Quality of Life
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3543, in the name of Andy Kerr, on quality of life, and on two amendments to that motion.
In May, the First Minister spoke of the need to work together to tackle the issues that affect the quality of life of the people of Scotland. Those issues are shared by many in our communities. Today I had a visit from Strathaven Probus in my own community. Many members of that group agree with the common agenda on what we need to do to improve the quality of life for people.
However, the quality-of-life initiative is different. What the Executive does is always about improving the quality of life, but the initiative is based on a number of founding principles. We want to focus on the issues that affect every man and woman in Scotland—young or old—such as making our streets safer and cleaner, tackling vandalism, graffiti and dog fouling, and improving our parks and open spaces. As I have said before, those issues may not be matters of high politics but they are central to the lives of people in our communities.
Through the initiative, our actions will help: children who play in parks that are spoiled by litter and dog fouling; older people whose fear of crime leaves them feeling unsafe and vulnerable in their own community; and young people who want greater access to leisure facilities in their own areas. All those groups will benefit from our proposals.
The budget announcement in September set out our spending plans for improving the quality of life of all Scotland's citizens across our key priorities of education, health, crime, transport and jobs and our cross-cutting initiatives.
Does the minister agree that the proper use of landfill tax should be to encourage recycling? If he does, the £180 million that has been allocated over the next three years for schemes to improve the local environment should be applied to schemes that are funded by the landfill tax, which would free money up for recycling.
I am interested in the use of landfill tax moneys and have campaigned for many years for those moneys to go into recycling initiatives. Mr Harper will be aware that, in its spending review, the Executive put historic amounts of money into the strategic waste plan initiative, which covers many of the issues that he raises. I am always interested in ways of levering more investment into recycling, which is a critical issue for the Executive and for Scotland and I am happy to correspond with Robin Harper on that matter.
In June, we made £95 million available to local authorities to help improve the quality of life in Scotland and I am delighted with the response that we have received from our councils. I placed trust in them and it has been repaid in full.
In Aberdeen, around 18,000 children are benefiting from free swimming lessons and in Argyll and Bute, money is being invested in upgrading roads, footpaths and lighting. East Renfrewshire Council has established a new graffiti removal squad; Falkirk Council is introducing an anti-litter campaign; and North Ayrshire Council is investing in recycling initiatives. Perth and Kinross Council is upgrading children's play areas; South Ayrshire Council is introducing traffic-calming measures around schools; and the council in my constituency, South Lanarkshire Council, is providing skateboard parks for young people. Only this morning, I saw the City of Edinburgh Council's new graffiti removal machine at work. All those positive initiatives were paid for by the quality-of-life money. The local authorities, which deliver the services, have welcomed the light-touch approach that we have taken to the allocation of funds.
The minister mentioned free swimming lessons in Aberdeen. He will be aware that, two years ago, Glasgow City Council implemented a programme of free swimming for under 18-year-olds, which brought about a remarkable improvement in the number of 18-year-olds using the swimming facilities, particularly in socially deprived areas and social inclusion partnership areas. Does the minister agree that a programme of free access to swimming and leisure facilities should be rolled out nationally?
I agree with Mr Sheridan, but I want to protect jealously the local choices that local councillors should be able to make. Therefore, I do not want to roll out initiatives across Scotland in the manner that he suggested; I want local leaders to lead. He can rest assured that many local authorities, including South Lanarkshire Council in my constituency, used some of the quality-of-life money to pay for free swimming lessons for primary 7 pupils. Many councils have used the money to provide for local issues and have made decisions that are relevant to their local communities.
In the budget announcement in September, we confirmed the allocation of an additional £180 million towards local quality-of-life initiatives over the next three years. I had a positive meeting earlier this week with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities at which we discussed, among other issues, arrangements for the allocation and distribution of those resources. We agreed that we should draw on the positive experience of how the £95 million was spent and that we should set broad themes while allowing local leaders to lead on behalf of their communities. Following consultation with COSLA, allocations for individual councils will be confirmed as part of the general local government settlement announcement in early December.
However, improving quality of life is not simply a matter of giving money to local authorities to tackle problems; it is also about partnership working between the Scottish Executive, local authorities, the Parliament, cross-party groups and other stakeholders. We have set up a group in the Parliament, with representatives from the four main parties, to propose ideas on specific quality-of-life issues that we can tackle.
Dog fouling is a prime example of the subjects that we want to tackle. Dog fouling on our streets and pavements and in our parks is of concern to everyone and is a good example of how the anti-social and irresponsible behaviour of dog owners who fail to clear up after their dogs adversely impacts on our daily lives. With that in mind, we have lent our support to Keith Harding's member's bill on dog fouling, which will, I hope, have cross-party support. With a fair wind, we should be able to get that on the statute book before the end of this parliamentary session.
Litter is an ugly intrusion on our lives but we must acknowledge that we are responsible for the problem collectively; we need to acknowledge the fact that the public cause litter and to ensure that local authorities have the powers that they need to control litter and act against litter louts.
Earlier this year, the Executive embarked on a consultation exercise on how litter control could be improved. When will we see the results of that consultation process?
We have received the final report. Its recommendations are being considered and our recommendations will follow in due course. I will compare the contents of the report with the proposals in Bruce Crawford's forthcoming litter bill and keep him informed of any action that we intend to take. We will make those decisions once we have considered the report fully.
The Executive sponsors Keep Scotland Beautiful, which operates education and training programmes throughout Scotland, particularly with our local authorities. On top of that, £550,000 has been secured for anti-litter initiatives.
Abandoned vehicles are a growing problem throughout Scotland as irresponsible owners try to avoid the costs of scrapping their vehicles. If we introduce new measures now, we will allow local authorities to deal much more effectively with that serious issue. The time restriction on councils for the removal of valueless abandoned vehicles will change from seven days to one day; the time scale for the removal of vehicles with apparent value has already been reduced from 21 days to seven days. The United Kingdom Government also plans to reform vehicle registration legislation to ensure that, in future, all vehicles can be traced directly to their keeper. That will make it harder for owners to evade their responsibility to dispose of vehicles properly.
On high hedges, I do not know whether Scott Barrie is in the chamber, but his member's bill—
I am here.
He is behind the hedge.
I peeked over the hedge and have seen him.
Scott Barrie's member's bill on high hedges has received support from more than 40 MSPs from all parties. The Executive has agreed to work with him on the bill with a view to making progress on it in the next parliamentary session.
I would like to address many other quality-of-life issues, but I am sure that other members will cover them during the debate. Youth crime and neighbourhood wardens have been mentioned in other debates, and I am sure that they will be mentioned again.
Fireworks remain a serious issue that blights communities throughout Scotland, particularly at this time of year. I am aware of people's concerns, which I understand and share. It is an absolute disgrace that our firefighters have been subjected to abuse by youngsters while trying to protect our communities. It is unacceptable that fireworks are thrown at firefighters, who are providing a public service.
As I made clear during question time last week, the Executive is committed to stamping out the injuries and misery that are caused to families and pets—and public servants—by the irresponsible use of fireworks. We need to tackle irresponsible retailers who abuse the voluntary code and sell fireworks to people who are under-age. Much work is already being done. For example, the Department of Trade and Industry recently announced further measures to tackle fireworks misuse, including a ban on the sale of air bombs, limiting the sale of noisy fireworks, and a crackdown on illegal markets in fireworks. I am also grateful to have received the report from COSLA's fireworks task group and for the work that it has done on dealing with this serious issue. The report highlights the many issues that must be considered and the complexity of the problem. There are no easy or quick fixes, but I intend to take action.
The minister may or may not have heard of the black cat firework, which is about two and a half feet high and about a foot wide and was introduced about two years ago. It has the velocity of a mortar bomb and its instructions clearly state that it is not to be detonated within 80ft of any structure. It costs approximately £70. Will the Executive consider outlawing completely the black cat firework, which is a highly dangerous weapon?
We read in the Daily Record this morning about another dangerous firework. We clearly need to take action on these issues, and I am seeking to do that. We are using all the powers that are available to us within the devolution settlement to address the issues and are working in partnership with the UK Government, the DTI and local authorities. We will crack down on this serious problem.
I hope that the Parliament agrees that considerable progress has been—and must be—made. We will continue to focus clearly on quality-of-life issues and we are working in partnership with COSLA to determine the most appropriate and effective way of distributing the resources that are available to the Scottish people through the quality-of-life programme.
The issues may appear trivial when they are taken in isolation, but when they are taken together, they have a significant effect on the quality of life of the young and the old in our communities—they matter greatly to the man and woman in the street. Those local issues prompt the largest number of letters to ministers, MSPs and councillors from members of the public. More needs to be done to improve the quality of life of the people of Scotland, and more will be done.
I move,
That the Parliament supports the work of the Scottish Executive, the all-party group on quality of life, local authorities and other stakeholders to improve the quality of life in Scotland's communities, notably the allocation to local authorities of £95 million this year and a further £180 million for the next three years to improve the local environment and the quality of people's daily lives.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order for a member to intervene on a speech—as happened during the minister's opening speech—and then to leave the chamber before that speech is finished?
It is in order, although it is not particularly courteous. All members of the Parliament are required to be courteous to one another at all times.
It is impossible to walk down a street in Scotland without noticing litter, discarded chewing gum, graffiti-covered walls, vandalised swing parks and dog mess. All those issues affect the quality of life, and they all help to foster a belief on the part of some people in our communities that they have been abandoned by the police, local authorities and central Government. In May, Jack McConnell said that he wanted all parties in the Parliament to work together to tackle such issues, which blight so many lives. He spoke specifically about the need to
"deal with these issues and strengthen the legal framework."
He continued:
"We have to give those who need them the powers to improve the quality of all lives throughout Scotland".—[Official Report, 30 May 2002; c 12390.]
I will return to the legal framework later in my speech. Before that, I warmly welcome the financial commitment that the minister has made in the £95 million that was announced in August as part of the end-year flexibility money for specific quality-of-life projects. I know that COSLA, on behalf of local authorities, appreciates the way in which the money is being distributed and the lack of bureaucracy associated with the projects themselves. I welcome the opportunity that those projects have brought to many individuals in many communities.
After those warm words, however—I would not like to disappoint the minister—I turn to the SNP amendment in my name. COSLA claims that core local government services have been underfunded by £440 million over the past few years. If that is so, but if the minister does not accept that, that goes some way towards explaining why the streets are in the mess that they are in today.
Why are we having this debate? It is the job of the Parliament to put in place a legislative framework that will provide the necessary powers to deal with the problems that we are discussing. That is what Jack McConnell said he would do in May, but the Executive has singularly failed to do it. It should not be the role of the Executive to micromanage local government. It is up to local government to ensure that our streets are clean and free of graffiti, dog mess and the like.
This is not a council chamber but a Parliament, and the role of a Parliament is to legislate. We have more powers than a parish council, but it often seems that, instead of using those powers to legislate, some members on the Labour and Liberal Democrat benches—I see that Iain Smith is leaving—
No, I am not.
Some Labour and Liberal Democrat members would prefer that we spent our time dealing with matters that are rightly in the province of local government. The Executive's role is to ensure that local government has the powers and resources to deal with those matters. COSLA claims that local government does not have the resources and that the Executive has not put in place the legal framework that is needed.
Let me turn to the legislation that has been proposed by members to deal with quality-of-life issues, and examine whether Jack McConnell and Andy Kerr have worked
"with … members to look together at how we … can most effectively … strengthen the legal framework."—[Official Report, 30 May 2002; c 12390.]
Keith Harding's Dog Fouling (Scotland) Bill is being considered by the Local Government Committee at stage 1. The Executive has stated that it has a number of policy concerns about the bill, and it is by no means certain that the bill will actually find Government support, as opposed to just support in principle. We wish to hear about that today.
Bruce Crawford will say more during his speech about his proposed litter bill, which has received no Executive support. Instead, the Executive has issued a consultation and it is by no means certain that a litter act will be in place by March 2003. Instead of going towards the legislative framework that we need, money has been allocated towards litter projects as part of the quality-of-life initiative, which is tackling the symptoms but not the cause.
At the first meeting of the all-party group on quality-of-life issues, to which Andy Kerr referred, I suggested that issues around litter, dog fouling, the proposed hedge control bill and fireworks licensing could be tackled through a review of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. In July 1999, COSLA published a report in which it recommended amendments to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. Did the Government act in 1999? It did not. Instead, the Executive decided to review the licensing and non-licensing provisions separately.
In a memo that I received as a member of the all-party group on quality-of-life issues, the minister stated:
"This approach was taken given the lack of legislative opportunity in view of other legislative priorities."
In the three and a half years of the current Executive and the five and half years of the Labour Government, the legislative framework has never been a priority.
The member speaks as though no legislation is already in existence in Scotland. There is provision for litter-control notices to be made to the occupier of litter-generating premises, litter wardens have the authority to serve £25 fixed penalties to litter offenders and non-publicly owned land may be designated as a litter-control area. Many powers are available. I know about more of them than many people do, because I worked in the department of Glasgow City Council that was responsible for dealing with litter. What is worse than Government introducing more legislation when it is not using current legislation effectively? That is the priority. That is why we choose to consult people before we legislate.
The minister knows that anyone who has a view on this issue recognises that the present legislative framework is insufficient. A consultation exercise is not needed. If the legislative framework were sufficient, our streets would not be full of litter.
I take the point that the member is making. However, having worked in the industry for many years, I know that the required powers exist. Enforcement is extremely difficult. It is not easy for a Glasgow City Council cleansing worker to say to a member of the public who has dropped an empty cigarette packet on the ground, "I am sorry, but I must give you a £25 fine." It is our job to consult local authorities to ensure that they understand their role and we understand our role. That is exactly what we are doing through the review of current litter legislation.
The minister makes the case for what I am proposing. As he says, individual local authority workers can do nothing about the problem. Current legislation on litter is not working. That is why the minister needs to examine the issue and to do something about it.
The legislative framework has never been a priority for the Executive. Since 1999, it has done nothing on the quality-of-life issues because of
"the lack of legislative opportunity in view of other legislative priorities."
No wonder the minister prefers to debate local government issues in the chamber. He does so to draw attention away from the Executive's failure to do what it was elected to do—to legislate on the issues that affect the quality of life in Scotland. An SNP Administration is committed to doing that in May 2003. We will ensure that the necessary frameworks are put in place, so that authorities have the powers that they need to act to ensure that our folk have the quality of life that they need and deserve.
I move amendment S1M-3543.1, to insert at end:
", but notes COSLA's concerns over the funding of core services."
The Scottish Executive is right to say that problems such as vandalism, graffiti, neighbourhood disputes, litter and dog fouling plague the lives of people throughout Scotland. However, the Executive is not alone in being aware of that simple fact. The bottom line is that its solutions to many of the problems are as outdated as they are ineffective.
One of the biggest blights on our communities today is crime and the fear of crime. Many people are too afraid to walk the streets, especially at night. Understandably, parents worry about the safety of their children when they go out to play. I am afraid that the situation has worsened under the current Scottish Government, whose research shows crime rates soaring—
Will the member give way?
If Iain Smith does not know that what I am saying is true, I will not take an intervention from him.
It is not true.
The Executive's research shows crime rates soaring as the result of inadequate punishment of criminals and a woeful lack of a visible police force. My colleagues will demonstrate that ably later in the debate, but I point out to Mr Smith that recorded crime in Fife—which I think he represents—is up by 5.9 per cent over the past year.
One vital step in improving quality of life is to decentralise power from the Government down to local authorities, community councils, voluntary organisations and other community groups. The people in those bodies know the unique solutions that are needed to solve the unique problems in their areas. The ministerial control freaks who govern Scotland through centralised uniformity do not. As the Scottish Tory local government spokesman and a member of Stirling Council, I am all too aware of the desperate need for local government to be set free from the overbearing control of Scotland's centralising Government. Even Labour councillors will say the same thing. John Pentland, North Lanarkshire councillor and COSLA finance spokesman, said that when it comes to local government:
"the Scottish Executive demonstrates an unhealthy concentration on national priorities."
The Scottish people need to have their aspirations met. Those are everyday aspirations for such things as good toll-free roads, smooth and litter-free pavements, and libraries and leisure centres to name but a few. The best way to do that is to offer the choice and diversity that decentralisation to local government will bring. Local government will flourish. With more power will come more accountability and legitimacy, which will attract more candidates to an increasingly desirable post. Councillors will be forced to deliver for fear of being removed from office by their electorate. That is local democracy in action and it can only be of benefit to the public.
We welcomed the initiative, which the First Minister announced in Aberdeen, to listen to ideas from whatever party or individual to address these matters. On a personal level, I am particularly pleased that the Executive has indicated its support in principle for my Dog Fouling (Scotland) Bill. In response to Tricia Marwick, I emphasise how impressed I have been with the Executive and how grateful I have been for its working with me to address areas of concern.
On 2 November, Tony Blair described anti-social behaviour such as vandalism, graffiti and fly-tipping as
"probably the biggest immediate issue for people in the country".
He said that the issue would form the centrepiece of the Queen's speech, which will be delivered later this month. It is only a pity that it has taken him more than five years to reach conclusions that are similar to ours.
The Scottish Conservatives look forward to contributing ideas and policies that will address the issues that have such a detrimental impact on people's everyday lives in communities throughout Scotland.
I move amendment S1M-3543.2, to leave out from "notably" to end and insert:
"but regrets that measures being taken are likely to prove ineffective unless a much more robust approach is taken to issues of disorder, vandalism and violence which afflict far too many of them."
I seem to remember in the dim and distant past, when I was at a young Scottish Liberal conference, that we debated a motion in favour of niceness and against sin. Being young Liberals, of course, we referred back the bit about sin. The Executive motion has a similar feel to it in some ways. I do not know a great deal about motherhood, but I know quite a bit about apple pie.
Although hospitals, schools, tackling crime and improving the environment are central issues that the Liberal Democrats, in this Liberal Democrat-Labour partnership Executive, feel are at the heart of government, it is important to remember that the small things sometimes affect the lives of our constituents most immediately. Those things include broken pavements, poor streetlights, untidy streets, poorly maintained parks and open spaces and broken windows in public buildings that become a magnet for vandalism to neighbouring properties. We have problems with kids hanging around bus shelters and on street corners causing a nuisance to residents because they have nothing else to do. The place where a mattress has been dumped suddenly becomes a rubbish tip, because everyone decides that it is an official tip and dumps their rubbish there. Dealing with those things is very important, as is tackling dog fouling and problems with fireworks, which have been mentioned.
I agree to some extent with what Tricia Marwick said. Some of the problems have been caused by years and years of cuts to local government budgets by the Conservative Government. The so-called cinderella services are often the easiest to cut. One cuts the frequency of street cleaning or grass cutting. One cuts the opening hours of leisure centres or increases the charges. One cuts funds for library books and the amount of money going into footpath repairs, and increases the time that it takes to respond to problems with vandalism, thereby allowing areas to become magnets for more vandalism. One cuts the amount of money that is spent on youth workers or grants to voluntary organisations. All those things affect the problems around the quality of life that we have today.
This Liberal Democrat-Labour Executive has begun to address those problems by finally getting round to providing real long-term increases in local government funding. We have reversed the long-term decline in funding. We have increased the amount of money that is going into capital so that new facilities can be developed and we have provided additional support in recent years for improvements such as road and pavement repairs. The minister referred, rightly, to the end-year flexibility funding of £95 million that local government got this year. There are new resources to allow local government to act on some of the quality-of-life initiatives that are needed—not the initiatives that the Executive or the Parliament says are important, but the ones that councils think are important for their communities.
In my area, Fife Council has obtained about £6.25 million from that money, which it has spent on a number of valuable initiatives to help communities. For example, £1.5 million has been spent on outdoor recreation, including the provision of skateboarding facilities. The local young people have not only welcomed the new skateboarding facility in Cupar, but taken part in its design. That facility will be of great benefit to the area.
I have listened with interest to what the member has said. Does he agree with COSLA's assessment that, over the past three years, local government has been underfunded by £440 million, or was that assessment not accurate?
The member is not accurate in his quoting of the figures. In the document to which he refers—COSLA's submission to the Local Government Committee on the budget process 2003-04—COSLA was referring to what it thought would be needed for the next three years, not to what had not been provided in the previous three years.
It is right that local government will always look for more money—that is local government's job. If I were still in local government, I would ask for more money. The debate is not about that; it is about the new, additional resources that are going into local government.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry but I do not have time, as I am in my final minute.
In Fife, additional money is being spent on sports promotion; £0.25 million is being spent on road safety; £0.75 million is being spent on roads and pavement repairs; £0.5 million is being spent on neighbourhood safety and lighting; £0.5 million is being spent on tackling graffiti, vandalism and litter; and £600,000 is even being provided to deal with Fife's woefully inadequate record on recycling. All those measures will improve the quality of life in Fife.
The Conservatives concentrate on dealing not with the causes of problems, but with the symptoms. Their amendment refers to a more robust approach to disorder issues. We acknowledge that that is important—that is why Jim Wallace continues to provide funding for record numbers of police in Scotland. That spending is having a real impact on dealing with the fear of crime. Public attitude surveys show that such fear has fallen rather than increased since the Executive was formed.
Much more remains to be done in the long term. The Local Government in Scotland Bill will make more powers available to local government, which will help local government to take such initiatives further. Community planning and the power of well-being are new tools in local government's toolbox for dealing effectively and imaginatively with the issues that the debate has highlighted.
It is vital that all the agencies work together to develop new solutions to some of the problems that exist in the health service, the education service, community and leisure services, the police and social work. All those agencies should work together to develop ways of dealing with problems. In my communities in North-East Fife, joint action plans have been drawn up to deal with some of those problems. That is the way forward if we want to improve the quality of life of our citizens.
I have nine speakers for the open debate. I will try to squeeze in everyone, but John Young, Maureen Macmillan and Tommy Sheridan should be thinking of speeches of no more than two to three minutes.
I think that Tricia Marwick misled the Parliament at the end of her speech when she said that an SNP Administration would focus its attention on quality-of-life issues. Her party's published policy would demand it to concentrate the mass of its legislative attention on constitutional issues. That marks a real difference between the policy of the Labour party and the coalition and the policy programme of the SNP. That is the honest truth. If Tricia Marwick read her party's policy documents, its constitution and its proposals, she would find out what priority the SNP gives to quality-of-life issues and the issues that are important to the people of Scotland—health, education, transport, jobs and enforcement.
Des McNulty accuses me of misleading the Parliament. I am glad that he has such fascinating bedtime reading. I assure him that the SNP manifesto will contain a commitment to review the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. It is important that such a review is conducted and it is obvious that the Executive and the party of which Mr McNulty is a member will do nothing about the quality-of-life legislation that is needed to make a difference.
To be honest, we are putting a substantial amount of money—nearly £100 million—into dealing with the quality-of-life issues that concern people. Tricia Marwick is talking about balance within the legislative agenda, but the SNP's position is clear and it is not how Tricia Marwick has presented it.
We must tease out some of the important issues surrounding the way in which funding is being delivered. The money is being channelled through local government, as is the money for the better neighbourhood services fund. That is a positive step because it blends together local choice and national accountability.
Local government is beginning to have to think about changing the way in which it tackles problems. Perhaps local government has not been sufficiently realigned so that it can make best use of its resources. Resources are best used when they are associated with community empowerment and engagement.
Local government in Scotland has traditionally seen itself as a deliverer of services. It must begin to see itself in the broader context of being involved in governance issues, working in partnership with local communities and taking on board their priorities and concerns. Local government must build in those priorities and concerns not just through use of the additional resources that are being made available by the Executive, but by bending its core services to better meet those priorities and concerns. It is important to empower local people.
Quality-of-life policies must focus on poorer communities. I represent Clydebank, which is one of the poorer communities in Scotland. Along with the remedial targeted action that can be taken through the use of resources that are being made available to improve the quality of life, a more fundamental transformative process has to take place. In the context of Clydebank, that process would mean giving the area a hand up rather than a handout. It would mean dealing directly with how we can change Clydebank from an area of high unemployment to an area that has a stable economic future, stable services and a stable identity.
I am not just talking about ensuring that my area gets its fair share, although that is something to which I pay quite a lot of attention. I am talking about trying to engage with local people—which I have done—and developing an holistic, integrated approach so that we can deal with the most basic issues such as litter, vandalism and crime and build those issues into the debate about how we transform our communities. We do that by making education and social services better and by getting better transport that meets the needs of local people.
Members of the Parliament can do an important job by becoming catalysts for implementing that agenda. It is not the case that just local government should have the power of engaging with local communities. As individual members, we have an interest in engaging with our local communities. We have to listen to what people are saying and to their priorities, and we have to find ways of delivering effectively on those priorities. The Executive is providing a valuable resource for that, but it must be associated with the use of the full range of available resources so that we can engage with people and deal with their concerns.
Fireworks are a major quality-of-life issue and I was pleased that the minister addressed that issue in his speech. I could not agree more with his comments, particularly about the disgraceful attacks on firefighters by youths throwing fireworks. That is a particular problem in Dundee and Tayside and it is something that everyone in the chamber should condemn.
Although the minister said that more would be done, he did not tell us much more than we know already. I thought that he was about to say what would be done and when it would be done. A bit of detail would be nice.
We have just been through another Guy Fawkes season. For many people, it was a fun night with a safe firework display for all to enjoy. For others, however, it was a nightmare because of the misuse of fireworks in the run-up to 5 November. It will also be a nightmare in the weeks to come, because the misuse does not stop on 5 November.
This year, police throughout Scotland have so far been called to 4,000 firework incidents, more than 2,000 of which have involved Strathclyde police. Firework-related injuries and disturbances are on the increase, according to the DTI report. Last year, there was a 35 per cent increase in the number of injuries in Scotland. This year is unlikely to be any different.
Many of the problems are caused by young people who manage to obtain and misuse fireworks. A recent survey in Edinburgh found that more than half the stores that were visited in the days before bonfire night—eight out of 15—were breaking the existing law. A licensing scheme is important, because not only will it prevent such retailers from selling fireworks, but it will provide a mechanism to ensure that retailers adhere to codes of practice that local authorities develop to lay down, for example, when and where fireworks are sold. A scheme could also restrict the number of outlets by restricting the number of licences that are issued.
We agree on all those points. My proposal for a licensing scheme has been warmly received by members from all parties in this Parliament. It has also been hugely welcomed by the community groups and organisations that have responded to me. I have received more than 150 responses so far, in which people have cited dreadful experiences for themselves, for people they know, such as families and relatives, and for household pets.
We know what the problem is and we know that there is a solution through a licensing scheme. The Minister for Finance and Public Services talked about the need to crack down on the misuse of fireworks, but the detail of how and when that will be done was missing. I am pleased that the Executive has stopped talking about the issue being reserved and that it is moving in the right direction, but we now need a clear commitment to amend section 44 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. That is the only way that I can see of taking the issue forward.
A clear commitment to that today would send out a good message to all the community groups and organisations that have written to me, and to the Scottish public, that we are serious about this matter and that by this time next year we will have a licensing scheme in place. However, we have not heard that today, which is a matter of regret. The measures could be implemented quickly and easily, as the minister said, through regulations, and that could be done well in advance of the election. We seek a commitment today. When will the minister implement the proposals?
I call John Young. As you have swapped slots, Mr Young, you have up to four minutes.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will make the best of it.
I agree with Shona Robison: we need some clear-cut rules in this game, because what we are getting is far too fudgy. I sometimes feel that we are living in biblical times. We have a prophet in the shape of Tony Blair and we have his followers scattered throughout the country—indeed, we are in the presence of some of those followers today.
Most of us would agree with the views that have been expressed but, as was said time and again by earlier speakers, views alone are not enough. We have heard that Blair has declared war on spray painters and gum droppers, and that youths under 18 will be banned from buying paint sprays. That is fine, but it is in reality often difficult to know who is under 18, because some 15 and 16-year-olds would pass for 19. Also, some 18-year-olds or young adults could buy paint sprays on behalf of those who are under 18.
There will be more on-the-spot fines for anti-social behaviour. That will be great, but who will implement it? Will it be a 55-year-old anti-social behaviour warden with bad feet who could not catch the sprinting escapers? Even worse, some of those sprinting escapers could turn on that 55-year-old and commit violence.
Mobile job centres will tour inner-city streets looking for workshy benefit claimants. How will that work? Will they stop people who look workshy? There might be some people here who look workshy, for all I know. Indeed, in some areas the mobile job centres are likely to be met with an even greater hail of bricks and bottles than are firemen.
Chewing gum will be classed as litter and shopkeepers will be asked to sign voluntary agreements not to sell it. Why not ban outright that American product that is bad for teeth?
There will, as Shona Robison mentioned, be restrictions on fireworks, but what restrictions? The current restrictions are blatantly broken. To the best of my knowledge, in a 12-month period no trading standards officers have apprehended any shopkeepers for illicit sales of fireworks. Indeed, every year, from mid-September onwards, we have a series of mini Stalingrads throughout the country.
All sorts of people, including binmen, will be entitled to levy on-the-spot litter fines. We can imagine the scene when the accused has only a £20 note and the binman has no change. Bin uplifts would fall behind schedule. Andy Kerr told us that he worked for Glasgow City Council and indeed he did—I know because I was a Glasgow councillor at the time—but he knows deep down that binmen have enough to do. The Executive might as well ask someone to dress up as Pinocchio to approach the accused. Andy Kerr knows it and it is no wonder that he and Peter Peacock are smiling; they know the truth.
I have six brief proposals, which represent my personal views. We should introduce identity cards, as during the war. As an 11-year-old, even I had such a document. Most countries have that facility, which would identify culprits. People who are found guilty of the offences that have been described and who are given community service orders should be dressed in appropriately coloured overalls and given unpaid work clearing up the mess that they have created.
The sale of fireworks should be restricted and we should have strong and effective measures that work. For a start, we should ban all fireworks imports from the far east because, as HM Customs and Excise says, many of those fireworks are dodgy.
If the owners of street furniture were responsible for cleaning it, that would mean cost increases for law-abiding citizens, so why not hammer the culprits? A massive propaganda campaign should be launched, using footballers, pop idols and all those on TV and radio whom youth admire. Finally, I propose that after three strikes, the names of offenders should automatically be published.
Such measures would be effective. They are not the mumbo-jumbo that we hear time and again. Next year, the year after that and the year after that, a Labour member will stand up—if Labour remains in power, which I doubt—to send out the same old message, which is a load of crap. I am sorry; perhaps I am not allowed to use that word.
I do not think that you are.
I suggest instead that what they will say will be a load of rubbish.
Mr Young's colleague Keith Harding's Dog Fouling (Scotland) Bill aims to remove that substance from pavements. The distinct odour of freshly baked apple pie has been circulating in the chamber. That happens quite often, but we cannot mock—do not knock it until you have tried it. Apple pie is, at least, fairly wholesome. Such issues concern people on their doorsteps. Most people are far more concerned about the issues that members from all parties and none have discussed today than they are about the euro, the Dow Jones index or whatever. People want to know what the Parliament is doing for them in their local communities.
Thank goodness that some areas are taking traffic calming measures. Traffic is so appalling that people have poor quality of life from the moment that they step outside their homes, whether their homes are in rich or poor areas. What has been called carmaggedon has taken place over the country. Recently, in Glasgow's east end, a little boy of four years old was killed while trying to cross Camp Road. People in the Garrowhill and Baillieston areas whence that little boy came are not prepared to let that tragedy be overlooked. They are right to hold public meetings to demand extensive traffic calming measures throughout residential districts. Why should they not have such measures? Some people told me that they had moved to Garrowhill because they were told that it was a safe place in which to bring up their children, but they have found that their children are not safe, although not because of crime. Why should vehicles be allowed to thunder through any residential area? Why should not their progress be made more difficult by many traffic calming moves?
I was delighted to hear that swimming facilities are being offered free from Aberdeen to South Lanarkshire. However, let us contrast Glasgow with Edinburgh. Glasgow City Council closed a beautiful Edwardian pool in Govanhill, despite the protests of 40,000 people, but a beautiful Edwardian pool in Portobello in Edinburgh was renovated and reopened thanks to the local people and the City of Edinburgh Council. While people in Edinburgh celebrated the regeneration of that pool—other pools are also being renovated in Edinburgh—a police horse charge was sent against people in Govanhill in Glasgow who were protesting about their pool's closure. That is a tale of two cities.
A person who suffers from chronic pain cannot have good quality of life, no matter where they are in the financial gradings of the country—rich or poor. I am glad to say that the Scottish Parliament has taken up the matter of chronic pain and that 130,000 members of the public backed the Parliament in our efforts to get better forms of pain relief administered by more NHS pain clinics, and to reach into areas such as the Highlands, where there is absolutely no provision outside of hospice care. People, including those with arthritis and back injuries, can be restored to jobs—I am thinking of firemen and nurses. We are lucky that the public have told us what they want, but have we done it yet? I refer that question to the minister for him to refer it in turn to his colleague, the Minister for Health and Community Care.
I am sorry, Presiding Officer; I thought that I was to speak later.
There are those who would sneer at the debate because the idea of the Parliament talking about litter, dog fouling and fly tipping offends them. I agree that those issues might not be at the top of the political agenda in Edinburgh's coffee shops or broadsheet opinion pages, where people would rather talk about constitutional niceties or political philosophies. The issue is one on which the politicians and the people know better; they know that the railings and the palings matter. The debate even brought a lukewarm welcome from the nationalists today, so sensitive are they to political opinion.
The environment matters to me and to my constituents, but we are concerned less about the hole in the ozone layer, genetically modified crops and having a sea that is safe for dolphins than we are about having streets that are safe for our daughters, neighbourhoods that are free from litter, walls that are free from graffiti and safe open spaces in which our children can play free from exhaust fumes, used needles and dog muck. Sadly, there are neighbourhoods in Greenock and Inverclyde—indeed, throughout Scotland—that do not come up to that standard. Despite the strenuous efforts of proud local residents to keep standards high, all too often that can seem to be a losing battle. Communities are entitled to expect support from the Parliament and from the law in their efforts to safeguard their neighbourhoods. This debate should be a tribute to those efforts.
The money that the Executive has allocated to tackle crime and vandalism is to be welcomed and the partnership that we have with local authorities and the communities that they serve is having an immediate impact on people's quality of life throughout Scotland. It is having an impact through free swimming lessons, anti-litter campaigns, improved roads and lighting, provision and improvement of play areas and road safety measures. The list could go on.
The announcement on fireworks will be particularly welcomed in the chamber today. The clear message from the street is for us to press on and make the difference; we are to press on with initiatives on youth crime and neighbourhood wardens and we are to reject the whinging of the nationalists. As a party, the nationalists exist to stop the Parliament and the Executive achieving and, in the process, to criticise all of our efforts. We must press on and make the difference.
I apologise to Mr McNeil for failing to tell him that he was to be called next.
Duncan McNeil would have been better sticking to his notes, because when he went off them at the end, he really lost it.
Scots have a deserved reputation for being a proud nation. Wherever Scots go in the world, they can be sure that they will defend the name of Scotland, but when it comes to the menace of litter, why are our people not willing to show the same spirit in relation to their own front doors or back yards? For too long people have taken a walk-on-by attitude to litter. Why is it important to tackle that attitude? Litter has a negative effect on the quality of life. It impacts on the economy and on our capacity to attract tourists to local environments in which we must all live our lives.
How can we realistically expect the people of Scotland to care more about the future of the planet if their own back yard has been despoiled by litter? That echoes some of the sensible comments that Duncan McNeil made earlier.
It is therefore imperative that the nation as a whole tackle this menace. In order to eradicate the problem, we must begin to instil in people a pride in Scotland's culture. We need effective campaigns as well as greater education and awareness raising; however, all the education in the world will not by itself change the culture. As an environmental health convener from 1988, I was the first person in Scotland to employ litter rangers, who served fixed penalties on litter louts under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, their primary job was to get into schools and raise pupils' awareness about the problems of litter.
It is a pity that many of those young people ever grew up, because when they turned into adults, all their responsibility genes seemed to evaporate. Although education will help, we have to get serious and tackle the serial litter louts who have not got the message. It is time to adopt a no-holds-barred approach and to create a climate of zero tolerance. We must declare war on the litter louts and hit them where it hurts most—in their pockets.
People hoped that the passing of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 would mean a major change in how litter was dealt with. Although it is true that the 1990 act introduced some major steps to combat the menace of litter, experience has shown that there are major weaknesses in its enforcement provisions and in the powers that are available to local authorities. The minister said that many powers already exist to deal with the problem and that we must just use them better. Moreover, he claims that he still has some sympathy for local authority workers. That might be true, but the reality out there is different. For example, in its response to my member's bill on litter, Scottish Natural Heritage told me:
"In principle, we support the aim of the Bill to strengthen litter control."
COSLA also supported my view that existing legislation needs to be reviewed. Furthermore, the City of Edinburgh Council said:
"A fundamental of the fixed penalty scheme is that individuals who litter are witnessed and properly identified. It is perhaps this factor more than anything else that leads to a relatively small number of fixed penalty notices being served."
There are fundamental weaknesses in the existing legislation and we still await the minister's proposals. Unfortunately, because he has kicked in his consultation process, everything has been stalled and the non-Executive bills unit cannot proceed with my bill. That raises a question about the Executive's real intention in kicking in its consultation. Is that consultation simply a stalling mechanism? It has taken the Executive a long time to come up with the goods and it is time that it delivered.
It is important that politicians should be serious about what they say and what they endeavour to achieve. The problem with some of the minister's remarks about Glasgow is that the money does not match the rhetoric. We can no longer replace proper main-line funding with funds that are available at the end of the year simply to try to hide underspends in Scottish Executive budgets. As far as Glasgow is concerned, we have seen the lowest increase in expenditure from the Scottish Executive to any mainland council in Scotland. We are receiving even less money from the Executive than we received from a Tory Government that tried to decimate the city.
In the "Scottish Household Survey" for 1999-2000 Glasgow residents ranked the aspects of their neighbourhoods that they particularly liked: 43 per cent thought that their neighbourhood was quiet and peaceful; 34 per cent thought that they had good neighbours; and 33 per cent thought that they had convenient shops. That gives the lie to the image of Glasgow that is sometimes portrayed. Some of its problems get far too bad a press, while the good parts are often not highlighted enough.
However, in relation to the aspects of their neighbourhoods that Glasgow residents disliked, 21 per cent believed that the biggest problem was young people hanging about and 17 per cent said that the biggest problem was vandalism. Some 16 per cent said that drug abuse was the biggest problem. I do not think that it is any accident that the three highest priorities of ordinary citizens in Glasgow are all related. It is obvious that a lack of facilities and engagement with constructive recreation for our young people will lead to young people hanging about. If young people hang about, that can unfortunately often lead to vandalism and drug abuse, although we should not allow ourselves to go down the road of labelling all young people as being the same. The overwhelming majority of young people are good and positive, and we should help them to realise their talent instead of condemning them.
People say that money is not everything—usually those who have plenty of it. Some 84 per cent of households in Glasgow have a net income that is less than £20,000 a year, which is a disgrace. Unless we are willing to address that problem and improve the disposable income of ordinary people in cities such as Glasgow, we are never going to improve those citizens' quality of life.
I want to concentrate my remarks on what happens when the vital ingredients in a good quality of life do not exist and when the failure of police, individual or community efforts to address disorder, vandalism and violence leads to a person taking his or her own life. Most particularly, I would like to target my remarks at support for people who have failed in their attempts to end their lives and at the desolation, isolation and desperation of the friends and family who are left behind when a person succeeds in doing so. I want to talk about suicide. For those who are of a sensitive or caring disposition, the subject is challenging. I have no wish to make more difficult the task of coming to terms with life as it is, rather than as we would wish it to be.
The minister mentioned children in his opening remarks, so I will channel his thoughts towards youngsters' being bullied. We should think about 16-year-old Nicola Raphael or 12-year-old Emma, who attended Broughton High School, both of whom committed suicide as a result of being bullied at school. I can think of nothing more crucial to the quality of life of our youngsters than that.
Emma's sudden and horrendous death resulted in a campaign called "Save Our Kids" by a national daily tabloid newspaper. The beneficiary was to be Facilitate Scotland. Support poured in from celebrities and politicians. Money also poured in, and we raised awareness and expectations and greatly increased inquiries. Let us leave aside for the moment the fact that the director of that organisation has been removed from post; that is not the issue. The charity's doors have been closed by the judicial factors and some 36 people are being counselled by Facilitate Scotland volunteers without premises and using mobile phones.
Many members are parents, and in the largesse of which the minister spoke earlier, please will he consider what we can do to address the problem of children being bullied? For them, quality of life as we think of it is not the big point.
I want to concentrate my remarks on what is happening in the Highlands, because through additional funding, a significant number of projects are being established that provide real evidence of central and local government working in partnership to improve communities in the north. It is easy to look at the Highlands and think that quality of life there is not a problem and that it is already high. It is high for many, but like other areas of Scotland, improvements are needed, particularly in the less advantaged areas of our towns.
The minister informed us that the Highland Council will receive a total of £4.2 million; the council is already putting that to good use. It is using the money on two fronts. It is tackling services for children and young people, which are extremely important. There are a raft of projects planned, providing such services as skateboard parks in Nairn, Ardersier and Drumnadrochit and youth shelters in the Croy and Dalneigh areas of Inverness. The council is using the money to improve playgrounds and to reduce waiting lists for swimming lessons.
There is money available in Caithness for the family centre in Wick and playgrounds there are being refurbished. In Badenoch and Strathspey there are breakfast clubs and grants are available for disabled children's groups and outdoor education equipment. There is a list of projects that are aimed at enhancing the quality of life for young people. By providing such services to young people, we can tackle youth disorder problems before they start.
The Highland Council is targeting environmental themes. Money is available for the enhancement of Fort William High Street, for encouraging recycling and waste minimisation and for improved speed-reduction measures. Improving bus shelters in many areas of the Highlands is also a priority because a bus shelter in the middle of a moor on a wet and windy day is not a luxury; it is a necessity.
Those measures are not trivial and unimportant because, as all members know, the issues that I have mentioned are the ones that our constituents get annoyed about. They want better facilities, they want graffiti to be tackled, they get fed up when cars travel far too fast down local roads and they get angry when they have to stand in the rain waiting for a bus.
I was particularly pleased to hear what the minister said about abandoned cars. That issue rankles in the west Highlands and Islands and action is long overdue.
The debate is welcome because it draws attention to the good progress that is being made. The money that has been announced by the Executive is welcome—I was tempted to stand up and simply read out as my speech all the projects that are in the pipeline. It is encouraging to know that the partnership between the Executive and local government is paying dividends for communities in the Highlands. Long may that continue.
I am obliged to all members for their co-operation in this tight session. We move now to closing speeches.
I am speaking from my usual place in the back row because the quality of life is much better up here and I can recommend it.
The £95 million is extremely welcome and has done a lot of good.
We talk about the famous joined-up Government and we must work in a more intelligent and joined-up way. I endorse entirely what Des McNulty said about empowering communities. There is always a risk that we push money down from the top, but we must help communities to run their own affairs.
We must get all departments joined up. For example, if the education departments in councils paid janitors for longer hours, schools could be opened up more for the community. We must consider the influence of arts and music education in schools on the quality of life in the community—education can help.
At lunch time, some of us heard about an excellent project run by a youth café in Arbroath. People went to Germany and discovered a kind of street football, not as we have known it in the past, but a mixed activity that is not fiercely competitive and is good for young people as it socialises them.
There has been a suggestion that we could have restorative justice anti-graffiti groups that, in co-operation and liaison with the councils, would remove graffiti and help in other ways, such as in the removal of litter and chewing gum. That would be a constructive use of justice department money.
The transport department should pay more towards the kind of bus services that help communities to have quality of life.
Other departments can help with such projects, together with direct help from Mr Kerr's department.
Although it is good to fund local authorities—they make choices about how they distribute their money—the voluntary sector offers an alternative route throughout the country. The way in which the Executive money was distributed prevented national youth organisations from getting any of the money. Such organisations produce good schemes that they spread throughout the country via local groups. I suggest earnestly to the minister that, the next time money of that kind is distributed, a reasonable chunk—not 50 per cent—should be given to the voluntary sector, which would work through its local groups to produce additional benefits to those provided by the council.
At the moment, that does not happen. Local clubs, according to my arithmetic, got 1.4 per cent of the £95 million, youth projects got 1.4 per cent and music and the arts got 0.6 per cent. I think that those things deserve more, because quality of life covers a wide range. What we have been talking about today is important. To many people, dog fouling, litter, graffiti, fear of crime and street lighting are important, as are uneven pavements, at which many places excel. All of that is important, but there are other, wider things that benefit communities greatly, helping the communities themselves and developing everything from nurseries to senior citizens' clubs. The community is doing a lot and activities such as youth clubs, amateur football teams and amateur orchestras and drama groups are all part of quality of life. I very much hope that we can help in those areas as well as dealing with such things as graffiti.
Statistics prove that, even in Andy Kerr's brave new world, we are unlikely to be murdered in our beds of a night—although I say that without prejudice to some things that I may say in future. The fact of the matter is that people's lives are adversely affected by a number of the problems that have been raised in this afternoon's debate, including litter, dog fouling and vandalism. Not only do those things detract from people's lives and impinge on their enjoyment of their property, but in some areas—particularly in our inner cities—they are a very real problem.
It is all very well throwing money at those problems, as Mr Kerr said, but the enforcement action that is necessary provokes some degree of difficulty. In his contribution to the debate, Mr Kerr mentioned the issues that would arise over the application of fixed penalties for the dropping of litter, and he was correct to do so. One could imagine that any cleansing operative approaching a citizen of Glasgow who had just dropped a cigarette packet would receive a fairly short answer of two words, the second of which would be "off". Such situations could become confrontational and there could be a degree of violence. I cannot see how the fixed-penalty thinking is likely to produce results at the end of the day. Those dropping litter and those fly-tipping should be prosecuted through the courts. The Executive has manifestly failed to provide the resources to the Crown Office and to the prosecution service generally, so fiscals will not proceed with charges that they regard as de minimis. That is something that must be looked at.
Vandalism is a real problem. We see it time and again and Bruce Crawford, who has now left the chamber, was quite right to highlight how both litter and vandalism detract greatly from the amenity of our cities and act as a major turn-off to visitors. In Scotland, and particularly in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, we must attract foreign visitors and foreign money. Many people are put off by the fact that the streets of our cities are festooned with litter, graffiti and all the other detritus of anti-social behaviour, so we must do something. I suggest to the Minister for Finance and Public Services and to the Deputy Minister for Justice, who is sitting behind him, that the children's hearings system, as it is presently constituted, is not likely to act as much of a deterrent to those who are carrying out acts of vandalism.
Much has been made of the problem of fireworks. Fireworks used to be a nuisance, but they are now becoming a positive menace. I was very pleased indeed and encouraged by much of what Mr Kerr had to say in that respect, because fireworks are dangerous. They are dangerous to those who use them and they are becoming ever more dangerous to those who simply do not wish to have anything whatever to do with them. I suggest—and I say this in full recognition of the tremendous amount of work that John Young and Shona Robison have done—that there is a way of dealing with the problem other than legislating or licensing. The misuse of fireworks is, quite clearly, a breach of the peace. In certain instances, there could be reckless conduct. The existing law is perfectly adequate to deal with that particular nuisance.
Many things can be mentioned during the debate and there are many ways in which the quality of life can be improved. For example, we could ensure that burglar alarms do not go on for hours and that car alarms receive appropriate attention—but it is essential that major problems such as vandalism receive the attention that they deserve.
Nobody denies that people want litter, graffiti, dogs' dirt and so on sorted out, but that is local government's job. It would be helpful if legislative changes and updates could be provided in respect of powers of licences and penalties, but are we seriously saying that this is the stuff that makes for the McConnell Administration's flagship legislation? That was what the First Minister claimed. When no progress can be seen—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have just started—I have obviously touched a raw nerve.
I am not sure whether the Executive has moved on since the May and August announcements. I noticed that the ministers nodded strongly at Shona Robison's comments. I am aware that ministers cannot make announcements during closing speeches, but I had hoped that we would hear something on fireworks legislation in particular during the opening speech. I am disappointed that we did not. I hope that there will be progress.
I am concerned that the Executive is not selling Scotland abroad on the big-picture horizon in respect of making our way in the world and that it undersells the Parliament at home by trumpeting basic housekeeping, commonsense ideas as the best things since sliced bread, but does not come up with the legislative goods. It makes a virtue of dealing with the symptoms of decline—it should be remembered that Tony Blair adopted the Tory spending plans for public services for the first few years—but does not get on with the real job of growing Scotland's economy, increasing the public purse for local government and establishing basic policies and legislative proposals in time.
The Labour-Liberal coalition likes to deal with symptoms and incremental change—otherwise it might have to come up with some big ideas. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the legislative proposals so far, apart from the fact that they have come not from the Executive, but from individual MSPs. I note Bruce Crawford's criticism that a consultation by the Executive and proposals for legislation could be the kiss of death for members' proposals. I am not necessarily saying that the minister is responsible for that—the Parliament might be—but we must be aware of the danger. Local government will and should deliver on such issues and services.
Local government needs two things from the Executive—finance and the powers to do its job properly while we get on with ours. On finance, there is a problem in that COSLA has said that local authorities have been under-resourced for core services to the tune of £440 million over the past few years. On what Iain Smith said, I have a quotation from the Official Report. Councillor Pentland said:
"Over the three years, we identified an overall funding gap of some £440 million."—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 29 October 2002; c 3337.]
I will take an intervention from the minister.
The local authorities came to me and asked whether the Scottish Executive would fully support its initiatives, fund national insurance costs, allow for pay and price inflation, abolish capital controls, reduce ring fencing and make no call on council tax increases. That is what we delivered for local government. I want to clarify what the SNP is saying. I do not think that this will happen, but if, in a mythical future, local government walked in the door for negotiations with an SNP Government and its finance minister, would local government simply name a number and would the SNP simply pay the cash?
We have transparency and negotiation, absolutely. The issue is that COSLA still disagrees with the proposals. If it has not had investment in core services until now, it is no wonder that in West Lothian, for example, a £13.50 bulky uplift charge has been imposed and there are complaints that fly-tipping has increased. The issue is about basic services and basic financial proposals.
I have a simple point to make about powers. The McIntosh report was debated in the chamber on 2 July 1999. The proposals were great, but there have been problems in timing and implementation. The Executive did not implement the proposals. The joint local authority-Parliament conference compact could have been up and running. I suspect that proposals for amendment of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 would almost certainly have been on the table as part of that compact and we would have been well on our way to implementing proposals that have been made.
The problem is that we are not getting on with the job. Tricia Marwick suggested during a Sewel debate—I think that it was on guide dogs for the blind—as far back as seven months ago, long before Jack McConnell's initial announcement, that we should have a civic government bill proposal to deal with all the individual proposals that were on the table. We could have had the basic housekeeping legislation, had we had the proposals, the finance and the powers. That is the problem. The local authorities needed that and that is what the Parliament could have provided. That is what the Executive should have been doing but it has not done so. This is not a council chamber. This is not a parish council. This is Scotland's Parliament. Duncan McNeil made a sincere speech about the needs of local communities. The problem is that it could easily have been made in Inverclyde Council.
It is important that we allow local authorities to use the powers that they have and that we use the powers that we have to legislate. The most important thing is to get on with the job. Let us see some action on legislation.
For the most part the debate has been very useful. It highlights the range of issues that exist and the range of actions that are taking place throughout Scotland that we believe significantly improve the quality of life for all our people and improve the communities that they live in.
In his opening speech, Andy Kerr gave excellent examples—as have members throughout the debate—of what councils have managed to do in the short time since we allocated the £95 million to them during the summer to help with the action that we want. There is action throughout Scotland. There is improved street safety through better street lighting and closed-circuit television schemes. Action is being taken to make our roads and pavements much safer than they have been. Safer routes to schools are being encouraged through traffic-calming measures of the sort that Dorothy-Grace Elder called for and through walking buses. Litter has been cleared up, graffiti cleaned up and derelict cars removed. More opportunities are being provided for our young people by providing free swimming lessons and refurbishing play areas and the like, to name but a few.
Many members have highlighted issues that affect their constituencies and the actions that are flowing from the Executive's programme as a result of the effort that we are putting into improving the quality of life.
Iain Smith talked about the improvements in Fife, where about £6.25 million has been allocated in this year to make progress, only £500,000 of which is going into matters such as street lighting and safety improvements.
Des McNulty raised a number of interesting points about the administration of the scheme, which Donald Gorrie associated himself with, and about allowing local choices to be made in such a way that they meet national priorities. Des McNulty also made some interesting points about how we could use that kind of funding and that approach to empower communities to take more ownership of their own community and improve their communities with our help and that of local authorities.
Shona Robison raised several points about fireworks, as did Bill Aitken, John Young and many other members. There will be a members' debate about fireworks next week, when we will take the opportunity to spell out further our thoughts on the matter.
John Young went slightly too far in calling for the return of chain gangs, but he made it clear that that was his personal view and not the view of the Conservative party.
As I said, Dorothy-Grace Elder made important points about the impact of motor cars on our communities. A lot of the funding that is coming through the initiative is going on traffic calming schemes and dealing with the issues that she raised. Duncan McNeil mentioned a range of issues that affect his community, such as safer streets, campaigns to improve litter collection, railings and palings, graffiti on walls and so on. All the actions that we are taking are designed to address such matters.
Maureen Macmillan gave us a long list of the things that are happening in the Highlands with the extra money that it has received. She talked about measures related to children and highlighted the importance of bus shelters on remote moors in the Highlands. She is right; that can improve the quality of life of many people.
Keith Harding is making a distinct contribution to the debate through his dog fouling bill. As he indicated and I am happy to repeat—despite what Tricia Marwick said—the Executive will support his bill. We will indicate our detailed position on that next week when I give evidence to the Local Government Committee. I will also suggest areas where we think that we can improve the bill. I am glad to say that Keith Harding, my officials and his supporters on the bill have been working closely on those points. I encourage other members, despite what the SNP and others have said, to bring forward ideas that they have about matters on which they think we can make changes, and where we can, we will work constructively with them to take those matters forward. Having praised Keith Harding, however, I point out that he struck a critical tone with a number of his comments and his amendment reflects that.
I could make the point, as Iain Smith did, that it could be argued that the quality-of-life funding is necessary to allow us to make up the ground that was lost during those dark Tory days of the 1980s and 1990s. At that time, the pressure of the huge cuts that were imposed made local authorities, which were struggling to maintain front-line services, squeeze the areas that we are trying to boost expenditure in now. The Executive is taking action to restore that level of expenditure and move forward from that. It is perhaps because of the actions of the Tories in those bygone days that we have virtually no Tory councillors in Scotland and no Tory councils.
Keith Harding and others rightly referred to the problems that certain groups of young people can cause in their communities. However, far from helping with those problems, the Tories' indications yesterday about dumping kids out of the education system would only accentuate those problems, not address them. However, our set of proposals for dealing with those problems in communities is comprehensive. The issue is not only about dealing with offending; it is about working with young people through the sure start Scotland programme, providing pre-school education and classroom assistants, improving attainment in our schools, opening new community schools, putting more money into youth work, supporting community safety partnerships, getting more community-based programmes of the sort that Donald Gorrie called for into our communities to allow disposals from the courts and the children's panel and supporting sport and culture more effectively. We are examining all of those areas as well as dealing with the offending by examining new mechanisms such as youth courts. The Tories' approach, in contrast, has a narrow focus on punishment.
Before we came into the chamber, Andy Kerr and I discussed whether the SNP could rise to the debate today. I have to say that it has failed yet again, with another ungracious display of the classic approach that we see in virtually every debate in the chamber: some momentary acceptance that something good might be happening, followed by a succession of moans designed to detract attention from the excellent work that the Executive is doing. Watching the SNP members is like watching a huge depression moving in from the Atlantic. They are the Private Frazers of Scottish politics, crying, "We're all doomed."
However, I tell the chamber that few of the SNP councils—and there are few of them anyway—were gloomy when the quality-of-life initiative was announced. They welcomed it with open arms. In Angus, the £140,000 that is being invested in a youth diversion initiative is possible only because the Scottish Executive took that action. The same is true of the free swimming lessons for children in Falkirk and the healthy-eating initiative in Clackmannanshire schools.
The SNP amendment is misplaced. SNP members moan about funding for core services at the very time that record sums of money are going into our councils for those services and councils are receiving more cash than they have ever received from central Government. We are giving councils money for the priorities that councils sought new funding for. They are moaning on the day on which Margaret Curran made a significant housing announcement, bringing in a prudential regime for housing that local authorities have asked for for many years and removing the 25 per cent-75 per cent capital receipt set-aside rule that was a burden in the past.
Will the minister give way?
I am close to the limit of my time.
SNP members moan while local government's share of the budget is maintained, despite the biggest increases in health spending in history, which will improve the quality of life of all Scots. They moan while we fund concessionary fares, improving the quality of life of our older citizens. They moan while we have the biggest expansion of rural transport services that we have ever had in Scotland, which is improving the quality of life of our rural dwellers. They moan while we ensure that we have record numbers of police on our streets and falling crime rates, which improves the quality of life of all our citizens. They moan while more resources than ever are being invested in our schools and young people experience better-quality education. They moan when we have low inflation, low unemployment and a growing economy, which improves the quality of life of thousands of Scots.
While the SNP moans about all that, we will get on with the job of improving the quality of life of Scots through better health, improved education, reduced crime, better transport links, more economic opportunities for our people and the specific quality-of-life initiatives that we have been discussing today. Throughout Scotland, every Government programme is improving the quality of life of Scots. I commend the motion to Parliament.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My understanding is that ministers should clarify to the chamber if they make statements that are not quite true. I ask the minister to clarify the statement that he made about the set-aside rules. Did the Minister for Social Justice say this morning that they would be abolished, as the minister said, or did he say, as in the Minister for Social Justice's statement, that they would be looked at, as opposed to abolished?
That is not a matter for me to rule on and it is not a matter for the minister in the context of the debate, but the point is made.