flatlining but the cabinet secretary still forces the same old jewels about modern apprenticeships from six years ago on to the national youth unemployment crisis that we have now.
I am glad that Kezia Dugdale recognises that times have changed. That was not what Mr Henry did yesterday. We have changed with the times.
How?
Excuse me, Presiding Officer, but I am about to tell the member how things have changed. How many modern apprenticeships do we have now? Last year, we had 26,000—10,000 more than existed back then. We have risen to the challenge. The basic fact remains that the point that was made about modern apprenticeships and training was not accurate.
I am on my last two points—for Mr Henry, at least. In 2007—when Mr Henry ceased to be education minister, I believe—the entitlement to pre-school education was 412.5 hours. We raised it to 475 hours and we are raising it to 600 hours. That is an achievement.
I am prepared to concede that the minister has raised a number of points that are pleasing to the whole chamber—when we forget the party-political rhetoric—but there is a point that does not please me. There has been a 7 per cent reduction in PE teachers over the past year. Why?
That is because we have an education system in which local authorities make those decisions, as Margo MacDonald knows. However, I am glad to say that even in the current adverse circumstances, we have made more progress towards the target of PE hours in schools in Scotland than any of our predecessors, and we will go on doing so. Indeed, my colleague, the Minister for Commonwealth Games and Sport, has recently allocated resources to finish that task. That is an achievement.
My final point for Mr Henry is on his question about involving teachers. He asked me directly—and then refused to take an intervention when I was ready to answer him—whether I would involve teachers in the decision making about taking forward the teaching profession, particularly on the issue of nursery teachers. Of course I will. We always involve teachers. Indeed, it was this Government that overruled the decision of a previous Government—in which, I believe, Mr Henry was the education minister. In those circumstances, we managed to put teachers and then parents on the planning board for the curriculum for excellence. We will always involve all the stakeholders in making decisions on education.
I am glad that I have been of assistance to the chamber and to Mr Henry in putting my points, but I will go back to the core issue that we are debating. I want to say a word or two about Margo MacDonald’s speech, because she was absolutely right. She appealed to both sides of the argument on the referendum to talk about the positives, and for each side to tell people what it wants to see. There is an obligation on every single one of us to talk about our plans for change, and to talk about them in ways that show our vision of what we want to achieve, because what we are trying to do is to change Scotland for good. We have a positive vision. The members on this side of the chamber were elected last year on three things. We were elected, first, on the team that we had, which is a team that constantly develops and builds and improves; secondly, on our record in government, which the people of Scotland judged and judged favourably; and, thirdly, on our vision.
It is our vision of the future of Scotland that should be contended and debated. It is a vision that says that there are things that need to be changed. It is a vision that says that we need to have a post-16 reform bill because we have more to do. It is a vision that says that there is more to do with regard to children and with regard to kinship care. It is a vision that says that changes in procurement need to take place. It is a vision that says that our criminal justice system continues to need to change. Those are all visions, but wrapped around them—the real vision—is the vision of what this country can become.
The Deputy First Minister said in her opening speech that she has supported the idea of independence all her adult life. Well, I regret that I went wrong; for a brief period while at university, I was a member of the Labour Party. I publicly repent at this moment, because I believe in social progress. I believe in a change for the better in Scottish society, I believe in empowerment and I believe in eliminating poverty. That leads me inexorably to the view that the only change that we can have in Scotland that will achieve all that, the only change that will produce the Scotland that we want to see, the only change that will be honest to the traditions of the Labour Party as well as to the traditions of every other party—the only change—is to achieve independence.
I am very pleased to be a member of a Government that will give the people of Scotland that choice. Let each of us here, at the conclusion of the debate, make a pledge: we will debate vision, we will debate what we want to achieve and we will give up on the negativity, the anger, the angst and we will, in particular, give up on trying to present things that are not true.
I am pleased to conclude the debate.