Scottish Government’s Legislative Programme
The next item of business is a debate on the Scottish Government’s legislative programme. Members should be aware that, in order to participate, they must enter their card into the console on the desk in front of them and press “Enter”. I call Iain Gray to open the debate.
13:30
The last speech that I made was a father-of-the-bride speech at my daughter’s wedding. They laughed, I cried. I hope that the result today is slightly different.
Today is an important day in the life of the Parliament. This is the last of the fixed points of a new parliamentary session. We had the election of the First Minister, then we had the official opening. Today, we have the first legislative programme for government of the new Administration. It is, then, the last time that I feel the obligation to begin by making clear yet again that we, on the Labour benches, understand not only that the First Minister won but that he won a majority of seats in the Parliament and that, under our electoral system, that is a remarkable achievement. I have tried to make it clear—how can I put it?—that we get it. I believe that my colleagues have conducted themselves with dignity and even as much magnanimity as they can muster. However, I hope that the chamber will forgive me if I make this point today with a little envy in my heart—not envy of position, patronage, pay check or even power itself but, I confess, envy of the opportunity that power affords.
I believe that all of us are here because we want to change our country for the better. I profoundly disagree with the First Minister and with other members in the chamber on how we should do that, but I do not question their intent or the First Minister’s. What an opportunity he has! With an absolute majority, he has the chance to achieve so much—the chance to put into practice the policies that he preaches and the power to shape Scotland for the better. He has power over the national health service, local government, our education system, our colleges, our universities and our legal system—all of those and much more besides. He can define how those institutions are and how they work. He can bend them to his will and make them deliver the things that he wants. There is no place now for excuses or for blaming others. The Government has the power to make Scotland and its institutions work as it would wish.
When fears have been expressed in the chamber about the danger of hubris from a Government with a majority, the First Minister has been quick to point out that we have had Governments with a majority before, through coalitions. We have. In those Governments, we took the opportunity of that power to reshape this country. We introduced land reform and ended a thousand years of feudalism. We passed the best incapacity legislation in Europe and the best homelessness legislation in the world. We introduced free personal care. We abolished tuition fees in Scottish universities for Scottish students. We introduced the smoking ban. We even set party advantage aside and modernised the way in which we elect our local councillors. I still have the scars from that and I was not even here to vote for it.
As I look around, I wonder how many new members on the Scottish National Party benches owe their start on a political career to proportional representation—more than a few, I think. That measure was introduced by a majority Government setting party advantage aside and pursuing measures every one of which changed Scotland for the better. Every one of them was unique to Scotland—in the case of the smoking ban, at the time at least. Every one of those things made Scotland better and different.
That is what a party can do with a majority, even if it is through a coalition. What can a single party with a majority do? It can do more than a national library bill. For four years of an SNP minority Administration, the First Minister dutifully introduced his centrepiece measures and legislation, then dutifully withdrew, cancelled or smothered them, and it was always someone else’s fault.
Members: Yours!
I ask members to settle down and allow Mr Gray to be heard undisturbed.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
In year 1, we had the class-sizes-of-18 promise, but the big, bad councils would not let the Government do that. Forget the fact that the Government sets its budgets and that it has the power to ensure, if it wants to, that class sizes are cut. It ended up being the broken-class-sizes-promise bill, capping classes not at 18 but at 25.
In year 2, we were promised a bill to abolish the council tax. Where did that end up? It ended up with the Government running to the courts to hide the documents that showed just how badly that bill would have punished ordinary Scots—taxpayers’ money being spent on legal bills to stop taxpayers finding out how much tax they were going to have to pay. It ended up with the Government going to the Court of Session to take on the Scottish Information Commissioner. That does not augur well for the amendments that the Government promised to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 this year.
Finally, the Government sneaked out the evidence that it had known all along that we were telling the truth about how much the local income tax would cost Scots on the day on which all eyes were on the First Minister’s erstwhile golf and theatre partner, Mr Murdoch, being humbled by a select committee in Westminster.
In year 4 of the previous session, we were promised a water bill, which was going to make Scotland the first hydro economy on the planet. We suspected that, like other promises, it was a flagship that would sink. It did, resurfacing now, a year late, watered down and stripped of the hyperbole.
Unfettered by minority, there is nothing now to stop the First Minister. He can legislate for class sizes of 18 if he still thinks that that is the right thing to do. He can introduce his local income tax now if he still thinks that it is a good idea. He can make us into a hydro economy—God knows, the raw material for it has been falling from the sky day after day. If he does not, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he never had any intention of reducing class sizes to 18 and that he always knew that his local income tax was unfair, unworkable and a massive tax hike for most families.
What of the year of the great referendum bill? It was coming on Burns night and we would be voting on St Andrew’s day. It was to be the centrepiece not just of that year but of the very century in which we live. I know how important that issue is to the First Minister. I read it in the paper:
“Salmond puts independence at top of the agenda”.
That is the headline of a report, dated 15 August 2007, on the launch of the independence white paper. The white paper came out in 2007 and 2009 was to be the year of the referendum.
No wonder—[[Interruption.] I did not actually keep the paper as a souvenir; I found it at the weekend. [Interruption.] I tell members what, I reckon that they could go to just about any newspaper from any week in the past four years and find the First Minister launching an independence white paper. No wonder we never got round to the rest of the agenda; we were always stuck on item 1. We had white paper after white paper, we had a national conversation and we had a launch, a consultation, a relaunch and a consultation about a proposal for a white paper about a bill, but we never had the bill itself.
The First Minister said that the reason for that was that he did not have a majority for his referendum. He does now, but guess what? We are still stuck on item 1. In 2007, the First Minister asked every Scot to pause and reflect on the matter. He has been pausing and reflecting—noisily and expensively—on exactly that for four years, but he still does not know what his question will be, how many questions he will have or what propositions the questions will be about. He still cannot tell us about the Scotland that he wants to see. He cannot tell us what currency it would have, how it would defend itself, which institutions it would share with neighbours, whether it would be a member of NATO, or how or whether it could enter the European Union. He cannot tell us how our benefits and pensions would be secured.
The one thing that the First Minister has told us for sure about the Scotland that he wants is that the Queen would remain our head of state. He told her that right here, only a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, of course, it turned out that he could not be sure of that, because his party’s policy is to have a referendum on that matter, as well. There is nothing that he can tell us about the proposition, after all this time.
The First Minister has a mandate now. He has a majority in the Parliament. He has a draft bill—or so he said. He has no credible excuse for not bringing the bill forward, except that he does not think that the people of Scotland are ready to have their say, because they might not give him the answer that he wants.
I know that the First Minister knows his Montrose. Why would he not? Any poem that has the line
“Like Alexander I will reign,
And I will reign alone”
is bound to be to his liking. Of course, the poem also says:
“He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all.”
Where is that bill?
We will prosecute the case for unity—for all that a strong Scotland in a strengthened United Kingdom can be. We will present the case for a Scotland that is big enough, rich enough, smart enough and talented enough to get the best out of a modern, 21st century United Kingdom. We will present the case for a strong, devolved Parliament in Scotland, as we have done for decades.
When the First Minister talks about our history and other parties’ histories, he should remember his own history. The claim of right was a direct result of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, as is the Parliament in which we stand. That was the Scottish Constitutional Convention in which he refused to participate from day one, just as he opposed the work of the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution and the preparation and early stages of the Scotland Bill until he felt that there was some party expediency to be gained by coming on board. That is the history of his approach to devolution.
What do we find in the First Minister’s legislative programme? In the creation of a Scottish police force and fire service, there is a substantial reform, which I have long made clear we will support. However, we have to get it right. We will not get it right if the argument is made solely in terms of saving money. We have the opportunity to strengthen local democratic accountability of our policing at a more local level than is the case now and, at the same time, to streamline policing of organised crime, terror and fraud at the national level. I hope that, from tomorrow onwards, the Government will grasp this opportunity for positive change and not—as I have heard it do in recent days—trot out the tired old argument about Westminster cuts forcing its hand. Establishing a Scottish police force and a Scottish fire service is the right thing to do for reasons of policing and safety. We should do it right and we should do it for those right reasons. I believe that, if we do that, we will win the arguments with those who have not yet been convinced.
The Government is entitled to return to minimum unit pricing of alcohol, and we are entitled to continue to ask about its legality and effectiveness. However, I accept that it will happen. I am concerned, though, that the planned bill will be narrowly drawn and will not allow us to look again at other issues, such as restrictions on caffeinated alcohol, or to reconsider alcohol treatment and testing orders, which could have the same impact as drug treatment and testing orders have had over many years. We should be trying to extend further test purchasing and increasing support for children who are exposed to the worst excesses of alcohol-fuelled behaviour. If the bill is drawn too narrowly and we cannot do that, that will be a lost opportunity for Scotland.
Speaking of lost opportunities, I must ask why we have not used the measures that we passed in the previous session. A year ago, we passed a ban on alcohol promotions. That has not come into force yet. We also passed the idea of the social responsibility levy, which could be used to push up prices for alcohol and ensure that there is a payback not to the supermarkets but to local government, which could be invested in preventive measures. We agreed that we should implement that proposal. There is no point passing legislation in the Parliament if we simply do not use it. We all agree that the problem is urgent, so why has the Government not urgently used the legislation that we passed?
There is a more profound debate that we must begin, and I hope that the politics of this issue will not stop that debate beginning. Last week’s figures showed that, although alcohol consumption in Scotland is falling, it remains 23 per cent higher than it is in England, even though there is no price differential. I do not know why that is, but I am sure that it is something that the action that we take on price—or, indeed on opening hours or the strength of the drinks that are sold—will not completely address. Perhaps it involves issues of inequality or is a symptom of atrophied communities, the stress of modern family life or alienation. I do not know, but I think that it is time that we tried to find out, whatever disagreements we might have about anything else.
The delayed bill to tackle sectarianism is another one that we support. We do so, critically, because it involves another area of great difficulty. That has been demonstrated and reinforced by the recent inexplicable judgment in Edinburgh’s Sheriff Court in the case of an assault against a nationally known figure that appeared on live television. The lesson for us is that these offences are on the statute book and the will to deal with them is there, but it is hard to make them work. That is why the First Minister was right to delay the bill and extend the timetable. We must take our time if we are to get it right.
On higher education, we agree with the Government on the principle of free education. However, the funding situation is already spiralling out of control. Of course, fees for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland had to rise and, of course, the fundamental problem is caused by soaring fees in the rest of the United Kingdom—I do not deny that. However, we now have a crazy situation in which the University of Edinburgh is the most expensive university in Britain. That is not what the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said he wanted or expected. He said that he expected that fees would be set in the range of £1,800 to £9,000. It is, frankly, hard to escape the conclusion that the universities are laughing at him and going their own way. He needs to get a grip, and quickly. Fees for Scottish students are only one element of how we fund our higher education sector, and there are many other questions that we must resolve urgently.
I am sure that we will support other bills on the list, such as the national library bill—I apologise to the National Library of Scotland for poking fun at it earlier. We will also support the self-directed support bill, which is late, as it was promised well over a year ago, and support for carers. All that is welcome.
This is what I meant about opportunity. A Government with a majority and a five-year term ahead of it could legislate today to create a national care service that would integrate health and social care, stand alongside the national health service and give a guarantee to our older people and those with disabilities that they will be looked after. That would be bold and dramatic, and change Scotland for the future.
I go back to my original question: what should one do with a majority like the First Minister’s? In fairness, he got that partly right. He should focus on making a future for young Scots, jobs and the economy, and opportunity. He should start now and aim as high as he can imagine. I welcome the attention in the First Minister’s statement to youth employment and the further measures that are proposed. However, they should be bolder still, and the First Minister should be more prepared in that area to use his majority legislative power if need be. Every public sector procurement of any size should require the creation of apprenticeship opportunities—
You need to wind up now, Mr Gray.
Why is there no reform of procurement? The support for small businesses should continue, but it should incentivise job creation. What about the living wage—why not implement that and legislate for it? Why not legislate for no compulsory redundancies instead of just talking about it? Let no one say that those things are too difficult. Majority power bestows the opportunity to do the difficult things because they are right, or else it means nothing. Let us give our young people not just a guarantee of a future but a right. That is what power gives the First Minister the opportunity to do—I wish that I had it, but I will support the Government if it sets out to create that future for our young people.
13:53
The legislative programme is certainly not lacking in quantity, but that does not cut any ice with me: it is quality that matters. Indeed, much of the overdue change that we need to bring to Scottish public life does not depend on an endless list of brand new laws, and more and more statutes. It depends on political will, and—yes—a relaxation of existing rules, laws and restrictions. Sometimes, less is better than more. The changes that are needed are inescapable, as we all strive to protect our most vital services at the very time when we must also mop up the mess in our public finances and reduce the toxic levels of debt and deficit that we inherited.
In that context, I was curious about the First Minister’s allusion to a string of economists, most of whom I had never heard of. Their purpose seemed to be to move away from deficit-driven states, and that is exactly what Alexander, Moore and Mundell are committed to doing.
Hear, hear.
Thank you. [Laughter.] Reform of our public services is unavoidable. That is why it is perplexing to see that the Beveridge report, which is one of the most important contributions to the debate, is now more than a year old and gathering dust on the Scottish Government’s shelves. That independent report into our public finances set out some solid ideas, but what was Alex Salmond’s response? It was to set up another review, the Christie commission. Such was the success of that little endeavour that we now have a new Cabinet sub-committee considering the Christie report and kicking things around a bit more.
In the First Minister’s statement, there were just four paragraphs on public service reform and not one specific proposal. He is all talk and no action. It is a bit like the SNP’s plans for an independence referendum—there is no date, no question and, it would seem, no idea of what independence means any more.
The summer offered Alex Salmond an opportunity to reflect, innovate and reform, but instead it was one long whinge—one long rant from him about what everyone else is getting wrong. People are getting fed up with that diet of negativity and gripe. The SNP is relentlessly hostile to anyone who dares to speak out against it, question its version of reality or challenge its proposals.
The Confederation of British Industry Scotland is right to ask when the referendum will be and to point out that the fudge on offer from Alex Salmond is harmful to Scotland. What does it get in reply? Vitriol and bullying. Instead of answers to reasonable questions about precisely when the referendum will be and what the question will be, all that we get is a defiant, blustering and evasive response about some vague day in a few years’ time from a party that has already spent vast sums of taxpayers’ money drafting a bill.
The SNP looks even more ridiculous when it comes to pinning the party down on what independence would mean for our currency, our armed forces, our defence jobs, the Scottish national deficit, social services and all the other essential aspects of a 21st century country. The SNP is always quick to complain about the powers that it does not have, but it is struck dumb when it comes to providing answers about what it would do and how it would pay for it. Only today, a series of legitimate questions to Mr Swinney from the UK Treasury about the devolved corporation tax was dismissed as “predictable” and “depressing”. If the questions were so predictable, why did the SNP not anticipate them and formulate the answers?
The SNP’s true colours are on show. It cannot deal with informed comment and criticism. Its total response is hectoring and bullying bluster, which says everything that we need to know about the party. [Interruption.] Mr Lochhead is getting exercised, which is a rarity.
What is more, I know what the next three or four years will bring: Alex Salmond will grind on and on, day after weary day, about the powers that he does not have. I can hear him now saying, “If only I had the powers to do this or that!” I say to him that today’s poll in The Times could not be clearer: Scotland says that he should get on with his independence referendum and get it out the road.
If the First Minister will not or cannot answer detailed questions on what independence means, will he start concentrating on using the powers that he has? There are measures in the legislative programme that we can support, others that we cannot and some that will need amendment. My colleagues will deal with them in greater detail, but I will highlight a couple.
First, the Government was right to acknowledge the problem of sectarianism and contemplate legislation but wrong to try to rush that legislation through. It was sensible to pause, reflect and consult. Therefore, let us ensure that the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill actually addresses the evil of sectarianism and contributes to its eradication.
Secondly, on the reform of our police forces, the Scottish Conservatives have accepted that there are compelling arguments for having fewer forces in Scotland. However, public accountability is paramount. We favour directly elected commissioners throughout Scotland. The Scottish Government’s reform of policing cannot concentrate power in the hands of one minister and one police chief without the public protection of democratic accountability, and I hope that the First Minister will listen to us on that.
I will also put down some markers about the big challenges that face our country and people—challenges that transcend constitutional issues or party politics. Three years ago, I gave a speech that, in light of recent developments, has renewed resonance. I spoke about how a new insidious and corrosive threat was emerging from the shadows. The threat to which I referred was not like drugs abuse or excessive alcohol consumption. It arose not out of something that people do but out of something that they do not do. I am talking about parenting skills or, sadly and in far too many cases, the complete lack of them. Too many parents do not or cannot extend to their children the parenting skills that are so essential if young people are to have any hope of growing up with guidance, support and boundaries. Why do they not extend those skills? Because, sadly, they were the children of parents who did not possess such skills. Disturbingly, we might now be moving into the third generation of that parental void.
Just look around our society and ask our teachers—the depressing evidence is all too obvious. Indeed, the 2010-11 report from the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration noted that the number of children who were referred on the ground of lack of parental care was more than 13,000. That is a reduction from previous years, but we all realise that that number is deeply disturbing. It is not some abstract bit of statistical data. We are talking about young lives being ruined and 13,000 children living in a desperate situation, and those are just the ones we know about. Those children are our nation’s future and the parents of the future. I welcome the First Minister’s intention to address the issue, but only time will tell whether legislation is what we need. We certainly need a long-term strategy to deal with this new problem. We cannot just cobble together solutions to deal with individual problems as they arise. We cannot hope that the overall problem will solve itself, because it will not.
I will not stand by silent on the issue. I am prepared to ask tough questions. I accept that there is no simple solution, because the causes might be complex, arising from deep-rooted reasons, but we need to take a fresh look at the issue and find a new way. We cannot keep passing the buck to hard-pressed social workers or teachers, who are already under immense pressure.
Our voluntary and charitable sector has a tremendous amount of expertise and skills, so how do we harness that? I will return to that point in the months ahead.
That point also takes me to my next issue, which is drugs abuse. I am proud of my party’s role in forging the national drugs strategy, “The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland’s Drug Problem”. That was one of the Scottish Conservative conditions for agreeing to the 2008 Scottish budget. However, three years on, I am angry. Why? David Liddell, director of the Scottish Drugs Forum, claims:
“if you look at the rate of drug-related deaths compared to the overall population, Scottish people are seven times more likely to die from a drug-related death than their European counterparts.”
That is not the road to recovery. In June, we learned from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime that Scotland tops the world league for cocaine consumption. That is not the road to recovery. Methadone, a state-prescribed opiate, still contributes to one third of drug-related deaths in Scotland. That is not the road to recovery.
Clearly, more needs to be done to turn a good and well-intentioned strategy into results on the ground, so I put down this marker. I fought long and hard for a new strategy that would be based on recovery leading to abstinence. In the months and years to come, I will redouble my efforts to turn that aspiration into a reality. A glossy strategy is one thing, but success will come only when those who work in the drugs field get on board. It is time to forge a new political will to make that happen, because the benefits will be incalculable.
The legislative programme might deal with some of the immediate issues that are facing Scotland, but other deep-seated challenges lie way beyond the scope of one year of lawmaking. The First Minister has the majority to railroad anything he wants through the Parliament, but I hope that he has the wisdom to realise that a majority does not make a flawed proposal good, and it does not make something that is wrong right.
14:04
I am not sure that the Alex Salmond of 40 years ago would have believed that he would lead his party or that he would be a member of a Scottish Parliament. He would probably have scoffed at the idea of becoming the First Minister of Scotland—twice. But perhaps that shy, retiring exterior is just a mask.
This is a big day for the First Minister, so I will begin on a note of consensus. The Liberal Democrats initially opposed the SNP’s plans to tackle the blight of alcohol, which holds back communities, but we have now reflected and considered, and we will support them. [Applause.] I did not think that I would ever hear that, to be honest. The approach is backed by a wide range of health bodies. Alcohol hits communities with antisocial behaviour, the health effects are severe, and it impacts on children and families. As a Liberal, I want to remove the barriers that hold people back from getting up and getting on in their lives, and the excessive drinking of alcohol is one of those barriers. The smoking ban, which Iain Gray mentioned, was a success. It was a bold measure by the previous majority Government, and I think that we can also tackle in the Parliament the blight of alcohol. My colleagues and I will work with the Government to make the proposals a success.
The Liberal Democrats have been prepared to reconsider our position on a major area of policy. I urge the First Minister to do likewise on the police and the fire service, but fear that he is destined to continue to ignore all opposition to the proposals that have been made. The Liberal Democrats are instinctive decentralisers; putting power in the hands of the minister at the centre is the exact opposite of decentralising. The Government’s plans will have an immediate increased cost in already challenging times, and will risk front-line policing. Big top-down reorganisations never save the money that they promise. Too much power will be put in the hands of only three people, and the opportunities to have complaints and discipline supervised by an independent force will be stripped away. Those are the reasons why 78 per cent of rank-and-file police officers and seven out of eight chief constables are against the proposals. I hope that the Government will have a change of heart.
Disregarding advice is one of the things that the Government has a habit of doing. It set up the Christie commission to advise on public services, which was a way to dodge and delay any decisions until after the election. There simply was not enough in the First Minister’s statement to show that he is taking forward the Christie vision. Where were the plans to enshrine localism in public services and put the user in control? Where were the plans to integrate local services rather than have top-down silos? Where is the legislation recommended by Christie to make it a duty on public bodies to take preventative action rather than simply pay up for solutions to problems that could have been avoided? The First Minister has not done the Christie commission justice.
I will need to be convinced that adding more laws will tackle the problem of sectarianism, which has been shown in recent weeks to be above simple law making. Legislating to send a message often makes bad law.
On the rest of the programme, I hope that I can encourage the Scottish Government to consider my party’s proposals on real reform to Scottish Water to create a future for Scotland fund and create jobs; its proposals to reform regulation and procurement to help Scottish businesses; its plans to make Scotland a science nation; and its proposals on action to tackle top pay and bonuses.
Those are solid plans for jobs and growth. We are not proud; we would be happy for the First Minister to pinch our ideas. Instead, for all his bluster today, his solution to the world’s economic problems stretches to two sides of A4. He did not even mention that he has chosen to strip £250 million from transport capital investment to spend in other departments.
The biggest threat to Scotland’s economy is the First Minister’s plan to split Scotland from the rest of the UK. If Alex Salmond predicted 40 years ago that he would be First Minister with a majority, I am sure that he did not envisage that his first legislative programme would fail to include independence. Seventy years on from the creation of the SNP, the First Minister hardly even mentions the sole reason for that party’s existence.
Everything that this Government does has a purpose: securing independence. However, no answers have been offered and there is no timetable for answers. Last week, the Secretary of State for Scotland asked the SNP Government six simple questions about independence: what regulation would be applied to our banks and who would enforce it? Which currency would Scotland adopt? He also asked about membership of international organisations; our armed forces; pension liabilities; and, the bottom line, the cost of independence, but he did not get any answers. He was referred to a booklet from two years ago, but it did not have the answers either.
This session of Parliament will be dominated by independence, but that is the one issue that the SNP Government is determined to avoid discussing. While Scotland waits, the SNP refuses to declare, debate or even discuss the cost of independence. The only people who are stopping them trying for a separate state are themselves. That sense of dodge and delay marks so much of this Administration. After 70 years, the SNP finally has a majority. Now we need the answers.
14:11
I am pleased to speak in an important debate on the Scottish Government’s legislative programme. It is clear from the First Minister’s comments that the programme is ambitious, as befits an SNP Government that is ambitious for Scotland and wants to make Scotland better.
At this juncture I will comment on the somewhat negative remarks, to put it politely, from the Opposition leaders in their introductory comments at least and, in the case of the Lib Dem leader, in his concluding remarks. I gently suggest that in those negative comments there perhaps lies a clue to why there is an SNP majority Government in this Parliament and why the Opposition parties are where they are. Indeed, the most recent opinion polls indicate that they seem to be struggling even further. I would have thought that that would be instructive to the Opposition parties regarding what the people of Scotland want and expect from them.
I return to the legislative programme, which builds on the minority SNP Government’s strong record of delivery in the previous session of this Parliament. For example, in 2007, the minority SNP Government promised to recruit 1,000 extra police officers. The Opposition parties said, in the main, with their customary limited ambition, that that could not be done. However, not only did the SNP Government keep our promise, but the most recent statistics, published this week, show that there are now 1,105 more police officers than was the case in March 2007.
In turn, as the First Minister said, crime figures published this week show the lowest recorded crime levels in Scotland in 35 years. Importantly, the perceived fear of crime is also at lower levels. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government recognises that we need to build on that progress, so we have seen—
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at this stage, thanks. I would like to make some progress.
We have seen today the proposal for the establishment of a single service for the police. I imagine that that will be the subject of debate in more detail during the deliberations on the legislative programme, but for me the key issue about the proposal is clear: what people in Scotland care about very deeply is that the focus of our precious resources goes to the front line and not to duplicative bureaucracy. As in the phrase that has been coined, it is about bobbies not boundaries.
Another important measure in the legislative programme from the SNP Government concerns our very strong commitment to housing. Over the last four years, we saw the SNP commitment to more than 3,300 new council houses being funded. That compared very favourably indeed with the pitiful record of the Labour-Liberal Administration in its term of office between 2003 and 2007 when, I believe, just six council houses were built in Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
I would like to make some progress.
The legislative programme contains a commitment to look at dealing with the problem of long-term empty properties through a supplementary council tax levy. I think that that is an important step, which would help to raise funds for local authorities and would ensure better use of our housing stock.
Will the member give way?
I am afraid that I will not, because I wish to get through some other important points.
As has been mentioned, the Government will bring back proposals on minimum pricing of alcohol, and it is welcome to hear that there has been some shift in opinion in the chamber since such measures were last brought before it. The people of Scotland were absolutely baffled by the Opposition’s tactics in ensuring the failure of those important measures. It is pleasing to see that on that issue at least, if not on many others, the Opposition parties are starting to listen to the people of Scotland and to recognise the broad support that exists for minimum pricing across civic Scotland.
I believe that the Government’s programme is ambitious and wide-ranging in its scope. It encompasses measures on aquaculture, the tenant farming sector, social care and the rights of children and young people. In short, in the programme, we see a Government that is determined to build on the progress that we made in our first four years in delivering improvements for the people of Scotland. Our delivery record was, of course, comprehensively endorsed by the people of Scotland on 5 May. They are a people who are increasingly self-confident in their ambitions for themselves, their families and their country.
I look forward to the roll-out of the various legislative proposals and, in the years to come, to the first legislative programme of an independent Parliament, which will have at its root all the economic levers that are necessary to ensure that we achieve job creation, sustainable economic growth and real social justice in our country.
14:17
The First Minister has said that economic growth is the focus of the legislative programme. We welcome that intention, but what matters now is that it is matched by the actions of the Scottish Government. Given the economic challenges that we face, the Government must use the significant powers that it already has to deal with those problems, which include low growth in our economy. On the rising level of youth unemployment, in particular, we have called for concerted action, so we look forward to hearing more from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning on the opportunities for all initiative. In addition, we hope for further action in the budget bill and in the spending review.
All the proposed legislation that has been announced today, whether it be on water or public sector reform, should seek to contribute to the goal of creating growth. We would have liked to see more legislative proposals with a direct locus in the economy. In the previous session of Parliament, ministers often talked of “the purpose”. That purpose—which often came in capital letters, so that we would know how important it was—was achieving economic growth. We have heard rather less about “the purpose” recently—certainly since Mr Mather took his leave of the Government, taking his mind maps with him—but the purpose of achieving economic growth must be at the heart of the Government’s work now because we know that our economy is in trouble.
The most recent gross domestic product figures show that the Scottish economy is on the cusp of contracting again. The figures for Scotland were worse than those for the rest of the UK. I am afraid that the First Minister’s boast that the recession has been shorter and shallower in Scotland than it has in the rest of the UK, which we heard again today, now rings somewhat hollow, and we look to the Government for a plan for growth.
We know that the Scottish Government’s cause is not helped by a UK Government that refuses to acknowledge the evident need for a plan B on the economy—there will be no disagreement between Mr Swinney and me on that. We have said that we need not just a plan B from Mr Osborne but a plan for Scotland from Mr Swinney, so the new Government economic strategy that Mr Swinney is to announce will be crucial. We will engage in that strategy, because it is vital that it makes a difference to our economic outlook, as must the budget bill and the spending review.
As several members have said, immediately after the election, the Scottish Government demanded a number of new powers that it argued would boost economic growth. We have said that we will listen to any evidence that the Government produces in making its case for such powers, but we have also said that the problems are with us now and that ministers’ focus now must be on using the powers that they have to do what they can to improve our economy. When we discuss the budget bill, we will continue to argue that we must invest in growth, even in these tough times for public finances.
Margo MacDonald (Lothian) (Ind) rose—
For the sake of debate, I will give way to Margo MacDonald, although I might well regret it.
I thank Richard Baker and I sincerely hope that he does not regret giving way. Just for clarification, will he say whether the Labour Party maintains that the Parliament does not need more economic powers?
We are open to that debate. For example, we have said that the Government should have new and extensive borrowing powers that go beyond those that were proposed in the Scotland Bill. We will be keen to enter into the debate fully. However, the evidence for the need for a range of powers—such as those to set corporation tax and excise duty—has been somewhat lacking from the Scottish Government. We have an open mind, but we need the evidence to show how the powers would benefit our economy.
We have powers now to make a huge difference to economic growth. Our biggest power is a £30 billion budget. We will make the case for an expanded future jobs fund, to give more opportunities for those who are without work to get into or go back into employment.
Will Richard Baker take an intervention?
No—I want to make progress.
We will press for a new green deal to provide investment to make 10,000 homes energy efficient and provide hundreds of jobs and training places. That would give our construction sector a much-needed boost and tackle fuel poverty.
With rising energy prices, we will all be anxious that more Scots will end up being fuel poor. That is why it was not the right decision to cut the fuel poverty budget in the previous budget and why we ask ministers to take a different approach in the spending review. Tackling fuel poverty and poverty more widely in our society will benefit our economy, so we will continue to press for a living wage in the public sector and beyond.
I said that we had hoped that the legislative programme would include more legislation that would directly affect the economy and a procurement bill. We have heard from small businesses that the opportunities for local businesses to benefit from contracts that public agencies award are still too few. Legislation on that would listen to business concerns, which is what the Scottish Government should do instead of dismissing them and attacking business leaders’ views, as it did last week. That was highly bizarre from a party that has done much to woo the business community. We need action to help business and make our public sector more efficient. [Interruption.] Presiding Officer, I understood that I had six minutes for my speech.
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith) indicated agreement.
I have used only five minutes and 40 seconds.
I will talk briefly about public sector reform. As defenders of the public sector, we Labour members understand that we must also be public sector reformers. That is why we embrace and have led the arguments for a single police force and a single fire and rescue service. That must be about plans that will genuinely provide more efficiency, reinvest savings in the front line and protect local accountability. If the plans involve cuts to front-line services or reducing local accountability, we will of course hold the Government to account. However, we believe that the proposals can protect the front line in these difficult times for our economy.
We have more debates on the economy to come. The legislative programme addresses some but not all of our concerns. The Government seeks new powers, but we still do not believe that it is doing all that it can to boost our economy with the powers that it has.
Mr Baker, you really must stop now.
That is the priority of the people of Scotland and it should be the Parliament’s priority, too.
I remind members that the debate is very tight. Speeches are to be of six minutes, and interventions will have to be taken within that time, so that we can fit everyone into the debate.
14:24
I must begin by making two declarations: I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals and I am a carer who manages a direct payment.
I welcome many aspects of the legislative programme, but members will not be surprised to hear that I want to concentrate on self-directed support. However, I would first like to say that I am glad that Iain Gray apologised for his flippancy about the National Library of Scotland. It is a proud, world-renowned and modern institute—so modern, in fact, that this morning it began to follow me on Twitter. The reason why we need legislation is that the library’s governance was set up in 1925 and it wants to be a 21st century organisation.
I welcome the reintroduction of proposals on minimum pricing. During the election, I discovered that, in my constituency, it is possible to buy 3 litres of cider at 18p per unit. We need minimum pricing because 18p is a recipe for mayhem and alcoholism.
I am delighted about the children’s rights bill, which is on an issue that I championed when I was first in Parliament in 1999. That bill seems to me to be the logical conclusion to the appointment of Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People.
On self-directed support, I welcome the Government’s stated principle that the aim is to promote choice and control for those who are in receipt of social care and to promote the independence of those people. The First Minister referred to the independence generation. I would say that self-directed support will help to foster an independence generation.
I will focus on five aspects of the self-directed support bill. Given my background, members will not be surprised to know that one of them is on older people. I will also consider assessment, regulation, support and carers. We all know about the demographics and the rise in Scotland’s elderly population. My constituency of Strathkelvin and Bearsden is home to the largest rise in Scotland. We spend £1.1 billion per annum on social care, but only 7 per cent of that budget is spent on care at home, although that is what most people want. Sadly, the uptake of direct payments is still lower among the older population, so I hope that the self-directed support bill will ensure greater uptake. The bill, with its promotion of independence and enablement, will be a preventative measure rather than a reactive one, as social care so often is for older folk. I hope that, if it works, that preventative measure will mean fewer admissions to acute care and more people living longer healthy lives at home.
Assessment is fundamental to the success of any self-directed support and of the preventative model. Assessments for social care must encompass not only people’s care needs, but their expectations for their quality of life. I am delighted that we are moving much more to considering the success of the outcomes of that assessment, rather than outputs.
The preventative criterion alone will ensure that care is always there when it is needed, rather than only when the situation becomes critical. As a constituency member, I raise the issue that if we are to ensure that the preventative element of self-directed support and care in the community is working, we must ensure that the bar for accessing care in the community is lowered so that care is provided before the situation becomes critical or substantial. That does not happen in many local authorities. If, as happens in East Dunbartonshire Council, we wait until a person is critical or in substantial need of care, we have probably missed the chance to use preventative measures to ensure that the person stays healthy. That point has been supported by WRVS in a recent report.
On regulation, I refer ministers to the current Health and Sport Committee inquiry on the regulation of care. One issue that is beginning to arise from the evidence is that we need to consider not only whether regulation is fit for purpose now, but whether it is fit for the future, when, we hope, more care will be delivered in people’s homes.
Many reports indicate that carers and care users find the idea of self-directed support a bit scary to begin with. I was scared when I first looked at direct payments for my mother. However, all reports show that, with support, things become manageable. We must ensure that such support structures are in place.
My final theme, members will not be surprised to hear, is carers. The importance of carers runs through all reports and evidence. I am delighted that, in the national strategy, the Government recognises carers as partners in care; I hope that we will see that move further. The only item that I am disappointed about in the national strategy for care is that there will be
“no drive to remove ... legislative limitation on employing family members as personal assistants”.
Three quarters of a million unpaid carers in Scotland provide services worth £7 billion. As Carers Scotland said in evidence to the Health and Sport Committee, one of the easiest ways to sort out all the problems is to give direct payments to the people who are already doing the caring.
14:31
I found the opening speeches from the party leaders rather more interesting than perhaps they thought, since I notice that too many of them have left the chamber. However, I thank Fiona McLeod for her speech, given that my wife, Wendy, and I are carers for an elderly relative. Having said that, I will move on to other issues.
I listened to Iain Gray, who had great fun. However, I noticed that it took him 14 minutes of his 22 minutes to get to the legislative programme, and he then overran. That was sad because it seems to me that there is rather more in the programme that he could have spoken about.
I want to address an issue that Iain Gray did not manage to get to, which is the proposed new social care and health service and the idea that that might somehow be all put together through legislation. I understand that that would require the repeal of 11 bits of legislation, which might be an interesting issue for members. However, I would prefer a model whereby integration was achieved locally by whatever appropriate means rather than by a new national body that would suffer from all the failings of national bodies.
I want to reflect on one of the things that Annabel Goldie said, which was that the First Minister had the opportunity to railroad through Parliament anything that he likes. I assure her, and anybody else who thought that she was right, that SNP back benchers—the First Minister knows this—are not here to be railroaded. [Interruption.] We have the collective interests of Scotland at heart every bit as much as anybody else does. As I am sure members will see, there will be no need to have a fight about this, because the First Minister’s heart is in precisely the right place. However, I take exception to Annabel Goldie’s comments. [Interruption.]
Can we calm down, please, and listen to the member?
I notice that Willie Rennie has now left us as well, which is a great pity but perhaps wise.
Will the member take an intervention?
Forgive me, but I do not have time.
Mr Rennie pointed out that seven out of eight chief constables were opposed to having a single police force. I do not know whether it occurred to him that there might be a reason for that. However, much more substantially, I noticed that he referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland’s recent speech in which he apparently asked six questions of the Scottish Government. The record will show what those questions were, and they will of course be answered in due time. However, the secretary of state also suggested in the same speech that the Scottish Government should get on with the job. I wonder whether Mr Rennie and other Liberal Democrat members and, indeed, other members in the chamber have noticed that the legislative programme in front of us does precisely that: it gets on with the job.
Let me turn to three other specific items, starting with the proposed police and fire service reforms. It seems to make a great deal of sense to have a single system across Scotland for the employment of folk in the police force. However, I share every sentiment that I have heard so far about local accountability. I am not entirely sure what Mr MacAskill will announce in the coming days, but it seems to me that it is crucial—I have said this before, and I make no apology for repeating it—that accountability be with local councillors, and possibly others who are elected locally, at a level that makes practical sense on the ground.
Let me say, as a former resident of Dundee, that Dundee city might very well be appropriate in this respect; having also lived in Aberdeen, I think that the same might apply there. However, my constituency is divided between Angus and Aberdeenshire—of course, that is just the way it is—and I am concerned that the northern part might end up in an area where accountability with regard to the police extends across the whole of Aberdeenshire. If we want to follow that model, I should remind folk that Laurencekirk is an awful long way from Fraserburgh and suggest that, in this respect, our geographical areas should be appropriate. Some structures such as those in the Northern Isles and other areas up there are very wide but I am sure that the local members will talk about that. My point is that we must ensure that accountability is geographically appropriate.
I doubt that many other members will have a vested interest in the proposed agriculture and fisheries legislation but, again, it is of considerable interest to me as a member whose constituency covers not only the North Esk and South Esk and the River Bervie, but the Usan Salmon Fisheries netting operation off the coast. Certain organisations already look after the various businesses and leisure activities, but it is entirely clear to me and to those businesses in my area that the current structures of governance are not working very well and that folk with diametrically opposed commercial interests are supposed to sit on the same body. Not everyone will have an equal voice and it is extremely important that we examine that legislation and get it right.
14:36
One of the many benefits of the education brief in this Parliament is that, for the most part, my education colleagues and I are spared the wearisome and increasingly strident but entirely unconvincing mantra of “If only”—as in, “If only we had the powers, everything in Scottish education would be all right,” or, “If only we had independence, our schools would all be wonderful.”
The separatist arguments in other policy areas are similarly unconvincing. Separatism does not deliver one extra nurse, doctor or police officer. However, with education, the arguments spectacularly fail to apply because Scotland already has full control over decision making. Our nurseries, schools, colleges and universities are entirely devolved, which means that the Scottish Government already has responsibility when things go wrong or are not as good as they should be. Indeed, I remind members that it has had such responsibility for the past four years. If parents cannot get access to a nursery or cannot afford childcare; if a local school is being closed or our teachers are threatening to go on strike; if we are reducing the range of courses at our universities or limiting access to those institutions, the buck stops with this Administration. This Parliament and this Government have ultimate authority.
That makes the Scottish Government’s education plans—or perhaps I should say lack of them—for the next five years all the more revealing. Education is the key to transforming our country, to giving all young Scots the best start in life, to retraining our workforce, to tackling inequality, to making the most of our talents and abilities and to allowing us all to prosper as a nation. These are the goals to which we should aspire, but precious little has been outlined today in the legislative programme for education to capture those aspirations.
Do not get me wrong—I want to give the cabinet secretary some words of encouragement. Although we will question and scrutinise the Government’s proposed legislation, we will certainly not oppose the little that has been outlined. In fact, I can go further. Although we await further detail on the education proposals in the legislative programme, I assure the First Minister that we welcome the findings of the review of post-16 education and the establishment of the review of higher education governance. If the Government wants to bring forward proposals to invest in and improve our schools and make them the best in the world, it will have our support. After all, that is the mission on which we are engaged.
What we are concerned about are the areas that have not been covered in today’s programme and which are not the subject of new legislation. The list goes on and on. On class sizes, for example, the current hotch-potch of policy, legislation and guidance is utterly confusing for education authorities and exasperating for parents. The SNP has obliged local authorities to reach a target of 20 per cent of primary 1 classes with 18 pupils or fewer, with the very real threat of a vastly reduced financial settlement if they fail. The rest of P1 will have to make do with a legally enforceable maximum of 25, while unfortunately that rises to 30 in P2 and P3 and to 33 in upper primary. Pupils are being moved about from year to year, from small classes to large or, increasingly, to deeply unpopular composite classes, with no continuity. Where is the leadership or strategic direction? Do the discredited targets of class sizes of 18 from P1 to P3 still stand? Can the minister tell me whether that is still Government policy?
Similarly, the teaching profession is extremely anxious about pension arrangements, career prospects and salary freezes, not to mention the McCormac review and what might follow. We know that the single most important factor affecting the quality of our children’s education is the quality of our teachers, but where do teachers figure in the SNP’s priority list? The answer from staffrooms across the country is “Not very highly”.
This year’s probationers have been incredibly relieved to have the comfort of a manifesto commitment that supposedly guarantees them the number of available jobs. I can tell members that when the figures are published we will be watching closely to see whether that promise is delivered. We still have not heard what is to become of the past four years’ graduates who have stuck in there, awaiting their opportunity. Are they to be leapfrogged by this year’s intake? Is that really fair?
Teachers on supply are being particularly badly treated. As one dismayed teacher said to me recently,
“there’s little doubt supply teachers were picked out as a soft target for cuts. It is an affront educationally though. For thousands of young Scots every day, supply teachers ARE Scottish Education. To undervalue those teachers is to undervalue education. After all, is the work of a locum doctor or a retained firefighter of any less value when they diagnose a serious illness or pull someone from a blazing building?”
I emphasise the teacher’s parting comments:
“If a country is serious about its future then it surely must place a greater value on education than this”.
That is what education is all about—the future of our country, improving the skills of our workforce, and giving people confidence in their own abilities—not this obsession with the constitution or the pretence that separation will make things better. Education makes things better right now, and we have the powers right now. Why is the Government not using them?
As for the SNP’s much-vaunted commitment to opposing tuition fees, it is difficult to take the First Minister seriously. The SNP is hardly 100 days into office and it has introduced £9,000 fees for rest-of-UK students. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has said that he expects universities to show restraint. Is £36,000 for a degree at Edinburgh restrained? At the very least, the cabinet secretary should have insisted on regulating or approving wider access arrangements at Scotland’s higher education institutions.
To conclude, I return to my opening remarks, I am pleased that for the most part the SNP does not try to use education to drive a wedge between Scotland and the UK, but I urge the Government to recognise the opportunity that we are offered right here, right now. No more “If only”, no more excuses.
14:42
I enjoyed listening to Ken Macintosh. As one leadership candidate to, perhaps, another, I would say, “Ken, go for it. You’ll find it very liberating.” [Laughter.] Having debated more or less non-stop for the past 72 hours the future or otherwise of my own party, it is a change to return to more mundane matters, namely the Scottish Government’s legislative programme.
I will start with something that is not in the legislative programme but should be, namely the bill for an independence referendum. I would have thought that a party with an overall majority in Parliament that has for years campaigned for Scottish independence would be desperate to put to the Scottish people a vote on whether they become independent but, no, we are disappointed again. We are not yet to have the bill.
That is important because we heard only last week from the boss of CBI Scotland, Linda Urquhart, that the delay in settling the issue is causing concern to the business community. The Scottish Government and the First Minister should put their money where their mouth is and bring forward a referendum bill for a straight yes or no, so we can have the matter resolved once and for all.
I turn now to something that is in the legislative programme: minimum pricing, which makes a return and which I suspect—due to the parliamentary arithmetic—will be here to stay. We opposed the measure in the previous session of Parliament, and we will continue to oppose it in this one, too. I do not say that from any dogmatic approach to the issue, because I recognise that there is a substantial problem with alcohol consumption in Scotland. That is why we supported the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill in the previous session of Parliament—a bill that contained a number of very important measures to tackle excess alcohol consumption that have yet to be implemented—but we remain unconvinced that there is evidence to support minimum unit pricing. It was rejected by all the main Opposition parties at the time, and there are a number of problems with the policy.
I thank the deputy leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party—at least I think that that is what we are to call it—for giving way. Can he tell the chamber why he thinks that the chief medical officers in each of the countries of the UK and the whole of the health policy community are wrong on the issue of minimum pricing and he is right?
I have consistently asked those in the health lobby to produce evidence to support their arguments. I am sad to say that I am still waiting, but there is still time. I say to Mr Eadie that I am an open-minded man and I remain to be persuaded. If the evidence can be produced, I will look at it; however, I remain to be convinced. We have still to see a direct linear relationship—a causal link—between alcohol price, consumption and harm. There is no such established relationship, and even the most cursory overview of the key literature proves that.
Let us take, for instance, the Government’s monitoring and evaluating Scotland’s alcohol strategy—MESAS—report, which was published last week. The Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy was quick to put out a press release saying that it was further evidence that we needed minimum pricing in Scotland. In fact, it proved nothing of the sort. I think that this point was made by Iain Gray earlier. The report showed that the number of sales of alcohol per adult were nearly a quarter higher in Scotland than in England in 2010, despite the fact that there is no difference in price between Scotland and England. Indeed, because average salaries in England are higher than average salaries in Scotland, the relative cost of alcohol is lower in England and we might expect the rate of consumption to be higher there, but it is not. England does not have a policy of minimum pricing because the coalition Government has wisely ruled that out.
Will the member give way?
No. I have given way once already.
The fact remains that, regardless of how many actresses, comediennes and health-lobby attack dogs the cabinet secretary wheels out, Scotland’s relationship with alcohol is a complex issue. Any policy that seeks to modify behaviour through price changes must be targeted and proportionate while also avoiding being regressive. Minimum unit pricing fails to satisfy any of those criteria.
That brings me to my second objection to minimum unit pricing. What is the point of introducing a policy that can be so readily evaded and undermined by cross-border and internet sales? The UK e-retail market is currently growing at 18 per cent a year despite the economic downturn. The industry is worth £5.5 billion and, during April, there was a 55 per cent increase in online alcohol sales. What convinces the cabinet secretary that her imaginary Maginot line will be able to thwart the will of the Scottish consumer?
Thirdly, unlike tackling the issue through targeted taxation, which we would support, any increases in price coming from minimum unit pricing would simply go to fill the pockets of retailers.
Finally, the Scottish Government has yet to convince us that minimum unit pricing is legally competent. As far as I can see, European Union law is pretty clear on the matter. Not only did the European Court of Justice reject minimum prices for spirit drinks in a 1978 ruling, but the European Commission has taken several member states to the ECJ in relation to minimum pricing, albeit of tobacco. The cabinet secretary may be interested to note the words of the Advocate General—the court’s top legal adviser—who issued a strong opinion that minimum pricing is
“not necessary to protect public health”.
More recently, the Swiss Government has rejected minimum pricing on the basis that it would fall foul of its trade obligations with the EU, arguing that reasons of public health fail as a justification due to the proportionality of the measure.
We remain to be convinced. If the cabinet secretary can produce the evidence, we will look at it. The fact that the SNP has a majority to railroad the measure through Parliament does not make it the right move.
14:49
I will, as probably expected, focus on justice issues in the coming five years. I will start with the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before the Justice Committee.
Everyone in the chamber opposes bigotry and sectarianism, but there was an interesting debate at the Justice Committee yesterday between Pat Nevin, Graham Spiers, Professor Walker and Dr Waiton that illustrated the conflict and tensions between freedom of expression and the proposed legislation. It is important that members look at the bill, as issues are raised about freedom of expression and the state’s intervention. It opens up a large debate.
I speak not as convener but on behalf of the committee. During yesterday’s debate, we required the supporters clubs that were giving us evidence in a round-table format to bring forward their own proposals for remedies, either as an alternative to legislation or in addition to legislation. There was consensus that what was out there was not working.
I am pleased that the committee, and members of all parties, persuaded the Government that the issue was not suitable for emergency legislation. I agree with Iain Gray—it is probably all that I agree with him on—that we must take our time. If anything, yesterday’s debate in the Justice Committee demonstrated how careful we have to be on the issue.
Was there any mention of the clubs taking much more responsibility for the behaviour of fans, in that clubs could be fined, either in points or in money? That would make fans behave.
Yes. The Official Report is online now, so the member can read some of the suggestions that were made.
On knife crime, for reasons that we have exhausted previously in Parliament, I take an entirely different view on mandatory prison sentences on conviction for carrying a knife—an approach that Labour pursued at one point. Such an approach would be crude and ludicrous and would have led to indefensible imprisonments. I talk about legislation not being the answer in the context of reducing bigotry and sectarianism. Legislation is not always the cure; indeed, through unintended consequences, it can lead to greater ills. That is illustrated by the attempt to make carrying a knife a statutory offence. Policy action in the context of knives—the no knives, better lives campaign—is to be commended.
On access to justice in the Government’s programme, I am reasonably proud of Scotland’s record on its legal aid system. As I understand it, we are not taking the route taken by Westminster, which has removed legal aid from certain important categories such as family matters.
Not all is well within the legal aid system, however, and the legal aid bill will be challenged by the fallout from recession, bankruptcies, redundancies, broken relationships and debts. There will be pressures there. Reform of legal aid is some way down the track and I look forward to seeing the bill.
On the matter of reform, the Government proposal for a single police service and a single fire service raises interesting opportunities—and legitimate concerns. The current democratic accountability through police boards is—how can I say it kindly?—quite insufficient. When members attend police and fire board meetings, they may be completely overawed by the brass and scrambled egg in front of them. Indeed, if they deign to challenge the chief constable—which they usually have to do in his office, which is not good psychologically—such an inquiry might be rebuffed with the answer “It’s operational.”
If we are looking for local accountability and delivery and national administration and procurement, a single force may be—as my old history teacher used to say—a good thing. No doubt the robust interrogation by the Justice Committee will prise open any deficiencies.
While I am on the subject of committees, I commend Nigel Don for what he said about back benchers. I will not get railroaded by anybody in any party in this chamber.
In this fourth session of Parliament, with an overall majority Government, it is important for members of committees to get into the mindset that they are their own masters and that they require to demonstrate robust independence right across the parties in the interests of good government, good law and a good Parliament. It is important that whips of whatever party do not leave their marks on the backs of members who dare to challenge the party line if it conflicts with the evidence that they have heard in committee.
14:54
I intend to talk about the police reform proposals, and given that there is an oblique reference in there to police pensions I should declare that I am a police pensioner. The details are in the register of members’ interests.
An important obligation that is placed on every Government is the safety of its citizens. We heard that recorded crime is at a 35-year low. Indeed, it is down 19 per cent since 2006-07. There is also a 35-year high in the detection of violent crime. The significant increase in the detection rate, from 67 to 72 per cent, is most welcome. Similarly, the two-year reconviction rate has dropped to its lowest level in 11 years. The results, as we heard, are borne out by the Scottish crime and justice survey.
The Scottish Government requires to and will build on those successes, not least through minimum pricing of alcohol and police reform. Some £1.3 billion has been removed from the budget and the criminal justice sector will be no more able to sustain the status quo than anyone else in the public sector will be. Yesterday’s report from Audit Scotland was interesting and lessons will be learned and acted on, the most significant of which is to do with co-ordination across the sector. Greater use can and should be made of technology, which will involve consultation and negotiation with unions and staff associations.
Police reform cannot be detached from wider public sector reform, the intention of which is to protect and improve public services and to enhance local scrutiny. It is not about protectionism—we heard from Nigel Don why there might be protectionism in some quarters. The focus must be on front-line police services and the retention of officer numbers, so that we can maintain the good figures, because 35,000 fewer crimes means 35,000 fewer complainers.
Will the member be willing to work with members across the Parliament if it is established that police boards will lose civilian staff and back-office roles will be filled by police officers, who will not be doing the job that they are supposed to do? Does he acknowledge that the unions are concerned about the issue? Will he work with other people to establish what is fact and reality and to ensure that what people are concerned about does not happen?
The most important point to make is that front-line police services are not delivered just by police officers. Support staff play a vital role. The matter clearly falls into the operational realm. We want the retention of front-line services, and that includes support staff.
The public have been reassured by the visible presence of the additional 1,000 officers on the street, but they are blissfully unaware of the eight—if not nine, in many instances—human resources, information technology and payroll departments. An outline business case has been prepared in relation to police reform. The single force will produce savings. It will not do so instantly, because, as with any change of circumstances, there will be one-off transitional investments, the most significant of which will be in IT systems. Initially, there will be significant investment in IT convergence. It might surprise some members to hear, for instance, that there is no direct e-mail system between police officers in Scotland, which is worrying and disappointing. All members know of the tragic events in Soham. The Bichard inquiry that followed was all about the sharing of information across police forces.
A single service would not only maximise savings through the sharing of support services but protect front-line resources. The key word, which has been used a lot, is “local”. That is not a word to which the SNP takes exception—it is what we are all about. Local policing with local authority involvement, local priorities and local partnerships are important. Christine Grahame mentioned that police committees are too deferential. I encourage anyone who has not attended a police committee to do so; they will see that there is evident need for change.
I want to draw on the member’s experience. Is there a great difference between the advantages in efficiencies and savings to be gained from having one police force and the advantages to be gained from having two or three?
I understand that in relation to the transitional arrangements the costs would be less for a regional force. However, economies of scale can be made only by having a single force, although there would still be difficulties. If someone sets out by motor car from Edinburgh, they can cross five police force boundaries within a reasonably short period. Travelling criminals, international criminals and terrorists do not acknowledge boundaries, so I do not think that we should do so. That is what is meant by “bobbies not boundaries”. I drove down the A82 the other day and in a short period I crossed three police force areas—I know the area and I would not have been able to tell which one I was in at any given time, but for the road signs.
It is important that we have an efficient police service. There will be an opportunity to enhance specialist services, which will be available to all forces, unlike the situation at the moment. Sharing services will also bring about opportunities for greater reporting and accountability across all areas in Scotland.
Given John Finnie’s position as the secretary of the northern branch of the Scottish Police Federation in recent years, can he tell us whether the 93 per cent of officers in Northern Constabulary who voted against a single police force were wrong?
Those officers have a valid perspective on things. The reality is that there is a genuine concern about numbers. I am sure that that concern will be greatly allayed by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s announcements tomorrow.
Local is important. The Scottish National Party did not invest in those additional officers to see them removed. The reality is that numbers will be retained and the service will be improved.
15:00
I welcome much of what I have heard this afternoon and think that it should be supported. I do not think that anyone could argue against there being better and more opportunities for young people. If we waste this young generation, there will be a heavy price for society to pay.
I welcome the reform of police and fire services. I have long been an advocate of a single fire service for Scotland and I have argued in favour of fewer police forces. I am not intrinsically opposed to a single police force. I have argued that the idea has merits. The one caveat that I would make is that we need to be careful that we do not create one powerful police figure in Scotland who would be a counterweight to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. There is an argument that having three forces might provide a better balance, but I would not rule out having one police service, and I think that the idea is worth considering. Whatever happens, we should be arguing for a community safety committee in every local authority in Scotland. In those committees, the police, the fire service, the ambulance service and the health service would report to councillors, which could enhance local accountability.
There is much that I agree with when I hear ministers talk about the need to tackle the scourge of alcohol in Scotland. I despair when I think of the way in which we have divided the issue and focused the arguments on the issue of minimum pricing. Murdo Fraser has articulated many of the concerns that I still have about minimum pricing, so I will not go over them again. However, we should not let that issue divert our attention from the need to do something about a problem that is affecting far too many families and communities in Scotland.
I support the Government’s intention to tackle the scourge of sectarianism in Scotland, which is something that has long afflicted many individuals in many communities. To our shame, we ducked the issue and hid away from tackling it. However, we should admit that sectarianism is not just about football. There is sectarianism in professional classes and in certain jobs, certain industries and certain professions. We have to face up to that and confront it.
I welcome Christine Grahame’s comments about the dangers that are associated with a crude and simplistic drive towards imposing lengthy jail sentences for something that we might not fully understand or be able fully to articulate. It would be wrong to attempt to send someone to jail for five years and yet not tell them what the crime is that they are guilty of or have been accused of. We will not tell them which slogans or songs are enough to drive them into jail, yet we are prepared to prosecute and jail them for that. We need to be concerned about that. We should be much more determined to use the existing substantial powers to penalise those who are behaving wrongly.
Does Hugh Henry accept that the clubs and the Scottish Football Association have a huge role to play, and that there is much more that can be done and should have been done?
Football clubs absolutely have a contribution to make, but I repeat my point: sectarianism is not just about football, and the solution should not be left to football clubs.
I welcome the Government’s intentions on public sector reform, but I am puzzled that the issue has been considered for so long and yet there is no detail on how reform will be implemented. It is not good enough for the Government to say that it is still considering the Christie commission’s work: we should know by now what it intends to do.
I welcome the talk of housing as a priority, but I and other members of the Public Audit Committee heard this morning from Audit Scotland that one of the biggest cuts in the next few years will be in the housing budget. The Government cannot say that a few extra council houses here and there will be enough to overcome those cuts, which will damage many communities throughout Scotland. We need consistency on that.
What is more important is what I would have liked to have seen. Why was there no talk about protection for workers? We heard before that the powers are already in place and that we do not need additional laws, yet on sectarianism, existing powers are not being used but we somehow need additional laws. There is an inconsistency and a contradiction there, and I would still argue for more protection for workers who face violence in the course of their work.
Why is there no regulation of bus services to protect the communities that we represent up and down the country? Why is there no legislation to stop councils taking qualified teachers out of the classroom and replacing them with unqualified staff? Why is there no protection for care services—not just action on self-directed support, but action to protect the carers and the care services that have been badly damaged throughout Scotland?
15:07
I very strongly support the First Minister’s attack on the UK Government’s cuts agenda, which is an austerity programme that will benefit only the wealthiest in our society and will worsen inequality, poverty, ill health, underachievement and unemployment. The First Minister was quite right to say that investment in the future should be the priority.
However, I urge the First Minister and the Government to follow through on the logic of that argument, and to stop pursuing the reckless idea of cuts to corporation tax if the powers are won. That type of policy would only leave yet another hole in the public finances and make the cuts to public services even worse. Instead of tax giveaways to big businesses, there are many priorities on which we should be able to unite in order to—in the First Minister’s words—“make Scotland better”.
I turn to a few areas of the legislative programme in which there is common ground, where we can work together and where constructive opposition will involve bringing ideas to improve the Government’s plans rather than opposing them. On the proposed water bill, for example, we have heard a wee bit less in the way of ambition from the First Minister today. He used to talk about turning Scottish Water into one of Scotland’s biggest renewable energy generators: a massive publicly owned renewables company. We should put some of that ambition back into the bill.
I certainly welcome the return of the minimum pricing proposal, but I agree with Iain Gray about the wide-ranging debate that is needed—not just purely on minimum pricing, but on other measures too. Both sides—Labour and the SNP—lost out in the last debate on alcohol legislation by blocking each other’s ideas. We should ensure that we take a more mature approach and get the best legislation that we can.
I also welcome the move to increase council tax on empty homes. It is a positive measure and will help not only to bring in revenue, but to create disincentives to keeping homes empty. However, we should go further and say that we should do the same with business rates. A huge number of empty and derelict properties pay no business rates at all, and yet are held back from development, often by speculative investors who are making a profit on that investment and artificially increasing prices for real, active local businesses.
I welcome the proposed bill on land registration, which could—if it is done right—provide the groundwork for a land value tax. The Greens have argued for such a tax for many years and the SNP has flirted with it year after year, but never quite committed to it. It could be used to fund the investment in our future about which the First Minister talked.
I also welcome the proposed freedom of information legislation, but I hope that the Government will extend the scope of FOI to include contractors for the public sector and arm’s-length companies.
The opportunities for all programme also sounds welcome. I want to see more of the detail and I remind the Government of its support in January for our proposal for a microfinance scheme for young people. That would be far better than bungs to big businesses and would support young people to get their own small ideas off the ground. I urge the inclusion of that measure in the programme.
I welcome, of course, the commitment to continue and build on the climate challenge fund, which we persuaded John Swinney to include in a budget a few years ago. However, it needs more than just a junior version added to it: it needs a way to move forward developed projects and turn them into self-financing social enterprises or renewable energy generators so that they do not lose the experience that they have built up simply because they are grant dependent.
The proposed rights of children and young people bill will be welcome. How we deal with the rights of children and young people who are dependent on devolved and reserved services and Governments remains a problem. We will look to see whether we can improve that bill as well.
There are a few matters on which we will have to oppose the Government’s programme. I share the opposition to the idea of a single police force. Hugh Henry’s suggestion that a single chief constable could come politically to rival a minister and an elected Government is a serious cause for concern.
We do not support aspects of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill, not only the timescale of emergency legislation. Aspects of the proposals will have to be removed if the Greens are to support the bill.
There are also matters on which the Government’s programme is silent and, therefore, on which constructive opposition will mean applying pressure for new action. One example is the wider equalities and human rights legislation. I welcome the consultation on equal marriage—its tone, not just its existence—but was disappointed not to see a commitment to a timescale in the legislative programme. There is no reason why we should have to wait until 2013 when we know that the consultation will be over well before Christmas.
On climate change, we need to move forward on transforming our transport system so that it becomes sustainable.
There was nothing about the referendum. Iain Gray again had fun winding up the Government about the lack of detail on it, but as a supporter—someone who wants a referendum question on which I can campaign for a yes vote—I say that now is the time for a participative and democratic process to put the detail into the proposals for the independent country that the SNP wants to create. That would include all the questions such as whether to appoint, elect or simply inherit the head of state, and the timing of the vote. I urge the Government to start putting detail on the issue right now.
15:13
I warmly welcome the Scottish Government’s legislative programme for the year ahead. The 16 bills—including the sectarianism bill that is already before the Parliament—will certainly ensure that the Parliament works hard to deal with the many issues that face the nation.
Until we have the bills in front of us, it is difficult to speak in depth about what they contain. However, it was anticipated that the alcohol bill would come back to the Parliament. I am happy that it will and I know from speaking to many constituents and representatives of organisations that it will be warmly welcomed. Alcohol misuse is a blight on all Scotland from many different perspectives, including the health of the individual, the health of others who are affected by the misuse, the costs to the health service and the justice system and the economic effects. As a nation, we need to examine the problem and try to improve the situation. Minimum unit pricing is not a silver bullet—the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy knows that and has never claimed that it is—but if its introduction helps to save people’s lives and, as a consequence, saves public money to be reinvested in the health and justice budgets, it is surely worth while.
Of course, any measure that Parliament introduces must be fully justified and scrutinised.
Will the member give way?
I will give way in two seconds. I dare say that many of the arguments that were used for and against minimum unit pricing the last time will be used again.
Will the member now support the enactment of the social responsibility levy, which would raise funds that could be directed towards programmes to support families and communities that suffer from the blight of alcohol abuse? Can that be done now?
That was discussed during the debate on the previous bill in the last parliamentary session, so it will come up in due course.
Whichever committee examines the proposed alcohol legislation, I hope that it endeavours to obtain information from young people and groups that deal with alcohol addiction in young people. I have spoken to such people and the evidence that they provide, along with the anecdotal evidence, is frightening. We should make no mistake: the public in Scotland want to ensure that we tackle this most serious of issues. I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ change of position and we will see what transpires from the other parties, whether it be Murdo’s Tories or the Tories. However, I will say one thing this afternoon: the Scottish public are watching. They expect the issue to be taken seriously and not used as a party-political football.
The NHS Scotland statistics that were published on 31 August were staggering. Some have been touched upon already today. It is unfortunate that Murdo Fraser has left the chamber, because he spoke about alcohol sales in Scotland being 23 per cent higher than they are in England and Wales. He also went on to say that, because of the difference in salaries, it might be cheaper to buy alcohol in England than it is to buy it here. First, not everyone in England earns more money than people in Scotland. Also, there are areas of deprivation and poverty in England as well as in Scotland. I thought that Murdo Fraser’s comments were just an ill-informed presumption.
Will the member take an intervention?
I need to make some progress; I am sorry.
My tipping point on the issue came a couple of years ago. A supermarket chain was selling four bottles of a well-known international lager for £1 during the weekend of an international football tournament. There is also the selling of three cases of beer or cider for £20. In June this year, a supermarket in Inverclyde made a pricing error. Instead of three cases costing £20, they cost £11. Unsurprisingly, the supermarket sold out and the headline on the STV website was
“Beer pricing glitch leads to stampede at ...”
and the store was named. I would have thought that, when they realised that the error had been made, they could have stopped selling the alcohol until the problem was fixed. When and if the minimum unit price is introduced in the future, I hope that the headline writers do not need to write similar headlines regularly.
I want to touch on the proposed legislation to deal with extending the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. I look forward to that bill because I am sure that there have been occasions when MSPs from across the chamber have been frustrated when they have been trying to assist constituents, only to be thwarted. I do not know what will be in the bill, but I hope that it will be as wide ranging as possible. I state for the record that many organisations that are not covered by FOI operate an extremely efficient system of helping parliamentarians when they are trying to obtain information, and I commend those organisations for maintaining such a positive working relationship. However, I suggest that extending the legislation should guarantee that the information can be obtained, as opposed to having to rely on the good will of bodies and organisations that receive and spend considerable amounts of public money.
Will the member give way now?
The member is in his final minute.
The legislative programme is exciting and challenging. The First Minister’s announcement about the opportunities for all initiative once again proves that things can be done without a plethora of bills going through Parliament. I look forward to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning’s statement providing more information on that initiative.
Against a backdrop of savage cuts from the UK Government because of the financial crash and the shameful mismanagement of public finances by its predecessor, not to mention the civil war between 10 and 11 Downing Street a number of years ago, the Scottish Government is working hard to improve Scotland’s health and wealth. With greater powers, we can do more, and with independence, we could do even more. I welcome the legislative programme and look forward to shaping an improved Scotland and helping our citizens.
15:19
It is interesting that, during the election campaign, all the Opposition parties—I except Patrick Harvie—told us not to focus on a referendum on independence, but on the day-to-day governance of Scotland. Now, everybody wants to focus on a referendum on independence while we want to focus on the governance of Scotland and making Scotland better for our people. During the election campaign—with the exception of Patrick Harvie and the Greens—nobody wanted to have a referendum, but now everybody wants to have one; indeed, some folk even want to have two. It is now established that Moore’s law is opposed to people’s right to choose. If they get the right to choose and say “Yes”, they must be asked again to make sure that they said what they wanted to say in the first vote.
The Government is committed to ensuring that Scotland improves and Scotland’s people are taken forward. I was therefore very disappointed by the party leaders’ contributions. Iain Gray made a diamond speech: it would have been more sparkly if he had cut it. Spending 14 minutes talking about the past four years does not do anything to move our country forward. I know that we have spoken about Scottish studies and a recognition of Scotland’s history, but that is not what we had in mind. Iain Gray and the Labour Party should focus on the future of Scotland and how to drive it forward rather than his spending the majority of a speech on the past and all the ways in which the Labour Party has held Scotland back.
It is rather worrying that Annabel Goldie has never heard of Joseph Stiglitz, Christine Lagarde or Nouriel Roubini, and that she prefers to take her economic lessons from David Mundell and Danny Alexander. That is disappointing, but it probably explains a lot. The lesson of the eminent economists that I mentioned are salient: cutting too deep and too fast risks causing fatal damage to the economy. The rush to slash the deficit and pay off the debt risks disadvantaging and disillusioning huge swathes of society across the UK and Scotland. I could pay off the mortgage on my house if I wanted to over five or seven years, but my children would have no shoes. The same aspect exists in a rush to cut and pay off the debt in the UK. There undoubtedly needs to be fiscal responsibility, but I would wager that the UK Government is exercising fiscal irresponsibility in cutting too far too fast too soon.
Will the member give way?
I will not at this stage. I want to make a little progress.
I agree with a lot of what Patrick Harvie said, but surely he accepts, whatever his views on corporation tax—whether he thinks that it should be raised, lowered or kept the same—that they are academic. Indeed, the previous Scotland Bill Committee, which was convened by Wendy Alexander, recommended that whatever one’s views on corporation tax, the power to change or control it should rest with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
Will the member give way?
I will not right now.
We have to consider ways in which we can increase capital spending. The UK Government’s short-sighted view on drastically slashing the amount of capital that is available risks stagnation and putting us back into a double dip. Major public and private sector projects depend on the availability of capital to invest in order to create jobs and boost sectors such as the construction industry. Reducing that by 40 per cent holds things back and prevents the creation of meaningful employment for people across society.
The Government is committed to supporting young people into employment. In a tough jobs market, we must create the opportunities for young people to access employment. That is why the investment in record numbers of modern apprenticeships is vital and why what the opportunities for all initiative, which the First Minister has announced today, could deliver is extremely exciting. I eagerly await the cabinet secretary’s announcement on that.
The member speaks about the importance of capital investment. What does the Scottish Futures Trust, with its overinflated salary bill of £23 million, bring to the capital investment programme?
We had the debate on the Scottish Futures Trust during the election campaign. The people of Scotland demonstrated that they are quite happy with the work that it is doing and are quite unhappy with the scaremongering of people such as James Kelly.
Margo MacDonald rose—
I apologise profusely to Margo MacDonald for not taking an intervention from her, which would have been 10 times better than James Kelly’s intervention. I will now take an intervention from her.
It’s the way he tells them.
Although I agree with what the member says about capital investment being required and so on, this Government—like any other Government—is beholden to the people who set the interest rates and give credit ratings. Does he suggest that the UK Government should have ignored the potential loss of its triple A status, which would have meant that it would have to pay more for borrowing?
There has been nothing to suggest that if the UK Government had taken a different approach to the economic strategy, that would automatically have resulted in a loss of the triple A credit rating. That is far too often held up as a fear figure and as a straw man to prevent us from looking at the economic situation and establishing whether the action that is being taken is what actually needs to be done.
We must see our young people—all our young people—as having potential, perhaps not simply in crude academic terms but in terms of potential to achieve and to contribute to Scotland’s future and to Scottish society. We should not write them off as a feral underclass or a lost cause. We have to ensure that as a Government we dig at the roots and pull the desperate, the vulnerable and the disadvantaged out of the slime that all too often sucks them down and prevents them from playing a meaningful role in society.
That is why other aspects of the legislative programme, such as minimum pricing, which will prevent the situation from arising whereby someone can buy 10 times their recommended weekly allowance of alcohol for less than £20, will have a vital impact, because with the Scottish Government we see social justice in action, and with the UK Government we see inaction on social justice.
15:26
I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate.
When the Government launches its legislative programme, it is of course about setting out its priorities for the coming period. I suppose that, as someone who operates within the justice portfolio, I should therefore welcome the fact that five of the 16 Government bills will come within that portfolio. However, as we have heard in the debate, there are gaps in the programme in respect of priorities. There are bills that are welcome, but other bills that would be welcome have not been brought forward. I will expound upon those later in my speech.
I will start with the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill, which Christine Grahame and others have already mentioned. There has been much debate about and comment on the bill over the summer. The Government was very wise to withdraw the bill and to allow a longer timescale for consideration. There is no doubt that the submissions to the Justice Committee, many of which oppose the bill, show the scale of the task that still lies before the Government and this Parliament to make the legislation robust and worthy so that it can not only be passed but can be followed and implemented by police and by prosecutors and can have the confidence of the public.
Of course, we all support action against discrimination and sectarianism; we support action being taken when people are either attacked or discriminated against because of their religion, sex or race. We should use the existing laws to enforce that, but when a new law is made there always has to be a question asked about what it is seeking to achieve. The Government still has to answer that question.
Labour supported the principles of the bill at stage 1 and will continue to explore the bill’s merits through the committee process. The Government has a long way to go on the bill and it must seek to provide more clarity to ensure that it is a just bill that the Parliament will pass.
On police and fire service reform, the Government is correct to go down the route of a single police service. It is important that that is delivered with local accountability and it is also key that there is effective front-line policing. There is no point in having the police numbers, which the SNP likes to remind us about, if at the same time the number of support staff is being slashed throughout the country. The public need to have the confidence that is provided by seeing police on the beat, so it is important that the reform delivers that.
On the fire service, there has been a bit more consensus in the debate about moving to a single service, but Labour has some concerns about the way in which the proposals have been drafted. Those concerns are underlined by the figures that have come out today, which show that there has been a 5 per cent reduction in firefighter numbers. Yesterday, we had the much-trumpeted increase in police numbers, but today, while everyone was watching the legislative programme, a release was issued that shows a 5 per cent cut in firefighter numbers, which undermines public safety throughout Scotland.
In examining the draft proposals for the fire service, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others have highlighted the fact that the budget for firefighter numbers could be reduced by up to £35 million. That must be addressed as the Government works through the reform process. In doing so, it needs to involve the experts in the field—that is not a job for accountants or business analysts; it is a job for those who work in the fire service, if we are to ensure that we get the model absolutely correct.
There is a gaping hole in the Government’s legislative programme as far as justice is concerned. At the start of the election campaign, Alex Salmond told us that if the SNP Government were re-elected, it would introduce a victims bill, but it has failed to do that. A victims bill is essential not just from a rhetorical or a party-political point of view. It is clear from talking to victims of crime that they feel isolated by the system. That point was reinforced in yesterday’s Audit Scotland report. They need support, which a victims bill would give them.
The SNP Government proposes to introduce 16 bills. Alex Salmond told us that he would think big for Scotland. I think that it is time that he acted big for the victims of crime in Scotland. It is important that they have a voice in the Parliament; it is just a pity that they have not found such a voice among the ranks of the SNP Government.
15:32
I welcome the opportunity to participate in what has been a wide-ranging debate that is of crucial importance to our country and which has given the Scottish Government the opportunity to lay out its priorities for the coming years.
Although the political make-up of the Parliament means that the role of the Opposition parties is somewhat different from their role before the election, it is important that the Government works closely with members of all the political parties in this place and does not attempt simply to bulldoze its agenda through the Parliament. My colleagues and I in the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party will engage fully with the Government on issues on which there is common ground and will challenge it when we feel that it has got things wrong.
There are a number of issues in the justice portfolio and how we make our communities safer that I want to address, the first of which is reform of the police and fire services. How we will do that has been one of the most high-profile issues in recent months. The Scottish Government has made no secret of the fact that such reform is needed. As we have heard today—and as we have all suspected—it favours a single police and fire service. It is clear that to make the savings that are required, significant changes are needed in how the police and fire services in Scotland are organised. The harsh reality is that the status quo of separate services is not an option. That is a position on which there is almost complete cross-party consensus.
We should recognise the progress that has been made in recent years. Today, there are 1,000 more police officers on our streets than there were four years ago. They prevent crime and provide reassurance in our communities. I am very proud of the role that the Scottish Conservatives played in making that achievement, although it is disappointing that certain other parties felt unable to support the provision of those extra officers.
A key priority for the next five years is to retain those extra officers. We have made it clear that in any restructuring of police forces in Scotland, the priority must be to retain a visible, effective and locally accountable police presence on our streets. Of course none of us wants to be in the position that we are in of having to make cost savings in important public services such as the police, but if savings need to be made, it is preferable that they are made by cutting down on duplication in police headquarters up and down the country rather than by cutting down on front-line policing. We therefore broadly support the Government’s move to reduce the number of police forces. However, our support will be conditional on having an adequate means of local accountability for the communities that the police serve.
James Kelly identified the massive hole in the Scottish Government’s agenda in relation to victims’ rights. In June, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice announced that he intended to introduce a victims’ rights bill to enshrine in law a victim’s right to damages and compensation and to give victims input into sentencing policy and parole decisions. The SNP’s record on being on the victim’s side is questionable. After all, it has presided over a policy of deliberately emptying our jails in the past four years, which has left many victims of crime feeling let down and betrayed by the system.
Too often, victims of crime are forgotten. The Scottish Conservatives have always said that we want to give them a strong voice at the heart of the justice system, so we would have worked constructively with the Government if a victims’ rights bill had been introduced.
Does John Lamont agree that fewer prisoners might be in jail partly because Scotland’s crime rate is at a record 35-year low under the SNP?
Fewer prisoners are in prison because of the SNP’s policy of introducing a presumption against short-term sentencing. If we speak to anybody who is involved in the justice system—particularly victims of crime—they will say that that policy sends out completely the wrong message to those who might want to commit crime and to victims, who feel that the system is not on their side.
In the short time that remains, I will deal with sectarianism. The Government’s bill to tackle sectarianism is another major issue that we will deal with in the coming months. As we heard from Christine Grahame, the Justice Committee had an informative meeting yesterday at which it took evidence on that bill. I look forward to hearing from other experts and stakeholders in the coming weeks and I am pleased that we now have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the bill, which deals with an important issue.
It is critical that we strike the right balance between tackling the problem in our society and protecting freedom of speech. It is clear that we cannot afford to do nothing, but what we do must be as effective as possible. We must recognise that the problem is perhaps wider than just that in our football grounds. The Government’s decision to delay the bill will allow us to produce more robust legislation that tackles more effectively the awful problem that affects part of our society.
We welcome parts of what the Government is doing in the justice system, but it is disappointing that several measures are missing from the legislative programme. One of Scots’ biggest frustrations in relation to our justice system is about sentencing. There is considerable room for improvement in restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system. All too often, criminals are seen to get away with serving sentences that do not come close to matching the crime. We should not be seduced by the view that prison exists only to exact retribution and punishment on criminals and should be used as little as possible. Putting dangerous criminals in prison means that they cannot terrorise communities and commit more crime.
You must close now, please.
That means that our streets and communities are safer. We will work with the Government where we can and we will oppose when we disagree with it.
15:38
I will touch on a few issues that the First Minister addressed and on one notable absence from the Government’s legislative agenda—climate change. Central to tackling climate change in Scotland, which we all know is a pressing need—especially after the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009—is adopting new, innovative and robust policies to underpin the Government’s plans to meet the climate change targets.
We know that the targets can be met—the UK Committee on Climate Change has said that climate change targets are economically viable and can be met with just 1 per cent of GDP. However, as energy efficiency and fuel poverty budgets were cut by a third last year, the UK committee has indicated from provisional data that Scotland will have missed its first annual emissions reduction target for 2010. The 2009 act cannot remain a fanciful wish list—it needs actions to make it a reality.
The opportunities to tackle climate change lie primarily in the areas of housing and transport, but too many Government proposals on those issues are exactly that—just proposals. A commitment to real policies on issues such as home efficiency and road traffic demand is crucial if we are to reverse the negative social consequences that are intrinsically linked to climate change around the globe.
I turn to the early years, and particularly childcare in Scotland. I welcome the proposed children’s services bill and look forward to the detail of the rights of children and young people bill. Families throughout Scotland are struggling to make ends meet. They are juggling rising living costs with falling earnings or wage freezes, and many are forced to make choices that seem like no choice at all, often between heating and eating. I do not make that point lightly. This morning, I signed the Save the Children petition that calls on the UK and Scottish Governments to act now to give more support on childcare costs for hard-pressed families in Scotland. The finding of Save the Children’s recent survey laid bare the difficulties that our poorest families face.
To make work pay and to address child poverty, childcare must be more affordable. Childcare costs in this country are among the highest in the UK. Parents are leaving work and turning down jobs because they cannot afford childcare. A third of low-income families are in debt because of those costs. That makes stark reading, so the Scottish Government must make tackling the issue a priority. Only last year, in Dundee’s Hilltown, three out-of-school care clubs were closed because of the Government’s policy of slashing ring fencing. There was no money left in the council budget to keep those out-of-school care clubs open. We had young mothers on the phone saying that they had to give up their jobs because they could not afford private provision. We must take the issue seriously if we are to get people back into jobs. I hope that childcare measures will be included in the Government’s early years legislation.
Will the member give way?
Sorry, but not at the moment.
The SNP manifesto made a number of commitments on the early years. I am glad that the First Minister mentioned some of them, but the commitments that were not mentioned include one on the establishment of a task force to ensure that early years spending is prioritised throughout the public sector. I hope that that was merely an oversight rather than an omission, and I look forward to the measure being debated in the chamber in the coming months.
Following through on commitments and even on legislation is important for any Government. The deficit between what this Government promises and what it delivers is increasing and it looks as though it will continue to grow. Take the Government’s policy of no compulsory redundancies. Only this morning, Alex Neil on “Good Morning Scotland” repeated the Government’s commitment to the policy. He said:
“the security of employment is absolutely essential in a civilised society and one where you do not want to destabilise families or individuals by the continual threat of unemployment. So no compulsory redundancies is absolutely at the core of the SNP’s economic strategy for Scotland.”
Why, then, are we already hearing of compulsory redundancies by the back door in the national health service? Good workers are having to go through reorganisation, followed by redeployment, followed by re-employment into a fixed-term post that is not renewed. That is not to mention the thousands of workers in the public sector who are being squeezed into voluntary redundancies. They include teachers, lecturers, council workers and police staff—the list goes on. I am sure that SNP members will be aware that, only two weeks ago, an SNP member in Dundee tore up his party card because his party had failed to meet its promise that he would not be made redundant from a college lecturer post.
The Government has a delivery deficit. Manifestos and legislation are not fanciful wish lists—they need action. We need action to meet our ambitious climate change targets and to bring into force measures to tackle alcohol abuse for which the Parliament has already legislated. We need action that justifies the Government’s warm words on early years and child poverty. I hope that the legislative programme is a guarantee of delivery from the Government and not a list of aspirations and false assurances.
Thank you very much. I now call on John Mason, to be followed by Lewis Macdonald. Members have a very tight six minutes, because going over that is eating into other members’ time.
15:45
Clearly, one of the most difficult pieces of legislation that we will have is the next finance bill, with the question of the next budget for this Parliament. We face cuts from Westminster of £1.7 billion. It is easy for Jenny Marra to list some of the repercussions of that, but she did not point out that it was her party that got the economy into such a mess. Proportionately, we have even more of a cut in the capital budget, which will be a huge challenge.
When the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS were on the verge of collapse, was the member opposed to the Government coming in with a rescue package of £37 billion to save those banks and Scottish jobs?
I think that, at least, John Swinney’s regulation of the banks would have been considerably better than Gordon Brown’s. It is interesting to note that a small European country called Switzerland has such a strong economy at the moment that it is having to try to keep its currency down, as compared with the UK, which has such a weak economy that the pound has collapsed.
Will the member take an intervention?
Excuse me a minute, but I think I need to say something. I have only read three lines.
One thing that we can be sure of is that there are few lessons to be learned from Westminster. As we have gathered over recent days, the previous Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer were squabbling over the budget until the last minute. It is clear that our budget process will be handled a lot more professionally.
Iain Gray used a phrase—I think that I heard correctly—that was something about the strong, modern United Kingdom. I think that there were some other adjectives in there as well. I am 54 years old: when are we going to see this strong, modern United Kingdom? If members want to go down to Westminster, where I unfortunately was for two years, they will see what is neither strong nor modern.
It is clear that on the Finance Committee there is widespread agreement that we should emphasise preventative spending in the coming years. However, there are challenges with that. How do we find the preventative spending when there are acute needs at the same time? Witnesses have told the committee that there can be a quick return from preventative spending, but I fear that there is not always a quick return when we invest in that way.
Another challenge is which preventative spending to spend. I spent much of August in my constituency visiting organisations there such as Includem, which does valuable work with difficult teenagers; Quarriers, which supports families and befriends children; and Geeza Break, which provides respite care. All of them argued that if we spent £1 with them, they would save us £4, £7 or £8 in the longer term. Considering the claims for preventative spending and deciding which ones are more solid and would have most impact is a huge challenge for the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth and all the Parliament’s committees.
As I mentioned, the capital budget is one of the things that Westminster is cutting most severely for our Parliament. Another group of organisations that I met over the summer was housing associations—I used to work for one or two of them. They put a strong case for investment in housing. We know that better housing means better health and education and that it also creates jobs along the way. I congratulate the previous SNP Government on restricting the right to buy, which has been a huge step in the right direction, as well as on bringing forward capital spending. However, clearly expectations have been raised that that could and would continue. We all, I think, want the maximum number of houses to be available, but some housing associations fear that the strong associations with big resources of their own will be the only ones able to do development. That is another challenge for us.
Finance, the spending review and the coming budget are all very much linked to the powers that this Parliament has. I will mention just three of those that we need to look at. First, powers over corporation tax are not just about the headline rate. Much as I respect Annabel Goldie and Patrick Harvie, I believe that they both made a slightly simplistic argument against varying the headline rate of corporation tax, but that is only one part of the powers that we would have. We would also be able to target key industries with better capital allowances.
Secondly, we all agree, I am sure, that borrowing must be wise and affordable and that we must not copy Westminster’s reckless policies. However, prudential borrowing has largely worked for councils such as Glasgow and surely provides a better model than a fixed ceiling.
Thirdly—and very importantly—we should have control over and involvement in welfare and benefits. How can we set a proper joined-up budget if we do not also have control over benefits? What is the point in helping to create the jobs here by investing if savings on the benefits bill all end up in London? Even if the jobs are there, how can we encourage people into them when the minimum wage is so low? Richard Baker talked about a living wage, but we need to go further than that and introduce a higher minimum wage that all employers must adhere to.
The Scotland Bill can be amended if there is political will at Westminster, which I fear is being very timid. Members down there need to do some listening and stop treating Scotland with contempt.
15:50
I was glad to hear the First Minister say that he recognised the importance of housing to Scotland’s economic recovery. I am sure that he also recognises the scale of the challenge, which was confirmed by last week’s housing figures. Last year, the private sector built fewer homes than it has for many years; in fact, it was one of the lowest levels across all sectors since 1945. Moreover, John Mason confirmed just a moment ago the pressure put on many housing associations by the Government’s reductions in the housing action grant per house.
I welcomed the SNP’s manifesto commitment
“to build over 6,000 new socially-rented houses each year”
and listened very carefully to hear whether the First Minister would endorse that very precise and specific commitment. Alas, I listened in vain. However, I was not entirely surprised. When we debated housing in June, I pressed ministers on whether they actually intended to build 6,000 homes for social rent each year or whether what they really meant was a target of 6,000 homes of all types in the public housing and housing association sectors. That distinction matters. A social rent might amount to 60 per cent of a rent on the open commercial market, while a mid-market affordable rent is more likely to amount to 80 per cent. That difference will decide whether a rented home really is affordable to a low-pay household. Mid-market rents, shared equity, shared ownership and the national housing trust all have a role to play and all affordable homes are welcome, but those mechanisms will not deliver social housing for low-income families.
I am sorry that Keith Brown left the chamber only a few moments ago because after the debate in June he wrote to me over the summer to say that the SNP’s manifesto commitment had been “clarified”. It seems that what it really meant was affordable housing in general, not homes for social rent. The phrase “affordable housing” was also used in today’s statement on the programme for government. However, it is not what the SNP told people in May and I think that now is the best time for ministers to think again about delivering on their commitment.
Yesterday, in Aberdeen, I and members from other parties attended the opening day of Offshore Europe 2011, which is one of the most important events in the calendar for Scotland’s economy. Every other year, 50,000 people from across the world come to do business in Europe’s oil capital and tap into the fantastic expertise and experience that have been built up in the North Sea over the past two generations. Indeed, Mr Ewing was present at the business breakfast yesterday morning in Aberdeen and both he and I heard not only about what oil and gas are already doing to grow the economy, pay for public services and create jobs in Scotland and across Britain but about the sheer scale of private sector investment in the North Sea.
However, visitors to Offshore Europe also heard about the continuing delay in delivering the public sector investment in infrastructure that Aberdeen and Scotland desperately need. Those visitors will read in today’s evening press about the prospect of disputes over the Aberdeen western peripheral route dragging on to the end of next year and beyond.
Alex Salmond spoke about a commitment to modernising Scotland’s infrastructure. When his party took office four years ago, it inherited a timetable for the AWPR of completion by the end of 2011. Having looked at that timetable, his then transport minister told us:
“we are looking at the project being completed around the end of 2012.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2007; c 1131.]
Well, not any more, and industry leaders from around the world who have travelled to Scotland will read with disbelief—
Does the member not accept that part of the reason behind the delay is, first, the fudging of the original route by the then transport minister Tavish Scott and, secondly, the fact that the Scottish Government cannot control the protests that have been made against the development?
It is certainly the case that the delays that have affected the project are not down to ministers alone, but it is their responsibility to find ways to deliver on their promises. People coming to Scotland will be astonished that a project that was agreed by a previous Scottish Government as long ago as 2003 may not now be completed until 2019.
If ministers want to address the obstacles to delivering on their promises, they might look again urgently at, for example, their decision to delay improvements to the A90 at Balmedie and the Haudagain by tying them to the completion of the AWPR. I hope that they will reconsider that approach. Addressing the obstacles also means doing everything that they are allowed to do to encourage early decisions on matters affecting the progress of projects such as applications for legal aid.
We recognise that the Scottish Government faces a capital squeeze, and in order to manage that it needs to look to the Scottish Futures Trust as its preferred model—a public-private partnership model with capped profit distribution, which it intends to use to deliver the AWPR and many other projects. The issue for this Parliament will be whether ministers get the right balance of non-profit distribution, public-private partnership schemes, borrowing money from elsewhere—if they obtain the power to do that, which we hope they do—and direct capital expenditure. The test of getting the balance right will be their ability to deliver on all the projects that they have undertaken to deliver, which means not watering down commitments or rescheduling endlessly to delay things.
Finally, the Government said today that it will set out its infrastructure priorities. I hope that, when we see that plan, we will see timetables and budgets as well as the order of priorities for the projects.
15:57
I urge members to read John Mason’s speech. He exemplified the difference between pick-and-mix devolution policies on taxation and full powers. He took the example of corporation tax. If that is all that we can use to try to help business, we cannot move the pieces around the chess board and, for example, do anything about regional grants. I urge members to look at his speech because it contained the essence of what I think the Government should be doing: comparing and contrasting what is possible with the full range of powers and what they will do with the limited powers that they have.
The constitutional question will run throughout this session of Parliament: it is absolutely unavoidable. We now know and have witnessed on television the changes that have taken place in English society and communities over the last generation and generation and a half. We are a bit different. The difference is one of degree—I do not say that it is an absolute difference—but the degree is enough to call for a different management and a perhaps more sensitive range of policies than is possible if we use the one leverage from Westminster.
I should make a point while I am talking about Westminster. The Government was urged to come clean and say how it would make Scotland better. I think that Westminster should be asked to come clean and say how it means to make Scotland better. It is not a Scottish Government that produced the health statistics that we saw last week and which showed that Scots live shorter lives. It was not this Government or the previous Governments in the lifetime of the Scottish Parliament that provided the baseline for the health statistics that we should all be ashamed of.
As well as calling ourselves to account, saying what we might do and admitting that there are limitations, we should not hesitate in calling Westminster to account and asking it how it will come up with a better idea. One or two speakers on the Labour benches said that we could expect more from Westminster. Is that from this coalition Government or the next one to come? I do not think that we should be too shy in saying that sort of thing, either.
There was a tendency in the debate about the police to skip over the alternatives. I look forward to the statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice tomorrow, because I think that the alternatives are not simply one police force or eight; there is any number of variations in between. There are various ways in which operational tasks can be shared among the forces. I am utterly opposed to having only one police force, but that is because of the implications for civil liberties more than anything. Of course, we need to save money in all the services, but can we afford to compromise on civil liberties? We should remember that the forces are the only coercive power in our public services and they can make people do something.
I too am a great supporter of civil liberties. The member has not explained why any change to the structure of the police would alter our civil liberties.
It is because we have to legislate for contingencies; we do not legislate for only the conditions that exist at this time. What happens if we get an absolutely rotten police chief and we have only the one? What happens if that police chief is corrupt or has to report to a less-than-efficient or less-than-honest minister? That has happened in other communities. That is why we lay down basic standards regarding the civil liberties that the citizen has a right to expect in a democracy as old as our own.
Will the member give way?
No, I am sorry—I know that the member took an intervention from me.
For those reasons, I cannot be persuaded of the argument that one police force is better than two or three. I want to hear the arguments tomorrow and urge members to pay great attention to them because the issue is fundamental to the temper of the society that we live in.
One thing that was skited over a bit at the beginning of the debate is the Government’s intention that Scottish studies should be taught and absorbed by Scottish pupils. That is a very good idea. We have a skewed identity, in many respects, and measure ourselves against our much bigger, very different southern neighbour in a way that another country that I know well and love—Portugal—fails to measure itself against Spain. It is the same situation: two countries side by side, one very big and one very small, both with proud and different histories. A man from Mars who visited the Iberian peninsula would not really know the difference between the two; however, if he lived there, he would come to appreciate the nuances that make for a much richer society. That is the sort of thing that we can learn through Scottish studies. Many of our pupils leave school knowing much more about obscure places in Europe than they know about this obscure place on the periphery of Europe from which many inventions and proud additions to the world’s culture have come. We should not be ashamed to say that.
I ask you to close now, please.
There is nothing wrong with appreciating ourselves and knowing what we have done in the past. Only when we do that can we say what we might do in the future.
16:03
In management circles, the mantra is often thrown out that good management is doing a thing well but good leadership is doing the right thing. The election result in May endorsed the good management that the SNP Government has shown, and the legislative programme that has been announced by the Government today certainly shows good leadership. It shows ambition, direction and an understanding of what the people of Scotland want in order to progress our country.
Doing the right thing means not just having a big, bold, dramatic legislative programme, but getting it right for all aspects of Scottish life. Mr Gray made a flippant comment about the National Library of Scotland. I hope that members will indulge me while I talk a bit about why the National Library of Scotland is so important to the people of Scotland. We are a creative nation, we are rich in our heritage and we are contributing to the world. The National Library of Scotland underpins all that we do as a creative nation.
Margo MacDonald spoke about how important it is that our children understand Scottish history and culture. What better resource could they have than the National Library of Scotland? It reaches out to the Scottish diaspora by supporting genealogy projects and investigations. It stores our plays and literature and holds events that resonate throughout Scotland. It has projects such as the most important plays in Scottish history over the past 20 years, in which students and pupils can go and read plays such as the “The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil”, “Black Watch” and “The Steamie”—one resource all in one place.
It links with our festivals in Scotland, including the Edinburgh international book festival. As part of that festival, it holds the Donald Dewar memorial lecture and provides a real flavour of those lectures—given by the likes of Robin Cook; a previous Presiding Officer of the Parliament, George Reid; and Alex Salmond—by recording and storing them and offering them as a resource.
As has been said, the governance of the National Library of Scotland was established in the 1920s and is no longer fit for purpose. It has a board of representatives that is far too large and unwieldy. It includes the First Minister, so I hope that he will not be too upset if he loses a job at the end of all this. The consultation was overwhelmingly in favour of a review of the governance of the organisation. I am sure that we will be able to deliver legislation that will allow the library to achieve its full potential and meet its targets in future.
The idea of good governance is throughout the legislative programme, from the recognition that the National Library needs reform to the approach to our police and fire services. The Government’s programme is ambitious and will deliver a fairer society. The broadband digital fund will allow our businesses to be more efficient and to reach competitiveness. If we consider individual access to broadband throughout Scotland, we can recognise that some of our poorer areas are still not included in the digital age. We can tackle that.
The Government has managed its resources by putting together the Scottish Investment Bank, which is already delivering for small companies that are desperate for funds to move forward. It is also showing its leadership in tackling the problems that have led to the moneys from the banks not being released into the economy.
In what area could Government leadership and doing the right thing be more important than in tackling Scotland’s relationship with alcohol? I am happy to debate with members on the opposition benches how, if we had control of our taxation, the products and trade and so on, we could tackle the alcohol problem differently. But we are where we are, and to do nothing is not doing the right thing; it is letting down the people of Scotland.
Jenny Marra mentioned that the end of ring fencing had led to nursery closures. I remind her that it was Labour-controlled COSLA that lobbied for the end of ring fencing for so long. She should recognise that one of the biggest problems for single parent families and poor people in Scotland was the abolition of the 10p tax rate by her Government.
Annabel Goldie mentioned that we seem to be confused about independence. I guarantee that if she speaks to any one of us on these benches, she will find that we know what independence means. Perhaps she should consult Murdo Fraser, because he seems to have a pretty good idea of what independence means at the moment.
16:09
There is much to welcome in the legislative programme, but there are also huge gaps, which show a lack of ambition for Scotland.
For instance, I welcome the proposal to use public procurement to increase apprenticeships and the aspiration to make more public procurement contracts available to small and medium-sized enterprises. However, there is no public procurement bill in the legislative programme. A bill could have promoted environmental, social and financial sustainability. For example, the Government has climate change and carbon reduction targets, none of which is included in public procurement. Contracts do not take account of a supplier or contractor’s distance from the organisation with which it is contracting, although being a distance away adds food miles and material miles. I have experienced large suppliers being given contracts on the basis that the local supply chain is too small and fragile, without account being taken of the environmental impact of transporting goods over long distances and without account being taken of price. Local contractors are often able to supply at a much lower price.
Contracts do not take account of social sustainability, either. Contractors should be legally obliged to pay the living wage not just to staff who are involved in the contract but to all their staff. Indeed, a contractor should be paying its staff a living wage before it is allowed to bid at all.
We need to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises have a chance in bidding for public contracts. The Western Isles schools contract was far too big to allow the islands’ builders even to tender for it; they did not have the economies of scale that would enable them to complete the contract in the given time. The Government needs to look at how it spends its capital moneys, to allow smaller contracts to be put out to tender, with longer lead times. The hubs that the Scottish Government is promoting push out all other contractors. Large contractors and very small contractors will not get a look-in in the current economy.
We need to legislate to ensure that contractors have proportionate disabled employment. Disabled people tend not to get employed and have great difficulty in securing employment. We could say to contractors that to be able to contract publicly they must have a percentage of registered disabled workers on their books. Local employment and service procurement would have to be in the contracts, too.
We must look at best value, by which I mean best value to the public purse and not just to the organisation that is procuring. We need to get out of the silo mentality and consider the knock-on costs to other agencies. What impact does bringing in workers from another area have on a local economy, when enterprise companies are trying to create jobs locally? The cost of unemployment is huge and needs to be considered. A procurement bill could have had an impact on such issues, which are crucial to recovery.
I welcome the acknowledgement in “Renewing Scotland: The Government’s Programme for Scotland 2011-2012” that broadband is hugely important to the Scottish economy and I look forward to seeing the detail of the next-generation digital fund. However, no legislation is proposed. Legislation could have made an impact. Planning regulations could have been changed, to insist that fibre cable is included in every new development. Legislation could have provided for the setting up of a public record of where spare capacity and fibre are available. I talked to Scottish and Southern Energy in the summer and it is clear that fibre is available on its pylons. The Beauly to Denny line will have excess fibre available, which other organisations could use. SSE suggested to me that fibre might also be available from Network Rail, Scottish Water and other organisations. However, the information is not made public and is not available to anyone who wants to plan for rolling out broadband.
We must consider how we use the public infrastructure. Highland Council’s pathfinder network is not available for remote and rural communities to use to access broadband. The Government’s aspiration is that next-generation broadband will be available by 2020. The Royal Society of Edinburgh said that broadband should be available for all communities by 2015. There are community solutions available. There are last-mile developments. I wrote to the minister and asked him to come and look at some of those developments, but he refused to come—he said, “Speak to my officials.” The issue is of absolute importance if we are going to get people connected. The areas that can benefit most from broadband connectivity are the remote and rural areas. If the minister cannot be bothered to come and see them, we will never find a solution to the problem. Industry has said that, unless the Government gets involved, island communities will be left behind.
The Government criticises Broadband Delivery UK. So do I. Its funding is inadequate. However, it tells me that the Government has not engaged with it. I encourage the Government to engage with BDUK as a matter of urgency.
I have many more points to make, but I am aware of the time, so I will close on the very important point that broadband is essential to our recovery and our infrastructure.
16:16
The programme that the First Minister has set out before us does not stand alone but has been firmly placed in a wider context, which has at least two strands. The first is that it builds on the achievements of the past four years of the SNP minority Administration. That was underscored by the result that we got at the election, when, as the First Minister said, our competence and commitment were recognised. Those achievements were reflected in many areas, such as the reintroduction of free education for our students.
On that point, I have to say that Iain Gray was wrong to say that his party abolished tuition fees. Labour abolished tuition fees no more than Murdo Fraser will abolish the Tories. Labour merely rebranded tuition fees, just as Murdo Fraser wants to rebrand the Tories. However, that is the political equivalent of Opal Fruits transforming into Starburst—different packaging but, in the cases that I am talking about, the same nasty flavour.
Other achievements in the previous session include the phasing out of prescription charges, the renaissance in council house building, the additional police officers on the streets and the saving of two threatened accident and emergency departments. That investment in infrastructure and the wellbeing of Scotland’s people has contributed to a better country.
The second strand of the context that we must recognise is that we still live in fragile times. The First Minister made clear reference to the Scottish Government’s concerns about the economic approach that is being pursued by the UK Government and others. That is a matter that we have debated previously—indeed, the Deputy Presiding Officer has raised the issue on a number of occasions in members’ business debates that she has secured. We all know that that approach to deficit reduction threatens our economic recovery. It is vital that the Scottish Government does all that it can with the limited powers that it has to support economic recovery.
Is the member saying that he supports the continuation of the £180 billion structural deficit at the UK level and the payment of £120 million in interest every day?
No, I do not think that those words came out of my mouth. I quite clearly do not agree with that approach. We have to recognise that there is a different approach that involves making capital investment to promote the wellbeing of our people and sustain economic recovery while simultaneously dealing with the deficit. Both things can be done.
One key way in which the Scottish Government can rise to the challenge that is before us is by investing in our national infrastructure. Given that I am the convener of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, it might come as no surprise that I want to focus on that area, which is one that has been significantly affected by the UK Government’s cuts agenda.
There have been significant cuts to the amounts that are available for capital investment, but we must remain committed to it, as it is important for short-term growth, because of the construction jobs that are involved, and for the creation of a modern infrastructure, which will mean that we do not need to invest money in creating that infrastructure in future, because we will already have it. It is also important with regard to opening up long-term economic opportunities. I was glad, therefore, to hear the First Minister refer to, for example, the Southern general hospital and the new Forth crossing, which represent significant investments that will bring about economic and social benefits.
Will the member give way?
I thought that Mr Harvie might want in at this point.
I will not bang on about the road building programme, as I think that everyone knows my views, but am I not right to be disappointed that there is no emphasis on investment in publicly owned renewables? That is a huge opportunity for generating not only energy but revenues that no Government in London or Edinburgh can take away at the stroke of a pen. Should we not be investing in that for Scotland, not only for this generation but for the long term?
I would love to see investment in publicly owned renewables, but we must reflect on the reality and the limitations of devolved government. The First Minister’s statement refers to supporting investment in renewables infrastructure. Many members are focusing on the statement itself—rightly, because it kicked off today’s debate—but there is a wider document that includes many other things to which I had hoped to refer, although I doubt that I will have time. There is a clear commitment to investing in renewable energy generation.
I am sure that Patrick Harvie will share my interest in the details that are emerging on the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvements programme, on which Network Rail is currently consulting. It will, I hope, directly benefit my constituency, and the significant capital investment will create jobs, improve transport links and help our environment.
I had hoped to go into the rest of the programme in a little detail but, as ever, time runs away from me, so I will conclude. We heard a little from Iain Gray and Ken Macintosh earlier about how the Administration should utilise the powers that it has available for the benefit of Scotland. It is clear from what we have heard today—from SNP members and from the First Minister—about what the document before us contains that the Scottish Government is doing that, but we must be clear about the limitations.
Murdo Fraser and Willie Rennie should rest assured that there will be an independence referendum in this session of Parliament. It is coming down the line, and it will be won. We will then have joined-up government and the real power to make a better country.
16:22
Jean Urquhart (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
I support the First Minister in everything that he said today. It seems that the Government’s line in the document that it has published is all about the people of Scotland, and everything that affects them, including housing.
We have heard some fine rhetoric from Opposition members about house building. The restriction on house building is partly to do with the housing debt, which is the result of a bribe that did not work by a Labour Government that asked councils in Scotland to give away responsibility for housing its own people.
We may have to thank Margaret Thatcher, at least for putting a section in her bill that meant that housing could never be transferred without the approval of the residents. In a number of areas in Scotland, residents did not approve the transfer. One of the reasons why we cannot release more money for house building in Scotland, which we desperately need, is that millions of pounds of debt still exists throughout the country, to which no Opposition members have referred.
Does Jean Urquhart agree that if Highland Council tenants had agreed to transfer their housing, their debt would have been wiped out and the council would now be in a position to invest more in council housing?
No, I certainly do not agree with that. I vigorously opposed any idea of the tenants transferring, as they hugely supported keeping a local authority as their landlord. They were perfectly happy and content and, furthermore, we could have done with the £1.6 million that it cost to provide glossy brochures to try to persuade them to move to a private landlord or the equivalent. I do not accept Rhoda Grant’s point for a minute.
Does Jean Urquhart consider housing associations and housing co-operatives to be private sector housing providers?
No, I do not say that at all. However, there is and always has been a need for houses to be built by local government. [Interruption.] Members should hear me out. We were about to transfer housing stock—hundreds and hundreds of houses—for £16 million. Why would we devalue property at that rate? There was deep suspicion in the council and among tenants. That is now being overturned.
Part of the problem was that housing stock was transferred in areas where that was not relevant. In a number of areas in Scotland, we are still stuck with the debt. Why was it not waived in any case? What was the problem? If the money was available to clear the housing debt when the stock was transferred, it was clearly available if it was not transferred. I will not go on about that, because I would like to raise a number of other issues.
All the issues that the First Minister’s statement addressed relate to care for people in Scotland, be that a roof over their head or clean water to drink. I suspect that, if it were not for the creation of the Scottish Parliament, water would not still be thought of as a public resource and Scottish Water would not still be a public company.
Throughout Scotland, one of the inhibitors to the education of our children and the building of schools is the need for local authorities to pay off the enormous debt with which public-private partnerships left them. The Labour Party is quite happy to forget that programme. It claims to have built many hospitals and schools, but it did not. The banks built them and the Labour Party took the credit for it. We are paying for that now. In addition to criticising, the other parties need to be realistic about what Scotland can be ambitious about and what it can achieve.
I was aghast when Iain Gray said that he was envious of our First Minister’s ability—I think that I am using his words—to make Scottish institutions bend to his will. How far that is from the kind of governance that this Government would like to see. It is not about making anybody bend to anybody’s will but about finding a way forward in agreement about what is best for every part of Scotland.
On the discussion about whether we should be independent, independence is about running the country well and running the country well is about independence. If we run the country well, clearly state our objectives for that and take people with us, that is independence. The fact that we work on the constitution is by the way.
We can govern ourselves sufficiently, caring for all the issues that are raised in our programme for the way forward and caring for our own ambition. People might not accept that we can do that, but we can and we have the people to do it. For the first time, we have been given a clear passage to declare that. We do not need any if-only issues about the mere detail. The ambition is to do the best that we can for every man, woman and child in this country.
16:29
I appreciate that important discussions are under way between the Scottish Government and COSLA and that it would be dangerous to predict, or speculate about, what may emerge from those discussions. I refer to discussions between the Scottish Government and the actual COSLA, not the Labour-controlled COSLA that seems to exist only in Clare Adamson’s mind.
Those discussions concern serious matters that the two parties must conclude. I might not approve of what ultimately transpires from them, but there can be no doubt that local government will have a huge role to play in implementing much of the First Minister’s statement under difficult financial circumstances. It has a huge role to play in helping Scotland’s economy to grow out of the economic morass, so I expected to hear much more about local government issues than I have done this afternoon.
Public services reform, particularly the shared services agenda, is an area in which I expected the First Minister to come up with more than 16 lines in his statement. With huge pressures being brought to bear on local authorities by internal necessity and Government direction to deliver efficiencies that it requires, the Government should not be standing on the sidelines while local authority after local authority walks away from the implementation of the few blueprints for the sharing of existing services. The issue should not divide local government from central Government, nor one political party from another, but a problem is emerging with the development and delivery of shared services, and the Government cannot allow it to worsen. Any outcome from the Christie commission report would be welcome as soon as possible and I welcome the First Minister’s commitment to delivering it in the near future, but I suggest that that be done in 2011 rather than later, as we must get on with that agenda.
What was missing from the First Minister’s statement, but which could have been included, was new legislation or reviews of existing laws on matters for which responsibility lies with our councils. Increasing numbers of individual constituents, communities and businesses will be concerned at the lack of any recognition in the statement of a need to address the increasing problem of planning regulations and guidelines on waste management facilities, especially incinerators. Just where does the SNP stand on that issue?
From answers to previous questions, I know that the Minister for Local Government and Planning has no plans to review the situation, so it comes as no surprise that the First Minister’s statement left the area untouched. However, it is becoming increasingly unacceptable that waste disposal companies that are acting in accordance with Government targets on waste management and energy from waste are met with a confusing picture because of the planning regime in that area. Planning authorities will always exhibit inconsistencies from local authority to local authority as attitudes to certain developments will always differ. It is therefore not surprising that some will always reject proposals for waste disposal plants while others are inundated with them. If the Government is genuine about its waste management targets and the solutions that it supports for meeting them, it must get serious about the planning regulations that govern the sector. If it does not, local communities will continue to war with business in conflicts that will hamper the economic viability of some businesses and the achievement of waste reduction and recycling targets.
Another area in which greater clarity is needed is the planning of housing developments. Although it is bad enough that the Government has watered down its commitment to build 6,000 social rented homes, as Lewis Macdonald rightly pointed out, it is also not good enough that it is showing scant regard for the problems that are being encountered in local communities over where houses will be located. We need the right type of home in the right place but, too often, planning authorities and developers and local communities are at odds with one another because the desire for good quality and sufficient numbers of affordable private developments, shared equity homes and social rented accommodation is hindered either by nimbyism, poor planning, irresponsible development or a combination of all three.
I accept that the situation could have been avoided by the better designation of land in local plans, but the fact is that we are in another unacceptable situation that highlights the need for a review of the implementation of planning legislation. I am disappointed that the Scottish Government programme has not indicated that that will happen.
I will finish off on a matter that is slightly less important but still reasonably significant and worthy of comment. Where is the high hedges legislation that the former Minister for Community Safety promised last session? I know and regret that the issue could and should have been dealt with by the Governments that I supported prior to 2007. However, in September 2010, Fergus Ewing specifically briefed MSPs that Scottish Government officials had started preparatory work to enable a draft bill to be introduced shortly after the election, should any incoming Government decide to do that. Evidently, the Government does not think that there is any need for a bill and the issue is not going to be addressed yet. Indeed, the new minister has informed my colleague John Pentland in a written answer that we will not get the bill shortly after the election, as was promised, but will get it during the current parliamentary session. That could mean 2016. I assure members that the people in my constituency whose lives are being blighted by their neighbours’ high trees and hedges will be bitterly disappointed by the minister’s backsliding.
There will be measures in the Government’s legislation programme that I will be able to support, but there are more missed opportunities than there should have been.
Due to time constraints, we have already lost a member from the debate. If everyone else keeps within their six minutes, we should manage to get everyone else in.
16:35
John Wilson (Central Scotland) (SNP)
I welcome this debate, which has been initiated by the Scottish Government, and I am glad that it has highlighted how it intends to move Scotland forward through its programme for government.
In its current thinking and the programme for government, the Scottish Government has correctly spelled out the need to reindustrialise parts of Scotland, harness renewables and offer new funding initiatives. An example of such funding is the establishment of the £70 million national renewable infrastructure fund, which will aid the delivery of 28,000 jobs. There is more that the Scottish Government can do in examining the future, but Scotland needs the tools to do the job of investing in our human capital as well as the physical investment.
Promoting growth that is sustainable in the long term rails against the increasing short-termism that some key financial institutions have exhibited. That said, I am encouraged that people in the City of London are now actively talking about kilt-edged, rather than gilt-edged, securities that can be launched as a way for people to invest in Scotland’s infrastructure needs. That was reported in the Investors Chronicle on 14 June 2011. The need to attract investment is paramount, and the SNP’s manifesto flagged up key commitments, especially the need to take forward a Scottish growth strategy. The debate on that—especially on targeting capital investment—represents a welcome one on Scotland’s direction, although it must be put in the context of a highly political agenda that the UK Government is advancing, with a focus on a plan A of cuts being all-important.
Many economic commentators, including ex-members of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee—most notably, Professor Blanchflower—have criticised the UK Government’s approach. The UK Government’s plan lacks the necessary flexibility, despite the assertion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, that an element of flexibility is built into the UK Government’s financial planning assumptions. It is notable that the UK growth figures are being constantly revised downwards almost daily—or so it appears.
The UK political parties have consistently failed to recognise that the Scottish Government’s budget has been cut by the UK Government. Moreover, £800 million of those cuts directly affect the capital budget elements in the Scottish Government’s financial settlement. In that context, I welcome the UK Government’s recognition that, under the current legislative framework, the Scottish Government is severely limited in its borrowing powers, to put it mildly. The proposals to extend the current borrowing powers in the Scotland Bill, which recently progressed in the UK Parliament, and to introduce new capital borrowing powers from 2013 are a step in the right direction, but that step should have been taken earlier.
A key Scottish Government undertaking is to deal with the practicalities of renewing Scotland’s infrastructure. On 26 May 2011, the First Minister stated in the chamber that investment is critically important in the process of renewal and regeneration. He referred to investment that
“will prepare our nation to meet the challenges of the future.”—[Official Report, 26 May 2011; c 70.]
The Scottish Government does not operate in a vacuum with its legislative programme and key policy objectives. There is a need to recognise that household budgets are under severe strain with inflationary pressures. Gas prices have increased by more than 80 per cent over the past five years, and electricity prices have increased by almost 55 per cent over the same period. Fuel poverty is an important issue—even more so when we consider the aim to eradicate it by 2016. When that target was set, nobody expected that rising prices and falling earnings would draw more people into fuel poverty. I welcome the First Minister’s commitment to the social wage, as outlined in his speech.
The growth of Scotland’s companies has been severely tested in the recent economic climate, with certain sectors being increasingly exposed to the economic downturn. That has, in turn, led many small and medium-sized enterprises to use short term or variable debt, such as business overdrafts. I therefore welcome the £55 million that has been allocated through the Scottish loan fund, because that is real money that will have a direct impact, on the ground.
I appreciate the need for today’s debate and hope that many of the issues that have arisen will be taken forward in the coming months and years, that we can develop a programme and strategy that benefits all sections of Scottish society and that the Opposition parties, both in the chamber and outside, are prepared to engage constructively with the Scottish Government and its programme to drive forward real benefits for all of Scotland.
16:40
On behalf of Scottish Conservatives, unionists, progressives and Tories, I particularly welcome the Government’s bill on self-directed support. It used to be called direct payments and was supported by all parties in the first session of the Parliament, with the formation and dissolution of Direct Payments Scotland.
I welcome carers being in the driving seat. That will give them freedom and choice over the provision of care and respite and will help to ensure that they get care time in line with the assessment of need. The bill will break the stranglehold of local authority monopoly provision of care and I hope that it will drive up standards.
My concern is about the quality of care and how carers can decide on what is and is not a good service. That concern is based on the fact that the registration of support workers for care-at-home services does not even start until 2017, with full achievement of registration by 2020.
The Scottish Social Services Council was set up by Parliament and became operational in 2001. It will be 19 years from the set-up of the organisation before all support workers for care at home are fully trained, skilled, experienced and capable of registration. That is in no part the fault of carers who carry out their duties daily, often without the full support and training that they need from their employers for this important job. I ask the Government whether it will review the registration process, which is inextricably linked to training, with a view to reducing the registration period, and I ask it to incentivise employers to train fully and support their staff to undertake the tasks and duties that they are asked to carry out. We would not accept a teacher being unqualified and not registered with the General Teaching Council for 19 years, nor would we have a doctor practising medicine without registration with the General Medical Council, so why should we allow untrained, unqualified and inexperienced carers to look after our older people in Scotland? For care homes, support workers have to register by 2015—that is still four years off.
I think that all MSPs would agree that most of the bad practice in recent years has highlighted the lack of training and support given to staff, and the self-directed support bill will be successful only if carers can choose from a pool of staff who they know are trained and equipped for the job now, not in eight years’ time.
If elderly people were better cared for in their own homes, there would be fewer emergency admissions to hospital and much less need for long stays in care homes.
My second point is on the mental health bill that was promised in the SNP manifesto. Where is it?
My third point is on the minimum unit pricing for alcohol bill. The proposals in the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill led to many questions and excellent scrutiny by the Health and Sport Committee in the previous session of Parliament. I assume that further research will be brought forward to accompany the new bill on minimum unit pricing. I also assume that the Scottish Government will now have the answers to questions on internet sales, which is the fastest-growing market for alcohol, and on how to address cross-border sales. I trust that the Government has also done further work on the income elasticity and cross-elasticity of demand and has conducted an examination of binge drinking. That information was not available with the previous bill—I assume that it will be available now.
Would the member not accept that the possibility of legislation being circumvented should not be an excuse not to legislate in the first place to tackle social ills?
The Parliament’s having the opportunity to pass legislation depends on every parliamentarian being fully informed. Many questions were asked during consideration of the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill and it is the responsibility of any Government, whether minority or majority, to bring forward that information.
Then there is the legal case. Given the importance of the minimum unit pricing bill in relation to European Commission treaty rules on the free movement of goods, it is my understanding that a full range of alternative measures, including taxation, that might have the same public health impact, but which might be less restrictive to intra-Community trade, must be pursued before a measure such as minimum unit pricing can be deemed legal to address public health. I trust that the Government will give the Parliament the full list of public health measures that it has pursued since 2007 before resorting to minimum unit pricing, which will be needed if the bill is to be considered compliant with EU law. Please can we have that information now?
The most high-profile piece of proposed legislation in this parliamentary session will probably be the referendum bill. After 77 years of campaigning for an independent Scotland, we now have a pick’n’mix option that involves neither independence nor leaving the current arrangement alone.
As regards shared defence bases, why would any UK Government share bases with an SNP-controlled independent Scotland when that party is anti-nuclear, anti-NATO and has opposed every war and defence strategy for 30 years? “Unpardonable folly” was the phrase that Alex Salmond used to describe our humanitarian intervention in Kosovo to stop Milosevic’s brutal ethnic cleansing.
I am afraid that the member will have to stop.
16:47
Today, as has been the case over the past 12 years, there is broad consensus between Labour and the SNP on a great deal of the legislation that is proposed. Personally, I do not object in principle to any of the bills that have been announced.
In addition, there is a broadly shared economic stance. I do not have a problem with Joseph Stiglitz, whom the First Minister eulogised, but I do not have a problem with Ed Balls either, and both present very similar economic analyses. Of course we need to stimulate growth; of course the scale and the speed of the cuts are counterproductive from the point of view of growth as well as of deficit reduction; and of course we must do everything that we can to promote infrastructure investment.
I welcome the debate about extra powers—I would like the Parliament to have quite a few more, even beyond those that are contained in the Scotland Bill—but it was a bit odd to hear quite so much about that in a statement on the legislative programme. Whatever we think about extra powers, talking about them must never be a substitute for making full use of the powers that we have. In that regard, I agree entirely with what Richard Baker said about the green new deal, the living wage and procurement.
I particularly welcome the consultation on the draft early years bill, the task force that is referred to in the document that the Government brought out today to ensure that spending on the early years is prioritised across the public sector—as long as that is ensured—and the document’s emphasis on family centres and a parenting strategy.
Last week, I visited the violence reduction unit in Glasgow and talked to two of the most inspiring people in Scotland—Karyn McCluskey and John Carnochan. Recently, journalists have rightly praised their work in successfully combating gang violence, but the supreme importance that they attach to investment in the first three years of life in particular as a way of preventing crime and many other future ills has been ignored. Indeed, John Carnochan, who is a senior police officer, has famously said that he would rather have 1,000 extra health visitors than 1,000 extra police officers.
In emphasising the early years, it is important to focus not just on families but on the wider social context. In that regard, I agree entirely with what Jenny Marra said about child poverty and childcare. I am sure that we were all alarmed by the Daycare Trust’s report that came out this morning, which highlighted the increasing cost of childcare and how that is increasing poverty in Scotland. It is very important that in emphasising the early years, we take action on child poverty and childcare.
The violence reduction unit was also highly instructive on alcohol. It emphasised the incredibly strong association between alcohol and violence, which—combined with the recent steep increase in health problems that are associated with alcohol—means that a range of measures is required to combat alcohol abuse. I agree entirely with Iain Gray’s request for the bill on alcohol not to be narrowly drawn, because no one single measure can deal with this increasingly serious problem. However, as is well known, I believe that one of the measures should be minimum pricing.
From what was said today, it is unclear whether primary or secondary legislation is required for higher and further education changes. It is really important that, at the end of the review of further education, democratic accountability of further education colleges is increased.
I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, who is in his seat, to reconsider his proposals for tuition-fee payment by English students. Of course I accept the need for such fees to be paid, but I am sure that I was not the only MSP—I feel it particularly as an Edinburgh MSP—to be shocked by the announcement this week that the University of Edinburgh would charge English students £36,000 for an honours degree. It is unacceptable that more should be paid in Scotland than in England, so I ask the cabinet secretary to look at that again and perhaps to consider the more radical proposal that all tuition fees from English students would be paid to the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council and distributed equitably as part of the grant distribution to universities.
One disappointment in the legislative programme concerns housing. That relates crucially to what I said about capital investment—I have previously expressed disappointment that housing is not being prioritised for capital investment. I am disappointed that the legislative programme contains little about housing. I support the bill on council tax on empty homes and on housing support grant, because it is good to incentivise the bringing into use of empty homes. However, it is disappointing that the only other measure is scrapping housing support grant; that should be looked at again.
I welcome whole-heartedly many of the other bills that have been announced, such as the self-directed support bill, the rights of children and young people bill and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission bill, which—strangely—no one, including the First Minister, has mentioned after four hours of debate. I look forward to constructive discussions on all those bills in the next few months.
16:53
It is always a pleasure to follow Malcolm Chisholm, who made a typically thoughtful speech. He mentioned his visit to the violence reduction unit in Glasgow. I agree that Karyn McCluskey and John Carnochan are two of the most inspiring individuals in Scotland.
It is relevant to point out that, while our main aim in taking forward our programme is economic growth, the human misery that drug addiction and alcohol abuse cause not only is a human tragedy but contributes massively to economic difficulties, at a cost of an estimated £5 billion a year. That is not the main reason why our minimum alcohol pricing bill is important, but it is a contributory reason. It was pleasing to hear that the Liberals will now support that bill, which is a positive move. We look forward to building on that consensus with the various strands of opinion that are emerging in the Conservative Party—whether people are abolitionists or non-abolitionists, I hope that they can unite behind some of the promising SNP measures in our legislative programme.
The First Minister made it clear that among our most important priorities are creating and protecting jobs; growing the economy; securing capital expenditure in so far as we can, given the predation from London; and helping young people into jobs through building on our excellent record, with 25,000 apprenticeships created last year. However, I want to talk about work that is being done not by the Scottish Government—although it is supported by it—but by Scottish companies and people whom I have had the pleasure of meeting in the past few months.
One of those people is Ian Couper of Energy North, who has brought together 60 or 70 companies in the north of Scotland to build on the opportunities in the oil fabrication and renewables sectors in places such as Nigg. We hope that, through Global Energy, the excellent work at Nigg, which has been supported by members from across the Parliament, will continue. Another example is the work carried out by Scott Taylor, the chief executive of the Glasgow City Marketing Bureau. Tourism makes a huge contribution to the economy. The new Scottish Hydro arena, to which Scottish Enterprise contributed, will enable Glasgow massively to increase visitor numbers to that great city, as people come to listen to bands such as Take That—not one that I am familiar with—and many others. [Interruption.] I am told that another is Robbie Williams, who is another individual with whom I am unfamiliar. That will make a massive contribution that will be worth about £150 million a year, or something of that ilk.
I also visited the Moray economic partnership and met Jim Royan and George McIntyre and others who are working to help the people who are losing their jobs at RAF Kinloss. Through individual effort and with appropriate assistance from Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Moray economic partnership, those people are trying to get back on their feet and, in many cases, find a way of staying in the Highlands. Among them are people from England whom we would like to stay and continue to make a huge positive contribution to our economy. Another example is the company Ceridian.
In the minister’s round-up of job-creation measures, will he address the needs of Scotland’s gardeners to cut the hedges and Michael McMahon’s point about the minister’s failure to deliver legislation that he promised last September to many members of the Parliament, including me? The failure to deal with that issue will disappoint many in Scotland. If the Government will not take action, will it provide time and support for a member’s bill on the issue?
I am slightly surprised that the other parties’ priorities seem to have shifted slightly. While we are determined to promote Scotland’s economy, jobs in Scotland and opportunities for young people, there seems to be a new Conservative-Labour alliance on high hedges. “High hedges!” is the cry—that is what we need to sort out in Scotland. Of course we will see brought forward measures to deal with a high hedges bill. I have every confidence that that will happen. I know that Roseanna Cunningham has the issue at the forefront of her agenda and that appropriate measures will be taken forward. I am happy to assure David McLetchie and Michael McMahon on that important topic.
I turn to matters that, arguably, are at least of equal importance, such as the oil and gas sector. Lewis Macdonald mentioned that he was in the audience when I spoke at a business breakfast in Aberdeen yesterday morning. As we all know, the oil and gas sector makes a massive contribution to the Scottish economy, including the 196,000 jobs and £13,000 million to the London Treasury. When we consider the oil and gas that is yet to be extracted from the North Sea and off Shetland, and given that that will happen in higher proportions under enhanced oil extraction—a policy that both Governments support—we find that the value of the remaining reserves in Scotland’s waters is estimated at up to £1.2 trillion. Members who have doubts about whether we are some sort of economic basket case might want to reflect on the fact that the oil and gas sector is doing well.
One fact that is of particular importance is that the oil and gas sector in Scotland, working in complement with the renewable energy sector, has about five decades to come of continued activity in the North Sea. I hope that all parties will endorse our view that, for young people who want to pursue a career, that sector offers an extremely important opportunity to have a lively and rewarding career. I therefore have pleasure in commending the programme for government.
Members will wish to note that we will continue the debate on the programme for government at 9.15 tomorrow morning.