Scottish Executive's Programme
Resumed debate.
Good morning. This morning we continue the debate on the Scottish Executive's programme.
It is a great joy to be back and to see all the happy, smiling faces around me, earnest for the fray.
As we know, families are very much the bedrock of life in Scotland; they are the key to our social fabric, to our economy and to our future. Family structures and relationships have changed and are still changing. There is more diversity and variety in the ways in which people choose to live their lives. Our policies and our legislation to support families need to reflect those changes in our wider society.
If families are to fulfil their ambitions and contribute fully to our nation, they must have access to good housing and employment, they must have access to high-quality health care and education, and they must live in communities that are safe and attractive. The Executive has taken massive steps forward to reverse the legacy of poverty, unemployment, poor health and chronic underinvestment in public services. The number of children in absolute poverty has halved. The number of working adults on low incomes has been reduced by more than a third. At around 3 per cent, unemployment is the lowest that it has been since 1975. Huge investment is being made in affordable housing and to help to regenerate our most disadvantaged communities.
As part of the range of provision, high-quality health care for families is essential. The gap between the health of the rich and the poor in our society—often living only a few miles apart—is still too wide. However, record investment in the national health service is showing impressive results, with reductions in deaths from cancer, heart disease and strokes, and decreasing waiting times. We have tackled postcode prescribing and delayed discharges. New programmes are being delivered on mental health and men's health and throughout the health service there are additional staff to care for patients. The historic decision to ban smoking is key to improving the health of our nation.
Our priorities for the future are to ensure best value for the £10 billion that we invest in the NHS by driving up standards and efficiency, by reducing waiting times even further, by reaching out with health improvement programmes, by following through on the Kerr report to build an NHS fit for the future, by implementing our mental health priorities, by ensuring that NHS 24 provides an improved service and by ensuring that community health partnerships deliver improvements in our communities.
One part of the NHS that the minister has perhaps carefully skipped around is dental provision, which in my constituency is chronic to say the least. I was contacted yesterday by a constituent whose 15-year-old daughter has had orthodontic advice to have four teeth removed and on-going treatment. She cannot access an NHS dentist. Is the minister satisfied that enough is being done to attract more dentists into the area?
As the member well knows, the Executive never skips around problems. We try to take them head on—Andy Kerr is renowned for taking problems head on. He is making the kind of investment that is necessary to make the improvements in NHS dentistry that are undoubtedly required. Those investments are being made by the Executive. Andy Kerr will pick up some of that when he replies to the debate.
Among our future priorities is the need to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Our vulnerable adults bill will put in place modern and strengthened measures to ensure that unsuitable people cannot work with vulnerable adults and that that group is better protected against abuse.
As members know, I have set out a clear and challenging vision for our children and young people, both in their education and for other services that work with them. We are setting higher expectations and new standards of excellence. We are providing more modern learning environments. We are recruiting unprecedented numbers of teachers to reduce class sizes and we are giving more freedoms and choices to schools and pupils. We are seeing tangible and undeniable results: pre-school education for all three and four-year-olds is now available and there has been a massive expansion in child care in Scotland.
Our already high-performing education system—a world-class system—is improving further. Nearly 50 per cent of our young people leave school ready for tertiary education. Our schools of ambition will help; initially 20 schools will transform their performance and set new standards and expectations throughout the system.
We are determined to build further on existing success. We know that high levels of parental involvement help to improve educational performance and strengthen schools. Our parental involvement bill is designed to promote and increase parental involvement. It will build on the experience of school boards.
Would the minister care to comment on the parental involvement bill's relationship to school boards? Originally, the consultation considered the abolition of school boards. Has the Executive had a rethink about supporting those school boards that are successful, which many of our constituents and school boards have told us they are?
I have always been very clear that although we will abolish school board legislation because it is too restrictive in a variety of ways, if schools wish to keep their present arrangements, they are perfectly free to do so. A school board may call itself a school board if it wishes to do so. However, if schools wish to move forward and to adapt or change those arrangements, we want to give them the freedom to do that. For example, we want to remove the statutory limits on the number of parents who can become involved; we want to add to parental rights; and we want to give parents more freedom to choose how they structure their involvement locally. The bill that we will introduce will strengthen the role parents play in supporting their school to be ambitious and successful.
To follow up Fiona Hyslop's point, what guarantee can the minister give us that there will be an absolute increase in the level of parental involvement? The concern about school board abolition is that it is just another way of reducing parental involvement, and that the Government does not have a mechanism in place to guarantee an increase in parental involvement.
We are absolutely committed to increasing parental involvement. Given the way in which statute is currently written, only 1 per cent of parents can become involved in decision making at their school. We want to abolish that to allow more parents to become involved. We will deploy a variety of techniques, including placing a firm new duty on local authorities to promote parental involvement. We are committed to increasing parental involvement and not in any way to constraining or reducing such involvement.
Excellent progress is being made in Scottish schools to address health improvement, as the implementation of hungry for success continues apace. We have seen it take root in our primary schools and it will increasingly impact on our secondary schools as the programme rolls out. Brilliant things are happening in our schools to change the behaviour and eating habits of today's generation of young people. As the First Minister announced yesterday, our actions are by no means the end of the story or the limit of our ambition. That is why we will consult during this parliamentary year on a range of proposals to further strengthen our approach to improving the health and nutrition of our young people.
Tragically, some children and young people may not be able to live in safe, stable and happy family environments. We need to protect them. We have embarked on an ambitious agenda to overhaul child protection services, and we have already piloted multi-agency inspections of those services. We will seek powers to strengthen effective joint work by inspectors in the interests of better child protection policy and practice. We have proposals to modernise the children's hearings system. Those proposals will deliver a unified system to ensure that children get the help that they need, when they need it. The system will be based on a single, shared assessment of needs and a single care plan, led by a designated and accountable professional. Our proposals put the child very firmly at the centre of better future practice.
Robert Brown will be well aware of the serious situation for children in care, as he was at the same presentation that I was at on Monday—we had another presentation yesterday. I ask for a guarantee that young people in care and leaving care will be given priority in the minister's considerations.
I can give that absolute assurance. I will be chairing a group of different agencies to drive forward progress, particularly in educational outcomes for looked-after children, which are, frankly, far too low. We need to do better and we fully intend to do better and to prioritise some resource allocation to that group in future.
Despite our determination to improve and integrate services for children and families, there will always be cases where a child cannot have a stable and loving life with his or her parents. Current adoption legislation is more than 25 years old and does not reflect modern societal and demographic factors. We are consulting on adoption law and the responses to that consultation will shape our detailed plans for legislation. However, it is clear to us that we need to modernise and improve the legal framework for adoption and permanence and to improve support for adoptive and foster parents. Our bill on adoption will allow us to make necessary changes.
The needs of families and their children in the 21st century are more complex and varied than ever before. Family structures, relationships, priorities, pressures and expectations have changed dramatically. Our legislative programme will build on the success of our current policies and programmes and will fashion modern legislation to meet today's and future circumstances. I commend the programme to the Parliament.
When I heard the First Minister's statement on the programme for government yesterday, I was reminded of the wedding ritual of presenting the bride with something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue. We recognise that the children's hearings system legislation and the adoption law are old and need to be updated. The issue is what the Executive is bringing to add value to the necessary updating process.
The parental involvement bill is new, but I am not sure how school board legislation can be abolished and school boards can be kept. Perhaps arguing that will be a challenge for the minister when the bill is scrutinised in committee.
Issues, policy proposals and legislative proposals have been borrowed from other parties. The nutritional standards proposals have much to do with Shona Robison's work on nutritional standards and with the Scottish National Party's action plan for fit and healthy young Scots. I refer to Jack McConnell's late conversion to legislation on business rates. Stewart Maxwell's smoking legislation drive must be recognised and we all know that Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Labour and the SNP have argued for school-college links.
I had difficulty finding something blue, but there is a heavy justice theme. Much could and should be said about policing. We support much of the justice legislation, but the issue will be its implementation. I hope that the voice of the police will be heard when legislation is reviewed.
Much of the programme for supporting children and families is worthy and needed, but the programme is not about preventing children from being vulnerable in the first place—it is about supporting children and families after the event. That is symptomatic of where Scotland stands. A catalogue of concerned and worthy bills will cope with the consequences of the failure of the economy and society. Scotland must deal with children who are damaged by deprivation and with depressed, suppressed families who are oppressed by poverty of income, opportunity, hope and ambition.
We live in an increasingly polarised world. The fact that one in 50 children is born to parents who misuse drugs is a portent for the future, and services for vulnerable children must address that. We need a system that is fit for purpose but also a system, policies and legislation to prevent people from falling into such traps in the first place.
Some matters require legislation, but some issues that we are discussing require policy rather than legislation. That the legislation is about dealing with failure is striking—it is about dealing with damaged families, children who enter the children's hearings system and vulnerable children who are up for adoption. We must think about a future in which legislation promotes success rather than simply dealing with the failures of today's families. Until and unless we can liberate economic drivers for success in all our communities, Governments will increasingly be forced to cope with damaged communities. Devolution can do some things, but unless there are fundamental drivers for change in our society, we will be stuck in second gear rather than driving at full throttle.
I want to consider specifics of the legislation. The children's hearings review is welcome and input into it must focus on the child. There will be a fundamental resource issue to do with social workers. If powers are to be given to children's hearings panels and there is to be legislation relating to different organisations, the resource issue will be under question.
In respect of adoption, we are dealing with changing times. I hope that members will focus on the plethora of changes that are required to adoption law rather than the specifics that will hit the headlines.
Parental involvement should be less about the management of schools and more about the management and role of parents in respect of the individual child's education. At a meeting that I attended last night, looked-after children in West Lothian called for carers to have a better understanding of the curriculum so that carers are able to support the children in their homework. The looked-after children probably do not realise that most parents do not know what the curriculum is or what their children are doing. It is not legislation but innovative and continuous improvement in schools that is required.
Is legislation required for head teacher annual reviews and updates? I know about schools that do such things at the moment as best practice. Some of the issues that we are discussing are not about legislation but about continuous improvement.
Last year, the Government said that there would be the most comprehensive modernisation programme of our secondary schools for a generation. Yesterday, the First Minister talked about schools for ambition. Some 5 per cent of our schools are benefiting. That is not a comprehensive figure—a selective number of schools are being affected. A striking thing about the programme is that it is about leadership, motivation and continuous improvement, for which legislation is not needed.
The nutritional standards proposals are to be welcomed and I hope that the committees will scrutinise the proposals well and that there will be cross-committee scrutiny, as health and education are involved. I have not heard much so far about sport, but we should look innovatively at what can be done. Not selling off playing fields would be a good start, that would ensure that there are active and fit young children in the future.
There are inhibitors to progress. I appeal to the minister to consider a presumption against the closure of rural schools. We need to nurture success in our rural communities and promote excellence in small schools. I also ask that the issue of early years intervention be addressed. If success is nurtured early, we will not have to deal with failure later.
In a changing world of different lifestyles, in which parents pick up and deliver children, school transport needs to be changed. In relation to congestion charging in Edinburgh, the removal of the school run would make a big difference. Legislation may be required.
I return to the theme of how we can change our society for the better. I look forward to a future, alternative Government that aims to legislate for success rather than one that has to legislate to cope with failure.
Yesterday morning, I sat with my pencil poised during the health section of the First Minister's statement. Apart from noting the planned consultation on a health promotion, nutrition and schools bill, my pencil remained poised. I am more than happy that there is not another planned raft of legislation on health matters, but I am surprised that the First Minister said so little about such matters.
Indeed, I was left with a sense of complacency. It was as if, through the investment of record sums of money in the NHS—which no one denies is happening—the setting of priorities and targets for delivery and legislation to ban smoking in enclosed public places, most of our health problems were nearly solved, and the promotion of healthy eating and lifestyles remained as the Executive's unfinished business. As David McLetchie said in his response to the First Minister, the Executive gives the impression that
"passing a piece of legislation is tantamount to solving a problem."—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18810.]
There is no doubt that introducing our young people to a healthy lifestyle should result in long-term health benefits, but that will not come about by an act of Parliament. As the First Minister said, schools are already taking action to ensure that healthy foods are available in canteens and tuck shops. Many are providing fresh fruit and chilled drinking water, which is how things should be.
The aims of the hungry for success programme, which is to receive further investment, are laudable. The programme aims to ensure that children are provided with healthy school meals, but I sound a note of caution that is based on a visit that I made to a rural school during the recess. There was concern there about the implementation of the project. The menus are set centrally, the purchasing of ingredients is closely monitored and the cooks find that there is little scope for them to give a little extra food to very hungry children or to provide an occasional little treat for a special occasion. We all know that children's appetites vary and that a hungry child is not necessarily an obese child. I am concerned that if children are left hungry after their school lunch, they will top up later with crisps, sweets or whatever unhealthy option will satisfy their hunger. The school cooks to whom I spoke were experienced and the food that they produced was tasty, but they were not happy with the rigid controls that were being placed on them. It is clear that they were losing some of their job satisfaction as a result.
For years now, we have said that top-down control is not the answer. Government at all levels should set policy and leave its implementation to people who understand the practicalities. The centralised, target-driven control of the health service in recent years has spawned more than 1,100 more senior NHS bureaucrats than there were in 1999—according to figures from the information and statistics division—and they must be absorbing a significant proportion of the resources invested in the system. Despite that, the ISD figures show that there are nearly 7,000 more out-patients waiting more than a year for treatment, with waiting lists and median waiting times for out-patients and in-patients all up significantly.
I speak to many health service professionals who are desperate to be released from targets and management. Patients want to retain their local services. They want to be confident of receiving help if they are struck down with pain or sickness out of hours, not to have to endure hours of waiting for a response from NHS 24. It is not right that my friend's sister had to endure the agonies of renal colic throughout the night until the right medical help was directed to her the next day. It is not right that a surgeon's operating list is scrutinised by a manager who removes a major case from the list and replaces it with three or four minor ones to improve waiting list figures; the surgeon's clinical judgment is overturned and the patient's major operation is delayed for reasons of expediency.
Would the member care to give me the names of the hospital, the manager and the consultant involved?
I will not do so at this point in time, but I will speak to Mr Kerr later.
Those anecdotal incidents are happening all over the country, leading to worry and dissatisfaction among patients, low morale among hard-working health professionals and problems of recruitment, retention and early retirement in the service. If Government were prepared to let go of the reins and put patients and primary care advisers at the heart of the NHS, as the Kerr report advises, and if it let the service develop in response to patient choice, as we have consistently advocated, with professionals free to exercise their professional judgment, I have no doubt that we would see a more responsive and more efficient health service that people were eager to work in. Change in the system would be evolutionary and would avoid the regular disruptions that are caused by tight political control from the centre.
To be fair, the Executive has recently moved some way towards that by allowing cross-border movement of patients between health boards, by at last looking to use non-NHS facilities to deal with NHS patients who are waiting too long for treatment and by promising to introduce diagnostic and treatment centres. However, there is still a long way to go. There are major problems with NHS 24, with out-of-hours provision, particularly in remote and rural areas, and with recruitment and retention of medical, nursing and allied professional staff, not to mention dentists. Although the establishment of community health partnerships is progressing well in some health board areas, I am told that it is not happening so well in other areas. Of course, we still await the Executive's response to the Kerr report.
With all those major health issues facing the Executive today, I am amazed that the First Minister did not say more about health yesterday. Could it possibly be that he is listening to us, and that we will eventually get a health service that is run by professionals instead of Government, that he will do a U-turn such as the one on business rates that was announced yesterday and that he will release the NHS into the hands of patients and their advisers? If the Executive were to move in that direction, it would certainly have our support.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to open the debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Not surprisingly, we welcome the content of the legislative programme that was announced by the First Minister yesterday, and we look forward to working with our coalition partners to take the bills through Parliament, thereby completing our four-year partnership for government programme.
This morning's debate focuses on health and education, one of the most obvious crossovers between which is the hungry for success programme, which Peter Peacock mentioned. It is welcome that resource has been announced for the next three years of the programme, which will build on its initial impact. Hungry for success will ensure the development of better, healthier eating habits, and formation of such habits in early life will lead to a longer lifespan and a fitter life for our children. It is clear that hungry for success depends on the commitment in schools not only of teachers and parents, but of kitchen staff, to whom we owe a particular debt of gratitude.
I urge the Executive, in addition to taking action on sugary, fizzy drinks, to consider making milk more available in schools to counteract the growing problem of osteoporosis. Brittle bone disease particularly, but not exclusively, affects women in later life and causes untold misery, and targeted intervention under hungry for success ought at least to be consulted on.
In my experience over the past two and a half years, hungry for success was at its very best where it was integrated into the school curriculum, especially at primary level. I urge that best practice in that regard continues to be spread throughout all local authorities.
Does Euan Robson agree that osteoporosis is potentially a hidden killer and that by ensuring that we lay down early foundations we can tackle a silent killer that attacks many people of all ages?
Indeed, osteoporosis is a distressing and disabling disease and one that I believe we could do more to combat.
The centrepiece of health legislation in the next few months will be the vulnerable adults bill; obviously, that bill has particular resonance for me as I represent a Borders constituency. No one will disagree that it is important to make the necessary changes in legislation, the better to protect vulnerable adults from neglect, harm and abuse. I believe, however, that there is one cautionary note to be sounded. The bill will need to ensure symmetry between child protection legislation and the new legal framework for vulnerable adults. There are obvious risks of overlap or duplication; if anyone doubts that, I ask them to define the word "adult" in law. More especially, we cannot have a lesser standard of protection for children or for vulnerable adults; it must be consonant. Special care must be taken to ensure that any new regulatory regime or disclosure checking does not overburden the voluntary sector, and I know that Peter Peacock has that point in mind.
While I am on the subject of protection, I offer a suggestion for how we might better protect children, especially in the light of the terrible tragedy in West Lothian. In many schools, swipe card technology is now in place to assist with school meals. Perhaps that technology could be extended to registration. If children were to swipe in and out of school, or even at the start of each lesson, that could alert staff to unexplained absences almost instantaneously. It would be not for teachers but for other professionals to follow up such absences. In my day as a teacher, such a professional was known as the educational welfare officer, although children in my high school used to refer to him as the kiddie catcher. I understand that there are pilots of that kind of system in England—Gateshead was mentioned to me recently—and it would be worth investigating and further exploring such schemes.
The Executive has recognised the challenges of Scotland's aging and declining population. A narrower base of economically active people impacts on our economy and there are consequences for our public services. The private sector may be prepared to buy the necessary labour at rates with which the public sector would find it impossible to compete. It is therefore especially important that the Executive is pursuing workforce issues vigorously with the 21st century social work review and the review on early years workers, both of which are soon to report. It is also right to pay tribute to the pioneering efforts in the national workforce unit in the Health Department, and I thank all those who have contributed to the national workforce group on social work services in recent months—they are making a real contribution to developments in that field. I trust that the initial work to co-ordinate those separate strands across the Executive will be taken forward in the months ahead.
It is of fundamental importance that the talents of all Scotland's children are developed to the fullest degree. We need to do that not only because every individual is unique and deserves the best possible start in life, but because the Scotland of the future needs their skills. The Executive, rightly, has a fresh talent initiative, but I believe that the policies of the programme for government and the forward legislative programme collectively address the issue of the hidden talent across the nation. That hidden talent lies in the 20 per cent of lowest achievers in school, hence the importance of the curriculum review, of the massive investment in the school estate, of the schools of ambition programme and of greater parental involvement, which was mentioned recently by Peter Peacock.
The legislative programme will allow us to harness the hidden talent of our children and young people in care. That is why the Executive has boosted fostering with extra resources and other initiatives and will reform adoption law to give more of our young people who cannot for one reason or another live at home a secure and nurturing start in life. We must harness the hidden talent that is wasted by young offenders who need a reformed children's hearings system to interrupt behaviour patterns early and to restore individuals to a path to full and useful citizenship. We must harness the hidden talent of the majority of kids in the hearings system, who are there because of lack of care, social needs, neglect or abuse, and who need the better and earlier interventions to address their needs that the reform of the system envisages.
The programme also targets the hidden talent that the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 will unlock on its implementation in November by placing a duty on local authorities to address the learning needs of all children and young people; the hidden talent that is wasted by the failed transitions or lack of opportunity that, as the First Minister said yesterday, the school-college review has striven to correct; the hidden talent of those whose bad health prevents a fulfilling, rewarding and useful career; the hidden talent of those with disabilities, who are either unappreciated or neglected; and the hidden talent of young people in residential care whose educational attainment for many years has been—and is still—so low.
Will the member give way?
No. Mr Robson, you must conclude pretty quickly.
One of the privileges of being an MSP is to meet people and to be discomfited by what they say. I recall how, as a minister, I met a young woman from Inverness who, between the ages of six and 16, had lived in about 12 homes. She had started in Inverness, had moved ever southwards to Dumfries and had then gradually come back north to the city where she had started out 10 years before. Would I want that for my child? Would any of us want that for our children? That experience illustrates the importance of the work that lies ahead of us and the legislation that we will consider in the next few months. Let us set to work to release Scotland's hidden talent.
I was pleased that the First Minister's statement placed so much emphasis on the health and education of and support for children. Such an approach builds on policies that the Executive has already implemented.
I am sorry that the Minister for Communities is not here, as I wish to praise him and I suppose that it would be better to praise him to his face rather than in his absence. At this point, I ought to remind the chamber of my entry in the register of members' interests: I am a director of Ross-shire Women's Aid. I wish to praise the minister for his efforts in facilitating the opening of Women's Aid Orkney's refuge in Kirkwall; the flexibility that the Executive showed over funding, along with the input of Women's Aid Orkney and Orkney Islands Council, have had very positive results. Now Orkney women and their children will no longer have to go to the Scottish mainland to find a place of safety.
Ensuring that children are free from abuse is very important for their health and welfare. In that regard, I should also mention that Women's Aid Caithness and Sutherland's refuge opened this summer. Such a move gives me a great deal of satisfaction, as it was this Parliament that began to roll out a refuge programme in the north of Scotland. It is good that those new refuges are opening throughout the Highlands and Islands.
I am very pleased to see the Minister for Finance and Public Services, because I wanted to point out that the number of refuges in Highland Council is still below the level that is recommended by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Given that there is no refuge on the west coast of the mainland north of Dunoon, I wonder whether it will be possible to fund a refuge in Lochaber.
Such refuges are critical to the health and well-being of mothers and children who have suffered domestic abuse. They provide a place of safety and support and enable women to break away from the abusive situation in which they and their children find themselves. I know that the Executive is aware of the effect that abuse of the mother has on children and of how the abusive partner's contact with the children can be used as a weapon both against them and, through them, against the mother. As a result, I ask the Executive to consider those issues fully in the Family Law (Scotland) Bill and to engage with Scottish Women's Aid on its safe contact proposals. We must ensure that the legislation does not end up endangering women or children.
Education is the key to changing the culture of domestic abuse in Scotland. Indeed, the Executive-funded respect programme for schools is central to the strategy of changing attitudes. I hope that all local authorities will be encouraged to buy into that approach to ensure that we fully realise the aim of the three pillars of protection, prevention and provision that the Executive has proposed in the past.
The protection element of the policy depends on access to justice—in other words, legal aid. That has been problematic; the contribution rules have prevented many women from going to court because of the difficulty of accessing legal aid and because fewer and fewer solicitors are willing to take on civil legal aid cases. As a result, I welcome the Executive's consultation on legal aid reform as a prelude to legislation as a means of seeking to remedy the situation. Without such reform, legislation that Parliament passed in the previous session, such as the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001, will not have the impact that the Justice 1 Committee in the previous Parliament sought.
As the Minister for Education and Young People made clear in his opening speech, strong and healthy families need access to housing. However, the increase in house prices in the Highlands and Islands has caused an exponential increase in the number of families who are registering on housing lists because they cannot afford to buy. I therefore welcome the Executive's initiatives on affordable housing. For example, 500 new homes are proposed for Dingwall, 25 per cent of which will be affordable housing for rental or purchase. That said, I have already raised with the Minister for Communities my concern that such affordable houses should remain affordable to the community in perpetuity.
On a visit to Tiree this summer, I saw eight affordable houses being built for sale on the old oil-tank site beside the pier. That is the start of significant housing investment in the island. The advertisement in the local paper made it clear that the houses were for local people and were being built with grant assistance from Communities Scotland. However, it is not clear what will happen when the houses are sold on. Will there be a similar restriction on second purchasers or will the first purchasers be able to sell the houses on the open market, despite the original subsidy? I would not like those properties to be sold on as second homes a few months or years from now, and the Executive's policy on that matter is important. What assurances can the Minister for Communities or the Minister for Finance and Public Services give in that regard? Will Communities Scotland exercise the right of pre-emption that was given to rural housing providers in the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003? Will that be at the open market value? Will the £40,000 subsidy be deducted from the price that is paid in a second sale? As far as local people are aware, there is no restriction on resale, and that concerns them and me.
The Justice 2 Committee, in its recent inquiry into youth justice, was particularly concerned about what it saw as drawbacks in the system. In its response, the Executive drew our attention to its consultation document "getting it right for every child: Proposals For Action". I like the fact that that document seeks to change the culture of children's service provision to ensure that it is not seen as a threat to families; that it is not a scary experience for parents and children; and that agencies have a duty to listen to the child's point of view. Moreover, proposed new duties on co-operation among agencies will minimise the bureaucracy of meetings, referrals, reports and plans that can impose unnecessary burdens on staff and is bewildering for families. Finally, the children's hearings system will be strengthened.
I seek an Executive commitment with regard to the families of migrant workers. It appears that one parent comes to work in Scotland—in the Highlands, they work mostly in the tourism or food industry—and they are then followed by their families. An ever-increasing number of children entering Highland schools do not speak English and local authorities need more support to provide qualified teachers of English as an additional language. When I spoke to the Minister for Education and Young People on the matter, he did not disagree that action is necessary, for example, to provide distance learning courses for learning support teachers so that they can qualify as EAL teachers.
I hope that the Executive will forgive me if I ask for more. I very much appreciate what it has already done and share its ambition to provide for the health and well-being for families not only in our cities but in the remotest rural areas of the country.
As my colleague Fiona Hyslop intimated in her opening speech for the SNP, we take issue with little in the Executive programme that concerns children, young people and education. Modernising the children's hearings system and adoption law and improving school-college links are all welcome—and, some might say, long overdue—initiatives. Even the bill on parental involvement, about which we have had some concerns, appears to be shaping up better than we might have expected as a consequence of the consultation process. That said, we will wait with interest to see the detail before we give a considered response.
One concern that we would like to be addressed is that parental involvement is best expressed through providing home support for learning. In its pupil motivation inquiry, the Education Committee found that, all too often, parents whose own experience of schooling has not been positive do not provide the kind of support that is required to ensure that their children realise their potential at school.
My question for the Executive is not whether its legislative proposals are necessary but whether they are sufficient to tackle the underlying problems of poverty and social deprivation that are blighting the life chances of many of our youngsters. There is a particularly strong moral obligation on ministers and all of us in the Parliament to do better by the most vulnerable group of children—those who are looked after by local authorities. Robin Harper highlighted that group. We are talking about nearly 12,000 children nationwide who are being supervised because of their offending behaviour or their need for care and protection.
The children's hearings system does well to deal with child offenders and child victims of abuse in the same system—not least because they are often the same children. However, there is no doubt that children's reporters need more powers to ensure that the intensive services that are needed to help those children to stop offending behaviour are delivered.
Reforming the children's hearings system alone will not do; the whole children and families support system needs an overhaul. Too many children come to children's hearings not because their problems are serious—although of course they are—but because the right support has not been offered at the right time.
It is therefore disappointing to say the least that the programme for government makes no mention of developing the provision for early years education and child care, especially as the review of the early years workforce continues and is due to report well within the next 18 months. In our vision for a prosperous, socially just and independent Scotland, the development of a universal affordable system for child care and education is an absolute priority. We would seek to move along that road as far as we could, even with only the Parliament's limited powers.
It should be seen as a mark of shame on the Government—and perhaps even the Parliament—that children who are taken into the care of the state are so poorly equipped for the world in which we live. Of those who leave care, 60 per cent have no educational qualifications and 60 per cent are not in education, employment or training. One in six such young people experiences a period of homelessness in the year after leaving care. Such figures make a mockery of the First Minister's boast that we are the best wee country in the world.
In a speech to Barnardo's earlier this year, Mr McConnell said:
"I am determined to press council leaders and others to make sure the education of looked after children is taken as seriously as most parents take the education of their own children."
I say to the First Minister and the ministers who are present: let us see that rhetoric converted into action in the programme for government.
The First Minister was right yesterday to emphasise the importance of working on many fronts if we wish to find solutions to our ill health. Alongside the need to treat the sick is the obligation to educate to prevent illness and to promote healthier ways of living. A good place to start is with mothers and babies. In addition to the promotion of breastfeeding, staff must be provided to make it possible. An excellent idea is the arrangement of cookery lessons to encourage more fresh food to be cooked and to help people with what they buy. The rich and poor alike use microwaves for convenience too often.
Young children should have their palate educated and re-educated to encourage them to eat better nutritional food and to help the early development of good habits. People usually stick all their lives with a trend that is developed early.
Does the member agree—honest, Presiding Officer, we have not discussed this idea—that the Minister for Education and Young People could consider increasing the number of home economics teachers who are recruited, particularly to teach alongside physical education teachers about fitness, health and nutrition as an holistic subject?
That is a good idea. We all know from teachers—I know even from those in my family and to whom I speak—that children who have had breakfast do better at school. That is a well-known fact.
Schoolchildren have impressed me with their response to the ban on smoking in public places. Most hate smoking and encourage all their loved ones to stop. As the First Minister said, we should tap into the excellent resource of our children, who should help us with health promotion issues to improve our health in the future.
I have discussed with Andy Kerr, our Minister for Health and Community Care, the fact that coughs and sneezes spread diseases. It is important for people to wash their hands. We have only to look about to see how many adults have not mastered that art or understood why it should be practised. I have discussed with the minister and with our local director of education the possibility of a painting competition in our area and it seems that that will proceed soon.
The prevention of disease does not always cost much, but it requires training and repetition. A thought came into my head this morning when I looked through my notes. I spoke to a friend who is a bacteriologist—a microbiologist—about the chewing gum that we see stuck everywhere and he reminded me of a BMJ article from 1980, I think. Tubercle can live for a long time. It can live as it dries and then it becomes airborne. Tubercle has not left our shores and we have a bad habit of sticking chewing gum everywhere; that might lead to an interesting research project.
I will get down to more serious matters. I accept that we have worked hard to reduce deaths from cancer, stroke and heart disease. As a general practitioner, I know that we work very hard in primary and secondary care to do that. In relation to deaths from cancer, I cannot believe the turnaround in services in Glasgow. In the 1990s, our cancer services were sinking into the earth. Our consultants were leaving, staff were demoralised and patients were not doing much better. We look forward to a bright future with the changes that have taken place in our cancer services and the new Beatson hospital that will be finished at Gartnavel. That is the jewel in the crown and we can learn much from what has happened with the rearrangement and reform of services there.
I have seen an important turnaround when patients complain. For example, when a change of service takes place, it is important to listen to patients' needs. If a patient is attending for chemotherapy, they need parking and do not want to hang about wasting their time while waiting for chemotherapy if it can be done more quickly. I have noticed that instead of being treated as a complaint, a comment is accepted as good feedback. I would like that to be the case for acute services in Glasgow.
I am extremely worried about the acute services in Glasgow. We require acute beds and we have a chronic bed shortage. Greater Glasgow NHS Board still wants to reduce medical beds by 40 per cent, yet medical admissions are rising. In total, the board wants to reduce the number of beds by 9 to 10 per cent. It does not seem to take on board the importance of having beds. To meet the requirements of care in the community, great discharge systems are needed; we have good ones but, frequently, when patients are required to give up beds that are needed, they must go into the community far too soon. The person who is in charge of the two new ambulatory care hospitals did not know how many theatres were required and it is essential to know the number of theatres and of beds that we require. I would like Andy Kerr to reflect on that.
We use bank nurses in the national health service too frequently. Nurses do three 12-and-a-half-hour shifts, which fall under the working time directive. They can shift into the bank service, which means that they could work for the next four days and nobody would worry about the working time directive. Every nurse who works in a ward knows that bank nurses who do not know a ward hinder other nurses. That is not good practice. I would like to hear from our ministers on those matters.
I thank Bill Aitken for inviting me to speak on a health issue that directly affects my constituency and families in my constituency—the proposed rundown of accident and emergency services at Ayr hospital.
Will the member give way?
Not just yet—I would like to get into my stride.
Others have described the situation more succinctly and—I fear—accurately, as the Ayrshire Post did in its headline of 25 August, which said "A&E Axe". That is what NHS Ayrshire and Arran proposes.
The proposal was presented to NHS Ayrshire and Arran's board on 24 August and the anger in Ayrshire—particularly south Ayrshire—has been palpable since, for a variety of reasons that I will describe.
First, health board officials in Ayrshire and Arran have, for many years, denied that they would ever consider closing our A and E unit. In the past, people at public meetings have been assured that the matter was not negotiable and not on the agenda; yet that is the scenario that we are facing today.
The second, more important, reason why anger is palpable in South Ayrshire is that the 42,000 people who use the Ayr A and E unit annually are about to be made into second-class citizens, in national health terms
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The member is supposed to be speaking to the motion, which is about the legislative programme.
I understand that the Executive has general responsibility for the delivery of health services. We have just listened to a speech about acute hospital beds in Glasgow to which nobody objected. I think that we should allow a reasonable degree of latitude concerning what the debate covers. There is no strict motion as such; it is essentially a take-note motion on the Executive's programme.
Each year, 15,000 to 16,000 of those people require admission to hospital after presenting to the A and E unit at Ayr; that is why they are about to become second-class citizens. For them and for many of my constituents, Ayr hospital is the hospital of choice for A and E, but we are now told that we will have to travel to Crosshouse hospital in Kilmarnock to access full A and E services. I inform members who are unaware of the geography of Ayrshire that Crosshouse hospital is sited some 20 miles north of Ayr, about 20 to 25 minutes' travelling time from Ayr, depending on road conditions. Many people in South Ayrshire will, therefore, lose the golden hour. Naturally, they do not regard that as an improvement in service. That is the view not just of laypeople, but of consultants, hospital staff at every level and those in the ambulance service on whom much of the burden of transportation will fall.
The figure that I mentioned earlier breaks down into 40 to 50 people a day who require hospital beds after being sent to A and E. Many of those people will have to travel by ambulance between Ayr and Kilmarnock and, in my view, the ambulance service simply cannot cope.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you. I have taken too many interventions as it is.
Operational research consultancy—or ORCON—standards will not be met or maintained, and I do not want to see the ambulance service put under greater pressure than it is under at the moment.
Furthermore, I have concerns about the proposed consultation paper 4—"Recommendations from the Review of Services Project to improve the delivery of emergency and unscheduled care in Ayrshire and Arran"—as it does not consider the status quo as an option. Nor does it consider option 2 in the review paper that was put to the board, which would have kept both A and E units at Ayr and Crosshouse hospitals open and would have put in place community-based casualty units at Girvan, Cumnock and Irvine. Option 2 was proposed for inclusion in the consultation paper, but it was rejected by the board at its meeting on 24 August, leaving the consultation paper considering only options 4A and 4B. Nonetheless, many consultation meetings are being held on the matter, and I hope that many of my constituents will take the opportunity to attend them.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Although I accept that the Executive has general responsibility for the provision of health services, what we are hearing from the member is not a general critique of health service provision; it is a very specific critique of provision in a certain part of Ayrshire. That may or may not be valid, but I do not think that it is in order.
I do not honestly think that I can rule it out of order. However, I offer the general guidance that, when members refer to the delivery of services, they ought at least, at some point in their speech, to make some reference to Executive targets and to attempt to relate the content of their speech to the broad delivery of policy and services.
I appreciate your point, Presiding Officer. This is perhaps a more general point on a matter of which the minister has a more strategic overview—I hope that I can have his attention. A and E services for Ayrshire are increasingly moving into central Scotland, and the people of south-west Scotland are losing out. The Executive's proposals will make the situation worse. One must ask what kind of strategic myopia leads the Executive to site seven A and E units within a 25-mile radius of Crosshouse hospital and then propose closure of the most southerly unit, at Ayr, leaving no A and E services in south-west Scotland between Kilmarnock and Dumfries.
It is not just me, as a politician, saying this; lifelong health service professionals are pointing out the lack of strategic thought in the Executive's proposals. The provision and location of specialist A and E services further and further away from the local community that they are required to serve is not acceptable at a time when we are paying more and more tax, partly in the name of improving the health service in Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. The member is almost out of time.
A different model must be found for the provision of services in Ayrshire from the one that is currently on the table, especially as we are told repeatedly by health board officials that it is not a matter of money.
Perhaps we can now return to the debate that we are supposed to be having this morning.
In the time that is available to me, I will concentrate on two pieces of legislation that were highlighted by the First Minister yesterday, which do not affect all children and young people but which concentrate on some of the most disadvantaged young people in our society. As we know, the number of young people who are referred to the children's panel reporter on offence grounds has declined dramatically over the past 30 years of the operation of the children's hearings system. However, the proportion of children who are referred to the reporter on the grounds of care or protection has dramatically increased. It is, therefore, right that we should review the operation of the children's hearings system and ensure that it is fit for purpose in the 21st century.
To a large extent, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 was a missed opportunity, with regard to the children's hearings system. The grounds of referral that were contained in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which set up the children's hearings system, were simply incorporated, lock, stock and barrel, into the 1995 act. We have not, therefore, reviewed the main grounds of referral to the children's hearings system since the mid-1960s, when the system was first devised. If we want the children's hearings system to work as well as it can, it is fundamental that we consider the reasons why young people are referred to the system in the first place. I am very glad that the First Minister highlighted that yesterday.
Joint assessment is vital to the working of the hearings process. The children's hearings system should not be a forum for professional disagreement between the children's panel members; the function of the children's panel is to come up with the right decision that will affect an individual young person's future. It is very important that professionals from a variety of disciplines get their act together long before they enter the children's hearings system and start to give contradictory advice to laypeople. It is important that we get the joint assessment process right. That is an easy thing to say; it is much more difficult to do. Nevertheless, we should ensure that that is incorporated into any review of the hearings system.
Joint assessment also means sharing information about assessments. Does the member agree that it is critical that resources and finances for shared computer systems, which are held centrally, are deployed sooner rather than later?
Yes. That is already happening in some parts of Scotland, and it is fundamental to the working of the system. We cannot allow professional disagreements or mistrust to prevent information from being shared.
At the moment, decisions that affect a child can be made only by attaching a supervision requirement and conditions to the child. I would like ministers to consider whether, on certain grounds, we can attach conditions to parents. Often, the reasons for young people appearing at children's hearings are nothing to do with their own actions, but are about the inaction of someone else, usually their primary carer.
I now turn to the review of adoption law. Currently, we are working with legislation that is anchored in the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978—again, legislation from another time. If we are to improve the adoption process, it is fundamental that we update that piece of legislation.
We know what the problems are with adoption: there is a lack of rigorous planning; the legal system is slow; there is a toing and froing of children and young people between their birth families and their extended families when in the formal care system operated by local authorities; and there is a lack of consistent support services for post-adoption families. We also need to recruit more applicants to become potential adoptive parents.
Those are the problems; what we must now do is find solutions to them. Several members have already highlighted the severe problems that young people face when leaving the care system, usually at the age of 16. One of our biggest problems is the lack of permanence that many adolescents experience when in the care system. It is a very artificial existence, particularly if it is subject to annual review by a children's hearing. We must make sure that we get systems of adoption and of children's hearings that work together and not apart.
A permanence order would go a long way towards achieving that kind of co-operation. It would be far more flexible than the parental responsibilities order under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Such orders are no more effective than the section 16 parental orders that were available under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. A permanence order could replace the current freeing for adoption order and would allow people who are involved in the planning process to take young people through the care system properly rather than go through the children's hearings system or through the adoption system and apply through the courts.
Bringing the two systems together is fundamental to proper planning and to giving young people permanence in their lives. If we do not give adolescents permanence at 13, 14 and 15, it is no wonder that they have no permanence at 17, 18, 19 and 20.
I am delighted to participate in the debate on the Liberal Democrat and Labour Scottish Executive's legislative programme for the remainder of the second session of the Scottish Parliament.
As we reach the halfway point in the current session, it is worth taking a few moments to reflect on the Scottish Parliament's many achievements to date and to remind ourselves that the programme that the First Minister announced yesterday should not be seen in isolation. It is actually the completion of the four-year partnership for a better Scotland into which the Liberal Democrats and Labour entered in 2003.
In its relatively brief six-year existence the Scottish Parliament has already introduced many changes that will benefit current and future generations of Scots. We have seen reforms to our education system and our health service; we have seen land reform and modernisation of our mental health legislation; and we have the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which will allow local authorities to start to address the scandalous housing legacy that was left by the Conservatives—a legacy that left many people in our communities unable to afford a house in the area where they were brought up and where they live. In addition, of course, we have seen the abolition of tuition fees.
In the first two years of the second session, we have already passed the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and introduced further reforms to our health service and schools. We have banned smoking in enclosed public spaces, reformed charity law, passed the first of several private bills that will see Scotland—uniquely—constructing and opening new rail and tram systems, and introduced fair voting for local councils. What we have already done in Scotland since devolution is looked on with envy by many people elsewhere in the United Kingdom and beyond, but there is still more to do.
This debate is about completing the programme for government on which we embarked two years ago. I followed yesterday's debate with some interest but I was saddened that, after six years of devolution and partnership government, we still hear the same tired old arguments from the Opposition parties. Of course, I am deeply touched by the SNP's concern to see the Liberal Democrat manifesto implemented in full, but I am not sure that even I want that. I think that it was the late Jo Grimond who said to someone who was thinking of joining the Liberals but was concerned that he did not agree with all our policies, "Never mind, old chap. I've only ever agreed with about half of them myself."
The SNP should be delighted that the Executive's legislative programme will help to ensure that more than 80 per cent of the manifesto commitments that the Liberal Democrats put to the Scottish people in 2003 will be implemented. That is a record that few Governments have achieved and I will be proud to put it to the Scottish people and my constituents in North East Fife in 2007.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Our standing orders refer to the requirement for relevance in debate. I fail to see what is relevant about how good the Liberals have been at backing up the Labour Party. That has nothing to do with the programme for government.
As I understand it, Mr Smith was effectively saying that the Executive's legislative programme reflects the priorities of the Liberal—
He was saying that they are fantastic.
He is entitled to say that they are fantastic. That is a matter for political comment. I do not think that he is straying very far from the subject of the debate. Mr Smith, do continue.
It is important to bear it in mind that the measures in the Executive's programme, which is what we are debating, implement Liberal Democrat manifesto commitments. For example, the health promotion, nutrition and schools bill will build on the success of "Hungry for Change". I hope that it will lead to the removal of unhealthy drinks and encourage healthy eating in all schools in Scotland. I also hope that it will encourage the use of fresh local produce, wherever possible, in the preparation of school meals.
Does the member recognise that one of the problems with fizzy drinks in schools is the public-private partnership and private finance initiative construct, which places severe restrictions on the public promotion of health in our schools?
The SNP has an obsession with those things, but I like to see the new schools that have been built and the schools that have been modernised as a result of our willingness to look at innovative ways of financing them. People in my constituency want new schools. They are not so concerned about the ideology behind the issue.
I hope that we will not lose the benefits of healthy eating due to the fact that many children just pop out of the school gates to the chip and burger vans that sit there. Ministers will consider how we can avoid such situations. No one should underestimate the importance of engendering the habit of healthy eating in our young people. With the possible exception of the ban on smoking in public places, that will have the single biggest effect on the long-term health of our nation and will lead to significant reductions in the incidence of heart disease and cancer in later life for today's generation of children.
I also welcome the parental involvement in schools bill. Unlike the Conservatives, I am pleased that it will lead to the scrapping of the present system of school boards, which was imposed by the Conservatives when they were in Government. I have no doubt that there are many good school boards that actively encourage the effective involvement of parents, but the rigid structure that was imposed is not appropriate for all schools and in many cases it can act as a barrier to effective involvement. I hope that the education ministers, in bringing the bill forward, will remember that it is not only the parents of children who are currently at a particular school that have an interest in it. The school can and should have a role in the wider community as well.
I expect the adoption bill to prove to be one of the more controversial bills in the programme, although I anticipate that it will have broad support in the chamber. As a new member of the Education Committee I look forward to the robust evidence-taking sessions that I expect we will have at stage 1. The essential reform of adoption and fostering law will benefit some of the most vulnerable young children in Scotland.
I also welcome the commitment to introduce a transport and works bill, as recommended by the recent Procedures Committee inquiry on private bills. Modernisation of the existing arcane process is essential if the Executive is to be able to deliver on its record investment in public transport.
Finally, I want to comment briefly on the planning bill. I am concerned that we are still considering the creation of statutory city-region planning authorities. I hope that that idea will be reconsidered. I have no problem with the creation of voluntary authorities, but I am concerned that statutory authorities will not be accountable to the people who will be affected. For example, people in Fife might have decisions imposed on them by the majority of councillors from Lothian or Tayside, who will not be accountable to the people of Fife for those decisions. That worries me and I think that it needs to be looked at again.
I will focus on the health section of the First Minister's speech. In fact, I want to focus on one little phrase that he used, which struck me as important. We debate health in the Parliament on many occasions, but often what we are debating is the delivery of health care. That is understandable, but, as the First Minister said in his speech yesterday, it is not the NHS that is going to deliver improved health for the people of Scotland. The NHS is important—it delivers health care and treatment when health breaks down—but other agencies and departments will deliver good health. Health is a truly cross-cutting issue.
In trying to anticipate what the First Minister was going to say in his speech yesterday, I spent my train journey down to Edinburgh looking through the Executive's draft budget for 2006-07, sad person that I am. I found it quite interesting. The fact that certain cross-cutting issues are a part of each section is a measure of progress and recognises that all things are interconnected. Each portfolio section covers the cross-cutting issue of growing the economy. I and my colleagues might have some reservations—which I do not have time to express now—about using that as an overarching aim, but it is there. Other cross-cutting issues are closing the opportunity gap, promoting equality—I have no quarrel with those, of course—and sustainable development, which is dear to my Green heart.
In each section, from tourism to health, areas of expenditure have to be considered in the context of those cross-cutting issues. I would like health to be mainstreamed in the same way. The health of our population depends on so many interacting factors that every Government policy ought to be health proofed. I will give an example from the section on transport.
There is a welcome increase in the draft transport budget for walking, cycling and safer routes, funding for which is going from £10 million in 2005-06 to £15 million in 2006-07, but it is such a tiny slice of the overall transport budget, which is £1,500 million—sorry, £15,000 million; no, £1,500 million. I can never remember which one is a billion, so I will say it in a way that I can understand: walking and cycling account for about 1 per cent of our transport budget. Less than 1 per cent of our transport expenditure goes on healthy transport, despite the fact that a 2003 study for the NHS and the Executive entitled "The Cost of Doing Nothing—the economics of obesity in Scotland" estimated that obesity was costing the NHS £171 million per year—I got that figure right. Increasing the walking and cycling budget tenfold would pay enormous dividends.
Transport policy needs to be health proofed. Unfortunately, as we heard from the First Minister, that is far from being the case. The bulk of transport expenditure is still going to go on roads, and the motorway programme—unnecessary and damaging as it is—will continue. That is one example of how the Executive's good intentions can be undermined by other parts of its programme.
According to the World Health Organisation in Europe, there is evidence that half an hour of moderate physical activity per day can halve the risk of developing heart disease, adult diabetes and obesity. For the overwhelming majority of people, walking and cycling are the easiest and most sustainable methods not only of reaching the recommended daily target of 30 minutes of moderately intense physical exercise, but of getting around. However, we know that 27 per cent of boys and 40 per cent of girls are failing to meet the activity target on a daily basis.
The Scottish public health white paper "Towards a Healthier Scotland" identified walking and cycling as making a vital contribution to positive health and active aging, while the draft of the Scottish Executive's walking strategy acknowledges that
"brisk walking at 3-4 mph … is an ideal way to increase levels of physical activity."
Unfortunately, in many of our communities it is too difficult or unpleasant to walk or cycle anywhere. I hope that the Executive's proposed planning legislation will address health issues, because planning also has to be health proofed.
I fully support the ban on smoking in enclosed public places that we passed before the summer, but while it is important it will not solve the problem of deaths due to lung disease. We reckon that passive smoking kills about 2,000 Scots per annum. A study in 2002 from the University of St Andrews estimated that at least 2,000 deaths a year in Scotland are attributable to the health-damaging particulates from vehicle emissions. In that respect we have a long way to go, and there is nothing in the Executive's programme to tackle the matter. As I said, the transport programme has not been health proofed.
Finally, the First Minister mentioned yesterday, and Peter Peacock mentioned today, the diet of our children and the hungry for success strategy to improve children's nutrition via better school meals. I support that programme, which has been much admired elsewhere in the UK, but it should not be the limit of our ambition. As we said in the chamber before the summer, already in Scotland a couple of schools are piloting the food for life programme that is promoted by the Soil Association, which advocates that school meals should be 70 unprocessed food, 50 per cent local food and 30 per cent organic. That initiative has been transport proofed, in terms of reducing food miles, and rural development proofed in the sense of supporting local jobs in the food industry.
If we want to promote health, we will have to get serious about it. That does not mean funding yet another health promotion initiative—it means building a Scotland in which it is actually possible to grow up healthy.
This year, comprehensive education will be 40 years old. It is worth reflecting on how the perception of the purpose of education has changed over the period and on the contribution to that change of the legislation that has come before—and will come before—the Parliament. Prior to the introduction of the comprehensive system, education was based on the failure of the majority. A small number of people, usually from better-off and more privileged backgrounds, had the opportunity to succeed academically and to go on to higher education, but the vast majority of people were offered a uniform and standard education that stopped when they left school, because the jobs that they were going to do for the rest of their lives did not require them to have more than that.
Forty years on, our education system is based on success. It is based on evaluating what children can do, not what they cannot do. Unfortunately, a lot of people who were brought up under the old philosophy do not like that. The change is often referred to as dumbing down. I will get on to one of my hobby-horses. During the summer, I get really annoyed that a lot of people decry the efforts of young people and teachers in achieving exam success; when exam success is reported, they try to belittle the efforts of those people.
The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 embodies the current ideal that
"education is directed to the development of the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child or young person to their fullest potential."
We no longer have the hierarchy that states that academic success is more important than creative success or success in vocational subjects—and thank goodness for that.
Part of the motivation for the sea change in education philosophy has been a recognition of the rights of the child. It has also been about the needs of our country—to be a confident and successful country, Scotland needs to have successful and confident citizens.
I am interested in Elaine Murray's theme of ambitions for the future. We have to address lifelong learning, which we need for the future. Perhaps she will develop that point.
I did not intend to develop it today, but I agree with what Fiona Hyslop says. Lifelong learning has been very much part of the philosophy of the Scottish Executive and the Parliament over the past six years.
We need an education system that recognises and supports the abilities, learning styles, development patterns and individual circumstances of each pupil. I, too, attended the session on burning issues and looked-after children in West Lothian yesterday and I agree with the many people who said that we are not delivering for looked-after children what we promised in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. I was impressed by Euan Robson's speech on hidden talent, because I agree that it is essential that we develop hidden talent.
School is not a place for parents just to deposit their children in the morning and then resume responsibility for them after the school day is over. We know that parental involvement in children's education improves achievement and develops and reinforces the ethos of the school. The child has to be the centre of education policy and child care policy. We know that, when parents and pupils are included in and understand the decisions that affect schools, they are more likely to abide by those decisions.
Adam Ingram made a good point about parents who have had a negative experience of school. There is a challenge in bringing in parents who did not like school. It is important that they get over that, so that they can engage with their children's school.
Will the member give way?
Sorry, I have only a couple of minutes left.
School boards have been a success in many schools. I acknowledge the concerns of the Scottish School Board Association and others, but if a school board is successful and parents want to keep it, it can continue. The legislation is being repealed, but school boards are not being disbanded. It is important that more parents are brought into the school board system.
I wish to comment on health promotion in schools, because just as the habit of lifelong learning to which Fiona Hyslop referred in her intervention is engendered in school, so must be the habit of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Many of us Scots find it difficult to re-educate ourselves later in life to eat sensibly and to take more exercise, so that pattern must be laid down in school. School meals in Scotland have been favourably compared with those in the rest of the country. I was slightly puzzled by Nanette Milne's mention of school cooks, because I have a friend who is a school cook and she is fed up with people going on about Jamie Oliver. She says, "In my school, I'm Jamie Oliver." That is down to programmes such as hungry for success. I was pleased to hear yesterday that a further £70 million will be invested in that programme.
I am sorry that Alex Fergusson is not with us any more, because I wanted to ask him about a statement that he made in The Galloway News, urging Dumfries and Galloway Council and the Scottish ministers to enable people to opt out of hungry for success. I wondered whether the Tories were in favour of the programme and whether they think that there should be a mechanism to allow people to opt out of health promotion in schools.
Investing in health promotion will save money on expensive treatments later on. It will enhance the quality of people's lives as they get older and it will increase their ability to work and to contribute to the economy and the prosperity of the country. Investment in health promotion is investment in many of the Scottish Executive's priorities.
Every time a Liberal Democrat stands up to speak in the Parliament, they claim that the fact that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening is down to what was in the Lib Dem manifesto. That gets very tiring. I say to Andy Kerr that at least the SNP has some right to make such claims. He acknowledged Stewart Maxwell's work on pushing forward the smoking agenda. Similarly, my proposed bill on nutritional standards in schools has in no small way led to some of the measures in the Executive's programme. We have no qualms about making claims about that.
In opening the debate, the minister made claims about the health improvement element of the legislative programme. However, most of what he was talking about has already been legislated for, albeit that that legislation may not have been implemented yet. It has to be acknowledged that the new legislative programme is limited in its proposals for health improvement. We all agree that the ban on smoking in enclosed public places is important, but that legislation is already in place and is to be implemented next year.
Many areas were not covered in the First Minister's statement yesterday and are missing from the Executive's priorities. As has been said, for all the claims that have been made about the health service, it is still the case that median waits are up and that thousands more patients than ever before find themselves on hidden waiting lists. Those lists are to be abolished in 2007, but that raises the question why they cannot be abolished now so that we can have a true reflection of the state of waiting in our health service.
As I said yesterday, one of the crucial areas in the health improvement debate on which we must seize is the Kerr report. However, we are still waiting for time in the Parliament to debate the report's important findings. That means that individual health boards—whether Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board or boards elsewhere—are left to do their own thing. That is not the way to implement a blueprint for the future of the health service. We have to have a national debate in the Parliament about the type of health service that we want. If we do not, health boards will do their own thing and it is difficult to blame them for that.
Likewise, we are still waiting for the detail of what is to be proposed on dentistry, particularly in relation to fees. Dentists are fed up with waiting. Many are on the cusp of deciding whether to remain working in the health service or to return to it—they need to know the detail of the proposals and we need to see that detail quickly.
The Executive's proposals for health improvement are to be welcomed—as I said yesterday, many of them will find support on the SNP benches. The specific proposal that I lodged in June last year was to prohibit the sale of certain food and drink in schools. It is important that the health message that children get in the classroom is not undermined by what they see when they walk out into the corridors of their school, whether that is through advertising or though the products that are being sold in the vending machines and other outlets in the school. Children do not react well to mixed messages.
Does the member agree that it is just as important that children should see a consistent approach to good nutrition in the home and at school? I am not sure that the Government has placed enough emphasis on that. Does she agree that we have to teach a generation of women who think that every recipe ends with a ping? That will need a concerted effort, but, with a bit of imagination and some help from the people whom John Swinburne represents, it might be done.
The ping is quite convenient for all of us sometimes, but the member's point is well made. The issue comes back to the number of home economics teachers in our schools. The fact that women and men do not know the basics of how to cook simple, nutritious food is a genuine problem. We must ensure that, when children leave the school environment, they have that basic set of skills.
The proposed bill on nutritional standards in schools is important because of what it will do in the captured school environment where children might have their only nutritious meal of the day. However, what happens when children walk out of the school gates is not in our power. All we can do is try to educate them to make informed decisions, so that they do not go to certain outlets outside the school. When they get home, perhaps they will even demand of their parents more nutritious food, so that the message is passed back into the home environment. The issue is certainly not easy to tackle.
In addition to that, we would like an extension of the free school meal programme, to pilot free school meals to primaries 1 to 3 and to extend the eligibility of those on low incomes. The hungry for success programme is an important tool, but it could be much better.
The minister opened by welcoming us all back after the summer—with tongue in cheek. Nothing much has changed. The SSP are protesting outside to get in, those who are inside do not turn up for debates and the nationalists are still greeting and girning.
I had a good summer mostly. I engaged with constituents, but I also found time to enjoy radio programmes. Some members might have noticed that Radio 4 ran a competition to find out the nation's favourite painting—a sort of middle-class "Pop Idol". They might have read in yesterday's press that the winning painting was "The Fighting Temeraire" by Turner. It is a depiction of a gunship that served at the battle of Trafalgar being taken to the breaker's yard by a tugboat after 40 years' distinguished service. What is interesting about the painting is what it represents. The obvious interpretation is that it is a sentimental lament for the passing of the romantic age of wood and sail. An alternative interpretation, however, is that it is a celebration of the dawn of the age of steam. That is a debate with which the chamber is more than familiar.
Should we, as some advocate, hark back to the romanticised past with a tear in our eye, or should we, as my colleagues and I believe, look ahead excitedly to the future and the opportunities on offer? Take the theme on which we have concentrated this morning—supporting strong, healthy families. There are a number of interesting proposals in the Executive's programme, which deserve to be properly debated and not dismissed or hurriedly brushed aside to make way for the usual whingeing and wallowing in misery. Although we have taken steps to improve public health and to tackle health inequalities, I am glad that the Executive recognises that more needs to be done, especially in communities such as mine.
The inverse care law whereby good medical care tends to be most readily available to those who need it least is still alive and well. Over the summer, I met Graham Watt, professor of general practice at the University of Glasgow, who told me that that situation applies not only to coronary heart disease prevention, but to self-care—
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you. SNP members have had two days in which to put their alternative vision; as usual, they have failed miserably.
As I was saying, Professor Watt said that the inverse care law also applies to self-care, unscheduled care, planned care, the management of long-term conditions and palliative care. Modernising the delivery of care is essential if we are to tackle health inequalities.
Support for young people to make the right health choices will be most valuable to the most disadvantaged children—the children whose parents do not make them an organic breakfast before jogging with them to the school gates. [Laughter.] I have my porridge every morning so members should not be so disparaging.
Putting people in a position where they can make informed health decisions for themselves will always be more effective than compulsion. The health plans are just one example of the thread that runs through the Executive's legislative programme, giving everyone the chance to take advantage of the opportunities that are available in today's Scotland.
Another notable move is action to reduce the number of 16 to 19-year-olds not in education, employment or training. Today, Scotland is the land of opportunity. Young Scots have never had more opportunities to enter higher and further education and modern apprenticeships.
Of course, people who do not come from stable and wealthy backgrounds need more help to take advantage of those opportunities, but that is not the same as saying that someone who comes from a disadvantaged background is automatically condemned to fail. There is no reason why someone born today in difficult circumstances cannot succeed if they are given our backing and the support that they need.
Yesterday, the First Minister said:
"We need concerted action not just to identify such youngsters, but to support them. We must not only give them opportunities, we must help them along the way. We must give them not only a first chance to take up opportunities, but a second and a third chance if they fail at the first attempt."—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18797.]
I believe that that is a clear response to the hand-wringing excuses that have failed our young people for too long. I reject the excuses for failure and I am sick of politicians who revel in them. This legislative programme is a vision of what Scotland can become. The SNP—which models itself as the Opposition in the Parliament—has signally failed, over a day and a half, to present its vision. We can only conclude that it has no vision at all.
The theme this morning is supporting strong, healthy families and I wonder whether I have to declare an interest as the father of four sons—after all, there could hardly be a greater interest than that. The theme reminds me that there is a great deal of truth in the African proverb that it takes a village to raise a child. Families and communities can change an individual life into a meaningful part of a village, a neighbourhood or a nation.
I want to make three points in response to the Scottish Executive's programme for government. My first point relates to the proposed adoption bill, which aims to overhaul the adoption process in Scotland. The number of adoptions in Scotland has fallen dramatically from around 1,000 a year 20 years ago to around 400 a year now. That is why the Executive believes that we need to change the adoption system to offer more children the opportunity to flourish and succeed by providing them with permanence and the sense of belonging to a family.
One of the bill's proposals will allow unmarried couples—including same-sex couples—who are in enduring relationships to adopt jointly. In our view, adoptions should be a question of the best interests of each child. Any couple who are being assessed as adopters should undergo a rigorous examination both of their ability to provide stability for the child and of their parenting abilities.
We think that an immediate priority with regard to adoption should be to extend the number of married couples who can adopt. That should be done by tackling prejudice on the grounds of age or race. I am of course aware that a person who is part of an unmarried couple can apply to adopt, especially when the partner is applying for a residency order. When the bill is introduced, we look forward to considering the matter thoroughly.
I want to try to pull something out from what Lord James has just said. I totally agree with him on the need to tackle prejudice against people who would be older parents, but I want to make other things absolutely clear. At the moment, individuals—whether they are unmarried, in same-sex relationships, or whatever—can adopt. The proposal is to extend that to couples. We should be considering the best interests of the child, with careful vetting of whoever is applying to be adoptive parents.
The principle that guides me is that the question of the best interests of the child should be paramount. When the bill is introduced, we will state our position in detail.
My second point relates to the proposed nutritional standards bill. Nutritious school meals can be greatly beneficial in establishing healthy eating habits for life and in helping to improve concentration and attainment. It is equally important to ensure that parents are well informed about the importance of a healthy diet and are making informed choices that set a good example to their children. It follows that regular physical activity through sport, dance and playtime games should be commonplace.
We believe—Euan Robson made this point in his speech—that more children should be encouraged to eat meals in schools. That could be achieved by providing children with pre-credited swipe cards to pay for meals. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness would be improved by reducing the amount of food that is wasted because large numbers of children eat outside school. Most important, children should be encouraged to take the time to enjoy their meals and to take the opportunity to relax and interact with other pupils. That is a key aspect of schools' responsibility to encourage social as well as academic development.
My third point relates to the parental involvement bill. Many responses to the consultation have voiced strong support for the retention of school boards with amendments to their current procedures. Those views should not be trampled on by ministers. The rights of parents to act as real partners in the management of their children's education must not be diminished. School boards have served Scotland and Scottish families well. Reform and modernisation are what is called for, rather than emasculation and abolition. When the consultation responses have been fully analysed, I urge ministers to listen to the voice of the people.
In his wind-up speech, the minister might answer the parliamentary question that I lodged many weeks ago. When will the analysis of the responses to the consultation be published? I have awaited that reply for many weeks and I hope that the minister will not suppress the information. The nation is very interested to know it.
Before I comment on specific health initiatives, I would like to make some general observations on the legislative programme in the round.
I welcome the positive proposals that the First Minister set out yesterday, particularly the changes to business rates. It is good to see the Executive taking action to support our economy in such a practical way. However, I was not so impressed by several other announcements, in which the First Minister seemed to me to be avoiding the clear commitments that he entered into in the partnership agreement between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats.
The commitment to establish an independent police complaints commission has somehow turned into a commitment to establish "an independent element" in the process. For me, that is not good enough from our First Minister.
The commitment to consult on a limited third-party right of appeal in planning—a commitment that resulted in an overwhelming 86 per cent of positive responses—has turned into an absolute refusal to legislate for such a right. For me, that is not good enough from our First Minister.
On the issue of reforming bail, the use by the First Minister yesterday of the term "offender" when he should have referred to "people accused of offences" betrayed a singular misunderstanding of the tradition in Scotland of people being innocent until found otherwise by our courts. It is well seen that we need a human rights commission.
If the First Minister reneges on what is contained in the partnership agreement that was negotiated between our two parties, he cannot be surprised if back benchers such as me do not now feel honour bound by the agreement in the same way as before. I for one have no intention of supporting the Executive if it does not honour the commitments in the partnership agreement—and I stress to Euan Robson that I am speaking for myself. A limited third-party right of appeal in planning and the creation of an independent police complaints commission are extremely important issues. The Executive cannot and should not dump them.
I turn to specific health issues. I welcome the Executive's commitment on health promotion in the legislative programme. The negotiations between our two parties' health teams nearly foundered on the issue of fizzy drinks. I well remember that Tom McCabe was not willing to move on the issue, so I am pleased that we have eventually got round that.
My main focus in respect of health issues is the contrast between legislation and action. We have passed legislation to ensure that everyone in Scotland will have the right to free dental checks by 2007. We did so despite the problems that we face because of the dental crisis. We do not have enough NHS dentists to enable everyone to access one. The crisis is particularly acute in my constituency, which has the lowest number of NHS dentists in Scotland.
In addition to the legislation, we have the dental plan that Rhona Brankin, the former Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, announced in the chamber some six months ago. The plan is very good and ministers have done well to produce it. It is also radical, as is necessary if we are to solve the problems that we face. However, six months on, we seem not to be much further forward in implementing it. Where is the sense of urgency? There is simply no point in legislating to improve Scotland's health if the Scottish Executive does not follow through with action.
Does Mr Rumbles accept that, since we last met in the chamber to discuss these matters, the first of the new practice payments, which are significantly higher than the rates under the old arrangements, have been made? They were made at the end of July. Does he also accept that all the vocational training places in rural areas that were announced as part of the action plan are now filled and that negotiations are on-going with the dentists' professional representatives on the implementation of the remaining aspects of the plan?
I said that not much had been improved. There is a huge amount in the plan and the minister has mentioned only a couple of points.
The most important part of the plan is for the negotiations with the British Dental Association to be completed—they should have been completed before the announcement was made. We are six months down the line, yet the Executive has not reached an agreement with the BDA.
I ask Lewis Macdonald in particular to consider what has happened to the commitment to consult on the new dental school for Aberdeen, as was agreed in the partnership agreement. We have heard nothing about a consultation for the new dental school. We have heard, however, about the scandal of the dental school in Dundee, where the suggestion was made that £2,000 be paid to prospective students if they would defer for a year.
The Executive seems to be getting the planning right—everything is lined up in the right order. I agree that the plan is a good one. However, if we are to produce the goods by 2007, we need to get on with it. We are too slow in implementation.
I welcome some of the initiatives in the legislative programme, but I am increasingly sceptical about the willingness of the First Minister to implement the partnership agreement that was agreed in the negotiations between our two parties. I make it clear to all Scottish Executive ministers that, if they feel that they can alter or abandon commitments that were made in the partnership agreement, they must understand that back-bench colleagues such as me will also feel able to do the same.
I will not respond to the member's last comments; there was a sour taste of bitterness about them.
Before I turn to some of the health and education measures that the minister outlined this morning—measures that will undoubtedly improve the lives of many Scots in many local communities—I want to touch briefly on a couple of other announcements that the First Minister made, as I was unable to do so yesterday morning.
First, the headline measure is undoubtedly the important move to reduce business rates and I warmly welcome it. There can be few who doubt or who can be unaware of our commitment to the reform of and investment in our public services. The improvements that we have made in our schools and hospitals are there for all to see, as is our commitment to social justice and to protecting the most vulnerable members of our society.
The cut in business rates demonstrates more forcefully than words alone that the Parliament is not just about spending money. It demonstrates that we are here to represent everyone in Scotland—the successful as well as those who face challenges. It also demonstrates that we recognise the vital importance of business, entrepreneurial activity and the economy in meeting our aspirations and expectations and in delivering on all our goals. It is a bold and hugely welcome statement of intent.
Secondly, and on a slightly different subject, I want to state the importance that I place on the forthcoming police bill and the other associated measures that are designed to tackle and clamp down on knife crime. I want to highlight the action that is already under way, with the support of ministers, through initiatives such as the Strathclyde police's violence reduction unit.
I am sure that some of my colleagues will have taken the opportunity to visit the unit, as I have done. If so, they will be aware of its role in reducing the number of knife-related crimes and in tackling head-on the peculiarly Scottish culture of carrying a knife when out of an evening. If I had not already been aware of the extent of the problem, the horrific and sometimes devastating consequences of the casual or thoughtless habit of carrying a knife were brought home to me in my discussions with the violence reduction team. The visit gave me a glimpse into the reality of the lives that are needlessly lost as a result of knife crime.
We are embarrassed at our country's reputation for having one of the worst health records in Europe. For Scotland to be the country with the highest level of stabbings and deaths from knife attacks is a record of shame. If we are to address the concern, the task will be a long one. The measures now under way will begin to challenge the knife culture and our peculiar and worrying attitudes to the carrying of knives.
I turn to the subjects that the Minister for Education and Young People addressed this morning. I add my approval of the health and education measures that the Executive has outlined. My personal experience is of the schools in my constituency and of my children's school in particular. For them, some of the most important and successful recent initiatives have been the additional support of an active schools co-ordinator and the family learning co-ordinator. For example, during health awareness week, my children's school was enthused by competitions such as how many pieces of fruit a child could have in their lunchbox or how many steps a teacher could clock up on their pedometer over the course of the week.
Aside from the health benefits, pupils and families are being encouraged to take a greater role in the work of their school. The Executive's measures will take this further. There are so many gains in involving parents to a greater degree in the education of their children and in supporting parents in the difficult and stressful task of bringing up their family. That is a point that my colleague Elaine Murray made earlier.
The gap between the highest and lowest achieving youngsters can often reflect the difference between the most supportive and the most chaotic home backgrounds, a point that was thoughtfully made by Adam Ingram earlier.
Will the member give way?
I will finish the point.
The proposed parental involvement bill and new powers for parents to request a school inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education are encouraging first steps towards further interaction between schools and parents. There are many excellent school boards that serve their pupils and communities well. Unfortunately, too many parent-teacher associations are excluded from participating in the decisions that affect their schools; schools can regard PTAs as mere fundraising bodies.
The bill offers a real choice agenda; it shows how the Executive plans to increase parental choice. It is in stark contrast to the Tories' talk of choice, which is a misleading and false prospectus. The Tories pretend that everyone can pick and choose between local schools, but what they offer is like an ersatz private system, which we all know would remain the privilege of the few.
The difficult question is how to involve parents and the wider family in those schools where there is no history of great parental support. As we know perfectly well, the pupils at those schools are often in most need of support. The Executive should give some thought to how to incorporate the role that grandparents can play. People are living longer and are active for longer and grandparents might be more willing to take on that role. After all, they understand what it used to be like in the good old days. I speak as a grandmother of 10.
We have all heard those wise words. The topic will come up as part of the debate on the children's hearings system and, more particularly, the forthcoming debate on the Family Law (Scotland) Bill—I think that we are to debate that bill next Thursday. Margo MacDonald's comments will be echoed by many members in those debates.
I applaud the Executive's plans to protect vulnerable adults, but I also flag up my concerns about the needs of older people who live in retirement complexes. Despite the new powers that were given to home owners in the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003, there are still too many examples of poor management and too many situations where the owners do not exercise control of their own affairs. Most worrying of all, there are too many cases of bullying and intimidation of older and often frail residents. One way of addressing those concerns might be to grant retirement home owners the right to take such cases to the ombudsman and I would welcome any comments that the minister might make on that suggestion.
The Executive has outlined an ambitious range of proposals that will have an impact on the lives of many thousands of Scots across our country. I call on the chamber to join me in giving them our support.
This has been an instructive debate. We have heard some excellent and robust speeches—I am thinking of Euan Robson's, in particular, as well as those of Scott Barrie, who always brings his experience as a social worker to bear when he is talking about issues relating to families, and of Duncan McNeil, who has left the chamber. We found out yet again from Shona Robison that the sun rises and sets because of the SNP and we are now content that we know that. However, Iain Smith was right to highlight the role that the Liberal Democrats have played in the programme for government, in terms of the announcement about business rates, the proposed health promotion, nutrition and schools bill, the proposed human rights commission bill and some elements of the proposed police bill. That is hardly surprising. The Liberal Democrats are a party in Government and in partnership. I am sure that my Labour colleagues would be able to stand up and highlight some of the things that they have brought to the table as well. What is important is that we hope that the programme that we have come up with will be able to garner support across the chamber. I was heartened by some of the comments of support for the programme that were made by members of various parties.
I welcome the comments of the First Minister and the Minister for Education and Young People about the future of Scottish schools. We are recruiting more teachers and putting more and more money into the school investment programme. Last week, I was delighted to be able to attend the opening of a new extension in East Craigs Primary School in my constituency. When I visited that school in previous years, I saw a good school that was bursting at the seams. Now, however, I see an enlarged school. Also in my constituency, we have the new Muirhouse Primary School and Craigmount High School and an upgraded Royal High School. The Scottish Executive is improving the schools in our constituencies.
I share some of Fiona Hyslop's concerns about the impacts of PPP projects. There are some important issues about access to community interests, services and playing fields, which are a matter of concern to my constituents at the moment. That also raises the issue of the need to ensure that the proposed planning bill allows communities to have a voice in decisions relating to such matters.
I welcome the plans to reform parental involvement in schools. We have to try to ensure that we get more of that because it benefits parents, pupils and the professionals who teach in and manage our schools. Parents should be reassured by the minister's clear commitment to increase parental involvement from the low base of 1 per cent at the moment and by the First Minister's comments yesterday.
Secondly, I welcome the announcement of the additional investment of £70 million in the hungry for success initiative, which has done a lot to encourage healthy eating in schools. Learning such lessons early in life is a good foundation for pupils' later lives. I associate myself with the comments made by Euan Robson and others about that. I have done some work on the matter and have undertaken a survey of primary schools in my constituency that backs up the minister's comments about hungry for success and in no way backs up the comments that Nanette Milne made.
I welcome the announcement of the adoption bill and agree with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's view that each case has to be judged on its own merits. There will be cases in which unmarried people, unmarried couples and same-sex couples will be able to deliver for young people, many of whom are coming out of care. The evidence that has been highlighted by many colleagues today is that the state is the worst parent that a child could possibly have. We must give those potential carers an opportunity and, in doing so, give those children the opportunities that Euan Robson and Duncan McNeil talked about. There is a great deal of hidden talent, both in terms of the prospective adoptive parents and in terms of the young people. We must do all that we can to support them to establish the stability that they need to enable them to take advantage of the opportunities that the programme for government and the work of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive have given to the young people and families of Scotland.
This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I found Mike Rumbles's comments particularly interesting—and not just those on health and education.
Yesterday, the First Minister said that he wanted to be ambitious for Scotland. Although I am new to this place, I am told that ambition is not something that he is short of. Indeed, with £30 billion a year to spend, it would be surprising if he were not ambitious. As many people have noted, there is much in the Executive's programme with which members on all sides could agree. That does not mean, of course, that we will agree with everything. I was particularly interested in the comments that Fiona Hyslop made in relation to the debate on adoption and I join her in hoping that that debate is handled in a calm and reflective manner.
The question is not whether the intentions of the Executive are good—we all know that the intentions of all members of this Parliament are good—but whether the programme that was unveiled yesterday is the best way in which we can improve Scotland's quality of life, health, education and everything else that the First Minister talked about in his speech.
Yesterday, the focus was on justice and respect and respect is important today as well. One of the things that has struck me in my first few months in this Parliament is how far we still have to go as a group and as individuals in order to raise the level of respect with which we and this institution are regarded in the communities that we serve.
It is fair to say that politicians of all parties are notorious for making grand promises and failing to deliver. It goes without saying that that is one of the reasons why we are, collectively, held in such low esteem. There are other reasons, of course, but the one that I mention is particularly pertinent to today's debate. When the First Minister and his colleagues speak of their vision and ambition, they set a high bar for the Executive and, if they fail to live up to their fine words, they and, by association, all of us in the Scottish Parliament will be treated with more cynicism and rather less respect.
From a PR perspective—and I use the abbreviation in both its senses—I understand why we had a raft of legislation yesterday: it gives the impression of action and gets headlines, as we have seen today. However, there would be no shame in the Executive admitting that there is a lot that could be done to improve public services that does not require legislation. A modest legislative programme does not signify modest ambition. Indeed, it would be ambitious in the extreme for this Executive to decide to govern with a lighter touch. The Executive has chosen not to take such an approach, which is fair enough; that is its judgment. Time and the voters will tell whether that judgment was right.
The First Minister spoke of record amounts of money being spent on the NHS. That is true enough but, as many have noted, spending more money is not an end in itself. The First Minister spoke of setting priorities for health but the question is, whose priorities? He is not necessarily speaking about the priorities of the individual patient or his general practitioner. It is all well and good for ministers and health boards to set priorities and make decisions but, surely, individual patients and GPs should also have a choice in relation to the delivery of health care. John Scott made some interesting observations in that regard in relation to the situation in Ayrshire.
On education, Peter Peacock made the same point about record spending. Again, that is true enough, but the issue is not all about money. He talked about greater parental involvement, but is not the right to choose the appropriate education for one's child the ultimate in parental involvement? I disagree with Ken Macintosh on that point and agree with some of the comments that Ruth Kelly made today about education south of the border.
I do not doubt the good intentions of the Executive; I doubt whether the measures that were announced yesterday will achieve its stated aims and whether we will get value for money from the £30 billion of taxpayer's money that is spent every year. Further, I doubt whether, in 19 months' time—and 19 bills later—this Executive will have achieved greater respect from the public.
The First Minister made justice and respect the watchwords for his Government's programme for the coming year. However, across the chamber and throughout the debate, today's theme has clearly and properly been children. That is the thread that links almost all of today's speeches. The SNP entirely agrees with that emphasis. It does the Parliament credit that we look to those who will live in our future and dwell less on the past. Aims, objectives and targets for the future—as we can see them—are the essence of today's discussion because our future depends on how well children are prepared for their future. However, much of the programme is little more than a palimpsest—a writing over of much that has gone before.
As ever when he speaks on children, Scott Barrie made an interesting, engaging and widely enjoyed speech. I hope that he continues to do that, because he has knowledge and experience that few members share.
Peter Peacock, as ever, struck a balance between selling the programme and conceding that there are areas in which challenges remain. In particular, I focus on his statement that the gap between rich and poor remains too great. Everything that he and his colleagues do to close that gap will have support from SNP members. We encourage him to make the greatest possible efforts in that area.
I was especially pleased by the reference to mental health, an important issue in which Adam Ingram, who is sitting behind me, and I take a particular interest.
Euan Robson came up with a useful catchphrase that we should retain—hidden talent. He spoke with real passion about those, particularly among our young, who are currently excluded from making a contribution to our society. We must focus on them, as they are the people whom we must re-engage. Doing so will take money, but it will also take much more: engagement on our part. The Executive has some way to go to convince us that we are on track.
Duncan McNeil, the most improved speaker of recent times—it is a double-edged sword—made an impressive bid to be recognised as the boilermaker's Jacob Bronowski. I wish him well in his future endeavours in that regard.
I turn to one or two issues that are not included in what is before us and that are signal omissions on which we should focus. The First Minister's statement is but a keyhole view of what is planned. The draft budget for 2006-07 gave us a broader picture. Mike Rumbles will be particularly interested to note that there are eight targets for health and community care but that, for the fourth year in a row, there is no target for dentistry. Not only that, but there are a mere 120 words—a single paragraph—relating to the subject, on page 79 of a substantial document. If we doubt the Executive's commitment to making a real difference on dentistry, we have the evidence in front of us.
Many of the changes that have been made in the health service over the past year are probably well intentioned, but flawed in implementation. I see no word anywhere about NHS 24. I say to Mr Kerr that the idea has merit. However, in the absence of an electronic patient record that is available whenever a patient contacts the health service, to inform and guide efficiently staff of NHS 24 in particular, the introduction of NHS 24 in its present form has made the health service less efficient, although it may be more effective. The paragraph in the draft budget for 2006-07 on the single patient record—it appears on page 80—is even shorter than that on dentistry.
I close by stating the obvious. The Executive's programme has been well and truly rumbled. Mike Rumbles adumbrated a Liberal-free Government in future. I come from a Liberal family. My father's cousin was in Lloyd George's Cabinet in 1916. My great-uncle was Lord Provost of Edinburgh 75 years ago and my father was Lloyd George's election agent when he stood for rector of the University of Edinburgh. I have arranged for a membership application to be posted to Mike Rumbles, so that he can cross this way as well.
Mr Stevenson, it is about time that you sat down. Minister, you have six and a half minutes.
Oh dear. Six and a half minutes is not long in which to sum up a very substantial debate.
While Duncan McNeil was speaking, I reflected on my summer, during which I met people of passion and confidence who are innovating in our health service. However, I landed with a dull thud in the chamber to hear the same old same old from the Opposition parties. They must drop in and out of funerals on a regular basis. They must walk by looking for them, because they have nothing positive to say.
The snake oil salesmen and women of the SNP say that independence, separation and divorce will solve all our problems. With the exception of Mr Brownlee, the Tories offered only anecdotal evidence. They suggested that we go to post office queues and bus queues or stand in supermarkets to find out about our health service and our education service, instead of asking the people who are running those services and providing them on our behalf. It was a disgraceful performance by the Tories, as usual.
Mr Fergusson spoke about the dentistry situation that he faces in Nithsdale. There are salaried dentists in Sanquhar in his community. The local health board is planning to appoint a further six to eight salaried dentists. The Executive is investing £150 million over three years to make a real difference in communities throughout Scotland. That is the real message about the reform, change and modernisation that is taking place and the investment that we are making in our health service.
Will the minister give way?
No—I have only six and a half minutes.
Fiona Hyslop's approach was again to argue for independence as a cure-all.
As Mr Brownlee recognised, it is not just about legislation—it is also about all the other activities in which we are engaged. We will not legislate to fix NHS 24—we will simply fix it. Those are the actions of confident government, which is what we are delivering.
Throughout Scotland, best practice on health is being rolled out in our communities. More than ever before, investment is making a real difference. As a result of our health strategies, we are turning the corner in terms of outcomes for patients and health improvement for the public. We are providing many more services in our local communities.
Nanette Milne raised the issue of the hungry for success programme. She should not listen to people in the post office queue, the bus queue or wherever else she hears such comments. She should speak to the professionals. I met the United Kingdom school cook of the year in Scotland. She works at Tannadice Primary School and told me about the difference that she is making to the health and well-being of pupils.
Will the minister give way?
No.
Let us consider diet and portion control. Under the hungry for success programme, there is unlimited access to bread, salad, vegetables and other parts of the menu in our schools. Portion controls are adequate and are defined by those who, to speak bluntly, know better than Mrs Milne how to do that. School cooks have been relieved of the burden of dealing with the financial pressures that affected the provision of school meals to children, because the Executive has invested money that is being spent on the valuable meals that we are providing in schools. That investment is making a real difference to the health and well-being of our children.
Nanette Milne spoke about bureaucrats. I am sick of hearing about bureaucrats in the health service. She does not want to employ the same bureaucrat who would provide the information technology that Stewart Stevenson wants. We cannot provide a modern health care system without support mechanisms. Those who work in our clinical records offices and reception staff who look after patients when they are worried are not bureaucrats—they make a real difference to the health care that our health service provides. It is a disgrace for the Tories constantly to attack them.
Mr Robson made some valuable comments, especially about the vulnerable adults bill. I do not have time to do so today, but I can reassure him on the connectivity and dovetailing of the regimes that we intend to have.
The issue of school milk was raised. We are considering the matter, but under hungry for success children have a choice between water and milk. Osteoporosis is a real issue, especially for girls in their early teenage years. The issue is not universal availability, but the focus and intervention that are appropriate for people. That will continue to be our approach.
I will refer Maureen Macmillan's comments and some of the points that she made to the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform and to the Minister for Communities.
Adam Ingram said that he agreed with many aspects of the process and made the point that consultation improves what the Government does. It is a recognised part of the way in which the devolved Government in Scotland does its business. Consultation and the pragmatic approach that the Executive takes—listening to people in our communities—make a real difference to our legislation. However, the rhetoric surrounding PPP and the private sector does not wash any more with the public in Scotland. They want services and are right to demand them of us. We will deliver those services to them.
Jean Turner made many valid points and recognised what the Executive is doing on early intervention. I refer to the services that we are providing for pregnant women and the interventions that we are making in respect of post-natal care, breastfeeding, young people's diets, oral hygiene and so on. Good work is being done. Breakfast clubs are developing throughout Scotland. Glasgow City Council is offering gold and silver awards to parents who make the choice not to smoke at home in front of their children. Such innovations are being supported and developed by the Executive, in partnership with our local authority colleagues.
Jean Turner was wrong on the issue of surgical units in Glasgow. I am happy to reassure her on that point. In Glasgow, there has been £1 billion-worth of investment in the modernisation of the health service and the service has been driven into areas in which communities expect it to be delivered, which I think is important.
I must put it on record that I thought that John Scott's speech was disgraceful, in that shroud waving during a consultation exercise is unacceptable. That is all that I have to say on that.
As ever, Scott Barrie's speech was effective and my colleague Peter Peacock and others will reflect on what he said. Iain Smith, too, made many valid points.
Eleanor Scott made the argument for us. Health is not just about the NHS; it is about everything that we as a Government do in Scotland and it takes in issues such as transport. We have received commendations worldwide on our strategy on walking, cycling and taking exercise. Health is also about the individual; it is not just about the NHS or the public sector. We need to keep sending out the message that individuals must make a choice. As Duncan McNeil acknowledged, we need to support them by making the healthy choice the easy choice. That is what this Government will do.
Shona Robison trotted out the old arguments about availability status codes. We will deal with that issue at question time, so it is hardly worth wasting my time on it at the moment.
Duncan McNeil made a valid point—
Will you wind up, please?
The minister raised the matter with Tayside NHS Board last week.
I will deal with the issue at question time; I do not want to waste my time in an important debate about the legislative programme dealing with an issue on which, quite frankly, the SNP has been trotting out lies up and down the country for the past few weeks. I will deal with the matter in a few minutes' time, during question time.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton made a valid point about the village approach and the fact that we need to nurture our children as part of a community and not just in families. Although we want to support families, we want to ensure that the village approach is adopted throughout society.
Will you close, please?
It was not good enough for Mike Rumbles, as a partner in the coalition, to speak in the way in which he did.